Detainees, Liberals, and the Powers That Be

Jonathan Turley on the  Obama administration’s newest claim that the President has the right to imprison detainees even after they have been acquitted  in a court of law. Turley calls out the Democrats.

Liberals continue to be largely silent in the face of policies that they once denounced and protested. It is rare to hear any coverage or questions of the Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes of torture, for example. Liberals seem to be quickly developing a cult of personality that has supplanted the most basic principles of human rights and international law. As with the Republicans under Bush, the Democrats are refusing to push the Administration to investigate torture or comply with international law. Before the inauguration, various generals and senators claimed that Obama and Holder assured them privately that no one would be investigated for torture. It now appears that these stories were likely true. Democrats must choose between their principles and their politicians — and they appear to be making the same choice as their Republican counterparts.

My response on the flip side.

 

Not going anywhere

What madamab said, especially:

…I also hope to continue to promote accountability for the Democratic and Republican Parties going forward. Given my new less-partisan standpoint, I am in a better position to do so personally.

[...]

We have a lot of work to do, and I want you to know, I’m still here, I’m not a Republican operative, and I’m not going anywhere.

 

What Alegre said

I’ve been yelled at, told the SCOTUS and reproductive rights hangs in the balance with an Obama presidency, and then the Democratic Party actively supports anti-choice candidates?  Just to “pad” their numbers? Kee-rist.  And people wonder why I refuse to enable them any more.

Alegre:

I’m sorry but Democrats running from the job of defending my right to choose simply to win an election makes me sick.  THIS the reason many women are being driven from our party.  I haven’t left yet but reports like this one have me looking for the door.  What gets me is this article seems to be written from the perspective that cowardice in the face of attacks on our rights is a good thing.   For me, that couldn’t be further from the truth even if we are talking about a seat in Alabama.  The rat bastids…

 

FDR Democrats

This looks promising.

 

What matters

I received an email yesterday from Senator Clinton asking me to let her know what really mattered to me. My answer:

Dear Senator Clinton,

One of the proudest moments of my life was when I stood next to you in Fernley, Nevada in front of a room so packed to the rafters I’m surprised the fire department didn’t shut us down.

As one of the 18,000,000 Americans that voted for you, what matters to me most are the things that always have: Health care for all, the right to privacy, a sane energy policy, for every American to play on an even playing field, that everyone is valued, and that work given is work that is rewarded equitably.

But today? What matters to me most today is that the person I supported, and still support, be the President of the United States of America, at the very least that person be recognized and allowed to fully participate at the Democratic National Convention in August by having her name put into nomination and having the convention proceed with a full, open, and transparent floor vote.

What matters to me most is that the Democratic Party actually stand for what its Charter says it does; for what it has historically stood for. Otherwise, it is a party in name only.

What matters to me most today is seeing you nominated publicly at the convention and your historic achievement recognized, and that the national delegates get to cast a vote that truly reflects their preference and their conscience.

With all my love and respect,

Carissa Snedeker
Precinct Captain and Hillraiser
Silver Springs, Nevada

 

Declaration of Objections

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

I don’t know how I missed this

Riverdaughter extends An Invitation to Democrats in Exile

Welcome all you newly “unaffiliated” voters! If you’re like me, you realized sometime in the last couple of months that you are part of the “old coalition” of the Democratic party. But you’re not cool enough to be courted by the “new coalition” because you’re working class, gay, hispanic, asian, a woman, old or a brilliant combination of an *uneducated* working class, sino-peruvian lesbian. And you said, “Um, that’s not really who I am” Actually, that’s NOT who I am, except for the woman part. (Lemme check *peeking down shirt* Yep, I’m a woman)
[...]

Now that I am “unaffiliated”, I’m like one of those really attractive singles on hot dating sites. Obama is going to want my vote big time. When I was just a Democrat, I was completely unsexy. But I have shed that old skin, sort of like dermal abrasion, and I’m brand sparkling new and beautiful and so much smarter than I was just a few minutes ago.

Me too! I just sent in my Change of Registration form to the County Clerk yesterday. I am now one of those “swing voters” the Democratic Party lusts after while ignoring its base. Funny, the Republican Party doesn’t make that same mistake. And which party has won 7 of the last 10 Presidential elections?

I’m not holding my breath for Obama to come a’courtin’ though. He’s too busy wooing the right-wing evangelicals to have anything to do with us wimmin just yet. Hmmm…what’s he going to be promising them that he can’t promise me?

Is he ever going to ask for my vote?