Bored and disappointed

[bobquasit]

I am bored out of my mind.

I'm also a little depressed because I discovered something about Obama that's a bit disillusioning.

And for the record, Steny Hoyer is a whore who should be tarred, feathered, and run out of Washington on a rail. If you haven't heard, Hoyer - a supposed Democrat - has been scheming to give the telecommunications industry complete amnesty for spying on us all on behalf of the Bush administration. At the same time, he's working it so that he and other Blue Dog Democrats can claim that they didn't "really" support amnesty. That is, when Hoyer's not simply lying his fucking ass off about it. Basically, their "compromise" bill will send the issue to the courts, REQUIRING them to grant total amnesty if the telcos show a permission slip from the Bush Administration.

If I had any money at all, I'd contribute to ActBlue - they're going to go after Hoyer and some of the other so-called Democrats who are sleazing this bill through the House and Senate. Unfortunately one of them is being enthusiastically supported by Barrack Obama. I've written to my representative and Senators, and I'm going to make my first political donation from my next paycheck. I was going to be donating to Obama, but ActBlue will be a better use of the money.

The ACLU and Ron Paul's organization are two of many groups which are opposing telecom amnesty, by the way. And the New York Times had an editorial against it yesterday.

This shit is absolutely unacceptable.

Comments

[oldwolf.livejournal.com]

Grrr!!! And people wonder why I sit behind 3 various types of firewalls.

[klyfix.livejournal.com]

It's a big deal that Obama is supporting a Congressional colleague that he's most likely worked with on a host of things who happens to support an unacceptable bill? Dollars to donuts Obama supports this person for rational and good reasons, not just for the hell of it. We don't do anybody any good if we so expect "perfection" of the Democrats that we end up not supporting these all too human candidates and weaken the party.

I'm rather expecting that Democrats will succeed in yanking defeat from the jaws of victory, that people with unrealistic expectations are going to allow a McCain win and a GOP re-taking of Congress and the following destruction of America.

[bobquasit.livejournal.com]

A big deal? Not so much that I won't vote Democratic. But enough so that instead of contributing to Obama, I'll contribute to the Strange Bedfellows/ActBlue campaign to punish Hoyer, Carney, et alia.

Because what's the point in supporting the Democrats if they're going to act just like Republicans?

I don't expect perfection. I DO insist on accountability.

And by the way, the Blue Dog congressman that Obama endorsed - over a progressive primary challenger, no less - has taken a LOT of stands on the side of Bush and the Republicans. I just hope we can defeat him. Maybe if a few Blue Dogs suffer the political death penalty, the rest will wake up and start supporting the Constitution in the clinch.

Now, I suppose you may accuse me of being unrealistic, a hopeless idealist. But I'm not expecting southern and western Democrats to have as progressive a voting record as coastal Dems. I just want them to respect their oath of office to uphold the fucking Constitution. As for that congressman - Bellows is his name, I believe - that asshole ran TV ads accusing the rest of the Democratic Party of wanting to "cut and run" in Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, unless he makes the difference between a Democratic majority and minority status he should be fucked sideways with a prickly pear and tossed out of the party.

[klyfix.livejournal.com]

The Blue Dog is John Barrow of Georgia; I recalled seeing a mention at Talking Points Memo and looked up the post, which notes him as "telecom-immunity-loving, Iraq-War-supporting" and that folk didn't like that Obama did a radio ad for him. I suspect that the Powers That Be of political parties like incumbents since they generally get re-elected while a challenger lacks that advantage. A progressive Democrat might be able to get the Democratic nomination but most likely will lose to the Republican which weakens the Democratic hold on the House of Representatives; I suspect that's the logic here. Not much point, really, in knocking out a Blue Dog and replacing him with a Republican. I recall that there have been Republican efforts to do the equivalent; take out excessively liberal seeming Republicans and have hard-core conservatives in their place. I think the "Club for Growth" was doing that. I don't recall that it accomplished much, and as the more moderate Republicans seem to try very hard not to offend the conservative hierarchy I'd suppose the effort got no significant support.

I'm not sure how much I care if Democrats act like whatever Democrats are supposed to act like; I'm more concerned with end results. At this point I just want the Republicans to get more or less the treatment that Vir wished upon Morden in B5 and for roughly the same reasons.