HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Samantha » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 7,272

Journal Archives

Georgia on My Mind....

During the 2000 election controversy, I found myself doing a tremendous amount of research on Florida's constitution. It occurred to me that a search of the constitution in Georgia might hold interesting information with regard to the 40,000 (some say 50,000) registrations which are "missing." Remember, when the Secretary of State was asked to take responsibility for straightening this problem out, he uttered words to the effect that it was not his job to do so.



Paragraph I. Procedures to be provided by law. The General Assembly shall provide by law for a method of appeal from the decision to allow or refuse to allow any person to register or vote and shall provide by law for a procedure whereby returns of all elections by the people shall be made to the Secretary of State.


But it gets better!

Paragraph II. Right to register and vote. Every person who is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia as defined by law, who is at least 18 years of age and not disenfranchised by this article, and who meets minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the registration of electors.

and still better!

The state constitution has a recall provision!

Paragraph IV. Recall of public officials holding elective office. The General Assembly is hereby authorized to provide by general law for the recall of public officials who hold elective office. The procedures, grounds, and all other matters relative to such recall shall be provided for in such law.

Perhaps the disenfranchised voters in George should form a class action lawsuit and sue the Secretary of State. If they are successful in convincing the courts he violated the state constitution, not to mention the U.S. Constitution, if he is convicted, he is ripe for recall.

The problem is some have suggested the 40,000 can be given provisional ballots. However, we know that in many states provisional ballots are only counted if the election is very close. The Democrats need for all eligible votes to be counted on election day -- not provisionally.

If you are so inclined, you can read the entire section at the link above, but what do you think these quoted paragraphs suggest?


"Third Way" and "New Dem" are indicative of the former DLC crowd

As many know, Bill Clinton was the first candidate sponsored by the DLC to reach the Oval Office. During his term in office, he personally tried to come up with a new term to describe his politics. "Third Way" and "New Dem" both were labels he considered. I read this in one of his bios written a few years ago.

The DLC fell out of favor with many true Dems and eventually had to fold. It has risen from the ashes, and many of the former members use one of these two labels to describe their political approach. We here at DU commonly refer to these particular types of politicians as conservative Democrats. Less generous critics might call them Trojan Horses.

Bill Clinton is of course a gifted politician. During his terms in office, however, he made many compromises with the Republicans in order to pass legislation such as cuts to welfare. While I do appreciate his political gifts to the Democratic party, I do not personally support New Dems or the Third Way. I am a liberal and want to see the party represent the citizens of this Country -- not the corporations and Wall Street.

I arrived here in DU in 2001 hotly complaining about the DLC and its failure to support Al Gore during the 2000 election controversy. In 2004 while rumors were surfacing Gore might seek the Presidency again, that particular group publicly voiced its opposition to another Gore run. An article appeared in The Washington Post along with a sentence with words to the effect that while they (the DLC) did not actually choose the Democratic candidate, it had a lot of influence on who the Party chose, and it would not support a Gore candidacy. Talk about hubris ....

I took a lot of heat for my posts wailing on the DLC in 2001, but eventually those here at DU at that time came to detest the DLC as much as I.


I would not call it a controversy -- I would label it a media con

It just one more made-up misrepresentation by the msm to misinform. We need to start calling them out more for these type maneuvers.

Everyone has the right to privacy when it comes to the question of how he or she voted. Running for public office does not obliterate that right. Grimes properly cited the sanctity of the right to privacy in the voting booth. In her role as Kentucky's Secretary of State (the person actually in charge of State elections), she would have been slammed by the press as a political novice had she actually answered the question saying she had voted for President Obama. The reporter who asked that question set a trap for Grimes; Grimes deftly refused to step in it.... Additionally, President Obama is very unpopular in Kentucky, and if Grimes had said she voted for him, that would have been the equivalent of shooting herself in the rear.

The REAL issue that should have been highlighted is the fact that while Kentucky Connect has been a huge success story in that state, most of its citizens do not realize it is a plank of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare but JUST NOT DOWN THERE, which they believe should be canceled. Mitch McConnell danced around that issue by saying he thinks the Act should be canceled but the website can remain! Why didn't Chuck Todd focus on THAT?

And Chuck Todd's and Chris Matthews' adverse reporting on Grimes' response (and their pretended outrage) reminded me of MSNBC's biased remarks against Gore in 2000.


