Some of the most egregious corporate mergers, those most damaging to consumers, were perpetrated under the Clinton Administration. NAFTA was a Clinton creation and has been the most successful unemployment act in America beside the Great Depression. I mention this not to attack Bill Clinton, but to demonstrate where Hilary’s campaign war chest comes from and the vested interests corporations have in her election to the presidency. As Bill famously pointed out, when you elect him you get Hilary as well, a two for one package. It would be difficult for anyone to deny her intimate involvement in her husband’s administration, especially since she is now campaigning on her experience gained form that period.
Of course, there are myriad examples of similar and even more flagrant acts of graft within the Republican Party. I am not defending that or attempting to mitigate Republican misconduct by comparing them to the Clintons. In fact it is the opposite that should be acknowledged, evident similarities that virtually eliminate perceived differences. This lack of distinction was perfectly articulated by John Edwards when he asked during the last debate “What is the difference of replacing a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats”.
Within that question is an elemental truth which most politicians avoid, evade, ignore or deny. That truth is the extent to which corporations are involved in our political system. To varying degrees we have all acknowledged at least the presence, if not the effect of corporations in politics. And that presence has different effects on each of us often depending on our personal circumstances, in particular our employment status and our dependence on corporations for our livelihoods. As it is true for each of us it is also true for those campaigning for the highest elected office in the nation. For Presidential candidates, who by the very act of running for the office demonstrate advanced levels of personal motivation, competitiveness and self importance, the dependency is on the advantage of an influential corporate sponsorship. It is this dependency at all levels that makes it difficult to achieve a consensus among the electorate to act against corporate monopolization of the political process and its pro-business / anti-consumer impact upon government.
Our elected officials have demonstrated an unwillingness to relinquish the corporate teat they have suckled at for so long and corporations are going to ever greater lengths to ensure their continued dependency. So how, you ask, can we correct a problem that has so infiltrated all levels of government and has so much money and influence behind it? The answer is as simple as accomplishing it will be difficult. The answer is that we, you and I, are the government. Corporations have not corrupted the government, they have corrupted the people we entrusted to run it. To rectify this we must elect new people to replace the corrupt leaders. This is the primary weapon at our disposal but, it is a powerful one because we are the only ones that can elect a person to office. Corporations have no vote and therefore can not elect anyone.
To engage in this type of struggle we must demand honest representation by the people we elect and establish our determination by getting rid of them if they fail us. We have not shown our mettle when it comes to this in the past and because of that many elected officials blatantly represent their own interests over ours. Unless and until we demonstrate our resolve by throwing them out of office for such transgressions, they will continue to smugly do as they please while offering mere lip service to our concerns.
A contemporary example is the actions of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She is attempting to defeat the ability of the American citizenry to expel elected officials which enables us to influence government and have a voice in how the business of government is conducted. It is the very fundamentals of Democracy that empowers individual citizens to act in the best interest of our nation when those within the government do not. Nonetheless, it is this Constitutional principal that has been denied to all Americans by Nancy Pelosi’s selfish determination to shield the Bush administration from any repercussions for their corrupt governance. She has steadfastly opposed any suggestion from members of her Party to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their transgressions.
Accordingly, she should be vilified for attempting to deny our rights. We should work to remove her from office in the most expedient fashion, first as Speaker, then from the House of Representatives entirely. She should be the object of our scorn and revulsion, the recipient of our most loathsome commentary, the icon of our collective distrust, and the effigy of our disrespect.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Pelosi and Congress - One Year On
Over a year has past since Americans went to the polls to unseat Republicans and replace them with Democrats who had promised to change things in Washington, D.C. In that year’s time, the electorate that gave Congress the mandate it needed to take action against the Bush administration has seen absolutely nothing accomplished. In fact, Republican initiatives have moved forward at a greater pace than when they were in the majority.
If this seems implausible just recall that the person elected to the position of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi stated absolutely that impeachment was off the table as part of the Democratic agenda. We should have realized at that time that the newly elected Democratic majority had no intention whatever of interfering with the Republicans.
The stated reasons for not pursuing impeachment all have to do with focusing on correcting Bush administration issues such as the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal wire tapping, etc. none of which have been corrected by Congress.
One must ask, what are the accomplishments of the 110th Congress?
Have they stopped or even slowed the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi innocents?
Have they attempted to restore our suspended democracy by closing Gitmo & CIA prisons?
Have they revoked the USA Patriot Act?
Have they restored the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Have they held to account those who revealed the identity a covert CIA agent?
Have they prevented the corruption of government by blocking detrimental nominations?
Have they provided universal healthcare for all citizens like all other major countries have?
Have they halted the illegal No-Bid contracts to profiteers in Iraq?
Have they de-funded the war?
Have they stood strong against the administration’s rush to war with Iran?
Have they mandated stipulations for the money they approved for Iraq?
Have they forced the administration to follow the law?
Have they even addressed Bush’s illegal “signing statements”?
Have they prevented Bush from further destabilizing the Dollar?
Have they improved the world’s confidence in the US economy?
Have they brought the price of oil back to a reasonable and affordable level?
Have they done anything to benefit anyone except the corporations that fund their campaigns?
Have they disciplined or in any way held accountable those Democrats who continually enable the Bush administration as Feinstein and Schumer did by voting for Mukasey and the Dirty Dozen Democrats that voted to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY suspend Habeas Corpus?
