ive only seen three of the new senators on the news and thus far ive been most impressed by webb. tweety loved johnny unitas john tester (he couldnt stop humping testers leg. that crewcut really turns him on.) but i was disappointed that he couldnt come up with a decent response to that outdated chestnut that democrats were not good at balancing the books. first i would have countered that i dont see much fiscal responsibility from the republicans, and, second, i remember some guy named clinton was pretty fair at that. apparently that anti-clinton shock collar the republicans gave matthews for xmas in 1994 still works because his mind gets cloudy whenever that name gets mentioned. he couldnt even remember al gores name the other day. he referred to him as that guy who was vice president before cheney. i kid you not. and then there was claire mccaskill who with a befuddled look on her face said she would support a bolton nomination for the un. um, claire, that is not a question you want to answer off the cuff on no sleep, to say nothing it being exceptionally stupid.
so webb came across the best. with a son in harms way in iraq and a distinguished military career, he is virtually patton standing next to the chicken hawk brigade. id like to see him accused of cutting and running by shrub. also he articulated that his reasons for becoming a democrat moved beyond iraq to issues of social justice. so while he may be conservative, he is no conservative, and that is a good thing.
still waiting to hear from the new senators from rhode island, ohio and pennsylvania. and when does bernie saunders get some face time?
by Linda Milazzo
http://www.opednews.com
Tell A Friend
We must hold our leaders' feet to the fire. We must do everything possible to ensure that the actions of our elected representatives IN OUR NAMES are in the best interest of the citizens of this nation and the citizens of the world.
With that notion in mind, I was startled this afternoon, when in a conversation with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball," Democratic Senator-elect Claire McCaskill of Missouri, stated that she would consider confirming George W. Bush's contentious and slimy recess appointee, John Bolton, as United States' Ambassador to the United Nations.
To those of us who value the manner in which the United States is perceived globally, who have worked hard to restore our nation's credibility at home and throughout the world, such an action by a newly elected Democratic Senator is unconscionable and irresponsible.
Here is an excerpt of the conversation that took place today on "Hardball."
MATTHEWS: I have the first question for Senator-elect McCaskIll. Senator McCaskill, should the United States Senate confirm the nomination of John Bolton to the United Nations?
McCASKILL: Oh... yeah, probably. You know I haven't had a chance to review all of Mr. Bolton's record, but I'm a believer that the President has certain picks that he's entitled to as long as I'm convinced that they are serious about beginning work on diplomacy. Obviously that's been kind of AWOL in this administration... that emphasis on building alliances. Now is the time to remain committed to the United Nations, not to withdraw. I would want to get those assurances from Mr. Bolton and if he could give those assurances than I would probably be deferential to the President on this pick.
MATTHEWS: Why would a leopard change his stripes? What you just described is the opposite of John Bolton.
McCASKILL: I understand that that is kind of his reputation but this is about what policy he's implementing at the United Nations. If the President is supportive of the work of the United Nations and his appointee assures the Senate that he will be supportive of the President's support of the United Nations, then I would probably vote yes. But I'd have some tough questions to ask just like you ask.
MATTHEWS: But what do you think of neo-conservatives, the people who come into power and believe it's the job of the United States government not to protect this country, but their job, their mission, their messianic dream is to go around the world looking for governments they don't like and trying to democratize them by force and killing and blood and treasure, go into those countries, overturn the leadership and try to turn them into us. Do you think that's the kind of person you want representing us to the world?
McCASKILL: I think that is absolutely not what we want to be doing. I've said many times in the campaign you don't build democracy at the barrel of a gun. It has to come from the people that live in that country. Ours is a glorious democracy because it came from the people of this country and it has to come from internally within the nation. We are spreading ourselves way too thin militarily by trying to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and we need to change course as it relates to that kind of policy.
Well, if Ms. McCaskill truly believes, "You don't build democracy at the barrel of a gun," why would she vote to send a pre-loaded barrel like Bolton to America's seat at the world's most visible table? Is McCaskill somehow unaware of the negative baggage John Bolton brings to the United Nations whenever he enters the building? A building he once vowed "one could lop off the top ten floors of and no one would know the difference"?