She did not fumble the question

She literally, as do all other voters, has the right to protect the privacy of how she chose to cast her ballot. The fact that she is running for office does not deprive her of that right. That was a trap question the interviewer chose to pose, and the candidate chose not to step in it. Had she done otherwise, we would be hearing outcries as to her failure to properly handle that question. She appropriately mentioned her Constitutional right to protect the sanctity of how she chose to vote, or perhaps even not to vote -- neither of which choices is any of our business.

Chuck Todd, NBC's touted "political expert", evidently never studied basic civics. His "outrage" is both obviously faked and misplaced, and he did nothing but demonstrate he is a rank amateur in his field -- and a partisan hack to boot.


This is a wonderful, timely piece

As a youngster who migrated to the East from Tennessee, I remember exactly where I was standing when I first heard him speak. I was mesmerized. One would think young people from the South would know exactly the contempt people of color there were held in by many Caucasians. I did not, but I was only 8 when my family relocated to the Nation's capital.

I had never heard this subject, discrimination against people of color, publicly discussed, and his words had a dramatic impact on me. I know many people are aware of what he did for our African-American community in helping to fight the obstacles prejudice presents, but I have wondered if he personally ever knew what he did for people like me in influencing us to join the fight. He educated me.

I remember his passionately saying in one of his speeches, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord," and I knew he knew his haters would kill him. The only question was when would be his last day, his last moment. When would he be silenced? And so with that in mind, he made every second count. His persistence during his final days at continuing to speak out knowing doing so put his own life at risk is a heroism most of us cannot even comprehend.

And the truly ironic thing is those who killed him did not know rather than silencing the man, murdering him immortalized his words.

There are few people I admire as much as I do Dr. King, and I think your thread holds a timely message for us all.


What might have prompted Dick Cheney to appear in DC to speak out about current events?

Could the answer to this question possibly be found with once again one needing to follow the money?

Ten contractors were the recipients of 52 percent of the funds received to fight the original war in Iraq -- according to the article at the following link. Would you like to take a guess as to which one was the number one top recipient?


Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.

The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg.

And when questioned about this sticky subject during that war's inception, Cheney casually said he was not on Halliburton's payroll during his Vice Presidential tenancy:

Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

But, oops....

The report (by the Congressional Research Service) says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.

Both of the above two blockquotes can be found at this CBS news site: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cheneys-halliburton-ties-remain/

So off the top of your head, what do you think motivated Cheney to re-emerge in DC this week to rip President Obama's war policy? Just wondering....


The Farmer in the Well (of Congress)

On the subject of the Farm Bill, it appears 15 Members of Congress voted for their own self-benefit while gutting 47 million of us. The word "service" to them must denote "self-serve" as opposed to serving one's constituents.

From an article dated September 2013, we learned that it was Republican Frank Lucas who introduced legislation cutting SNAP:

"House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) who introduced legislation on September 16 setting forth the House Republican leadership’s proposal to cut SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the food stamp program) by at least $39 billion over ten years. This is almost double the cut in the House Agriculture Committee farm bill and about ten times the SNAP cut in the Senate-passed farm bill. The proposal is expected to go to the House floor this week."

The CBO estimated that these cuts would be deleterious to the most destitute among us:

"1.7 million unemployed, childless adults in 2014 who live in areas of high unemployment — a group that has average income of only 22 percent of the poverty line ....

"2.1 million people in 2014, mostly low-income working families and low-income seniors, who have gross incomes or assets modestly above the federal SNAP limits but disposable income — the income that a family actually has available to spend on food and other needs — below the poverty line in most cases often because of high rent or child care costs....

"Other poor, unemployed parents who want to work but cannot find a job or an opening in a training program — along with their children, other than infants."

All quoted material above can be found at this Center on Budget and Policies Priorities link:


With the passage of this Farm Bill containing 8.6 billion in cuts in food stamps, 15 fortunate members of Congress potentially benefit from the subsidies to be awarded, most of whom will receive thousands of dollars. It is not surprising that each of them voted in favor of cutting the SNAP program. Personally, I would think it would be professionally embarrassing for this information to be made public knowledge, but the term "embarrassed politician" seems to be an oxymoron. Nevertheless, here is the list:


And what name leaps from the page? Why, it is none other than the wife of Frank Lucas! Perhaps you might want to check out the list to see if your representative is listed.

This is the type of information we should use in campaigning against these self-serving politicians. The question we should be asking voters is if your best interests are not being served by your representatives, is it because they serve to benefit themselves? We must do better than this.


