Reform the Democratic Party
- Every progressive knows how badly the Democratic Party is in need of reform. The institutions of the Democratic Party are in the grasp of people who
are trying to drag the Democrats toward the right, seeking to transform the Democratic Party into a place where Republicans can feel at home.
The sad thing is that these Democratic politicians, in organizations like the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, believe that the best way for Democratic candidates to gain victory is for them to become less like Democrats and more like Republicans. What they don't understand is that the reason American voters are disgusted with the Democratic Party is that too many Democratic politicians don't seem willing to stand for anything any more. When the Democratic leadership offers little resistance to the Republicans' right wing agenda, voters become disillusioned with the Democratic Party.
The 2008 presidential campaign is a great opportunity for the American people to set the Democratic Party back on a course of clear progressive strength. If we can elect a progressive Democrat as President in 2008, that progressive will become the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and will set about replacing all the rightward leaning collaborationist officials in the Democratic Party.
A progressive President will work to make change from the top down, but we'll be working from the bottom up to provide the power to make that change possible. In 2008, we need a grassroots campaign for a progressive President with the organizational might of Howard Dean's Democracy for America, but with a candidate with better progressive credentials than Dean. As we've seen with him as head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean was never really a progressive Democrat. Dean has set about promoting right wing candidates like Bob Casey for Senate in Pennsylvania, and promoting right wing causes like mixing religion and politics.
One of the best reasons to elect a progressive candidate for President in 2008 is that, through the mere effort to support a truly progressive candidate, we the progressive activists of the Democratic Party will become a greater force to be reckoned with, and Democratic politicians will learn to think twice before voting against progressive interests as they have so often in the past.
- The need to reform the Democratic Party to make it more progressive was amply demonstrated by the ability of General Wesley Clark to declare, "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact," and then declare, not long after that he would run for President of the United States as a critic of George W. Bush's Iraq policies. (Source: Times of London, April 11, 2003)
- Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford Jr., former Congressman, failed Senate candidate, and current leader of the Democratic Leadership Conference, has not been a friend of progressives. He's flipped and he's flopped, casting votes on issues depending on what way the favored political winds were blowing from. He's said that he supports gay rights, but voted against them. Hehas refused to support anti-torture legislation that would make it illegal for the U.S. government to send prisoners held in the United States to foreign countries to be tortured. Ford also failed to support a bill that would revoke sections of the Patriot Act that allow government agents to secretly search through the financial and library records of law-abiding American citizens.
In spite of the fact that he is a Democrat, Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has often stood in allegiance with George W. Bush against other Democrats. He's provided support to President Bush's attacks on separation of church and state, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Harold Ford Jr. has been a shameless self-promoter, trying to make a name for himself by criticizing Democrats for not being Republican enough. Harold Ford Jr. quickly became the Joseph Lieberman of the U.S. House of Representatives.
No one knows whether Harold Ford Jr. was at all involved in the corrupt activities of his uncle John Ford. So far, no evidence of a direct connection has emerged. However, it's a plain fact that both Harold Ford Jr. and John Ford were part of the same political machine. From a pragmatic standpoint, Harold Ford Jr. is tainted by the ethics scandal that has engulfed John Ford. Whether that connection ever grows grounds sufficient for prosecution, Harold Ford. Jr. is a great example of why the Democratic Party needs reform. (Source: Library of Congress)
It's not enough to vote for a Democrat. You've got to vote for a progressive candidate or progressive politics won't be practiced. Take the Congress as an example. House progressive Henry Waxman has been the chairman of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee since the beginning of 2007, and using his position he has held numerous hearings, taken numerous statements, issued numerous public requests for information and dragged numerous Bush administration scandals into the light of day.Senator Joseph Lieberman, who calls himself a Democrat but is decidedly unprogressive in his politics, has chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, the equivalent committee in the upper house, also since the beginning of 2007. Lieberman has sat on his hands and refused to use his committee chairman's power to drag the malfeasance of the Bush administration into the clarifying light of day. The difference in practice between Representative Waxman and Senator Lieberman is the difference you get between voting for a progressive and just voting for the politician with the big, shiny "D." (Source: Mother Jones December 24, 2007)
- In January, 2005, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer were the only two Democratic senators to vote against the approving the nomination of Condoleeza
Rice to become Secretary of State. Although Condoleeza Rice certainly has the intellect and ability to perform the technical aspects of the job, two days of
questioning before Rice's confirmation clearly illustrated that Rice's character is not suitable for high office. Rice had coddled torture by agents of the
American government had intentionally misled the American public on several occasions.
Some Democratic senators, like Joseph Biden, played the weasely game of pretending to be deeply concerned about Condoleeza Rice's negative record, while at the same time pledging that they would certainly vote for her approval. Senators Kerry and Boxer didn't play that game. They showed the path for reform of the Democratic Party. (Source: Salon, January 20, 2005)
- Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman has been George W. Bush's pet Democrat in Congress for years, helping President Bush pass tax breaks for the
wealthy, supporting Bush's rush to start a war in Iraq, and running headlong with Bush Republicans into passing the extraordinary spying powers in the
Patriot Act. Lieberman has suggested that Democrats who criticize President Bush are unpatriotic, and are not loyal Americans. Joseph Lieberman
represents in one man everything that the Democratic Party should not be.
- In February of 2005, the American people witnessed another great Democratic rollover. The Senate almost unanimously voted to confirm Michael
Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security (two Senators didn't bother to vote).
In confirming Chertoff, the Senate Democrats looked over some truly horrid items in Chertoff's record. Chertoff orchestrated mass detentions of muslims in the United States - detentions lasting for months without any criminal charge. The prisoners under Chertoff's control were not allowed to see lawyers and were routinely beaten and humiliated before being released.
Chertoff took the expertise in torture and illegal imprisonment that he gained with these prisoners and became an inside consultant to the Bush Administration's plans to detain and torture foreign muslims as well. Chertoff gave specific advice to the Bush Administration about how to torture prisoners while creating a thin veneer of legal justification for the torture.
Not content to crush habeas corpus and inflict pain on prisoners, Michael Chertoff was also instrumental in creating the Patriot Act, which gives federal government agents the right to gather information on Americans' private lives, including everything from our personal reading habits to the diseases of our dogs to the most sensitive information about our medical histories. Chertoff now supports efforts to expand the powers given under the Patriot Act to give the Bush Administration even more power to spy on law-abiding citizens. (Sources: Democracy Now, February 3, 2005; Chicago Sun-Times, February 11, 2005; Washington Post, February 8, 2005, Library of Congress; New York Times, February 11, 2005)
Joseph Lieberman thinks that we should not elect a progressive to be President in 2008. That's one very good reason to say that electing a progressive President is probably a very good idea.
- Without a progressive leadership of the Democratic Party, progressive politicians within the Democratic Party will continue to be forced to abandon
their progressive efforts and to support the right wing agenda. One particular example of the effects of this pressure was given by Democratic
Congressman John Conyers in November, 2006.
John Conyers is commonly thought of as a strongly progressive member of the House of Representatives. In late 2005, Conyers introduced H.Res 635, a resolution that, if approved, would have begun investigations of George W. Bush's alleged crimes that would, in turn, have made formal recommendations on grounds for impeachment. By the time that the Democrats had regained the majority in the House of Representatives, however, John Conyers had been pressured by the House Democratic leadership to remove his support from the resolution. "I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table," Conyers wrote to his supporters, soon after the election.
If we elect a progressive president in 2008, this kind of pressure upon progressive Democrats in Congress will be countered with a new kind of pressure from the top. What we need is a leader of the Democratic Party who will pressure Democrats to support the progressive values of Democratic voters, not the right wing values of Republican voters. (Source: Email from Congressman John Conyers, November 15, 2006)
- One very important policy difference between the Democratic candidates for President of the United States was in December of 2006, as the House of
Representatives pulled S. 3711 from consideration after it became clear to Republican leaders that the bill did not have a sufficient number of
representatives to pass. That's a good thing, because S. 3711, also known by the War On Terror Era name of The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of
2006, promoted a very foolish idea: Allowing more drilling for crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
One phrase ought to make it clear why oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is a foolish idea: Hurricane Katrina. The Gulf of Mexico is right in the middle of hurricane territory, making oil drilling there a very risky proposition. When Hurricane Katrina hit, for example, seven major oil spills took place, releasing more than 6.5 million gallons of crude oil and sending all that oil washing onto the ecologically sensitive shores of the Gulf of Mexico. More than 400 other smaller oil spills also took place as a result of Hurricane Katrina, releasing what has been estimated in total to be more oil than was spilled by the oil tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989.
The vulnerability of oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico was made apparent to all Americans, as 91.45 percent Gulf of Mexico oil production was shut down by the storm and took quite a long time to recover. As a result, the price of gasoline shot up to record levels nationwide.
It's ironic that Senator Peter Domenici decided to call this an energy security bill, because if we allow more oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, we will make ourselves less secure, not more secure. Our energy supply and our economy alike will become more vulnerable to hurricane damage. Our environment will become less secure as well, subjected to more and more immense spills of crude oil along our Gulf shores. We know for certain that more hurricanes will come to batter the Gulf of Mexico oil infrastructure. The only question is how soon the next big storm will come. These are not odds that America should be gambling with.
Back in August of 2006, the United States Senate voted to approve S. 3711. In spite of the clear folly of increasing American dependence upon vulnerable oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Senator Hillary Clinton voted with the Senate Republicans in favor of S. 3711.
The other Democratic Senators who are expected to run for President in 2008 did not vote for S. 3711.
Senator Evan Bayh voted against it.
Senator Joseph Biden voted against it.
Senator Barack Obama voted against it.
Senator John Kerry abstained from voting on the bill.
This vote is just one example of why it is important to examine the policy differences between the Democratic presidential candidates of 2008. Hillary Clinton voted to make our economy, our energy infrastructure and our environment less secure. The other Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate did not.
Progressives need to know the difference. (Sources: Associated Press, December 6, 2006; The Guardian, September 16, 2005; Energy Information Administration Special Report, Hurricane Katrina's Impact on the U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Markets, August 31, 2005)
- The Democratic Party is never going to win over the racists, sexists and other breeds of bigots who make up a huge chunk of the Republican base of
support. It's time for progressives to stand up for what they believe in, with no soft-pedalling, and no apologies. This is no time for triangulation. Let the
Republicans grab for the votes of bigots. Democrats will more than make up for that if they offer a positive vision of a large-minded America.
- Among those national Democratic leaders who slid on over to the right side of Congress is Nancy Pelosi, now the Speaker of the House. Pelosi's slide
toward Republican-friendly positions first became clear in the race for chair of the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 election. Nancy Pelosi
endorsed a conservative Democrat, Tim Roemer.
How conservative was Tim Roemer? Roemer:
- built up a history of voting for the interests of big corporations at the expense of average working Americans.
- had consistently promoted an extreme pro-life agenda, - collaborated with the Bush Administration's efforts to construct a powerful system to spy on American citizens in the name of Homeland Security
- voted twice in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban protests that "desecrate" the American flag
- voted to withhold US payments to the United Nations
- voted for Star Wars "missile defense" technology proven not to work
- supported government funding of religious organizations
- voted to repeal the estate tax on wealthy Americans
- was a member of Joseph Lieberman's infamous Democratic Leadership Council
It's beyond bizarre that Nancy Pelosi, who gained her position in the House Democratic leadership through her steadfast adherence to liberal ideals, should so quickly turn tail and run off with Roemer's pack in the extremist right wing of the Democratic Party. Of course, Roemer himself is not the whole of the problem. One-time liberals like Nancy Pelosi are showing their weakness by changing their colors so abruptly, and the American people are paying attention. (Source: CNN, December 14, 2004)
- The autumn of 2006 brought a clear sign of how much the Democratic Party is in need of progressive reform. 34 Democrats in the House of
Representatives and 11 Democratic
United States Senators supported George W. Bush and voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act (HR 6166 in the House and S 3930 in the Senate).
Some say that the Democratic Party should be a big tent, but when that big tent welcomes in politicians who are willing to help Republicans do away with the foundations of American law and liberty, such as habeas corpus, there is a serious problem. We need to ensure that we elect a progressive President in 2008 who will offer clear leadership in guiding the Democratic Party away from its accomodation of the Military Commissions Act. (Source: The Library of Congress)
(Source: An Unreasonable Man, IFC Films, 2007)
- In March, 2005, a law that should have been called the Morally Bankrupt Act passed the U.S. Senate. The law made it more difficult for average people who run into hard times to keep even the most basic of assets when they run into already rich megacreditors who want just a bit more profit.
The last ditch in this legislative slog was the House of Representatives, where the credit industry's pocket politicians display even fewer scruples. The solid wall of Senate Republicans (and the pathetic pastiche of Senate Democrats) who voted for this bill, 74-25, say that the high-profit, high-interest-rate consumer credit industry needs to be protected against struggling people.
Consider that again: This bill was passed so that a very healthy industry could be protected against struggling people.
Do you remember when, in this country, people were the central objects of concern?
Silly me. That kind of concern is so 20th century. Everything's changed now. That's what they tell me at least. I see the same trees, the same streets, the same lamp posts. The same people. But the 56 Republican Senators (every single one) and 18 Democrats who voted this lemon through clearly see something different.
