Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Cindy Sheehan, Ex-Democrat
Well, it's sort of a Memorial Day story -- Cindy Sheehan has up and quit the Democratic Party.
Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so "other presidents" can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into.
It used to be George Bush’s war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.
The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.
Philadelphia's arguably a better place to start a new third party than Gary, Indiana where Amiri Baraka and co. tried to launch the National Black Political Party, 35 years ago. But I'd bet this effort gets even less traction. The Democratic Party of 1972 contained a huge black base that had only entered the party en masse eight years earlier, fleeing from the pitchforks (real or imagined) of the Goldwaterites, and it contained a shrinking Dixiecrat wing that included George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and millions of Southern conservatives. The Democratic Party of 2007 contains an anti-Iraq War wing, which includes almost all living Democrats, and a pro-Iraq War wing, which includes Michael Totten, the ghost of Scoop Jackson, and a third or so of The New Republic's editorial staff. (Joe Lieberman doesn't count as he -- ever hilariously -- represents the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.) Seven years on from Ralph Nader, anti-war liberals simply aren't going to abandon the Democratic Party.
Reason's articles and blog posts on Sheehan here; articles about third parties here.
|5.27.07 @ 11:46PM|#
Gary, Indiana is always my go-to town I use when describing a
shitty city.
"Miami is bad, but at least it's not Gary, Indiana"
"I'm going to kick your ass and then mail you to Gary Indiana"
|5.27.07 @ 11:51PM|#
And fuck Sheehan. Her only use is to act as a strawman argument
for the pro-war supporters, painting doves as being irrational
psychos who may or may not of slept with Lou Rockwell.
If the dems ever get success, it won't be because of her and her
types.
|5.27.07 @ 11:58PM|#
At the moment, I'd have to call this an overwhelming positive
for the dems.
That could change, however, if anyone takes her seriously.
Cesar|5.28.07 @ 12:09AM|#
Im sure the Dems wwilld miss her about as much as the Libertarians would miss the blue guy from Montana.
|5.28.07 @ 12:12AM|#
Because the Democrats just have no power over the purse ... they
couldn't possibly do something as radical as do nothing at all
after Bush vetoed the war spending bill, and let the folks in the
White House slowly realize that bill was the only money that was
forthcoming.
Oh, right, it's a replay of the Republican shutdown of the
government in the 90's, when campaign promises ran up against the
reality of statist public opinion, and all the campaign promises
got chucked overboard tout suite.
TallDave|5.28.07 @ 12:46AM|#
This is the Dem Prez candidates are desperately pandering to antiwar crowd even though none of the adults in the party are seriously contemplating leaving Iraq before we can be sure it won't mean an AQ mini-state in Sunni Iraq: they can't afford to lose their White Flaggers.
|5.28.07 @ 1:24AM|#
Cindy Sheehan has always typified the Democrat anti-warrior to
me: loudly anti-war only after it started to go badly for them,
before then either pro-war or tepidly anti-war.
Any third party she creates will consist of her and the half dozen
left-leaners who still think principle trumps electability after
the 2000 election.
Besides, anti-war is a big word. I doubt she'll be much of a draw
for people who are agitating for "humanitarian intervention" in
Darfur.
|5.28.07 @ 2:00AM|#
Cindy Sheehan leaving is one thing.
The Democrats pussying out on what is arguably one the the few
reasons anybody actually voted FOR them (as opposed to voting
against a Republican) is quite another.
My point is, Sheehan's declaration is a weathervane of other
current (perhaps soon to be former) democrats dissatisfaction with
the party.
I think there are a lot of people who voted for Dems - or even
against Republicans - who are lookng at the current Democratic
senate and congress and saying, "Jesus...what a bunch of
pussies...I'd rather have a corrupt but strong Republican than a
pussy Democrat."
Personally, I've never been more disgusted with a political party
than I am with the Democrats. And I have no special love for
Republicans. I was happy to see the various conservative
sons-of-bitches lose this past go-round. Now I can't wait for the
public to vote these sad scumfucks out the next go-round.
