Uprising

An uprising is exactly what this country needs if this war is ever to end. David Sirota's new book does a great job in outlining what an uprising is, how it applies in our current situation and the mentality and attitude required of the participants. Specifically, the unapologetic demands required by the grass roots movement to convince incumbents of the need for their compliance with the citizen majority instead of their usual capitulation to the corporate special interests that rule their worlds.

Here in Connecticut there is a particular sensitivity and lingering blemish on the souls of Democratic voters who have been bitterly disappointed by the junior Senator, Joe Lieberman. His deception of his loyal supporters, alliance with Karl Rove and other extremists on the Right, embrace of Republican cross-over voters, and total relinquishment of his integrity in support of George Bush's Iraq war, have culminated in a tangible hatred of the once trusted official. Lieberman exudes indifference towards his (former) supporters while displaying an attitude of incontestable rectitude about his worldview which includes continued and continuing war in the Middle East. Couple this with his shameless and transparent support and constant companionship to the only surviving war advocate candidate and Connecticut voters have every right to distrust and despise the Senator.

In spite of this, Senator Lieberman Chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees at the pleasure of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Chairmanship posts are highly regarded positions normally awarded to respected Party members with seniority status. Of course, Lieberman renounced his Party membership when the Connecticut Democratic Party elected Ned Lamont in the Primaries in 2006, so Lieberman ran on the CFL (Connecticut For Lieberman) Party ticket and lost his seniority and position within the Democratic Party. Why has Harry Reid passed over loyal current Party members to award the Committee Chairmanship to a defector?

As much as we have focused attention on repugnant Republicans and their scandalous actions in this administration, as well as the last, we need to also recognize those Democrats who have shamed themselves and our Party and make them uncomfortably aware of our displeasure. This includes the votes by Connecticut Representatives to condemn MoveOn.org for expressing a Constitutionally protected opinion, which was both fair and correct, regarding the report by General Petraeus to Congress. Most of these individuals accepted campaign donations of thousands of dollars and other support from MoveOn, yet they voted to condemn a statement questioning the accuracy of the report to Congress by an unapologetic partisan of the administration which, frankly, paled in comparison to much of the rhetoric heard from the Republicans both in venom and dishonesty. Where is the apology due to MoveOn by Murphy, DeLauro, Larson and Courtney?

If an Uprising is at hand, let's get our own house in order before we take on the world.

Lieberman's Dilemma

As disappointing as John McCain’s behavior seems to be we can at least take heart in the knowledge that his most outspoken supporter, the moral and ethical Joseph Lieberman, will no longer be promoting his candidacy. Joe’s strong moral fiber and sense of justice will obviously prevent him from allowing the elevation to the highest office a man whose “infidelity must be viewed as immoral, disgraceful and damaging to the country”. At least that is how Lieberman described the conduct of one William Jefferson Clinton in exactly the same situation McCain now finds himself, and Clinton was a member of his own Party at the time.

With such unshakable principles and solid moral values it is unimaginable that our once Democratic Senator will possibly continue to support his new friend, John McCain. His willingness to break ranks with his own Party over Clinton’s sexual exploits demonstrates Lieberman’s integrity, wholesomeness and advanced sense of decency that he applies to himself and others.

So, if Joe is morally prevented from supporting McCain, who will he throw his support to that can meet his high ethical standards? Don’t forget, Joe has a war to win and defense contracts to fulfill and the entire Middle East to conquer, but he must accomplish this while only supporting sexually moral individuals. Who can he find that will order more American forces to their deaths and the continued carnage and murder of innocent Iraqis while remaining faithful to their spouse? Who, in any political Party shares Joe’s pious view that unceasing butchery, slaughter, bloodshed and atrocities pale in comparison to sexual infidelity?

Somewhere out in the political landscape there must exist a paragon of Old Testament virtues with whom Joe can enter into a sacred covenant of warfare and faithfulness. Party affiliation is not an impediment for Lieberman. He proved that when he defied his own Party in the 06 mid-term elections, accepting Karl Rove’s assistance that got him re-elected by Connecticut Republicans (and some dim-witted Democrats). The only matter of any importance to Lieberman is the perpetuation of armed conflicts in the Middle East relentlessly prosecuted by a Commander in Chief that can be relied upon to keep his dick in his trousers when not with his wife.

Who won the Debate, the Candidates or the Media?

Last night’s debate began by focusing on the dust up between Clinton and Obama, leaving Edwards on the sidelines where the Main Stream Media has wanted him throughout this campaign. His only participation in that early discussion was framed by NBC so that viewers would see him as the “establishment white male” against the new and progressive ethnic and female candidates.

As for the racial controversy spurred on by both Clinton and Obama staffers, thankfully they seem to have checked the rhetoric and focused on issues instead of each other.

Edwards, for his part, sincerely praised the Democratic Party for being the Party of diversity and said he was proud to be in a Party that has offered an African American and a female as serious presidential candidates. He did not express any disappointment or resentment for being in what some consider a disadvantaged position, rather he displayed gratitude for the opportunity to openly discuss his views for people to compare with the other candidates.

The most important issue that came out of last night’s debate for me was the evidence of the media’s usurpation of the electoral process. The day of the debate saw one of the originally invited participants uninvited followed by a court battle that resulted in a ruling that NBC must include Congressman Kucinich or the court would block the debate. The judgment was appealed and since no appellate decision was made by the time of the debate NBC had effectively overturned the decision of the first court and inflicted their judgment of which candidates are viable on the American public.

The debate was hosted by NBC and moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Williams has said he feels it is his duty to listen daily to Rush Limbaugh, one of the most egregious of the Right wing broadcasters. Russert’s show, Meet the Press, was identified by Vice President Dick Cheney’s press secretary as the one place they go to when Cheney needs to go on air and they can “control the message”. Russert has also publicly stated that he considers all conversations with politicians “off the record” unless agreed to in advance, which is the antithesis of good journalism.

The networks and cable news channels all want to host their own debate and the candidates have cooperated with the exception of the Democrats refusing to debate on the Fox News Channel because they are viewed as completely partisan and all but an official outlet of the White House. By hosting the debates the media channels have been enabled to frame the issues to their own perception which has greatly favored Republicans.

Finally, the campaign season itself is much longer than it has been in the past and the direct beneficiaries are not candidates or the public, but the media who has gained far greater influence, even control over the process. As a result of that influence the majority of Americans, who had been prepared to remove Bush and the Republican Party from office and give the Democrats an opportunity, are being subjected to more debates and more analysis which allows the media to structure the arguments and then interpret for the viewers what was said. This has had the effect of trying to legitimize Republican chances in the election and artificially improve their odds against the Democratic candidate.

The Business Of Politics

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.

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.

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.

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.