the struggle continues

i'm having the worst time logging in tonight. i've tried and tried repeatedly for the last 1/2 hour. it's morning now, by the way. and i'm 'late' posting.

i'd intended to post at t's earlier this evening. but, as c.i. noted, blogger was out. they were doing some internal business which will hopefully make it more efficient. who knows? but t and her girlfriend, mike & nina and my ex and me had all planned an evening out together. which was a lot of fun and part of 'downtime' that every 1 should be grabbing right now.

we started talking about this in the middle of last week and we did pester trina and her husband to join us but by tuesday she was begging off because she was just too tired. for her the best way to have downtime was just to stay at home and relax.

we're all trying to not just dispense elaine's advice (free of charge, most people have to pay for it) but also set an example. it doesn't do any good to say 'do this' if i'm not doing it. it's just empty words.

and my readers have given a lot of themselves so they do need to take some time for themselves.

we're in year 6 of bully boy. we won't be able to stop every bit of legislation, every appointment over night. to do that we'd have to be a 24/7 task force dedicated to nothing but that. and we might be able to pull it off for a week or 2 or even maybe a month. but what would happen is you'd feel drained, you'd be tired, you'd be snapping at every 1 and beating yourself up and then you'd just give up hope and say 'i could be watching reruns of becker and eating pop corn balls!'

this has to be for the long haul. there's been a tendency to take orders from the leadership and when they tell us to mobilize, we do. and when they don't care, we don't.

and that's part of the reason our country is in such a bad state currently.

laura flanders says 'don't leave politics to the politicians.' we saw the perfect example of why not during the alito hearings where the dems on the committee couldn't work as a team and many were ineffective and ready to throw in the towel right after.

if you missed it, the message for democratic party leadership was 'no big deal.'

we made it a big deal. we made them realize that it was a big deal.

and i read the e-mails and know how many of you dug deep and forced yourself to do things you'd never done before. for some that was calling your senator's office. for some that was visiting it. but every 1 of you learned something from this.

even if you were too intimidated to do anything and i'm betting some of you were.

you saw what happened, that we moved the inert, lazy mountain and you heard some of the stories of people doing stuff so next time you have something to work with.

those of you who did do something know what you can do. and next time you'll be less intimidated to do something. you'll probably be willing to go a little further.

i don't know if the democratic party was ever really in touch with its base or if it just gave the appearance of being in touch.

but we've been on a bad road for some time. we've seen 'triangulation' of the clinton years that was at complete odds with what the party, the country is supposed to stand for.

sherry wrote about that in her e-mail this weekend. how things she wanted to fight, like welfare 'reform', the party was going along with. or take nafta or any other dlc cooked up idea that went against what we stand for. but the party didn't want you objecting and sent out the message of 'this is what we have to do, come on get with the program, the 60s are over.'

well, 1st of all, many of the programs we were destroying can be traced back to fdr and, unless i'm missing something, fdr was never a flower child. (his loss.)

i think it was greed. greed and wanting to be 'somebody' as defined by materialism as opposed to as defined by what we're supposed to represent which is lifting every 1's boat.

the clinton years were better than today but it's not hard for any 1 to beat the low expectations of today. but there were serious problems with the clinton years that the clintonistas don't want to deal with. they've turned bill clinton into their god and seem to think hillary will be the 2nd coming.

america can't take 4 years of clinton-ism again. if hillary's plan is to win the white house and continue the deregulation and privatization that her husband did, we don't need her.

the clintonistas want to act like the liberals just stayed silent while bill clinton was beat up by the republicans. actually, many of us were outraged by what bill clinton was doing. i don't mean phoney sex scandals. i do mean 'triangulating.'

there was a period where it seemed to be obvious that whatever we wanted, whatever we promised, would be watered down because bill wasn't going to fight it. he'd want us to rally behind him to fight off impeachment but there was no 'rally behind me to kill this disgusting policy.'

with those policies, it was 'well we have to be reasonable. we have to accept this.'

which is how you get the 1996 telecommunications act that your online clintonistas never want to talk about. a huge giveaway of our public goods and public rights to big business.