Now we learn that Scott McClellan, former Bush Press Secretary, is releasing a book in which he confirms what we have all known since the beginning. He reveals that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Card and Rove all knew about the outing of CIA operative Vallerie Plame Wilson and, in fact were involved in it. McClellan claims not to have known that he was lying for these individuals and thus was innocent of any wrong-doing himself. However, his accusations put the very top tier people of our government on the wrong side of the law.
The disclosure of this information compels Congress, as the primary mission of their sworn Constitutional obligations, to hold accountable anyone found to have had involvement in this act of treason. In doing so, it conflicts directly with Speaker Pelosi’s determination to shield the Bush administration through her commitment to keep impeachment “off the table”.
I have been critical of Pelosi in the past while allowing that her actions were most likely to avoid the appearance of mounting a coup against the President and Vice President. Such an act could result in her ascendance to the Oval office and would certainly be seen by Republicans as an illegal end run around the Constitution.
McClellan’s accusations force the impeachment issue back onto the table regardless of any previous commitments. His tell-all tome alone is not the silver bullet that will bring down this administration. We have had a number of those, but no bullet, silver or otherwise, can have any effect if no one has the balls to pull the trigger! And that sums up the problem we see in Congress today.
It would be unfortunate for the nation and especially for the women of the nation if our first female Speaker of the House is seen as a failure. Her incompetence would make it harder for women to advance to and above her level in the future because the opposition will surely target her ineffectiveness and complacency as inherent female attributes to be avoided and she herself as a cause celebre of failure. However, it would be even more devastating if her lack of accomplishment is the result of complicity. As much as you may hope this isn’t the case it must be considered because of the self-serving defections from the Party Platform by the likes of Diane Feinstein, whose Defense Contractor husband profits by her anti-democratic votes in the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC, Chuck Schumer, administrative enabler and face time whore for Fox News, and other Blue Dog Democrats who are nothing less than Republican plants within the Democratic Party.
Both of these scenarios can be put to rest through positive action and patriotic mettle on the part of the Speaker and Congressional Democrats. Neither has been in evidence since the 06 elections and many are beginning to believe this group of Democrats is not capable of either. For Pelosi to salvage any credibility and prevent here tenure as Speaker from symbolizing the greatest Republican accomplishment of our generation she has to get serious about doing her job. That job is her sworn protection of the Constitution of this country. She needs to recognize and acknowledge the plethora of crimes committed over the past 7 years, then take appropriate actions to stop them and deal with the criminals.
If this seems implausible just recall that the person elected to the position of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi stated absolutely that impeachment was off the table as part of the Democratic agenda. We should have realized at that time that the newly elected Democratic majority had no intention whatever of interfering with the Republicans.
The stated reasons for not pursuing impeachment all have to do with focusing on correcting Bush administration issues such as the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal wire tapping, etc. none of which have been corrected by Congress.
One must ask, what are the accomplishments of the 110th Congress?
Have they stopped or even slowed the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi innocents?
Have they attempted to restore our suspended democracy by closing Gitmo & CIA prisons?
Have they revoked the USA Patriot Act?
Have they restored the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Have they held to account those who revealed the identity a covert CIA agent?
Have they prevented the corruption of government by blocking detrimental nominations?
Have they provided universal healthcare for all citizens like all other major countries have?
Have they halted the illegal No-Bid contracts to profiteers in Iraq?
Have they de-funded the war?
Have they stood strong against the administration’s rush to war with Iran?
Have they mandated stipulations for the money they approved for Iraq?
Have they forced the administration to follow the law?
Have they even addressed Bush’s illegal “signing statements”?
Have they prevented Bush from further destabilizing the Dollar?
Have they improved the world’s confidence in the US economy?
Have they brought the price of oil back to a reasonable and affordable level?
Have they done anything to benefit anyone except the corporations that fund their campaigns?
Have they disciplined or in any way held accountable those Democrats who continually enable the Bush administration as Feinstein and Schumer did by voting for Mukasey and the Dirty Dozen Democrats that voted to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY suspend Habeas Corpus?
Now we learn that Scott McClellan, former Bush Press Secretary, is releasing a book in which he confirms what we have all known since the beginning. He reveals that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Card and Rove all knew about the outing of CIA operative Vallerie Plame Wilson and, in fact were involved in it. McClellan claims not to have known that he was lying for these individuals and thus was innocent of any wrong-doing himself. However, his accusations put the very top tier people of our government on the wrong side of the law.
The disclosure of this information compels Congress, as the primary mission of their sworn Constitutional obligations, to hold accountable anyone found to have had involvement in this act of treason. In doing so, it conflicts directly with Speaker Pelosi’s determination to shield the Bush administration through her commitment to keep impeachment “off the table”.
I have been critical of Pelosi in the past while allowing that her actions were most likely to avoid the appearance of mounting a coup against the President and Vice President. Such an act could result in her ascendance to the Oval office and would certainly be seen by Republicans as an illegal end run around the Constitution.
McClellan’s accusations force the impeachment issue back onto the table regardless of any previous commitments. His tell-all tome alone is not the silver bullet that will bring down this administration. We have had a number of those, but no bullet, silver or otherwise, can have any effect if no one has the balls to pull the trigger! And that sums up the problem we see in Congress today.
It would be unfortunate for the nation and especially for the women of the nation if our first female Speaker of the House is seen as a failure. Her incompetence would make it harder for women to advance to and above her level in the future because the opposition will surely target her ineffectiveness and complacency as inherent female attributes to be avoided and she herself as a cause celebre of failure. However, it would be even more devastating if her lack of accomplishment is the result of complicity. As much as you may hope this isn’t the case it must be considered because of the self-serving defections from the Party Platform by the likes of Diane Feinstein, whose Defense Contractor husband profits by her anti-democratic votes in the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC, Chuck Schumer, administrative enabler and face time whore for Fox News, and other Blue Dog Democrats who are nothing less than Republican plants within the Democratic Party.
