Skip to main content

In a speech that is just as true of today as it was in the days when it was first spoken, Teddy Roosevelt, before he became President, opined on who Progressives really are. I strongly suggest that everyone read the whole speech, but I have included a few excerpts of what I think are the key parts, beginning with this.

    The Republican party is now facing a great crisis. It is to decide whether it will be, as in the days of Lincoln, the party of the plain people, the party of progress, the party of social and industrial justice; or whether it will be the party of privilege and of special interests, the heir to those who were Lincoln's most bitter opponents, the party that represents the great interests within and with out Wall Street which desire through their control over the servants of the pubic to be kept immune from punishment when they do wrong and to be given privileges to which they are not entitled.

We all know how that one turned out, don't we?

More below the fold

The speech itself can be read in it's full form here

It begins . . .

In his recent speech at Philadelphia President Taft stated that he was a Progressive, and this raises the question as to what a Progressive is. More is involved than any man’s say-so as to himself.

A well-meaning man may vaguely think of himself as a Progressive without having even the faintest conception of what a Progressive is. Both vision and intensity of conviction must go to the make-up of any man who is to lead the forward movement, and mildly good intentions are utterly useless as substitutes.

The essential difference, as old as civilized history, is between the men who, with fervor and broad sympathy and imagination, stand for the forward movement, the men who stand for the uplift and betterment of mankind, and who have faith in the people, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the men of narrow vision and small sympathy, who are not stirred by the wrongs of others. With these latter stand also those other men who distrust the people, and many of whom not merely distrust the people, but wish to keep them helpless so as to exploit them for their own benefit.

"To keep them helpless so as to exploit them"

Nothing could better sum up the modern Republican party and their alliance with Big Business and the Special Interests.

So, who is a Progressive in the eyes of Teddy Roosevelt?

Every man who fights fearlessly and effectively against special privilege in any form is to that extent a Progressive. Every man who, directly or indirectly, upholds privilege and favors the special interests, whether he acts from evil motives or merely because he is puzzle-headed or dull of mental vision or lacking in social sympathy, or whether he simply lacks interest in the subject, is a reactionary.

Every man is to that extent a Progressive if he stands for any form of social justice, whether it securing proper protection for factory girls against dangerous machinery, for securing a proper limitation of hours of labor for women and children in industry, for securing proper living conditions for those who dwell in the thickly crowded regions of our great cities, for helping, so far as legislators can help, all the conditions of work and life for wage-workers in great centers of industry, or for helping by the action both of the National and State governments, so far as conditions will permit, the men and women who dwell in the open country to increase their efficiency both in production on their farms and in business arrangements for the marketing of their produce, and also to increase the opportunities to give the best possible expression to their social life. The man is a reactionary, whatever may be his professions and no matter how excellent his intentions, who opposes these movements, or who, if in high place, takes no interest in them and does not earnestly lead them forward.

We have entered into an era of American history that is very much like the days of Roosevelt. Income distribution and the inequality in wealth distribution have led to another era much like the days that came before the Great Depression, and while we listen to the John Boehner's of the world harp upon the woes of Corporations like BP and Too Big To Fail banks, while griping about the laziness of the unemployed and the need to sacrifice today so that the War Profiteering can go on and on and on, we should remind ourselves who are true enemies really are. They are, indeed, the same men who "uphold privilege and favor the special interests" as they were almost 100 years ago.

And while Roosevelt's speech was critical of then President William Howard Taft, who called himself a Progressive yet was not nearly as Progressive as he could have been in Roosevelt's eyes, Roosevelt's goal was not to simply bash President Taft.

In much the same way, those who claim the title of "Progressive" for themselves should not simply bash our current President for not being Progressive enough. I have been guilty of this myself.

Rather, we Progressives should start making the case against our true enemies, those who would "uphold privilege and favor the special interests" over the best interests of the citizens of America, such as every person who claims the title "Conservative" does today, whether they be registered as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or any other political affiliation. The people who blame the poor for their poverty, the unemployed for their lack of quality work, those who blame the hungry for their hunger are NOT walking in the footsteps of Jesus, nor are they anything but the enemy of their suffering countrymen.

What do Democrats stand for? We see who Republicans stand for, and it is indeed the same enemies of President Lincoln, the wealthy and the special interests. Republicans stand only for wealth, power, and themselves,  this is plainly obvious to everyone outside of the Republican party itself, but what do Democrats stand for? This is sometimes a mystery, moreso now that there are so many ideologically "Conservative" Democrats pushing the party to the right and in agreement with the special interests.

I do not know what Democrats stand for. If we knew, we could make a better case for Democrats and Democratic policies to the public, a public that the Republican party clearly does not care for when asked to choose between special interests and the American public.

But I do know what Progressives stand for, and it is what I fight for, and why I count myself among those who stand with the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt.

We who stand for the cause of progress, for the cause of the uplift of humanity and the betterment of mankind, are pledged to eternal war against tyranny and wrong, by the few or by the many, by a plutocracy or by a mob. We stand for justice and for fair play; fearless and confident we face the coming years, for we know that ours are the banners of justice and that all men who wish well to the people must fight under them. We fight to make this country a better place to live in for those who have been harshly treated by fat; and if we succeed, it will also be a better place to live in for those who have been treated? None of us can really prosper permanently if masses of men and women are ground down and forced to lead starved and sordid lives so that their souls are crippled like their bodies and the fine edge of their every feeling is blunted.