Bush, Reid and Pelosi are the trifecta of bad governance. Sad,
venal and without a sincere care over what their decisions actually
translate to.
If this is what America is about, we are truly in our waning days.
If this is what we can expect from our leaders, we deserve what
ever happens to us.
|5.28.07 @ 2:03AM|#
"Again, just for clarification, I'm not Jon H."
But my paperwork is pending in the courts. Ha Ha Ha! Any day now,
I, too, shall be Jonathan Hohensee!
|5.28.07 @ 2:06AM|#
I still say the Dems should crank up the top tax rate every
week/month/quarter (whatevs) until we're out, with the end rate in
force for at least five years.
Give Bush his shitty little war, but make his base pay for it,
dearly.
|5.28.07 @ 3:35AM|#
Sheehan became irrelevant the moment the majority of the US turned against the war.
|5.28.07 @ 5:13AM|#
I still say the Dems should crank up the top tax rate every
week/month/quarter (whatevs) until we're out, with the end rate in
force for at least five years.
Give Bush his shitty little war, but make his base pay for it,
dearly.
This atittude is why the Dem's didn't end the war. For them,
increasing their budgets is more important that ending the war.
|5.28.07 @ 6:32AM|#
Well, this has got to be the luckiest break the democrats have
had in a long time. Now, if they could just get that "kos" punk to
fuck off to the green party, they'd be in pretty good shape.
-jcr
Guy Montag|5.28.07 @ 7:55AM|#
Dave, shouldn't that be Democrat party? Was LBJ the last
Democtat to say this correctly correctly?
Sheehan has created the perfict opportunity for James Earl Carter
III to run for office again. They seem to agree on everything, but
Carter flipflops more.
Actually, many parts of Carter's domestic policy and all of his
foreign policy could pull Ron Paul from the Republicans to the
Sheehanites. Might get Dennis Kucinich too.
Guy Montag|5.28.07 @ 8:24AM|#
In other celebrity news, Charles Nelson Reiley has died at the age of 78. His greatest role, of course, was as the "Top Hat" in Lidsville. He was also one of the greatest celebrity game show contestants in the USA, second only to Paul (Edward) Lynde, of course.
|5.28.07 @ 8:48AM|#
ack, sorry to double correctly up there
Hell, I spent a full minute trying to figure out the joke I missed.
Then again, it's early and I spent some quality time with Uncle
Mike yesterday afternoon.
Now, if they could just get that "kos" punk to fuck off to the
green party, they'd be in pretty good shape.
Good call.
His greatest role, of course, was as the "Top Hat" in
Lidsville.
Damn, Lidsville..somewhere in the dark recesses of my balding head
there is a spark of recognition at some kind of song that concluded
"everyone who goes to Lidsville really flips his lid" or something.
That's all I got.
Ok, on to the original article.
Sheehan was useful to Dems as a cattle prod, but it got turned back
on them, and was used as a cattle prod on them. This can only be
good news.
|5.28.07 @ 8:50AM|#
In other celebrity news, Charles Nelson Reiley has died at
the age of 78.
And it was a sad day when CNR broke away from the Match Game '79 to
form his own fill-in-the-blank game show. Gene Rayburn never
forgave him for that betrayal.
One gay joke gone wrong on Rayburn's part....If only Brett Somers
had joined Reiley, he might have stood a chance. Richard Dawson had
too much sway over her.
And besides, he'll always be the Dirty Bubble to me, not Top
Hat.
|5.28.07 @ 9:26AM|#
No no no. Charles Nelson Reilly's best role was as the realtor
Claymore Gregg on "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir."
As for Sheehan -- the horrid problem BushCo forced our world
into -- Is she LoneWacko?
|5.28.07 @ 9:40AM|#
"The Democratic Party of 1972 contained a huge black base that
had only entered the party en masse eight years earlier, fleeing
from the pitchforks (real or imagined) of the Goldwaterites
...."
