I think it would be great if we had an ongoing string devoted to political conversation. So, hopefully, I am getting things rolling.

I love http://pollingreport.com which tracks all kinds of opinion polls and shows long term trends on all kinds of political issues and personalities. Yesterday they posted the latest poll results on party affiliation. 36 per cent say they are Democrats. 30 per cent say they are Republicans. 22 per cent say they are Independents. 12 per cent say they identify with another party.

The Democrats have been on top for decades but the margin has steadily declined. In 2005 the Democrats regained some of their popularity but one year is not enough to discern a trend. We remain a closely divided country.

I'm not sure why Republicans have held control over Congress since 1994. Maybe more people vote Republican than admit they are Republican. More likely and backed with some evidence is that Democrats don't vote as faithfully as Republicans do. Even more likely is that Incumbents usually win whether they are Republican or Democrat. That's the main reason why Congress remained under the Democrats for most of 1930-1994 and now Republican since 1994. The rich have been supporting these Republican incumbents like never before. That helps a lot.

I do believe that the interests of average Americans are better served by Democrats than Republicans but few average Americans care enough about politics to even vote much less work for political candidates or contribute to their campaigns.

I sure would like to see the Democrats take over at least one of the houses of Congress, the Senate or the House of Representatives, in November. I think it would be good for the country to have congressional committees investigating the administration with a strong use of their subpoena powers. Maybe progressive Christians should go all out to get Democrats elected to Congress just to get this power which could bring many abuses of power to light. We don't have to sign up as Democrats for the long haul.

I think that the political conversation in this country is not very polite these days and I would blame the Left just as much as the Right for that. Progressive Christians need to challenge politicians and media personalities to be far more kind and gentle and humble.

I think a label for me would be Radical Centrist! I believe that the American Eagle needs both wings with most of the weight in the Center. Currently the weight has shifted to the Right side of Center. A course correction is needed. Centrists need to boldly challenge both parties to become civil, polite, pragmatic, and most important of all, open. We can solve our problems with a new spirit of openness. Our media is failing us by not digging very hard and not informing us very much. The dumbing down of America has really hurt all of us, really threatens the well being of the whole planet. Is this what the rich and the big global corporations want so they can run the world with little accountability? Is this how they think: Let the people with little power scream at each other why we are getting away with murder?

Sorry for starting the topic twice and posting twice. I was trying to get USA capitalized. But it came out Usa again. Maybe the webmaster could delete one of the topics and edit the topic so it would be USA and not Usa.

I'm an Independent, and I score "centrist" on all the political party tests.

I vote for the candidate and not the party. I'd probably vote McCain over Hillary. (Who IS running next term anyway?)

As far as the thread title, the board has a glitch that does the capitalization screw-up thingy. You'd have to put periods between the letters U.S.A. in order for it to stay capitalized.

What is it about Hillary?

I have to admit that McCain may be exactly what this country needs. I think, once elected, he would say -- and mean it -- that he is President of all of us and not just the Right Wing or Republicans. He would do what Bush promised to do but failed to do and didn't even try -- create a much more civil and uniting atmosphere.

From Wikipedia.com

"Progressivism is a political philosophy whose adherents promote public policies that they believe would lead to positive social change. As a broad characterization of political leanings, political progressivism mostly refers to social liberalism, social democracy, or green politics. Progressivism may also mean prefering moderate change, as opposed to minimal or maximum change. In this sense, it is contrasted with reactionary, conservative, as well as radical ideology. Progressive logic is the value logic that gives an underlying unity to this diversity of views." (and)

"Progressive Christianity has a long history in American politics. It focuses on the biblical injunctions that God's people live correctly, that they promote social justice and act to fight poverty, racism, and other forms of injustice. There are also some groups that take an inclusive approach to all life, human and non-human and place a positive value on the earth, as God's creation. Progressive Christians see themselves acting in the public sphere."

I grew up in Wisconsin in the 1950's in an environment that closely matched both definitions above. I'm in the "moderate change" category because larg scale change can lead to: (a) unintended consequences that may be hard to correct (such as creating new marginalized groups) and, ( a high level of change seems to be correlated with high levels of fear and anxiety. This can lead to reactions such as "returing to the past" where things are more comfortable, etc. It's one thing to be in a group that desires change and quite another to be in the group expected to change!

minsocal

I dunno what it is about Hillary. I just don't like the woman. I don't have a good reason for it. I might vote for her depending on who she was running against.

Does it feel that way to you too? That you are more voting against someone than for someone?

Sometimes, yeah. My vote in the last presidential election was more of a vote against Bush, than a vote for Kerry.

I would vote AGAINST Rice. (Sheesh, I never thought I'd hear myself saying that I'd vote against any woman that ran for President. )

However, if McCain runs, I would vote FOR him, for sure.

YUP !!!

flow....

If Rice would win the party nomination, then it would be kind of a first. The only people who win nominations that have not won elected office (I am not counting vice presidents as they are "kind of" elected) are presidents of popular wars (for instance Eisenhower). She has to do with a war, but it is a very unpopular one. I'm not aware of any other president (at least in recent history) that would win a party nomination by basically being black and charming.

--des

One of my favorite columnists and one of my favorite Texans is Molly Ivins. She often speaks for me. As of today you can find a regular link to her columns at "MI" in my shortlist of links at my website (below). So, when Molly Ivins says she is giving up on the Democrats in favor of a new third party effort, my response is to sit up and listen carefully. Molly speaks for the many Americans who are getting more and more frustrated with the unwillingness of many Democrats to fight for issues which polls show are popular. These include ending the war, saving the environment, ending the big tax cuts for the rich, raising the minimum wage and creating a single-payer healthcare system.

AlterNet offers "Why Hillary Won't Save Us" by Molly Ivins > http://www.alternet.org/story/31109/ OR http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/c...ts/molly_ivins/

Anyone see 60 Minutes yesterday ? What do you think about Kinky Friedman running for Governor of Texas? Has Ms. Ivens written about this ? Sounds like a third party effort to me.

He had equally bad things to say about Republicans and Democrats. If I lived there he'd get my vote. I love the name of his band, The Texas Jewboys !

flow....

Des-

I know you might not agree with her politics, but do you really believe "black and charming" are the sum of Rice's qualifications? Google her name and qualifications....quite a resume.

I don't think you meant it that way, but it seems the left is sometimes condescending to a woman or minority if they serve in a conservative administration...and specifically, I think this has been done in her case.

I'm with you on this one Darby. Having served as executive staff at a large research university, I know what it takes to succeed as she did, and more importantly to survive.

I like to comment that universities is where back-stabbing was invented in the tenth century. You can be stabbed so expertly at these places you don't realize that it was fatal until three years later.

flow....

No Darby, I didn't mean to imply that was her sole qualifications for *any* job-- for ex. I think she is a capable (though I might not agree iwth her Sec of State-- not exactly an eency job), but that there have not been any (to my knowledge) recent successful (I mean winning the party nomination) for president who have not won elective office or were not a five star general of a popular war. Perhaps there will be an exception this time, but there are a lot of things that she has no experience with that could only be gained by elective office. (Her skills to me seem to be better applied to such fields as foriegn service, etc.)

I wasn't really being condescending, I was being flip. She is on the losing side of an administration running an unpopular war, and a key proponent of that war.
As far as the general population, I don't think that they even necessarily know she is Sec of State, or even what the Sec of State does, but they see her around as spokesperson for an unpopular administration and an unpopular war, but she is quite charming about it.
She would have to do a great deal of work to establish herself to others in some other way "to win". (I don't even think her name would ever come up for president if she were not black and female-- sort of a counter to Hillary, imo. And she has repeatedly said she does not want the job afaik.)


I think you are misreading my statement. I think you are taking the line "to win" out of the statement. "To win" one needs name recognition, and the name recognition is based on an opinion or actions of the person that are visible to the general population. For example, I thikn it is questionable that Kerry had the kind of personality or temperament that would have made it likely that he would win. I doubt John McCain, who I really like, has the temperament. Taking the word "to win" out of my statement strips it of its basic meaing.


You may be right about people on the left being condescending towards minorites on the right. I think it goes from a long line of people taking big stands against affirmitive action while being perhaps the direct recepient of it. At least this has been my feeling. I'm not sure it applies to her, as I haven't heard her make any statement pro or con.

--des

My personal view is that minoirities, rather it be racial, gender, ethnic, or sexual orientation, are rather naive when they support Right wing politicians -- they are being used as a means to an end.

That is one thing I don't get about people like Ann Coulter and Laura Schlessenger, by their own standards neither should be speaking, they are after all women and the right doesn't have much use for women except to appeal to their emotional side in order to get their votes and then turn around and demean them.

Reminds me of the irony of Newt talking about family values.

The Hamas victory in Palestine is interesting.

Democracy in the Middle East! I guess sometimes getting what you pray for leads to unanticipated events.

Probably the best way to look at it is that they threw the bums out. As did the Canadian voters recently (turning Right) as did the German voters recently (turning Right) as did the Spanish voters recently (turning Left) as did about 5 South American nations in the past 5 years (turning Left). Right turns, Left turns. The voters keep moving us to the pragmatic Center. This is good. Very good.

The amazingly peaceful election in Palestine can be seen as a beacon of hope. But we will have to actually listen to the people of Palestine who have spoken and want to be heard. If we just keep labeling them terrorists and refuse to listen, then we are saying that democracy is not our real goal in the Middle East. The Palestinians have real grievances which have not been addressed. They need to be heard. They need justice from the world, from Israel, from the United States.

I think the Right can be pretty condescending toward "minorites" as well. The most obvious example was the ridiculous running of Alan Keyes against Barack Obama
in the last senate race here in Illinois.

As an African-American myself I can say I wouldn't vote for Condoleeza Rice under any circumstances. I find the assumption from some conservatives that I should vote for her because she is black as absurd as telling a white conservative that he should vote for Ralph Nader because he's white.

There is an old saying "Not everybody that's of your color is of your kind, or everybody of your kind of your color." This does not just refer to skin color , but also to religion, sexual orientation , Political party etc..


MOW

Yes, I heard Barak Obama discuss this. Apparently Alan Keyes said that Jesus would supprot Obama! Obama remarked that he wondered who had done the pollilng! ;-)

Mow,as a matter of fact, your comments are much in line with mine. My assertion, that Rice is not really a "real candidate", in terms of what a regular candidate would need to do to get popular support-- governor, senator, house of several years, etc. or a general in a popular war. My feelilng is that Rice was picked out as the ultimate threat to Hilllary. There was a book written to support her candidacy (where as I say, I don't think she is really seeking it at all). A woman (or man) of her background would more likely go into some type of foriegn service than to seek public office. It isn't that she doesn't have skills, but those skills wouldn't typically go towards public office and it would be very much a first.

On a different topic, I understand the Palestinian elections were held when they were due to pressure from the Bush administration. The (now minority) party wanted to wait on the election. This is due to the absurd assumption that democracy is always a good thing or better than the alternative. Hitler was voted into office initially at least, and was wildly popular, in case someone forgot! Be careful what you wish for. If there were democratic elections in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc etc. there would be no doubt many new "democratic" Islamic 'democracies". I have also heard that it is quite likely women will be worse off in Iraq than they were under Sadam Hussein. I'm quite sure things will be worse for women in Palestine as well.


--des

MOW

As I have travelled through life, much of it in Illinois, I was always intrigued by the reality that some people were white on the outside and seemed black on the inside, while others were obviously black on the outside and definitely white on the inside. We called it the "oreo cookie effect"; and, now it's interesting that this same metaphor is being used by some to describe quantum gravitational effects. Some cosmos we live in. No wonder we're all so dazed and confused.

flow....

I agree with the Christian Right about one thing and that is that religion and politics do mix and must mix. Actually it was the Christian Left which taught me this in the 60s. A renewed Christian Left is now emerging as more and more of us realize we can't ignore politics especially when the planet is in such great danger.

Gandhi said: “Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.” He also said: “A religion that takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.” Of course he taught a kind of politics which is quite profound since he is known as an apostle of non-violence and he led many important non-violent actions which helped to bring about the independence of India in 1947. He tried to end the horrible violence between Muslims and Hindus which caused millions of deaths and horrendous destruction in the late 40s. He was assassinated during this effort. Sometimes you have to die trying. He certainly wasn’t the only one. The list of such martyrs in the cause of peace and justice is massive. But try we must. Yes, we must try over and over and over again to create a realm where peace and justice overcome violence and injustice. Much has been accomplished. Much has yet to be done.

And, so, I write about, blog about, talk about, participate in, political causes even while my main emphasis is spiritual formation, or religion. Politics is simply too important for anyone to ignore and authentic spiritual seekers know that as well as any one.

Agreed. I've posted this definition before:

"Progressive Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Progressive Christianity has a long history in American politics. It focuses on the biblical injunctions that God's people live correctly, that they promote social justice and act to fight poverty, racism, and other forms of injustice. There are also some groups that take an inclusive approach to all life, human and non-human and place a positive value on the earth, as God's creation. Progressive Christians see themselves acting in the public sphere.

A priority of justice and care for the down-trodden are present from before Christianity. These are carried on carrying through the early church, the monastic movement, the ministry of healing, the Catholic and Protestant churches, to the Progressive Movement in the 19th century United States of America and the Social Gospel.

Since the 1900s progressive Christianity was influential in determining what constitutes the values by which a good society is run. It stressed fairness, justice, responsibility, and compassion, and condemns the forms of governance that wage unjust war, rely on corruption for continued power, deprive the poor of facilities, or exclude particular racial or sexual groups from fair participation in national liberties.

Progressive Christianity was most influential in the US mainline churches. It has also been an important influence on student activism globally.

Progressive Christians have been active in the ecumenical movement, for example the World Student Christian Federation and the World Council of Churches internationally, and at the national level through groups such as the National Council of Churches in the USA and Australian Student Christian Movement."

I apologize for the repetition ... but this has meant a great deal to me in my lifetime and, in in the last three or four years it has again become a central focus of my life.

minsocal

What means to what end are they (minorities) being used? Is this the old ‘how could you be a black man and also a Republican’ line?

To make the right appear non-racist, non-sexist, and non-homophobic! They are all three. It is not a matter of rather or not an African-american, a woman, or someone who is gay can be a Republican but rather why would someone join a group that has oppressed them for generations?

Check out the new low that Bush has reached in CBS POLL -- 34 per cent! >

READ > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/...in1350874.shtml

Ahhh Yes !

And that's precisely why he is on a presidential tour of south Asia bringing the promises of freedom and democracy to the masses there this week. Bet his numbers will be up next week !

flow....

READ > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0301-34.htm < "What to Do When the Emperor Has No Clothes" by Garrison Keillor

IT BEGINS > "These are troubling times for all of us who love this country, as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to let the air out of him and mail him home flat. And then you read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, 'Try much harder.'"

READ > http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0219-20.htm < "What It Means to be a Republican" by Larry Beinhart

EXCERPT > "Alberto Gonzales helped come up with the program that rejected the Geneva Conventions, that permits torture, that says that the president is above the law and that “I was only following orders” should be a defense against a charge of war crimes. Ah, if only the Nazi war criminals who were hung at Nuremberg had Gonzales there to defend them. The president nominates Gonzales to be his new Attorney General. He is confirmed with little debate and no outrage. That’s what it means to be a Republican."

READ & WATCH > http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1442243 < Lawless World: Bush Considered Flying US Spy Planes Painted With UN Colors Over Iraq In 2003 to Provoke War

Should religion be apart of American politics? Not so much.. Look what the Religious right has done to the republicans. (Those people who used to stand for fiscal responsibility and small government)

I heard a gentleman on TV say mixing politics and religion is like mixing manure and ice cream. It doesn’t hurt the manure (politics) but it spoils the ice cream. (Religion)

Hasn’t Christianity suffered from GWB’s bungles?

See all the God fear’n RR folks who voted for GWB because their preachers told them that George is God’s candidate because he is against gay marriage and abortion and human/goat hybrids. Then George starts a war, tortures people, and ignores the poor.

One should not separate ones faith from any part of their life but picking a candidate to vote for should not be based on faith, it should be based on facts

Calling a candidate, right or left, "more" Christian is dangerous. “Good” values are not necessarily dependent on one’s religion or political persuasion. They are reflected in one’s deeds. And we must discern this with rational, unbiased analysis.

Read this article right here at TCPC

https://www.tcpc.org/resources/articles/thank_god.htm

Our founding fathers knew the dangers of state sanctioned religion. We mustn’t forget history.


Forrest

may God spare us John McCain

he is anti choice, he has been a huge cheerleader and supporter for all of Bush's economic programs and wherever you find Bush you find McCain rolling back taxes for the rich, slashing programs for the poor

McCain tosses you a cookie and offers an anti torture bill, Bush signs and says he doesn't have to abide by it, and McCain has noting - everyone has done their PR work

about a year ago the New Yorker ran a very revealing article on McCain in which among other things he pronounces his affinity for the very conservative - he is anti chocie, anti gay rights, anti programs for the poor, pro tax cuts for the rich, has never done a thing much for minorities in this country and was right there when the money was being passed out in the Keating 5 scandal.

Had McCain - Bush's warm up act on stages all across the country last fall - really wanted to do something new, he would have joined with Kerry on a fusion unity ticket to oust Bush. Instead, this man gavce you four more years of Bush so he could have his shot at the top job. That he palces ambition over country -

just say no to John McCain. Because when push comes to shove, he will say no to you.

I don't like McCain either. Now I know why

from the new issue of New Yorker

excerpt:
If you are inclined to think that the unjustly awarded election of 2000 led to one of the worst Presidencies of this or any other era, it is not easy to look at Al Gore. He is the living reminder of all that might not have happened in the past six years (and of what might still happen in the coming two). Contrary to Ralph Nader’s credo that there was no real difference between the major parties, it is close to inconceivable that the country and the world would not be in far better shape had Gore been allowed to assume the office that a plurality of voters wished him to have. One can imagine him as an intelligent and decent President, capable of making serious decisions and explaining them in the language of a confident adult.

another excerpt:
But in the context of the larger political moment, the current darkness, Gore can be forgiven his miscues and vanities. It is past time to recognize that, over a long career, his policy judgment and his moral judgment alike have been admirable and acute. Gore has been right about global warming since holding the first congressional hearing on the topic, twenty-six years ago. He was right about the role of the Internet, right about the need to reform welfare and cut the federal deficit, right about confronting Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo. Since September 11th, he has been right about constitutional abuse, right about warrantless domestic spying, and right about the calamity of sanctioned torture. And in the case of Iraq, both before the invasion and after, he was right—courageously right—to distrust as fatally flawed the political and moral good faith, operational competence, and strategic wisdom of the Bush Administration.


the whole article
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/arti...ta_talk_remnick
OZONE MAN
Issue of 2006-04-24
Posted 2006-04-17
David Remnick

The imminence of catastrophic global warming may be a subject far from the ever-drifting mind of President Bush—whose eschatological preoccupations privilege Armageddon over the Flood—but it is of growing concern to the rest of humanity. Climate change is even having its mass-entertainment moment. “Ice Age: The Meltdown”—featuring Ellie the computer-animated mammoth and the bottomless voice of Queen Latifah—has taken in more than a hundred million dollars at the box office in two weeks. On the same theme, but with distinctly less animation, “An Inconvenient Truth,” starring Al Gore (playing the role of Al Gore, itinerant lecturer), is coming to a theatre near you around Memorial Day. Log on to Fandango. Reserve some seats. Bring the family. It shouldn’t be missed. No kidding.

“An Inconvenient Truth” is not likely to displace the boffo numbers of “Ice Age” in Variety’s weekly grosses. It is, to be perfectly honest (and there is no way of getting around this), a documentary film about a possibly retired politician giving a slide show about the dangers of melting ice sheets and rising sea levels. It has a few lapses of mise en scène. Sometimes we see Gore gravely talking on his cell phone—or gravely staring out an airplane window, or gravely tapping away on his laptop in a lonely hotel room—for a little longer than is absolutely necessary. And yet, as a means of education, “An Inconvenient Truth” is a brilliantly lucid, often riveting attempt to warn Americans off our hellbent path to global suicide. “An Inconvenient Truth” is not the most entertaining film of the year. But it might be the most important.

The catch, of course, is that the audience-of-one that most urgently needs to see the film and take it to heart—namely, the man who beat Gore in the courts six years ago—does not much believe in science or, for that matter, in any information that disturbs his prejudices, his fantasies, or his sleep. Inconvenient truths are precisely what this White House is structured to avoid and deny.

In the 1992 campaign against Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush mocked Gore as “ozone man” and claimed, “This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.” In the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush cracked that Gore “likes electric cars. He just doesn’t like making electricity.” The younger Bush, a classic schoolyard bully with a contempt for intellect, demanded that Gore “explain what he meant by some of the things” in his 1992 book, “Earth in the Balance”—and then unashamedly admitted that he had never read it. A book that the President did eventually read and endorse is a pulp science-fiction novel: “State of Fear,” by Michael Crichton. Bush was so excited by the story, which pictures global warming as a hoax perpetrated by power-mad environmentalists, that he invited the author to the Oval Office. In “Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush,” Fred Barnes, the Fox News commentator, reveals that the President and Crichton “talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement.” The visit, Barnes adds, “was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more.”

As President, Bush has made fantasy a guide to policy. He has scorned the Kyoto agreement on global warming (a pact that Gore helped broker as Vice-President); he has neutered the Environmental Protection Agency; he has failed to act decisively on America’s fuel-efficiency standards even as the European Union, Japan, and China have tightened theirs. He has filled his Administration with people like Philip A. Cooney, who, in 2001, left the American Petroleum Institute, the umbrella lobby for the oil industry, to become chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he repeatedly edited government documents so as to question the link between fuel emissions and climate change. In 2005, when Cooney left the White House (this time for a job with ExxonMobil), Dana Perino, a White House spokesperson, told the Times, “Phil Cooney did a great job.” A heckuva job, one might say.

Last week, Gore dropped by a Broadway screening room to introduce a preview of “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dressed in casual but non-earth-tone clothes, he gave a brief, friendly greeting. If you are inclined to think that the unjustly awarded election of 2000 led to one of the worst Presidencies of this or any other era, it is not easy to look at Al Gore. He is the living reminder of all that might not have happened in the past six years (and of what might still happen in the coming two). Contrary to Ralph Nader’s credo that there was no real difference between the major parties, it is close to inconceivable that the country and the world would not be in far better shape had Gore been allowed to assume the office that a plurality of voters wished him to have. One can imagine him as an intelligent and decent President, capable of making serious decisions and explaining them in the language of a confident adult. Imagining that alternative history is hard to bear, which is why Gore always has the courtesy, in his many speeches, and at the start of “An Inconvenient Truth,” to deflect that discomfort with a joke: “Hello, I’m Al Gore and I used to be the next President of the United States.”

Those inclined to be irritated by Gore all over again will not be entirely disappointed by “An Inconvenient Truth.” It can be argued that at times the film becomes “Death of a Salesman,” with Gore as global warming’s Willy Loman, wheeling his bag down one more airport walkway. There are some awkward jokes, a silly cartoon, a few self-regarding sequences, and, now and then, echoes of the cringe-making moments in his old campaign speeches when personal tragedy was put to questionable use. (To illustrate the need to change one’s mind when hard reality intrudes, he recalls helping his father farm tobacco as a youth and then his sister’s death from lung cancer.) But in the context of the larger political moment, the current darkness, Gore can be forgiven his miscues and vanities. It is past time to recognize that, over a long career, his policy judgment and his moral judgment alike have been admirable and acute. Gore has been right about global warming since holding the first congressional hearing on the topic, twenty-six years ago. He was right about the role of the Internet, right about the need to reform welfare and cut the federal deficit, right about confronting Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo. Since September 11th, he has been right about constitutional abuse, right about warrantless domestic spying, and right about the calamity of sanctioned torture. And in the case of Iraq, both before the invasion and after, he was right—courageously right—to distrust as fatally flawed the political and moral good faith, operational competence, and strategic wisdom of the Bush Administration.

In the 2000 campaign, Gore was cautious, self-censoring, and in the thrall of his political consultants. He was even cautious about his passion, the environment. That caution, some of his critics think, may have cost him Florida, where he was reluctant to speak out on the construction of an ecologically disastrous airport in the middle of the Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. But since the election––especially since emerging from an understandable period of reticence and rebalancing—Gore has played a noble role in public life. It’s hardly to Gore’s discredit that many conservative commentators have watched his emotionally charged speeches and pronounced him unhinged. (“It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again,” the columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer wrote after one such oration.)

It may be that Gore really has lost his taste for electoral politics, and that, no matter what turn the polls and events take, an Al-versus-Hillary psychodrama in 2008 is not going to happen. There is no substitute for Presidential power, but Gore is now playing a unique role in public life. He is a symbol of what might have been, who insists that we focus on what likely will be an uninhabitable planet if we fail to pay attention to the folly we are committing, and take the steps necessary to end it.

I like John McCain's stand on election reform and some other issues but not enough to vote for him. In fact, I think Al Gore would be a great president. He is, perhaps, the best and most ardent environmentalist politician there is. He is all right on global warning and lots of other issues. All the lastest environmental news is very scary. I think we need someone to do something about it. I think we needed to do something dramatic like yesterday.

--des

What scares me about the coming election is that the House districts have become so gerrymandered that the Democrats could get 3 million more votes than the Republicans and still not take control of the House. Since the Democrats have willingly participated in this plot, they have no one to blame but themselves if this happens. But it was done partially for a very positive reason: more representation for minorities.

I would like to see us draw up districts in a more reasonable way even if African Americans and Hispanics temporarily have less representation. It doesn't help them to have more represntation if their party is always in the minority because of the gerrymandering.

+ There are many reasons, of course, for the huge Democratic victory on Tuesday. I like to look at the returns region by region and state by state and here are some of my findings so far:

The Northeast is more solidly Democratic than the South is solidly Republican. This is a significant shift since 2004. Even with less population, the Northeast now cancels out the South and then some. I believe this is a reaction to the Rove strategy of depending on the Conservative base. Liberals and many Moderates became increasingly frustrated and angry and have now claimed a majority which may last for a while.

Gerrymandering favors the Republicans in the Midwest. The Democrats outpolled the Republicans 11,160,000 to 10,070,000 in House elections but the Republicans won 51 seats and the Democrats won 49 seats. If Democrats have a bigger say in drawing up districts after the next census, then the Democrats should be able to pick up a few more seats in the Midwest. Ohio & Michigan gave Democrats many more votes -- 3.9 million to 3.4 million -- but Republicans won 20 seats and Democrats 13. There's definitely something wrong there.

Here's the breakdown of the House seats by regions:
Northeast: D=68; R=24 South: D=58; R=87 Midwest: D=49, R=51 West: D=57; R=41 TOTAL: D=232; R=203
There will be a few changes when it's all official but not much.

By vote count, The Democrats won in the Northeast, Midwest and West. The Republicans won in the South.

Karl Rove's strategy of pandering to the Conservative base has backfired and left the Republicans in a bad position for 2008. The Democrats have both strenghthened their Liberal base and won over the Moderates. Some are saying that the great Conservative revolution of 1980 (Presidential) and 1994 (Congress) is over. Maybe!

+++

This is the latest blog post at the abundancetrek blog

+++

Open Letter to the Newly Elected Democratic Congress

Hello, my name is Joe Average American. I just elected you to the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have 2 children at home and one out of the home. My household income is somewhere in the general vicinity of the American median income.

I put up signs in my yard and on the roads for you. I put bumper stickers on my car for you. I talked to people for you and encouraged them to vote for Democrats because it is time for a change. I made telephone calls for Move.Org for the Senate races in Virginia, Missouri, and Montana for you. I contributed money for local candidates, no not thousands, just a few hundred, but remember, I am Joe Average, not Joe Millionaire.

The catch is though, I am not a do good chuckle head, I want something. The first thing on my agenda is I don’t want to you fully cooperate or even compromise with the most corrupt, inefficient, administration in the history of our country. I voted for you because I want change!

I want you to protect Social Security, not set up “private accounts” that give Bush’s boys on Wall Street more money to gamble with. I want some protection in my old age. If I want to gamble, I can play the market without the federal government’s nose in it.

I want single payer universal health care. The health care situation is out of control, the profits of the insurance companies are obscene. The insurance companies brutalize both the patient and the doctor.

Do something about our border. National security is not served when literally millions of people are pouring across our border illegally. Not only do we need a strong Border Patrol we need heavy fines and imprisonment for EMPLOYERS that hire illegal. These are wealthy agri-business and construction firms that put money into the pockets of politicians. The 700 hundred mile fence on a 2,000 mile border is a farce and we both know it. It is just another boondoggle and money maker for the Republican’s pals in the construction business while it looks like the government is doing something about the border problem.

Related to the border issue, could we please have a sane, humane immigration policy? No you are not going to put 12 million people on buses and planes and send them back to their countries of origins. Can we please deal with people who have often been here for years and years, working, paying taxes, and having children, in a humane way in country that says in part in its ‘Pledge of Allegiance’, “with liberty and justice for all”?

I want you to do something about corporate welfare, tax breaks for the wealthy, and subsidies for the oil companies. It is obscene that our government gives tax breaks and subsides to Big Oil while they rape us at the gas pump; yet the same administration cuts Veteran’s programs and screams about entitlement programs. Can you please start to put people before profits?


We are a sick people in an increasingly toxic environment. Some of us “average” types are starting to figure out that when dope head and verbal abuser of the disabled, Rush Limbaugh says “the government needs to get out of the way and let business regulate itself”, that means big business gets to poison our food, pollute our air, and foul the waterways, Please I want a healthy earth and a healthy America, we need environmental regulation.

Finally, make peace. The biggest reason Joe and Jane Average American voted for you is we want peace. We want America to be beacon of light for the world, not a bully who the world fears and hates.

God Bless you in your mission! Stand up to tyranny!

Respectfully,

Joe Average American

Jim Ramelis
Gould City Michigan

In the past, I would have voted for Keyes for Pres if he could have gotten the nomination.
Bill

Though I at least partially agree with you on the border issue and maybe insurance, I really am amazed that you ask some of these things of Democrats. Some of the things you ask would require a sharp right turn by dedicated leftists. Though you will definetly get change, we will have to see if you actually like it. And are we expecting a Nancy Pelosi, famous for marching side by side with NAMBLA, to actually enforce our borders? When the people coming across will someday vote ( illegally or otherwise) for her party?

And particularly good luck on that "make peace/Stand up to tyranny" thing. It will be interesting to see them actually make peace with those who have sworn to destroy us because of who we are. The same ones who consider all Jews monkeys and pigs. And the rest of us "infidels" not much better. Now they might surrender to them in order to enable the next, and even worse, 9-11. They will have the same success dealing with our enemies as Bill Clinton did, which got us from WTC bomb #1, to the various embacy bombings, Somalia, USS Cole and finally to 9-11. And in the middle of all of this, even nuclear weapons in North Korea. That really worked, negotiating with the North Koreans and taking their word that they would not develop nuclear weapons! The old soft loving approach didn't work then with any of America's enemies, and it won't work now.

The Republicans were traitorous to the basic conservative principles that they got elected on. They deserved a good whipping in and they got it. UNFORTUNATELY, their only replacement was Democrats. The bad replaced by worse. But the country only seems to know two ways -- Republican or Democrat. Though there was originally some hope for supposedly conservative Republicans, it turns out both parties are toxic. Though I definitely consider the Democratic Party more toxic. It should be an interesting two years. And if the Democrats don't have a truly disastrous two years (highly likely), then probably Obama or Hillary will be president. So let's sit back and see the wonders that the Democrats can do for us. By the way, those of you with a median income, lets see if the Democrats reverse any tax cuts that would apply to median incomes, thus lowering the take-home pay of multiple millions. It's going to be an interesting two years!

But hey! The Republicans went left once they were in office, and after many years of it were punished by conservatives who were disgusted with them. Maybe the Democrats actually will turn right once back in office! That's very hard to actually believe, but occasionally miracles do happen.

Good luck
Bill

Bill, I think a lot of Progressives anf Latinos want a good strong border and a humane immigration policy. In the 2004 election Kerry gave a speech in Arizona where he said he was basically going to have a liberal border crossing policy and his ratings among Latinos went down. Constant waves of improversished immigrants. guest worker programs, and un documented workers keep wages down, and the biggest victims of this wage depression are other Latinos. A sane immigration policy and strong well patrolled border is good for all.

Big Brother can't spell it out for you, but winning in Iraq is control of oil production. If Iraqi oil were flooding the market now prices would be depressed and there would be more good old fashioned capitalist competition. The Republicans don't want that. They want maximum profit for their home boys, the big oil companies. (Watch now as gas prices start to rise. Big oil didn't want you mad at their fellow gangsters when you went to the polls. Big Brother media will give you another spin, but it is no coincidence.) Nobody wants to send their child off to die for good "geo-political' postioning and the profit margins of big oil. But if Iraq is lumped in with the "war on terror" suddenly it becomes much more heroic.

Lets use an European analogy to explain what happened in Iraq. On 9/11 we are attacked by a right wing extremist Catholic group, consiting mostly of European Latins. 15 of the attackers were from France, 2 from Italy, and two from Portugal .So we attacked Spain, who had absolutely nothing to do with the attack. But we don't like the leader of Spain and we want to control the oil production in Spain. But what the hell, they are all European, they are all Latins, and they are Catholic countries. Americans would be outraged over the stupidity and heavy handedness of such logic. Yet, that is exactly what we did in Iraq.

I am overjoyed that John Dingell, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer are poised to take positions of power.And Vermont sent Bernie Sanders to the Senate! Hurray! Hurray! Hurray !

WWJT?(Who Would Jesus Torture?)

Jim R et al:

Since I have seen and experienced lots of stuff in life, I would counsel us all to folllow the advice that the name of a popular TV program provides...Curb Your Enthusiasm. There are lots of things to begin in the next few years and they are all pretty earth shaking. Compromise, which is the necessary tool of the powers that direct any democratic society, will be engaged on overtime on most issues.

We know from what science and technological advances are telling us that the future is going to be way different in a lot of important ways, and people are generally risk and change averse, liberals and conservatives alike. When that is the case, you can depend upon the powers that be to want to take very small steps to where they wish to go...and in the end expedience, economic and political, always determines the most good for the most people, which is the bottom line in democracies.

But it is up to the people to tell the powers just what they believe is needed. We took our first step in doing that last tuesday. I don't know about you all...but I intend to pray for ALL of our leaders. They REALLY are going to need all the help that they can get.

flow....

