Home » Groups » Take Back Red California » Blog » It's all been leading up to...
Democracy for America group blog for Take Back Red California
It's all been leading up to this
Linked to groups: Democracy for Riverside, Take Back Red California, Blog For America, California for Democracy, Courage Campaign
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Click here to sign up to receive updates from Wellstone Action |
It's all been leading up to this... Dear Denise, Since 2003, we've been working hard together to pass legislation in my father's name that will end discrimination against people with mental illness and addiction. Look what we've accomplished:
Now, the final touches are being put on a compromise between the House and Senate, and we believe that a bill could go to the President's desk next week. But, if it doesn't happen then, it's likely we'd have to start all over again with the new Congress next year. Next Wednesday, July 9 will be the final call-in day to members of Congress. I'll email you next week with the details, but please spread the word. Let's pass mental health and addiction parity legislation as a fitting legacy to the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Thanks for your help, David |
|
|
|
Now you can't even *steal* a toolbar. Gotta love it. How can we change anything else if we can't even fix our own damn blog?
just passin' thru. good to see you! Mprov - any more info on your plans for August?
barb, sorry to say the trip was cancelled. maybe in the fall...
I'll look forward to your next. So sorry you won't be here. How is it on the political front?
I was in the Gay Pride Parade again this year with my truck full of JC's stickers. We have a candidate that is going to run against our Republican Secy of State. a computer geek that knows the machines and what they can, and can't do. and how the present SOS purged 450,000 people from the voter roles and BRAGGED about it.
we had a couple of local races that went all the way to the fence. my gal ended up winning. that was good. i rane for county committee and lost big time. its ok, i'll catch them next time around...other than that, its defeat the bad proposition time around here. lots of work to do to defeat the closed minded...ok
McCain criticizes Obama's high court favorites
Republican John McCain said Tuesday that his Democratic rival's Supreme Court nominees would produce more decisions like the child rapist ruling that both presidential candidates have criticized.
When asked by CNN in May whether any current justices would be models for his nominees, Obama replied that he considered Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter to be sensible judges. All three voted in the majority in the child rape case, as did Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens....
(Here's the punchline......)
McCain himself voted to confirm four of the five who voted in the majority. He was not in the Senate in 1975 when Stevens was confirmed.
I may be too cynical for my own good, but I've been saying for a few years that the Bush Mafia DOESN'T WANT a Reep to succeed Bushboy and thereby become head of the GOP. By losing this election and the next, they will remain in complete control of the party for Jeb to be put forward in 2016 (it only took some voters 8 years to forget what a rotten president Bushdaddy was, after all.)
By the same token, when Obama wins the Clintons will be displaced as CEOs of the Democratic Party. It's a delicate game they must play; pretending to back Obama to the hilt while their under the radar surrogates work to undermine him.
But McLame is such weak candidate that the Bush Mafia will lose/win unless there's an asteroid hurtling toward earth with Obama's name on it.
BUllSHit. He'll say anything to get elected. what ever is handy at the moment. doesn't matter whether it is true or not.
There is a slim little volume by that name that explains just how BS works.
I'm off to nod land. good to see you all.
CHICAGO — It helped launch the last Democratic president and has pushed and prodded every Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton to adopt its centrist positions on issues from budget discipline to welfare.
But when the Democratic Leadership Council met over the weekend in the shadow of Barack Obama's Chicago headquarters, he didn't bother to stop by.
Is it losing its clout? Its members hope not, sidestepping Obama's refusal to see them and politely urging him to consider their approaches.
Which gives me hope we can greatly widen the base of the Party bringing in the folks that can't tell the difference in their everyday lives by actions of our Democratic leadership in Congress. Not really true because of Republican obstructionists in the Senate, but close enough to the truth they can get away with it.
Republican's SOS everywhere will be purging voters and we just have to get them back with harder voter registration efforts.
- The only way the "cooler" concept is going to work is if they front page it by the clock between other posts.
