• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    riverdaughter on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Ga6thDem on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Propertius on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    riverdaughter on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    William on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    William on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    riverdaughter on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    jmac on Happy MLK Day from Canada
    Seagrl on Engrossment
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Engrossment
    Kathleen A Wynne on Engrossment
    William on Engrossment
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The NYTimes Reveals More Than It Means
      Watch this video. It’s only 39 seconds. It’s worth it. What’s interesting to me about this video is NOT what Bernie says, it’s the reaction. It’s how genuinely uncomfortable the people interviewing him (The NYTimes editors) are. They really think he’s saying something terrible. Something awkward. Something embarrassing. What is he saying? “I ignore the […] […]
  • Top Posts

No Tinfoil: We Have Been Living in a Dictatorship

constitution_quill_pen

On Monday the Department of Justice posted nine memos containing stunningly un-American legal opinions that were kept secret during the Bush years. These memos were used to justify a shocking expansion of executive power and to nullify most of our Constitutional rights. Scott Horton of the Harpers Magazine writes:

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.

Finally, the truth breaks into the mainstream media. Some of us did realize it, Scott; but I’m glad you’re writing about it now. I just hope you keep your eyes and ears open, because I’m not so sure that President Obama won’t try to hang onto some of these powers.

According to the New York Times descriptions of the memos,

The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

Some of the positions had previously become known from statements of Bush administration officials in response to court challenges and Congressional inquiries. But taken together, the opinions disclosed Monday were the clearest illustration to date of the broad definition of presidential power approved by government lawyers in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In October 2001, in a memo to then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, DOJ officials John Yoo and Robert Delahunty authorized the President to use the military for law enforcement within the U.S.

The use of the military envisioned in the Yoo-Delahunty reply appears to transcend by far the stationing of troops to keep watch at streets and airports, a familiar sight in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The memorandum discussed the use of military forces to carry out “raids on terrorist cells” and even seize property.

“The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force.

The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty said that in addition, the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement operations, would pose no obstacle to the use of troops in a domestic fight against terrorism suspects. They reasoned that the troops would be acting in a national security function, not as law enforcers.

The NYT story summarizes each of the remaining memos briefly. Please read the whole thing.

Scott Horton again:

John Yoo’s Constitution is unlike any other I have ever seen. It seems to consist of one clause: appointing the President as commander-in-chief. The rest of the Constitution was apparently printed in disappearing ink.

On January 15, 2009, Stephen Bradbury of the Office of Legal Counsel wrote that these opinions had not been used since 2003. But Bradbury

said it was important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions,” and he used the memo to repudiate them formally.

Why did Bradbury wait until five days before George W. Bush left office to do this? Will President Obama strongly and decisively reject the expansion of executive power that took place under his predecessor?

In a speech a few hours before the documents were disclosed Monday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said: “Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good.”

Mr. Holder said that the memorandums were being released in light of a substantial public interest in the issue.

I don’t hear a clear repudiation in that statement. I give Obama and Holder credit for posting these shameful memos publicly; however from now on we really do need honesty and transparency from the President and Department of Justice. Will we get it? To be honest, I don’t have a lot of faith that we will. At least publishing these memos is a start.

101 Responses

  1. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended.

    And herein lies the problem; we no longer emphasize civics in the school curriculum. What has replaced the teaching of government rule is the celebration of cult over the actual ability to lead.

    Most kids today have no idea that government is not a top/ down proposition and that the will of the people are the determining factor in governance. We have come to believe that we are at the mercy of our “leaders” who make the decisions without regard to those they are elected to represent.

    One example is the length of service these politicians have in congress. Few people today enjoy the luxury of working for the same company during a lifetime of service. Not these people. Once in they are almost assured of a lifetime appointment as incumbents more than likely have little opposition as the years pile up.

    Therefore it comes as no surprise that any president would not look to secure the position of “ruler” over the masses as what has occurred with Bush. One need only look to those syncophants willing to overturn and stretch the powers handed over to the executive as they are well aware that the nation as a whole has little or no idea of the actual role they themselves play as the electorate. A return to the teaching of civics is a much needed tool to assure these affronts do not enlarge.

    The three branches of government were founded on equality. No longer. The Executive Branch has been expanded beyond the scope and I do not see any president going forward willing to forfeit that power.

    • Pat, you are so right. We need to start teaching Civics in schools again.

      • Let’s start by the Article 2 of the Constitution : POTUS needs to be a Natural Born citizen, which is always defined as

        1) Born on the territory of the United States
        2) Born of parents both American citizens at the time of said birth.

  2. It does not help that the legislative branch is held in such low esteem by the public that I fear many people would gladly abolish it entirely as inept, ineffective and incompetent (those are probably redundant but you get the picture).

  3. Note that while the President’s approval rating is at 67%, Nancy Pelosi and the Dems are down around 37%. What does that say? What do people think of the SCOTUS? Not much better. Think back to the early days of the Republic and the role and stature of the Congress. The POTUS and the SCOTUS were at the margins.

  4. Gosh, I thought when the SCOTUS suspended the Constitution by deciding an election in 2000 (my copy doesn’t say that is the job of the Supreme Court), they had pretty much decided that little piece of paper wasn’t worth anything anymore. Did anyone expect a president who was never elected to obey a constitution he had torn up? Can I get a job making a lot of bucks at the Atlantic Monthly b/c I am not a complete moron?

  5. Thanks for writing this Boston Boomer. This is a great post. Good links, great commentary.

  6. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/financial-sector-spent-5-bln/story.aspx?guid=%7B9644680A%2D00F9%2D4C16%2D8C7E%2D66DD9745DD1A%7D&siteid=rss

    “NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — U.S. financial services firms spent more than $5 billion on lobbying and political donations between 1998 and 2008, and won fights on regulatory and political matters that contributed to the current financial collapse, according to a report from two watchdog groups. Essential Information, and the Consumer Education Foundation, reported that banks, investment firms and others made $1.7 billion of political contributions, and spent $3.4 billion on lobbying efforts in the last decade. The report, titled, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America,” identified roughly 3,000 officially registered lobbyists working for the financial services industry in 2007. “These companies drew heavily from government in choosing their lobbyists. Surveying 20 leading financial firms, “Sold Out” finds 142 of the lobbyists they employed from 1998-2008 were previously high-ranking officials or employees in the Executive Branch or Congress,” the report said. ”

    A little off topic, but I think it explain why our elected and appointed officials don’t always make decisions in the best interest of “we the people.” They’re currently serving those with deep pockets (regardless of whether a “D” or “R” appears after their name).

  7. chimera–I agree 100% — we haven’t had a Constitution in this country for the last 8 years (at least). Anyone who is surprised by this (especially after the completely un-democratic way the Dem. primary was run) has had their heads buried in the sand. Now Obama is releasing these papers for what? So he can pretend he is any better? I’m not impressed and I’m still not fooled.

    • Angie,

      It worries me. I think it’s a head fake. I’d like to know what is being hatched behind the scenes in the Obama DOJ. If they really wanted to stop the power grab, they would investigate and prosecute Bush and his gang.

      • I didn’t mean to imply that I’m not worried–I’m just not surprised. Obama is no better than W & this country is still being run like a dictatorship — he is just releasing these documents now to distract us from that fact.

        • I know, I was just agreeing with you. That Greewald piece is amazing.

          He even quotes Obot commenters defending Obama for using Cheney-Yoo type tactics. In fact it sounds like Obama is pushing the limits of executive power even more than Bush/Cheney!

          • I knew we were in trouble when Obama voted for FISA and obots were rejoicing that it was all part of the plan to beat Bush at his own game. Why don’t they understand that a “Dem” dictatorship is no better than a “Repub” one?

  8. “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. ”

    John Adams, Journal, 1772

  9. bb, sorry to be OT.

    Lou Dobbs is reporting on the fab and fancy dinner party the Obamas are throwing tonight just for fun.

    • Hi Catarina,

      Do tell. Give us details!

      • according to Dobbs, B&M told the crowd they were *lonely* in that big house, so they are thrilled to have these Wed. eve dinners!
        Cuz it’s the *people’s house!*

        The WH wouldn’t say what they were serving.

        • Forget the food — they only publish that when they order Popeyes (like they did on the innauguration night so we can see how they are “just like us!”). What I want to know is who is on the guest list? Since it is the “people’s house” I think we have the right to know.