there's no defense for that. even if it has opened up low-fi which it really didn't.

it consolidated big media all the more.

the clintonistas don't want to talk about that or the feeling of helplessness that the clinton administration fostered while talking 'empowerment.'

bill clinton had many good points, but he wasn't fdr. he wasn't a giant among people leading us all to do more for 1 another. his adminstration wasn't as selfish as reagan's or poppy's but it wasn't a democratic administration to sing praises of.

clintonistas tend to confuse 'liberal' with 'democratic' and think that to be a 'liberal' you have to blindly support whatever the dnc is telling you. that's why some of them are so stuck int he 90s and can't let go. they want to tell you 'the right wing attacks all started with bill clinton!' because to them, every thing started with bill clinton. it's like he's the centerfold they beat off to each night and they'll never stop drooling over him.

of reagan, poppy and bully boy, bill clinton was obviously the best of the 4. and he had many nice qualities. but let's not distort reality.

his administration wasn't 'liberal.' he came into office, as c.i. has pointed out, with the reinventing government bandwagon, intent to have a tag sale on our public good. bully boy is that to extreme but bill clinton did it too.

pushing the burdens of working women off on them and denying the roots of the problem, which were systematic and not personal, led to welfare 'reform' which was nothing but carrying ronald reagan's myth of the 'welfare queens' all the way out. don't kid yourself otherwise.

today, most democrats will rightly recoil at the thought of joe lieberman but remember that after 8 years of bill clinton's policies, the party didn't think twice about making lieberman the vice presidential candidate. if the clinton administration were 'liberal' there's no way that lieberman would have been on the ticket without a huge outcry.

and what you saw in that campaign wasn't just the press beating up al which the clintonistas love to tell you about over and over. you saw joe lieberman undercut al gore repeatedly. when al wanted to talk about the very real economic inequalities in this country, there was joe lieberman running around to the press saying 'we're not talking class warfare' or whatever else.

he undercut al gore at every turn. he is as much responsible for al not being in the white house as is the press.

we were supposed to be shocked that al endorsed howard dean and not joe lieberman. i wasn't shocked. i was thrilled. al gore was stabbed in the back by joe lieberman repeatedly.

i'm not endorsing al gore for president here. but i am seriously interested in what he may say or do as a candidate. i think he saw what the dlc could do (which was sell him out) and i think he knows they aren't just a pain in the butt but truly dangerous. they put profits above the people.

when he speaks out now, on the war or whatever, you notice that the democrats don't come running to him. but then they didn't run to support him during the recount. they didn't come down hard on joe lieberman when he gave the election away on meet the press.

those may be 'hard truths' and it may be too hard for some clintonistas to deal with them but they really need to stop boring us with mythical tales of how bill clinton was the best president we ever had. they need to stop their cult of personality and start talking some hard truths.

but you don't see them rushing in to talk about that. you hear them whine again that the press ignored the speech al gore gave on mlk day. but you don't hear them point out that on the chat and chews none of the dem spokespeople cited it.

the reason i'm interested in al gore right now is because i think he went through something that pulled the blinders off. he seems outraged at the lies and the toady-ism. he was screwed over. and it's really easy to play it off like that happened from the press only but that's not reality.

during the recounts, he wasn't given the support he needed. he was told to take the high road and given no support. i firmly believe that he won the 2000 election and i think the go-along-to-get-along approach slapped him in the face.

the press played a part in it, no question. but the press wasn't alone and i'm getting real tired of hearing that fairy tale. the press wanted to drive bill clinton out of office. if i'm remembering correctly, usa today was the 1st to call for bill to step down.

clinton didn't step down. the people didn't want him too. if they could fight for that, and not worry what nasty things might be said about them in the press, then they could have fought for al gore's win. they didn't do that. they said things like 'we just want the process to play out.' weak little statements. they sent jess jackson packing because they didn't want to fight. time and again, they chose not to fight.

and the message trickled down.

what we've learned to do is to fight with or without our fearful leaders.

and we're going to need to keep fighting. democracy requires participation.

