Karl Roves Gets a Taste of Democracy in Action

Joellerose, you are right in saying that Democracy is a lot more than 'thugs in the street'. In fact,'thugs in the street' does not indicate Democracy. These people, however, are not thugs; they are churchmen and church-goers. They are concerned citizens putting their freedom on the line so as to call attention to this matter. That is democracy in action. Sitting at home watching the world go by on CNN and pushing a button every four years to choose which faction of the Business Party will rule the country and ignore the will of  the people is NOT a fully functioning Democracy.

It is just their opinion that Karl Rove deserves opprobrium, and apparently yours too.  Only a liberal could think that because they believe something, everyone must comply.  In the USA we have elections to decide who run towns, cities, states and the country.  This is the only "will of the people" that really matters - especially since the nation expressed its will on the Iraq War in 2004.

As Winston Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind - except for all the others".

Hi, Joellerose,

If it makes you feel better shoving everyone who disagrees with YOU into a little box you lable 'Liberal', go right ahead. Opinion is the touchstone of Democracy; it's what makes the system so messy.

Karl Rove has repeatedly and contemptuouslyrefused to appear before the Congressional committee as the subpoena demands. No citizen is above the law.

As for our elected representatives actually taking public opinion into consideration when policy is formulated and enacted, it only requires a little research into the respected polls to know that what the majority of American people want (e.g. universal health care, an end to the Corporatocracy, withdrawal from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, an end to CIA interference in the matters of sovereign nations, an end to military threats against Iran, a two-state settlement in Israel and Palestine amongst many other issues) is very rarely addressed and far too often ignored entirely.

The elections are not the sum total of democratic governance. The Soviet Union had elections, if you remember. A functional Democracy requires the on-going involvement of its citizens in matter large and small. A 'push-button' democracy barely rates as a democracy at all.

Polls are a meaningless snapshot of mob opinion at a particular point.  The Democrat Congress has shown repeatedly that it is more interested in finding scapegoats it can utilize politically than in any meaningful work.  It is why "polls" suggest it has only a 9% approval.  Karl Rove obviously wants to put obstacles in the way of being used like that, but Congress can try to override Executive Priviledge; sometimes they succeed, but usually they fail.

Comparing the elections of the former Soviet Union to the USA is disingenuous at best.

Hello, again,

My dear, joellerose, you are the one to posit that elections were all that was necessary for a functional democracy.

"In the USA we have elections to decide who run towns, cities, states and the country.  This is the only "will of the people" that really matters..."

I simply and very candidly and straightforwardly countered that elections were held in the Soviet Union and indeed they were. There is nothing disingenuous about my observation. They were recently held in Zimbabwe, for another example discrediting your assertion equating elections with fully functional democratic processes.

It must be quite a comfort for you - as it obviously is for the current administration - to so brusquely dismiss the opinion of the American people as polled by reputable universities, newspapers and private research institutes such Pew. Moreover, your labeling the citizenry of the United States as a 'mob' is quite revealing.

The United States is a republic, with built-in delays and separated powers to avoid the problems of mob rule.  Again, there is no comparison between the elections held in the Soviet Union or in Zimbabwe, and to state that there is IS disingenuous.  It is comparable to the moral equivalency that some liberals ascribe to Islamic fundamentalists and present-day Christianity.