We expect Republican Senators to sell out people's interests to their corporate paymasters, but it is sickeningly disappointing to see 18 Democratic Senators, politicians whose re-elections so many people have supported, turn their backs on people and take the side of the inhuman, inhumane moneymaking entities.
Shame on Senators Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson (of Florida), Nelson (of Nebraska), Pryor, Reid, Salazar and Stabenow. They are betraying the best traditions of the Democratic Party. They are kicking unfortunate people when they are down.
I hope the flood of campaign cash sure to come their way balances out the dark ache of guilt they are sure to feel in their stomachs late at night, when they are all alone. No, come to think of it, I actually don't. (Source: Library of Congress)
- Why vote for a progressive candidate for president in 2008? Because if you don't vote for someone whose politics are based in their ideals, you instead
get a politician who bends with the wind, altering policy positions to suit the latest fashion. Then you get embarrassing statements like this regarding Iraq:
We are in a dire situation, using your adjective, in part because the Congress was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability...
These were the words of the accusatory Senator Hillary Clinton in last week's hearing regarding the confirmation of Lt. General David Petraeus to head up the military effort. Clinton intended this remark as an indictment of the Republican Party, but it applies just as well to herself. In the buildup to the Iraq war, she pursued the path of political least resistance at the time, declaring herself in support of the war in Iraq and failing to exercise her considerable power that even a minority Senator has to engage in oversight and demand accountability. She only came to critique the war in Iraq when a large manjority of Americans had already arrived at a critical point of view themselves.
And even now that Senator Clinton has arrived at a somewhat critical stance regarding the war in Iraq, she continues to avoid the responsibility to engage in oversight and to demand accountability. As David Broder points out in his most recent column, Clinton failed to ask a single question of the man nominated to run the war to its conclusion. Not a single question. Instead, she informed the General of her feelings about Iraq based on a recent trip of hers.
Oversight would have involved asking General Petraeus to articulate strategy, and then asking follow-up questions based on the candor and good sense of his responses. Demanding accountability would have involved asking General Petraeus to make a set of commitments and to set standards by which his success could be measured in the future. But that was not politically expedient -- so Senator Clinton made a speech instead.
Had Senator Clinton been "ideological" in her orientation -- a dirty word these days meaning that one bases one's actions on a set of coherent conceptual claims and standards -- her conduct and her statements would at least have been consistent. But she's failed to either remain firm in her ideas or even to identify why she might have changed her minds, leaving me to wonder which political winds will fill her sails next.
- In the election of 2004, progressives gave a tremendous amount to the Democratic Party. We gave huge amounts of money. We volunteered for days and days. We held campaign meetings in our homes. We voted, and we voted Democrat in spite of the reservations we had about the weak progressive records of some Democratic candidates, including a move away from some progressive principles by presidential candidate John Kerry.
We progressives gave so much, and tolerated so much, because we knew that the alternative would be worse. The Republicans now in power are following a theocratic, nationalist agenda that endangers the traditional freedoms that Americans have enjoyed for generations.
So it was a double burden to now see that many of the Democrats who could not have won their elections in 2004 without the national progressive effort to support them, have betrayed us, and moved to collaborate with the ruling Republicans' effort to destroy all progressive elements within American civic culture.
In March 2005, 14 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to create a bill that did not just allow, but went so far as to encourage, discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion. This bill committed huge amounts of federal money to the purpose of financing organizations who refuse to hire anybody who is unwilling to convert to membership in the church of their bosses. These 14 House Democrats were given the opportunity to vote on an amendment that would have removed the religious discrimination clause from the larger bill. However, they voted against Robert Scott's Religious Liberty Amendment. (Source: Library of Congress)
- In February, 2007, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced S.594, the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act, to the United States Senate. The law forbids
the United States government from spending money to use, sell or transfer cluster bombs unless the following requirements are met:
- The cluster bombs are proven to have a 1 percent or lower rate of malfunction
- The cluster bombs will not be used against anything but a clearly defined military target, in an area where there are no civilians and in places where civilians do not ordinarily live
- A plan is submitted, with the costs included, for cleaning up all the undetonated explosives that come from cluster bombs, whether they're used by the US military, or by other countries to whom the United States has supplied the cluster bombsThere is a waiver in the law for the first requirement (for the malfunctioning rate of 1 percent or lower), in cases in which it is "vital" to use cluster bombs in order to protect the security of the United States. However, even in such cases, the President is required to submit a report to Congress which explains how civilians will be protected from the cluster bombs, and revealing the failure rate of the cluster bombs, as well as whether the cluster bombs are equipped with self-destruct functions.
The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act is not a perfect law. I'm not too fond of the waiver. However, the law would be a big improvement over the status quo. Right now, there's nothing to stop the United States from using cluster bombs, as it did during the invasion of Iraq, or selling them for other countries to use, as was done last year with the cluster bombs that Israel used against the civilian population of Lebanon.
The thing that makes cluster bombs so much worse than ordinary bombs is that they have a high failure rate, combined with a high number of small bombs that are spread over large areas of land by the larger bombs in which they are originally obtained. Cluster bombs are designed to kill people, not to damage buildings or roads. Like land mines, they continue to kill people long after the battle in which they were used. It is typical for a large number of these smaller bombs to remain undetonated, waiting to explode, after their initial deployment. The Federation of American Scientists reports, "Studies that show 40 percent of the duds on the ground are hazardous and for each encounter with an unexploded submunition there is a 13 percent probability of detonation. Thus, even though an unexploded submunition is run over, kicked, stepped on, or otherwise disturbed, and did not detonate, it is not safe. Handling the unexploded submunition may eventually result in arming and subsequent detonation."
Cluster bombs kill civilians when they are used. Our government knows this, and yet our government continues to manufacture, use and sell cluster bombs to foreign countries.
Senator Feinstein deserves our thanks for introducing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act to the floor of the Senate. Senators Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, and Bernard Sanders also deserve our thanks, for co-sponsoring the bill.
Where are the Presidential candidates on this issue? There are six United States senators who are running for President. Not a single one of them has given support to the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act.
Senators John McCain and Sam Brownback are Republicans. The other senators running for President are Democrats. They all have in common their dangerous neglect of the threat posed by American cluster bombs. This is a moral issue on which many Democrats and Republicans have failed. Five good Democrats have taken a stand against the uncontrolled development and spread of cluster bombs. Other Democrats in Congress have not.
That failure includes Democratic Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. There is no bill at all on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to control the use of cluster bombs. What has Representative Kucinich, the supposed peace candidate, done about that? Absolutely nothing.
The failure of most Democrats in Congress to support the effort to stop the use of cluster bombs is yet another reminder that there is a big difference between being a Democrat and being a progressive. In 2008, it's not enough to just elect a Democrat President. If we don't elect a progressive President, we can expect many more years of disappointment. (Sources: The Library of Congress; Cluster Munition Coalition; Human Rights Watch; Federation of American Scientists)
- An important reason to vote progressive in the 2008 elections, and not along a partisan Democratic line, is that if you don't vote according to principle,
you'll get a pragmatic political result -- and political pragmatism is not pretty.
Take for example the case of Joe Lieberman, who popped into a meeting of a committee of which he is not a member to put in a special good word for George W. Bush's nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. That nominee, Sam Fox, funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group in 2004 that injected outright slander into the presidential race. Such a person with a history of ham-handed public venom really should not be engaged in any diplomatic venues. But the ever-pragmatic Senator Lieberman vouched for Fox, "Sam Fox represents what America is all about, and that's why he will be, when confirmed, an extraordinary ambassador."
Why would Joseph Lieberman say such a kind thing about someone who funds counterfactual, irrelevant dirty tactics in political campaigns? Boy, you've got me...
Say, did I mention that Joe Lieberman recently received checks for a total of $21,000 from Sam Fox and his wife?
Yes, Joe Lieberman is a very pragmatic politican, which is exactly what you get when you forget to vote your principles. (Source: Hartford Courant, March 8 2007)
- We can't say we weren't warned. Everyone knew full well two years ago exactly what sort of decision Samuel Alito would deliver as a justice of the
Supreme Court. Here's what we at Irregular Times wrote two years ago about the Alito nomination:
Look, for everybody who is working extra-hard to imagine a scenario in which Bush-nominated anti-choice nominee Samuel Alito might not vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, read on.
It doesn't get any clearer than this:
"It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
Period. End of story. If the United States Senate confirms Samuel Alito, he will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Any Senator who votes to confirm Samuel Alito votes against a woman's right to control her own body.
And now that this is Samuel Alito's presumed position, it is up to him, in public testimony, to affirm otherwise. Samuel Alito cannot say, as John Roberts did, that he believes petitioners to the Court need to believe he has no pre-set position on Roe vs. Wade. Clearly, the man does have a position. That cat is out of the bag. So any Senator on the Judiciary Committee who fails to use this and other material to grill Samuel Alito to the floor until he states his current specific position regarding Roe vs. Wade is grossly incompetent.
Spread the word. Write a letter to the editor. Don't let this pass unmentioned. Samuel Alito's own explicitly stated position: he believes women do not have the right to have an abortion.Everyone knew Samuel Alito was dedicated to the overturn Roe v. Wade, and yet he was confirmed. After talking a big game about confronting Alito on his abortion position, Senators gave him a pass and voted him through.
Samuel Alito was confirmed for two reasons. First, George W. Bush was re-elected president in 2004, and second, there were not enough progressives in Congress to stop Alito's confirmation. Yes, there were enough Democrats. No, there were not enough progressives. And so Samuel Alito is sitting on the Supreme Court as part of a majority which ruless that a woman has to go to court to prove her health is threatened before she can have what her doctor already believes is a medically necessary abortion.
With Samuel Alito on the court, majority rulings that prioritize authoritarian prerogatives over individual liberty will continue. Liebermans in the White House and Caseys in the Senate won't change a thing. And that's why it is essential for the elections of 2008 not to bring a Democratic victory to the White House and to the Congress, but a progressive victory.
- Barack Obama and Hiillary Clinton want to expand the size of the military, they say.
They say that they would end the war in Iraq, if they were elected President. They say that the spending in Iraq is taking too much money out of domestic spending.
Yet, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say that they want to expand the amount of money spent on the military. I don't understand it. Why spend more money on the military, after a war is stopped, than is being spent during war time?
There is no major enemy the United States has that the military is capable of fighting. If the American military cannot capture Osama Bin Laden by invading and occupying the nation he's hiding in, then the American military is not going to be able to capture Osama Bin Laden by invading and occupying other countries.
What is this expanded military that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seek for, then? The United States is not under any threat of a military invasion. The American military has proven incapable of stopping terrorist attacks. So why do we need a larger military? Why do we need more soldiers?
Is it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to increase military spending, and increase the number of soldiers, so that they can look presidential? Do they still think that what the United States needs is another President eager to send the military around the world?
Maybe the reason that I don't understand why we need a big military is that I'm too far to the left, out of the mainstream that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to appeal to. If that's so, then that's so. I'm not about to support some crazy policy of politically-inspired militarism just because it's an effective electoral technique. I'd rather be out of touch with the American mainstream than to jump on this big military bandwagon.
I am never more disappointed in the Democrats than when I see militaristic jingoism of the kind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are promoting. Their use of big military spending to strike a pose is just one more reminder of why, in the 2008 presidential election, it's not enough just to elect a Democrat. We need a progressive President. (Source: The Hill, May 3, 2007)
- Early in May 2007, after talking to someone on the legislative staff of Senator Robert Byrd, I wrote an article patience with Senate Democrats as they go
through the difficult, complicated work of trying to end the war in Iraq. The issues in getting a bill to the floor of the Senate to vote on are complicated, I
said.
In a certain sense, that was true. Deciding which legislation to end the war to vote on next is a complicated process. However, the outcome we need is really not complicated at all. We need to get out of the mess in Iraq as soon as possible. Most Americans now clearly agree on that. The President of the United States has gone war-mad, and won't listen to the majority, so, it ought to be the task of Congress to end the war.
Some in Congress are trying. There's Senator Russ Feingold, for instance, who gained the support of Senator Harry Reid and other Democrats in the Senate to introduce legislation (S.Amdt. 1098 to S.Amdt. 1097 to to H.R. 1495) that would have required the United States to begin a military pullout from Iraq four months from now, and complete that pullout by March 31, 2008.
Then, on May 16, there was a roll call vote in the Senate on whether to approve Feingold's legislation to end the war in Iraq. It was not approved. The reason: Many Senate Democrats were too afraid to vote for it.
Why? Why, when the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the majority of the American people want the Iraq War to end, are some Senate Democrats still afraid to vote to end the war? Put plainly, it was political cowardice. They voted that way because they didn't want to look soft. These Democratic politicians still think that the only way that they can look strong is to support George W. Bush in his vain quest to find some small scrap of victory in Iraq.
It was 2002 all over again, with Senate Democrats so weak and agitated that they surrendered to the Republican pro-war nonsense without putting up a fight.
These are the Democratic cowards in the Senate who voted in favor of keeping the Iraq War going on without restriction:
Max Baucus of Montana
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
Tom Carper of Delaware
Robert Casey of Pennsylvania
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Carl Levin of Michigan
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Claire McCaskill of Missouri
Bill Nelson of Florida
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Jack Reed of Rhode Island
John Rockefeller of West Virginia
Ken Salazar of Colorado
Jon Tester of Montana
James Webb of Virginia
When it comes time for you to vote for a presidential candidate in 2008, remember this shameful vote. Remember this painful evidence that many Democratic politicians are not at all progressive. In fact, they're anti-progressive.Don't just listen to what Democratic politicians say about themselves in their speeches. Pay attention to what they actually do. (Source: Library of Congress)
- It's just not safe these days to presume that a Democratic presidential candidate is progressive on the issues that matter.
Consider the poor, pandering performance of three Democratic presidential candidates on the issue of religion and politics. When asked by the Associated Press to tell voters which church they attend and how often, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Christopher Dodd scrambled to provide eager answers to prove that they're not just religious believers, but that they attend church regularly and dutifully. Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Joseph Biden reported their churches too.
Hillary Clinton gushed about her "extended prayer family" who she describes as "faith warriors". Obama reported proudly that he attends church "frequently". John Edwards reported that he's got one church already, and is shopping for a second one.
Only Rudolph Giuliani got the answer right. He refused to answer. "The mayor's personal relationship with God is private and between him and God," Giuliani's campaign wrote in response.
It's shameful to see Democrats posing to prove how religious they are, as if the issue has anything to do with their qualification for public service. Do they really expect us to accept the idea that a candidate who is religious is more qualified to be President of the United States than a candidate who is not? Maybe what they actually believe doesn't matter so much to their campaigns. If the majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a politician who loudly proclaims Christian religion than a politician who refuses to do so, these Democrats are pragmatically happy to play along with that game.
True progressives don't support a religious test for public office. Unfortunately, it's not quite clear that the Democrats running for President in 2008 are as fully progressive as they'd like us to believe. (Sources: Forbes, June 1, 2007; GetReligion.org, June 4, 2007)
- In 2006, the Democratic mantra was "change the committee chairs". Democratic activists gasped to each other, "Can you imagine what it will mean to
have a Democrat as chair on every committee?"
Now, in 2007, we can see that Democratic chairs of congressional committees sometimes doesn't mean very much at all. Take, for example, the chairmanship of John Dingell over the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Representative Dingell is a Democrat, but he's a Democrat from Michigan, and views it as part of his job to represent the interests of Michigan's car manufacturing companies.
The car manufacturing companies of Michigan are against efforts to strengthen the fuel mileage standards for cars, and so Representative Dingell is eager to help the Republicans delay any congressional action on the matter. Six months into the new Democratic Congress, John Dingell's House Committee on Energy and Commerce still had not taken any action on increasing the fuel efficiency of cars. What's more, Dingell announced that the committee would not even begin to consider such matters until the autumn.
Thanks to John Dingell, we're seeing the same delay and denial of action on fuel efficiency that we saw when Republicans controlled all the congressional committees. Dingell's dodge is a great reminder that, when it comes to promoting fuel efficiency and protecting the environment, it's not enough just to vote for a Democrat and assume that everything will turn out all right. You have to be sure to vote for a genuine progressive. (Source: The Guardian, June 22, 2007)
- On July 23, 2007, John Edwards was asked to explain his negative attitude about equal rights for same-sex couples to marry. Blunt and yet evasive, he
said, "My wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not."
What's missing from John Edwards's statement about opposing equal marriage rights is a justification. Edwards never really explained why he is against giving same-sex couples the right to get married.
Edwards could claim that he is against same-sex marriage because he believes that marriage should exist only between a man and a woman. That's not an explanation, though. It's just a restatement of his opposition to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Edwards has, in the past, indicated that he's against equal marriage rights because he's a Southern Baptist. That's not much of an explanation either, though, unless Edwards is the type of person who believes whatever his church tells him to believe. If that's the case, then there's much to fear from a John Edwards presidency. After all, the Southern Baptists believe a lot of outrageous things. Does John Edwards, for instance, believe that it is a wife's duty to submit to her husband, and obey him as her master? If John Edwards rejects that Southern Baptist teaching, then why won't he reject the Southern Baptist opposition to same-sex marriage?
Democratic voters deserve a real explanation from John Edwards. If he wants to earn voters' support, he ought to be willing to justify his opinions, not just state them without explanation. What about marriage between two people of the same sex does John Edwards think is wrong? Why?
It isn't enough for Edwards to merely claim that it's not a relevant issue because he would not use his power as President impose his religious views on the American people. First of all, the moral reasoning John Edwards uses to justify denying equal marriage rights to all American adults is a relevant reflection on his general character and psychological fitness to be President. Secondly, in spite of what Edwards claims about keeping his prejudiced religious beliefs out of his work as President, he's made it quite clear that religion would be part of the basis for his opposition as President to legalizing same-sex marriage.
The issue of marriage equality opens up a view to a rather shadowy side of John Edwards. Behind the smile and the talk of uniting America, John Edwards seems quite willing to accept the idea of two Americas with two standards of legal rights. (Source: CNN, July 23, 2007)
- During a Democratic debate this summer, Senator Joseph Biden gave what seems like the best reason NOT to support his campaign for President.
Responding to a comment by Bill Richardson that a combination of diplomacy and United Nations peacekeepers ought to be used to deal with the violence
in Darfur, Biden got testy, and said, "Look, I'm so tired of this. Let's get right to it. I heard the same arguments after I came back from meeting with
Milosevic: We can't act; we can't send troops there. Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can."
Joseph Biden is tired? He's tired of Americans saying where we shouldn't send the American military to fight? Does Senator Biden really think that the problem with American foreign policy is that the government has been too restrained in its efforts to send the military to fight in foreign countries?
The war policy of Senator Joe Biden was expressed in just one sentence from this statement: "Where we can, America must". Senator Biden wants to fight new wars "because we can." Wherever the United States can get away with it, that's where Biden wants the American military fighting a war.
With a foreign policy philosophy like that, it's no wonder that Joseph Biden voted in favor of George W. Bush's plan to invade and occupy Iraq. Biden is no progressive, that's for sure.(Source: CNN, July 23, 2007)
- I'm disappointed in Hillary Clinton.
On July 23, 2007, when asked if he would commit to meeting with the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Iran and North Korea, Barack Obama said that yes, indeed he would. Obama pointed out that American Presidents held summits with the leaders of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also mentioned that the attempt to use the withholding of diplomatic contact as some form of punishment has not been effective.
Barack Obama is right, of course. It's been three decades since Iran and the United States had a diplomatic relationship, and the lack of diplomacy has not resulted in the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy. On the contrary, lack of contact has made the regime more radical. George W. Bush's policy of not talking to North Korea's leadership made the nuclear crisis in that country worse, not better.
In 2009, the new President will have the chance to overcome the foreign policy mistakes of the Bush presidency, and the best way to do that is to clearly demonstrate that the days of American obstinacy are over. Showing a willingness to listen to, and talk to, the leaders of all nations.
Hillary Clinton, tied to the policies of her former President husband, did not react well. She seemed miffed at the idea of a new President being willing to talk to world leaders to whom her husband would not. With a knee jerk reaction, Clinton defended the way that things have been done in Washington D.C. for years. She called Barack Obama's proposal "irresponsible and frankly naive."
It's a sad day for the Democratic Party when the supposed front-runner for President of the United States refers to talk as "irresponsible". The only thing to which face-to-face talks between the American President and leaders of other nations is irresponsible is the status quo. Frankly, the status quo is rotten. As for naivete, well, naivete is much to be preferred to fatalism.
Hillary Clinton's snide remark at Barack Obama's vision of a new era of open diplomacy is the most stark reminder of the difference between these two candidates. Hillary Clinton is a fixture of the past. Barack Obama has the courage to look to the future, toward progress.
When it comes to diplomacy, Barack Obama is the candidate who has the right to refer to himself as a progressive. Hillary Clinton, in comparison, seems too backwards-thinking, afraid and proud to extend a hand of reconciliation.
For the sake of world community, Barack Obama looks like the better choice to me. (Source: Associated Press, July 24, 2007)
- Before Hillary Clinton gets so enthusiastic about calling Barack Obama naive just for suggesting that the President speak with the leaders of other
nations, she might stop to think about the kind of naive behavior she has engaged in herself.
Here's a clue for her. Two years ago, Hillary Clinton gave another speech in which she called some other people naive. Here's what she said back then: "We've adopted a realistic foreign policy that is not based entirely on military might nor on the naive notion that we do not need the capacity to take tough action when necessary."
Don't recognize the quote? That's all right. It's not one that Hillary Clinton is spending a lot of time reminding people of. This quote comes from July 25, 2005, when Clinton was speaking to the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of rightward leaning Democrats that Clinton belongs to.
Can you guess what "realistic foreign policy" of the Democratic Leadership Council Hillary Clinton is talking about? Don't work too hard now, I'll tell you. It's the foreign policy of supporting George W. Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The Democratic Leadership Council was, after all, one hundred percent behind President Bush when he came up with the plan to start a war in Iraq. Every member of the DLC that was in Congress at the time, Hillary Clinton included, voted in favor of Bush's plan to rush the American military into Iraq.
If ever there was a naive decision about foreign policy, it was the one that led Hillary Clinton to decide that George W. Bush seemed like the kind of President who knew exactly what he was doing, and could be trusted with broad war powers. Yet, Hillary Clinton now has the gall to call Barack Obama, who had the responsibility, foresight and maturity to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the start, naive?
I encourage Hillary Clinton to look back to this speech, and what she said. She called those who urged restraint in military spending "naive", because there were times when "tough action" would be "necessary". Senator Clinton was just plain wrong when she suggested that using "tough action" in Iraq was necessary.
Hillary Clinton was wrong to call those of us who wrote, emailed and called her offices, begging her not to vote in favor of starting a war in Iraq, naive. If she is going to ask for our votes, she ought to at least have the decency to apologize for that insult to antiwar activists. Instead, last night, she compounded it with another slur against diplomacy.
The truth is, when it came down to the time to decide the appropriate time for diplomacy in Iraq, Hillary Clinton was dead wrong, and Barack Obama was spot on correct. Hillary Clinton's forgetfulness of this fact may suit her conscience, but it does not reflect well upon her presidential campaign.
- On the evening of July 24, 2007, I was listening to the radio for a few moments while making myself a peanut butter sandwich in the kitchen when I
heard about the stupidest thing I have ever heard coming out of the mouth of Howard Dean.
Howard Dean, now the head of the Democratic Party, was criticizing the proposal by Dennis Kucinich to end the war in Iraq in a relatively quick way by taking away funding for every aspect of the war except for the project of bringing American soldiers home safely. Howard Dean dismissed the idea by saying that if the Democrats cut the funding and ended the war now, then that would be the end of the Democratic majority in Congress, and then the war in Iraq would never be ended.
What gymnastic thinking! Howard Dean was essentially arguing that if we end the war now, then we'll never end the war.
Such a statement is obviously nonsense to us, but to someone like Howard Dean, it makes a kind of sense. You see, Howard Dean has for a long time now believed that ending the war and establishing Democratic Party control over the government are the same thing. Of course they're not, really, but Howard Dean has forged an automatic link between the two ideas. He started with the idea that the only way to end the war was elect a Democratic majority to Congress, and from there, quickly fell into the habit of thinking that having a Democratic majority in Congress and ending the war were the very same thing. The American people can see quite clearly now that Democratic control of Congress is in no way equivalent to ending the war in Iraq, but Howard Dean is still hoping that we'll buy the argument.
Besides the obvious logical flaw in Howard Dean's argument, there's a severe chronological flaw. You see, Howard Dean was arguing against Kucinich's plan to end the war quickly, in a matter of a few months. However, Howard Dean implied that ending the war quickly would interfere with his plan to re- elect a Democratic majority over Congress in November 2008, which would then prevent the Iraq War from actually ended.
Get out your calendar and do the math now. The 2008 presidential election is still more than a year away. The inauguration of the President and the next Congress does not happen until January 2009. So, if Dennis Kucinich's plan is to get the Iraq War done with quickly, in a matter of a few months from now, then how could the loss of the Democratic majority in Congress at the beginning of 2009 possibly interfere with the end of the war?
Even if the withdrawal of the American military from Iraq took an entire year after funding for combat and training operations was pulled back, that would mean that the end of the war would take place in July of 2008, with the Democratic majority in Congress still intact. It would be absolutely impossible for a new Republican majority elected four months after that, and inaugurated two months later yet, to interfere with the plan. The theoretical new Republican Congress of 2009 would have to declare a new war in January 2009 and then invade Iraq all over again.
It's all a matter of priorities. If the Democrats in Congress care more about ending the war in Iraq than they care about maintaining control over Congress, then they can end the war. If they care more about maintaining control over Congress than ending the war in Iraq, however, then the Democrats will argue about whether to end the war sooner or later, as they are now.
What Howard Dean isn't counting on is that the Democrats could well lose majority control of Congress by not ending the war in Iraq. Progressives know that the best way to strengthen the Democratic Party is to show that its leaders have resolve, and are not merely playing around with the important issues of the day in order to remain popular. That's why, in 2008, when we choose a Presidential candidate, it's not good enough just to choose the Democrat. We need to choose a progressive candidate for President. (Source: Air America Radio, July 24, 2007)
- Democratic politicians who believe that their campaigns will benefit through the conspicuous pandering to the religious sensibilities of voters ought to
pay attention to the effect that religious campaigning is having upon the Republican presidential candidates. Supporters of Republican presidential
candidates Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are ripping each other apart with religion, fighting over who's a real Christian and who's not.
Even when one of them tries to stand back from the fray and take the high road, the effort ends with a brutal stab at the religious authenticity of other
Republicans.