If our newly elected leaders are to change the image of the United States from an imperialist menace to a cooperative world partner, it is unfathomable that a responsible leader would elect John Bolton as emissary to the world's pre-eminent cooperative body.
As a patriotic American who has worked hard to change my nation from militaristic and imperialistic to cooperative and diplomatic, I call upon Senator-elect McCaskill to reconsider her leanings toward confirming John Bolton as United States' Ambassador to the United Nations. It is Senator McCaskill's responsibility to this nation to promote its cooperative efforts within the United Nations and throughout the world. It is not Senator McCaskill's charge to perpetuate America's bullying by endorsing a principal harbinger of the same American exceptionalism that has tarnished it so severely in the eyes of the world!
I call upon my fellow patriots to ask Senator-elect McCaskill to vote against John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. She may be reached by phone at: (816) 356-1659 and by email at info@claireonline.com
Linda Milazzo is a Los Angeles based writer, educator and activist. Her writing has appeared in numerous newspapers, magazines and domestic and international journals. She's a member of CodePink Women For Peace and Progressive Democrats of America. Over the past three decades Linda has divided her time between the entertainment industry, community projects and education. A political and social activist since the Vietnam War, Linda attributes her revitalized-fully-engaged-intense-head-on-non-stop-political activism to the UNFORTUNATE EXISTENCE OF GEORGE W. BUSH and her disgust with greed-ridden American imperialism, environmental atrocities, egregious war, nuclear proliferation, lying leaders, and global tyranny!
especially in light of this. but im a little confused as to whether shed even get to vote. if bush couldnt force it through this senate, he certainly wont the next. right?
Chafee to block Bolton decision
by Chris in Paris - 11/10/2006 08:22:00 AM
Payback is a bitch. Especially when it is your own party that is paying back.
Along with Bolton's nomination, Bush said he would like to move forward on legislation to retroactively authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.
Bush said he would like to see action on both issues before year's end. The Democratic-controlled Congress begins its term in January.
But Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week's election, said he would block Bolton's nomination.
Chafee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that he did not believe Bolton's nomination would move forward without his support.
"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," the Rhode Island moderate told The Associated Press.
"And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."
|
newsand thus far ive been most impressed by webb. tweety lovedjohnny unitasjohn tester (he couldnt stop humping testers leg. that crewcut really turns him on.) but i was disappointed that he couldnt come up with a decent response to that outdated chestnut that democrats were not good at balancing the books. first i would have countered that i dont see much fiscal responsibility from the republicans, and, second, i remember some guy named clinton was pretty fair at that. apparently that anti-clinton shock collar the republicans gave matthews for xmas in 1994 still works because his mind gets cloudy whenever that name gets mentioned. he couldnt even remember al gores name the other day. he referred to him as that guy who was vice president before cheney. i kid you not. and then there was claire mccaskill who with a befuddled look on her face said she would support a bolton nomination for the un. um, claire, that is not a question you want to answer off the cuff on no sleep, to say nothing it being exceptionally stupid.so webb came across the best. with a son in harms way in iraq and a distinguished military career, he is virtually patton standing next to the chicken hawk brigade. id like to see him accused of cutting and running by shrub. also he articulated that his reasons for becoming a democrat moved beyond iraq to issues of social justice. so while he may be conservative, he is no conservative, and that is a good thing.
still waiting to hear from the new senators from rhode island, ohio and pennsylvania. and when does bernie saunders get some face time?
- dave 11-10-2006 4:37 pm
by Linda Milazzo
http://www.opednews.com
Tell A Friend
We must hold our leaders' feet to the fire. We must do everything possible to ensure that the actions of our elected representatives IN OUR NAMES are in the best interest of the citizens of this nation and the citizens of the world.
With that notion in mind, I was startled this afternoon, when in a conversation with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball," Democratic Senator-elect Claire McCaskill of Missouri, stated that she would consider confirming George W. Bush's contentious and slimy recess appointee, John Bolton, as United States' Ambassador to the United Nations.
To those of us who value the manner in which the United States is perceived globally, who have worked hard to restore our nation's credibility at home and throughout the world, such an action by a newly elected Democratic Senator is unconscionable and irresponsible.
Here is an excerpt of the conversation that took place today on "Hardball."
MATTHEWS: I have the first question for Senator-elect McCaskIll. Senator McCaskill, should the United States Senate confirm the nomination of John Bolton to the United Nations?
McCASKILL: Oh... yeah, probably. You know I haven't had a chance to review all of Mr. Bolton's record, but I'm a believer that the President has certain picks that he's entitled to as long as I'm convinced that they are serious about beginning work on diplomacy. Obviously that's been kind of AWOL in this administration... that emphasis on building alliances. Now is the time to remain committed to the United Nations, not to withdraw. I would want to get those assurances from Mr. Bolton and if he could give those assurances than I would probably be deferential to the President on this pick.
MATTHEWS: Why would a leopard change his stripes? What you just described is the opposite of John Bolton.
McCASKILL: I understand that that is kind of his reputation but this is about what policy he's implementing at the United Nations. If the President is supportive of the work of the United Nations and his appointee assures the Senate that he will be supportive of the President's support of the United Nations, then I would probably vote yes. But I'd have some tough questions to ask just like you ask.
MATTHEWS: But what do you think of neo-conservatives, the people who come into power and believe it's the job of the United States government not to protect this country, but their job, their mission, their messianic dream is to go around the world looking for governments they don't like and trying to democratize them by force and killing and blood and treasure, go into those countries, overturn the leadership and try to turn them into us. Do you think that's the kind of person you want representing us to the world?
McCASKILL: I think that is absolutely not what we want to be doing. I've said many times in the campaign you don't build democracy at the barrel of a gun. It has to come from the people that live in that country. Ours is a glorious democracy because it came from the people of this country and it has to come from internally within the nation. We are spreading ourselves way too thin militarily by trying to spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and we need to change course as it relates to that kind of policy.
Well, if Ms. McCaskill truly believes, "You don't build democracy at the barrel of a gun," why would she vote to send a pre-loaded barrel like Bolton to America's seat at the world's most visible table? Is McCaskill somehow unaware of the negative baggage John Bolton brings to the United Nations whenever he enters the building? A building he once vowed "one could lop off the top ten floors of and no one would know the difference"?
If our newly elected leaders are to change the image of the United States from an imperialist menace to a cooperative world partner, it is unfathomable that a responsible leader would elect John Bolton as emissary to the world's pre-eminent cooperative body.
As a patriotic American who has worked hard to change my nation from militaristic and imperialistic to cooperative and diplomatic, I call upon Senator-elect McCaskill to reconsider her leanings toward confirming John Bolton as United States' Ambassador to the United Nations. It is Senator McCaskill's responsibility to this nation to promote its cooperative efforts within the United Nations and throughout the world. It is not Senator McCaskill's charge to perpetuate America's bullying by endorsing a principal harbinger of the same American exceptionalism that has tarnished it so severely in the eyes of the world!
I call upon my fellow patriots to ask Senator-elect McCaskill to vote against John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. She may be reached by phone at: (816) 356-1659 and by email at info@claireonline.com
Linda Milazzo is a Los Angeles based writer, educator and activist. Her writing has appeared in numerous newspapers, magazines and domestic and international journals. She's a member of CodePink Women For Peace and Progressive Democrats of America. Over the past three decades Linda has divided her time between the entertainment industry, community projects and education. A political and social activist since the Vietnam War, Linda attributes her revitalized-fully-engaged-intense-head-on-non-stop-political activism to the UNFORTUNATE EXISTENCE OF GEORGE W. BUSH and her disgust with greed-ridden American imperialism, environmental atrocities, egregious war, nuclear proliferation, lying leaders, and global tyranny!
- dave 11-10-2006 4:46 pm
especially in light of this. but im a little confused as to whether shed even get to vote. if bush couldnt force it through this senate, he certainly wont the next. right?
Chafee to block Bolton decision
by Chris in Paris - 11/10/2006 08:22:00 AM
Payback is a bitch. Especially when it is your own party that is paying back.
Along with Bolton's nomination, Bush said he would like to move forward on legislation to retroactively authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.
Bush said he would like to see action on both issues before year's end. The Democratic-controlled Congress begins its term in January.
But Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week's election, said he would block Bolton's nomination.
Chafee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that he did not believe Bolton's nomination would move forward without his support.
"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," the Rhode Island moderate told The Associated Press.
"And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."
- dave 11-10-2006 4:55 pm