Leave No Fingerprints

Alison Lundergan Grimes scored a major political coup today. Running against Mitch McConnell, who has accused her of endorsing Obama's "war on coal", Grimes has now been endorsed by the United Mine Workers of America. I cannot quit laughing.

Thinking back to the day when we were excited to think Ashley Judd might run against Mitch, and remembering the disappointment many of us felt when we learned she had been talked into bowing out by persons within the Bill Clinton camp, this was exactly the correct move for Ashley Judd to make. On another day, in another race, in another place, she, Judd, might step out again. If she does, she will receive a political reward for her cooperation in this race.

Because this race is just too important for Dems to lose. With the difference of perhaps winning one of six strategic Senatorial seats by the Democrats, our ability to retain control of the Senate would hold by a mere slender thread.

While no fingerprints are visible as to the who or how this endorsement of the United Mine Workers of America of Alison Lundergan Grimes was obtained, it is the type of hallmark political maneuver a politician we have come to know as The Natural would quietly arrange.


Baby Boomers pre-paid for the retirement of their generation as well as for the one ahead

This was the a result of the agreement made in 80s due to the huge number of retirees expected when Boomers left the work force. It was said at that time due to the massive numbers set to apply for Social Security, a severe drain on the system would result. That compromise resulted in a substantial increase in the FICA tax which did in fact pre-pay our retirement as well as finance the retirement of the generation before us.

So when you read Boomers are retiring on the dime of the generation behind us, that is simply not true. What is true is that Uncle Sam "borrowed" the funds we accrued in our Trust Fund to finance our golden years. And now that the time has come for Boomers to retire, Uncle Sam cannot repay that which he borrowed. Oops!

How to explain it? That is the conundrum.

And so the blame is placed on the Boomers for the problem, and the generation behind us has been brainwashed into believing we are the problem. We are not, we have done more than our fair share to finance our Social Security. The problem is the Big Lie spread by the right which wants to privatize the system for the benefit of the financial community and to the detriment of Social Security participants. And part of that plan is to turn the generation behind us against us.

In order for Uncle Sam to make a withdrawal against the Social Security Trust fund, a like amount of Treasury Bonds equivalent to the withdrawal must be sold. In this economy, that is not so easy to do. Geithner himself publicly admitted this in a televised interview.

It was and still is a simply a political ploy as a plank in the plan of the Right to restructure the Plan for the benefit of the financial community while easing the burden of the Federal Government to repay its debt to Boomers.


You make too many good points to respond to each so I will just share a few random thoughts

I do take my responsibility to vote very seriously, and I show up at the polls. But in all honesty, if the day arrived when two candidates for president were running and I held both in contempt, I am not at all sure I could convince myself to vote for either. So far that has not happened, but it just might one day unless the Democrats experience some sort of miraculous political reawakening and return to classic Democratic values. Were that to happen that with two candidates had unacceptable positions on important issues and weak moral fiber that I just could not vote for either, I think I would remember that civics lesson.

But there is nothing more important in politics and voting than doing one's homework before following through with a voting decision.

I often think of Nader saying during election 2000 there was no difference between Bush and Gore. I wonder what he thinks about that statement now. I personally was horrified to hear him repeatedly say that, but I do my own research. I was very familiar with the histories of both of these men, and I knew that was a huge misrepresentation (I will be polite here).

I wonder when I hear Jeb Bush is thinking of running, does he honestly believe half this Country has forgotten his behavior (and his lies) during that debacle and that we would possibly consider voting for him? So many problems we have in this Country today, 14 years later, we are experiencing from the George W. Bush* fingerprints in office. Jeb enabled that to happen, violating the Constitution all along the way. Fourteen years is not long enough to forgive and forget.

There are very few things in life one should consider are "win at all costs" -- and stealing elections is not one of those things.

When it comes to being able to respect someone even though they have different personal political leanings, one of the people who is among the top five people I most respect, is former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who is a Republican. He was appointed by Gerald Ford to replace William O. Douglas. In his dissent to the Bush v. Gore majority decision, he wrote the words that actually soothed my soul, meaning I knew when I read them a Republican was confirming my anxiety and distress were well justified. What a man of courage:

It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.


Of course, with things as they are now, sometimes it just easy to look at the different positions on important issues, and make it an issue election. But with the amount of wholesale lying, coupled with the "performance art" of being a politician, it does get very murky at times, doesn't it? But people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Wendy Davis give me hope.

Always a pleasure chatting with you, H20 Man. You keep things provocative but civil.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »