ok...even tho i might disagree with the assessment of some of the individuals mentioned, there are quite a few nutbars on the list..

however...

shall we compare it with the self admitted religious zealots and fascists that make up a minority of the GOP in the House?

you know..like the folks that got together to vote for Terri's Law...a unique case in American political history...a federal Law written for and signed into the Law fo the Land for ONE single individual..

how's that for non-intrusive small government?

so i will gladly trade 20 "socialist" nutcases for a Majority's leadership that runs the House, Senate and White House..with a disturbing number of adherents holding a working majority of the Supreme Court

can you say single Party Totalitarianism kiddies?

i knew yas could...

and that scares the heck out of me much more than a minority percentage of the Minority Party in a single branch of our Government

nuff said?

Excelsior!

I agree; I'd rather deal with a Socialist than a member of the Religious Reich any day; at least the Socialists don't try to claim they were anointed by God.

>>shall we compare it with the self admitted religious zealots and fascists that make up a minority of the GOP in the House?<<

I have to point out that these are just the worst of the lot. Other members of the DSA chose not to vote against this bill, but they are almost as bad.

The point is that just like the Republican party, the Democratic party has been infiltrated by extremists. Everyone is ranting right now about the Republican religious extremists, but giving these DSA folks a free ride. Believe me, the time will come when they will be just as much of a problem for the Democrats as Delay and his bunch are right now for the Republicans.

>>you know..like the folks that got together to vote for Terri's Law...a unique case in American political history...a federal Law written for and signed into the Law fo the Land for ONE single individual..<<

You mean the law passed by a majority of BOTH parties in BOTH houses of Congress, including the Democrats?

>>so i will gladly trade 20 "socialist" nutcases for a Majority's leadership that runs the House, Senate and White House..with a disturbing number of adherents holding a working majority of the Supreme Court<<

The Supreme Court is nothing like the religious right. The most far right person on the court isn't even a fundamentalist, he's a Catholic. Hardly the same thing.

Dave

umm..one bit is all i'm gonna touch here for clarification..

on Terri's Law's passage in the House..

more then 100 Dem's didn't even show up for the vote

and whoever did deserves derision...no matter whcih side fo the aisel they are on..

my whole point here, Mr. Nalle..is that you cite what..20 extremests on the Left

i put it to you that there are FAR MORE on the right..including the Leadership..

and THEY are the ones running the government right now..the House, Senate and White House...with folks like Justice "our Laws come from God" Scalia on the bench of the Supreme Court

so i feel that it is safe to say that while the Dems have some wacko's...the GOP has far more in their ranks..and they are far more dangerous for being in control of the government..

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Pete Stark was a HS teacher in Alameda, CA when I was a kid, then School Board, then I lost track.

I remember thinking he was a ass. Sad to see he's made it to Congress.

John Conyers (Mich.) - An ass-hat from way back...

Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio) - Gerrymandering at work...

Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) - Pinko loon...

Barbara Lee (Calif.) - Gerrymandering at work...

Jim McDermott (Wash.) - Anti-American loon...

Cynthia McKinney (Ga.) - Gerrymandering at work...

Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) - Gerrymandering at work...

Charlie Rangel (N.Y.) - Gerrymandering at work...

José Serrano (N.Y.) - Probably would like to see PR go commie...

Maxine Waters (Calif.) - Gerrymandering at work...

don't hold back RJ, tell us what you REALLY think..

but please don't forget to mention the Fundamentalist King of gerrymandering, you know, the guy that got what..7 seats that NEVER existed before set up to be republican...going so far as shaping these new "districts" in such a way as to make an amoeba seem like a normal geometrical shape..

you know who i mean , kiddies...good old Tom "gerrymander" DeLay...

i stick with my previous comments in this Post

Excelsior!

I'm not sure that attributing every black representative to gerrymandering exactly helps our cause here, RJ - though I agree that gerrymandering is a nightmare in some of the states in question.

Gonzo: "my whole point here, Mr. Nalle..is that you cite what..20 extremests on the Left

i put it to you that there are FAR MORE on the right..including the Leadership.."

I don't think so. It's just that the few extremists are more prominently placed right now, and they're in the ruling party which gives them a lot of exposure. I'm pretty sure that I could axe 20 Congressmen and 5 Senators and totally change the character of Republican representation in DC.

Gonzo: "and THEY are the ones running the government right now..the House, Senate and White House...with folks like Justice "our Laws come from God" Scalia on the bench of the Supreme Court"

But Scalia is definitively NOT a Neocon. He doesn't subscribe to any of the fundamentalist values, and while he does believe in God, and see a role of God in the origins of the Republic, he's not a religious crazy.

Dave

we will just have to agree to disagree about Scalia, Mr Nalle...no worries there..

get back to me after you "axe" out those wacko GOP members..then we can talk..

until then..enjoy serving your Masters like the rest of the bandwagon hopping Quislings...

Excelsior!

I don't see masters in the GOP, I see contentious chaos. No one really seems to be running the show and the result is a mess. If Bush doesn't take a leadership role and lets the Neocons continue to rule by default, the result is going to be a split and possibly destroyed party. Should be interesting to see how it works out.

Of course, the picture for the Dems is much, much worse. Because they aren't in the media spotlight of in a position of power, the rank and file doesn't see that the same thing is happening to their party. There isn't as likely to be a confrontation and they're much more likely to be quietly taken over by the DSA and other extremists. Democrats will wake up one day and find that their entire party has been taken over and it's too late to save it.

Dave

This post takes a small story and makes ridiculous exaggerations from it i.e. socialists and communists in Congress. Better bust out the kerosene and matches to Burn Them Down!

There's a million reasons why the minority of Dems who voted against the resolution possibly did so. It's possible that they disapprove of Bush's Cuba policy, or his foreign policy at large.

I'm not saying that voting against it was the right thing to do.

But again, taking a small list of names with reference to a small, essentially meaningless piece of paper that does nothing and using it as proof of the Dark and Strange Evils that lurk within the Hearts of the Democratic Party is simply preposterous.

RJ - How's that gerrymandering in Texas working out for you?

Bennett - Grew up in Alameda, eh? I spent five years in and about the East Bay: Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond. One of my wife's best friends lives on the water in Alameda with her husband, two kids, and a whole host of dogs, cats, ducks, hamsters, and so forth. A cute little dog (name of Janet Reno) would usually stop by as well. Rumor had it one of the guys who played with the Allman Brothers for a bunch of years lived next door. Great area, great views of the Bay.

"RJ - How's that gerrymandering in Texas working out for you?"

Oh, I am opposed to all gerrymandering.

The GOP and the Dems seem to have come to some sort of agreement in this.

The mostly-black urban areas will be confined to as few Congressional districts as possible. Therefore, the result will be hard-left black Democrat Representatives who usually will never face serious opposition again. This gives the Democrats the ability to proclaim themselves the "party of inclusion" or whatever.

And the Republicans benefit by having such a large chunk of sure-Democrat votes confined to a few districts, thereby enabling the GOP to be more competitive in more "swing" districts.

In other words, the Dems get a small number of hard-core leftist black Reps elected, and the GOP gets a handful of "moderate" Republicans elected in districts that would otherwise lean towards the Democrats.

Of course, while both parties might be happy with this state of affairs, it's highly undemocratic. ALL gerrymandering is...

While I agree that gerrymandering is undemocratic, I can't believe that you really believe what you just wrote about agreements and such.

Actually, the Republicans aren't happy with an 'agreement' to let Democrats have a small urban African American base like is implied. The Republicans have made great achievements in eroding this base.

Ever since Bush's faith-based initiatives came out, 100% of them have gone to Christian or interfaith ministries. No other religion has received any government funding in faith based initiatives. I saw this on a program on TV called God in Government. (Link Channel). And a large part of that disbursement went to African American churches in inner cities, with a consequence, whether intended or not, of having large amounts of them switch over to Bush in the last election.

The Democrats lost a large base in their religious folks when the government starting handing out cash to the churches.

Steve -- That might be true, but the opinion that the Democrats are happy to cede chunks of swing district territory in return for some kind of small, minority-based fortress of the "hard left" is beyond preposterous.

"While I agree that gerrymandering is undemocratic, I can't believe that you really believe what you just wrote about agreements and such."

Hmm. Surely it is an unspoken agreement, assuming it exists at all.

But name a single state in the country with a major urban area that DOESN'T have at least one blatantly-gerrymandered district with a majority black population.

New York has them. Florida has them. Ohio has them. Michigan has them. Illinois has them. California has them. Georgia has them.

When Dems control redistricting, they keep such districts. When the GOP controls redistricting, they keep such districts.