Consider this recent opinion posted on the web site Evangelicals for Mitt: "It's one thing to, as I mentioned the other day, take into account a candidate's religion. It's entirely another to simply say, as an evangelical pastor in Iowa just did while explaining an attack he made on Senator Brownback, 'Protestants should vote for Protestants.' But if we evangelicals set the precedent in this election that that's the way we should do things–shooting ourselves in the foot– we can look forward to more ugliness just like this. We can also look forward to more bad governance, because what church you go to has little or nothing to do with what you believe politically and how you put it into action. And I say that as someone who, just like Rev. Rude, left the Roman Catholic church before becoming a Christian."
So, to start with, evangelical Christians blasted Mitt Romney for being a Mormon, not enough of a real Christian.
Then, when some evangelical Christians formed the group Evangelicals for Mitt Romney, to try to counter the Republican religious bigotry of the anti- Romney religious groups, they too were blasted for being faith-traitors, with the claim that Protestants should vote for Protestants, and all the other Christian Republican candidates be damned.
The damage against Evangelicals for Mitt in that attack was incidental, however, because the attack was in fact aimed at Sam Brownback. Reverend Tim Rude (Yes, that's his real name) of the Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa made the attack in a letter he wrote campaigning in the name of his church for Mike Huckabee. Rude wrote, "Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor's."
As Evangelicals for Mitt fired back at the Walnut Creek evangelicals, they managed to insult Catholic Republicans again with the writer commenting that he, "left the Roman Catholic church before becoming a Christian." So, the very Republicans who are trying to defend Mitt Romney against the charge that he isn't a real Christian because he's a Mormon are more than happy to attack Sam Brownback on similar grounds, claiming that he isn't a real Christian because he's Catholic.
This kind of nonsense is the inevitable result of Republicans pandering to religious groups in the hopes that their churches will join their campaigns. If the Democratic candidates are smart, they'll stop trying to imitate the Republicans in making religion a campaign issue. Differences in religion are so divisive that they prevent people who should be political allies from joining together in common cause. There's no sense to these debates either. No one can win an argument over who is the most true believer.
While right wing Democrats have been pushing the idea of using religion as a motivational tool in presidential campaigns, progressives have argued against such tactics. That's good reason to pick a progressive presidential candidate who has attempted to keep religious division out of the 2008 campaign. (Sources: EvangelicalsForMitt, August 1, 2007; The Atlantic, July 31, 2007)
- "We did everything he wants." — spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, August 3 2007
Pelosi's spokesman was referring to Congressional Democratic leadership's decision to support George W. Bush's pet legislation that, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, authorizes wiretaps of phone calls without a warrant.
Do you care about the American tradition of civil liberties? Are you opposed to Big Brother Government? Do you believe that our politicians in Washington, DC should fulfill their oaths to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?
If your answer to these questions is "Yes," the Republicans have shown over and over again that they are not on your side. But in their roll-over on the 4th Amendment, the Congressional Democratic leadership has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted either. In the next national election of 2008, we need to send people to Washington, DC who know how to stand up for the Constitution. We need to identify and put people in office who have the capacity to just say NO. (Source: Washington Post August 4 2007)
- The Protect America Act is a new law authorizing electronic surveillance dragnets deployed by the government against the American people. The law
replaces judicial warrants with executive prerogative and substitutes blank checks for congressional oversight, and is clearly unconstitutional even by the
most generous reading of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Yet, Democratic senator Claire McCaskill voted along with the Republicans in favor of the Protect America Act. Here is her lame excuse: "I'm not thrilled. There are some changes we need to make to make sure that American citizens are protected. But it's a lot better than a lot of things that have been forced down this Congress' throat right before recesses that trampled on Americans' liberties."
What kind of standard for passing a law is this? If Senator McCaskill was not thrilled with the legislation, why did she vote for it? If without changes to the bill American citizens are not protected, why didn't Senator McCaskill make those changes? If she couldn't make the changes, why did she vote for such a deeply flawed bill?
In Claire McCaskill's characterization of her own mind, she sees a bill is being forced through the Senate that she feels she is powerless to stop, so she just wafts along with the gang. She might as well vote yes, with the consolation that it "trampled on Americans' liberties" less than some other bills in the past.
Outside Claire McCaskill's mind, we're aware that she is a United States Senator. United States Senators are not powerless. United States Senators can choose to vote NO on bills they do not like. United States Senators can place holds on bills. United States Senators can offer amendments. United States Senators can filibuster.
Another piece of the United States Constitution was trampled yesterday, and a U.S. Senator votes for the bill that does it because she says she was "forced" to, as if a gun were held to her head, as if she had no brain in her head, as if she were utterly incapable of making a choice or exercising power.
Claire McCaskill is either devoid of the will to exercise her power to defend the Constitution — or she is using a mask of blank will to cover active anti- constitutional intent.
In the former case, she's a waste of space. In the latter case, she is an opponent of civil liberty. In either case, she needs to be replaced, along with other nominal Democrats who can't or won't handle the responsibilities of representative democracy.
- Just before she cast her vote on the Protect America Act, a bill which replaces the authority of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution with unchecked
spy powers of the Attorney General and Director of National of National Intelligence, Democratic Party Senator Dianne Feinstein had this to say about
it: "I spent all afternoon on the McConnell bill and am just beginning to understand the subtleties in it and the others laws that come into play."
That's right: Senator Dianne Feinstein came out and said squarely that she was "just beginning to understand" the language of the Protect America Act. And yet, despite avowedly not understanding the Protect America Act, she declared in the very next sentence her intention to vote YES for the bill's passage. Not long afterwards, that's exactly what she did.
Voting for a constitution-gutting bill without understanding it first? That's the kind of careless behavior you should expect from a junior state senator, or some kind of emergency replacement, or some other inexperienced politician. But Dianne Feinstein has been in politics since I was in diapers, and I'm no spring chicken. She should have known better.
There's no excuse for Dianne Feinstein's behavior. It's not like the Senator couldn't have delayed the vote. For all practical purposes, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill, because it takes 60 votes to end debate on a bill. The bill passed on exactly 60 votes. If Senator Feinstein, who admitted she didn't understand the bill she was voting on, had really cared about what she was doing, she could have single-handedly stopped the vote and let debate on the bill continue, giving herself and her colleagues enough time to read the bill again and figure it out.
But no, Senator Feinstein wasn't interested in understanding the bill. She didn't care enough to wait and read the bill one more time. She didn't bother. She just went ahead and voted YES, admitting that she did not know what the full ramifications of voting YES were.
This vote wasn't about a tiny matter — it had to do with gutting of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which protects us from unwarranted seizure and surveillance. The 4th Amendment stands between liberty and tyranny. If on this big issue Senator Feinstein can't be bothered to take the time to know what she's doing, why should the people of California ever vote for her again?
- The following are the names of the 16 Senate Democrats who voted YES to pass the Protect America Act, the bill to legally enable unconstitutional
searches without probable cause or warrants:
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware
Senator Robert Casey of Pennsylvania
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California
Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Senator Bill Nelson of Florida
Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado
Senator James Webb of Virginia
The large majority of these YES-voting Democratic Senators are routinely unprogressive in their legislative records behavior, indicating that this one vote is no aberration. Democratic partisans promised us that if we just voted for conservative Democrats, we'd get a progressive restoration of constitutional government. This past The capitulation of these senators on the Protect America Act shows us, yet again, that if you want progressive government, you have to vote for progressives, not just any politician who happens to be running for office under the name of Democrat.
- I was surprised when I saw the roll call vote in the House for S.686, the 2005 bill that demolished equality under the law establishing a separate law that applied to just two people, stating that "Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act" (all two of them) but that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim" (the rest of us).
I had been laboring under the misapprehension that this bill passed the House of Representatives because a majority voted for it, but I was wrong.
The bill passed with a minority of votes. Only 58 members of Congress had the spine to stand up and vote NO. A stunning 174 members weaseled out of their constitutionally-mandated duty and failed to vote at all, handing victory to a legislative minority. That includes Democrats as well as Republicans. (Source: Library of Congress)
- Many timid hearts within the Democratic Party caution that we must not allow our discontent with the weakness of the Democratic Party to be seen in public, that we must keep it hidden, so that no one will suspect. I say to them that the cat is out of the bag already. Everyone knows how upset the Democratic base is with the leaders of the Democratic Party. There's no use in hiding what has already been seen.
Furthermore, the Democratic Party's weakness can never be mended if it is not allowed to be seen. We as progressive citizens have the duty to look at the difficult challenges we face, as well as the easy truths we find comfort in. In order to promote the good of the nation, we must think as individuals, and not surrender our conscience to the Party.
Regarding the pleas from the Democratic Party's leadership that we all unite behind the Party's decisions, whether we agree with them or not, we would do well to heed Mark Twain's advice: "Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catch-phrases of politicians. Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country."
- Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton is trying to define herself as the candidate of experience. However, in yesterday's debate on ABC, Barack Obama
made the proper distinction between experience and qualification for public office.
While other Democratic candidates for President talked about their plans for Iraq, Barack Obama had the audacity to point out that many of them had been part of the problem from the start, having voted to authorize the invasion and occupation of Iraq, thus placing the United States in the difficult position of having to choose between the bad options for getting out of Iraq. Obama commented, "There are only bad options and worse options, and we're going to have to exercise judgment in terms of how we execute this. But the thing I wish had happened was that all the people on this stage had asked these questions before they authorized us getting in, because earlier on we were talking about the issue of experience. Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war, and it indicates how we get into trouble when we engage in the sort of conventional thinking that has become the habit in Washington."
John Edwards has two strikes against him on this matter, having had only one term in the United States Senate before deciding against running for re- election in 2004. Yet, during that one term in office, Senator Edwards managed to make the tremendous error of voting in favor of letting Bush start the Iraq War.
Senator Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd have the clear edge of experience over John Edwards. Yet, like Edwards, their experience is tainted with profound lack of judgment. They voted, as Edwards did, in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There are many people in Washington D.C. who have been in power for a long time. What does the quantity of time occupying power prove, other than the ability to persist? Southern racist Strom Thurmond was the longest-serving member of the United States Senate. I don't think that many Democrats would say that high level of experience made Senator Thurmond well qualified for the presidency.
Thanks to Barack Obama for providing a blunt reminder that qualification for the Presidency, is a matter of quality, not of quantity. (Source: ABC News, August 19, 2007)
- The American government has hatched a plan to use its military satellites and surveillance aircraft against its own people, giving federal, state and local
law enforcement the power to look in on the activities of American citizens from high up in the sky, or even from out in orbit. One would think that would
be a major campaign issue, given that the spy program violates the Posse Comitatus Act requirements to separate the military and domestic law
enforcement, and violates the prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure in the Bill of Rights.
Sadly, weeks after the announcement of the satellite spy program, only one Democratic presidential candidate had spoken clearly on the issue. That candidate was Dennis Kucinich. In a rapid response to the revelation of the satellite spy program targetted on the United States, Kucinich released a statement in which he stood strongly against the new espionage, saying, "Not only are they ramping up their attempts to lie and deceive this nation into another war, they are also using those lies and deceptions to justify creating a police state right here where everyone is under suspicion and everyone is secretly under surveillance from Big Brother in the sky." In this statement, Kucinich was directly addressing what he rightly called "using military spy satellites and other high-tech military assets to put every citizen in our country under surveillance".
On his congressional web page, Dennis Kucinch explains, "This new domestic spying program is against everything this country stands on," and warns, "This Orwellian policy is yet another example of the Administration's continued desire to deliberately eliminate the Constitutionally-derived civil liberty rights from American citizens. The Administration continues to dodge the Congress, the Courts and the American public to avoid any form of accountability. The Administration needs to be held accountable for its full frontal assault on the Bill of Rights and our Constitution."
Those are fighting words and they're deserved. It's about time we heard this kind of direct talk from a Democratic presidential candidate.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any such statement from any other Democratic presidential candidate. I've searched the campaign web sites and congressional web sites of all the other Democratic candidates, and found not one word of criticism from any of them for the satellite spy program.
We cannot assume that all the Democratic presidential candidates are against the new satellite and airplane spy program on American soil, just because they are Democrats. Too many times, we have seen Democratic politicians betray the principles of liberty and democracy that they claim to support.
Until we see statements from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Mike Gravel in opposition to the new satellite surveillance program against Americans, we have good reason to doubt that the program would be discontinued with any of them as President.
Call the campaigns of these strangely silent Democratic candidates today, and ask them for a straight answer - are they in favor of military spy satellites and surveillance aircraft snooping on Americans, or are they against it? (Sources: Dennis Kucinich congressional web page, August 16, 2007; Kucinich for President campaign press release, August 16, 2007)
- The new word from the Democratic Party leadership in Congress is that there's a new goal for Iraq: Not an end to the American presence in Iraq, but just
a subtle change in mission.
Remember back to 2006, when the promise was that if the Democrats were elected to a majority control in Congress, the Iraq War would end? Remember back just to July 2007, when we were all told that the Democratic votes against setting a timetable for the end of the occupation was just a tactical maneuver, and that we didn't have to worry because the Democrats would hold George W. Bush accountable in September 2007, and end the mess in Iraq then?