Obviously, no one is indignant about this but me, but Barry
Goldwater was a fervent foe of the civil rights movement. He never
gave a damn about the oppression of the blacks in the South, but
fought valiantly for the right of businesses to exclude blacks. In
many ways, Barry was the ultimate country-club Republican--the
whole point of a "club," after all, is to exclude those who don't
belong.
Guy Montag|5.28.07 @ 9:50AM|#
Correction: Reiley died at the age of 76
AV,
Obviously, no one is indignant about this but me, but Barry
Goldwater was a fervent foe of the civil rights movement. He never
gave a damn about the oppression of the blacks in the South, but
fought valiantly for the right of businesses to exclude blacks. In
many ways, Barry was the ultimate country-club Republican--the
whole point of a "club," after all, is to exclude those who don't
belong.
As evidenced by his desegregation of the Arizona Air National Guard
before the USAF was desegregated, right?
His opposition to the accomodations clause of the Civil Rights Act
was out of a respect for property rights.
|5.28.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Did anyone really believe that the Democrats were going to stop
the war in Iraq, and bring the troops home?
If you vote Democrat, you vote for the war in Iraq. You can't be
anti-Iraq War, and be pro-Democrat and more than you can be
anti-Iraq War and be pro Republican.
|5.28.07 @ 12:11PM|#
So, according to Reason readers, "Pro-War Democrats = Good,
anti-war Dems, please leave party?"
I am confused.
|5.28.07 @ 12:12PM|#
And what sane person can actually believe that the Democrats oppose the war? Maybe in shallow rhetoric, but not in votes/action.
|5.28.07 @ 12:23PM|#
I didn't realize Cindy Sheehan was still around.
She has a good heart, but her politics are incredibly naive.
|5.28.07 @ 12:30PM|#
"And what sane person can actually believe that the Democrats
oppose the war?"
The ones who watched them pass a bill mandating the end of the war
a few weeks ago - the one that passed with nearly 100% support from
the Democrats, which Bush vetoed.
I don't like the fact that they kicked the can down the road a few
months, either, but if you shoot at the king, you need to kill
him.
GILMORE|5.28.07 @ 12:50PM|#
The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who
are as disgusted as we are with you all...
??
"as disgusted as we are with you all?"
hell of an invite.
the "BushCo" ref reminds me of TLB. shrieking goofs use the same
lingo.
|5.28.07 @ 1:21PM|#
"And what sane person can actually believe that the
Democrats oppose the war?"
The ones who watched them pass a bill mandating the end of the war
a few weeks ago - the one that passed with nearly 100% support from
the Democrats, which Bush vetoed.
joe, that bill was cynical, symbolic grandstanding. Even before it
got out of committee everyone knew the Prez was going to veto it.
Congress even went through the motions of trying for a
Congressional override that they knew would fail. It was a swipe at
Bush and a chance to show that they're doing something,
not an actual attempt at accomplishing anything.
So much for the end of bipartisanship.
Grotius|5.28.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Hugh,
Well, one option would be to continue to pass the bill until the
President signs it.
Cesar|5.28.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Wow, I never realized how far-out DailyKos is until I read some
of the comments on Sheehan's thread.
One guy actually thinks "BushCo" will declare martial law.
|5.28.07 @ 1:58PM|#
joe, that bill was cynical, symbolic grandstanding. Even
before it got out of committee everyone knew the Prez was going to
veto it.
So, what exactly could congressional Democrats have done that would
not count as "grandstanding"? After all, Bush will veto any bill
that tries to end, or even shorten, the war.
thoreau|5.28.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Congress could have kept passing the same bill, knowing that eventually the current funding will run out and then Bush will have no choice but to play ball with them.
|5.28.07 @ 3:04PM|#
I dunno, thoreau, as long as Bush has the Iraq invasion
authorization in one hand and his desire for a legacy as a
persistent do-gooder (if not a successful nation-builder) in the
other, the chances of him meeting seriously with the Dems is pretty
slim.