By Phil Specht on Jul 2, 2008 6:12 AM EDTI have a toobar and nothing to link. I'm off today as I have an XRay in my future for a nasty fall I took yesterday that damaged my shoulder. bad timing as I was about to chop oats
and speaking of food supply, just cook the tomato brands suspected of salmonella, they are great in all kinds of combinations that way
it is a terrible loss to let them rot on the vine
Iraq
the coming Iran disaster
Dealing intelligently with Energy
The housing crisis
the economy (stupid)
the right to privacy
the neocon attack on the Constitution
torture as national policy
And this Democratic nominee, so beloved by so many on this blog, is wasting his time and ours talking about freakin' faith-based charities!
Let's get some intelligent discussion of the real issues
so don't fool yourself with all these future-seers who seem to have you under their spell. and dear HuJo, please try to 'see the forest for the trees', as in it's obvious that you 'can't' at the moment.
or you can keep whining - if enough of you do it, we can all look forward to a McC presidency. I know you don't want that, so let's get the better man elected and then we'll see what he does and do what's necessary to keep him honest and on track. but this circular firing squad sh!t wasn't helpful when it was aimed at Howard and it's not helpful now. are you going to be part of the solution or part of the problem?!
- and quite frankly, I'm tired of 'know it all' a$$holes and pundits
By Jo*in*Vermont on Jul 2, 2008 7:13 AM EDTworking so hard to keep a GOOD man from being elected, when the only other choice would be disastrous to our country. it wasn't just right wing nutjobs who elected GW to two terms - it was folks who can't work with a good thing to make it better because they're too busy looking for the perfect - trouble is, everybody's perfect is different. see where it's gotten us? is that the path you want to keep on trodding? really?
It's Obama and his unquestionong true believers who are increasing the likelihood of a McCain Presidency
Voters and supporters who unquestioningly believe in Obama will increase the likelihood of a McCain presidency. This does not appear to be the product of straight line logical thinking. Can you describe the method by which you reached your conclusion?
- I call BS - take some responsibility John. You are definitely in the minority here when it comes to seeing the forest for the trees
By on Jul 2, 2008 2:09 PM EDTwhen my children were 6 months and 18 months old, my home burned to the ground and I lost everything - we had insurance but it didn't amount to much when all you ever had is gone. it was a faith-based charity who helped fill the gaps in the things we'd lost and couldn't afford to replace right away.
it's a shame to see what George W Bush has done to defame the term 'faith-based charity'. I would have thought you might know better, but perhaps you've led more of a sheltered life than I expected. perhaps you confuse GWs fbc's with ALL fbc's. and we wonder why some folks call us elitist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-w-lynn/do-we-really-need-a-faith_b_110324.html
I'm not a fan of the faith-based initiative. That may seem odd, as I am a Christian minister. Let's just say I come from the old school and take what these days is becoming an unusual view: Religion should pay its own way in the world. If Pastor Bob wants to start a ministry, good for Pastor Bob. Let Pastor Bob's congregation pay for it.
The problem with the faith-based initiative is that it's a euphemism. We used to call such things "taxpayer-supported religion." Of course, no one would support it if it were called that. After all, the idea of taxing people to pay for religion is scary. It's what got folks so riled up back in the colonial period. No one wanted to pay taxes to support some other person's religion.
No one wants to pay them today, either. Yet increasingly we are being asked to do so. Eager to appear faith friendly, candidates in both parties are increasingly upping the ante for how much they plan to dole out to religion if elected.
Under the Bush administration, the faith-based payoff reached new depths in venality and cynicism. Staffers in the White House faith-based office appeared at political rallies alongside House and Senate candidates in tight races, implying that the right vote would lead to a cascade of new money for religion.