Both of these scenarios can be put to rest through positive action and patriotic mettle on the part of the Speaker and Congressional Democrats. Neither has been in evidence since the 06 elections and many are beginning to believe this group of Democrats is not capable of either. For Pelosi to salvage any credibility and prevent here tenure as Speaker from symbolizing the greatest Republican accomplishment of our generation she has to get serious about doing her job. That job is her sworn protection of the Constitution of this country. She needs to recognize and acknowledge the plethora of crimes committed over the past 7 years, then take appropriate actions to stop them and deal with the criminals.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Dodd's Stand
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the American public, POWs, and the world by the Bush administration. They both had adequate information about crimes that had taken place when they were elected to their positions, but chose to do nothing about them. With each additional revelation of torture, spying, etc. they become more culpable for their inaction.
Reid and Pelosi accuse Bush of incompetence nearly every day, but it is they who are incompetent for allowing Bush and his criminal administration to continue their assault on the American Constitution. It is they who have avoided bringing articles of impeachment against this President by claiming that doing so would distract Congress from the need to correct the problems brought about by Bush and the previous Republican majority. This colossally dim-witted strategy is akin to rebuilding a house that is still on fire. Without removing the cause of the problem any corrective actions are destined to be wasted.
The act of introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney would have enormous positive effects. Bush would have to defend himself at every appearance and consider the impact his future actions might have on his defense. Congress, or at least the remaining Democrats who still believe their job is protecting the Constitution, would find it easier to discuss the crimes this administration has carried out. Certainly, the Bush toadies at Fox noise can be counted on to cloud the issue and defend the President, but impeachment will attract the attention of the actual news media.
Impeaching this President and his Vice President is a no brainer. Bush has already admitted to illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens without a warrant. This is a CRIME! He can and should be impeached for committing a crime when he was aware that it was a crime and ordered it to be done regardless. Instead, Pelosi and Reid are entertaining the idea of allowing legislation to be introduce that would retroactively exonerate not only the President but the Telecommunication corporations that willingly participated and acquired lucrative government contracts for doing so.
Senator Chris Dodd has taken a stand against this treasonous act by his fellow members in Congress. Dodd will filibuster to prevent this legislative turd from seeing the light of day. His demonstration of true leadership has caused the rest of the Democratic field of Presidential contenders to make their positions known instead of issuing non-committal statements meant solely to avoid hurting their chances of gaining the nomination.
Moreover, Dodd’s action demonstrates his awareness of voter’s expectation of candidates in today’s political arena. For years voters have received politically expedient answers and sound bite substance. Senator Dodd is raising the bar by boldly standing against the administration’s attempt to sanction criminal activity, both their own and that of the Telecommunication industry. This is the type of purposeful action voters need to see after years of Bush lies and denials as well as Democratic threats and accusations that never amount to anything.
Senator Dodd deserves our support and gratitude for his courageous stand against Bush, the NSA, the Telecoms and much of Congress.
Reid and Pelosi accuse Bush of incompetence nearly every day, but it is they who are incompetent for allowing Bush and his criminal administration to continue their assault on the American Constitution. It is they who have avoided bringing articles of impeachment against this President by claiming that doing so would distract Congress from the need to correct the problems brought about by Bush and the previous Republican majority. This colossally dim-witted strategy is akin to rebuilding a house that is still on fire. Without removing the cause of the problem any corrective actions are destined to be wasted.
The act of introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney would have enormous positive effects. Bush would have to defend himself at every appearance and consider the impact his future actions might have on his defense. Congress, or at least the remaining Democrats who still believe their job is protecting the Constitution, would find it easier to discuss the crimes this administration has carried out. Certainly, the Bush toadies at Fox noise can be counted on to cloud the issue and defend the President, but impeachment will attract the attention of the actual news media.
Impeaching this President and his Vice President is a no brainer. Bush has already admitted to illegally using the NSA to spy on American citizens without a warrant. This is a CRIME! He can and should be impeached for committing a crime when he was aware that it was a crime and ordered it to be done regardless. Instead, Pelosi and Reid are entertaining the idea of allowing legislation to be introduce that would retroactively exonerate not only the President but the Telecommunication corporations that willingly participated and acquired lucrative government contracts for doing so.
Senator Chris Dodd has taken a stand against this treasonous act by his fellow members in Congress. Dodd will filibuster to prevent this legislative turd from seeing the light of day. His demonstration of true leadership has caused the rest of the Democratic field of Presidential contenders to make their positions known instead of issuing non-committal statements meant solely to avoid hurting their chances of gaining the nomination.
Moreover, Dodd’s action demonstrates his awareness of voter’s expectation of candidates in today’s political arena. For years voters have received politically expedient answers and sound bite substance. Senator Dodd is raising the bar by boldly standing against the administration’s attempt to sanction criminal activity, both their own and that of the Telecommunication industry. This is the type of purposeful action voters need to see after years of Bush lies and denials as well as Democratic threats and accusations that never amount to anything.
Senator Dodd deserves our support and gratitude for his courageous stand against Bush, the NSA, the Telecoms and much of Congress.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
How many Republicans appear on Air America?
In an article at the Huffington Post, John Ridley chastises Democrats for being afraid of appearing on the Fox News Channel. In doing so, Ridley joins Tim Russert who recently appeared on Fox News to question how the Democrats can face al Qaida if they won’t show up for a debate on Fox. Either they do not recognize the strategy Democrats are employing against legitimizing Fox News by refusing to appear, or they are attempting to undermine that strategy.
Many Democrats already realize that their appearance on Fox News will always work to their detriment, but many have yet to learn. Although they are few, there are Progressive and Liberal programs such as Democracy Now, the Jones Network and Air America. The appearances of Republicans on these programs are rare to non-existent, but is Ridley accusing them of being afraid to show up? No.
Ridley’s article also reveals him to be completely enamored of the Conservative political jargon which is virtually compulsory among Republicans when reciting their talking points to the press. He employs the usual “Left leaning”, “Far Left” and the ever popular “Left Fringe” in referring to Democrats, but in particular, his use of the recently clichéd “circus-like YouTube debate” exposes his preference for the agenda driven Conservatives at Fox over the citizens who were interested enough in our political process to participate in it.
Also indicative of Ridley’s anti-Democrat attitude was this gem, “The far left fringe feasting on their own is, of course, hardly a new phenomenon”. The ignorance of this statement is astonishing, if it is, in fact, ignorance. Since the 1994 election that put Republicans in power of both houses of Congress we have witnessed the implementation of tyrannical discipline over the members that was apparent in the illegal threatening of a Congressman on the floor of the House during a vote the Republican leaders wanted to pass. Republican appointed U.S. Attorneys were thrown under the bus because they were too slow in prosecuting Democratic politicians from their territories for trumped up charges of voter fraud that would benefit Republicans running for office. If that's not evidence enough that Republicans are far more vicious toward their own than the Democrats, ask David Brock of Media Matters for America about the cannibalistic tendencies of the Conservatives.
Finally, Ridley observes; “And why not? if Nixon could stare down China, if Reagan could do the same to the Soviets, why should the Dems cower before aggressors”? Why, exactly, would he refer to Fox News as the aggressors? I think it’s because he knows full well that Fox would use any opportunity to attack, marginalize or damage any Democrat foolish enough to actually appear on that network.
Many Democrats already realize that their appearance on Fox News will always work to their detriment, but many have yet to learn. Although they are few, there are Progressive and Liberal programs such as Democracy Now, the Jones Network and Air America. The appearances of Republicans on these programs are rare to non-existent, but is Ridley accusing them of being afraid to show up? No.
Ridley’s article also reveals him to be completely enamored of the Conservative political jargon which is virtually compulsory among Republicans when reciting their talking points to the press. He employs the usual “Left leaning”, “Far Left” and the ever popular “Left Fringe” in referring to Democrats, but in particular, his use of the recently clichéd “circus-like YouTube debate” exposes his preference for the agenda driven Conservatives at Fox over the citizens who were interested enough in our political process to participate in it.
Also indicative of Ridley’s anti-Democrat attitude was this gem, “The far left fringe feasting on their own is, of course, hardly a new phenomenon”. The ignorance of this statement is astonishing, if it is, in fact, ignorance. Since the 1994 election that put Republicans in power of both houses of Congress we have witnessed the implementation of tyrannical discipline over the members that was apparent in the illegal threatening of a Congressman on the floor of the House during a vote the Republican leaders wanted to pass. Republican appointed U.S. Attorneys were thrown under the bus because they were too slow in prosecuting Democratic politicians from their territories for trumped up charges of voter fraud that would benefit Republicans running for office. If that's not evidence enough that Republicans are far more vicious toward their own than the Democrats, ask David Brock of Media Matters for America about the cannibalistic tendencies of the Conservatives.
Finally, Ridley observes; “And why not? if Nixon could stare down China, if Reagan could do the same to the Soviets, why should the Dems cower before aggressors”? Why, exactly, would he refer to Fox News as the aggressors? I think it’s because he knows full well that Fox would use any opportunity to attack, marginalize or damage any Democrat foolish enough to actually appear on that network.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Healthcare
I was surprised at how few locations in my state showed Michael Moore's new movie SiCKO when it first open on June 29th. That's until I remembered that I live in Connecticut, the Insurance Capital of the World. It's impossible to think of a location less welcoming to Mr. Moore's latest offering than here and surely is a contributing reason to the small number of cinemas willing to show his film.
That made me wonder what kind of support for healthcare reform could be found among the elected officials of my state. The legislation currently in the House that proposes Universal Healthcare is H.R. 676, so I searched the websites of the Representatives from Connecticut to see if they sponsored, co-sponsored or even support H.R. 676:
John Larson (D) First Congrssional District...........NO
Joe Courtney (D) Second Congressional District....NO
Rosa Delauro (D) Third Congressional District......NO
Chris Shays (R) Fourth Congressional District.......NO
Chris Murphy (D) Fifth Congressional District......NO
This was very disappointing news and especially so in the case of Chris Murphy who defeated Nancy Johnson in the last election. You see, Nancy earned a notorious role in Moore’s movie as a shill for the medical insurance and big pharma lobbies. Murphy campaigned against Johnson aggressively often referring to her industry contacts so, it seems we should expect his support for this legislation.
I suppose it is difficult for the average individual to realize what pressures can be brought to bear against elected officials by moneyed and powerful lobbyists. Campaigns are not financed by good intentions alone (or at all) and candidates must be sensitive to the concerns of industries if they wish to receive the infusion of cash so vital to their (re)elections.
Perhaps it is precisely because I don’t realize what pressures are exerted upon our Representatives, or perhaps it is in spite of it, that I have no aversion to the application of additional pressure to regain their attention. Why should the lobbyists have all the fun?
