Silence is Consent

If you don't speak up you accept what is happening. This site was born out of the mainstream media's inability to cover the news. I am just an American cititzen trying to spread the word in the era of FCC consolidation, post 9/11 Patriot Act hysteria, hackable voting machines and war without end. I rant and post news items I perceive to be relevant to our current situation.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
- Thomas Jefferson

Social Security is not broken and therefore does not need to be fixed

So Called Social Security Crisis (SCSSC)

Comments, questions, corrections, rebuttals are always welcome.

Tuesday, September 23, 2003
 
I'm not exactly sure how to start this today. We need to wade into the sludge that is politics.

As most of you know--because you have been paying attention, right?--Wesley Clark announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for President last week. It has changed the dynamics of the nomination immensely. Before this announcement, Howard Dean was the front runner, and now Clark appears to be the odds-on favorite. ...if you believe the polls.

First of all, let's get this straight right away: none of the front runners for the nomination (Clark, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt) are liberals. The only liberals running for the nomination are Kucinich and Mosley-Braun. Second, Dean is the only one of the front runners who said before the war that he would not have voted for the resolution giving Bush carte blanche. By comparison, Clark in the last few days has been all over the map on whether he was for or against the war. Here is a Salon interview with Clark from March 23, 2003. This excerpt alone should count as two strikes:
Of the people who are running this war, from Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Powell on down, in terms of the political appointees, are there are any who you particularly like who you would work with again, hypothetically, in some ...

I like all the people who are there. I've worked with them before. I was a White House Fellow in the Ford administration when Secretary Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and later Secretary of Defense, and Dick Cheney was the deputy chief of staff at the White House and later the chief.

[Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz I've known for many, many years. [Deputy National Security Advisor] Steve Hadley at the White House is an old friend. [Under Secretary of Defense for Policy] Doug Feith I worked with very intensively during the time we negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreement; he was representing the Bosnian Muslims then, along with [Pentagon advisor] Richard Perle. So I like these people a lot. They're not strangers. They're old colleagues.


This guy is running for the Democratic nomination? He should be in the running to take Cheney's place under Bush! (Aside: Be on the lookout for stories about a rift between Cheney and Bush.) It is still early, but I believe that Clark has been sent by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to, in their opinion, save the party from Howard Dean. Dean has been painted as a liberal who cannot beat Bush--not by the Republicans but by the Republican wing of the Democratic party, aka the DLC.

This has so many angles to it:

Clark really wanted to be a Republican, but Rove wouldn't return his calls.

He's what they call a stalking horse for Hillary--a sham candidate put forward to conceal the candidacy of another or to divide the opposition. Clintons Anoint Clark.

So, what is going on? It looks like some good ol' politikin', that's what. It seems like the DLC wing of the party was just fine with Dean (or any of the other nine) getting the nomination as long as Bush looked unbeatable. Then Iraq went bad, the economy stayed poor and Bush's numbers started to slide. Now, Bush looks beatable and the DLC does not want a Democratic president that is not beholden to them. So send in the general. Whether he is a stalking horse for Hillary or really wanted to be a Republican, I do not know. This could be a vast right-wing conspiracy (VRWC) rearing its ugly head again because, as we all know, that nothing fires up the Republican base like a Clinton.

One more thing about all of this is the problems it could cause within the party. Since 2000, there has been much debate about its direction. Some still blame Nader (I don't). Others do not want to vote for another Republicrat (like Clinton and Gore). Some believe that no matter what the main goal is they have to get rid of Bush, hence this, The Pledge. I have not made up my mind yet who I will vote for. What I have read about Wesley Clark in the last week has not endeared me to him. Continue to pay attention to this and always remember what FDR said (above).

More sludge, different topic. If you live in Texas you know that redistricting has been in the news for the last 4-5 months. The Democrats have left the state a few times and have been worked over by the Republicans. Now everyone is back in Austin, wasting more taxpayer dollars, and those silly Democrats are waiting to see what will happen now that the Republicans can't agree on a map. What were the Repugs doing the whole time the Democrats were away? wasting the tax payers money? I would have assumed with all the time they had, they could have had this all worked out already. That goes back to my main point on this all along: this happened because of a fundamental lack of leadership among the leaders of the Texas Republican Party, mainly the Governor.

Winning the hearts and minds, U.S. Strike in Iraq reportedly Kills 3.

Oh yeah, Bush spoke at the UN today. This is hilarious and sad at the same time: Bush begs at "irrelevant" UN.

This from Australia: Journo claims proof of WMD lies.

0 comments <

0 Comments:

Post a Comment


Powered by Blogger