?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

U.S. Politics

I yanked this verbatim from syrinxkat (hope you don't mind, K):

"FWIW, the new assistant majority leader, Dick Durbin, is soliciting input as to what the new Senate's priorities should be in the next session. It's a pre-set list of options, but if any of them speak to your beliefs, you can take the survey here -

http://ga3.org/ct/M7eueh418mik/priorities%A0

People often complain that politicians do nothing, or are out of touch - why not take a couple of minutes and toss your thoughts into the pool? It's certainly easier than taking the time to sit and write a letter to an elected official, and what does it hurt to express your opinions? Maybe it'll do some good :)"

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
zorb
Jan. 10th, 2007 06:02 pm (UTC)
Ooo, that's nifty. It'd be interesting to see a visualization of all the submissions together. Thanks for the heads-up!
zinaya
Jan. 10th, 2007 06:20 pm (UTC)
Done! I'm just glad that all of my major issues made his list. It makes me feel a tad better.
hedwig_snowy
Jan. 10th, 2007 07:20 pm (UTC)
Minimum Wage
Since one of the Democrats campaign promises (and focus early in the session) is on the minimum wage, it has been interesting to see the Conservative punditry blasting the idea. Media Matters takes on those myths here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200701100004

During the last Congress, the GOP blasted the Democrats for just being obstructionists. $10 says they'll now claim, when they oppose everything the Democrats put forth (i.e to actually do work), that they're just doing what they're supposed to as the opposition party. And the media will all just nod...

Also, Kos has a blog on a piece from the National Review. I tend to agree that "support the troops" certainly means different things to different people. If it can get them elected, the GOP will stand next to a soldier to have their picture taken, but they didn't do a great deal for returning casualties, their families, or to increase the number of troops so that members wouldn't be rotated back to Iraq as often. Now this:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYxZDcxMzkzNzhiMzFkNTAwMzkxNjE0Y2FkNmM0MTE=

"Note that an increase in embeds doesn’t necessarily require an increase in overall troop strength. We’ve got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don’t know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it’s a substantial number. Enough of that."

Well, for one thing, the US only has about 70k ground troops that are trained to go 'out' on missions like that (that's why Bush sending another 20k is a lot) and maybe they should've planned a bit better since they've only had what...3 1/2 years to realize this??? Supporting the troops means not only putting a plastic flag on your car, but making sure they have enough of the best equipment possible, that there are enough of them to protect each other, and that the policies that they're fighting for will result in victory. None of those things have occurred, quite the opposite. And, the next politician use the term 'defeatist' should be flogged. It's not defeatist to have some brains and realize that this CiC couldn't win a war with 200k troops...hopefully their stupidity will be punished one day.
sageofgodalming
Jan. 10th, 2007 09:03 pm (UTC)
Hm... I hope he uses it to help set priorities, rather than just wave whatever list results and say 'Look! Tha American people supports our agenda!'
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Teresa Jones