The Victory That Masks Defeat: Democrats Right-Leaning "Win" by Sally Kohn >
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1128-22.htm

This is an interesting article which might possibly make the Conservatives here somewhat happy. I have already pointed out here that there was no ideological shift in the electorate and there has not been since Reagan won. Yes, the Democrats won by moving to the Right, maybe even a little right of center. If they had moved to the Left, they would have lost. But my analysis differs from Sally Kohn because I believe that the victory does not reward the Conservative agenda but, rather, a centrist, pragmatic agenda. It was a rejection of the radical right. The radical left has been rejected for some time.

The basic ideological orientation of Americans is Center-Right at this point, closer to Center than Right. The GOP mistake was its pandering to the Conservative base. Almost half of Americans describe themselves as Moderates. About one-third describe themselves as conservative.

As I have said here before, the GOP had and possibly still has an opportunity to be a majority party for many years. But they would have to honor Moderates far more than they do now. Even Liberals should be honored and respected by the GOP. You don't have to agree with somebody to honor and respect them. I honor and respect Conservatives even as I disagree with Conservatives.

I begin to lose respect for people who do not respect and honor others. Sadly, Bush & Cheney & Rove & so many others have failed to honor and respect those with whom they disagree. The moderate and liberal voters of America -- two-thirds of the elctorate -- do not like to be dishonored and unrespected. Do you get the message now, Republicans? If you don't get it, you will lose again and again and again even if the country does not move to the Left.

I suspect that America will move significantly to the Left within the next decade. The window of opportunity for the GOP will close. They either will become more moderate or they will be defeated. America rejects the agenda of the radical right as well as the radical left. This is nothing new. Ask Barry Goldwater. Ask George McGovern. Only 8 years separated those 2 elections. Both the radical right and the radical left got "thumped" badly. Americans are moderate, pragmatic, sensible.

"W" tried to paint himself as a moderate in 2000 but then he governed as if the electorate had given the radical right a mandate. The people were fooled until recently. I knew the moderates would figure it out sooner or later. They did.

+ I have some more great election analysis for you!

TomPaine.com offers "The Incredible Shrinking GOP" by Paul Waldman . He asserts that "Democrats can gain from the gutting of the Republican moderate wing if they make the right moves." This is excellent election analysis. Let me point out some of the highlights and offer some comments of my own.

Number One:
On November 7, the GOP’s moderate wing, already in decline, was eviscerated.

I pointed out after the election that the Northeast bloc now exceeds the South bloc for the first time in perhaps a century even though the South has more population. Without the South, the GOP is extremely weak now: 174 Democrats to 116 Republicans. I think the Southern Strategy has finally backfired since it has made the Northeast and Coastal West mad, really mad that their concerns have been ignored in Congress in recent years. We have heard often that the Democrats were not viable in many states. Now it is clear that Republicans are not viable in many states.

Slowly but surely the South will look like the rest of the nation. Until then, the country will probably remain regionally divided. This is now working to the advantage of the Democrats. Until now, it worked to the advantage of the Republicans. What changed is that the Northeast has now become more solidly Democratic than the South is solidly Republican. Few have noticed this most significant shift.

Karl Rove's strategy of pandering to the base has possibly made the Republicans a minority party once again. The Democrats are re-establishing their great tradition of being the Big Tent.

Number Two:
Democrats now control not only the left, but the center as well.

In a sense it has been good for the Democrats that the Liberal base is smaller than the Conservative base. The Democrats know that they have to appeal to the Moderates to win elections. This is a good thing. Clinton was smart enough to get elected twice and keep the Conservatives out of executive power for eight years. But the Democrats in Congress went too far Left and lost election after election. Now that they seem to be recognizing that their strength is in the Center (and always has been), they have regained their majority. I am not sure they have learned this lesson. Only time will tell.

Number Three:
... voters repudiated conservatism itself.

I wouldn't quite go that far. I think they repudiated the radical Right which is different than true conservatism. I think voters respect real Conservatives and will vote for real Conservatives. I think the voters repudiated the cynical and hate-filled so called Christian wing of the GOP which has had too much power in this country in recent years. Americans still know what a real Christian looks like. They know that Jesus is quite unlike Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and others who come across with arrogance and intimidation and ignorance and intolerance and hate. That kind of Conservatism got "thumped" and the Republicans so far look like they haven't gotten the message. We will see.

I figured out many years ago why the progressive wing of Christianity which is associated with the so-called mainline denominations has been on the decline. The mainline denominations have not figured out that the culture changed since the 1950s. We have been offering a style of worship which simply doesn't appeal to the Baby Boomers. Once we finally come to the awareness that our style doesn't work any more, we just might surprise everybody and make a huge rebound.

People under 30 voted Democratic in higher numbers than in the older age groups. They haven't bought the agenda of the radical Right. The opportunity for progressives is enormous. I believe that this is an opportunity not only for political progressives but also for spiritual progressives. We are evolving. We are progressing. Young people intuitively know this and are eager to participate in progressive movements.