Eric: You're a smart guy. I appreciate your well-informed posts on American politics here at BC.org. But please offer me an alternative explanation, if I'm so wrong...

I know, that's why I put 'agreement' in quotes. I wanted to point out how one side is already making inroads into the others 'small' base, proving there isn't any agreement.

RJ - I don't know the specifics of gerrymandering in urban areas, but what I do know is that many urban areas have concentrations of minority populations, and that they tend to vote for Democrats in large numbers.

What I do know is that both parties, when in control, will try to gerrymander to their own interests and benefit. We also agree that, generally speaking, this is bad for democracy. I would go further in saying that gerrymandering has helped to erode the great center in American Politics, specifically with reference to the House of Representatives.

What I can't see any evidence at all of is that there is an agreement -- implied or otherwise -- between the parties to maintain any kind of "power balance" between the minority-heavy cities and the center-to-right suburbs and rural areas.

What I do see is both parties trying to gain the most advantage for themselves and their interests at all times. While the Democratic Party has its factions, I don't see any kind of conspiracy to cater to its minority or left-leaning interests. Likewise for the Republicans, while fairly conservative elements now form the power base, I see no kind of conspiracy in terms of districting.

So of course the Democrats are going to keep safe districts when in control while expanding into swing areas and siphoning off "red" areas (rural in many cases) to the GOP. Likewise, the Repubs will always keep their safe districts while walling off urban powerbases to the Dems, while trying to take full advantage elsewhere.

I mentioned Texas earlier because it was an outrageous case of blatant and brutal gerrymandering, led by Mr. Tom DeLay.

Oh: Steve, I get what you were saying. Right on.

Eric, regarding your earlier comment. You seem to have missed that it's not just their vote on this which bill which marks these particular Democrats, but also their overall records and their association with the Democratic Socialists of America. Their vote on Cuba isn't a coincidence - they voted the way they did because they're pro-Castro, not for some other reason. There's no ambiguity to it at all.

As for gerrymandering, the version we had recently in Texas has been very controversial, but if you look at the maps before and after the districts were redrawn, the new districts are MUCH more geographically coherent than the old ones. In all the complaining about the Republican gerrymandering what they never mention is that it just undid far worse gerrymandering from the previous census when the Democrats were in control.

Dave

I think there are extremists on both sides. I think in terms of action right now, it's a little one-sided. There's a fox in the henhouse, but there's BigFoot crawling through the kitchen window. That's my perspective.

You link to some blog that talks about members of Congress working with a Socialist organization. I don't think offers any "proof" of anything, really.

And where's the proof that these people are pro-Castro?

As for gerrymandering: I'm not for it in any form, as I've said. It should be non-partisan, if that's possible. However, it's widely agreed that the Texas move in '04 was pretty bad. And I recall seeing the districting maps... they didn't look all that fair to me.

That 'blog' was actually an article on a news site, Eric. Not a blog at all.

And the DSA is a well documented organization. You can see their site here. In looking through their site I made the amusing discovery that among his other perfidies, John Conyers sponsored a bill in 1999 to take money from corporations and give it to blacks in reparation for slavery. I'd heard of the bill but didn't realize he was the radical crazy behind it.

Gah, I had all these links about the various people on the list and their association with Castro, but stupid Movable Type thinks it's spam because of all the links. Take my word for it, their support for Castro in legislation, public statements and visits to Cuba is well documented. Just do a Google search for any of the names and Castro.

As for the gerrymandering in Texas, it is to some degree non-partisan, because it always ends up in the courts and they more or less dictate the final outcome.

Dave

Thanks to BC's paranoid palaverer for another flaming post.

Watch your ass (ets)! There are commies in the cupboard!

Come on now. Members of our Gov are paid to appropriate and reallocate social resources, and to regulate citizens' behavior...they are all socialists (and scoundrels) by trade.

If you want to find an enemy within, focus on the totalitarians infiltrating the system. Wolves in sheep's clothing, and all.

Mark

You think these socialists aren't totalitarians in the making? The only thing keeping them from abusing our rights horrendously is that they are currently in the minority. Give them half a chance and they'll be spending money like mad fools and meddling in every aspect of our daily lives.

I don't agree with your description of the role of our government representatives. I'd like to think that they are there not to steal our money and tell us what to do, as you suggest. They really ought to function as guardians of our rights and the Constitution and responsible managers of resources. Some few of them do have this philosophy at heart. Why not oppose those who do not, both on the right AND the left?

