| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
25 Dec 2007 09:41:46 AM |
| Object: |
Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and burned
its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of the social
safety net.
It has pursued imperial aggression, lethal incompetence and crony
capitalism as if they constitute official policy, leaving the next
president with a multitude of crises, from Iraq to New Orleans to
Guantánamo Bay.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/21/opinion/main3639472.shtml
Dec. 25, 2007
Time For Progressives To Rise Up
The Nation: Movement's Potential Can Be Realized, No Matter Who
Democrats Nominate
This column was written by the editors of The Nation.
It has been more than a year since the first group of Democratic
hopefuls announced their candidacy for president of the United States.
Seventeen debates or forums have been staged, and more than $150
million has been spent on advertising, polling and other campaign
expenses.
Pundits have pronounced their conventional wisdom, so easily reversed,
on who is most "electable," "presidential" or "inevitable."
Celebrities and surrogates have rung their appeals, and the deforming
machinery of electoral money and math has whirled into place.
And yet despite all this, something remarkable, almost magical in its
resilience, will take place on January 3.
Thousands of neighbors will gather in schools, churches and public
libraries across Iowa to caucus.
It's an imperfect, curious system -- one that privileges the indirect
democracy of delegates and the momentary passions of a state that is,
demographically speaking, unrepresentative of America.
Nonetheless, during the evening hours, when candidates and campaign
staff are relegated to the sidelines, the circus of democracy will be
suspended and something approaching actual democratic deliberation
will unfold.
But who should the voters of Iowa -- and then New Hampshire, Nevada,
South Carolina and the states that follow in this crowded primary
season -- select as the Democratic Party's standard-bearer?
This is not an easy question to address.
To put this election in context, it is the first time since 1928 that
a sitting president or vice president has been absent from the field.
The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and burned
its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of the social
safety net.
It has pursued imperial aggression, lethal incompetence and crony
capitalism as if they constitute official policy, leaving the next
president with a multitude of crises, from Iraq to New Orleans to
Guantánamo Bay.
But to take a page from the free-market gospel:
where there is crisis, there is opportunity.
Indeed, throughout this uncommonly long election cycle,
beyond-the-Beltway progressives have driven their issues to the
forefront of the Democratic agenda.
The leading candidates share positions that were considered political
suicide as recently as 2004, and topics once shunted aside, like
global warming, are of central importance.
Withdrawal from Iraq, which John Kerry couldn't bring himself to call
for, is embraced by all the current candidates, albeit on varying
timetables.
Unfettered free trade, a hallmark of the Clinton administration, is
now viewed by most Democrats as an untenable position.
Health care for all, an idea that many thought would doom Hillary
Clinton's candidacy, is a mainstream proposition.
And it is not just these issues that have taken center stage but the
core progressive values they represent:
diplomacy over militarism, workers' rights, the responsibility of
government to see that social needs are met.
Meanwhile, the Republican campaign has seemingly taken place in an
alternate reality, with GOP candidates competing to win the title of
Most Likely to Nuke Iran and Most Xenophobic.
With Democrats running left and Republicans slouching right, we
believe this election presents a historic opportunity to precipitate a
progressive realignment.
There is ferment in the air, a yearning for change and for a
resuscitation of America's most inspired dreams of justice and
equality.
The kindling is in place, but the right spark has not yet been struck.
There is a danger that many of this campaign's most contentious issues
could find resolution in policies even more malign than the status
quo.
The question of immigration reform combined with the rhetoric of
economic populism could lead to a jingoistic backlash against the most
vulnerable workers in America.
The war in Iraq could slide into a Democratic-led occupation with no
end in sight; worse, it could spill over into Iran.
And then there are the issues, already neglected, that could fade from
view:
a progressive tax policy that would eliminate breaks for corporations
and the mega-rich;
public investment in schools and urban infrastructure;
an end to the "war on drugs" and a reorientation of our criminal
justice system;
a plan to address media consolidation;
and a robust agenda for urban renewal.
What is needed most now is not a candidate but a movement to surround
that candidate, to brace his or her resolve, to press for the best
platform and to hold him or her accountable for implementing it if
elected.
For this reason, we choose not to endorse a candidate for president at
this time but rather to call for the rise of a broadly based small-d
democratic movement, as only such a movement can create the space
necessary to realize this moment's full potential.
Nonetheless, we see differences among the candidates that reflect
their relative willingness and ability to foster this movement and
advance its agenda.
In his stands on the issues, Dennis Kucinich comes closest to
embodying the ideals of this magazine.
He has been a forceful critic of the Bush administration, opposing the
Patriot Act and spearheading the motion to impeach Vice President *****
Cheney.
He is the only candidate to have voted against the Iraq War in 2003
and has voted against funding it ever since.
Of all the serious candidates, only he and Governor Bill Richardson
propose a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
And only Kucinich's plan sets aside funds for reparations.
Moreover, Kucinich has used his presidential campaigns to champion
issues like cutting the military budget and abolishing nuclear
weapons;
universal, single-payer healthcare;
campaign finance reform;
same-sex marriage and an end to the death penalty and the war on
drugs.
A vote for him would be a principled one.
But for reasons that have to do with the corrupting influence of money
and media on national elections as well as with his campaign's
shortcomings -- such as its failure to organize a grassroots base of
donors and web activists -- a democratic mass movement has not
coalesced around Kucinich's run for president.
The progressive vision is there, but the strategy necessary to win and
then govern is lacking.
In most cases, the rules of the Iowa caucus require that a candidate
reach 15 percent of the vote to achieve "viability"; supporters of
candidates who fail to do so can choose another candidate.
Simply put, many Iowans will soon face a question that the rest of us
may have to answer later:
if not Dennis, then who?
(The Nation) The leading Democratic contenders -- Hillary Clinton,
John Edwards and Barack Obama -- have been covered from various points
of view in these pages.
There are aspects of each candidate and campaign to be admired, and
also those that cause concern.
Hillary Clinton has proven herself a dedicated centrist, and when the
center moves left, she has shown, she can move too.
When it comes to trade and globalization, she has shifted from being
an ardent supporter of NAFTA to calling for a "timeout" on all such
deals (although she recently signaled her support for the Peru Free
Trade Agreement).
Clinton may not have apologized for her vote for the Iraq War, but she
has called for its end.
Her plan, however, would begin slowly and would involve retaining a
"reduced residual force," perhaps as many as 60,000 soldiers, to
combat terrorism and train Iraqi military forces.
As she indicated by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment -- which
classified the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist
organization -- her shift on Iraq did not reflect a fundamental
political reorientation.
Indeed, a Hillary Clinton administration could see a revival of her
husband's advisers and their procorporate neoliberal policies.
Certainly the presence of familiar and high-priced pollsters and
lobbyists in the upper echelons of her campaign, as advisers and
donors, is a worrisome sign.
(Both Obama and Edwards have declined lobbyist donations.)
The experience Clinton touts is likely to frustrate the change she
promises.
To be sure, her election would represent a historic breakthrough for
women, and a Clinton presidency even modestly responsive to an
ascendant left would be far better than a Clinton presidency
triangulating in the wake of the Reagan revolution.
But there's little reason to believe it would make ample space for a
progressive agenda.
In contrast, Barack Obama and John Edwards are reaching for new
ground.
Each also presents the risks -- and promises -- of unknown potential.
On the campaign trail Edwards has displayed a smart, necessary
partisanship -- denouncing corporate power and its crippling influence
on government.
He has argued with conviction that government does best when it does
more for its citizens.
His campaign has met some roadblocks.
He has not managed to consolidate the traditional Democratic base, and
while he has loyal supporters among organized labor, he has not sewn
up union support across the board, nor has he excited a cohort of
previously disenfranchised voters.
Perhaps some have been turned off by the media's relentless fixation
on the "three H's" -- haircuts, hedge funds and houses -- symbols of
the gap between his populist rhetoric and his lifestyle.
Nonetheless, he has been at his best when taking on spiraling economic
inequality.
In a series of bold initiatives, he has called for an end to poverty
in 30 years, universal health care, a hike in the minimum wage to
$9.50 by 2012 and an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
by 2050 -- accomplished in part by the creation of a green-collar jobs
corps.
His policy proposals are not always perfect, but they are uncommonly
detailed and crafted in conjunction with progressive organizations.
Most important, his programs were announced first, and they clearly
pushed Clinton and Obama in a progressive direction.
His health care plan stops short of a single-payer program, but it
unapologetically includes employer mandates and tax increases.
Likewise, although he voted for the Iraq War and his plan to end it
doesn't commit to full and immediate withdrawal, he has repudiated
that vote and proposes a faster pullout than his two main rivals.
And Edwards is the only leading candidate to connect the war and the
home front, bravely arguing that an ambitious domestic agenda would
require cuts to the military budget.
His is the campaign that has most effectively responded to the spirit
of progressive populism that lifted congressional Democrats to victory
in 2006.
Many observers have attributed a talismanic power to the personage of
Barack Obama -- his mixed race heritage;
the circumstances of his birth and childhood;
his middle name, Hussein, often discussed as if it were in and of
itself a foreign policy.
But beneath the surface of symbols is a politician who was not only
born different but who made different choices from other Beltway-bound
Ivy Leaguers -- especially in his early career as a community
organizer on the South Side of Chicago.
Of all the leading contenders, Obama shows the most potential to
energize disaffected voters.
He has campaigned for himself and others in states long written off by
the Democratic establishment, and when he appears on the trail it is
often alongside grassroots organizers and ordinary citizens.
His team of advisers includes familiar former Clinton staffers but
also experts plucked from academe and activism whose presence in
Washington would represent genuine and welcome change.
An Obama presidency would contain fresh faces -- but would it have
fresh ideas?
We would like to answer with a resounding yes, but Obama has lagged
behind Edwards in offering innovative policies and politicizing
neglected issues.
His health care plan is virtually identical to Hillary Clinton's --
except it does not include mandates, a conservative feature he has
curiously decided to emphasize.
Likewise, his plan to exit Iraq exhibits the "strategic drift" toward
leaving behind a significant residual force, as if fewer troops could
accomplish what more have failed to do.
Like Clinton, once in the Senate he has continued to vote for funding
the war.
These last two matters are especially unfortunate because they
undermine what ought to be one of his greatest assets:
Barack Obama was opposed to the Iraq War from the very beginning.
When so many Democrats backed Bush's military adventure, Obama
exercised fine judgment -- a quality his campaign has stressed.
Since then that judgment has seen some praiseworthy reprises -- as
when he bucked conventional wisdom by insisting on face-to-face
negotiations with Iran, Cuba and Syria -- but it has often tilted
toward caution and centrism.
Obama has skillfully cultivated the image of a postpartisan leader,
one with enormous appeal to broad swaths of voters alienated from
politics as usual.
But if he governs that way, how will progressives who want to take on
entrenched interests fare in his administration?
In the following weeks, The Nation will continue to cover the
campaign, and the candidates, with the hope that a progressive
insurgency will make its influence even more deeply felt.
The front-loaded primary schedule -- with individual states elbowing
one another into the first days of 2008 -- could dampen that hope.
There is a possibility that the election will be over in the blink of
an eye, before progressives have had a chance to gather momentum.
But American electoral politics is a strange and unruly beast --
defying expectation as often as fulfilling it.
No matter which candidate is chosen, progressives will have to build
the public support vital not simply for winning the election but for
capturing the opportunity to transform the country.
____________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Friendly Xenu" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
25 Dec 2007 11:59:45 AM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and burned
its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of the social
safety net.
The time to riseup and exterminate the fascists was back in 2000
when the first election was hijacked and a terrorist declared king.
---
"It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed
and institutionally supported aberrations from homosexuality and pedophilia
to sadomasochism and necrophilia." -- Christian theofascist traitor Mike Huckabee
.
|
|
|
| User: "MasterChief" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
25 Dec 2007 12:12:01 PM |
|
|
Strange words which echo the hatemonger's speech.
let`s exterminate the commies!let exterminate the fascists!
I got an idea, let the commies and the fascists exterminate each other and
leave the rest of us in peace,is that beyond your comprehension,moron?
"Friendly Xenu" <Xenu@aol.COM> wrote in message
news:13n2h4pg6ehoqb0@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and burned
its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of the social
safety net.
The time to riseup and exterminate the fascists was back in 2000
when the first election was hijacked and a terrorist declared king.
---
"It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed
and institutionally supported aberrations from homosexuality and
pedophilia
to sadomasochism and necrophilia." -- Christian theofascist traitor Mike
Huckabee
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "glw82664" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
25 Dec 2007 12:37:41 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 10:41 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and burned
its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of the social
safety net.
Time for so called 'progressives' to stop being such wussies and
running from the word 'liberal', because that's what you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Pittel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
27 Dec 2007 02:11:22 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa.republican glw82664 <glw82664@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On Dec 25, 10:41 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: > The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and burned
: > its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of the social
: > safety net.
: >
: Time for so called 'progressives' to stop being such wussies and
: running from the word 'liberal', because that's what you are.
It's the new word for liberal. After the conservatives got the truth
about liberalism out they were afraid to be associated with that word
and had to come out with another word. In short time the loones will be
running from the word progressive.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
27 Dec 2007 02:46:10 PM |
|
|
"Frank Pittel" <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:ieGdnZrAOpJ3m-nanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
In alt.politics.usa.republican glw82664 <glw82664@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On Dec 25, 10:41 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: > The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and burned
: > its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of the social
: > safety net.
: >
: Time for so called 'progressives' to stop being such wussies and
: running from the word 'liberal', because that's what you are.
It's the new word for liberal. After the conservatives got the truth
about liberalism out they were afraid to be associated with that word
and had to come out with another word. In short time the loones will be
running from the word progressive.
Actually, it's NOT the "new" word for liberal. We've used BOTH terms to
describe ourselves for generations, going back even further than that great
liberal (progressive) Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt. Both terms
are defined politically as someone who advocates change by going forward.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have completely run away from the
political term that accurately describes themselves, by adopting the term
"conservative", which they are not. Political "conservatives" are those who
advocate maintaining the status quo, and not changing. But modern
conservatives actually DO advocate change. The change they desire is the
change that would take us "back to the good old days" of slave wages for
workers, coupled with longer hours and unlimited profits for the owners of
corporations, with no intervention by the government to protect the people.
The correct political term for those who want to revert to those terrible
times . . . the goal of "conservatives", is "REGRESSIVE", the exact opposite
of "progressive".
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBGo5fBCdxA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "putpeopleoverprofit" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
27 Dec 2007 02:34:40 PM |
|
|
Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
news:ieGdnZrAOpJ3m-nanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com:
In alt.politics.usa.republican glw82664 <glw82664@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On Dec 25, 10:41 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: > The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and
: > burned its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of
: > the social safety net.
: >
: Time for so called 'progressives' to stop being such wussies and
: running from the word 'liberal', because that's what you are.
It's the new word for liberal. After the conservatives got the truth
about liberalism out they were afraid to be associated with that word
and had to come out with another word. In short time the loones will
be running from the word progressive.
As a liberal I am proud of the accomplishments in human society that
have come about because of liberal thought (i.e. America).
Progressive is simply a refinement of the liberal that is more
consciences of the pace of change and would prefer that pace be
modulated and less radical, abrupt or disruptive.
The conservatives are the ones who are running right now. Running away
from their neo-con leaders who have all but killed the message of true
conservatism.
--
Marketplace of Ideas...
www.putpeopleoverprofit.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "CONservatyrd" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
27 Dec 2007 03:05:44 PM |
|
|
Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
news:ieGdnZrAOpJ3m-nanZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com:
In alt.politics.usa.republican glw82664 <glw82664@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 10:41 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The calamitous administration of George W. Bush has slashed and
burned its way through Iraq, our Constitution and the remnants of
the social safety net.
Time for so called 'progressives' to stop being such wussies and
running from the word 'liberal', because that's what you are.
"Liberal" by definition is *progressive*, always has been...just as
conservative has always meant BIGOTED / UNCHANGING and why Rove's Neoconlets
fought so hard to change the meaning over the last 10 years...not even
Ol'Rover has the power to change Webster's...
It's the new word for liberal. After the conservatives got the truth
about liberalism out they were afraid to be associated with that word
and had to come out with another word. In short time the loones will
be running from the word progressive.
As a liberal I am proud of the accomplishments in human society that
have come about because of liberal thought (i.e. America).
Progressive is simply a refinement of the liberal that is more
consciences of the pace of change and would prefer that pace be
modulated and less radical, abrupt or disruptive.
The conservatives are the ones who are running right now. Running away
from their neo-con leaders who have all but killed the message of true
conservatism.
--
Victory-Victory-Victory says Dumbya, HEY DUMBYA - that's ahhhwhat we
call "stuck on stupid" boy...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
25 Dec 2007 09:55:06 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 10:41=A0am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Time For Progressives To Rise Up
They already did.
It was called Air America.
The audience voted with their listening and spending habits.
And the sponsors caught a clue.
Democracy in action.
God bless the USA.
Really,
.
|
|
|
| User: "MasterChief" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
25 Dec 2007 11:17:43 AM |
|
|
They were not progressives,But they are socialists,Progressive is
constitutional, left wing ideology isn`t.
<janet_reno_jr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bd281e5-c5f4-4c47-a8eb-bacf1db17dae@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 10:41 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Time For Progressives To Rise Up
They already did.
It was called Air America.
The audience voted with their listening and spending habits.
And the sponsors caught a clue.
Democracy in action.
God bless the USA.
Really,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richardson-Obama in 08" |
|
| Title: Re: Time For Progressives To Rise Up... |
25 Dec 2007 03:18:50 PM |
|
|
"MasterChief" <1@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:cuKdnXRtpN0Dp-zanZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@comcast.com...
They were not progressives,But they are socialists,Progressive is
constitutional, left wing ideology isn`t.
<janet_reno_jr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bd281e5-c5f4-4c47-a8eb-bacf1db17dae@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 10:41 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Time For Progressives To Rise Up
They already did.
It was called Air America.
The audience voted with their listening and spending habits.
Plenty of people listen, and the relatively few businesses that sponsor AAR
programs seem to be getting a decent response from their advertising. The
problem is that many potential sponsors don't want to target progressive
audiences, because the progressive politicians that progressive audiences
vote for are seen as being anti-corporate, because they don't believe in
giving the big corporations a free ride or corporate welfare.
And the sponsors caught a clue.
No, they caught the "fear bug" that is part of the propoganda from the
right.
Democracy in action.
No, corporatism in action.
God bless the USA.
On that much we agree. Now, if we can only manage to keep the PUBLIC
airways from falling exclusively into the hands of the right-wing
corporations that are trying to buy exclusive rights to be heard, He just
might continue to bless the USA.
Really,
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBGo5fBCdxA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