  10. This is nothing new. Each president attempts to take a little bit more in the bite of the apple. Nixon was working on the same thing over 30 years ago to achieve the same result. He was brought down as a result but since then the Repubs in particular have sought ways to make it happen.

    These people work for us, not the other way around. Yet you would be hard pressed to find many out there who do not view the presidency as some kingdom in exile and the Commander in Chief a “king”. Otherwise, there should be a revolt taking place among the populace to demand they begin to represent us and not the special interests who fund their campaigns.

    For all intents and purposes, the electorate is secondary to their aims.

    • Yes, it is the imperial presidency syndrome. Usually more pronounced in Republicans but if you have a Democratic President already running for reelection, and somebody who is known for trying to keep everything under his control, it is hard to assume that the person is going to be that much less imperialistic. And, as others on the thread have observed, with leadership like Pelosi and Reid and Durbin the reassertion of the legislature just does not seem in the offing.

  11. It’s nice to release Bush’s memos now. Will we have to wait for the next president to release Obama’s?

  12. If Only I Were A Dictator, by George W. Bush

    Yes, George W. Bush has stated he’d prefer to be a dictator at least three times:
    * * *

    “You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas.
    (Governing Magazine 7/98)

    — From Paul Begala’s “Is Our Children Learning?”

    “I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.

    — CNN.com, December 18, 2000

    “A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” [Bush] said.

    — Business Week, July 30, 2001

    http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/29_Dictator.html

    • I’m more impressed with actions than words — the important thing to me is that W acted like a dictator — these documents are no big surprise. The problem is that Obama is acting like one too — where is the concern for what is happening now?

    • I remember one of those times. The Dems around W, liker Daschle laughed uproariously when W made this comment. They then proceeded to help W more every which way than they ever helped Bill Clinton…. When Bill was in, they sat on thier hands as the GOP waled on him.

      If the public didn’t scream thier disapproval over W trying to steal Social Security in ’05…the Dems would have helped Bush with that as well. All they have done since Tip O’Neil left, has been to cave in at faster and faster speeds. IMO

  13. There’s no longer a mystery as to whether Obama would retain the dictatorial powers – even a few B0bots noticed
    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/b0bots-start-noticing-can-obama-really-be-like-cheney/
    Interesting though that it was Obama releasing those memos…Suddenly the media talks about Bush rather than how Obama is emulating him

    • Plainly, that was the idea. Anything to keep obots enraged and buy more time

  14. Does anyone really think that a Chicago thug will give up any power that helps him control?
    Hell if backtrack rescinded any of bush’s power grabs, Emanuel would grab his skinny neck or big ears and shake him to remind him who controls him.

    WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

    • What an image, Helen! I’d like to see that.

      • Maybe that is why backtrack and meechele are always trying to run away from the White House or have dinners .
        You think it is entertainment really it is a form of protection.

        I do not remember ever having a president that really had no clue like this selected one.

        WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

        PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  15. Hi SOD,

    Did you notice I’m not nesting you?

  16. Hi Boomer! 🙂

    Thanks…nesting gives me a headache.

  17. BTW Boomer — excellent post.

  18. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/02/executive_power/

    ‘The brief filed by Obama on Friday afternoon (.pdf) has to be read to believed. It is literally arguing that no court has the power to order that classified documents be used in a judicial proceeding; instead, it is the President — and the President alone — who possesses that decision-making power under Article II, and no court order is binding on the President to the extent it purports to direct that such information be made available for use in a judicial proceeding.”

    • Of course not! When the President does it, it is NOT illegal. D’oh! Wasn’t anyone paying attention to Nixon — Obama’s real role model?

      • Oh, and for the record — by the time Obama gets done, Nixon is going to look like kid’s stuff.

  19. Life was so pleasant and hopeful under Bill Clinton.

  20. SOD — if you want to freak out, look at the comments — the first one is arguing the “secret good motive defense!” LOL

  21. The entire Obama campaign of secrecy and arrogance gave me the chills that he was preparing to be a dictator. That he has not even once suggested that dreadful Patriot Act be thrown out in its entirety tells me he does not intend to return this country to its previous level of freedoms. Nor does he intend to improve the plight of minorities, or women.

    He can’t govern with the limited life experiences he has had, so he has to continue the dictatorship style of W.

    • Love the media’s abstention (snark) when it comes to speculating on Obama’s next move. They remind me of the scene in the movie Dodgeball. When the team might have to forfeit and the ding announcer says, “let’s see how that strategy works out for them.”
      If Bo had the perspicacity, there would be no need to speculate.

  22. Well this clarifies things – J-SOM:

    The guest post How To Sex A Puma below has caused a bit of a stir. I stand by that post without reservation.

    • Having read it, I can’t say that I don’t agree with some of the points the author was attempting to make. I do disagree with the term “coven”, but there are blogs who seem to view patriarchy, castration, death, destruction, as bromides to promote their view of the male species. That alone would be more than likely to cause a man to think twice before wanting to climb onboard.

  23. It is becoming more apparent each day that Rahm Emanuel is actually running the WH. This allows Obama the time to speechify, pose for photo op, issue party invitations, and attend his sporting activities.

    The agenda has been formulated and greased by those other then Obama who merely shows up, looks good by the standards set by the MSM and Jack Cafferty, while the plotting and planning takes place elsewhere.

    Clinton burned the midnight oil driving his aides nuts. Bush retired every night by 9:30pm. Obama is “bored”. What does this tell you? While Clinton “crammed” for the daily test, Obama has his cheat sheet. Title that Emanuel.

    • Ouch! Your observation is so right on. And damn but the truth hurts. I knew it was going to be bad but this is just ludicrous.

  24. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/4/sold_out_new_report_follows_lobbying

    “AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration officials appeared before Congress Tuesday seeking to reassure lawmakers about the economy. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, testified before separate House committees that the President’s massive spending bill would benefit working Americans. Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke testified before the Senate Budget Committee about the potential impacts of stimulus.

    While the Obama administration is looking to turn around the economy with its stimulus plan and budget proposal, what about the issue of financial regulation, what some people point to as the fundamental cause of the crisis? A new report points to twelve deregulatory steps that led to the financial meltdown. It also does an analysis of the amount of money Wall Street poured into Washington in campaign contributions and lobbying over the last decade. Their answer? A staggering $5.1 billion over the past decade.

    Rob Weissman is the author of the report. It’s called “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America.” He is director of Essential Action, editor of the Multinational Monitor, joining us from Washington, D.C.

    Good morning, Rob Weissman. Talk about what you think were the steps that brought us here.

    ROBERT WEISSMAN: Well, we saw over the last decade and really the last three decades, with both parties in power in Congress and the executive branch, this long series of deregulatory moves. And as you go step-by-step through them, you see that those are the things that really paved the way for the current financial collapse.

    Perhaps the signature move was the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prevented co-ownership of commercial banks and securities firms, investment banks. That was precipitated by and directly authorized the creation of Citigroup, which is now sucking so much public taxpayer money and has really been at the cutting edge of driving the financial crisis we’re now in.

    You can go forward another year and see that Congress, with the Clinton administration authorization, prohibited the executive branch agencies from regulating financial derivatives, the instruments that no one can really understand or get a handle on but which have multiplied the problem from the housing crash many-fold over. So we now have $600 trillion in financial derivatives being traded around the world, with no one having a handle on what they are, who owes whom, and all of this requiring us to pour tens of billions of more dollars more every day, it seems, into AIG. “

  25. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-considers-50-vote-strategy-on-energy-healthcare-2009-03-01.html

    “President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms.

    Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package.
    But he added: “We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these…. important things done this year.” Orszag called healthcare in particular “the key to our fiscal future.””

  26. Having read it, I can’t say that I don’t agree with some of the points the author was attempting to make.

    I agree with some of it too, but not the insults, misstatements and misogyny.

  27. myiq — did you see John’s answer to you?

    I stand by his right to throw insults

    whoops! did he just out tamerlane as the man we all suspected?

    As for the right to “throw insults” it is one thing to call a person a viper because she acts like one — it is another to class all women as witches SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. This is what the sexists just don’t get: a woman who is an a$$hole should be called an a$$hole — but simply labeling her a “witch” because she is a woman is not ok.

  28. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appeared that the author, and I have no idea who he/she is, was saying that PUMA for him/her at least had sort of lost its definition.

    You pointed out that it was a coalition based on a number of things that we can all attest to from our gatherings here, but in some quarters it has more or less evolved into more male bashing than concrete solutions.

    I am not in favor of viewing every male a “potential rapist” which has been said on some blogs. Again, what I came away with was the fact that “victimization” as a perpetual theme is not going to advance the cause that is made up of other issues that brought PUMAs together in the beginning.

    We all agree that sexism ran rampant. That the caucuses were gamed. That votes were stolen by the RBC in favor of one candidate. That the MSM was in league. That much is clear. But again, and I could have either read it incorrectly or failed to see the purpose of the post, one cannot wallow forever in male bashing as the principle reason for PUMAhood. Once that theme becomes dominate, all else is washed away.

  29. You pointed out that it was a coalition based on a number of things that we can all attest to from our gatherings here, but in some quarters it has more or less evolved into more male bashing than concrete solutions.

    I was basically okay with the post at that point (I think he used too broad a brush but I agree with the point) but then he decided to attack The Confluence and me personally. And I don’t like the misogyny that oozes from him.

    • That I completely understand. I just went back and reread some of his comments to you and was taken back by the tone. Unnecessary. Then he/she ends by saying it was good to have an open debate.

      An “open debate” should not consist of insults and innuendo and he/she seems to have taken umbrage at your comments most of all. That right can only be used for the likes of ABG.

  30. The closest we have come to a mission statement is what Riverdaughter has referred to as “Democrats in Exile”. Most of us are in a political limbo of sorts.

    When we disagree with the Repubs, it is that we disagree with their leaders and spokespersons. I do not believe that we are at war with the average Republican voter. But we have been judged as Republicans by other members of the liberal blogosphere because we have sat on our validation of Obama. So be it.

    When we disagree with the Dems, it is that we disagree with the leaders and spokespersons representing that body of the electorate. This independence of thought is what drove us to blog sites like this. The ability to express concern with which ever blowhard of the moment from either side of the aisle pops up to offer another nonsensical point in their own favor. A pox on both houses.

    I watched misogyny run rampant this year. And I do agree with the fact that there is a patriarchy that exists which is in favor of keeping women in their respective place. What I disagree with is allowing women who feed into this viewpoint to be free of criticism or accountability simply because they are women. That somehow separates my thinking from the rest at times.

    Having said that, the definition and the place of PUMA keeps evolving which may be a good thing overall. In time it will find its rightful place in the discourse and perhaps move mountains.

    • I don’t even think of TC as a “puma blog.” It’s a political blog. We were here before puma was. I just don’t see the need to turn puma into a movement. Our goals will be the same with or without that name. It seems that a lot of people have taken the name and turned it into things I can’t agree with. I’m not repudiating it, but I think of myself more as a “Conflucian.”

    • Pat J, I am with you.

      And whoever is trying to resist the nesting I am with you too!

  31. As I have always said, the only thing that will keep us together in the end is to stay united on the things that brought us together in the first place.

    I do not see a real focus on caucus or election reform.

    I do not see a real focus on Media bias.

    I do see a focus on Darragh’s blog regarding sexism and misogyny. Which was a huge part of the problems in the primaries and general, but many feel it makes us out to be victims, which is laughable when many PUMA’s are trying to gain power as women and address those issues.

    So to who ever tamerlane is over at liberal rapture, who I believe I had run in with over at Puma Pac, was someone who did not want to participate in one of the main reasons for PUMA’s existence. he wasn’t just trying to show a different way and he is being very generous with the description of himself and the circumstances.

    Why does it seem that the one part of the movement that is doing something, not just sexism and misognyny targeted in that way? PUMA Pac is not singularly a feminist blog. And who cares if it was. They are actually completing actions over there on a multitude of issues with great resources.

    Why are women accused of playing the victim because some want to focus at times on one of the main reasons for PUMA’s existence?

    Is it because some within PUMA don’t want to focus on those issues. Or is it something else?? I don’t know. But if someone doesn’t want to focus on those issues don’t and focus on one of the other reasons.

    I wish people would stop calling women PUMA’s who are actually doing something about the sexism and misogyny that we all witnessed and which we became glued together for as whiners and complainers, victims and blamers.

    That post at liberal rapture was really “lame”. He didn’t want to participate because he didn’t want feminism or sexism or misogyny to be discussed at all.

    PUMA pac focuses on a wide range of issues, but because it focuses some on women’s issues it isn’t PUMA enough or inclusive, bullshit!

    • Taggles,

      I agree. Standing up for women’s issues doesn’t make us victims. As far as caucus fraud goes, what is the point of talking about it? Now that Obama has won, that is a hopeless cause. I do think we talk about media bias here though. In fact I have something I’m planning on writing about that soon.

      • It is just insane, straight out insane, to say that facing the fact that misogyny exists and that it is bad for society is somehow painting women as helpless victims. A sl@ve who critiqued sl@very would be displaying power and courage; this isn’t any different. Finally, if a social ill harms people, then they are victims of that social ill. “Victim” is not a dirty word. If you have cancer, you are victim of that disease. Saying cancer exists and it is in your body isn’t somehow surrendering your autonomy. Indeed refusing to recognize an illness that is attacking you is a far quicker route to loss of agency.

        • i guess I’m biased but I agree whole heartedly with Taggles and Heidi Li. Thanks Taggles for exposing an undercurrent I hadnt really “seen” before, and thanks to Heidi for the exquisite excoriation.

          and to pre-nest, I love that substitution Pat J of “target” for victim.

      • I agree with most of what both Taggles and you, BB, are saying, but I do still believe caucus fraud and/or reform is a valid cause, if there was some effective method to address it. Even if neglecting the blatant criminal and dishonest practices that were witnessed in this regard, caucuses, even if properly administered, are inherently discriminatory to the elderly, disabled, working class, and parents, hence women as well. They are also difficult for the easily intimidated and the agoraphobic! They definitely require reform.

        • Of course it’s a valid cause, but now that Obama controls the DNC we won’t get anywhere with any kind of reform of the party.

  32. I’m out — good night all!

  33. Adios Querida!

  34. Good night Angie. I’m signing off too. ‘Nite everyone!

  35. Maybe we overuse the word “victim” too liberally. Hillary Clinton would perhaps be better defined as a “target” since this is a woman of too many remarkable achievements to count. I have a strong suspicion that she would have ever engaged in her own “pity party”, at least not for public consumption.

    There are true victims within the society and they need to be recognized but not all women are victims anymore than all victims are women.

    • What pity party are you talking about??

      Your definition of a pity party might be someone elses reality.

      • It is pretty apparent that she has moved on in her career. We are still labeling her a victim. She has yet to identify herself that way which speaks volumes for her as a person. So far she has stayed above the fray.

        • focusing on the sexism and misogyny in the primaries and election is not focusing on Hillary.

          it is focusing on the problems all women face.

  36. As far as caucus fraud goes, what is the point of talking about it?

    Obama controls the DNC – there won’t be any changes anytime soon.

    Frankly, I’m getting tired of people telling me what I ought to be doing. If they think it’s important then THEY should do it.

    • Frankly I am getting pretty tired of it too.

    • You can say that again! I figure exposing Obama for what he is doing is enough for now. I’m not worried about 2010 either, because to me the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. If Ted Kennedy is gone in 2010, then I might be interested in supporting someone for his seat.

    • the main point was — sexism and misogyny is a true reason for PUMA whether some want it to be or not.

      People can focus on what they want. I think that was point of the my comment.

    • And I’m not particularly interested in joining together with “Tammerlane” and whoever is supporting him. I don’t like be bullied and told what to do one bit!

  37. You can say that again! I figure exposing Obama for what he is doing is enough for now.

    If somebody has an idea then they should take the initiative to lead.

    BTW – How does anyone who wasn’t here on day one get off telling US who is or isn’t a PUMA?

  38. oh yeah – new thread up

  39. […] Bostonbloomer has few things to say about this, too. […]

  40. See this is why nesting is so troublesome.

    That’s why I refuse to nest my comments

  41. I was really worried, about the executive powers put in place during Bush devolving to BO, even when he was running.

    btw – Harpers is my favorite magazine.

  42. The fight for equality for women is a part of the whole election reform movement.
    As long as any citizen is not given equal treatment and the right to equal expectations then the whole country suffers.
    Focus on Women’s Issues is an important part of trying to fix some of the problems with the political direction in which the country is going.
    I do not see what the problem is with blog focus on women and on political reform.
    When a country stays quiet on the total trashing of women candidates something is wrong and must be fixed.
    When a country does not get the best and brightest due to sexism , racism. or any other stupid reason like these isms then the country is not all it could be.

    WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE , MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: