Sometimes an issue comes up which defines the divisions in the country so perfectly that you can point to it and say "there, look - the bad guys put themselves on a list for us." A recent example of this came with the introduction of a bill in Congress expressing support for the Assembly to Promote the Civil Society, a Cuban reform organization which seeks to bring Democracy and open government to Cuba through non-violent activism.
This is about as harmless a group as you can imagine endorsing. They're so civil that Castro has only arrested two members of the thousands of people involved. They hold meetings and promote government reforms, and basically function like an opposition suggestion box. They're holding a meeting on the 20th in Havana, and HR193 is a bill introduced in Congress last week to express purely moral support for their efforts to improve conditions in Cuba. And there's no question conditions are bad there. In the waning days of the Castro regime repression of speech and activity remains the standard as well as extreme poverty and government excess.
The bill was introduced by Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican Cubano in Congress, but it had strong bipartisan support and most importantly committed no US resources except our good will to making life better for people in Cuba. It's full of dangerous platitudes like "Congress extends its support and solidarity to the organizers and participants of the historic meeting of the Assembly." So, basically pretty uncontroversial and with an overall positive message.
That's why it passed by an overwhelming 355 to 22 margin, huge majorities in both parties supporting it. Which makes you wonder about the 22 who didn't support it. Not so much the one democrat who voted 'present' or Ron 'Dr. No' Paul the Liberty Republican who votes against everything, but the 20 Democrats who explicitly voted against a peaceful effort to promote democracy in Cuba. How ironic that at Democrats they should vote against peaceful efforts to promote actual democracy.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gonzo marx
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!
2 - Nancy
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.
3 - Dave Nalle
>>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
4 - gonzo marx
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!
5 - Bennett
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.
6 - RJ
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...
7 - gonzo marx
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!
8 - Dave Nalle
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
9 - gonzo marx
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!
10 - Dave Nalle
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
11 - Eric Berlin
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.
12 - Eric Berlin
RJ - How's that gerrymandering in Texas working out for you?
13 - Eric Berlin
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.
14 - RJ
"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...
15 - Eric Berlin
While I agree that gerrymandering is undemocratic, I can't believe that you really believe what you just wrote about agreements and such.
16 - Steve S
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.
17 - Eric Berlin
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.
18 - RJ
"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...
19 - Steve S
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.
20 - Eric Berlin
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.
21 - Eric Berlin
Oh: Steve, I get what you were saying. Right on.
22 - Dave Nalle
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
23 - Steve S
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.
24 - Eric Berlin
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.
25 - Dave Nalle
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