Real Time New Rules June 19, 2009
By Heather Saturday Jun 20, 2009 9:00am
Real Time's New Rules from June 19, 2009. Bill gets an amen from me this week.
Maher: Now people talk a lot about a third political party in America. We don't need a third party. We need a first party. You go to the polls and your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bailout, or the guy who voted for the next ten. This week we're hearing that a public option for health care is unlikely because it doesn't have the support of enough Democrats. Even Ted Kennedy's plan, Ted Kennedy, yeah, leaves thirty seven million uninsured.
This is because we don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.
Login or Register to post comments.
This is the best New Rules of the year. Thanks for posting it.
Yep, another rant where Bill hits the nail squarely on the head.
We need a progressive to carry out progressive programs that help the people, not the corporations and billionaires. It's a simple concept: Fight for what's right for Americans. Obama needs to wake up or get out...
I want a liberal or even a full-fledged leftist in office. I've had enough with "progressives." Half of them are Con-lite and the other half are just people who are too embarrassed to call themselves liberals because the Cons have made it a bad word, thereby allowing the right to dictate what we do.
That part is at least true!
I think they are two different things. To me John Kerry is a liberal. Dennis Kucinich is a progressive.
Liberal. --In the King James version of the bible, "liberal" is a good word. The word "conservative" appears nowhere in the bible.
At least, not as far, as I'm aware of? Thanks ♥
The problem is the people who thought Barack Obama was a Democrat.
It would only have taken five minutes on the web to see the man is a flaming neocon.
So much for the theory that progressives are smart.
I've never understood this idea that if someone doesn't fit within the progressive ideological purity they must be a neocon. Are there only two choices? Progressive liberal or neocon?
I have a hard time seeing Obama as the second incarnation of the Bush regime, and although I would prefer him to be more progressive, he is still an improvement over what we had before. The neocons have moved so far to the right that, using the power of shouting pundits like Rush and O'reilly to catapult the propaganda, they have dragged the apparent center to the right as well. Bill Maher is right, we don't have a real split between progressives and crazy right wing neocons, our choices were between a centrist and a crazy old man who tried to force Sarah Palin on us way before she was ready.
ready?
Lol, not really. But with a little more polish she could have fooled enough people to make the election a lot closer.
Obama is a Democrat in the most conventional definition. He isn't a liberal or a progressive but describing him as a neocon is a terrible misuse of the word. The problem with being a convetional Democrat is exactly as Bill Mahar described. They have been pushed somewhat to the right of where Nixon ended up.
Couldn't we argue that Obama is a conservative and the right the neo-conservative?
Afterall, no matter what party label or third party, isn't most politicians first loyalty to preserve the status quo that rewarded them with their position?
Mayhaps reforming politician is an oxymoron.
A conservative by who's definition? To me, Obama looks like a moderate with a lean to the right. I bet Pat Buchanan wouldn't agree with me.
attempt to suppress the release of detainee photos that are clearly legal within the existing FOIA structure.
argue that lawsuits and evidence against the state should be thrown out due to "State Secrets."
argue in favor of upholding DOMA and equate gay marriage with incest.
And yet Obama's DOJ has done all of these things. Obama is a conservative Democrat. He always has been. I remember reading somewhere during the election that Obama was a Rorschach test wherein democrats saw whatever they wanted to see. I didn't realize at the time how true that statement was.
Yet during the campaign, he was constantly referred to as "the most liberal" senator by the right.
that anyone past drooling idiocy can see has swung so far right they practically believe that as long as they can be in the king's court there's nothing wrong with monarchy.
palin - ready for what?
Make anotherr fetus?
Sat, 06/20/2009 - 05:29 — Perry Logan
____________________________________________________________
Do flaming neo-cons secretly harbour the desire to dress up like ann colter?
This is the best one yet.
We could not have a third party if we wanted one. Ballot access and other tools needed for third party candidates are controlled by the ruling party. If you run for office in my state, and go to the court house and request a list of registered voters, they will ask you your party. If you say something other than Republican or Democrat you won't get the information. Period. Try to get on the ballot in Michigan if you are a thrid party candidate. You need like 100,000 signatures.
I think the big fix is campaign finance reform. As long as you can buy politicians we are in trouble.
...for initiatives, but it might be easier to get an initiative on the ballot than a third party candidate. As abused as the initiative process has become, an initiative that paved the way for third parties would be a fine example of what the progressives had in mind when they championed them a century ago.
