Comments on: Russ Feingold Gets It Right, Hillary Gets It Wrong, Caves to Rudy Giuliani

By: Retired Navy

Retired Navy — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:39:54 +0000

I am beginning to wonder if we on the left should not start throwing our support elsewhere. I am sick of seeing how they continue their rightward movement since we voted them into power. Particularly since they have not accopmplished anything of substance regarding the Iraq war.

By: oldtree

oldtree — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:18:13 +0000

I wonder what was like for her to remove her balls.
now none of these people is worth voting for. no choice worth a damn.

By: cando

cando — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:38:56 +0000

Almost no one in the country thinks as clearly as Feingold. He is the most principled politician in the country.

By: easy rider

easy rider — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:35:40 +0000

Hello Jane…

Why can’t we vote for Feingold?

By: portia.vz

portia.vz — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:50:22 +0000

I disagree, Jane. She voted correctly, IMHO. It is absolutely true that we shouldn’t be using character assassination techniques on people in uniform, no matter who it is. So the first vote was right.
But then she voted no on Cornyn’s because she wasn’t going to be forced to single anyone out.
It was the REPUBLICANS who voted like f%^&*ing hypocrites.
To be honest, I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the Petraeus ad. On a Scoville unit scale, it was about as incendiary as a red bell pepper. The GOP ads are always scotch bonnets but they refused to take any responsibility for their misbehavior.
I know that a lot of people want to find reasons to dislike Hillary. There’s quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on because she’s starting to soften people up and they are troubled by it. But this is not the issue to do it on because she was on the right side of it. If it was good enough for Boxer, it was good enough. Now, she wants to move on.
I saw her appearance on This Week and she didn’t pass up the opportunity to slam the GOP for the Kerry and Cleland ads. Maybe we should keep the distraction going since it’s only going to end up hurting Republicans but if she wants to try to usher in a new age of civility, sure, why not?
I’m sure she’s itchin’ for a fight and the Bushies will get one if they start messin’ with her.

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:39:50 +0000

I’m sorry folks but I’M NOT VOTING
and I will speak about that fact LONG AND LOUD.

I refuse to be a bttered hosuewife, arguing with the cops about taking the hubster down to the station.

Cause that’s what we voters are.

We have a choce of voting for people who want to kill as all actively –

and people who want to kill us all passively.

That is no0t a “choice.”

That is not a politics worthy of anyone’s attention.

We can do nothing less than tear it all down and start again from scratch. Anything less is useless.

By: sporkovat

sporkovat — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:41:00 +0000

the problem with voting for the least worst is, you end up in the year 2007 with no opposition party, and with the party to which you are so faithful the indispensible enabler of the crimes of the Bush regime.

They are complicit, they are down with the program. read:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html

Thus, the very idea that the Bush White House would be able to force enactment of FISA legislation once Democrats controlled the Congress would have seemed unfathomable, at least to many people. But after watching the Democrats meekly sit by and allow abolition of habeas corpus and then, when in control of Congress, grant the President vast new surveillance powers without receiving anything in exchange, it is inescapably clear that there are no limits on the willingness of Congressional Democrats to enable the President’s worst excesses. If this NYT story is accurate and they really do intend to provide this retroactive immunity, their joint responsibility for most of the excesses of the Bush administration will be virtually complete.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html

voting for the least worst is an affirmative endorsement of

1) the legitimacy of the political system

2) your support for that candidate to rule you.

The major (D) candidates all echo Dick Cheney that “all options are on the table” in regards to another country that poses no threat to the USA. One such option pointedly not ruled out is a pre-emptive nuclear attack … so how can you say ‘yes ok, the candidate I support might use nukes for the first time since Nagasaki, but s/he will probably appoint better Supreme Court Justices’ ???

they can’t be held accountable in the slightest if there is not a credible likelyhood of the withdrawal of support, and for non-millionaires, that means in the voting booth in even numbered years.

By: john in sacramento

john in sacramento — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:32:13 +0000

Way EPU’d and way off topic

But about the missing nukes: It was no mistake

The acronym of the day is SOP = Standard Operating Procedure.

For one to believe the story of the “mistake,” one must ignore the most rigorous procedures in the military with respect to the most dangerous weapons in the history of man.

DoD Directive 4540.5

That they were accidentally loaded without orders doesn’t pass the smell test

By: mui

mui — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:59:03 +0000

I love Russ Feingold.

By: brendancalling

brendancalling — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:44:20 +0000

eventually people are going to start doing crazy things to get what they want. a hungry man is an angry man.

A lot of people are getting angry: I think a lot of them don’t even know WHY they’re angry, but they see their lot getting worse and worse every day.

personally, I was hoping the in-coming democrat congress (they have now earned the moniker “Democrat Party” IMHO, because that’s what you call someone who stabs his friends in the back: a RAT) would give me less reason to seethe, but unfortunately, they’ve been even more maddening.

and I certainly believe more that the democrats are simply the kindler gentler face of raw abuse of power: that’s why they won’t reinstate habeas or repeal the wiretapping: they want that power for themselves.