It was all a load of bull. The Democratic leadership was just spinning an excuse for its adoption of a pro-war agenda like that of the Republicans. Now, we're hearing once again the same tired justifications that we heard from the Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, John Edwards and Chris Dodd who voted to help George W. Bush start the Iraq War back in the year 2002: That if the Democrats don't go along with the Republicans just this one time, the Democrats will lose the next election.
One capitulation to the Republicans, the Democrats told us, and then we'll be in a position to be strong. The problem was that one capitulation led to another and another and another, until we get to September, 2007, almost five years into the disastrous military occupation of Iraq, and the Democrats in Congress still haven't managed to actually oppose the Bush policy. They only whine about it, and then do nothing.
There are a few good antiwar Democrats, but the Democratic Party is by no means an antiwar party. In 2008, we have the chance to change that, by electing a genuine antiwar Democrat as President. If Democratic voters fail in that task, and elect a pro-war Democrat as well, then the Democratic voters will share in the blame by sharing in the capitulation. (Source: Washington Post, White House Watch, September 7, 2007)
- Dan Balz writes:
"What do the Democrats stand for?
This is a question that frustrates many in the party activists and elected officials alike. They see the Republican Party floundering and divided over a post-Bush governing blueprint and wonder why the focus so often turns to whether the Democrats have a coherent philosophy and a set of ideas to match."
I see. The Democrats need a good content provider. Well hey, I've got an idea for a Democratic Party Platform. It's got a big central orienting theme, and it's simple, and catchy, and good PR stuff like that.
Here goes:
I do solemnly swear that I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I know, it's kinda nutty and edgy these days to actually say and mean such words. But sometimes people like nutty. Like Herbie the Love Bug. People went crazy for that in the 1970s! And that "Where's the Beef?" lady. And the Macarena. Plus, it has that retro thing going on that adds some appeal. So maybe this could work.
- I've been getting a little snide lately. I don't mean snarky or sharp, rude or angry; I have no problem with being any of those. I mean mean, resentful
and snippy toward people who just get in my way.
You see, I've been getting kind of frustrated. I'm frustrated because the rich continue to get richer, and the rest of us aren't getting anywhere fast. I'm tired of worrying about whether my family's bank balance will get us to the end of the month without a late payment or a bounced check, and I know I'm not alone, because I look around me and I see people cutting out the fat in their budgets, trimming down to necessities, and still walking around with that tight look of exhaustion and desperation. Last week I followed my gleefully loping preschooler into a Saks Fifth Avenue for the first time in my life, and I knew it was a mistake from the moment I stepped foot in there and I felt the eyes of the sales staff on my unpressed clothes. But I couldn't help looking. Do you know how much they're charging for a men's dinner jacket? $4,000! Their trenchcoats are thirteen hundred bucks a shot, and you can get a pair of "distressed" jeans for $700. Good God. Clearly, there must be people who shovel this kind of cash out for their wardrobe, because somebody's selling it. But is that you? The statistics tell me it's not you. It's not you or you or you, either. It's someone with a lot of wealth, and that someone has been grabbing a bigger and bigger share of the wealth lately. While a lot of people are struggling, a few people are so deep in the dough that they can't think of any way to better spend their money than on a $700 pair of jeans made to look like "distressed" and a $4,000 dinner jacket. What kind of dinners do these people attend? Don't tell me the money these people have is in proportion to how hard they work for it. Don't tell the guy who washes their dishes all day at the restaurant that. Don't tell a surgical intensive care nurse that. Don't tell their illegal immigrant gardeners that. I'm tired of running just to keep even, and I can see it elsewhere, I hear it elsewhere, I read it elsewhere, a lot of you are running yourselves ragged too, and it seems to just be getting tighter and tighter. Just a little push more, and you're going to hear this sound without direction of ten million piggybanks breaking, all at once. You know, it gets me tired, and when I get tired I get stressed, and when I get stressed I get angry, and when I get angry I can hold it in for a while, but when I get angry enough and somebody steps in my path and says some little thing that annoys me or even just makes me pause to spend a minute to respond, I let loose some kind of snide remark. Why? Just because she or he is there, present, right in front of me.
The thing is, what really gets me angry, deep down angry, isn't in front of me, and it never sees the brunt of my fury. I'm not talking about the rich. I don't understand filthy rich people, I don't get the $4,000 dinner jackets and the $1300 trenchcoats, but understand that I'm not talking about the rich when I'm talking about what really gets me going. What really gets me going is what these people do. Not what the simply comfortable do, not what the straightforwardly rich people do, but what these filthy, disgustingly, obscenely rich people do. I'm talking about the people who the New York Times frets over in its elitst way for not being able to sell their $48 million mansions for the profit they feel they deserve.
And it's not their obscene richness that gets me riled up. It's not their rotund wealth. It's what they're doing with it. The nation got a sneak peek when it was revealed that one of their lackeys, Norman Hsu, had assembled $850,000.00 in donations to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, $850,000.00 that the Clinton campaign divested itself of when Hsu's fall from grace became public. This wasn't Norman Hsu's money. Norman Hsu, you should understand, is not one of the megarich. Hsu is simply a figure who portrayed himself as power broker with the political powers that be. His job was to collect donations from the hugely rich, combine them, and offer them on a silver platter to politicians like Hillary Clinton, but by no means limited to Hillary Clinton, oh no.
But let's pause for a moment and consider what that figure of $850,000.00 represents. That's more than 1 percent of all of the $63 million in donations that Hillary Clinton has received as a presidential candidate during the entire 2008 election cycle so far. No one person, whether representing himself or a class of moneyed interests, should be able to own more than 1 percent of a presidential candidate. But Norman Hsu did. And he's just the little bundler that couldn't. He's just the schmuck who got caught in the end. How much of the Hillary Clinton candidacy is owned? By whom? You know by whom it's by the same people who are spending $4,000 on a dinner jacket and $700 for a pair of jeans that someone else ripped up for their kids. Do you think it's just Hillary Clinton? It's not but thanks to the donations given in these bundles in huge amounts, the central point is that any presidential candidate who is going to succeed is going to have to take cash in bundles from you-know-who. Hillary Clinton is not the point here. The point is that no matter which candidate wins, the $4,000 dinner jacket people are going to win. It makes me furious that a miniscule number of ultra-wealthy people have gone about owning the presidential candidates in 2008. But all we'll see of that is the occasional glimpse when somebody in their ranks screws up and lets the bundling show by mistake there's no law that mandates reporting of bundling. You can't see it. I can't see it. It's invisible. It's inscrutable. The people who are buying this country can't be seen doing it. They're faceless, doing it all safely from behind their gates and walls and security fences. It's the invisible actions of these people that generate my rage. Because my rage has no outlet, sometimes it is diverted to someone who is not at fault, and I'm very sorry for letting that happen.
I am angered down to my core by the actions of certain people in our government who are spying on citizens, building vast databases of information on law-abiding Americans by seizing information and possessions from people without the warrant that the United States Constitution clearly mandates. I am enraged to see politicians and the media tycoons associated with them stoke the flames of unwarranted fear in the American public in order to justify their actions. But the politicians and media tycoons are surrounded by bodyguards to keep the unwashed away. They don't even read their own mail, so I'm never going to reach them. My fury at the betrayal of their oaths of office and their responsibility for being given the use of the public airwaves and rights of way will never reach their faces. They're faceless. Where should that fury go? I have a thousand pounds of fury without a destination.
I am worn down by the four-year-old fact that our nation's leader and his lackeys and those among his followers who knew better but just wanted a fun war that some other parents' kids would have to fight lied, obfuscated and looked the other way long enough and hard enough to start a pointless war that has made things worse. And this man, and his lackeys, and those of his followers who knew better, are still wearing the mantle of Patriot. I can't drop my jaw any lower. I'm beyond rage on this one. I'm numb.
All this anger, this rage, this disbelief, this numbness of the past seven years has no outlet because it's all been about the concentration and use of power by the faceless, walled up, unresponsive, and unaccountable. I've just been bottling it up, and storing it, and stuffing it, and still it builds up and I can't contain it and it just leaks out my eyeballs. It's broken me to the point that I don't even have a meter to measure my anger any more. My sense of humor is broken. My creativity is at a low ebb. And every new abuse of the constitution, every new authoritarian action, every new violent act carried out in my name, every new death, every additional percentage point of a candidate's soul bought hardly even registers with me any more.
I know I'm not alone in this feeling. I see it in my friends, who used to find themselves shouting about this kind of thing but now just shrug and look down and to the right, quietly, with shoulders raised. I see it in the disorganization of activist groups that don't know which faceless, walled-off target to pick, leaving it to vultures like the ANSWER Coalition to scavenge off our desire to protest to promote the liberation of the Philippines and the cult of Ramsey Clark in national marches. I read it in your comments here every day. The despair is heavy.
- All four Democratic presidential candidates from the United States Senate abstained from voting for the Bush plan to throw money at the Iraq problem.
A special appropriations bill passed yesterday called for 150 billion dollars extra for Bush's wars. That's in addition to the huge amount of money already
spent on the wars through the immense military budget, along with the budgets for agencies like the Department of State and CIA that are being heavily
depended upon to keep the wars going.
Christopher Dodd abstained. So did Joseph Biden, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Oddly enough, so did John McCain. What, is throwing away 150 billion dollars not enough for Mr. Tax and Spend McCain? Does the Big Government Republican from Arizona want to expand the government even more?
I'm sad to say that the 150 billion dollars got 92 votes in approval. That includes the votes of almost all the Democrats in the Senate. It's also a vote that stands starkly against public opinion. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, about 70 percent of Americans want funding to the Iraq War to be cut, and a majority of those people want it cut completely or drastically.
The Senate's vote illustrates how necessary it is to get a progressive President in the White House in next year's election. America needs a progressive President in order to counter not just the Republicans in Congress, but most of the Democrats as well.
The three senators who voted against the resolution were:
Democrat Robert Byrd
Republican Tom Coburn
Democrat Russ Feingold
(Sources: Library of Congress, Washington Post, October 2, 2007)
- The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a German citizen who was identified mistakenly by the CIA as a terrorist, abducted, transferred
to Afghanistan, detained in solitary confinement without charges, drugged, beaten and tortured before being summarily deposited by Americans on a
hilltop in Albania, warned not to look back and never to tell a soul about what he had suffered in his illegal prison cell. As a result, the man to whom this
was done has no legal recourse whatsoever against the country our country that did this to him.
This is perhaps the most sinister case of American "extraordinary rendition" yet to come to light. If the Supreme Court will not grant relief or even accept the right of a petitioner to have his plea heard in this case of severe injustice, there is no reason to believe the Supreme Court will ever grant relief to another victim of arbitary American power. The Supreme Court decided, in a Kafkaesque piece of reasoning, that since the subject matter of the case had to do with matters kept secret by the State, the Court could not even hear the case without disclosing State secrets. It's terrifyingly circular, but it's real in its effect: the Supreme Court will not intervene in extraordinary rendition cases, not even to rule on their broad constitutionality.
With the Supreme Court of Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia refusing to intervene in a case of clearly unconstitutional and cruel injustice, the Congress would be the next place of recourse for those who believe that the United States of America should not, must not become a nation of unaccountable torture. I write "would" intentionally; to write "will" would be an act of unwarranted optimism. There has been only one bill to end the practice of renditioned torture introduced before the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress, and that is Rep. Ed Markey's H.R. 1352. Only 52 colleagues of Markey's a bare 12% of representatives have had the moral courage to cosponsor H.R. 1352 (the small set of cosponsors includes presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich). The bill is still stuck in committee. There has been only one bill to end the practice of renditioned torture introduced before the Senate in the 110th Congress, and that is Senator Joseph Biden's S. 1876. Ominously, not one fellow Senator of Biden's has bothered to cosponsor it, and the bill has gone nowhere since it was introduced.
This is why the current status of politics in Washington, DC is unacceptable. This is why we need a change. This is why we need to vote for the most progressive options available to us in the congressional and presidential elections of 2008. Of course that means not voting Republican, but in many cases it will also mean not voting Democrat either. Look up the legislative record of your representative and your senators. Pay close attention to the presidential campaigns and note what the candidates specifically say they will do about the practice of extraordinary rendition into the hands of torturers. If you don't like what you see, look elsewhere. That may mean looking down the ballot to a third party or independent candidate for congress or the presidency. If you don't see a suitable alternative, it's not too late to gather with like-minded friends and neighbors to start organizing an alternative campaign right where you live. This can be done. (Source: New York Times October 9 2007; Library of Congress data on S. 1876)
- In late 2004, it was revealed that torture of prisoners was widespread in Iraq and at the American prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The involvement
of President George W. Bush himself in directing the torture was indicated. So what did the Democratic leadership in Congress do about it? Nothing.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid didn't do so much as issue a press release. The House Democratic Caucus made no statement. The Senate Democratic leadership didn't even request that hearings take place. They all just accepted the widespread use of torture, directed by the President of the United States, without protest. They allowed 2004 to pass into 2005 in silent implicit approval.
- Here's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had to say on October 9 2007 about Americans who have been protesting the war and her failure to stop
it:
Look. I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things Buddhas? I don't know what they were couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.
If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment.The poor dear. It's not like she's third in line for the presidency and the most powerful member of the entire House of Representatives. It's not like she, tied with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is the most powerful Democrat in the most powerful nation in the entire world. Oh, wait. Yes, it's exactly like that. What does she think that Americans should do, go away and let her run the Congress without any pesky popular interference? Throw flowers at her feet? Salute her and praise whatever she does?