What Democrats could do is work with Congressional Republicans who
(especially those with an eye toward re-election) are starting to
sour on Iraq. Instead of seeing the Republicans as a monolithic
Bushie antagonist, Dems could appeal to Republican sensibilites and
draft a compromise bill that could override a veto.
|5.28.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Yes, the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) that many of us hoped would expedite bringing our brave men and women home blinked first. There are many reasons for this, I am sure. Hundreds of our soldiers will likely pay the price for this with their lives, and thousands more with their maimed bodies. But even Cindy can't expect many of us to look at the other side and abandon the only party with a reasonable chance to eventually get us out of Bush's War and bring our troops home. Far better to concentrate on forging a veto-proof coalition than to tear the party to bits at the cost of even more of our sons and daughters. The fight continues, and there will be another vote.
Lord Jubjub|5.28.07 @ 3:25PM|#
I think the real battle for Iraq funding starts later this
summer.
By then, if the Surge is to have any success, it will have shown
results. Furthermore, with the Surge nearing its peak, even the
status quo will be hard to defend by that time.
|5.28.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Hugh,
The bill the Democrats wrote themselves, that they almost all voted
for, and that would have imposed what they've been talking about
doing for months is "grandstanding," but the bill they got
logrolled into passing after their original bill got vetoed is a
window into their truest souls? That doesn't even begin to make
sense.
thoreau,
"Congress could have kept passing the same bill, knowing that
eventually the current funding will run out and then Bush will have
no choice but to play ball with them."
Certainly my preferred course of action, but they seem to be saving
that battle for the next go 'round. Either the "September
Republicans" flip like they've been saying, and the Democrats get
to claim bipartisan backing this fall, or they don't, and their
public backing expands enough to overcome the fundamental cowardice
that infects the moderate-to-conservative wing of the party
whenever the Republicans make patriotic noises.
Personally, I think public opposition to the war right now is
strong enough for the Democrats to ram a cutoff down the
Republicans' throats without paying much of a political price; but
then again, I never became Senate Majority Leader.
|5.28.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Cindy's nuts. The Democrats did all that was politically feasible. They do not have the power to override Bush's veto. It was the GOP that blocked their efforts. Is this gonna be like the drug war, where libertarians say "a pox on both their houses" because some folks from one house voted with virtually the ENTIRE other house who was pushing for x like a bat outta hell? The Drug War is a GOP baby, so is Iraq. Some Democrats went along with both, but it was the GOP who pushed for it and voted for it as a block, and it is only Democrats who have seriously tried to hamstring both at any time. The GOP uses libertarians for big suckas and would love for you to think the two parties are equivalent here.
Cesar|5.28.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Ken-
Careful, you might bring out "Single Issue Voter" who will tell you
the drug war is the brain child of FDR and Tip O'Neil.
|5.28.07 @ 6:14PM|#
So, what exactly could congressional Democrats have done
that would not count as "grandstanding"? After all, Bush will veto
any bill that tries to end, or even shorten, the war.
They could refuse to fund the war. Bush needs the Democrats to OK a
budget that allocates spending for the war. No money, no war.
Of course, the Democrats were too eager to get their pork barrel
spending... a budget fight with the Republicans and Bush would mean
it would take that much longer to get Homeland Security money to
buy their statehouse a new gym for lawmakers.
The democrats know that people like you or joe would give them a
free pass if they failed to stop the war... but the people who need
their pork would not be as forgiving.
|5.28.07 @ 6:28PM|#
The GOP uses libertarians for big suckas and would love for
you to think the two parties are equivalent here.
How are Libertarians getting played as "big suckas" by the GOP?
Because they don't vote for Democrats?