I ask that those of us to whom Providence, to whom fate, has been kind, remember that each must be his brother's keeper, and that all must feel their obligation to the less fortunate who work beside us in the strain and press of our eager modern life. I ask justice for the weak for their sakes, and I ask it also for the sake of our own children, and of our children's children who are to come after us. This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in if it is not a reasonably good place for all of us to live in. When I plead the cause of the crippled brakeman on a railway, of the overworked girl in a factory, of the stunted child toiling at inhuman labor, or all who work excessively or in unhealthy surroundings, of the family dwelling in the squalor of a noisome tenement, of the worn out farmer in regions where the farms are worn out also; when I protest against the unfair profits of unscrupulous and conscienceless men, or against the greedy exploitation of the helpless by the beneficiaries of privilege in all these case I am not only fighting for the weak, I am also fighting for the strong. The sons of all of us will pay in the future if we of the present do not do justice in the present. If the fathers amuse others to eat bitter bread, the teeth of their own sons shall be set on edge. Our cause is the cause of justice for all, in the interest of all. Surely there was never a more noble cause; surely there was never a cause in which it was better worth while to spend and be spent.

Peace and Love to all.

You can follow me on Twitter @JesseLaGreca

Crossposted at The Progressive Electorate.com

Originally posted to MinistryOfTruth on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:13 PM PDT.

Poll

What do you consider yourself?

9%10 votes
5%6 votes
2%3 votes
0%0 votes
41%42 votes
6%7 votes
0%0 votes
1%2 votes
1%2 votes
19%20 votes
4%5 votes
1%2 votes
1%2 votes

| 101 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Fighting the doj (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Christin, blueness, second gen
      Hidden by:
      virtual0

      and their fascistic persecution of ACORN.

      Or maybe not.

      •  Umm...ACORN brought the suit. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wary, blueness, BobTrips, second gen, MichaelNY

        The DOJ is the DEFENDANT in this case.

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

        by zenbassoon on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:33:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So You Think ACORN Is Trying To Convict (0+ / 0-)

          the whole US Govt?  It is the US that is being asked to stop its prosecution of ACORN.

          Your posting is mindless nonsense no matter how many times you and others repeat it.

          Why do you do that?

          Best,  Terry

          •  You're wrong. You fell for MoT's bogus (6+ / 0-)

            "facts" in his last diary.

            John Boehner thinks of himself as Ceasar. How about we change his name to Orange Julius?

            by second gen on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:56:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And You Will Show Me Where I Am Wrong (0+ / 0-)

              or just issue a fiat?

              I don't recall MOT arguing the doctrine of estoppel.

              Would you care to document your charge or just continue your falsehood?

              Best,  Terry

              •  Because the facts were wrong. (5+ / 0-)

                MoT even (finally) admits it.

                John Boehner thinks of himself as Ceasar. How about we change his name to Orange Julius?

                by second gen on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:34:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He deleted the diary. (0+ / 0-)

                  I wish DK would prohibit that.
                  It's an easy way out for all of us to deny we ever wrote something wrong .
                  Comments stand. So should diaries.

                  "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                  by Christin on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:15:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Here (5+ / 0-)

                Here's a diary at FDL with a good summary of the facts:
                http://seminal.firedoglake.com/...

                For starters ACORN is suing the government.
                The DOJ is defending it because that's pretty much their job.
                The suit is not over any DOJ prosecution or investigation.
                There is no DOJ prosecution of investigation.

                The suit is over act of Congress which have been signed into law by the President.

                •  Did You Read The Link You Provided? (0+ / 0-)

                  This is the heading:

                  Obama DOJ heads to appeals court hearing Thursday to fight to maintain Congress’s (judge-defined-and-enjoined Bill of Attainder) ACORN funding ban

                  Nothing at all that I could find at the firedoglake website quarrels with that heading; i.e. that the DOJ is fighting to maintain a clearly unconstitutional law.

                  This is your repeated rehash of facts which are not pertinent to the issue:

                  For starters ACORN is suing the government.

                  So?

                  A suit under the doctrine of estoppel is not a prosecution.  It asks only than an illegal action be discontinued.

                  The DOJ is defending it because that's pretty much their job.

                  The job of the DOJ is to do justice.  It is in the very name.  No lawyer is required to lie though many seem to think so.

                  The suit is not over any DOJ prosecution or investigation.

                  See your own proferred link.

                  There is no DOJ prosecution of investigation

                  See your own proferred link for the maintenance of the position by the DOJ.

                  The suit is over act of Congress which have been signed into law by the President.

                  Precisely.

                  The suit was over the prosecution of an unconstitutional law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

                  Best,  Terry

                  •  Your reading comprehension skills need work (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Christin, second gen

                    Again, there is no DOJ prosecution involved.
                    There is no DOJ investigation involved.
                    The law passed by Congress didn't involve any prosecution.
                    Laws in general don't get "prosecuted".

                    The diary in question, which was withdrawn, was calling on the Attorney General to stop prosecuting and investigating ACORN.  It was factually in error.

                    It is questionable also to assert that the DOJ has the power to declare unconstitutional and not enforce a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President.  At that point, it is really only the courts that can rule on constitutional law.  I wouldn't want this administration to behave like the last one, and try to only enforce the parts of laws they like, while ignoring provisions which the President himself signed into law.

                    As for the merits of the case, ACORN has an interesting argument.  But it's not a slam dunk.  The link I provided does a good job of explaining ACORN's position, but doesn't really get into the position taken by the DOJ.  But that would very likely involve the broad deference that is traditionally given to congress in it's exercise of the "power of the purse".

