Home > Throw These Bums Out of Office

Throw These Bums Out of Office

by Open-Publishing - Wednesday 9 August 2006
9 comments

Elections-Elected Governments USA

Democratic voters of Connecticut you’ve restored a sense of faith - not in the political system (which would almost be impossible) - but in the American electorate. Not completely. There were, after all, 48% of you who stuck with Lieberman and those who sat home yesterday. It’s barely reason for ethusiasm, but it does provide a light at the end of the tunnel.

Could it be that American voters are actually following foreign affairs closely enough to realize how much blood, money and time has been mispent on the so-called War on Terror? Is it possible Americans are fed up with the "leadership" in DC who have allowed gas prices to double in less than 4 years, neglected the city of New Orleans after having promised to rebuild it, reluctantly raised the minimum wage during an election year - providing the toy in our box of Cracker Jack - hiked their own salaries, continue to take coporate money at an astounding rate, ignore profound societal issues like rotten schools and declining wage rates? Is it possible that there are sufficient numbers of people who are sick of the way this country is run - not to go protest, write letters, demand a more accurate picture of the world from the media - but to simply go to the polls and vote the bums out? Is it?

Is it possible that observers in the media who should know better are going to stop touting Hillary’s popular appeal, as if mere appeal is grounds for becoming president? Is it possible that those few opinion makers in the media will no longer buckle to corporate pressure and present experts more capable of showing how Western imperialism and the Neocon strategy has harmed American interests and ruined the lives of countless Muslims? Is it possible there’s a momentum of disgust with the hideous activities of American politians on both sides of the aisle that will actually build into a transformative power that will reshape America into the greatness it’s capable of achieving? Is it?

Is it possible the Era of Mediocrity is drawing to a close? Is it possible Americans realize that it’s their choice? Is it possible there will be more politicians like John Murtha and Chuck Hagel who are courageous enough to go against their conservative allegiances and openly acknowledge the poverty of the Neocon blueprint to control Islamic lands? Is it possible there will be more military leaders, depressed by the predicament the DC civilians have goteen them into, like Zinni who will present the facts as they are rather than submissively giving into Cheney’s darkest desires? Is it?

Is it possible American fundamentalists will reflect the true nature of Christ’s teachings and be more concerned about global conciliation than they are in prompting the End Times to come? Is it possible society at large will pay more attention to those lives being lost - war victims, Katrina victims, U.S. soldiers, families directly affected by the War on Terror - than on aborted babies? Is it possible that the rigid polarization between people of faith and secularists will ease so that a fair public discourse can be conducted? Is it possible politicians will not routinely follow party lines and vote objectively for the best interests of the American people instead of being primarliy concerned about their own power and welfare? Is it?

Is it possible that once again Americans can be known for the magnitude of their generosity rather than the exhibition of their pomposity throughout the world? Is it possible a truly intelligent individual could be elected president again? Is it possible millions of Americans will care more about their collective fate than they do about who wins American Idol? Is it possible that in addition to the culture of shock jocks, Americans will cultivate a more serious discussion about the role history has designated for them? Is it?

Is it possible that America can prevent the decline and fall taking place now? Is it possible that America hasn’t yet seen the best of its people, that the Melting Pot assembled on this vast land has yet to realize the grand potential of bringing the rest of the world along through example rather than "smart bombs"? Is it.

Lamont supporters and every other disaffected soul who wants a better world you give us hope for believing that the answer to these questions could be Yes.

Forum posts

  • I hate to burst your bubble, but Lamont is just another phony. This whole Lieberman - Lamont race is a big distraction. There are 32 other Senate seats and 435 House seats up for grabs... and we hear about for weeks on end is Lieman-Lamont- it’s just another fabricated diversion- Lamont is 100% pro Israel, pro WWIII.

    • Amen. Lamont is an absolute Zionist. What’s so obscene about the whole thing is all the numbskulls hollering that Lieberman’s defeat indicates how strongly Americans are against the war. Cynthia McKinney, who is one of the most vocal opponents of the war, got her ass kicked. It would be great to see her leave the Democrats as Lieberman says he’ll do. They have certainly left her.

    • Lamont in his most drunken state couldn’t be anymore pro-Israel than Lieberman - an outright Zionist. What planet have you been inhabiting? And even if he desired WW111, his rhetoric has already started a movement that will build over time. At this point his specified aims wil outstrip the possibilities for fueling the War on Terror, regardless of how much he may want it.

    • McKinney was more incompetent than the Republican Administration and certifiably mentally unstable. She passed one bill her entire term. You think her replacement’s pro-war? Get a grip.
      There’s no reason to keep politicians like McKinney around regardless of how much they’re against the war. Now that Lamont won, the tide’s turned. Increasingly, you’ll see more politicians calling for an end to the war and a timetable to bring the troops home.

  • Wow!!! Who ever wrote this article is really faked out!!!

    There are so many points to correct that it would be just a waste of time.

    Suffice it to say that nothing will change vis-a-vis the wars. Mark my words, even if a Dem is elected to the presidency the wars will continue.

    • Actually a close reading reveals there are few statements and many questions, none of which you paid attention to because of your groundless cynicism. Do you think these wars are funded on air? Who’s going to pay for 2 more years of them? Americans aren’t going to keep sitting back and bleeding out their resources for nothing. This year is remarkably similar to the kind of disenchantment that fueled the Vietnam war resistance in 1968. This country’s in bad shape but not nearly as bad as your jaded attitude would have people believe.

    • I took your criticism and re-read the article for the fourth and fifth time.

      I still stand by original assertions.

      I frankly do not see the points that appear to you. The framing of the questions is more along the lines of a Strawman essay. They are presented with some preconcieved answer in mind. In other words the question is framed to justify some (in this case, misconcieved) answer.

      As I say, I still stand by my original assertions with regards to this article and I will also now add that it is very weak, in that it doesn’t have any real focus.

      But, since you have captured things that I’ve missed, would you elaborate the third paragraph for me (and possibly others). This would be a good starting point for me to try to understand what you are seeing. (Overall, I would not mind and would appreciate if you can spend time on analyzing and explaining other parts also. I am really interested.)

      No cynicism intended. Thanks.

    • I can appreciate your sense of open inquiry and curiosity, but it’s mystifying why you protest so strenuously against a series of questions, unless, of course, you’re a Liberman or Hillary supporter - politicians who never asked enough questions nor provided sufficient protest about the War on Terror and therefore deserve political defeat. Lamont may or may not be the new variation of sliced bread but he could not possibly be worse than Lieberman was, even if he showed up drunk everyday (seriously). At least his rhetoric displays leadership even if it’s merely for political gain. In that regard, his win signifies a turn in the zeitgeist that will affect elections in the fall and in ’08. That’s indisputable. How could you argue against that, unless you identify with Lieberman’s Sore Loser Syndrome?

      Perhaps the piece was weak; that’s a subjective call. But at least it asked relevant questions that politicians like Lieberman and Hillary, as well as much of the media, have ignored. It’s unjustiably presumptuous of you to insist they’re posed as strawman inquiries. Your sense of certainty about that as well as the continuance of the war illustrates that you and these readers would be better off making fewer groundless assertions and asking more questions yourself.

      Regarding the answers, I have my own opinions, but they’re far from being based on empirical proof, which is why they’re questions. One of the reasons America finds itself in this wretched state of affairs is because too many "experts" cocksure about their half-baked notions (see: Project for a New American Century) didn’t engage in a public discourse, but rather decided to pursue what seemed brilliant at the time: Preemption. Far too many DC "experts" have been eagerly pursuing a Neocon strategy - an elitist formula for shaping Islamic lands - without involving the democratic forces required to provide their policies with true legitimacy, ranging from the U.N. to Congress to the American voters. Ironically, while attempting to spread democarcy among the unwilling, they’ve refused to practice much of it here at home.

      They deny acting like imperialists yet the evidence reveals the contrary. Imperialist war makers didn’t require the masses to approve of their bloody objectives; legitimacy was a limited phenomenon. In true democracies, however, legitimacy is granted by the people, or, as is happening now, retracted by the people. Lieberman’s view, as well as Hillary’s, has been that those few "experts" know what’s best, so let them have free rein. And free rein they’ve had, for four disastrous years. And what are the results? Tragedy. More "terrorism", not less. A nation that’s about to split into three as opposed to staying united as a democracy. A Shia uprising against the West, igniting fundamentalist fervor. No doubt about it, a few pivotal questions at the right time, prompting Americans to look at this more deeply and the U.S. would’ve understood a priori that such an enterprise was doomed to failure - as is now apparent to 60% of Americans, up substantially from a year ago.

      Why? Legitimacy has virtually disappeared. And now that the sectarian animus that has existed for centuries, and contained by the Baathists, is released there’s no power, no country, no leader, no genie in a bottle capable of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. And Lieberman and Hillary, and many other politicians and most of the major media, somehow, remarkably, didn’t see it coming. Which is why you’ve got individuals like 70.***.254** saying this country’s finished. Maybe. But one thing’s certain, the same ole same ole - as practiced by Democrats before Lamont’s victory - is over. Either they’re going to have to miracuoulsy reinvent themselves or they’re headed to extinction. And if you don’t see that coming, the way they didn’t see the inevitable results of the misguided Iraqi War coming, then you should invest in a few more hours of study.

  • What’s the matter. Don’t like when a woman stands up to the neocons and demands answers? McKinney’s seat was stolen once, when she dared to confront rummie on camera, and she got it back again.

    I totally agree that the corrupt, comepletely rotten and festering guvmt’ is sliding who they want into office.

    People, don’t you get it. This country is FINISHED. And ’ya know what. They can have it!