I have been accused of being angry and I would like to say this for myself.
I'm angry.
I'm angry that our party has no leaders, zero, none, nada. And I'm really angry that those in leadership positions seem intent on reaching across the aisle, playing it safe, not choosing sides and not standing up even if their chair was on fire.
Today, I am angry, again, at Nancy Pelosi. And I'm calling out Al Gore and John Edwards. Three intelligent people who are not leaders in any way shape or form. How bad would things have to get before one of these three stands up? Would our economy have to be on the precipice? Would we have to be stuck in a war that's costing us blood and treasure? Would the world face major challenges in global warming? What exactly would prompt them to action?
Speaker Pelosi is bringing a $170 billion bill to vote in the House of Representatives, 170 billion more for the war in Iraq. She does not have to bring this bill to the floor or to a vote. She is choosing of her own free will to support the war. Maybe it has to do do with her deep friendship with George Bush. In her own words:
A "fine relationship." "Amiable." It's not "personal." Really Speaker Pelosi? It's not? It should be. How many soldiers will die before it's personal? How many families will have to be devastated before you take it personally?
When will you realize that they take it personally, hell, you're getting blamed for high gas prices this week because you are Speaker of the House - you control the nation's pocketbook, here's what they are saying about your lack of action on gas prices - from Freedom's Watch:
In a 2006 press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Democrats had a common sense plan to bring down skyrocketing fuel prices. The average price for a gallon of gas when Democrats took control of congress that November was $2.25 - a price that Pelosi and other liberals claimed amounted to "price gouging." The average price of a gallon of gas today is now up to a record $3.61, and in Speaker Pelosi's home Congressional district in the California bay area, the price tops $4 a gallon.
Despite the price going up $1.36 per gallon (that's 60%!) since Democrats took control of Congress 15 months ago, an out-of-touch Speaker Pelosi and Congressional leadership have still not released this so-called common sense plan to bring prices under control. Just last week in an interview with Larry King, Speaker Pelosi cited the national average as being only $2.56.
Rising fuel prices don't only raise the cost to fill our gas tanks, but they affect the prices we pay for almost every other product - including necessities like food, and Congress is doing nothing to alleviate the strain on Americans' wallets. Click here to see just how out of touch Speaker Pelosi and Congressional leaders are. Then call Speaker Pelosi's office at 202-225-0100 and remind her that America does need a common sense plan to bring gas prices under control.
Speaking of gas prices, and oil companies and record profits and global warming: Al Gore.
Al Gore has said that the global warming situation has gotten worse,
"But the situation has got worse. The entire North Polar ice cap is melting and could be gone in some areas in as little as five years," he said.
We have all heard the former vice president say in his documentary that we have just ten years, that was two years ago, so the next president of the United States, incumbents usually win their re-election fights, will determine the future of global warming, so surely Al Gore is planning on getting heavily involved in this year's political campaigns.
No.
He's not planning on doing anything. No endorsement for Andrew Rice in Oklahoma. No pick in the Democratic race. Nothing. Instead he has launched a $300 million advertising campaign to try and get an email list to try and influence politicians? We can solve it, sure, but WE need fighters not followers.
And then, John Edwards:
"If you look at what's happening in the world today, we desperately need visionary leadership."
North Carolina is holding its primary next week. John Edwards stood on the stage with Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, who is better for the country John? Who will provide that leadership?
Your entire campaign was about standing up for what's right - what you believe in and fighting poverty. So which candidate is better? Who are you endorsing?
Silence.
Speaker Pelosi will fund the war and deliver the White House to John McCain.
Al Gore will stand by as, by his own definition, the defining election in the fight against global warming takes place and he choose not to participate.
John Edwards will watch the North Carolina Primary as an interested observer I suppose.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the
comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the
comment you replied to
What we are experiencing is our government doing business as usual. I'm angry (and yes, VERY BITTER) about the whole damned lot of them. After the November vote, they didn't even thank us before they bent us over and withheld the Vaseline!
I think Obama has his pulse on democrats they dont ask themselves if they should win rather its will they win. They have no principles no values no convictions they are the most weak minded political party ever. At least republcian stick to their core principles thats why they win democrats are wishy washy they are so busy trying to be republicans they forget who they are.
IT IS COWARDICE (***Not to mention shows a lack of civic knowledge about who controls the Exectutive branch AND OUR INFORMATION PIPELINES***) To use all your anger to repeatedly KNEECAP the Democrats instead of directIng your anger where it belongs: at the Radical Right Wing American Fascist Republican Party and their viscious and brainwashed "Base." IT'S COWARDICE!
AND DUMB! STOP IT!
Edwards' actions hardly rise to the same level as Gore and Pelosi. We knew Pelosi was useless when she took impeachment off the table. Gore, as much as I admire him, gave up the opportunity to claim his position as President - a position that was stolen by him by the greedy bastard in the white house - and perhaps make a real difference on global warming.
But Edwards' lack of an endorsement is NOT equivalent. He ran for the nomination and the party elite treated him an unforgivable manner. So, he nows sits and waits for the party to choose the nominee. Why is that a failure to lead? Let the people pick - perhaps he sees little difference between Obama and HRC and thinks that either one would be a good candidate. Edwards deserves no condemnation - he deserves to be the democratic nominee. But, we are stuck with Obama and HRC - neither one a true progressive and both too cowardly to stand up to bush. Throw some condemnation their way.