                    If Congress can not disallow funding for ACORN, the next thing I would like to see challenged is whether they can deny funding for abortion, which after all is not illegal and which is a constitutional right.  ACORN is arguing that in previous cases, Congress did not "single out a specific individual or entity" but applied a statute to "an entire category of people".  But, if denying government funding is really considered a punishment that constitutes a bill of attainder, I can't see any reason that it would be more permissible to deny rights to a group of people.  

                    I guess the question is whether anyone has a right to government funding that can only be removed through judicial action.  

                    •  Bad Guess (0+ / 0-)

                      Your wonderfully clever insult may get you raucous approval at a tea party rally but maybe not here so much.

                      I guess the question is whether anyone has a right to government funding that can only be removed through judicial action.

                       

                      The question is whether the Constitution is worth no more than toilet paper or is honored for what it says.

                      This has echoes of the passage of the Mann Act for the specific purpose of putting Jack Johnson in jail for having a white mistress.

                      The law was even applied retroactively.  Jack Johnson had married the woman by the time the president signed it.

                      Do endeavor at least to be funnier with your personal insults next time.  It would be a great favor to readers with old eyes and then finding they were wasting their time.

                      Best,  Terry

                      •  more reading difficulty? (0+ / 0-)

                        I said nothing intended to insult, nor intended to be funny, nor even anything in the least bit ironic.  Please re-read.

                        This entire tangent started when you insulted another member here, claiming his post was "mindless nonsense", for stating that the DOJ was the defendant in this case. You claimed in response that the US was "being asked to stop its prosecution of ACORN".  You even asked to be shown where you were wrong.

                        Now that the facts have proven that zenbosson's statement was correct, and that yours was incorrect, instead of graciously admitting that mistake, and arguing the case on it's merits, you are laughably trying to change the meaning of words, and to deny facts.

                        As for what the Constitution actually says, it prohibits a "Bill of Attainder".  A Bill of Attainder was used to impose the death penalty (always) and seize property.  While the caselaw has expanded this with a broader interpretation, there is still no clear caselaw that says you have the same rights to federal funds that you have to your own life or property.  

                        •  More Humor From The Defender Of Ignorance (0+ / 0-)

                          Bill of Attainder

                          Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

                          The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

                          "The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

                          "These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."  William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

                          "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

                          From James Madison writing in the Federalist Papers to William Rehnquist writing in a Supreme Court ruling, the meaning of a bill of attainder has been crystal clear.

                          But now we get a carve out by an angry humorist who finds imaginary special circumstances in order to protect the broken record posting of another like-minded citizen:

                          As for what the Constitution actually says, it prohibits a "Bill of Attainder".  A Bill of Attainder was used to impose the death penalty (always) and seize property.  While the caselaw has expanded this with a broader interpretation, there is still no clear caselaw that says you have the same rights to federal funds that you have to your own life or property.

                          ACORN got a death sentence as punishment for a proven lie without the little detail of trial.

                          That is what the framers of the Constitution to even William Rehnquist judged unconstitutional.

                          I only called the broken record attack of another like-minded humorist mindless nonsense  because that is what it was.

                          Your apology for bad humor and bad logic will be graciously accepted whenever you choose to make it.

                          Best,  Terry

                      •  Do you have an intimate knowledge of tea parties (0+ / 0-)

                        or are you just flinging irresponsible insults?

                        I don't think you can be a success at anything if you think about losing, whether it's in sports or in politics. ~Edward Kennedy

                        by denig on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:29:05 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, that diary was false (12+ / 0-)
              It was based on a misinterpretation of the facts and has since been deleted, and an apology and retraction has been made.

              Apologies to all involved. I've decided to focus my writing on advocacy over anger. This diary about Teddy Roosevelt was more of a refresher course for me, a way to transition to action and away from outrage.

              End Corporate Personhood, no excuses

              by MinistryOfTruth on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:23:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  sorry I missed that. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Christin
              •  that's (5+ / 0-)

                too bad—the deletion I mean. I wanted a permanent record maintained of those who stubbornly recced that diary, even after it was repeatedly pointed out in the comments section that the diary was utterly at odds with reality, so as to be able to identify on this site those who are indistinguishable from GOoPers, in that they will Stand By Their Man even when he says that black is white, up is down, wrong is right.

                •  You might want to keep a (0+ / 0-)

                  permanent record of those who stubbornly rec the countless 11th-dimensional chess and haliographic diairies insisting the President had a genius masterplan up his sleeve that we needed put in our blind faith in, even after it was repeatedly proved, not just one time in one diary, but by 1000s of comments every single day over a course of one and a half years and still continuing, that the these diaires were utterly at odds with reality, so as to be able to identify those on this site who are indistinguishable from GOPers, in that they will Stand By Their Man even when he says that black is white, up is down, wrong is right. Those are the true GOPer's, not someone who makes a mistake in one or two diaries.

                  Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

                  by virtual0 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:18:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ...not to mention (0+ / 0-)

                    those who will jump on the tiniest opening to blow it up entirely out of proportion in order to smear critics of those who don't blindly Stand By Their Man.

                    Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

                    by virtual0 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:22:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  i (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Christin, nyseer, second gen, soothsayer99

                    await your links to

                    the countless 11th-dimensional chess and haliographic diairies insisting the President had a genius masterplan up his sleeve that we needed put in our blind faith in, even after it was repeatedly proved, not just one time in one diary, but by 1000s of comments every single day over a course of one and a half years and still continuing, that the these diaires were utterly at odds with reality[.]

                    Gonna take you some time, since you assert that these diaries are "countless."

                    Your tantrum does not address the fact that more than 200 people stubbornly clung to their recs on a diary that was proven false. Because they Wanted To Believe, and had to Stand By Their Man. Just like GOoPers. Just like GOoPers, they have no credibility on this site.

                  •  wow. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    denig, nyseer, soothsayer99

                    this eats you alive, huh?
                    everyone has to be as unhappy and angry as you are?
                    you can't deal w/ the fact that there are people who are not angry with President Obama and support him?
                    why don't you just it go?
                    it's so weird how with some of you, everyone has to be pissed off.

                    "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                    by Christin on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:18:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  seriously? (0+ / 0-)

                  I wanted a permanent record maintained of those who stubbornly recced that diary, even after it was repeatedly pointed out in the comments section that the diary was utterly at odds with reality, so as to be able to identify on this site those who are indistinguishable from GOoPers, in that they will Stand By Their Man even when he says that black is white, up is down, wrong is right.

                  And what did you plan to do with your list? You honestly equate people who rec'd that diary with Republicans? Seriously? And your last sentence just reeks of irony considering the lovefests for Obama around here when people point out that he's reneged on campaign promises and they claim he hasn't - even after being presented with transcripts and videos.

                  But, hey - if keeping a list makes you happy knock yourself out. Try Google. I'm sure you'll find it there. How that practice is actually useful to anything around here is beyond me.

                  "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                  by catnip on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:57:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I have to say (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Christin, StepLeftStepForward

                I think you handled the apology stuff real well.  Anyone can make a mistake.  We all make plenty.

                Have to say I'm with Blueness on the wish that you had left the other one up.  My biggest problem by far was the tips and recs from some high profile kossacks despite the realities pointed out in the comment section.

                So what bothers me is that while you stood up and admitted error, they did not, would not and now will not.

                You may not remember, but there was that Jesselyn Radack  deleted diary a few months ago where she accused WaPo of plagiarizing her when she had in fact plagiarized someone else.  A few of us pointed it out and all hell broke loose.  Though you didn't respond to my particular comment, I noticed you were the only one of a certain faction (for lack of a better word) that replied to someone (fou?) and said, whoops, I didn't know about the plagiarism thing- sorry...

                So in my eyes, you're two for two in correcting the record and it's appreciated.

                As for those that voted with stars in their eyes in 2008, it was only because they had their lights punched out the previous eight years...

                by nyseer on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:47:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Some facts may have been wrong (0+ / 0-)

                but your main point was quite true.

                Congress passed and the President signed an unconstitutional law that destroyed ACORN.

                ACORN sued to prevent prosecution of the law.

                That was not a prosecution by ACORN but an action under the doctrine of estoppel to prevent an injustice and/or fraud from continuing.

                Thank you for your diaries and passionate defense of justice and equity.

                Best,  Terry

              •  question re your statement (0+ / 0-)

                I've decided to focus my writing on advocacy over anger.

                Given that, was your repeated use of the term "enemy" or "enemies" in the diary intended only as a means to incentivize your readers? (Those terms appear four times.) Arguably, it might very well be having the opposite effect, diluting your message.

                This diary about Teddy Roosevelt was more of a refresher course for me, a way to transition to action and away from outrage.

                Thank you for this diary. It provides excellent definitional material from Roosevelt.

                I see, in the Roosevelt quotes, that he is less extreme in labels, as in,

                Every man who fights fearlessly and effectively against special privilege in any form is to that extent a Progressive. Every man who, directly or indirectly, upholds privilege and favors the special interests, whether he acts from evil motives or merely because he is puzzle-headed or dull of mental vision or lacking in social sympathy, or whether he simply lacks interest in the subject, is a reactionary.

                He seems to be quite effective with a relative focus on behaviors rather than extreme labels.

                Thx again for the reference material.

                ambiguity is okay--if you know what I mean

                by dorkenergy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:20:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  WTF is up with this thread jacking. (7+ / 0-)

        That's a dead issue that has nothing to do with this diary.

        Still a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest

        by Mike S on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:36:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  HR'ed for thread jacking (0+ / 0-)

        Like you did for me, only I wasn't thread jacking.

        Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

        by virtual0 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:24:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  . (0+ / 0-)

        uprated for HR abuse by Virtual0.
        of all people.

        "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

        by Christin on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:14:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You left out my category in poll (3+ / 0-)

      That would be

      PROUD Democrat

      This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. Barack Obama

      by Wary on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:57:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  if (4+ / 0-)

      you're going to "remember[] history," you need to remember that Roosevelt was a wanton, voracious imperialist. Just like Woodrow Wilson, another "progressive" of the era. Those two men, together with the God-besotted William McKinley, were most responsible for transforming the US into a worldwide imperial state. See, for example, Karp's The Politics of War.

      Also like his fellow "progressive" Wilson, Roosevelt was a racist. While Wilson was a nasty, vicious, ugly racist, who purposefully segregated the federal work force, Roosevelt was a racist of a more casual and cowardly sort. He believed that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, refused to enforce the 15th Amendment, would not support laws prohibiting the lynching of black people, and lied about the black men who fought on San Juan Hill: "Under the strain the colored infantrymen (who had none of their white officers) began to get a little uneasy and drift to the rear." Like most "progressives," Roosevelt didn't give two shits for black people.