Of course, having a third party candidate wouldn't be an instant solution, because most Americans are far too conventional (that's a euphemism for lots of very unflattering adjectives) to abandon their habits. In the short run, third party candidates might spell the defeat of a lot of Democrats, which would be a good, no great, thing, except we would have to be willing to suffer through years of Republican incompetence and villainy before either the people or the Democrats came around. We're in such a mess in this country that I don't think there is a painless path to improvement. We'd have to bite the bullet and hope third party candidacies either gave us progressive representation or vastly improved Democrats before the Republicans reduced the entire country to a burned out shell. It would be a nail-biter.
Do you remember the air time Jesse Ventura got a month or so ago. I bet he may make a run in 2012 as a third party candidate!
Seem to be the only ones with the balls to say what needs to be said. Maybe they can encourage others as well.( I haven't forgotten Keith, Rachel, Stephanie, et al ,but Bill and Ed have the passion the others sometimes lack.
Paul Begala squirm.
Jon Stewart called him a partisan hack.
AND I have to say that I don't always agree with him especially when he gets on his anti religion kick and pro drugs, but this time he nails it. the dems have move closer to the center and the repubs are officially the crazy party.
I honestly felt that Obama would lead us out, but he's proving to be too much the politician. I love his rhetoric and his intellect but we must all be careful not to be swayed by that. check his actions and go by that. he plays it to close to the middle in my opinion. he doesn't really want to alienate anyone. If he were to come out stongly against lieberman and start legal proceedings against the bush regime and bush himself, it would go a long ways to restoring my faith in the man.
...I've heard from Bill Maher. He used to really annoy me as someone whose politics were fairly irrational, but I think he's gotten better as the Republicans have gotten worse -- maybe it's just a relative improvement, but I don't think so. The only tiny quibble is that I thought he should have called for ending the War on Drugs (TM) instead of the more limited, slightly different, and justifiable legalization of pot. (Legal pot sounds a bit too neatly tailored to Bill's personal preferences to not be a little suspect.) A part of ending the WoD(TM) should be legalizing marijuana (I don't now, nor have I ever smoked "Pre-Heroin," but I can't figure out any good reason to criminalize it.) And, as is frequently pointed out, just think of the revenue taxing MJ would bring in. Oh, wait, that's right, this is Amurka and we aren't allowed to have any new taxes, are we?
On the other hand, if we legalized marijuana and taxed it, the revenue would probably just go toward buying more F-22s, because it's a hell of lot more important to have a surplus of unneeded fighter planes than it would be to make health coverage available to some actual human beings.
Maher's take on Obama and the Democrats seems pretty accurate. And his point about criticizing Obama not making him a Republican (or even on their side) is spot on. The people who should be criticizing Obama when he falls short or goes astray are his supporters -- the people who put him in the White House. Let the Wing Nuts and the MSM ramble on incessantly about all manner of delusional nonsense. Obama is an extremely talented person, but one with some serious flaws, who needs to be pressured constantly to get him to bring his actions in line with his rhetoric. He could be a great president and not just another corporate lackey, but he needs encouragement and, if necessary, harsh criticism to get him resist his natural centrist tendencies.
I agree, I'm pretty sure I got what I was voting for. It took me a while to warm up to him, mostly because I wanted a fire breather to go in and kick some neocon ass, but through the course of the campaign I realized that his instinct was to build consensus and lead from the middle. Now it is up to us to speak up and move the center back to where it belongs and not concede the middle to the definition of the neocons and the tv pundits.
The story is told that FDR told a group of progressives "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." That's where we are now. We can try to take back the center, or we can simply throw our hands in the air and proclaim, "all politicians are the same, there's no solution and no reason to try to work for one."
FDR was right. Today we need to put more pressure on our congressional delegations so they are more worried about our votes than getting corporate campaign donations. I think Obama would be more progressive if congress wasn't bought and paid for by the corporations and the wealthy. As it is he can't do what he wants (and we can't be sure what he really wants) if congress is voting their pocket books. He either has to compromise too much or get absolutely nothing done. He is stuck with being realistic until congress (especially dems) stand up for the voters rather than the folks who write the really big checks.
I think complete public financing of campaigns would shake up our current political stagnation. I would love to see our political campaigns shortened with all candidates given the same amount of public money to run their campaigns and nothing more. Then we could see who knows how to handle their money (and ours) the most effectively, who has real executive organizational talent, and hopefully what they really believe and intend to do in office...ok, that may be a bit of a stretch.
is that government has empathy for the people. The other is that government is afraid of the people storming the capital and dragging them out by their feet for a group discussion.