NOT voting for a Democrat does not mean that we vote for
Republicans. I assume most libertarians either vote Libertarian, or
don't bother to vote.
BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans 100% support the Iraq war in
their actual policy. Everyone who supports the Democratic party
supports the Iraq War.
I voted for a party that 100% opposed the Iraq War, before, during,
and after. You voted for a party that 100% supported the Iraq war,
before, during, and 80% supports it now. Don't try to blame a
political party that is totally against the war because your
political party totally sold you guys out.
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Cesar,
"Careful, you might bring out "Single Issue Voter" who will tell
you the drug war is the brain child of FDR and Tip O'Neil."
And you are saying it isn't?
Please show me how the GOP has been more supportive of the Drug War
than the Democrats.
While you are at it show us how Drug Prohibition did not originate
as a "progressive" cause.
The only limitation I request is that you not re-register the
pantheon of liberal progressive drug warriors as Republicans
post-mortem.
Cesar|5.28.07 @ 7:07PM|#
SIV-
I agree with you (and I think you make a good case) that early drug
prohibition originated out of the Progressive movement.
Marijuana prohibition was passed by a Democratic-controlled
congress, true. But we don't know how many of the votes in favor
came from old southern conservative Dems.
But in the last 30 years, the Drug War has been more of a
Republican affair. Hell, it was Nixon who declared "war" on drugs,
and it was Carter who was moving toward the de-criminalization of
marijuana until Reagan was elected.
And it took Ronald Reagan to really create the Drug War as we know
it. And yes, the Congress that passed the Reagan drug laws was
Democratic-controlled. But again, I don't know how many of those
Dems were blue-dogs (which still existed in the 80s).
I think its fair to blame the origins of prohibition on the left,
but since the 1960s at least its been the right who has expanded
it.
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 7:29PM|#
Cesar,
History lessons..........
Actually LBJ and a Democrat Congress ramped up prohibition in '66
when LSD and other legal psychedelics were outlawed.Nixon passed
his drug war with a Democrat Congress and in the "progressive"
tradition created a whole new Federal bureaucracy (DEA) to deal
with it.
As a weed smoking teenager during the Carter Presidency I
distinctly remember him running on a decrim position and culturally
drugs were wide open in the late 70s.After a scandal with his
advisor, Dr Peter Bourne (who advocated legalisation of cocaine!)-
involving excessive 'lude scripts for White House staff, Carter
turned hawk in the drug war. He carried out a policy of spraying
Colombian reefer with paraquat- an herbicide believed at the time
to be deadly toxic to smokers.By the late 70s Jimmy Carter was
"History's Greatest Monster" to High Times magazine and politically
aware stoners.
Reagan's Drug War was initially a bully-pulpit kinda thing until
the Death of Len Bias when everyone, led by Tip O'Neil, tried to
outdo each other in draconian penalties.
As for any liberal/leftist tendencies towards ending prohibition-
where are the retired "elder statesmen" advocating it?
On the Right as relieved of political pressures they follow their
libertarian leanings.
James Baker and George Schulz are two examples.
Cesar|5.28.07 @ 7:40PM|#
SIV-
Mainstream Dems are undoubtedly for the drug war (at least
publically), but there are leftist ones (Dennis Kucinich) who
support ending the drug war, and the Green Party--a far-left
organization--supports its end, as well.
|5.28.07 @ 7:41PM|#
"Jon C Jackson says: And what sane person can actually believe
that the Democrats oppose the war? Maybe in shallow rhetoric, but
not in votes/action."
Ummm, somewhat over half those who showed up at the polls,
apparently. Unless you define insanity as "electing Republicrat
statists election after election and expecting different results
this time."
|5.28.07 @ 7:59PM|#
Bill Clinton "advocated" for legalizing the devil weed on his
way out the door.
Barney Frank sponsors bills for medical marijuana.
Let's face reality here - the Republicans will shout "Party of
Acid," again, like they spent the 70s doing, at any Democratic
proposal to even marginally reduce the scope of the drug war, so no
Democrats bother. That's how partisan politics relate to the drug
war.