If we have to have a faith-based initiative, one that does not allow proselytism on the taxpayer's dime and that is free of religious discrimination, it's better than one that does these things. Still, I wish a presidential candidate would have the gumption to ask what has become a forbidden question: Do we need a faith-based initiative at all?
more so in Obama than in some progressives right now - here we go again, shooting down our best chance at good government. republicans must be breathing the first real sigh of relief they've had since Nov 2006 - just sitting back and watching the dems, prgoressives and indies tear Obama apart. sh!t, keep this up and they won't have to do anything to get McBush elected -we'll do it for them!
- Obama is doing the damage to his relationship with progressives by his actions not theirs
By Phil Specht on Jul 2, 2008 9:29 AM EDTI agree that religion should not be supported by taxpayers. I think these mega churches who use marketing to sell themselves, who have all kinds of commercial ties with real estate, businesses, etc. should not have tax free status. The Catholic Church had/has huge holdings. I don't think religion should have tax free status, but I'm willing to discuss it.
The Faith Based Initiative the Bush Administration has used, I find repellent, a boon doggle, Rovian, a sop, and a disgrace.
However, we do have needs in our society that are going unmet: the largest prision population in the world, drugs, gangs, homelessness, mental illness, hunger, poverty, neglect, crime. How do we re-create community, provide those helps that are so needed in a mobile society, in a society that is totally commercialized, touting materialistic values? How to deal with human suffering, anonymity, and hopelessness?
I'm guessing but I think Obama used the words Faith Based Initiative to provide a connection to people who are concerned about the lack of supports for the most needy. That may work for some people; for others it may seem to be pandering, may be strongly objected to.
But, I don't think the problem is inconsequential. I think it is part of what John Edwards' message was.
It's interesting to see the reactions as Obama doesn't do what is expected of him. It tells me we are as locked into ideology as the country is.
Phil, I responded to your post about the Constitution on the last thread. Don't think I said the Constitution was a so-called principle. Am puzzled why you are interpreting my words so negatively.
- I think that Obama will take this 'program' that Bush created
By Jo*in*Vermont on Jul 2, 2008 7:34 AM EDTand fashion it so that it helps to support and expand upon good programs which have proven successes rather than pumping money into their buddies bogus programs. such as he suggests here:
Invest in the Nonprofit Sector
- Social Investment Fund Network: Obama will create a Social Investment Fund Network to use federal seed money to leverage private sector funding to improve local innovation, test the impact of new ideas and expand successful programs to scale.
- Social Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits: Barack Obama will a create an agency within the Corporation for National and Community Service dedicated to building the capacity and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector.
and he hopes for much more:
- Good words, Jo. Thanks. They are right on, needed to be said.
By Pat in Colorado on Jul 2, 2008 7:19 AM EDTI don't get it either that people seem to be frantic to malign one of the most talented, intelligent, and creative politicians in a decades. I ask myself: is it prejudice? Is it a feeling of powerlessness? Is it that we are more comfortable with our problems than we are with any solutions?
I think of the Stephen Crane poem where the speaker is chewing on his heart. When asked why, he answers that it is his and it is delicious.
ALL OF THE ABOVE
some people are better at fighting against things than fighting for something - some are absolutists and it has to be all or nothing. I agree that much of it is habitual - going to the same old patterns (that often have failed) and blocking out new opportunities based upon past experience.
you'd think the past 8 years would have caused enough angst for folks to be ready for change - I'm praying that we are.
I think we are facing greater problems than we have at any time in my lifetime. It's time for the American people to think, and frankly, we haven't been thinking or participating for a long time.
The politicians and corporations were doing it for us. Cynecism , indifference, not in my backyard mentality, and consequently, we've had loss of infrastructure, loss of long term thnking, and we've seen the venal, avaricious, vicious, and mean spirited turn our government has taken.
I'm praying too. We have to change this country. For all those who think criticizing, refusing to contribute, participate, vote, or engage in a discussion of the issues, I'm not sure how they can justify their stance. Hopefully, they are a small minority, and the rest of us can get on with the work of changing this country before we die.
I have faith in our country to be ready for change - I'm just not convinced they're ready for it now. perhaps it won't come until more of the world has died off from war and global warming and apartheid and on and on and on.... (please be ready for chage)
gotta head to work. wishing everyone a lovely day, with plenty of time to really think about what kind of future they want and what baby steps we should to take to move in that directiion.
If these are open for three hour intervals, I can't imagine that they'll foster much more than trivial discussion within the blog community.
One of the extremely valuable attributes of BFA was that the commentary was archived, making earnest discussions over the course of days, months or even years possible because the actual sentiments of a poster could be found, reproduced and responded to. This, on the other hand, seems more like a way to kill time, which strikes me as an odd interpretation of what blog posters have used BFA for in the past.
There is no value in being one.
"My candidate, right or wrong" is as wrong as "my country, right or wrong."
By the way, that last quote is wrong. The full quote is 'The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.'
The same is true of candidates.
OK Obama fanatics, rather than being one of those nattering nabobs of negativity, I'll propose some positive actions, viz:
Instead of proposing a low-prority program of questionable value, after sittiing at the feet of Billy and Franklin Graham, two of the worst, creepiest Christiano-fascists in the woooorld!, Obama should be putting his time into crafting meaningful responses to:
Iraq
the coming Iran disaster
Dealing intelligently with Energy
The housing crisis
the economy (stupid)
the right to privacy
the neocon attack on the Constitution
torture as national policy
There's a web site with white papers for these kind of questions.
In the mean time, there's an election in November. A requisite number of voters will be needed to attain the office. These voters are acquired through squishy bio ads, endlessly sifted minutiae concerning trivial, petty subjects on 24 hour cable news shows, and pandering public appearances to groups of curious voters in the hinterland, all finely dissected by internet news site article pundits and bloggers.
Yet another tortured excuse for Obama's refusal to campaign on these issues. White papers aren't worth using for bumwipe when their Author is constantly changing his position on the great issues, and refuses to lend his name and prestige to talking about them
That's really "Faith Based" devotion
When you write "Yet another tortured excuse for Obama's refusal to campaign on these issues [, w]hite papers aren't worth using for bumwipe," you're exactly correct. You're also ignoring everything I wrote, which is that the candidate will have to appeal to the electorate, to accomplish any political goal, much less see a whole slate of initiatives become law.
It's also true that your demand for extreme doctrinaire stances on controversial, third-rail type issues, and for discussions on them are also simple-minded and not worth wiping your ass with, because such stances should plainly be avoided and those discussions are patently useless. A president gets elected, i.e., attracts a majority of votes in a sufficient number of states, by means of a platform. Restated, this platform is to attract votes.
GIANT NEWS BULLETIN: These policy positions will not be converted into law. Bush's stupid compassionately conservative initiatives and anti-nation building rhetoric was a full load of immaterial propaganda, never to see the light of day from the time of their issue, yet they appear to have helped him get elected, which is a goddamn shame because as a president, he sucks. Obviously, the lesson is that the election season rhetoric is of virtually no moment in comparison with the quality of the judgment and character of the person running. Coincidentally, getting this person elected is the main objective of these Obama fanatics to whom you so endearingly refer.
"true believers, lemmings, my candidate right or wrong" a peculiar echo chamber here.
I don't think I've read a single post that said Obama right or wrong, Obama can do no wrong. What I'm interpreting is lots of sour grapes, name calling, ignoring any other perspective than an ideological one.
For instance, energy, the housing crisis, the economy, the right to privacy are all connected to the problems of the society, the needy, the disabled, the neglected, the unfortunate, the unemployed and unemployable. It seems to me, Huron John, that you are categorizing and isolating instead of engaging. What are your solutions? What do you propose? What do you see that you could do something about? What would convince the American people that they have a stake in helping the neediest in our society?