I've always had a hard time with our cultural prejudice towards pot. I don't smoke, but why do we legalize alcohol and not pot?
Everything that is negative about pot can also be said about alcohol, except for one big difference: an overdose of alcohol will kill you, which makes why alcohol is considered a hard drug and pot just a 'soft' drug. We accept to sell a poison in supermarkets because we aknowledge that restricted and occasional use, although allways bad for your health, can have some reacreational value. So why accept only alcohol and no pot?
In some countries where they are culturaly more used to see weed around, normal non-abusive use is tolerated, like normal alcohol-use is tolerated in every western European democracy.
It allways strucks me how older (conservative) Europeans allways think of Arabs like very akward retrograde conservatives for still prohibiting their beloved and benign alcohol beverages for everyone in the country.
Am I the only one here to see the irony? I would have no problem for a country to forbid pot if they also forbid alcohol, yet accepting one and not the other is allways the situation that I found ridiculous.
The law is not something absolute and above everything, it is suposed to organize cohabitation in a society, it is suposed to reflect the rules the more representative of how people feel it is normal to live. So we've seen the effects of prohibition in the states, people kept on drinking although it was unlawfull, just because they feel they have the right too if responsibly done. So the law is not absolute and must be changed when it shows how hypocrite and out of touch it is.
I think it has to do with things like traffic enforcement.
A drunk is pretty obvious, and a field sobriety test can come back with results real fast.
A stoner may seem slightly dazed or sleepy, but that can be caused by any number of conditions.
However, the tip-off is when he tells the cops, "Hey, don't bogart the Krispy Kremes."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWVnPlUCrf8
Since I didn't know that commercial nor that product! Tx for sharing.
How'dya know I live in TX?
I don't think that was the issue, I mean here you could drive around and seem sober but still exceed the alcohol value set in the country. That value is quite low and before you reach the state of being visibly 'drunk' you will have exceeded that limit since a long time.
It's true some years ago it was harder to detect pot in an official way than it was to detect alcohol, since every police car is equiped with cheap alcohol-tests. For pot they needed to make bloddanalysis, which required (you guessed i) a bloodsample. And to get a bloodsample they needed a doctor since a cop is not medically and legaly allowed to take bloodsamples from suspects. This made largscale operation on highways quite difficult. But this is years ago, now in France and Belgium for example they have cheap pot-testers which just require you to spit or blow in a tube. So they can test that as easily as testing alcohol.
The usual american test (standing on a line, touching your nose etc) is not valid in most european countries, they need a scientifical' sample. So if it might have been an issue in the states, traffic enforcement has never been the problem in europe since it's never the visual judgment that is used to decide if a felony has been commited.
ah...no
Criminalization or makes money for organized crime.
Bill, right again as usual.
Hell, why don't we just stop voting altogether. May as well cut out the middleman (the gov't) and let the corporations take over and rule. That at least would be real transparency.
Dead on. And Republicans are nothing more than a bogeyman to scare us into believing these "new" Democrats aren't just doing what they want to do anyway.
First we vote Dems into control of both houses of Congress, but the majorities aren't veto proof, so impeachment and investigations are "off the table" and Bush's agenda is followed with little more than a peep of protest. Then, we vote the Dems into the White House and nearly overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, but we hear that the Senate's majority isn't filibuster-proof so we must compromise with the far Right in the name of "bi-partisanship."
When Franken is finally sworn in (and why hasn't the Senate made more of a stink about this?), there will simply be another excuse why the Dems just have to capitulate to the Right.
I used to live in Louisiana, and you can't include Mary Landrieu in the 60 vote majority. Nor can you include Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, or several other supposed Democrats. I forget who it was, but one (probably several) of the blogs began calling for "more, better democrats" before the 2004 elections. We got part of that, we got more democrats. Now we need better democrats. People like Landrieu won't embrace an even slightly progressive agenda until she sees a challenge to her seat from the left
He sure is right about one thing though: There are almost zero liberals in the Congress and they are all treated like pariahs. He's exactly correct when he says that we have a center right party and an insane party.
This is the most dead-on statement I have heard in years.
Great job Bill at al !
Obama is no friend of progressives.
