HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » calimary » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Current location: Oregon
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 62,401

About Me

Female. Retired. Wife-Mom-Grandma. Approx. 30 years in broadcasting, at least 20 of those in news biz. Taurus. Loves chocolate - preferably without nuts or cocoanut. Animal lover. Rock-hound from pre-school age. Proud Democrat for life. Ardent environmentalist and pro-choicer. Hoping to use my skills set for the greater good. Still married to the same guy for 40+ years. Probably because he's a proud Democrat, too. Penmanship absolutely stinks, so I'm glad I'm a fast typist! I will always love Hillary and she will always be my President.

Journal Archives

Unfortunate but true. There are WAY too many problems that come with a GOP presidency.

WAY too many!
- How 'bout the Supreme Court nominations that will come, and who will retire to create those openings in the first place, one of ours or one of theirs?
- How 'bout the appointees and nominees that will come, and the mindset that would take over? Surely you don't want to see the PNAC having The Big Access again, do you? They were all over the romney campaign in the foreign policy department. These same wannabe warriors are in mid-life or later, and never served when they were younger and had a chance to go to Vietnam or maybe Desert Storm, so they have no concept about the real costs of war. They want to lead the way in a great crusade, from the safety of their well-appointed offices, of course. When a Dem is in the White House, their access becomes more difficult, because the Democratic world view is a lot less welcoming to these wild and totally failing notions of the imposition of an American Empire upon the world. It's the republi-CONS who are into that juvenile, unrealistic, self-absorbed shit. Dems not so much, and when they're in power, the PNAC is not exactly in with that in-crowd.
- How 'bout the "advisors" who'd come in with a republi-CON president? Consider: who are their campaign chieftains, their head fund-raisers, their debate coaches and sparring partners, their activist business pals, their big-ass donors who all see this as an investment. ALL THOSE PEOPLE would come flooding in with their pal, the GOP president.
- How 'bout energy policy? We'd have NO hope whatsoever of combatting Keystone XL, protecting the ecosystem, developing and promoting sustainable energy sources, or cracking down on polluters, dumpers, manufacturers of toxins and toxic byproducts, and more. All the polluters would be given free passes to the Fast-Track lane because their pal who also hates regulations just grabbed the ultimate brass ring.
- How 'bout civil liberties. Okay there is shit going on, on Obama's watch. But it started and came to full flower under bush/cheney, and they never bothered getting warrants.
- How 'bout other civil liberties? Do you think for one minute any kind of worker protections, women's rights, voting rights, marriage equality, reproductive freedom, consumer protections, universal health care coverage, immigration issues, gun safety issues, issues involving the poor and homeless and elderly, the addressing of climate change, or any number of other issues that we care about - would figure anywhere in a republi-CON adminstration's agenda? Anywhere at all? How 'bout all those Congressional panels discussing women's reproductive rights or violence against women, and all the panelists are male? At least when the Dems get in, those things do go onto the "to do" list. Those are issues Dems talk about and are far more likely to try to accomplish things. Back it up from Election Night and consider the dramatically differing manifestos and mission statements of the party platforms of the Dems and the GOP. Look at all the planks in those platforms. THAT is the mindset that would come in with the winning ticket, and which would govern all decisions and policy directives. Which do YOU prefer?
- How 'bout the kinds of visitors they have, the kinds of events they attend and who they hang with? In other words, just who is getting regular and friendly access to the Oval Office & Co.? Who is it who's whispering in the ear of the (GOP) president? reagan's so-called "Kitchen Cabinet" exerted tremendous under-the-radar influence over his presidency. The members included a number of industrialists and California business tycoons. They were neither formally appointed as advisors nor nominated for Senate approval, so there was no accountability whatsoever. They operated in the shadows, out of public view and indifferent to public opinion. Is it gonna be another "Millionaires on Parade" as reagan's years were nicknamed? Exclusively the 1%, invitation-only, thank you? Just the have's and the have-more's?
- And you know there's more.

You're actually electing a mindset. How they lean, what they believe, where they stand, and all their like-minded friends, benefactors, associates, and advisors.

I'm gonna stay with the Democrats for awhile. There really isn't another option - any genuinely realistic one, that is.

That concerns me as well. One thing that's struck me in this whole affair is

that people on CNN and elsewhere sure are going apeshit over the Guardian.

WHERE THE FUCK WERE THEY IN 2002 and 2003???? The Guardian was all over the lies about the run-up to the Iraq War. They had it all. That paper was pretty much the only mainstream news outlet throughout that published the truth about what bush/cheney was up to. THEY had the voices and sources and quotes and interviews with people who brought up the OTHER side than what we were getting here in the US, being force-fed that drum-beat for war, with the "9-11," "9-11," "9-11" and "WMD!" "WMD!" WMD!" mantras being jammed up our asses every damn day. They actually covered the opposing view, thoroughly and richly, and gave it many a column inch. Continuing after 2003, too. The Guardian kept up the coverage throughout. It was the ONE place where you could reliably go to get to the bottom of what was going on, because the Guardian was talking to the people who were muzzled, ignored, frozen out, or demonized, and giving them full attention, exposure, and the legitimacy their views deserved.

There was almost none of that anywhere here - except for the low-profile and much-ignored McClatchy papers, the alternative press, and of course on sites like this one. None of the majors. Shit, people got fired for trying to report on coffins coming home from the Iraq War, or even take photos. It was years before one shot of multiple flag-draped coffins loaded inside some transport plane actually made it to print on a mass public scale. It was like the details of actual warfare were taboo and not to be spoken. Here and there you'd hear about some reporter getting sidelined or even fired for trying to cover the opposition to the war. Highest-profile case, I think - Phil Donahue was fired by MSNBC no less, because he was a lone voice against our invading Iraq, and oh gracious me, we certainly couldn't have that on the air now, could we?! Typical panels discussing Iraq on cable news would consist of a republi-CON representative or senator, a conservative columnist, a reporter or critic with a known conservative slant, and Donna Brazile: one of the most infuriating milquetoasts I'd ever screeched at when she was making yet another anemic "defense" of Democrats or conceding how wrong the Democratic/liberal/progressive take on things was. NO ONE paid any attention to what the Guardian was reporting, day after day, as it proved there was VERY much indeed another side to consider besides the non-stop war-cheerleading from every media .

But man, on this story, the Guardian is being referenced or quoted seemingly every minute on the minute. Almost as though somebody woke up somewhere in some back news office a couple of weeks ago and realized there was this news outlet in the UK called the Guardian that was reporting all kinds of stuff worth noticing.

Oh man!!! What a story, Omaha Steve!!!

It's an amazing experience following those threads through the giving-up of a baby for adoption, to the growing-up of that child in her adopted world, to the moment when that child reaches out to find her biological roots.

I know. A couple of years ago, I did it myself (I'm an adoptee myself). In one set of email attachments, I learned that I'd gone from basically being an only child to being the eldest of six. It's a little bit astounding to wrap one's mind around. But I'm gonna try to meet my two sisters later this summer! Technically, half-sisters, because while I was able to locate my biological mother, whoever my biological father was - remains a mystery.

It bends your mind, I'll tell you that! In a good way, though! I'm loving your journey, and your findings!!! Congratulations and many many many hugs, both big and little!

And she risked alienating people who would otherwise be sympathetic to her cause.

I mean, REALLY! THIS President, over and above all the others in American history, has singlehandedly done more to advance gay rights than ANY of his predecessors. And they STILL have a bone to pick with him?????????? Forcryingoutloud!!! She should have been giving grief where it was deserved: the republi-CON obstructionists who insist on standing in the way of progress and enlightenment.

Welcome to DU, YeahSureRight!

Glad you're here. I've carried that in my heart ever since that bastard won in 1980. Hell, even before that, since we were blighted by him in California when he was governor. I thought he was the most dangerous man in America, if not the world, because of the oh-so-smooth and slick way he sold toxic and inhumane and downright un-Christian ideas and concepts to voters that they embraced with open arms as though it were free money - when it was always the worst thing possible that could be done to them, and against every last one of their best interests. Wrapped it all up like shiny objects in red-white-and-blue fairy tales, and people ate it up from coast-to-coast. Lulled them into brainless acceptance with his aw-shucks shtick and his amiable, harmless, kindly old uncle routine. And most of America fell for it, head first. Worst thing EVER to happen to our country. And we did it to ourselves.

Wow. Coulda knocked me over with a feather on that one...

NOT. I'm just surprised that one of them flat-out says it.

I remember that time, life long demo!

And frequently, even to this day, my mind wanders over to the "what ifs."

Two rich guys who cared about the people. Three if you count Teddy Kennedy. They cared about the have-nots. They felt an obligation to serve their country. You got the sense with them that the very wealth and privilege they enjoyed made them feel obligated to work for the greater good of all. That's what I grew up believing, probably because of them. I think if you're fortunate, if you've been blessed, if you're wealthy and can lift more of the load and pay more of the way, then you damn well SHOULD. You're obligated. You just ARE. Much blessed, much obligated.

Or look at it this way. You have a brawny 250-pound muscle man and a scrawny 90-pound weakling both riding in a car. The car overturns and there's no one around to help. WHO of the two of them seems better suited to try to lift the car up and tip it back over? Seems the one-percenters and the haves and have-mores think the scrawny little guy should do the heavy lifting, and not the big muscle-bound bruiser who was built for it. Seems to me it's the other way around.

Heckler wouldn't even have gotten NEAR the room.

Has everyone here forgotten the infamous "First Amendment Zones" that were always set up BLOCKS away from any bush gathering - so far away that the press wasn't there and the protesters were rendered completely irrelevant? People were subjected to searches before they were allowed to enter. It was always invitation only. Cherry-picked audience-members to make sure only the "chosen" followers and sycophants were allowed in. For the entire last "presidency," it was like that. I've noticed the glaring difference, since then, between the bush/cheney years and the Obama years. There was zero tolerance of ANY opposing views from 2001-2009. NOBODY outside the bubble got a fair hearing, or even a chance to confront the "king."

Since the beginning of the Obama years, that whole feeling changed. It seemed as though the doors were opened a lot wider and anyone could come in, regardless, and at least get their few moments to vent. What would have happened if some hothead Dem shouted "You LIE!" at bush during one of the State of the Union addresses? Such an individual would have been rudely and abruptly escorted OUT, and then the press would have rained down its own criticism - "how DARE you do that to the President during the SOTU!?!?!?!?" But some pipsqueak like joe wilson hollers it out during President Obama's SOTU and is damn near lionized for it. AND he was allowed to stay for the rest of the speech, instead of being taken by the scruff of the neck and kicked out the door.

Nominated for Quote of the Year.

Good Grief. I guess no one expects any consequences for their actions anymore.


And I frankly don't see how it makes any sense at all to dump publicly on the wife of the ONE President who's done more to advance equality and progress for the LGTB community than anyone before him. Hell, even Andrea Mitchell pointed that out on MSNBC today.

I'm glad Michelle Obama got in that woman's face.

DAMN! This First Couple has been disrespected more than I can remember ANY First Couple ever, EVER having to face - while deserving it the least of them all, in my opinion.

And I've gotta say - I'm FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF IT!!!!!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »