Kerry run the first PAC-donation-free senate race in the country's historyGosh. I see nothing in this post about how poor, innocent Andy Meyers was tasered a mere "twenty feet" away from a grinning John Kerry. Nothing here about the ooh-so-scary Skull and Bones conspiracy. Nothing here about Kerry and Bush being covert Illuminati partners.
Kerry worked on the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs
Kerry's report on Iran Contra.
Kerry's BCCI Investigation.
Kerry Amendments, also known as U.S. moneylaundering laws and sanctions.
Kerry worked to create the Cambodia tribunal to try members of the Khmer Rouge. His tribunal model have been used in other countries
Kerry wrote the original bill that became S-CHIP.
Kerry wrote the Duke Cunningham Act to hold members of Congress convicted of a felony accountable.
Kerry's famous question: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Bruce Springsteen just wrote a song about it.
Did this post really appear on DU, home of the he-man Demo-haters club? I thought DU was the new FR. Yet it seems that someone over there actually dared to commit the unforgivable Thoughtcrime of saying something nice about America's best senator.
Well, there's always Think Progress. Click here to see how the towering intellectuals on that site use a terrific video clip of Bill Clinton at his finest as an excuse to stir up a "Who can leave the party soonest" contest.
And if -- when -- the GOP regains a majority, will the Progressive Purists take any responsibility? Nahhh. After all, they still refuse to take responsibility for screwing THE ENTIRE WORLD in 2000.
6 comments:
Dude,
keep bringing the heat! That these sorts can be so "pure" and so far from pragmatic is continually mind boggling. The old sales saying is that 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Sadly, there's clearly a lot of pinheads for whom 100% of nothing is preferable
I grow tired of finger pointing at people who voted for third parties in 2000, Joe. Exactly why isn't it Gore's fault that he lost? I'm no progressive purist and I didn't vote for him. You want to know why? Because he was pro-death penalty during the campaign. I care not how you may try to demonize me for that, as you seem to be doing to people alot on your blog lately. But, just think for a moment if the number you cite as the reason for why he lost in FL may have actually voted for Gore if he'd actually stuck with some principles that are important to those of us called liberals, rather than trying to distance himself from Clinton. Think he still would have lost?
Q: What about the death penalty?
GORE: I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly, with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. If the wrong guy is put to death, then that.s a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it, and in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases.
Q: Do both of you believe that the death penalty actually deters crime?
BUSH: I do, that.s the only reason to be for it. I don.t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don.t think that.s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people.s lives.
GORE: I think it is a deterrence. I know that.s a controversial view, but I do believe it.s a deterrence.
Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000
It's more than a few thousand that he turned off with such a stance, myself included.
John, you reveal yourself to be a perfect "Eye of Horus," if I may indulge in a Crowleyism.
So Gore disagreed with you on an issue or two. That justifies subjecting the world to Bush? That justifies the deaths in Iraq? That justifies Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? That justifies the erosion of our treasury? That justifies...
I could go on and on, but why bother? You're a mass-murderer, John. A bloody fucking mass-murderer, every bit as evil as Cheney. I really mean that, and I will never take it back.
"You're a mass-murderer, John. A bloody fucking mass-murderer, every bit as evil as Cheney. I really mean that, and I will never take it back."
Okay, Joseph...and you're passive-aggressive whiner, looking for someone to scapegoat for the capitulation of the Congressional Democratic leadership to the Bush administration's attempts to usurp basic protections of human liberty that have a legacy in this society going back to the year 1215.
The first step is to admit that you have a problem. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Democratic Orthodox Party and their loyal acolytes haven't taken that step yet.
Thank God there's been resistance from other sectors of civil society in this country, because it sure hasn't been found in the ranks of the elected Federal representatives and Senators expressly charged with oversight of the Executive Branch. They've been rubberstamping things like 1) a USA-PATRIOT" Act that none of them had even read; 2) a resolution providing the President with open-ended and unending "war on terror" military powers that promptly led the USA into an invasion of a foreign land without an explicit declaration of war; 3) the confirmation of a smirking liar as chief Federal law enforcement officer; and 4) the dismantling of habeus corpus- that arcane little Latin phrase that
summarizes the array of civil rights protections designed to prevent people from being summarily kidnapped by a police state.
Granted, that capitulation to Bush's constant and continually escalating demands for dictatorial and police-state powers has been true of both parties. But the responsibility of assuming the duties of political opposition does, after all, reside primarily with the political opposition.
Your railing about so-called "progressive purism" misses the mark wildly. This isn't about some ideological agenda. The vast majority of people who find themselves increasingly unable to abide the course steered by the national Democratic Party hierarchy are looking for authentic leaders who speak in the voice of honest outrage- at the first sign of threats to their liberty, not after matters have been decided elsewhere.
If no one in the Democratic Party Leadership Cadre is up to that task- well, don't they at least put up a few television ads featuring, say, Nat Hentoff- a venerable and articulate expert on civil liberties issues who has been on-point about the Bush administration's power grabs, clear down the line- and take the case to the people?
Better late than never.
So- why don't they?
Post a Comment