Definition: Progressive - A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

Excellent descriptions of what a progressive is: http://secure.ourfuture.org/whatisaprogressive/

If the description above is what a “progressive” is, why do so many who profess to be one accept candidates and representatives who do little but maintain the status quo. Point in fact many of us worked really hard to get the Democrats the majority in the U.S. House and Senate, but what have they done to move us forward toward all those things that made “progressives” (once known as “liberals”) into activists: peace, helping those in need, protecting our rights, and holding those in government accountable? We got “impeachment off the table” Pelosi and do-nothing Reid and a Congress that is spineless. We have watched Democrats, considered to be left of center, vote for Bush s Supreme Court nominees, a pro-torture Attorney General, war funding, resolutions against Iran, spying on Americans always enough Democratic senators and members of the Congress to give Bush and corporate CEOs what they want. And no impeachment which is the only thing that will stop the illegal activities of this administration. Party should never come before country.

And we have the same type of Democrats in state and local government. We are told one thing when they are running for office and they want our money and our time, and then they follow their corporate masters when they are put in office. We do nothing to hold them to their promises. The supposed “progressive” citizens are just as spineless.

As far as the presidential election, I have not gotten over the lack of support from the supposed “progressive” community for the one candidate with experience and policies and the votes that represented our views as far as the war, the Constitution, social programs and impeachment. The marginalizing by the media of Dennis Kucinich was allowed to go unchallenged by most “progressives” while pro-corporate candidates like Clinton (see articles below on her war votes) and Obama (he may have talked anti-war but didn’t put his votes where his mouth is as he consistently voted to fund the illegal wars). Edwards as well talked the talk but had a non-progressive voting record. It is not enough to verbalize a view. In my opinion, if one does not have the gumption to vote the right way, then they should not be thought of as a viable candidate. And we, as real Democrats, should not be defending them. Instead of voting for the real deal we play it safe and elect a corporate shill because we’re pragmatic party loyalists. How long are we going to keep kidding ourselves with that vote for the lesser of two evils crap? Look what your mighty lesser-of-two-evils Democrats have done to end the war since taking the House and Senate. Look what your mighty lesser-of-two-evils Democrats have done to impeach Bush/Cheney and stop illegal wiretaps and torture. Look what they have done to make sure all Americans have health care. They have done nothing. And neither of the two remaining Democratic candidates has said a word about the crimes committed and what the accountability should be. They have not even said anything about stolen elections and what they are doing to protect our vote. I found this comment at an online article to be very apropos: I don t know what change is being offered by Hillary or Obama - they re offering the same pile of shit with a little perfume.

Well, you will get the government you deserve. That government we have and will continue to have unless we stand up, is a corporatocracy (corporate fascism) and what we will see is a new corporate Democratic president who doesn t bring the troops home, lets the CIA run around the world creating more terrorists so that the war money keeps flowing, and insurance companies milking us until there is nothing left. An interesting prediction in a comment section of an article was this: Corporate Democrat wins in November - gets blamed for the economy, drags ass getting out of Iraq - idiotic Americans get pissed and give us a Republican Congress, followed by 8 years of Jeb Bush.

We have been sold a bill of goods on the local level too, and we will continue to get the same fake progressives if we do not insist on more. There was a recent article in CommonSense2 written by the editor calling to task a local representative for not standing up for the progressive ideals he proposed during his campaign. The desire for re-election should not override the responsibility of doing the right thing. The response to this editorial was a series of very personal attacks saying that a Democrat should never go after another Democrat. Most notable was that these attacks came from the very same people who had recently, on more than one occasion, done exactly that, in a very public and nasty way. I guess they think it is okay when they do it, just not anyone else. It should not matter what one’s party affiliation is. Everyone should be questioned if they say one thing to get elected and do another once they are elected. And Democrats are supposed to be better than spewing hatred towards someone more progressive who actually has the guts to speak truth to power and is not afraid to tell them to get a backbone. And all of you, stop calling yourselves what you are not. Just be the centrist pro-corporate Democrats that you have shown yourself to be. Stop giving “liberal” or “progressive” a bad name.

When I watched Ralph Nader on Russert the other day http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319781/ I saw once again, as I did when I heard Kucinich talk, what a progressive agenda really is. He is entering the race again, not because he thinks he has any chance of winning, but because he is hoping to raise the consciousness of the other candidates to revamp their policies to a more humane agenda. I could not lay out any better explanation than this

“Nader is running for the same reason he has run in the past: Because the likely nominees of the two major parties do not begin to meet the standards that might reasonably be asked of progressive contenders in 21st-century America.