I wrote this article because we see a lot of coverage here on BC of the extremists on the right and I wanted to remind everyone that there are extremists who are as bad or worse on the left just waiting for a chance to get power and do their evil work.

Dave

Yes, there's certainly a fringe on the left as well as the right.

Give them half a chance and they'll be spending money like mad fools and meddling in every aspect of our daily lives.

However, we're seeing a bit of that now by the current Administration and ruling party in Congress, aren't we?

Well sure, Eric. But even with all the flaws of the social agenda of the religious right, they are at least cooperating with the President on fiscal issues, so we're only half as screwed as we would be if the socialists got into power.

Dave

Whew! I'm glad you cleared that up for us.

Feel much better about everything now.

I never suggested you should be happy, Eric. There's nothing in the current situation to make anyone happy. We're not going to have truly happy voters until we have a 3 or more party system in the US.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez..
*they are at least cooperating with the President on fiscal issues*

oh yeah..

reminder of the Facts here...

in the last Administration we had record surplus'...now with the GOP controlling the entire government we have record defecits WITHOUT counting the military expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan...those aren't even in the budget as written and passed...it seems the Shrub and his cronies learned accounting from Enron...

nice fiscal Responsibility happening, eh?

Excelsior!

I wrote this article because we see a lot of coverage here on BC of the extremists on the right and I wanted to remind everyone that there are extremists who are as bad or worse on the left just waiting for a chance to get power and do their evil work.

Dave, I actually feel you are one of the few people who have made attempts to at least reach out and try to understand where I am coming from, in my posts about the extremism on the right. At least you are only one to follow along and comment. Since you have done that for me I would concede that you and others can feel the same sort of threat from the extreme on the left. I don't see it as near as dangerous, because the power isn't there, but I will concede that you and others might see danger there.

I don't know about the Cuba bill you are talking about, I would not condemn somebody for voting against it without learning their motivations. If there is one thing the Bush/Kerry election showed me (remember the comment of 'I voted for it, after I voted against it, etc.), it's that someone can vote against a bill for a reason like a smaller attachment to it.

But yes, Dave, there are extremists on the Left, I concede that to you. And I don't want a socialistic country any more than I want a theocratic one.

Having said that, I still see my fox/Bigfoot metaphor as being accurate because of the current power distribution and still hope and pray for the day when the mainstream conservative is more interested in saying 'not in my name', rather than saying 'you got baddies too, you got baddies too', and then fishing for something like this Cuba bill to compare against the assault on judges or the assault on our historical documents.
Our baddies are neutered compared to your baddies screwing this country over.

Yes, Steve, but the existence of those extremists on the left is part of what empowers the extremists on the right. As long as people see the choice as between John Conyers and Tom Delay a lot of them are going to bite the bullet and put up with Delay because he remains the lesser of the two evils. Unless the Democrats move to the center - which is the exact opposite of what they are doing - they can't put any pressure on the right wing extremists, because those folks know they aren't going to lose their moderate Republican and Independent voters to an extremist party on the left.

Dave

re: "Maxine Waters is an admitted socialist and on the executive committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, the wing of the Socialist International within the Democratic party - many others on this list are also members of that group. In fact, one of the things which makes this group particularly scary is that other prominent members of the DSA voted FOR the bill, so these are the socialists within the Democratic party who are the most extreme and ideologically deluded."

I've been looking for links to DSA's membership list to verify these statements and have had no luck. Could Dave or someone assist? Thanks

Mark

Yes, Steve, but the existence of those extremists on the left is part of what empowers the extremists on the right. As long as people see the choice as between John Conyers and Tom Delay a lot of them are going to bite the bullet and put up with Delay because he remains the lesser of the two evils.

That makes... just about no sense at all. Who is making the "choice" between Conyers and DeLay in the United States?

Maybe a few people on the Internet... but that's about all I can figure.

A fringe factor on one side of the political spectrum does not create a fringe on the other.

Gah, I had all these links about the various people on the list and their association with Castro, but stupid Movable Type thinks it's spam because of all the links.

so just post the urls.

since when does moveable type care about content?

Mark:

From what I can tell Maxine Waters term on the executive board of the DSA was up a year ago, but she's still a member. Here's a very useful link to various membership affiliations of leftist members of Congress. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialists.htm

dsausa.org is the official DSA website. It does not appear to have a list of board members for some reason, but they do have lists of who is on what topical commissions if you search really hard with their rather awkward search tool.