This isn't a monarchy, Speaker Pelosi, it's a representative democratic republic, and that means that people have the right to tell you exactly what they think about what you're doing. As long as they're standing on a public sidewalk, it doesn't matter if citizens are blocking your precious view and disturbing your beautiful mind. If you want progressives to stop giving you a hard time for not using your considerable power to resolve the situation in Iraq, you can go ahead and do something& or you can look for a new job in 2009. Patience with the corporate bureaucracy of the Democratic Party is running out. (Source: Washington Post, October 10, 2007)
- In October, 2007, Harry Reid and the Senate Democratic leadership failed to fulfill the promise of 2006 yet again. This time, they agreed to give
retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications corporations that helped George W. Bush break the law by engaging in programs to spy on Americans'
private telephone calls without getting the search warrant required by law.
This cowardly retreat by Senate Democrats came in the context of the revelation just this week that George W. Bush started spying on Americans through warrantless wiretaps in February, 2001, just after Bush grabbed the White House, months and months before he got the excuse of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Why did the Senate Democratic leadership submit to the outrageous demands of George W. Bush, given these revelations? This was exactly the time that the Senate Democrats ought to have been making a stand, and refusing to renew the pro-spying Protect America Act.
Harry Reid and other Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate may have been too weak to stand up to George W. Bush, but Senator Chris Dodd was not. Chris Dodd defied the spineless wing of the Democratic Party, and taking a stand against the plan to give legal immunity for abuses against the American people and their Constitution.
Senator Dodd spoke out against this shameless compromise with American totalitarianism, not just as a presidential candidate, but as a United States Senator as well. Dodd made the following announcement:
"The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.
No more.
I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.
I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.
It's about delivering results and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today."
- The Washington Post reports that, when it came to helping the government spy on American citizens, the administration of George W. Bush and the
Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by conservative Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller came to a meeting of the minds: Senator Rockefeller would
insert language into the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 preventing citizens from bringing lawsuits about the warrantless wiretapping program, and the
White House would let Senator Rockefeller look at some documents related to the White House's warrantless wiretapping practices.
White House spokesperson Dana Perino put it this way in a news conference on Friday:
QUESTION: The White House has allowed Senator Rockefeller to see some key documents that he'd like to see. I'm wondering if, in general terms, you can describe those documents and perhaps lay out who else in Congress he may allow to see them.
MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's premature to say who else might see them. The Senate Intelligence Committee and Senator Rockefeller and Senator's Bond's staff had showed a willingness to want to include in their legislation retroactive liability protection for companies that were alleged to have helped the United States in the days after 9/11. Because they were willing to do that, we were willing to show them some of the documents that they asked to see.
The Senate FISA bill has many good components. We appreciate the serious work that has been done by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond.
White House spokesperson Tony Fratto confirmed the White House choice to have "been accommodative on sharing information" with Senator Rockefeller was a consequence of Senator Rockefeller being "expected to legislate on the liability."
Releasing the documents to Senator Rockefeller won't change the closed nature of the information regarding the program of warrantless wiretapping, because Rockefeller isn't authorized to release the documents beyond the Intelligence Committee. The Bush administration still gets to hide behind the grown up version of the classic kids' strategy behind claims of super powers: "I could show you if I wanted to, but I don't want to." Are we to trust George W. Bush when he ways that his program of wiretapping without a warrant is perfectly legal? Are we to trust Senator Rockefeller, who makes backroom deals with the same George W. Bush?
The administration of George W. Bush has demonstrated time and time again that it cannot be trusted. Those who aid and abet the untrustworthy President Bush in his efforts to skirt the Constitution can't be trusted either. If we want to return an atmosphere of trust to Washington, DC, we have to flush out the untrustworthy people who abide there. (Sources: Washington Post, October 23, 2007; White House news conference with spokesperson Dana Perino)
- Just as he's been trying to gain momentum in his drive to catch up to Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack
Obama has been dealing with harsh criticism of his use of Donnie McClurkin, an anti-gay Christian preacher, on an Obama for President gospel music tour.
McClurkin says that gays are sick people who need to be cured through the power of Christianity.
Showing that he really doesn't get it, Barack Obama pledged that he'd make up for the problem by having a gay man say a prayer before McClurkin takes the stage for Obama. That's like saying that you can make up for asking Adolph Hitler to campaign for you if you have someone Jewish campaign for you too. What Barack Obama doesn't understand is that it's not okay for his campaign to be inclusive of hateful, ignorant attitudes.
There's another side to the story, however, that hasn't been adequately considered: The question of what in the world a candidate for President is doing having a gospel music tour. Gospel music, after all, isn't just music. It's not just religious music. It's Christian religious music, promoting certain kinds of Christianity over others.
Some might dismiss this as a nitpicky point, and say that Barack Obama is just recognizing the kind of music that targeted groups of voters enjoy. Ordinarily, I might give that idea some credence, but given the context, I can't. The context of Obama's Embrace The Change Gospel Tour is the 40 Days of Faith and Family that Barack Obama has declared in South Carolina.
As part of his 40 Days of Faith and Family initiative, Barack Obama is holding a series of campaign events at churches during their services across South Carolina. He's using churches to help his campaign, entering into the special nonprofit, tax-exempt zone of religious organizations, and having preachers give him their pulpit for a time so that he can try to convince voters to support him. The Embrace The Change Gospel Tour is explicitly a part of Obama's campaign to prove that he is worthy of a vote because he is a Christian. Gospel music was chosen because it is religious in content. The Christianity of Gospel music is part of Obama's campaign message, not at all incidental.
That's of concern to me as a non-religious American, because it implies that there is something defective with being non-religious, much in the same way that Donnie McClurkin says that non-heterosexuals are defective. Barack Obama cannot go around trying to show voters that he's worthy of being elected because he's an eager Christian without implying that a candidate for President who is not as eager about public displays of Christianity is somehow less worthy of support.
I think that Christians of good conscience ought to be bothered by Obama's religious campaign as well. After all, Barack Obama is not promoting Christianity just for the sake of promoting Christianity. Obama is exploiting the social power of religion for his personal political gain. Obama has taken churches in South Carolina and temporarily transformed them into campaign headquarters. That's not just unconstitutional and illegal - it's profoundly disrespectful.
It's also unwise, despite what Barack Obama says, to allow religious sentiments to shape public policy. Donnie McClurkin shows that. McClurkin's prominent disdain of homosexuality is not rationally-founded. His anti-gay attitudes are based on his religious beliefs.
I'm aware that many religious people are sincerely supportive of the rights of homosexual Americans, but that's not the point. The point is that when people base their political positions upon their religious beliefs, their politics lacks a foundation of critical examination. Mixing religion and politics encourages voters to make political decisions based on their feelings, rather than their rational consideration of the facts. Because Donnie McClurkin's anti- gay agenda is based in his religion, he doesn't have to justify it with facts and logic. McClurkin can just talk about his beliefs.
Barack Obama is not alone in this problem. John Edwards has been able to perform the same maneuver as McClurkin with his own anti-gay prejudice, dodging questions about his political opposition to equal marriage rights for homosexual couples by saying that it's a matter of religious faith for him.
We need political leaders who will have the discipline to get serious, and speak to the American public about the issues that we face through the language of reason, not the distorted lens of emotion. That's why need to elect a presidential candidate who will not follow in the faith-based precedent set by George W. Bush. (Sources: Chicago Tribune, October 26, 2007; BarackObama.com)
- On October 28, 207, more than 100,000 Americans came together and protested against continuing the American military occupation of Iraq. Not one of
the Democratic presidential frontrunners bothered to join them. (Source: The Guardian, October 29, 2007)
- To understand how important it is to reform the Democratic Party, consider the statement Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson made just
before a televised presidential debate on the eve of Halloween 2007.
Telling other Democratic presidential candidates to stop criticizing Hillary Clinton's reliance on campaign donations bundled by lobbyists, Richardson said, "It's OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody's attachments to lobbyists, that's not the kind of positive tone I want to see."
What Bill Richardson cannot seem to fathom is that the power of corporate lobbyists over the American political system in general and political candidates in particular is one of the most important issues of the 2008 presidential election. If Democratic presidential candidates can't address the problem of lobbyists purchasing influence over elected officials, because the issue is just too personal, then they cannot address the issue of corruption.
If looking the other way while corruption twists the Democratic Party into a corporate tool is what Bill Richardson thinks of as a "positive tone" for the 2008 election, that's not a very positive reflection on Bill Richardson's integrity. A political party's primary process is supposed to be about giving voters the chance to decide for themselves which candidate best represents their ideals. Sweeping problems under the rug and pretending that they don't exist can only be considered positive by those who prefer to pretend that those problems don't exist.
It's up to voters to refuse Bill Richardson's cover for corruption within the Democratic Party. It's the responsibility of voters to find true progressives within the Democratic Party, and give those progressives their support, instead of just going along with whomever the corporate lobbyists have bankrolled as the Party's candidate. (Source: Associated Press, October 30, 2007)
- The following quote is attributed to President Harry S. Truman: "In a race between a Republican and a Republican, the Republican wins every time."
I'm not sure if Truman actually said it, but that's not the point. The quote isn't powerful because Truman said it. It's powerful because it's spot on accurate, and it's obviously so.
Whenever Democrats nominate politicians from amongst their numbers who support the Republican agenda in order to electable, the chance for a real Democratic victory is lost. The Republican will win, even if the Republican is wearing the name of Democrat as a disguise.
We must not let the right wing agenda of the Republicans, in the GOP or in the Democratic Party, take over America. That's why reforming the Democratic Party, to shake off the Republican ideology that sucks upon Democratic enthusiasm like a hidden parasite, is so important.
- Here's the lowdown:
1. Waterboarding, which in all of its various methods holds constant the simulation of drowning, qualifies under the legal definition of torture specified in 18 U.S.C. 2340 see "threat of imminent death."
2. Three times, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey refused, when specifically asked, to state that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture.
3. The United States has engaged in waterboarding, making the question germane even though the Congress has provided some retroactive immunity to those who actually did the waterboarding, because conspiracy to commit torture is also a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 2340, and word on the street in Washington DC is that the waterboarding was authorized, specifically by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State (and former National Security Adviser) Condoleezza Rice and President George W. Bush himself.
4. If the Attorney General is on the record stating that waterboarding qualifies under the legal definition of torture, then the investigation, impeachment and/or arrest of executive branch individuals involved in conspiracy to commit torture becomes not only clearly justified but also imperative. It is the Attorney General's responsibility to initiate such a course of investigation.
5. Confirmation hearings are the only procedural moment during which Congress can compel testimony on waterboarding by a nominee or withhold from that nominee the power of the Attorney General's position. After confirmation, the Attorney General can refuse to answer any question about waterboarding without any consequence.
6. In order to successfully hold the consequence of rejection over Attorney General Michael Mukasey's head, all that had to be done was for the ten Senate Democrats holding the majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to affirm that they would vote "NO" without the appropriate statement by Mukasey on waterboarding.
7. Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York instead made their way to the microphones today to announce that they would vote for Mukasey, regardless of his refusal to answer the questions of the Senate.
Senators Feinstein and Schumer destroyed a moment of accountability for the Bush administration and its criminal behavior. Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein not only were weak on Mukasey and weak on Bush they were weak on crime, weak on violent crime, weak on violent crime perpetuated by the state itself. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer have abandoned their commitment to the rule of law in the United States of America. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer have abandoned their oath of office in which they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, which regardless of any particular law forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Schumer and Feinstein have abandoned the nation to torture. Shame on them. Shame on them.
This, readers, is why I will never register as a Democrat, and why I will never donate so much as a red cent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), or the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Any money I would give them not only would go toward the re-election of progressive stalwarts such as Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold, but would also go to the campaign warchests of anti-legal, anti-constitutional, incontinent, unreliable, soft-on-torture candidates such as Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.
The next time the DNC, DSCC or DCCC calls me on the phone and tells me how urgent it is that I send them money so they can air advertisements praising the likes of Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein, complete with fine music and patriotic bunting and makeup artists and the best lighting technicians money can buy, I will utter the name "Mukasey." Then I will utter the word "Torture." And then I will tell the Democratic Party it can Kiss. My. Sorry. Ass.
Being Democratic is never enough, and sometimes it's part of the problem. That's why my money and my effort go to the promotion of specific candidates who not only speak but act in accordance with the principles I hold dear. I suggest you go that way, too. Otherwise, your resources may be turned against you.
- The National Lawyers Guild writes that "impeachment is the only constitutional method to protect Americans from a president intent on abusing power,
violating the constitution, violating the laws, and breaching public trust."
The tool of impeachment was designed just for the sort of historical moment the USA finds itself in right now, with an out-of-control, wildly unpopular President who holds himself above the law, with contempt for the Constitution and the liberties it protects.
Yet, the Democratic leadership in Congress insists on squelching the reassertion of the authority of the Constitution and the rule of law. The leadership of the Democratic Party calls the mere idea of impeachment divisive.
The Democratic Party needs to be reminded that assertion of Constitutional authority does not divide America. On the contrary, it is what keeps America from falling apart. There is no better reason than that to reform the Democratic Party be electing a progressive candidate for President in 2008. (Source: National Lawyers Guild, November 5, 2007)
- A nation cannot be free when the government has the ability to coerce false confessions out of torture, or the fear of torture. That's why protection
against cruel and unusual punishments was included in the Bill of Rights.