How about confiscating the oil companies to pay for the government? They've been wringing that shammie for 200 years. Pay all the shareholders out, then take them.
Poking a straw in the ground to take oil that they didn't make for obscene profits needs to end.
Now that's a liberal idea.
pay attention to what he is saying.
Why do we have to look at Gingrich or Coulter or O'Reilly or Turd Blossom endlessly on C&L?
Why not Kucinich, Nader or Chomsky - at least once in awhile?
What is the liberal fascination with the brainless?
The argument is that the MSM never has on liberal viewpoints to counter the right. Ever. It's not about us. We know where liberal viewpoints are. But the American public is never exposed to these views on radio, TV or newspapers. Or if they are, they are ALWAYS in a negative spotlight and poorly argued to boot.
You "know where liberal viewpoints are"?
Pray tell - where are they?
Why not Kucinich, Nader or Chomsky?
___________________________________________
They don't pose a threat to us?
Or are you saying that trifecta are Crooks and Liars too?
We spend way too much time on the questions and too little time on getting some answers.
Why do we have to look at Gingrich or Coulter or O'Reilly or Turd Blossom endlessly on C&L?
I think the theme of this site is to expose the crooks and liars.
Don't you think that Gingrich et al have enough exposure?
Don't you think that the people coming to C&L already know that Gingrich & Co. are crooks and liars?
No.
There is some weird fascination that liberals have with these cretins.
Maybe it makes them feel superior to promote such vapid intellects;
The point of Maher's statement was that the MSM concentrates on showing us these chumps instead of people with brains and courage and something to say.
I'm only pointing out that the same is true on the pages of this blog.
Make of it what you will.
The exposure they get tends to be approving and fawning
And no one looks below the surface.
Maybe you should consider that, before lecturing other people?
I think it took a dump on mine...
I, like many Americans, held my nose in the voting booth this past November and voted for the what we felt were the lesser of two evils: Mr. Obama. He wasn't my choice to lead the Democratic ticket due to his wishy-washy stance on gays (he never apologized for the homophobic rapper he had at the "tent revival") and what seemed to me a bit too much reliance on religion. Not to mention that he was the choice of a few party bigwigs back in 2004 to be the anti-Clinton.
He is symbolic of what has become of the Democratic Party: wishy-washy, scared of rocking the boat and not willing to use the bully pulpit to move this nation forward. This is showcased by his insistence on bi-partisanship, his refusal to remove vestiges of the Bush Administration and his lack of real action on gay rights issues. Everything proposed has been so watered down, it might as well not even have been offered. Its bland, its vanilla and it serves no real purposes than to feign that something is being done.
Mr. Maher is right: Mr. Obama and the rest of the Democrats need to actually give us something to cheer about instead of giving us watered down nothing.
To hear the words that I've been thinking about them Democratic party coming out of the tubes: "the Democratic Party isn't the Democratic Party; it the New Republican Party"....meaning, to my mind, that the Democratic Party no longer exists.
A point to Mr. Maher: Not only is Obama not a liberal - as you say, he isn't a progressive, either.
White Men Can't Harumph
_______________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm1Jyusyoqk
I moved my post, it allways get placed on the wrong post when I just login.
... and it is not 420 yet ;-)
the left in this country.
Try to win without us, Barry!
the left does not called Obama, Barry. That is code for Boy, used by the far right.
Good to see that so many C&L readers get what Maher is saying. If this was the Huffington Post, 90% of the commenters would be calling for Maher's head.
Obama is a huge improvement over Bush but he's still disappointing in so many ways. He has tremendous political capital right now but he's squandering it by trying to be fair to Republicans. I don't think he understands that they will criticize him no matter what he does. He should be pressing hard for progressive ideals. I do believe that is what he was elected to do. Instead we end up with bastardized legislation from congress that virtually assures that it will fail.
Healthcare has been the most disappointing debate so far. Dems should just ram single payer through then laugh to a permanent majority status as Republicans campaign on taking away your healthcare.
Here's a new rule or two that will make a big difference (1) No company may give ANYTHING to any person holding any office, anywhere, anytime period. (2)No one person or company may own more than one media outlet, period. (3) Out law the federal reserve and jail the criminals running it, throw out any and all foreign lobby and government office holders who have dual citizenship and/or belong to the CFR or tri-lat commission (4) break up any corp that does not benefit the citizens of this country, ( yes we do have that power)... well ok it 's more than one new rule but it would make one hell of a difference. CEO,citizens,eyes,open
Don't look now but the black helicopters are coming to get you.