Dave

>>That makes... just about no sense at all. Who is making the "choice" between Conyers and DeLay in the United States?<<

The specific choice was between Bush and Kerry in the last election. I just threw out Conyers and Delay as extreme examples of what the two candidates represented. The choice between religious extremism and anti-American socialist/communist extremism is one which many voters are faced with when all they see is the worst each party has to offer. And when they face that choice moderates tend to prefer the religious right over the socialist left.

Dave

let's look at it from just a numerical standpoint for a second..

at best there are what...20 dems in the House that Mr Nalle and RJ feel are "extremeist" socialist types...somewhere around 10% of the total in the house..give or take a point or two...

sounds to me like the vast majority would then be "moderates" by definition

so it appears the entire argument revolves around wanting the demlicans to be even more like the GOP, blending into some kind of political homogenous "whole" rather than have any kind of serious polarization...

all this while skimming over the uncontested Fact that the extremeists in the GOP are in leadership positions and running not only the Party, but the entire federal Government...their own moderates being marginalized and muscled into doing the bidding of the born again Leadership...

why else the pressure on moderates like Snowe with the base closings...if you don't think there is some back door dealing going on there, well..i have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale...

that's been my whole point...so much of the ranting about "socialists" amongst the Dems appears to be nothing more than distraction away from what the theocratic "fascists" are actually DOING with OUR government...

/end twaddle

Excelsior!

Except that the theocrats aren't actually getting a single iota of their agenda passed, now are they?

With a moderate president like Bush there's only so far the nuts in congress can get. And they're still a significant minority there.

I'm working on figuring out a way to analyze exactly who the core extremists on the right are, but I have yet to find a single group or vote that identifies them as clearly as the Cuba vote did for leftists. Part of the problem is that there are two kinds of Neocons, those who subscribe to the political philosophy of the Project for the New American Century which is the whole expansionist foreign policy and massive spending aspect, and those who are just religiously motivated conservatives. Those who fall into both categories are the real hard core crazies.

It's easier to identify the good folks in Congress. Just go to the Americans for Tax Reform site and look at who has a 95% or higher rating from them at - http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/108th-1/108-1-house-final.htm

Dave

Great comments Gonzo, I'm fairly close in agreement on many of your points.

Except that the theocrats aren't actually getting a single iota of their agenda passed, now are they?

If the "nuclear option" gets dropped, it's going to be a Theocratic Field Day...

good points in general , Mr. Nalle

but with your defining "good" by record of so called "tax reform" we will definately have to disagree

to me a "good" politician is a rare bird indeed...he/she is someone that is looking out for the best interests of their constituents and citizens in general..even when it conflicts with the special interests and lobbyists that paid for them to get elected...

whatever happened to "term limits" anyway?

Excelsior!

Dave - I strongly disagree that Bush is a moderate President.

He's a Big Government Conservative and foreign policy hawk who has transformed the way the government operates both domestically and abroad. Some people applaud many of the administration's policies. I, on the other hand, find many of them to be quite harmful.

In other words:

I'd take 20 years of Bush the Father for one of Bush the Son.

does a moderate change a Nation's history by entering a pre-emptive war?

does a moderate go from surplus to record deficit(not counting the War costs..those are NOT in thye budget)

does a moderate, who has NEVER left his ranch early..not even for tsunami's..but continues to do his business from there(not a bad thing, i hold no fault for it)..suddenly cut his vacation time short to fly back to DC and sign into Law something written for ONE person?(Terri's law, so much for "small government)

i dunno..call me kooky..but could we please ask Mr. Nalle to define his idea of a moderate?

objects in mirror may be closer than they appear

Excelsior!

This list gives members of the Progressive Caucus, a rant on the evils of the DSA, a list of left leaning organizations like the AFL-CIO. The DSA site search tool comes up with no matches for 'Maxine Waters', even. Farr - no matches; Udall - no matches; Conyers - a link to a DSA article in which he is mentioned; etc, etc - so I figure that it is worthless for identifying membership. I don't find the infamous 20 on the lists of who is on what DSA topical commissions. Searches at the Washington Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the New York Post are no help.

Dave - where did you get your information justifying your statements about DSA membership that I cited in #35 above?

Mark

Mark, the info came from the article cited in my article. I'm sorry the DSA doesn't publish its membership list. But I'm not surprised. I'll keep looking for a definitive list, but right now I have no reason to believe that multiple sources which cite these folks as members of the DSA are wrong. Based on their votes and their beliefs they are 100% in sympathy with the philosophy of the DSA. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it, Mark?

Dave

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it...?

A source of avian flu or SARS?

and here I was thinking dinner until DrPat spoiled it.

I sent the following to Mr Udall - my representative:

"Mr Udall or staff:

Please see:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/14/130422.php

Why did Mr Udall vote against HR193?

Is Mr Udall a member of the Democratic Socialists of America?

Please feel free to speak to these questions in the comments section at the URL above.

Thank you for your prompt response."

I'll post any response here and I'll send the same message to the remaining 19 when I have some time.

Mark

Sorry for this preservation, but:

re: "Mark, the info came from the article cited in my article"

There is no reference to the DSA in the Standard article. geoffmetcalf.com equates the Progressive Caucus with the DSA as does tysknews.com.

re: "I have no reason to believe that multiple sources which cite these folks as members of the DSA are wrong"

What multiple sources?

When you make inflammatory claims, you need to back them up. The 'walks like a duck, votes like a duck' argument is not useful.

Mark

'perseveration', that is. Mark

The WorldNetDaily article clearly states "Here is the list (provided by The Democratic Socialists of America) of Socialists in Congress" followed by a list including many of the people referenced in my article. What is unclear about that?

The tysknews link has a list of members of the Progressive Caucus. As far as I can tell that group in congress is identical in philosophy with the DSA, and presumably the membership lists match.

Since the DSA doesn't currently publish their membership list, it's a little hard to figure out who belongs without asking each member of congress.

Given their voting records do you have ANY reason to doubt that these particular members of congress are either in the DSA or totally in sympathy with it and its aims? If you do, I'd be glad to talk about it, but the basic point remains correct, that the people who voted for this bill are all socialist extremists. Do you deny that?

Dave

For someone to disregard Kos as a source because of the 'bias', but then use WorldNetDaily as one, is pretty funny.

tho i have no real Argument, as i have clearly stated above..

note that my whole bit on the math of it has gone unAnswered..

i do enjoy this one..

Mr Nalle sez..
*and presumably the membership lists match.*

here we go presuming...i can easily agree most of the 20 cited are a "far left"..but as i showed, that is about 10% of the dems in the house..i doubt you could hit 5% in the senate under the same criteria

so that fraction of the Minority is something we shoudl be worried about rather than..

the Senate Leader..Dr. Frist...remember his little bit on TV a few sundays ago?..endorsing a Fundamentalist judicial activism agenda...that's good..

House Majority Leader DeLay...do i REALLY need to go over this one?

scope the Majorities voting record on far right issues..you will find well over 60% of the GOP easily votes the way their told...now count the handful of GOP moderates willing to even voice their opinions, much less vote against their born again "masters"

so..where is the danger here?

we retort, you decide...(pun intended)

Excelsior!

Steve, I'm using WorldNetDaily because I can't find the info anywhere else. If Kos was reporting on this I'd use them.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez..
*Steve, I'm using WorldNetDaily because I can't find the info anywhere else.*

so if i find..hypothetically..a piece from..oh..MoveOn.org, stating that half of the GOP signed a fascist manifesto...and i could find that info nowhere else...and i put it out as Truth...that would be ok with you? i mean it was on the net..why should i need to corroborate it?

the preceding was chop busting and pure ironic sarcasm..if you are offended by such then the editors would like to suggest NOT reading gonzo's rantings to save brain ache...

thank you for your patience...

{8^P~~~~~~~~~~~

Excelsior!

re: "The WorldNetDaily article clearly states "Here is the list (provided by The Democratic Socialists of America) of Socialists in Congress" followed by a list including many of the people referenced in my article. What is unclear about that?"

What's unclear is membership in DSA - a central claim in your 'commies in the cubboard' argument. There is no claim in the WorldNetDaily article that the listed folks are members of the DSA.

re: "The tysknews link has a list of members of the Progressive Caucus. As far as I can tell that group in congress is identical in philosophy with the DSA, and presumably the membership lists match."

This is quite an assumption.

re: "Given their voting records do you have ANY reason to doubt that these particular members of congress are either in the DSA or totally in sympathy with it and its aims? If you do, I'd be glad to talk about it, but the basic point remains correct, that the people who voted for this bill are all socialist extremists. Do you deny that?"

If you read the DSA site you will find statements rejecting Capitalism's Profit Principle. I doubt that many of the 'shameful 20' would go for that in a big way.

I'm trying to find out what members of Congress are foolish enough actually to join an organization with the name 'Democratic Socialists of America'. What a PR nightmare.

From what I know about Udall, I wouldn't call him a socialist extremist.

Mark

DaveNalle: "...That list of 20 Democrats is something everyone should print out and pin to the wall next to their monitor, because these are the people in our government who are genuine enemies of freedom."

...Right next to a list of Doctors who perform abortions?

All this -- from a guy who also loves guns.

So who is scarier?

"democratic socialists" or people like DaveNalle?

But Shark, I love guns AND abortions. What can you do with that?

>>If you read the DSA site you will find statements rejecting Capitalism's Profit Principle. I doubt that many of the 'shameful 20' would go for that in a big way.<<

Absolutely wrong. Conyers, McKinney, Sanders and Waters are unquestionably hardline socialists. I'm not as familiar with the others, but I have no reason to think they don't share those views. Sanders has, in fact, been outspoken about equalizing income and basically destroying the wealthy class in America. Here's a quote: "The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our at our social and cultural fabric. Too much concentrated wealth leads to too much concentrated power and begins to undermine our participatory democracy." Straight out of the socialist creed.

You can find out exactly where they stand on just about every issue through a rather irritating but very informative website at www.issues2002.org. I don't know where they've put the most up to date version of this site, but since no one ever gets voted out (even McKinney got back in after being defeated), it's just a little out of date.

>>From what I know about Udall, I wouldn't call him a socialist extremist.<<

Really, the US Chamber of Commerce rates him at 23%, one of the most anti-business members of Congress. Has voted 'no' on every free trade bill during his time in Congress and gets an embarassing 33% rating from the CATO institute on trade. How about a 24% rating from the National Taxpayers Union. He's voted to raise taxes at every opportunity. Udall is typical of these folks - he's a disaster for business, trade and the prosperity of the American public.

Dave

But Shark, I love guns AND abortions. What can you do with that?

>>If you read the DSA site you will find statements rejecting Capitalism's Profit Principle. I doubt that many of the 'shameful 20' would go for that in a big way.<<

Absolutely wrong. Conyers, McKinney, Sanders and Waters are unquestionably hardline socialists. I'm not as familiar with the others, but I have no reason to think they don't share those views. Sanders has, in fact, been outspoken about equalizing income and basically destroying the wealthy class in America. Here's a quote: "The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our at our social and cultural fabric. Too much concentrated wealth leads to too much concentrated power and begins to undermine our participatory democracy." Straight out of the socialist creed.

You can find out exactly where they stand on just about every issue through a rather irritating but very informative website at www.issues2002.org. I don't know where they've put the most up to date version of this site, but since no one ever gets voted out (even McKinney got back in after being defeated), it's just a little out of date.

>>From what I know about Udall, I wouldn't call him a socialist extremist.<<

Really, the US Chamber of Commerce rates him at 23%, one of the most anti-business members of Congress. Has voted 'no' on every free trade bill during his time in Congress and gets an embarassing 33% rating from the CATO institute on trade. How about a 24% rating from the National Taxpayers Union. He's voted to raise taxes at every opportunity. Udall is typical of these folks - he's a disaster for business, trade and the prosperity of the American public.

Dave

Rep. Udall is a shame to his family name.

From THE ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS: 2004 :

The American for Democratic Action (a socialist group) gave him a 100 rating.

The ACLU gave him a 93 rating.

The American Conservative Union gave him a 0 rating.

The NTU gave him a 21 rating.

The Concord Coalition (a non-partisan group) gave him an 18 rating.

And on, and on...

Is he actually related to Mo Udall? I always kind of liked Mo Udall's frankness.

Dave

One thing's for sure. Since I didn't get a reply to my questions from his office today, Udall gets a 0 for prompt responses.

Mark

He is the son of former CongressCritter Stewart Udall (D), the nephew of former CongressCritter Mo Udall (D), and the cousin of both Congressman Mark Udall (D) and Senator Gordon Smith (R).

That may be too many politicians for one family. When you get that many they eventually go bad.

Dave