The problems are real and are a vital part of the discussion, but I seem to hear over and over how Obama can't solve them, won't solve them, has betrayed the progressive base, which like Jo, I'm beginning to think of as people who like to hear themselves pontificate, while doing nothing whatsoever to live what they pontificate about.
The Neocon attack and other attacks on the Constitution have been going on throughout our history, and with Reagan on we have diluted and made ineffectual checks and balances. How do you propose to restore them? How do you propose to re-regulate the media, the corporations, and restore the integrity of government?
So, rather than insulting those of us who are happy with the candidate, propose to be engaged and to communicate with him, recognize that no human being could possible solve all our complex problems, what do you intend to do that will help us restore the country and its Constitution?
Is there anything? Are we allowed to hold him to any standards?
As Ronald Reagan said :-) "Trust, but verify."
I'm with Phil on this one. I want to hear him give major speeches on ending the Iraq War, dealing with terrorists (as opposed to the "War on terror"), the economy, energy, the environment, fixing the broken government, fixing the broken political system. Instead, he's dedicating major speeches to "Patriotism" and giving government money to churches.
He hasn't lost my vote. I don't think there's any way he can (although there's plenty of time) because of the question of judges (BTW, I'd like him to talk about judges and his view of the Constitution). But I will continue to question his actions when they deserve it.
That's what this country is about.
What would make you unhappy with Obama?
Most of the issues you've raised. What made you so unhappy with Dean that you devoted nearly each of your posts to the Dean for America blog to raising and complaining about it?
This is a political blog. We talk about politics.
You have this disquieting habit of not answering questions.
- rich hope you succeed with the Foreign Service gig because your country needs representatives with a clear head that can think independently while expressing love of country
By Phil Specht on Jul 2, 2008 9:46 AM EDTI like your brand of patriotism, and my way or the highway types can shove it.
I tried going to the watercooler but it was kinda lonesome over there. Rep John Larson D-CT was on Washington Journal this morning. He's introduced two bills that have to do with the speculators causing havoc in the markets. One of the bills is to change the rank of the Inspector General of the Commodities Future Trading Commission to a Section 3 which I understand to mean someone like Fitzgerald -- sort of an independent investigator. The other bill is one which says to those trading on the 'dark' (loosely regulated or unregulated) markets that if they are going to trade in futures, they must be able to actually buy the stuff -- if they are trading oil futures, they have to have a place to put the oil. The info on the two bills is sketchy b/c they are so new but I will provide links. Rep Larson said that 'Speaker Pelosi wants a bill before August' in other words before they break. Supposedly there will be hearings during July. So far CSPAN has been doing a pretty good job of keeping us informed about the speculation aspect of the oil crisis, so hopefully these hearings will appear on one of their stations.
Some links for you:
H.R. 6406: To elevate the Inspector General of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to an...
H.R. 6264: To prevent excessive speculation in over-the-counter derivatives markets for certain...
Write YOUR representative and ask them to support HR 6406 and 6264
I know the second I post this there'll be a new thread. Call it paranoia.
Here's what I sent Cliff Stearns if you want to copy and paste:
Dear Rep. Stearns: Rep John Larson of CT was on CSPAN this morning discussing two new bill he has introducted to Congress dealing with oil speculators. I am writing to urge you to support these bills. One deals with elevating the Inspector General of the futures markets to a more independent position (kind of like an independent counsel I think) and the other says that commodites speculators - those buying oil futures - must actually be able to buy the oil. It seems to me that these two bills may be able to help control the rampant speculation in the oil markets that may be driving the price of oil up. Please support HR 6264 and HR 6406 when they are introduced. Thank you. Sincerely,
annilow wrote: "I know the second I post this there'll be a new thread."
It doesn't matter if I'm happy or unhappy about Obama. He's the candidate, and I am concerned and aware of his stances, his speeches, his responses. I'm not going to hold anyone to a politically correct or inviolable position, which it seems to me you and H
- Howard's first, I hear tell. . . .
By puddle on Jul 2, 2008 12:19 AM EDTw00T!!