leaning Left; Will 2008 Be the Liberal's Year?

[illinoisprogressive]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19251286/site/newsweek/
snip -
If the left wants purity on the issues, they don’t have to settle for Kucinich. They’ve got lots of choices. Obama has street cred going back to his days as a community organizer. Edwards has walked picket lines, founded an antipoverty center, launched his campaign in New Orleans--the heart of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation—and apologized for his vote on the Iraq War. “It’s pretty hard for Dennis to find oxygen,” says Robert Borosage, codirector of the Campaign for America’s Future, which is hosting 3,000 progressive activists at next week’s “Take Back America” conference in Washington. The top presidential contenders will speak along with Kucinich, the standard bearer for the progressive movement.

Last year, Hillary got booed at this conference. Progressives never liked her position on the war. Since then, she’s done literally everything to cover her base. She’s now indistinguishable from the other candidates on the war, and while there’s still a lot of discontent, she’s at least able to give a speech without getting embarrassed.

On the right, Bush’s failures have damaged conservatism, leaving the GOP base in disarray and setting the stage for not just a change of parties in power but a real shift in direction. A Wall Street Journal poll finds 52 percent of Americans want a Democrat as president while only 31 percent want a Republican. “The world is moving in our direction,” says Roger Hickey, codirector with Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future. He cites the collapse of the conservative agenda, from pre-emptive war to Katrina to Social Security privatization, along with a shift in party identification away from the GOP to the Democrats, which hasn’t been seen since ’94, when it went the other way. The challenge for progressives is to convince the candidates that Bill Clinton-era triangulation is old politics and won’t work. “This is the time to run with the wind rather than tack,” says Borosage.

[sakabatou]

1. Yes

I don't think any republican will get the presidency in the next election.

[obxhead]

2. If HRC gets the nom.....

:shrug:

[Bullet1987]

3. Outside of a stolen election...a Dem should win in 2008

As far as it being "the Liberals year" who's to say that just because a Dem is elected President...he'll do what the Libs want? Foolish article...

[illinoisprogressive]

4. I thought it was fun. Not serious but, just a fun little peice.

[fasttense]

5. Well duh, as if a repuke has a chance in hell in a fair

and accurate election. That's why repukes rig the elections. They can't win in a fair contest.

[JTFrog]

6. What is liberal anymore?

HRC is only indistinguishable from the other two "top tier" candidates. There are others who she differs greatly from. However, let's not remind everyone that the dems claimed a huge victory in the name of actually bringing our troops home last election. Let's not remind their supporters that their candidates still don't understand what it means to actually take care of it's citizens and want to continue the cycle of making us slaves to our jobs while lining insurance companies pockets.

My SO told me the other day that he felt I had shifted to the extreme left of the scale politically. I had to remind him that he had the exact same views when we first met. And that it's the middle that has been shifted so far right that sometimes I can't tell the difference between him and a republican anymore. That's pretty much how I feel about the "top tier" dems at this point.

If I'm going to vote for change, I want to vote for someone who is really going to make a difference. I do not want to be in the position of having to vote for republican-lite next year.

[RC]

7. Read this if you think there will be an election in 2008

"Bush new presidential emergency powers"

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

>SNIP<

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3321481&mesg_id=3321500

comity: The principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to the laws or decisions of another.
In other words we will have bu$h telling the other two branches of government what to do.

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Written by Frank Morales
Thursday, 26 October 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."


http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

It would be more in keeping with reality to have a poll for what will be the next 9/11 so the criminals in our White House can declare martial law and stay there and out of the World Court.

We'd better start doing our limbering up exercises in preparation to kissing the rest of our freedoms and our asses good-by. There will be elections to make the unwashed (read you & me) think we still matter, but the elections won't matter much either.