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 7:59PM|#
Cesar,
I know what you refer to and have my doubts about it. Leftist drug
policy reformers are of the "treatment not incarceration" school
and if that treatment is less than voluntary we haven't gotten
anywhere, ideologically speaking. Their intentions maybe good ,(
road to Hell pavement etc) and their policies couldn't be worse
than what we have now
but I would not describe their position as "legalization" or an end
to prohibition.
Drug prohibition is a property rights issue and
lefty progressives tend to be hostile to the concept.Move beyond
the psychoactive or "recreational" drugs and what do they have to
say about non - FDA approved drugs and the free access of citizens
t0 therapeutic drugs without prescription. (Ask your lefty stoner
sports fan buddies about legal steroids).
Republicans and Democrats are about equally bad
on the drug issue but there is one difference.
American Conservatism has....(brace yourselves for the outrage) a
libertarian tradition in ideology. They respect individual liberty
and property rights more- at least in rhetoric and thought.
The progressive tradition is one of saving people from themselves,
experts know what is best for you, and attempting to legislate
outcomes.Progressives will pass laws for such things as stabilising
the weather-global warming, making cars more fuel efficent-CAFE
standards, and making people not take the wrong medicine in the
wrong dose for the wrong reason.
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 8:16PM|#
joe,
"Bill Clinton "advocated" for legalizing the devil weed on his way
out the door."
Excellent timing! I have my doubts though....
qoute/citation please.
I remember at the time there was hope/talk of his pardoning some of
the more egregious mandatory minimum defendants.The SOB would have
earned my grudging respect, instead we got Marc Rich and other poor
unfortunate victims off the hook.
Single IOssue Voter|5.28.07 @ 8:23PM|#
joe,
So you are saying the Republicans are more courageous? Party of
killing the poor and elderly
didn't stop them from welfare reform.
The tradition of progressive nanny State collectivism in the
Democrat party does not suggest any tendencey toward ending
prohibition- just more laws, more bureacracies, more public moneys
and perhaps calling prisons "treatment facilities".
|5.28.07 @ 8:35PM|#
SIV was certianly emotionally scarred when Carter "betrayed"
him, because it has blurred his ability to sort out reality. Nixon
actively declared a War on Drugs, he talked about it quite a bit.
Carter advocated decrim but then backed down from it when
criticized. This is equivalency how????
"Reagan's Drug War was initially a bully-pulpit kinda thing until
the Death of Len Bias when everyone, led by Tip O'Neil, tried to
outdo each other in draconian penalties."
OK, SIV, what were the votes, by party, on these laws? Which party
porportionally supported the laws the most?
I've read quite a bit of scholarly biographies on Anslinger. He may
have been a "Progressive" in the sense that back then he was for
professionalizing his administration techniques/advocating Good
Government (this often was what was meant by "Progressive", it
acquired its equivalency with "leftism" later with the WWII
Progressive Party). But he was actually a very "Conservative" man,
a religious and social authoritarian, which today we call a
"Republican" or "Conservative." Heck, J.Edgar Hoover was called a
Progressive in his day (for his professionalization of the FBI),
but does any sane man think he was anything other than a
conservative? The meanings of words change, when Michael Jackson
says you're bad he ain't insulting you...
"Leftist drug policy reformers are of the "treatment not
incarceration" school and if that treatment is less than voluntary
we haven't gotten anywhere, ideologically speaking."
Thats way progress if you ask me, mandating treatment vs. 30 year
mandatory minimums? No contest.
|5.28.07 @ 8:49PM|#
Just started googling to shut up SIV's Big Lie (won't take long
to find the roll call votes I should imagine, want to back down
before I do?). Found this quickly, from our own R. Balko's The
Agitator.
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026710.php
Here are some good parts:
"We need to get out front on this now. This week. Today. The
Republicans beat us to it in 1984 and I don't want that to happen
again. I want dramatic new initiatives for dealing with crack and
other drugs. If we can do this fast enough, he said to the
Democratic leadership arrayed around him, we can take the issue
away from the White House."
Thats Tip. As Joe noted he was trying to keep the GOP from doing
its usual authoritarian run on the drug issue. They had been
putting it on the Dems anytime any of them adovcated sensible drug
reform, and yes, many of them tried to protect their flank. This is
equivalency how? More of the GOP's frothing at the mouth anti-drug
stance, which yes often puts political pressure on the Dems to "do
something" themselves. But how is this equivalency? It's like when
my step kids fight. One urges I throw the book at the other (the
GOP) and after enough criticizing I pick some lesser punishment
(the Dems) and the 1st one walks away accusing me of being
soft...
"Paula Hawkins, the Republican of Florida, rose on the House floor
to accuse the Washington Post of treason in the War on Drugs. She
cited the Post's "sustained attack" on the administration's Drug
War, its "extensive coverage of the ACLU's opposition to drug
testing," the "bad press" it gave the "tough but successful drug
treatment program operated by Straight, Inc." and its habit of
letting "long-time advocates of illicit drug use" publish essays on
the op-ed page. The real problem, she implied, is the First
Amendment."
"
|5.28.07 @ 9:00PM|#
The Democrats are better off without Sheehan,
and now if Franken and Moore would only go.
July 4th, Philly...sounds like symbolism...
Are Libertarians going to Philly to take over?
Steve Casburn|5.28.07 @ 9:04PM|#
David,
The Democratic Party of 1972 contained a huge black base that
had only entered the party en masse eight years earlier.
Actually, black support for the Democratic Party dates from the
1930s and FDR. Goldwater was the irrecoverable blow, but even
before it the GOP had not gotten a majority of black votes in
decades.
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 9:07PM|#
"SIV's Big Lie"
So did you find the part where more Dems than Republicans voted for
the draconian drug laws in the 1980s?
And what is this praise of advocating a position and then backing
down when it proves politically problematic? I suppose you think it
is somehow "better" that Carter's Drug Czar Dr Peter Bourne was a
cokehead while he lead the bureacracy that enforced
prohibition?
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 9:23PM|#
While you are in there on the intartubes see if you can find the
rollcall on the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Maybe a facsimile of the bill with FDR's John Hancock on it
too.
I wouldn't be suprised if it was a voice vote on the 80s stuff.
|5.28.07 @ 9:45PM|#
Two senators voted against the 1986 bill, 16 Reps. Haven't found
which ones yet, but I'll still bet there were more Dems than GOPs.
The Library of Congress will be open 2morrow and I can get the
reference person to tell me how to make their service tell who
voted on what. I did find that Dole was the co-sponsor in the
Senate, and of course Reagan signed it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR05484:@@@R|TOM:/bss/d099query.html|
Try clicking on the Record Vote 302 link, thats our great
government at work...
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 10:06PM|#
Ken
"Two senators voted against the 1986 bill, 16 Reps"
Whether they were 'Rats or Repukes isn't going to tell us much.
I'll bet they were voting against some other provision of the
bill-or if it was the drugs because they had a baking soda mine
back in the home district and were upset there was no federal
subsidy to offset any declines in demand from crack
manufacturing.
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 10:12PM|#
More on Peter Bourne......
(Jimmy Carter's Drug Czar)
"Peter Bourne was never one to mince words. From the beginning he
pooh-pahed
outright grass legalization. What he did favor was cocaine
liberalization. It
could best be controlled, he told one interviewer, by "making it so
expensive
it would be restricted to very rich people."
Heh heh that one isn't in his official bio but I remember it from
back in the day. Fucking elitist asshole.
President Carter had the first Drug Czar, if I recall correctly,
and he was a coke snortin' script doctor. Sorta makes William
Bennet's hypocrisy pale in comparison.... doncha think?
Single Issue Voter|5.28.07 @ 10:17PM|#
"....Carter's capitulation to DEA hardliners, as evidenced by
his defense of the paraquat spraying campaign despite the health
threat to U.S. pot-
smokers."
There is your boy Carter with his "liberal" approach to drug
reform.
|5.28.07 @ 11:27PM|#
Stop all the drug war drivel...
What is important is who is the biggest pork killer... Dem or
Rep?
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2007/5/25/D8PBKB5G0/D8PBKB5G0.jpg
Cesar|5.28.07 @ 11:53PM|#
Now theres news that Sheehan has officially said, "Screw you
guys, I'm going home", in her final post "Good Riddance Attention
Whore".
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/28/12530/1525
Shes quitting the "peace movement" and becoming a private person
again. Thank God.
dhex|5.29.07 @ 1:00AM|#
"That's how partisan politics relate to the drug war."
being a gang of spineless hosers helps, tho'.
Guy Montag|5.29.07 @ 1:36AM|#
Thank goodness David did not post a thread about this horrid History Channel Star Wars crap straight from English 101. Believe it or not, the 'discussion' above is much better than anything about that.
|5.29.07 @ 9:53AM|#
SIV,
"So you are saying the Republicans are more courageous?"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Democrats have been
allowing themselves to be bullied on war, and drugs, since the
70s.
"Party of killing the poor and elderly
didn't stop them from welfare reform."
Bad example - welfare reform was so popular in the early 90s that
Bill Clinton won the Democratic Party's nomination pledging to
implement it. It wasn't exactly a profile in courarge for the
Republicans to back this reform.
|5.29.07 @ 12:36PM|#
BushCo? I thought the name was Chimpy McHitler. Damn, it's so hard keeping the lefty talking points straight...
|5.29.07 @ 3:56PM|#
The results are in:
Sept. 30 page 27252 Congressional Record v132
Senators
Humphrey New Hampshire R
John Melcher-Montana D
Rep.
Clay-D
CoynersD
Crane-R
Crockett-D
Dellums-D
Edwards-California
Frank-D
Gonzalez-D
Lowry-Washington-D
Mitchell-D
Roybal-
Sabo-D
Savage-D
Stokes-D
Weaver-D
Weiss-D
One GOP Senator, one Dem Senator opposed the bill. 15 Dem Reps and
only one GOP rep did so. So I stand by my statement that the Dems
(who did not control the Senate then) were disporportionately more
against the drug war bill than the GOP, though I admit it was slim
pickings either way.
Couldn't help noticing this from SIV:
"As for any liberal/leftist tendencies towards ending prohibition-
where are the retired "elder statesmen" advocating it?"
Well, I hope you notice some of those names in the list of Dems
voting against the bill...Yes, thats John Conyers and Barney Frank,
two prominent members of the current leadership. Can you imagine a
GOP leader having the courage and conviction to oppose such a
landslide bill? Neither could I. Since there are no Reps or Sens
with an L by their name, the only resistance to the drug war comes
from some (adimittedly a minority) with a D beside theirs. How're
them apples?
|5.29.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Now that we've looked at actual numbers on the Drug War Bill,
how about the ones on the topic of this thread, the Iraq War? Why,
both partys are to blame, right, a pox on both their houses?
Voting Nay on authorization of military force on Iraq 2002:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
Keep looking for those R's that voted nay SIV, keep looking...Keep
looking (there's Chafee, any others?). Yeah, a pox on both their
houses...What bullshit. The GOP is way worse. Face reality
Single Issue Voter|5.29.07 @ 8:27PM|#
But Ken......I supported opening the Iraq front in the War on
Terror!
I still maintain the Democrat opposition to the 1986 Drug bill in
no way reflects any Dem opposition to drug prohibition. Count the
numbers- more Democrat Congressman voted for that bill than did
Republican reps(as they had more than a 16 seat majority)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245