I am suggesting lobbying our Representatives for their support of Universal Healthcare legislation, such as H.R. 676, by demanding that they refuse coverage by the Congressional Healthcare Insurance program until all Americans have guaranteed healthcare. Even the homeless and unemployed pay taxes anytime they purchase anything for any amount of money. That makes them employers of the members of Congress elected to represent us in government.
That made me wonder what kind of support for healthcare reform could be found among the elected officials of my state. The legislation currently in the House that proposes Universal Healthcare is H.R. 676, so I searched the websites of the Representatives from Connecticut to see if they sponsored, co-sponsored or even support H.R. 676:
John Larson (D) First Congrssional District...........NO
Joe Courtney (D) Second Congressional District....NO
Rosa Delauro (D) Third Congressional District......NO
Chris Shays (R) Fourth Congressional District.......NO
Chris Murphy (D) Fifth Congressional District......NO
This was very disappointing news and especially so in the case of Chris Murphy who defeated Nancy Johnson in the last election. You see, Nancy earned a notorious role in Moore’s movie as a shill for the medical insurance and big pharma lobbies. Murphy campaigned against Johnson aggressively often referring to her industry contacts so, it seems we should expect his support for this legislation.
I suppose it is difficult for the average individual to realize what pressures can be brought to bear against elected officials by moneyed and powerful lobbyists. Campaigns are not financed by good intentions alone (or at all) and candidates must be sensitive to the concerns of industries if they wish to receive the infusion of cash so vital to their (re)elections.
Perhaps it is precisely because I don’t realize what pressures are exerted upon our Representatives, or perhaps it is in spite of it, that I have no aversion to the application of additional pressure to regain their attention. Why should the lobbyists have all the fun?
I am suggesting lobbying our Representatives for their support of Universal Healthcare legislation, such as H.R. 676, by demanding that they refuse coverage by the Congressional Healthcare Insurance program until all Americans have guaranteed healthcare. Even the homeless and unemployed pay taxes anytime they purchase anything for any amount of money. That makes them employers of the members of Congress elected to represent us in government.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Reality and Bush
There is another excellent diary over on Dailykos regarding "Grerat Moments in Political Realism". Please read this diary by eugene, it is the best insight I have read so far on the reality of our present situation compared to how patriotic Americans faced daunting problems throughout our history.
The standard response to impeachment has been that we do not have the votes. As eugene points out, rarely have we had the votes historically when major events were taking place that would have reshaped life as we know it had people not stood, out-numbered, against powerful forces. eugene used several examples to make this point like the American colonists facing off against the overwhelming power of the British armed forces, Prime Minister Winston Churchill defiant in the face of the German army and President Kennedy facing off with the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis.
One more to consider is that the votes were not there for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon when several brave members of Congress championed this action. They did so because the knew it was the right thing to do and that America and our Constitution were being devastated by the tyrannical actions of a single man.
For our Democratic leaders to say they will not pursue impeachment because they do not have the votes is weak, but for them to avoid impeachment in the face of the dire events brought about by the administration is cowardice. If the President wants to burn the Constitution during a Rose Garden media event would Speaker Pelosi not challenge him because she does not have the votes, or would she stand up for the Constitution because it is the right and just thing to do? The answer to that question presently is in doubt!
Early in this administration one of Bush's minions stated to Ron Suskind who was writing an article for the New York Times Magazine, that guys like Suskind were “in what we call the reality-based community" which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless Democrats in Congress reclaim reality from the Alice in Wonderland crew in the Whitehouse. It is long past the time for Democrats to prioritize an agenda for impeaching the President and Vice President. They must do so because it is the right thing to do, because they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and because America is a reality based community!
I would encourage everyone to keep track of Democrats who fail this test of patriotism and fail their fellow citizens by hiding from the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. When the next election for these folks come around we must hold them accountable for their cowardice, their complicity with this criminal administration and their abdication of their sworn duties to protect and defend the Constitution of this country.
The standard response to impeachment has been that we do not have the votes. As eugene points out, rarely have we had the votes historically when major events were taking place that would have reshaped life as we know it had people not stood, out-numbered, against powerful forces. eugene used several examples to make this point like the American colonists facing off against the overwhelming power of the British armed forces, Prime Minister Winston Churchill defiant in the face of the German army and President Kennedy facing off with the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis.
One more to consider is that the votes were not there for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon when several brave members of Congress championed this action. They did so because the knew it was the right thing to do and that America and our Constitution were being devastated by the tyrannical actions of a single man.
For our Democratic leaders to say they will not pursue impeachment because they do not have the votes is weak, but for them to avoid impeachment in the face of the dire events brought about by the administration is cowardice. If the President wants to burn the Constitution during a Rose Garden media event would Speaker Pelosi not challenge him because she does not have the votes, or would she stand up for the Constitution because it is the right and just thing to do? The answer to that question presently is in doubt!
Early in this administration one of Bush's minions stated to Ron Suskind who was writing an article for the New York Times Magazine, that guys like Suskind were “in what we call the reality-based community" which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless Democrats in Congress reclaim reality from the Alice in Wonderland crew in the Whitehouse. It is long past the time for Democrats to prioritize an agenda for impeaching the President and Vice President. They must do so because it is the right thing to do, because they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and because America is a reality based community!
I would encourage everyone to keep track of Democrats who fail this test of patriotism and fail their fellow citizens by hiding from the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. When the next election for these folks come around we must hold them accountable for their cowardice, their complicity with this criminal administration and their abdication of their sworn duties to protect and defend the Constitution of this country.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Speaker Pelosi, Take Action or Take Your Leave!
When the leader of the Democratic Party in the People’s House of Representatives demonstrates she does not have the moral courage nor patriotic fortitude to stand up for the Constitution, which she swore to “Protect and Defend”, then it is her obligation to step down and surrender the reins of power to someone willing and able to carry out the job for which they were elected.
There is a diary over at DailyKos about a conversation with Speaker Pelosi by Mike Stark and Dave Johnson. They report that the speaker told them she had decided "at least a year ago," before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, "that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and [Republican] short-comings."
She reportedly added, "The President isn’t worth it...he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do." Mr. Stark asked if the Speaker believed that the “Constitution was worth it” to which she replied "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."
This is a stunningly ignorant view and one that most Americans will find totally unacceptable. What the hell does Pelosi think Democrats were empowered to do when voters swept them into office in 06? Does she really believe that anyone gives a tinker's damn about the insignificant toady occupying the Oval office? Or his worth or that of his hell bound minions? If so, she vastly misses the point. For 6 years we have been railing against the administration for butchering the Constitution, stripping our hard won liberties and trading in our freedoms for higher and higher doses of fear.
Perhaps most Americans loath this president and wish him the worst possible ending, I don't care. The Constitution is now and always has been the issue. It is a document that embodies the ideals of our Democracy and as such it is open to abuse and misinterpretation by those who consider themselves above the law it imposes on all citizens. Every member of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government are required to swear an oath to protect and defend this document because it is susceptible to attacks by such people as George Bush and Dick Cheney.
If Speaker Pelosi is really unwilling to put impeachment back on the table than we must make her aware that MOST Americans do not agree with her and she must comply with the wishes of the majority or leave office.
There is a diary over at DailyKos about a conversation with Speaker Pelosi by Mike Stark and Dave Johnson. They report that the speaker told them she had decided "at least a year ago," before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, "that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and [Republican] short-comings."
She reportedly added, "The President isn’t worth it...he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do." Mr. Stark asked if the Speaker believed that the “Constitution was worth it” to which she replied "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."
This is a stunningly ignorant view and one that most Americans will find totally unacceptable. What the hell does Pelosi think Democrats were empowered to do when voters swept them into office in 06? Does she really believe that anyone gives a tinker's damn about the insignificant toady occupying the Oval office? Or his worth or that of his hell bound minions? If so, she vastly misses the point. For 6 years we have been railing against the administration for butchering the Constitution, stripping our hard won liberties and trading in our freedoms for higher and higher doses of fear.
Perhaps most Americans loath this president and wish him the worst possible ending, I don't care. The Constitution is now and always has been the issue. It is a document that embodies the ideals of our Democracy and as such it is open to abuse and misinterpretation by those who consider themselves above the law it imposes on all citizens. Every member of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government are required to swear an oath to protect and defend this document because it is susceptible to attacks by such people as George Bush and Dick Cheney.
If Speaker Pelosi is really unwilling to put impeachment back on the table than we must make her aware that MOST Americans do not agree with her and she must comply with the wishes of the majority or leave office.
Monday, June 18, 2007
NEWS? Not Really
CBS News replaced Newsman Dan Rather with Cheer-leader Katie Couric. The result has been, predictably, a dramatic decrease in the networks credibility as a serious news source forsaking actual news for feel good pieces, personal profiles and other fluff. CBS has taken a great deal of criticism for this, but it does not appear that they have any intention of changing the new format.
The Couric fiasco is merely the latest of many drastic changes to the way Americans are getting their news. The most obvious and drastic change has been Fox News Channel. Until Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes teamed up to bring their version of news to the American market no one had ventured as far from "moderate" positions as they have shown they are willing to do.
Of course, Fox News was an aberration of cable which also ushered in such reprobates as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, Tony Snow, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, and so on and so on…
Even the print media has changed and in the same direction as televised media. Both Newsweek and Time magazines have been caught publishing one cover internationally and a different cover for the American market. In both cases the cover that was suppressed was about current important issues.The Couric episode can be seen as a marketing strategy by the media to "sell" news to the public through an appealing spokesperson. Katie was magnificent on her morning talk show as the seemingly caring interviewer, ohing and ahing poignantly as her subject poured out his or her heart.
Now, Couric's talent for appearing to care is being used to sell us news the way the media wants us to get it. The important issues down-played while lingering on sentimentality and personality that could and should mean nothing.
How does CBS and Couoric compare with the other leading news sources? NBC Nightly News has Brian Williams who proudly boasts that he feels obligated to listen to Rush Limbaugh to get his dose of daily truth, and Tim Russert who the White house counts on to treat VP Cheney with kid gloves while allowing him to "get his message out".
ABC News with Charlie Gibbson is an arm of the ABC network which is owned by Disney. This is the combination that produced and aired the program blaming Bill Clinton for everything that has happened since Bush took office.
CNN & MSNBC are fairly equal in their bias against the Left except for "Count-Down" with Kieth Olberman
Once again there is Fox Noise, the propaganda machine, smear merchants and a direct branch of the Bush Administration. Yet, in spite of the Fox record of lies, cover-ups and unquestioning loyalty to Neoconservatism, Tim Russert doesn't get why the Democrats don't want their debate hosted by these sycophants. I wonder if Russert would be so quick to defend a Republican debate hosted by Air America Radio!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Why we must Impeach
The argument against impeachment can no longer be supported if this country is to ever again be a democracy and a nation of laws. There are simply no arguments left for not immediately initiating steps to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
It was especially disappointing recently when Al Gore stated that impeachment would be a distraction to the public and not work to improve the state of the nation. Gore should realize, more keenly than most that acknowledging the existence of a problem must occur before it can be corrected. His efforts on the problem of global warming have been met with a disinformation campaign financed by the auto and oil industries attempting to discredit Gore’s research and deny that a problem exists. Gore’s movement to reverse the ill effects of pollution on the environment will fail unless new laws are enacted and existing ones are enforced, which will not happen if we don’t first acknowledge the need to do so.
The same is true of our nation. We can not correct what is wrong with the country unless we are able to name the problems that exist, and then take steps to eradicate them. As with polluters, if they are not punished they will continue to pollute, so too will elected officials continue to violate the law if they are not punished for their misdeeds.
If you have any doubt that the Republicans intend to continue their assault on the Constitution initiated by the extremist Neoconservatives, just look at their candidates for President. Except for Ron Paul, they are all cheerleaders for continued and even escalated war in the Middle East, they support enhanced interrogation techniques (read torture), they espouse creationism and renounce evolution, they advocate continued tax relief for the rich while piling up tax burdens on the middle class and they all have extremely intimate relations with big business that spells trouble for the average Joe.
Had Democrats done what they should have by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney as soon as they took control of Congress, the rhetoric of the Republican candidates would not be so brash. They would be more cautious about supporting policies that might be judged illegal during impeachment hearings.
Had Democrats launched this session of Congress by asserting the mandate issued to them by the American electorate they could now be disassembling the unitary executive model of government devise by Karl Rove and his minions.
Reality has been quite the opposite of what Democrats should have done. Today, Congressman John Conyers posted a diary on DailyKos to share his reasons for issuing subpoenas former White House Counsel Harriett Miers. To the extent that this action is necessary the Congressman’s actions are appreciated, but to the extent that action is required in defense of the Constitution and our Democracy, it falls far short.
Also at DailyKos was a response to Congressman Conyers diary by Rusty1776. This diary is well worth the time to read and absorb it. Rusty1776 hits the nail on the head and takes Congressman Conyers to task for failing to pursue the impeachment of the President and Vice President. Before Democrats took majority control of the House and the Senate, Conyers had spoken out against Bush and Cheney and their criminal activities. Yet, when his Party came to power he has failed to follow through on his previous rhetoric.
Predictably, the argument will be made that Democrats do not have the votes required to impeach and therefore perform an act of futility by attempting it. Although this may be factually accurate, it misses the greater point of taking this action. By going on record for the impeachment of both the President and Vice President, Democrats will have taken a stand to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” which is the absolute minimum that can be expected of them, and for which they are honor and duty bound through their oath of office.
It was especially disappointing recently when Al Gore stated that impeachment would be a distraction to the public and not work to improve the state of the nation. Gore should realize, more keenly than most that acknowledging the existence of a problem must occur before it can be corrected. His efforts on the problem of global warming have been met with a disinformation campaign financed by the auto and oil industries attempting to discredit Gore’s research and deny that a problem exists. Gore’s movement to reverse the ill effects of pollution on the environment will fail unless new laws are enacted and existing ones are enforced, which will not happen if we don’t first acknowledge the need to do so.
The same is true of our nation. We can not correct what is wrong with the country unless we are able to name the problems that exist, and then take steps to eradicate them. As with polluters, if they are not punished they will continue to pollute, so too will elected officials continue to violate the law if they are not punished for their misdeeds.
If you have any doubt that the Republicans intend to continue their assault on the Constitution initiated by the extremist Neoconservatives, just look at their candidates for President. Except for Ron Paul, they are all cheerleaders for continued and even escalated war in the Middle East, they support enhanced interrogation techniques (read torture), they espouse creationism and renounce evolution, they advocate continued tax relief for the rich while piling up tax burdens on the middle class and they all have extremely intimate relations with big business that spells trouble for the average Joe.
Had Democrats done what they should have by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney as soon as they took control of Congress, the rhetoric of the Republican candidates would not be so brash. They would be more cautious about supporting policies that might be judged illegal during impeachment hearings.
Had Democrats launched this session of Congress by asserting the mandate issued to them by the American electorate they could now be disassembling the unitary executive model of government devise by Karl Rove and his minions.
Reality has been quite the opposite of what Democrats should have done. Today, Congressman John Conyers posted a diary on DailyKos to share his reasons for issuing subpoenas former White House Counsel Harriett Miers. To the extent that this action is necessary the Congressman’s actions are appreciated, but to the extent that action is required in defense of the Constitution and our Democracy, it falls far short.
Also at DailyKos was a response to Congressman Conyers diary by Rusty1776. This diary is well worth the time to read and absorb it. Rusty1776 hits the nail on the head and takes Congressman Conyers to task for failing to pursue the impeachment of the President and Vice President. Before Democrats took majority control of the House and the Senate, Conyers had spoken out against Bush and Cheney and their criminal activities. Yet, when his Party came to power he has failed to follow through on his previous rhetoric.
Predictably, the argument will be made that Democrats do not have the votes required to impeach and therefore perform an act of futility by attempting it. Although this may be factually accurate, it misses the greater point of taking this action. By going on record for the impeachment of both the President and Vice President, Democrats will have taken a stand to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” which is the absolute minimum that can be expected of them, and for which they are honor and duty bound through their oath of office.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Imus Tell You
As an Imus listener (enabler) I have several thoughts regarding the comments he made about the Rutgers girls basketball team. I agree with nearly everyone that his comments were unacceptable, hurtful, and crass. Not only was this comment made with archaic thinking about black athletes by a throwback to "Jim Crow" days of tolerated segregation, it was also completely uninformed about today's NCAA players and in particular the exceptionally accomplished stature of the Rutgers’s female athletes.
My problem with the firing of Imus is simply that there are so many others more deserving of this fate. In the case of CBS and its parent Viacom, they have a veritable stable of acerbic fanatics willing to employ all manner of obnoxious commentary and envelope-pushing diatribes to attain Limbaughesque notoriety.
It's my belief that Imus' fate was preordained and would have ultimately resulted in his dismissal whether he had made this comment or not. Any off color comment of significant consequence to allow sponsors to claim righteous indignation and juicy enough to be used as bait to set off a media feeding frenzy would have sufficed
The sin Imus was punished for had already been committed when he uttered his own obituary in the form of a racial slur against these young women. Imus was guilty of taking on the Bush administration in a particularly embarrassing way. He had challenged the alibis of all politicians who claimed ignorance about the conditions witnessed at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the abhorrent level of care received by our veterans.
It was necessary to get Imus off the air because he had promised to use his personal bully pulpit to hold those in charge responsible for the substandard care received by our wounded vets this administration has proven to support in word only.
My problem with the firing of Imus is simply that there are so many others more deserving of this fate. In the case of CBS and its parent Viacom, they have a veritable stable of acerbic fanatics willing to employ all manner of obnoxious commentary and envelope-pushing diatribes to attain Limbaughesque notoriety.
It's my belief that Imus' fate was preordained and would have ultimately resulted in his dismissal whether he had made this comment or not. Any off color comment of significant consequence to allow sponsors to claim righteous indignation and juicy enough to be used as bait to set off a media feeding frenzy would have sufficed
The sin Imus was punished for had already been committed when he uttered his own obituary in the form of a racial slur against these young women. Imus was guilty of taking on the Bush administration in a particularly embarrassing way. He had challenged the alibis of all politicians who claimed ignorance about the conditions witnessed at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the abhorrent level of care received by our veterans.
It was necessary to get Imus off the air because he had promised to use his personal bully pulpit to hold those in charge responsible for the substandard care received by our wounded vets this administration has proven to support in word only.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Neocon Hypocrisy
Recently, in a local newspaper, a conservative columnist held Representative John Murtha up to ridicule for having said that U.S. Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” in Iraq. He went on to say that Murtha had determined the guilt of these Marines without benefit of charges, trials or convictions. However, he continued to slander Murtha by reminding his readers of the FBI investigation from years ago when Murtha and other Congressmen were offered bribes.
This is my letter to the editor in response to his column:
Editor:
This paper's recent column (R-J 2/25/07) is a “must read” for anyone needing an object lesson in Neo-conservative hypocrisy. The focus of the column was Rep. John Murtha for stating that U.S. Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” in Iraq without the need or benefit of charges, trials, or convictions of the accused.
The columnist's attack against Murtha for his lack of jurisprudence only serves to demonstrate his own keen deficiency of the same. He cites an FBI investigation that videotaped Murtha and other members of Congress in a sting operation to illustrate Murtha’s unsavory character. Yet in doing so he repeats the exact behavior for which he chastises Murtha. The FBI investigation did not result in charges, trial, or conviction of Congressman Murtha.
If it serves no other purpose, the editorial illustrates the divergent philosophies of the Neo-conservatives and the rest of us. Extremists on the Right do not see the glaring injustice of their worldview and their willingness to misuse any information, and just about anything else, to their advantage. What is inappropriate for Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Moderates is totally acceptable for them. First Amendment rights are privileges the rest of us may lose when the nation’s security (or partisan politics) demands it, but it is the unassailable touchstone of the punditocracy.
Once rare, this level of duplicity has become commonplace in certain segments of the media and it is for the rest of us to not let it go unchallenged. It is unfortunate for this columnist as well as his readers that this must be pointed out however, those of us who still believe in the possibility of a just form of government have a duty to hold to civilized standards and demand the same of columnists.
This is my letter to the editor in response to his column:
Editor:
This paper's recent column (R-J 2/25/07) is a “must read” for anyone needing an object lesson in Neo-conservative hypocrisy. The focus of the column was Rep. John Murtha for stating that U.S. Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” in Iraq without the need or benefit of charges, trials, or convictions of the accused.
The columnist's attack against Murtha for his lack of jurisprudence only serves to demonstrate his own keen deficiency of the same. He cites an FBI investigation that videotaped Murtha and other members of Congress in a sting operation to illustrate Murtha’s unsavory character. Yet in doing so he repeats the exact behavior for which he chastises Murtha. The FBI investigation did not result in charges, trial, or conviction of Congressman Murtha.
If it serves no other purpose, the editorial illustrates the divergent philosophies of the Neo-conservatives and the rest of us. Extremists on the Right do not see the glaring injustice of their worldview and their willingness to misuse any information, and just about anything else, to their advantage. What is inappropriate for Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Moderates is totally acceptable for them. First Amendment rights are privileges the rest of us may lose when the nation’s security (or partisan politics) demands it, but it is the unassailable touchstone of the punditocracy.
Once rare, this level of duplicity has become commonplace in certain segments of the media and it is for the rest of us to not let it go unchallenged. It is unfortunate for this columnist as well as his readers that this must be pointed out however, those of us who still believe in the possibility of a just form of government have a duty to hold to civilized standards and demand the same of columnists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