On November 8, 2007, six Democrats in the U.S. Senate forgot about that fundamental principle of American democracy, and confirmed as Attorney General of the United States a man who has refused to support the Bill of Rights and block the torture being planned and set in motion by the President of the United States. Waterboarding is clearly a form of torture, and torture is against the law and a violation of the Constitution. However, although it is the job of the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey has refused to commit to stopping the practice of waterboarding.
The following six Democrats voted for Mukasey anyway, signaling that it's just fine with them if the Attorney General of the United States doesn't enforce laws against torture:
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Tom Carper of Delaware
Dianne Feinstein of California
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Charles Schumer of New York
The Democratic Party ought to have no place for pro-torture politicians like these. If the Democratic Party leadership was truly opposed to torture, it would find strong challengers to these unworthy incumbents. Given the Democratic leadership's apathy, it's up to the grassroots Democrats to reform the Democratic Party - by only voting for Democratic candidates who are truly progressive. (Source: Library of Thomas)
- Why isn't just voting Democrat enough? Recent history is littered with legislative answers to that question.
We already have an index of legislative action for the U.S. Senate in the 110th Congress that looks at senatorial cosponsorships along with votes on important issues during the ten months of the current Congress. But there are some votes that are crucial, stretching out across longer periods of time and involving Senators who are still around with us on the national scene. With that in mind, I've come up with a list of what I call "unforgivable votes": votes that no progressive should have taken. I assume that Republicans are unforgivable, although as you'll see below occasionally one or two will temporarily redeem themselves on single issues. But to the extent that the Democratic Party wishes to refer to itself as a progressive party, these are votes that no Democrat should have taken. Click on the links below to find the roll-call votes themselves, along with links to the associated bills in case you'd like to read them for yourself.
1. Vote to Authorize War in Iraq, October 11 2002, 12:50 AM
Republicans: 48 Yes, 1 No
Democrats: 29 Yes, 21 No
Democratic Senators still in the Senate who voted unforgivably: Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Tim Johnson, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer
2. Cloture Vote on Bankruptcy Evisceration Bill, March 8 2005, 2:16 PM
Republicans: 56 Yes, 0 No
Democrats: 13 Yes, 30 No
Democratic Senators still in the Senate who voted unforgivably: Joseph Biden, Robert Byrd, Thomas Carper, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Debbie Stabenow
3. Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, September 29 2005, 11:31 AM
Republicans: 55 Yes, 0 No
Democrats: 22 Yes, 22 No
Democratic Senators still in the Senate who voted unforgivably: Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Thomas Carper, Kent Conrad, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Russell Feingold, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Patty Murray, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Ken Salazar, Ron Wyden
4. Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, January 31 2006, 11:01 AM
Republicans: 54 Yes, 1 No
Democrats: 4 Yes, 41 No
Democratic Senators still in the Senate who voted unforgivably: Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, Ben Nelson
5. Military Commissions Act, September 28 2006, 6:37 PM
Republicans: 54 Yes, 1 No
Democrats: 11 Yes, 32 No
Democratic Senators still in the Senate who voted unforgivably: Thomas Carper, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Joseph Lieberman, Robert Menendez, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Jay Rockefeller, Ken Salazar, Debbie Stabenow
6. Protect America Act, August 3 2007, 9:37 PM
Republicans: 44 Yes, 0 No
Democrats: 16 Yes, 28 No
Democratic Senators who voted unforgivably: Evan Bayh, Thomas Carper, Robert Casey, Kent Conrad, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Inouye, Amy Klobuchar, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Jim Webb
7. Confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, November 8 2007, 11:04 PM
Republicans: 46 Yes, 0 No
Democrats: 7 Yes, 40 No
Democratic Senators who voted unforgivably: Evan Bayh, Thomas Carper, Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Charles Schumer
Even the best political figure can do something unforgivable once in a while, and while we won't forgive the act let's, shall we say, forget for the moment those who have engaged in an unforgivable vote. But we remind those Senators Jeff Bingaman, Maria Cantwell, Robert Casey, Hillary Clinton, Russell Feingold, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Amy Klobuchar, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Robert Menendez, Patty Murray, Harry Reid, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Mikulski, Ron Wyden and Jim Webb that we're watching. More disturbing are those Senators with a pattern of inexcusable, unforgivable voting. They are, in ascending order of number and descending order of respectability, as follows:
Two Unforgivable Votes:
Max Baucus, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Herb Kohl, Charles Schumer and Debbie Stabenow
Three Unforgivable Votes:
Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd, Dianne Feinstein, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller
Four Unforgivable Votes:
Kent Conrad, Ken Salazar
Five Unforgivable Votes:
Tim Johnson, Bill Nelson
Six Unforgivable Votes:
Thomas Carper, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman
Seven Unforgivable Votes:
Ben Nelson
The embarrassingly numerous Senators with two or three unforgivable votes should apologize openly for their votes every time they try to use the word "progressive." Their conduct should be regularly questioned and challenged. The platform of any primary challengers to them should be examined; if a challenger's platform is preferable, why not support the challenger?
It is a priority for primary challengers to Senators Kent Conrad, Ken Salazar, Tim Johnson, Bill Nelson to be identified, nurtured and supported. We'll be on the lookout for these. Conrad, Salazar, Johnson and Nelson have not just strayed from the progressive path they've abandoned it.
And about Thomas Carper, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, and Ben Nelson, let's be real these individuals might as well switch their party allegiances formally and get it over with. They're Republicans through and through with their authoritarianism, their disdain for liberty and their lack of compassion for the vulnerable. The sooner they go ahead and switch parties, the sooner real progressives can be identified to run against them.
You want to ask why "the Democrats always give in"? Don't just ask "the Democrats." Ask the Democrats with two or three unforgivable votes. They're a big part of the problem, and they need to be whipped back in line or whipped out of office. But the really big problem is a set of eight senators Carper, Conrad, Johnson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson, Nelson and Salazar. Over and over (and over and over and over and over and over) they have taken a path antithetical to progressivism. They've had their chances to see the light. They've failed to do so. They don't deserve a dollar of your support. They deserve robust primary competition. They need to be drummed out of office.
- In Iowa this November, speaking at a Democratic Party fundraising dinner, presidential candidate John Edwards didn't just flatter the powerful
Democrats there. He challenged them to reform the Democratic Party, to take it away from the corporate lobbyists who are attempting to twist the party
into little more than an instrument of its very anti-progressive agenda.
Edwards said, "It is time for us as a party to stand up with some backbone and some strength for what we actually believe in. We do not believe in allowing lobbyists to write the laws of the United States of America and we do not believe that we are above the law."
Edwards pointed out that not too long ago, when the Democratic Party controlled both the White House and the Congress, a progressive agenda was not enacted because the Democrats had become too corrupt, under the control of their corporate sponsors. "Look at what happened in the 1990s when we had a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate but still drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists killed universal health care in the United States of America."
John Edwards remembers that the Democratic Party usually fails to live up to the progressive ideals that it purports to support. He hasn't given up on the Democratic Party yet, but he knows that progressives are losing their trust in the Democrats, and that the Democratic Party cannot survive without serious, principled, progressive reform. (Source: Associated Press, November 11, 2007)
- Think that switching government control over to the Democratic Party will be enough to break the corrupt corporate hold on Washington D.C.? Think
again. The Associated Press reports that efforts to pass legislation that would expand Americans' access to less expensive generic drugs has stalled.
Why? It's the influence of pharmaceutical companies' lobbyists, who are spending more than ever before to buy the allegiance of Representatives and Senators on Capitol Hill. The Democratic Party's new majority control over both houses of Congress doesn't seem to have made a difference. (Source: Associated Press, November 13, 2007)
- Last week, the Chris Dodd for President campaign used the networking site of Gather.com to republish an article critical of Michael Mukasey. The idea,
I guess, is to spread Chris Dodd's words around, to give more people an idea that he's a serious thinker who's sharply critical of the right wing Republican
attack on liberty in America.
That's a nice idea, but when I came upon the article, I had just checked with the Library of Congress, and saw that when Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General of the United States came up for a vote in the Senate, Chris Dodd didn't even bother to show up to cast a vote against Mukasey.
I wanted to know why, so I left a comment at the article, asking for an explanation. Days later, I see that no one has bothered to even try to explain why Dodd didn't show up to vote against Mukasey.
That's a great example of how a political campaign should not use a networking site. If you're going to publish an article, and someone offers a criticism of the ideas in the article, there ought to be someone at the campaign who takes note and provides the candidate's explanation on that criticism.
If the campaign isn't able to do that, then they're not really using the networking capacity of the site. They're just broadcasting, and would do better to stay off the networking site altogether.
As it is, the impression created by Chris Dodd's activity on Gather.com is of someone who makes a pretense of reaching out to voters, but doesn't actually care enough about what voters think to set up mechanisms for his campaign to listen and respond to them.
- In January of 2005, a long overdue independent investigation of the Bush Administration was begun. Unfortunately, it was not begun by the
Department of Justice, or by the United States Congress. No, the independent investigation was begun by a Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington, also known by the acronym CREW.
CREW requested, through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests to 22 federal agencies, all contracts that the Bush Administration has made with public relations firms. These requests were made in response to revelations that the Bush Administration had paid over 240,000 dollars in taxpayer money as a bribe to conservative television, radio, and newspaper personality Armstrong Williams. In return for the taxpayers' money, the Bush Administration required Williams to promote the Republicans' education policies during the presidential election campaigns.
I was glad to see a non-governmental organization of the standing of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics conducting an independent investigation of clearly criminal acts by the Bush White House. However, I was profoundly disappointed that no one else was willing to do the job. No one in the United States Congress, Republican or Democrat, had begun such an investigation, even though such oversight is the job of the Congress.
In 2008, we need to push the Democratic Party to be less protective of the power of its politicians and more active in its defense of the right of the American people to have honest and lawful representation in Washington D.C. It's up to voters to provoke the Democrats into action - by supporting their progressive politicians, and withholding support from Democratic politicians who fail to uphold the progressive value of open government. (Source: Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington
- You may have noticed there's not much written here about Mike Gravel. That is, in part, because the Democratic presidential candidate has not had much
new to say since he began his campaign (only one blog post in two months, for example). But it's also because Gravel left such a sour taste in my mouth with
his comments in the September 2007 presidential debate:
TIM RUSSERT: I want to ask Senator Gravel. You talk about running for president of the United States. In 1980 your condo business went bankrupt.
MIKE GRAVEL: Correct.
RUSSERT: In 2004 you filed for personal bankruptcy
GRAVEL: Correct.
RUSSERT: leaving $85,000 in credit bills unpaid. How can someone who did not take care of his business, could not manage his own personal finances, say that he's capable of managing the country?
GRAVEL: Well, first off, if you want to make a judgment of who can be the greediest people in the world when they get to public office, you could just look up at the people up here. Money many of them done very, very well in public office. I left the Senate no better than when I went in.
Now, you say the condo business. I'll tell you, Donald Trump has been bankrupt a hundred times. So I went bankrupt once in business.
And the other who did I bankrupt? I stuck the credit card companies with $90,000 worth of bills. And they deserved it, because I used the money. They deserved it, and I used the money to finance the empowerment of the American people with the National Initiative, so you can make the laws.
Or as Gravel expressed himself to a reporter for Salon.com:
"I thought about it: My God, isn't this interesting? I'm going to get these six credit card companies who have been predators on normal people. I'm going to get them to contribute to the National Initiative.' And I filed bankruptcy just in a heartbeat, and that was it."
When you add this to the consideration that Mike Gravel won his original Senate bid by misrepresenting his position on the Vietnam war, I don't know how I could trust Mike Gravel in the presidency. He beat his Democratic rival for the Senate back in the 1960s by portraying himself as pro-war; he financed his dubious National Initiative scheme in this decade by reneging on his promise to pay back loans. Who else would he turn around on to "stick it to em"? What else would he say that didn't mean? Would he bankrupt the country to pursue an idea that wasn't popular enough to be funded on the merits?