      •  Jefferson was a disgusting child molestor and (3+ / 0-)

        Lincoln was a racist in ways that would have appaled Roosevelt.

        Voltaire was an extreme anti-semite.

        Gandhi ignored the plight of Africans in South Africe.

        Funny, how Argumentum Ad Hominem can always be used, no matter the target.

        Funny, how it never actually defeats a sound argument.

        "Israel does not any longer occupy the West Bank or Gaza. They left." Rep. Weiner

        by JesseCW on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:42:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  funny (0+ / 0-)

          how in his ACORN diary MOT demonstrated that he doesn't know the law from a leachfield. Funny how in this diary he demonstrates that he doesn't know shit about history. Sad that you would defend him. Ludicrous that you would do so by describing historical fact as "argumentum ad hominem." But typical. Be true to your school, Jesse. That's what you're good at.

          •  Funny how you're doubling down on the (0+ / 0-)

            Argumentum Ad Hominem and spicing it up with with a few doses of Non Sequitor.

            "Israel does not any longer occupy the West Bank or Gaza. They left." Rep. Weiner

            by JesseCW on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:50:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  go away, (0+ / 0-)

              Jesse. You don't know what you're talking about. You're a gnat and a bore. Your boy posted a passel of ignorance, and you run in behind him with a bucket of slime. Be true to your school, Jesse. That's all you're good at.

              •  You sure showed I was wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                Why's it always the dehumanizing animal references with you and Christin and the rest of the gang, Blueness?

                You do understand the historical context of refering to other people as "vermin", don't you?

                Oh...yeah...you did rec the "Mutilate peoples foreheads to mark them as enemies" diary...

                What's most amusing here is that MoT is hardly "my boy".  I barely know the guy.

                But I do know a personal attack and an attempt at derailment when I see one.

                So, next time, you might not want to admit that you're trying to harras him because you're pissed about some other diary he wrote.  Be a little more sly about it.

                "Israel does not any longer occupy the West Bank or Gaza. They left." Rep. Weiner

                by JesseCW on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:43:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  . (0+ / 0-)

                  stop lying JesseCW. are you a compulsive liar? because you simply refuse to stop doing this. dragging my name into your personal vandettas and attacks against others.
                  i'm not even a part of this -and you refuse to let it go. Period.

                  I have told you at least ten times i have never called anyone the asinine names you continually post: vermin, cockaroach, jackal. etc.
                  you continue to lie and make up bizarre untrue accusations.  
                  I respect and cherish every animal, which further makes your idiocy even more repulsive to read . I don't thinking calling a human an animal is an insult.

                  i told you last week to stop making references to me that are based on your fantasies of hate, obsession and revenge. you refuse.
                  i told you to find a new enemy to work up your anger over that it was not me.
                  You refuse.

                  I  am telling you to stop living in this pretend world you created in which i am your mortal enemy. stop making up stories about me.

                  If you feel like having a go-round, Christin (1+ / 0-)

                  then skip the cowardly passive agressive act and have at.

                  Let's face it, you're here to find someone to dehumanize and torment, to vilanize and to refer to as a "cancer", a "cockroach", a "jackal" or a "pathetic loser".

                  by JesseCW on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:53:05 PM EDT
                  [ Parent | Reply to This

                  I was trying to cut you slack because of this.
                  I'm at the end of any type of patience with your lies and  nonsense.

                  But I've been in a pretty fucked up place and without my meds, my wife is working 18 hour days, my dad got his phone shut off, I'm dealin with crap I can't talk to anyone but them or the counsler I can't afford about.

                  And they're going to get someone hurt.

                  Because the truth is that I was in a really bad place yesterday, and they kept at it and kept at it and kept at it, and because I'm fucked in the head right now I didn't walk away.

                  content snip

                  Because they see "I have mental and emotional problems" and think "victim".  And they will not stop once they've marked out a victim.

                  by JesseCW on Mon May 24, 2010 at 10:49:53 PM EDT
                  [ Parent ]

                  "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                  by Christin on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:12:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  What I don't get is how you even take (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, MichaelNY

          this additional information from Blueness as an argument against the diary. I read it, appreciated the info, and by no means took it as an argument against the diary. Seems to me you are just looking to argue.

          There is no more important struggle for American democracy than ensuring a diverse, independent and free media. - Bill Moyers

          by StepLeftStepForward on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:04:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You didn't find it problematic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            that he was being grouped as a "progressive" with his political enemy, the extreme racist, Wilson?

          •  Really? So, claiming that "most" Progressives (0+ / 0-)

            don't give two shits for Black People wasn't intended to discredit both the Diarist and Roosevelt?

            That might make just a little sense if not for the response made by blueness right up-thread.

            "Israel does not any longer occupy the West Bank or Gaza. They left." Rep. Weiner

            by JesseCW on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:52:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  reading comprehension (0+ / 0-)

              has never been one of your skills. The assertion that "[l]ike most 'progressives,' Roosevelt didn't give two shits for black people" clearly references the "progressives" of Roosevelt's era. As I said elsewhere in this thread, on this subject I express no opinion on the self-described "progressives" on this website.

              •  You weren't at all clear, and if you want to get (0+ / 0-)

                into individual commenters histories, you've reccomended diaries claiming that anyone opposed to the Health Insurance Bailout was a "racist".

                You were flatly race baiting again, as you so often do, and with only a bit more sublety than ussual.

                But then, you're incapable of argument and have nothing to offer (that I've ever seen) but unrelated personal attacks against those you disagree with.

