I wonder if the many undecided voters find it so hard to decide on a new "decider" because there's hardly a tinge of difference between any of the 3 "leading" non-leaders who have so eagerly acted as rubber-stamps for just about everything Bush has wanted. This primary strikes me as a choice between vanilla, French-vanilla, and diet vanilla. Has any voted against the war or at least its funding; Obama and Edwards voted for the Patriot Act and Obama for each renewal, and they all supported the domestic terrorist legislation. Clinton even voted against restricting cluster bombs, and which of the three hasn't voted for or supported the recent Peruvian free trade agreement?
As a matter of fact, any candidate, Ron Paul (R) or Dennis Kucinich (D), with a slightly differing take on the problems facing America have been increasingly excluded. Dennis has proved he can think on his feet and has a quick wry wit capable of bringing down the house. In the first few debates even as the moderators tried to ignore Kucinich the audience went wild with enthusiasm on more than one occasion. With each succeeding debate, Kucinich was allotted less and less time - my guess is he posed to big a threat to the status quo. (That may have been true of Ron Paul, too, but I must admit I stopped listening to the Republican debates after the first one.) This last year, Jay Leno might have envied the laugh Kucinich got from the audiance during one debate when he asked himself a question. The more lemons he was served, the better the voter pleasing lemonade Kucinich seemed to make. For whoever makes these decisions it seemed obvious that omiting Kucinich to a single question or two during a debate, wasn't working out very well so he began to be exluded all together, but why would that be?
Even though I thought it was obvious that the more the crowd responded to Dennis the more the DLC became determined to exclude him. I began to wonder if I weren't getting a bit too cynical untill last night when I stumbled over a new, to me at least, site. I didn't know that in 1986 the debates "were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters. when the The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986." I didn't realize either that '"mportant issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control, nor that Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists....Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics....For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."' Oh - could it be that some of the big defense contractors had issues with the "peace candidate"?
Since we don't have the League of Women Voters working on our behalf anymore, since the media's fairness doctrine is a thing of the past, and since the "debates" have become more like serial campaign ads. I guess we voters will need to do more homework (damn, and I've always hated homework!) I guess we should do it even though I know it's mean - candidates won't like it if we look too closely at their voting records, but maybe - just maybe - we should consider their voting records, anyway.
IRAQ/IRAN - War & Peace:
On war with Iraq and possible (or probable?) war with Iran - all three of the Democratic "leaders" were followed Bush as closely as if they were all playing a game of Simon Says. Clinton and Edwards voted for the Iraq War Authorization - and all three have continually voted to fund it, - from time to time, they have even voted to give Bush more funding than he requested. All 3 of the leading followers were prepared to keep the nuclear option open. Only Kucinich tried to sound a warning: Collision Course with Iran.
Hillery - trying too hard, perhaps, to out-macho the men - gets campaign advice straight from the Decider himself, and she voted for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment which allows Bush to aggress against Iran on any pretext without so much as informing an apparently disinterested congress.
Of course, Hillery must have figured that since Bush didn't lie us into Iraq, GW should be trusted now.) Senator Obama, perhaps the smarter politician, took the fence sitter's way out and didn't vote on that amendment. Edwards, to his credit, did speak out against the amendment, even though he was the first candidate to swear to keep the nuclear option open for Iran.
THE TORTURE BILL:
None of the 3 so called "leaders" led a fillibuster to stop the passage of the torture bill - a non-action which allowed them to appear righteous on the issue but required no moral courage. The Seattle PI criticized The Democrats Who Enable Bush - that criticism could have specifically included the 3 non-leaders .
THE VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM BILL:
Clinton and Edwards have voted yes on the Patriot Act and all three, Clinton, Edwards and Obama, have voted for Patriot Act Renewals; those votes don't bode well that they will hold the line on the erosion of our right to dissent?
The bill had bi-partisan support in the House where the vote was 404 to 6 measly votes... SIX - yeah all of SIX Democrats came to the defense of our most basic civil right - the right to dissent. So much for our glorious Democrats - they certainly didn't come in on white chargers - but maybe they did come in by way of a big ass.
The bill may have passed the House but it has yet to pass the Senate, and has yet to land on the President's desk, but are we reduced to looking to Clinton, Obama, or Edwards to protect our right to dissent when C & E voted for the Patriot Act and the CEO's all voted for its renewals.
Kucinich was one of 6 Representatives who voted against the bill HR 1955 as the bill is known in the House where it originated; 404 voted for it. Dennis Kucinich - ever the trifling nit picker - said that he believes the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955/S. 1959) is unconstitutional. Someone really should tell him the constitution is, after all, nothing but a "god damned piece of paper."
http://www.afterdowningstreet
According to the site KnowYourDemocrats.com "Only Kucinich and Mike Gravel support substantial cuts to corporate welfare." Of course, that site nit picks because it doesn't rely on rhetoric - it insists on the evidence of recorded votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment