SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (88115)11/13/2006 11:57:39 AM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361993
 
Tipper came out strong against heavy metal and rap lyrics in the 80's and early 90's and got parental warning stickers put on albums and video games. That's a form of censorship because some department stores wouldn't carry products with such stickers.

I'm not sure if you call it censorship exactly, but it's borderline. This proves the Gores are not that liberal. Yes, Gore was against the war, but he had the luxury of not being in office at the time, when 75% of the country still trusted Bush and was willing to believe that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. In fact, Bush's approvals on the war were actually at 92% at one point. Which meant most liberals supported his wasr too.

Also remember, you can't blame centrists who supported the war at first that much. Bush-Cheney were using Pat Roberts and outfoxing the New York Times in order to disseminate false intel on Saddam. All that aluminum tubes and Atta in Prague business was part of the official line. And at that point most Americans saluted the leadership without question. That's why Joe Wilson was such a big deal. He was the first to say the Emperor had no clothes. And they tried to destroy him for it.



To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (88115)11/13/2006 12:02:24 PM
From: American Spirit  Respond to of 361993
 
Arianna Huffington - Jack Murtha for Majority Leader... and "Person of the Year" (103 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, Rep. John Murtha, Midterms, 2006, New York Times, Karl Rove, George W. Bush

Election Day 2006 is over, but there are still a couple of races yet to be decided. And Jack Murtha is a contender in both of them. One is mostly fun: the contest to see who will be chosen as TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year". The other is incredibly significant: the battle to see who House Democrats will choose as their new Majority Leader.

I'm pulling for Jack Murtha in both contests.

When Rick Stengel, TIME's new editor, asked me to take part in a panel in New York this Tuesday to discuss who should be the "Person of the Year", my mind immediately turned to Murtha. Why? Because, contrary to what Karl Rove would like you to believe, this election wasn't about corruption, it wasn't about a few formerly closeted homophobes, and it wasn't about spending. As I've said before, it was about three things: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq (Click here for backup). And Murtha was a key reason the election was a referendum on Iraq.

As CNN's Bill Schneider put it this week: Murtha is "the guy who stood up first and is still standing up...[he] has the message that won the glorious victory of '06."

The polls may have opened at 6. a.m. on Tuesday, but the process that unfolded on November 7th actually began almost a year earlier, on November 17th, 2005. That's the day when Murtha altered the dynamics of the '06 campaign by giving a speech that began:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region..."

As Murtha noted at the time, 2,079 U.S. soldiers had been killed in the war. Since he gave the speech, 765 more have died. And the "flawed policy" Murtha decried has had catastrophic results, as the situation in Iraq has continued to deteriorate.

Sure, this may be the consensus opinion these days, but it absolutely wasn't when Murtha first spoke out. The very act of speaking out changed the national dialogue on the war. As I wrote in my "Person of the Year" nomination:

"A lifelong hawk, Murtha was willing to see the inevitable and courageously called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq long before it was the politically advantageous thing to do. He led the charge to make the war the central issue of the 2006 campaign -- a bold move that resulted in Democrats taking control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years. He followed his gut, not the polls, and the popular will eventually followed -- and that's what leadership is all about."

In today's toxic political environment, that kind of leadership usually comes with a price. For Murtha that meant being relentlessly Swiftboated and smeared for the next year by Bush, Rove, and the hatchet-men they contract their dirty work to. But he never stopped speaking out... or blogging out (he's been a regular contributor to HuffPost). His stance on the war isn't about politics, it's about principle. He's a man on a mission.

And though Murtha's impassioned and well-reasoned arguments didn't budge the delusional fanatics in the White House and the Pentagon, they were extremely important in prodding his fellow Democrats to begin talking about the war in a different way.

When Murtha first made the case for withdrawal, many Democrats -- including DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel -- balked, believing his position would hurt the Party's midterm chances. "When Representative John P. Murtha," the Times wrote, "called for withdrawal of troops, gaining wide publicity and highlighting divisions among Democrats over the war, Mr. Emanuel was filled with gloom." But as Emanuel told the Times after the election, "Iraq was the driving factor behind everything ... I was wrong, no doubt about it."

On Thursday, the House Democratic Caucus is scheduled to vote on who should be its new Majority Leader. The leading contenders are Murtha and Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current minority whip.

I strongly urge House Dems to remember why they're even picking a Majority Leader in the first place. If it weren't for Jack Murtha, they'd be voting for Minority Leader.

On November 7th, the American people made it clear they want a change in policy in Iraq. One way for Democrats to make it clear to the American public they're heeding this call is to elect Murtha Majority Leader.

And you can play a part. If you live in a district represented by a Democratic congressperson, call him or her and urge them to vote for Murtha. (You can find your representative here: house.gov

Whether or not TIME picks Jack Murtha as the "Person of the Year", let's hope the House Democratic Caucus listens to the American people and picks him as its Majority leader.



To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (88115)11/13/2006 12:04:34 PM
From: American Spirit  Respond to of 361993
 
Jack Murtha is actually a conservative and was very pro-war, yet he should be applauded and supported by all progressives for changing his mind and taking his courageous stand while enduring the Bushie smear campaign.

This is a perfect example of how progressives and honest conservatives need to band together. Taking potshots like "Bush-lite" is very counter-productive and I'd urge you to stop it. That's the same BS many used against Kerry, or that Naderites used against Gore in 2000. If the far left had been more supportive, both Gore and Kerry might have overcome Bush's cheating and won.



To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (88115)11/13/2006 1:14:41 PM
From: altair19  Respond to of 361993
 
S83


<Tipper Gore has never advocated censorship in any form.>

She formed a coalition named Parental Music Resources Group in the middle 80's as a reaction to her daughter's copy of Prince's Purple Rain. This organization of high profile Senator's wives directly and and indirectly inflenced the music industry. Some might call is censorship - but it isn't in the strict sense of the word. I listened to one of the hearings - given the opportunity to censor music, I believe they would have. The group did influence the application of a "explicit language" warning label.

Here was their charter:

"The goal of the PMRC was pretty simple. The more media attention, the more pressure it put on the RIAA. According to a 1985 issue of the Washington Post, Susan Baker and Tipper Gore released the six demands they had:

1. Print lyrics on album covers.
2. Keep explicit covers under the counter.
3. Establish a ratings system for records similar to that for films.
4. Establish a ratings system for concerts.
5. Reassess the contracts of performers who engage in violence and explicit sexual behavior onstage.
6. Establish a citizen and record-company media watch that would pressure broadcasters not to air "questionable-talent."
(Nuzum "Parental" 22)

Shortly after their demands were printed in the Washington Post, the Reverend Jimmy Swaggert began pressuring retailers to stop carrying rock music. (Nuzum "Parental") As a result, Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney's, Sears, and even Fred Meyer stores across the country started pulling all of their rock music and rock magazines from their shelves."

I guess it's in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

A19