I'd love to go back to the times when we had a major recession every 5 years because of massive fluctuations in the Money Supply. The Fed serves a purpose. A very important one.
that is what happens when you are raised with grandaddy's money
If you watch the whole show, you can see Meghan McCain pontificate about how nothing important happened in the world before she turned 21. Paul Begala's put down of her intellect is priceless. She's an opportunistic airhead.
So i guess yesterday, I was a little meanie. A christian Gamer clan Banned me from there servers after calling me clownface, scumbag, and all kinds of other loving references to me, it actually hurt my soul, they spread their hate to me, they call themselves the Alpha and Omega clan. I have tried to explain to these people, they way they act is destroying the faith of many including myself. It only seems to make them even more nasty and hateful. I blame Bush and the Republicans.
Oh yes Dennis Kucinich, he still speaks against the war, 1 lonely voice among a sea of silence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtetpyrwtQY
This is were it all begun, C&L, Anti-war, Remember?
Being progressive and anti-war go hand in hand, there are only about 30 such people in this congress. The War Party is another name for the left/right duopoloy we have now. Kucinich distinguishes himself from the scumbags who call themselves Democrats but still vote for billions to go to kill people in unjust wars. If he were president now, the empire we cannot afford would be converted to single payer health care for all and the War Party would be history.
And during WWI and WWII the republicans were the anti-war party.
And during the bombing of Bosnia-Herzegovina the goppers were all but flashing peace signs and wearing love beads.
Isn't that crazy, the evil keeps swapping from side to side till it engulfed the entire system.
I found the main provocateur that has been harassing and hacking me for over 6 years now, her name is GingerSuicide.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/gingersuicide
Ron Hall is also 1 a Vietnamese that was adopted by a rich republican family, we first met at Capital city Mall, he was a High school narc at Cedar Cliff, these 2 are the leaders of the hate and hax against me.
UT99 is still king :)
as usual!
that New Rules pretty much said it all.
Many times, Bill Maher is just a smart aleck with no rudder. But sometimes, Billy hits the nail on the head. I never would have thought that Bill Maher would reground me with my conflicted emotions about the Obama Crew and the Demo Congress. After listening to him on HBO last night, everything seems so clear.
Now I heard similar descriptions being utter by Bill Moyers, Glen Greenwald, Simon Johnson, and Ralph Nader, but Maher said it best with his WTF is this shit and show me the money brilliance, especially tailored for the sound bite media world, and easily digested by my frustrated political emotions.
I'm starting to get the urge to wear green. The Iranians have their Ayatollahs and Americans have their Corporate Oligarchy. Iranians are being abused by radical Islamics and Americans are being abused by crony-capital free-market fundamentalists.
I'm a Progressive which means that I don't trust Democrats and I most certainly detest Republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lUjhEHlh7s
Thank you, I feel so much better. Now we're ready.
Disagree with him or not, he says what's on his mind. It's sad that so few in our media do so. It's not an act with him.
which was poorly written and presented
he was surprised that it was used by the wingnuts? come on bill...you arent that stupid
ignorant of many facts, but not stupid
The RNC has been trying to rename the Democratic Party for several years - let's go with truth in naming.
The Republicans become The Party of No and the Democrats become the Invertebrates.
We do need a current party, the Democratic Socialists, to become a majority party. Sadly, that would require the Electorate to tear itself away from "reality" tv and actually think.
With a handle like yours, I'd think you'd have figured out that there are about as many stripes of Democrats as there are Democratic politicians. I think you're mistaking diversity for spinelessness.
The simple fact is that the democratic party is being led by people like Reid, Pelosi and Obama.
They are all stuck in Bush-think.
There is the occasional Feingold and Kucinich among the dems, but they are marginalized and ignored. They are voices in the wilderness. The people who run things within the party are right-wing and are beholden to the same corporate interests as the repubs.
The dems don't stand for anything.
If there is a confrontation, they run.
And represent three different viewpoints. Pelosi, while not as far to the left as Kucinich, is slightly left-of-center in her caucus, while Reid is pretty far to the right(but not as far as Nelson or Baucus). Hell, Feingold isn't nearly as far to the left as Kucinich, although you can probably say that each occupies the far left of his chamber (well, Bernie Sanders is left of Feingold, and probably Kucinich, but he's not a Democrat).
You said:
Which, individually, isn't true. My point is that it's the 'Big Tent' party. That's why I brought up yellowdog's handle: A Yellow Dog Democrat is someone who would vote, in a general election, for a yellow dog if that dog was running for office as a Democrat. And we get a lot of yellow dogs elected. A party centrist will view both Kucinich and (conservative Democrat) Heath Shuler as the fringes, and can count on either to support his or her favored legislation some of the time. Yet the party centrist in Kucinich's or Shuler's districts will vote for those candidates because supporting a more conservative independent than Kucinich or a more liberal independent candidate than Shuler in their districts would give the GOP their seats.
This is the price we pay for diversity.
And the thing about third or fourth or fifth parties is that, eventually, they'll have to form coalitions with the parties that win the plurality in elections anyway, and you'll still see compromises to the center.
Alice Cooper had an intersting line in his song Stand, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
what channel(s) is that on? ;)
Amended
Be very, very careful not to take Maher's message so far as to be convinced "there is no difference between the two Parties".
Bullsh*t.
That kind of thinking led to George W. Bush being appointed president on the basis of 537 votes in Florida.
I don't know how many of the 90,000 votes for Ralph Nader over Al Gore in Florida were the result of some cleverly-turned phrase by Nader-supporter Bill Maher to the effect that "there is no difference between the two Parties", but I'll bet it was at least 537 of them.
Maher did the same thing in 2004. For three years he blasted Bush...then suddenly as the 2004 election approached he couldn't think of one positive thing to say about Kerry and it was "there is no difference between the two Parties" all over again. Then, after Bush won by 60,000 Ohio votes that might have gone to Kerry instead, there was Bill Maher finally saying how Kerry had it right all along.
When the supposed "worst" of the modern Democratic Presidents (Carter) still outperformed the supposed "best" of the modern Republican Presidents (Reagan) on lower average annual unemployment, higher annual average private sector jobs creation and fewer average months in Recession as well as keeping our borders more secure and presiding over far fewer American deaths at the hands of international terrorists...then there definitely IS a difference between the two Parties.
that as much as I despised Bush and hoped for his ouster in 2004, I couldn't think of one good thing to say about Kerry either. And I still can't.
But,
He did serve in the military when Cheney and his band of liars were getting deferments.
Plus,
In April 1986, Kerry and Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, proposed that hearings be conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding charges of Contra involvement in cocaine and marijuana trafficking. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Republican chairman of the committee, agreed to conduct the hearings.
Meanwhile, Kerry's staff began their own investigations, and on October 14 issued a report that exposed illegal activities on the part of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who had set up a private network involving the National Security Council and the CIA to deliver military equipment to right-wing Nicaraguan rebels (Contras). In effect, North and certain members of the President's administration were accused by Kerry's report of illegally funding and supplying armed militants without the authorization of Congress. Kerry's staff investigation, based on a year long inquiry and interviews with 50 unnamed sources, is said to raise "serious questions about whether the United States has abided by the law in its handling of the contras over the past three years."[45]
The Kerry Committee report found that "the Contra drug links included … payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."[46] The US State Department paid over $806,000 to known drug traffickers to carry humanitarian assistance to the Contras.[47] Kerry's findings provoked little reaction in the media and official Washington.[48]
The Kerry report was a precursor to the Iran-Contra affair. On May 4, 1989, North was convicted of charges relating to the Iran/Contra controversy, including three felonies. On September 16, 1991, however, North's convictions were overturned on appeal.[49]
Now, some people may choose to ignore these. But the guy would have been a helluva lot better that the jerk we got.
I'm still pissed off at him for not fighting.
Look at Coleman. The dems were worried about looking like they were being obstructionists.
Alot of good that did them.
A President John Kerry would not have given his Treasury Department the impression that he really didn't like all that annoying "re-gu-la-tion" and "o-ver-sight" of banking/lending institutions conducted under previous administrations anyway so it would be just fine n' dandy with him if that Department's Office of Thrift Supervision pretty much took the next 4 years off and enjoyed a few thousand beers.
That, alone, would have been reason enough to want Kerry instead of Bush.
What Maher finally realized after saying nothing positive about Kerry throughout election year 2004 and, thereby, helping Bush get re-elected, was that John Kerry really did have a better method for waging an effective "war against terrorism", after all; by treating it as a law enforcement problem, not an international "culture war" with uniformed troops in various countries, a decidedly counterproductive method of dealing with it...just as the Rand Institute's study revealed.
More importantly, ejecting Bush and replacing him with ANYONE would have been the most effective demonstration to the world that democracy can work to correct horrible leadership mistakes. Essentially what those Iranians taking to the streets right now hoped to accomplish.
Bush winning that second term destroys every possible commercial for democracy that will ever be made. Second terms being the limit, there was never going to be another oppotunity for America to show the world that we're not mindless lunatics after all and that we CAN reject someone who had been such an obvious disaster in his first 4 years. So much for that idea.
2000 was not the worst possible outcome in U.S. election history. That distinct honor goes to 2004.
but I think Obama's senate voting record puts him in the center left part of the political spectrum.
and the right has moved into a mental hospital.
And we can all thank the majorest Asshole of the World, St Ronald of Reagan for this bullshit.
it's funny cuz it's true
the transformation of "the Left" seemed to take place rather obviously under Clinton. that douchebag was really a rethuglican in disguise. look at how supportive he was of the BushCheney felons while the much older former Pres. Carter earned a Nobel Peace Prize by effectively criticizing the Bush-hole.
i think any analysis of what has happened to the Democraps must begin, at the least, with Clenis.
the corporate kleptocracy was in its infancy during the 1990s. now it appears to control everything: a 15 trillion dollar bailout for the corporate thugs while for everyone not in corporate welfare "the unemployment rate continued to rise, increasing from 8.9 to 9.4 percent" according to the bureau of labor statistics website: http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Clinton was effective
When was the last time the rethuglicans were?
I agree with many here about Maher's strange mental waverings at times. When he had his show in the mid-90's I found him an obnoxious ass, but he seems to have found a reason to give a shit about the state of the country, for what reason, I don't know. Why a rich man would be driven to give a rat's ass about the common man I can't understand because I've seen so few who really aren't just blowing hot air to impress someone or get something for themselves.
And maybe this is Maher's objective, or to get back at someone somewhere.
I wasn't a big fan of Obama a long time ago as I saw his unwillingness to stand against the organized religion lobby on gay marriage. Gay marriage is so damn fundamental; it should be a litmus test for anyone to call themselves a true liberal, period. I care about the rights of people and that includes people who aren't exactly like me! How hard is that?
I don't smoke pot, but if you want to have a joint, great, as long as your purchase was home-grown and not supporting cartels who kill peasants what do I care?
Want to marry your same-sex partner? Go ahead! Invite me to the wedding! Live long and love! I'll bring my man, we'll toast to your happiness even though I think marriage overall is a sham, hey go at it!
Want to study the bible in school? Super! Let's have a study of national religions and a critical look at organized religion in general. Can't be objective? Well, oops, my taxes don't support your religion, sorry, save that for Sunday School.
Break a leg? Pregnant again? Ok, so check this out:
We're having a party, we want a pizza, no one has more than a buck, but hey! There's ten of us, ten bucks will get us what we need to make a pizza and maybe something to drink to boot.
Lookee there, we all worked together pooled our resources and we ate like kings.
Healthcare for all works the same way. You break a leg, don't worry my friend, I got your back like you got mine.
How frickin' hard is it to be honest?
Millions of dollars hard, that's how.
I have lived in Europe for the past 17+ years. When ever my "liberal" friends and family come out for a visit or stay ... I always send them home with their "idea of liberal" firmly tucked between their legs. I love Obama but after living this long here I just could never go back to America, it would be like setting my clock backwards 10 years. Gay Marriage, gay adoptions, universal health care, anti-support of the Iraqi occupation (war), ... etc. etc. - these are all simply non issues here. Our leaders make a stand for liberal causes and rights sometimes long before the populace is even aware that we are in need such rights, protections and/or laws.
I loathe wishy-washy, vague, undefined and centrist people and I especially abhor it in my leaders ... Please - grow a back-bone and stand for something. I am no defender of George W Bush but at least we knew exactly what he stood for and he did not care ... that was a moron that told the world, "you are either with me or against me and F*** YOU."
What happened to THIS Obama?:
"I'm not interested in being a centrist or rushing to the middle, in the sense of just splitting the difference with a radically ideological Bush administration. And that’s how I think we got into trouble in many instances, was we just kept on splitting the difference until you find out you don't stand for anything, you just keep on compromising." -- Barack Obama
And Bill nailed it perfectly. Thanks for posting this.
Login or Register to post comments.