so if you're some 1 who needs downtime after working so hard to get democrats to do the job they're supposed to do without prodding, take the time you need because you've earned it.

the alito vote is pending and if you're ready to get back in the fight, we need you. but we need you for the future, not just for 1 fight. so don't burn yourself out.

i'll be posting later tonight (thursday) and am trying to figure out how to do so friday as well. but this weekend, my ex and i are going on our trip that we postponed during the hearings. (i will be blogging monday for sure.)

tomorrow, i'll be at t's salon again, with my cell phone, getting people, mainly women, to call in to their senators and say 'filibuster.' if you're up to it, you can start doing what you did before. we need to keep sending that message out.

i called c.i. at midnight hoping that it wasn't too late (huge time difference so i didn't think it would be, it was midnight for me, but knowing how much every 1 has given to this, i wouldn't have been surprised if c.i. had answered the phone groggy). i don't think there will be a post at the common ills tonight. when i realized that, my 1st thought was, 'i should have posted early today' but then i thought, 'you know what, we're saying take time, so it's good that i didn't.' but just as mike and i didn't post tonight due to blogger problems, c.i. wasn't taking time off. c.i.'s immersed in the church committee report. there probably won't be an entry tonight because c.i.'s taking notes and 'i am no where near the conclusions and recommendations.' no surprise, it's a thick report.

that's hardly downtime but i hope c.i. will not rush to get a post up on the church committee just to have something up. there is a lot of work to be done on a lot of issues. and we're seeing clearly that some elements in the democratic party do not give a damn about the base. take casey jr. from the feminist wire:

PA: Anti-Choice Democratic Senate Candidate Casey Supports Alito
Robert Casey, an anti-choice Democrat who is challenging Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) in November, has outraged women's rights supporters by announcing his support for confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

"It's very disturbing and should worry, I think, Pennsylvania women and civil rights advocates and people concerned about unchecked executive power to wiretap and eavesdrop on Americans," Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the Patriot News.
Casey's decision to support Alito shows that women "cannot count on a Senator Casey to protect our liberties," Michelman continued.
On the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito was the lone judge who voted to uphold a spousal notification requirement in Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act, a bill that Casey's father, then-Governor Robert P. Casey, Sr., had signed into law. The case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, was decided by the Supreme Court in 1992, which overturned Pennsylvania's harsh restrictions on abortion.
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority's Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women's rights.
Media Resources: Patriot News 1/25/06; Philadelphia Inquirer 1/25/06

this is who 'our party' selected. pennsylvania is not 'anti-choice.' arlen specter, a republican, is from pennsylvania. they can elect him to the senate with his pro-choice stance. but they made a real effort to force casey junior's opponents out of the race. elements in the party, the same 1s that are selling out our reproductive rights, wanted casey junior and they got him.

back on march 6th of last year, at the third estate sunday review, we (jim, dona, ty, jess and ava as well as c.i. and myself) worked on a piece about casey junior and the danger he represented.
if you missed it, it's 'Robert Casey Junior Doing Pop Proud.' a decision was made by democratic party leadership and it wasn't about what was best for the base, the supporters of the party.
the race in pennsylvania will be between 2 men, white, who both oppose reproductive freedom.
i never saw casey junior as anything but republican light to begin with. now that's he's demonstrated that's he's willing to break party ranks without even being in the senate, maybe others will worry?

probably not. probably you'll be reassured online and in print that he's really a good guy and we need him in the senate. i'm not exactly sure who needs him (or that he can get there, as we noted, he tends to lose races). apparently the bully boy does since he's willing to stand with the republicans to support alito. with that 1 announcement, he's confirmed all the warnings some of us have given you about him. i don't know if the gang will touch on that this weekend or not. i'll be missing out on working on the latest edition since fly boy and i will be going away. i'm going to miss working with everyone but i know they'll turn out a great edition of the third estate sunday review and i'll just look forward to reading it this edition.

but casey junior should demonstrate to you that we've got a lot of work to do and that we're going to need to be up to the battles in the future. so i hope you've taken time to rest because fixing things will involve a lot of work.