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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