                You've openly admited that you're commenting in this diary for the sole purpose of attacking and seeking to discredit MoT because you're pissed about some Acorn diary.

                "Israel does not any longer occupy the West Bank or Gaza. They left." Rep. Weiner

                by JesseCW on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:11:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  TR and black Americans (0+ / 0-)

        You're picking a very odd target to lambaste for racism against black Americans (he clearly would have hated any hyphenation, so I don't use "African-Americans" in this context), least of all of a cowardly sort, considering that he famously - and controversially - dined with Booker T. Washington at the White House.

        News of the dinner traveled along the Associated Press wire throughout the night, and the morning newspapers were generally positive. But the next afternoon, the Memphis Scimitar  called the event a "damnable outrage," and Morris notes, used a term that "had not been seen in print for years ... [and now] had the force of an obscenity" (55). Morris quotes the Memphis Scimitar at length:

           

        The most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any citizen of the United States was committed yesterday by the President, when he invited a nigger to dine with him at the White House. It would not be worth more than a passing notice if Theodore Roosevelt had sat down to dinner in his own home with a Pullman car porter, but Roosevelt the individual and Roosevelt the President are not to be viewed in the same light.

        You also might cite quotes such as this one, which seems to me notably non-racist and enlightened for his time (reference):

        Quote regarding African Americans: "I have not been able to think out any solution of the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent, but of one thing I am sure, and that is that inasmuch as he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away, the only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man, giving him no more and no less that he shows himself worthy to have."

        You would have never found a rabid racist and segregationist like Woodrow Wilson doing or saying anything remotely close to these.

        As for him being an imperialist, really, which president wasn't? Would you dismiss everything Lyndon Johnson did because he had some private prejudices and was responsible for a lot of killing in Indochina?

        •  as (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soothsayer99, MichaelNY

          a result of the furor over the invitation to Washington, Roosevelt never again invited a black man to the White House. As I said: a racist of the cowardly sort.

          You ignore the quote I posted in which Roosevelt lied that the black troops on San Juan Hill were cowards, in favor of a quote you like better.

          It is fact that, as I stated, Roosevelt, like most progressives of his era, didn't give two shits for black people. As for the self-described "progressives" on this website, I express no opinion.

          •  I didn't ignore your quote (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, JesseCW

            I read your quote. Did you want me to quote it again?

            TR was very far from perfect. I get your point now about what makes him cowardly in your eyes, and it makes sense. I read the quote in your other reply, too. Very deplorable and painful to read.

            I think the Indians were much more the brunt of Roosevelt's racism than the blacks, though.

            •  he had (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Christin, soothsayer99, MichaelNY

              a problem with any "race" that wasn't Anglo-Saxon. : /  His racial theories drove even the secret deal he cut with Japan.

              That which is shallow annoys me. This diarist is one of the most shallow agitators ever to gain a following on this website. If, as he says, he is now going to move from blind outrage to imparting information, he needs to first inform himself, before informing others. If he expects modern-day "progressives" to embrace "progressives" like Roosevelt, he needs to first reflect that that embrace also hugs tight imperialism and racism.

        •  here (3+ / 0-)

          is another "notably non-racist and enlightened for his time" bit of dribble from the "progressive" Roosevelt:

          In 1894, Teddy had penned an article entitled National Life and Character in which he wrote that Blacks were "a perfectly stupid race" and it would take "many thousands years” before the Black became even “as intellectual as the [ancient] Athenian."

        •  He was Racist. There's no denying that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          and I don't see why anyone would want to.

          It doesn't change a jot or tittle of what he said here, though.

          Ike was a homophobe - that doesn't mean in any way we should ignore his speech on the MIC or his opinions on nuclear weapons.

          "Israel does not any longer occupy the West Bank or Gaza. They left." Rep. Weiner

          by JesseCW on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:56:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Teddy Roosevelt doesn't mean much to me... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      canyonrat, blueness, mariachi mama

      It can be argued that his invasion of the Philippines at the bequest of the United Fruit Company was the real start of America's "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war.

      Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? - Mary Oliver, "The Summer Day"

      by Rico on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:05:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Voting, making phone calls and texting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dhfsfc, roadbear

    ...these are not "fighting". People fought with fists and backs for rights in this country, fought for civil rights and organizing and labor rights. Felt the resistance of water hoses and bats. Felt sore feet from shoulder to shoulder marches, strikes, and demonstrations. Felts the pangs of hunger from walkouts. Nobody is fighting in this country. Nobody is fighting back today.

    •  Thomas Paine Fought With Pen and Paper (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kck, JesseCW, Johnny Q, MichaelNY

      And no one was ever more successful.

      In the darkest days of the Revolutionary War when your school teacher told you Washington was resting in his winter camp; disease, hunger, despair and death stalked that "resting" place.

      Tattered copies of Thomas Paine's book were passed from hand to hand to keep the spirits up.

      Who credited Thomas Paine with being such an inspiration?

      George Washington, for one.

      Best,  Terry

      •  Touche (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        You're right. Thanks for the history. I have great respect for the written word. Rousing, inspiring, documenting, witnessing, organizing all important, vital activities in a democracy. At the same time they are different than fighting in important ways though and that distinction can get lost.  

        When children go to bed hungry, when they live with their families in the woods their skin is in the game in a different way than, say, when I read and write about hunger and homelessness. Perhaps I was projecting my own sense of growing frustration and restlessness.  

      •  Agree to a point, Terry. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kck

        There was teeth behind Paine's work.

        His work was not sternly written letters and requests to the king and parliament.

        They were scathing indictments and threats of bloodshed and revolution.

        I happen to agree with you though, but there's got to be some threat behind it - something to make them squeal and howl and lose weight from their pocketbooks.

        I've actually thought of pamphleteering... holy cow!

        What Progressives enlisted, paid and supported the unemployed to pamphleteer.

        Ooo... that's nice!

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:49:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am a Liberal Democrat, but I don't consider (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    papicek

    myself a full blown progressive democrat a la Kucinich.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:35:10 PM PDT

  •  Republicans make great speeches (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    papicek

    Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address warning about the MIC. This speech. Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Too bad they don't really act on them or if they did they no longer do. I supposed I'm a progressive who'll work with Democrats and winds up voting Democratic because I hate to waste my vote on third parties. Hello? Did someone say instant run-off voting?

    Republican ideas are like sacks of manure but without the sacks.

    by ontheleftcoast on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:48:14 PM PDT

    •  I've read it... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ontheleftcoast, MichaelNY

      though I don't remember where, that it is, in fact, the left who has the rhetorical high ground.

      Since I believe that the left owns the human face in the larger debate, I think this is true. What have republicans got? "La patrie en danger!" and that's about it.

      What has a "political realist" done for you lately?

      by papicek on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:00:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I need to go back and pour over the Cross of Gold (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        papicek, JesseCW, MichaelNY

        Speech and some other Progressive / Populist angles of attack on the entrenched establishment.

        The language back then was spectacular.

        I've read that speech several times and was always astounded how an economic argument could be spun so well using value ladened, emotive, humanity-framed language.

        If you've not read it, go back and read that and read some other powerful human agenda speeches. You'll notice that while economic issues and raw power constructs were the topics, but the language was personal and emotive.

        thanks, MoT

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:56:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Equality (5+ / 0-)

          But we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the largest cities in the state of Massachusetts. When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world.

          When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action.

          When you come before us and tell us that we must suffer austerity, we reply that you must suffer austerity.

          The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York.

          The merchant at the corner store is as much a businessman as the Big Corporate Box stores.

          That shit's gold, man! WTF are we thinking not hitting this?

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:07:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Changing Conditions have arisen... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Youffraita, MichaelNY

          They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:15:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Government Protects People through Taxes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Youffraita, MichaelNY

            When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:17:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Government Control over Money is Sovereignty. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zedaker, Youffraita, MichaelNY

          We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation.

          Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:21:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When we surrender government control over money (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Youffraita, MichaelNY

            and the coining of money, we surrender sovereignty.

            Banks and Big Business have infiltrated and taken over our government through Sponsorship of Politicians, our Media and and our Regulatory Bodies.

            Our government has abdicated it's responsibility to protect our People, surrendered our sovereignty and is now working to protect Big business.

            We will not be the subjects of demands of austerity by those people who caused this mess and still, to this day, refuse to sacrifice anything for the sake of our country, our People and our planet.

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:28:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Love those quotes, btw (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              k9disc, JesseCW, MichaelNY, charliehall2

              Have you seen this:

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              The world’s rich countries are now conducting a dangerous experiment. They are repeating an economic policy out of the 1930s — starting to cut spending and raise taxes before a recovery is assured — and hoping today’s situation is different enough to assure a different outcome.

              snip

              The private sector in many rich countries has continued to grow at a fairly good clip in recent months....And unlike in the 1930s, developing countries are now big enough that their growth can lift other countries’ economies.

              On the other hand, the most recent economic numbers have offered some reason for worry....

              snip

              [...]In 1938, the economy shrank 3.4 percent, and unemployment spiked.

              And he goes on to write that almost every country will be belt-tightening at once.

              Count me among the pessimists when it comes to neoliberal fiscal policy.

              Over the last 30 years, the Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved into a mental hospital. -- Bill Maher

              by Youffraita on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:41:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have not, but i just did. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Youffraita, MichaelNY

                My kneejerk is that it's not really truthful that the private sector is recovering - the corporate sector of the private sector is.

                But the gist is kind of on. I guess it is hair on fire for the corporate media.

                Thanks for sharing.

                Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                by k9disc on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:52:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  should read: (0+ / 0-)

              When we surrender government control over money and the coining of money, we surrender sovereignty.

              Banks and Big Business have infiltrated and taken over our government through Sponsorship of Politicians, our Media and and our Regulatory Bodies.

              Our government has abdicated it's responsibility to protect our People, surrendered our sovereignty and is now working to protect Big business at the expense of our people.

              We will not be the subjects of demands of austerity by those people who caused this mess and still, to this day, refuse to sacrifice anything for the sake of our country, our People and our planet.

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:42:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The government never had control over money (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              k9disc

              until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Which was passed under Wilson, not TR.

              From 1791 to 1811 the First Bank of the United States acted as a Central Bank but it was privately owned. Ditto for the Second Bank of the United States from 1816 to 1836. But at all other times the currency was pretty much left to private speculation.

        •  The Cross of Gold Speech... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          k9disc

          Link (The online speech bank is a wonderful resource.)

          Wow, I haven't thought about that in ages. Recently, I read an article (in Harper's, IIRC) with the image of miles-long wagon trains in the midwest, full of people going to hear a speech on - wait for it - monetary policy (bimetalism).

          Not to rain on our parade, but it also occurs to me to remember how that fight turned out as well.

          What has a "political realist" done for you lately?

          by papicek on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:16:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  a sane foreign policy... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    in which American exceptionalism is toned way, way down. We should seriously consider joining the ICC, for instance, but that's a debate that's not even being conducted - the black helicopters people who thing naming the Grand Canyon a World Heritage site puts it under UN control have seen to that.

    That, and economic justice in America.

    Those are my ponies.

    What has a "political realist" done for you lately?

    by papicek on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:54:20 PM PDT

    •  I have a big problem with the ICC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      papicek

      in that it discourages countries from taking responsibility for their rogues. In particular, I think the Serbian war criminals should have been tried in Serbia by Serbs.

      And the criticism that it would subject US soldiers to prosecution is another reason to avoid it. Imagine, the Taliban turning a captured American soldier to the ICC. It could happen!

      •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        papicek

        Imagine, the Taliban turning a captured American soldier to the ICC. It could happen!

        That would be a hell of a lot better than the Taliban slitting an American soldier's throat! It's always been clear to me that the reason the U.S. won't join the ICC is that our government is committing or/and wants to be able to commit war crimes with impunity, on the basis of "might makes right." We'll sadly rue our arrogant stupidity when we are laid low and can no longer call all the shots.

      •  glad you brought that up... (0+ / 0-)

        The Statute of Rome, which created the ICC, specifically states that it will not exercise its jurisdiction unless the states party demonstrably fails to do so.

        So, in your scenario, an American soldier turned over to the ICC would be turned over to the US for investigation, trial and prosecution.

        Generally, when the ICC initiates an investigation to determine if action should be brought against an individual or group, then it's already pretty late in the game.

        The other argument you will hear is that any American tried by the ICC is unjustly deprived of his rights to the constitutionally guaranteed trial by a jury of his peers. As if US citizens aren't already subject to foreign jurisdictions and tried in foreign courts regularly.

        That, and the fact that the actual proceedings of the ICC closely resemble our own grand jury/prosecution process already, makes this a straw argument as well.

        What has a "political realist" done for you lately?

        by papicek on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:42:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  MOT, this great speech was given in 1912... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty, MichaelNY

    when Teddy was running on the Progressive Bull Moose party platform because it states Taft as president Taft, which was after Teddy's almost two full terms. :-)

    " But as Americans, and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated." - President Obama, 5/4

    by BarackStarObama on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:07:45 PM PDT

  •  How about corporate progressives? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    papicek

    We’ve got a bunch of them (they just don’t know it).

  •  A revolutionary Socialist who has no one to vote (4+ / 0-)

    for but the Democrats I go wearily and disgustedly vote for at every election some are on the ballot.

  •  I consider myself a left-of-center Obot... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    but didn't see that poll category.

    "How poor are they that have not patience! What wound did ever heal but by degrees?"

    by Cure7802 on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:52:20 PM PDT

  •  I'm... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    ... a progressive, a liberal, a Democrat, a Christian, and I put the ends before the means.

    Well, you did ask ;)

    The inadequate is the enemy of the necessary.

    by JRandomPoster on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:04:42 AM PDT

  •  Conservatives the enemy, not GOP per se (0+ / 0-)

    Party affiliations are not the most important aspects, philosophy and how it is put into practice are.  Conservatism is the real enemy of progressives.  This includes Blue Dogs and Conservadems as well as the current GOP.  Others have made compelling arguments that conservative democrats have a more negative impact than members of the GOP, because they have effective veto power of the Democratic party while the GOP must act as a monolithic block to achieve the same.  

    Corporate conservatism is the real nemesis of the nation as a whole right now.  Unfortunately, the Administration and many senior democrats in the Senate are corporate conservatives in deed, regardless of what they profess (and often what they profess is essentially conservative as well.)

  •  Progressive Party Platform of 1912 (0+ / 0-)

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...

    Amazing how much of it rings true today.

  •  Good diary (0+ / 0-)

    and I fully plan on reading the entire speech later. I didn't vote in your poll, though. I am a social democrat and a Democrat by default.

  •  Theodore Roosevelt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueness
    may well be the most overrated president in U.S. history.  Even his "trust-busting" was because of the economic war at the time between the Morgan and Rockefeller interests - he broke up Rockefeller's Standard Oil as a favor to Morgan.  His successor William Taft who was aligned with the Rockefeller side of this feud then went after Morgan's U.S. Steel and International Harvester and broke them up.  The point being this was strictly economic feuding between two powerful families, no matter how well they framed it as populist or progressive.

    TR's "Progressive Party" (ha ha) campaign was astroturf created and funded by the Morgans to sink Taft and deny him a second term.  It resulted in the election of Woodrow Wilson, who got us into World War I, suppressed antiwar movements and free speech, and brought us the Palmer Raids among many other things.

    I'm not even going into TR's fetish for militarism, imperialism, and gunboat diplomacy as in Cuba and Panama.

    Time to lose the undeserved reverence for Theodore Roosevelt, as we should also do with Wilson, Huey Long, and many others.

    Scoundrels all.

  •  " . . . harshly treated by fat . . . " (0+ / 0-)

    A sly did at "His Rotundity"?

    "Who am I to give science the brush?" Sugarpuss O'Shea

    by semiot on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:55:23 AM PDT

  •  I still consider myself a flaming liberal!:-) n/t (0+ / 0-)

    -8.75, -6.72 If it's 15000 ft below sea level, maybe it should stay there.

    by SciMathGuy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:10:06 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site