Yes, I realize that, but someone who is unwillingly to take on a dangerous rogue president is hardly my best choice for the job of president of the United States. Perhaps I should have said that neither Obama or HRC are brave enough to stand up for the Constitution. Is that better? Standing up to bush = standing up for the Constitution.
Man the Huff-post has a bunch of fools writing blogs. James Boyce is a perfect example:The president(Dem or Rep) has no control over the price of gas. It is much more complex than just saying"lower the price of gas".The oil companies are making record profits because demand is up worldwide. Their profit margin is between 9.8 and 11.0 %. As for Al Bore, he will not debate climate change because his whole future($) relies on this hoax going forward. When you are right on an issue, you should debate anyone, anywhere. Man maybe contributing to global warming but to say we are 100% to blame is a joke. The world has gone thru climate change since the start. To think it won't happen again is stupid.Why are other planets in our solar system also experiencing a warming? Could it be the sun????
Anyway, the people Boyce singles out here are not going to stand up because what they say they can do and what they can do are two different things. The Dems promised the country alot to gain in 2006 and did nothing.Hope you all won't fall for it again. Research everything and vote for the person who has a plan that can actually be achieved.
"....Man the Huff-post has a bunch of fools writing blogs. James Boyce is a perfect example:The president(Dem or Rep) has no control over the price of gas. It is much more complex than just saying"lower the price of gas".The oil companies are making record profits because demand is up worldwide. ...." Man, your head ain't screwed on tight.
Yeah, no president can simply demand a change in price. But a president could open the strategic oil reserve. But the real point, fool, is a president, who isn't a traitor at heart, could send a legislative request to Congress to require higher CAFE standards, an excess profits tax ($400,000,000 retirement package for the ExxonMobil CEO, what did he do to deserve it?) on oil companies, a fully funded program to get off oil (funding and mandating better bus service in cities and towns, with low fares to shift transporation choices), better R&D into alternatives to the gasoline internal combustion engine....That's what a president can do to lower gas prices.
Ya know, I've always had a sneaking suspicion that our failing space program is because initial tests of crystal deposition in space (vacuum and zero-g) showed cheap photovoltaic cells are possible when made in orbit. The May 2008 PC Magaine pg. 58 reports thin-film photovoltaic may soon be quite cheap. The manufacturing process uses ink-jet technology, aluminum, and special chemicals.
You would probably be even more angry if you put all this in the proper perspective, James. This is how it works.
There are two political parties in the United States, but only one agenda, that of the investor class AKA Wall Street. The Republicans support it overtly. The Democrats support it covertly, pretending to be the opposition party. Two parties, one agenda, one nation deceived by the dog and pony show.
"The people of a democracy are the easiest to deceive as they begin with the mistaken belief that their elected government answers to them rather than the plutarchy it actually supports." - Bertrand Russell
Edwards is not a superdelegate. There may be some family dynamics working in the background that contribute to his decision. I don't ascribe any nefarious or totally self-serving attribute to his decision. His delegates have been endorsing Obama.
Gore IS a super. His endorsement carries much more weight. He is not "required" to endorse before the convention, as much as I would have preferred him to commit long ago. Maybe the DNC can get everyone off the fence soon. Perhaps his decision to withhold is partly based on the fact that neither of the candidates are really fully committing to the causes for which has been advocating the last several years... yes, they give lip service, but I expected much more from both. Full support goes both ways. There is also the possibility that he believes that either will serve well and doesn't want to alienate the winner. His ecological cause is just. It might need that kind of insurance.
Leader Pelosi is another story. I have written her a number of times in the past to criticize her dismal performance. Perhaps it's true that as Leader she should show restraint for an open endorsement of a particular candidate before all races are finished, but I am highly critical of both her and Senator Reid's performances.
Fund. Don't Fund. As Leader, she always guarantees that more money is thrown at those who are destroying this country. We deserve better. Congressional performance ratings reflect that opinion of cowardice and complicity.
Edwards may not be a super, but he did garner quite a few delegates in the early primaries. Getting 20 delegates to support his endorsed candidate (formally) would have quite a bigger effect on the race.
You had me with Pelosi, but then confused the issue with Gore and Edwards. If you had maintained that all three AND Obama and Clinton should be pressuring Pelosi to keep the $170 appropriation from coming to the floor, I'd be in violent agreement. Instead it looks like what you're really angry about is that Gore and Edwards won't endore Obama. That's sad, really sad.
What we currently have representing the citizens of this country are career politicians more concerned with self-preservation than doing what is right for the people and the country.
They will say and do WHATEVER it takes to get elected and then to stay elected, for life.
You are absolutely right in your critique. However, it is questionable whether these people would be recognized as leaders if they assert themselves. This party has been hijacked by the Clintons and the DLC democrats. Remember what happened when Richardson endorsed Obama. James Carvel and Bill Clinton treated him like a traitorous piece of dirt. When Nancy Pelosi suggested that the delegate count should factor into the decision of super delegates she was threatened by Clinton donors. If Al Gore had endorsed Obama, the smear campaign against him by the Clintons would be sickening. The Clintons have absolutely no shame.
"it is questionable whether these people would be recognized as leaders if they assert themselves. This party has been hijacked by the Clintons and the DLC democrats. Remember what happened when Richardson endorsed Obama. "
Unfortunately, you are right.
Just look what happened in the recent past to former President Carter when he mentioned some truisms in the Middle-East. Now there are those who are willling to smear this man of peace as being anti-semitic.
Loading comments…
Posted April 30, 2008 | 09:38 AM (EST)