Nader Runs, Obama Responds Wisely By John Nichols, The Nation

I have little hope that Nader or anyone or anything else will affect Clinton s agenda that comes out of the Bush/Clinton Dynasty, but I am hoping that it will move Obama to proudly represent true progressives so that I will not have to say that once again we find ourselves having to support the better of the worst.

I must say I have been impressed of late how Obama handles the negative comments constantly being thrown at him and how well-organized his campaign seems to be. This makes me think this might carry over to his administration if he is president. Clinton on the other hand seems to be allowing her not-very-good handlers to manage her and her campaign which does not indicate a good leader or organizer.

Why Hillary Clinton s Iraq Vote Does Matter - by Stephen Zunes

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31305

Clinton and the Iraq War Amendment

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/us/politics/02check.html?

___________________________________________________

A while back I was at a meeting where the discussion turned to the ways in which the Bush Administration was dismantling the Constitution, and I said before there would be the appropriate outrage people needed to get scared and then angry. I was yelled down with “just get angry.” I think the anger has to be a manifestation of a deep awareness of the dangerous policies and atrocities of our government and has to reach people in the dark recesses where those realizations force us to feel terrors similar to those faced by many throughout history and in our time. Many of us have been lucky in not having to see our child maimed before our eyes or being under arrest and tortured for speaking against the government, and we don’t ever want to know what that feels like. But unless you are willing to face the unspeakable as in what our government is capable of doing and has done, then you will not know the enemy you have to fight for our survival. Our children have been sent by Bush & Co. to die and be maimed and injured in their unnecessary and illegal wars. How on earth could it be a stretch that they would sacrifice other Americans in a terror attack? Such naivete leaves us vulnerable to another incident that will have to happen for the neocons to continue with their plans as laid out by the government’s National Strategic Plan based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine that came out of the neocon think tank “The Project for a New American Century ” (PNAC). In order to not be vague I am saying that if there is a terrorist attack on our country there is good reason to assume that it is an inside job, as I believe 9/11 was. The reason that something else might happen is that the plan calls for taking over Iraq, Iran, Syria and beyond. It is literally a blueprint for world domination. They were able to bring to fruition the takeover of Iraq because of 9/11, but now they need a “reason” to attack Iran. One scenerio that some worry about involves Barack Obama being killed in a “terrorist attack,” Bush calls Martial Law (bills have been passed by Congress and signing statements have been issued that now gives the president sole discretion to call Martial Law at any time), and elections are suspended…and we then have King George. In 2004 a (Republican) friend called me to let me know that he had been contacted by his college roommate from many years ago, who is now a retired three-star general. The general told him to not vote for Bush because the military was under the control of the executive branch. The military will be no help in stopping this coup.

These articles might be relevant..

In Memories of a Painful Past, Hushed Worry About Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?

Police concerned about order to stop weapons screening at Obama rally (Dallas)

http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html

And speaking of Dallas, this was brought to my attention recently, and I find it quite stunning concerning the day that JFK was assassinated…

John F. Kennedy’s bodyguards being told to stay away from JFK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpPjjKdUds

Another possible scenario involves this incident:

The Welch Whitewash: dlindorff

___________________________________________________

If you are not aware of the following items, please check them out…

North American Army created without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57228

Related item - Lou Dobbs on the North American Union
YouTube - NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Connecting The Many Undersea
Cut Cable Dots - 9 Or More?

http://www.rense.com/general80/cable.htm

This, in visual form, is what the Bush administration is capable of. Waterboarding is just one of the many forms of torture okayed by those at the top. Just what will it take to get them impeached, indicted and imprisoned for their many crimes?

New Abu Ghraib Pictures Released (viewer discretion advised)

NSFW: VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED. As an expert witness in the defense of an Abu Ghraib guard who was court-martialed, psychologist Philip Zimbardo had access to many of the images of abuse that were taken by the guards themselves. For a presentation at the TED conference in Monterey, California, Zimbardo assembled some of these pictures into a short video. Wired.com obtained the video from Zimbardo’s talk, and is publishing some of the stills from that video here. Many of the images are explicit and gruesome, depicting nudity, degradation, simulated sex acts and guards posing with decaying corpses. Viewer discretion is advised.

Not only is the Rove political hatchet job on Alabama ex-Governor Siegelman a travesty, but the brazenness of keeping the people in Alabama from seeing that segment of last Sunday’s “60 Minutes” show was stunning. Bush buddies who own the TV station in Alabama blacked out the whole Siegelman segment (not the rest of the show, just that segment) and said it was a technical glitch from CBS in New York. New York said there was no such glitch.

60 Minutes: The Prosecution of Don Siegelman

Print This Article
Email (and more) with