I know that Mike Gravel mouths some words that make people against war feel better, like the promise that he could magically get all the troops home from Iraq by this Christmas. I know that he mouths these words loudly and with apparent feeling. But I don't know who Mike really is. Breaking promises is not idealistic. Deception is not progressive. Mike Gravel is not my candidate. (Sources: September 25 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Salon.com May 7 2007; NPR News September 30 2007)
- In November 2007, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed and forwarded on to the broader California Democratic Party the following resolution of censure against Senator Dianne Feinstein:
Whereas Senator Dianne Feinstein voted to support the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as United States Attorney General, thereby elevating to the highest position in law enforcement a man who refused to renounce the right of the President to resort to torture and who refused to recognize waterboarding as a form of torture, and by this action Senator Feinstein failed to oppose President Bush and failed to stand for the ideals of the Democratic Party, which abhors torture and stands firmly against its use by the United States at all times and places; and
Whereas Senator Feinstein voted to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit despite his clear record of racism and gender discrimination, thus failing to stand firmly with the Democratic Party, which supports gender equality and opposes racism in any of its manifestations; and
Whereas these examples are far from the only instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has failed to support the policies and principles of our party;
Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party expresses its disappointment at, and censure of, Senator Feinstein for ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials.Actually, it's not fair to describe this censure resolution as simply passed by the Progressive Caucus. It has also been endorsed by the Courage Campaign, MoveOn.org Political Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Women's Caucus of the California Democratic Party, Irish-American Caucus of the California Democratic Party, Steering Committee of the East Bay for Democracy Democratic Club, Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, the Coordinating Committee of SoCal Grassroots, San Diego Democracy for America, the Steering Committee of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, Sacramento for Democracy, DFA-Orange County, Santa Cruz County for Democracy, Trinity County Democratic Central Committee, Diablo Valley Democratic Club, Ventura County Committee to Stop the War, Progressive Democrats Sonoma County, the Inyo County Democratic Central Committee, the Torrance Democratic Club, San Mateo County Democracy for America, Castro Valley Progressives, the Whittier Area Peace & Justice Coalition, Santa Barbara Impeach Cheney & Bush Meetup Group, Democracy for America - Marin (DFA-Marin), Valley Democrats United, the Executive Board of the West LA Democratic Club, Progressive Democrats - San Francisco, Greenwood Earth Alliance, Hammering the Issues, Westchester Democratic Club Executive Board, Young Democrats of UCI, the North (San Fernando) Valley Democratic Club, Lassen Progressives, Castro Valley Democratic Club Executive Board, Progressive Democrats of Marin, Progressive Democrats of America - Metro San Diego Chapter, Sonoma County Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats of America Orange County, and Progressive Democrats of America Ventura County.
There's a grassroots groundswell of indignation against Dianne Feinstein for using her position to empower the abusive authoritarianism of the Bush administration. But when grassroots groundswells come up against entrenched party bulwarks, you don't just get mixed metaphors: you get blocked action. The California Democratic Party Resolutions Committee, to which the censure resolution was forwarded, killed the resolution without even voting on it. Committee members Robert Mulholland and John Hanna simply refused to allow the resolution to be considered. As soon as party bosses Mulholland and Hannna blocked the resolution, they moved on to the task of killing a resolution that condemned the use of torture. What we witnessed in California was the sincere indignation of progressive California Democratic Party rank and file members negated by the Democratic Party bosses. They were the ones in charge. They called the shots. They wouldn't let any resolution come through that would rock their secure little boat or threaten their pet politician. But you can bet your bippy that they'll be asking those same California progressives they've ignored to get in line and march, march, march for Party Victory in 2008. If you want to be captured like this, if you want to be pulled into volunteer committee work and petition drives and precinct meetings, if you want to be worked to the bone to build up the Democratic Party, and if you then want to be ignored when your protests don't match the plans of party leaders, then by all means join the Democratic Party and do your bit.Otherwise, ditch the party. Support and volunteer for individual candidates you believe in. But ditch the party. Reform them by leaving them, and making your support for Democrats extremely selective - and don't feel a stitch of guilt about doing so. After all, the party already ditched you.
- In the Democratic Party presidential candidates' debate of November 15 2007, Hillary Clinton explained why she "agreed completely" that national security was more important than human rights: "I mean, the first obligation of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America."
Dennis Kucinich has issued a retort to Hillary Clinton's claim: "It's important the people remember the job of their President is to protect and defend our Constitution. No one is above the law of the land and the rule of law must be applied equally."
Dennis Kucinich is making the progressive case. And if you look at the Constitution itself, which describes the duties and oaths of the presidency, you'll see he's right.
Oh, but Kucinich has funny ears. Are you going to vote for the candidate who is right on the the balance of national security and the human rights enshrined in the Constitution? Or are you going to vote for the candidate who doesn't have funny ears? (Source: Seacoast Online November 21 2007)
- A few days ago, I got an email from James Carville, the political consultant who brought the Democrats worthless right wing members of Congress like Senator Zell Miller.
Carville said "I'm not going to sugarcoat it." He admitted that the Democratic Congress America elected in 2006 has been a failure.
But then, Carville said, it isn't the fault of the Democrats in Congress that they're failure. He said that what we need to do to get the Democrats who currently control Congress to actually do what they were elected to do, instead of giving in to the Republicans like they have been, is just to elect more Democrats.
Really? When the Democrats in Congress betray their promises, and bend over backwards to help the Republicans, we're supposed to elect more Democrats?!?
Carville says that the Democrats just don't have enough power. Give them more power, and this time, they'll really do something... like they've been promising to do for years.
Of course, Democrats in Congress voted to help Bush start the Iraq War. Democrats in Congress voted for the Patriot Act without even bothering to read it. Democrats in Congress renewed the Patriot Act with even more abuses than the original. Democrats in Congress approved the electronic spying program of the Bush White House under the Protect America Act. Democrats in Congress voted for the Military Commissions Act. Democrats in Congress confirmed Alberto Gonzales. Democrats in Congress confirmed John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Democrats in Congress confirmed Michael Mukasey.
After all these betrayals, we're supposed to give more support to the Democrats in Congress? Yes, that's what James Carville says to do. He says we should write the Democrats a big check, so that they can pay his political consulting fees.
You want me to write a check, Mr. Carville? First, you tell me where my habeas corpus is. You tell me what your Democrats have put my Bill of Rights. Show me the backbones. Where have the Democrats been keeping their spines?
Oh, sure, Mr. Carville. You're not going to sugarcoat the truth. It's too late for that. You've already coated it in bullshit.
- It's not fair to blame just the Republicans for opposition to the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, which will raise average fuel efficiency by ten miles per gallon. There were some Democrats who went along with the Republicans in trying to block the legislation from passing the House of Representatives.
The following Democrats are those who agreed with the Republican Party, and voted to defend waste and filth on America's highways:
- John Barrow of Georgia
- Dan Boren of Oklahoma
- Allen Boyd of Florida
- Gene Green of Texas
- Nick Lampson of Texas
- Jim Marshall of Georgia
- Charlie Melancon of Louisiana
These seven pro-pollution Democrats remind us that it's time for America's voters to get smart in the way that they vote. It's not enough just to choose the Democrats over the Republicans. We need to make sure that the Democrats that we elect are not beholden to wasteful, dirty corporations in the way that we've come to expect Republicans to be. A change in party name won't guarantee good government. Dedicated citizens who pay attention to the details will. (Source: Library of Congress)
- Three more reasons we need to reform the Democratic Party, wrapped up all in one: - Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana
- Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia
- Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
These three Senators joined the Republicans to block the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act from coming to the floor of the Senate for a vote. 53 senators voted in favor of a full vote on the legislation, but that wasn't enough to block the Republican block on the bill. Senators Bayh, Byrd and Landrieu helped to sustain that block.
The Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act was an extremely important piece of economic and environmental legislation that would have saved consumers tens of billions of dollars every year and helped clean the air and combat global warming by requiring an average of 35 miles per gallon for automobiles driven on American roads. It would have been the first time since the 1970s that fuel efficiency standards had been updated. The legislation would also have strengthened markets in clean, alternative electrical energy by requiring 15 percent of American power to come from renewable sources.
Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd and Mary Landrieu helped to kill the bill. That's not what Democrats elect their politicians to do. So, now it's up to Democratic voters in Indiana, West Virginia and Louisiana to remember this betrayal, and vote accordingly when their senators are next up for re-election.
Whether we are represented by the particular senators or not, we all can take a lesson on this failure of Democratic politicians to act as Democratic politicians ought to - and scrutinize the Democratic politicians running for President in 2008 with a critical eye, ready to honestly evaluate whether their records are truly progressive on economic and environmental issues. (Source: Library of Congress)
- The Democratic Party is great about sending fundraising letters that scare freedom-loving people into sending it money. One of the favorite topics of Democratic Party fundraising lately is waterboarding; the Democratic Party posts messages portraying Rudolph Giuliani as especially scary because of his prevarications about waterboarding.
But the Washington Post reveals that back in 2002, at least 4 Democratic Party congressional leaders — Senator Bob Graham, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Representative Jane Harman — were officially briefed by intelligence officials about the government's waterboarding program, even given a "virtual tour" of the chamber in which the torture was administered.
Not one of these four Democrats made an objection to the practice.
When the Democratic Party receives your money, your money goes to politicians who condone torture. When the Democratic Party receives your party-line vote, you may be supporting politicians who condone torture.
Don't just give money to the Democrats. Don't just vote Democratic. Take the time to be sure that your money and your votes go to progressives who can be relied upon to speak up and act against torture when it counts. (Source: Washington Post December 8, 2007)
- This December, Congressman Dennis Kucinich made a serious blunder in his effort to gain support for his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination from political progressives. He voted in favor of the Religious Pandering Act of 2007. He is the only presidential candidate to do so.
No, that's not the official name of the legislation, but it might as well be. Check out some of the language in the resolution:
"Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible…"
"Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity…"
"acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States…"What business does the Congress have of passing legislation with this sort of blatant attempt to establish a special status for Christianity? The clear legal answer: None at all.
The very first words in the very first line in the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America read:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
H. Res. 847 is legislation that establishes Christianity as a religion with special status recognized by the federal government. It is clearly unconstitutional.
It's also historically inaccurate. The resolution expresses support for the idea that the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. That's not just false. It's a politically dangerous assertion. These claims are being made by the Religious Right in order to promote laws giving a privileged legal status to Christians above all other Americans. By voting for the resolution, Congressman Kucinich gave aid to their effort to transform the USA from a democracy into a theocracy.
Congress must not hinder Christianity or Christmas, but it must not give any special preference to Christianity or Christmas either. If Americans want to be Christians, that's their private business, not the business of the government's. If Americans want to celebrate Christmas, that's their right, but the government should not be acting in order to promote the Christian holiday.
At a time when the Democrats in Congress have failed to stop the Bush wars, have failed to hold Bush accountable for his grave crimes against the Constitution and American law, have failed to do anything significant to address the crisis of climate change, and have not even succeeded in completing a federal budget for 2008, the Religious Pandering Act of 2007 is a dangerous waste of time.
Apparently, members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich think that they can cover up for their many failures this year by hiding behind Christianity and Christmas. Shame on them for trying such a blatant attempt at distraction. Shame on us if we fall for it. (Source: Library of Congress)
- Besides being a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Kucinich is a member of the United States House of Representatives. As a matter of fact, Kucinich is running for President on the basis of his supposedly progressive record in Congress.
This afternoon, I discovered one important piece of progressive congressional legislation that Dennis Kucinich has not supported: The Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2007. The Endangered Species Recovery Act would provide strong incentives to private landowners to protect and enhance habitat for endangered species on their property.
Republican congressmen and presidential candidates Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo have not co-sponsored the legislation. That's expected, though. As Republicans, they support the right of Americans to trash the earth at whim.
Why hasn't Dennis Kucinich co-sponsored the legislation? Ninety-five other members of the House of Representatives have done so, and none of them are running for President. If they can co-sponsor the bill, why can't Dennis Kucinich? Is he just too busy promoting himself through his campaign for President to attend to the business of his job in Congress? (Sources: Library of Congress, National Audubon Society)
- "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." — Hillary Clinton, December 4, 2007
"No, it doesn't." — Me, December 14, 2007
Entitled elitism can spring from any camp. Look out for it and avoid it — it's a sign of aristocratic thinking. There are a lot of good people in the world, and you don't have to have the right name to do the right thing. (Source: New York Times December 4, 2007)
- The CIA and the Justice Department are investigating themselves to see if their conduct was problematic or not regarding the destruction of tapes that show your government is torturing the people it detains indefinitely without charge. Can we just short-circuit the two-month period of hemming and hawing and just issue the findings already? I mean, come on, we all know what the investigation is going to "find:" 1. While clearly there was a breakdown in communication, and
2. Some sacrificial underlings need to be disciplined,
3. It does not appear that any intentional misconduct appeared. Instead,
4. It was a big misunderstanding.
5. Golly gee, the CIA will sure be more careful about its videotape policy in the future.
6. And the naughty Justice Department will file its papers in better order.
7. Also, what the heck, if the Congress wants to pass a bill making torture illegal in the future, even though it's illegal already, boy, the CIA and Justice Department will be sure to follow that law better than the other laws that already exist,
8. Except when [redacted] circumstances [redacted] polecats [redacted] fingernails [redacted] [redacted].
I bet my left nipple that's what this "report" is going to say, because it's what every report of every government agency that ever investigates itself always says.
So let's just say fudge to the intermediary kabuki and move on to an independent investigator, and then an impeachment for high crimes against the Constitution and federal law, and then mass resignations, and a series of legal reforms to ensure that this sort of abuse of power never happens again, and then…
… oh, right. Today's Democratic Party is in charge of Congress. So let's just move on to the point where the Democrats say that they'll let the administration get by with this one because they're saving their ammunition for the next fight, when they'll really sock it to ‘em and stand up for what's right and all that jazz, if you send in your contribution today.
Things could be different, but they won't be as long as the current bunch is in charge. Yes, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, I'm talking about you, too. (Source: ABC News December 8, 2007)
- Representative Robert Wexler has been using outrage surrounding the impeachment issue to funnel traffic to his re-election website, where citizens are told they can sign up for news and contribute to the impeachment cause. But the small print shows that contributions go to the re-elect Wexler campaign, and those who sign up are giving their names to a campaign contribution solicitation listserv. Rep. Wexler is using issues to support his re-election campaign.
Senator Christopher Dodd must know he won't win his bid to be nominated for President. But he's using his presidential platform to articulate a defense of the Constitution, and he has repeatedly used his presidential campaign website to organize citizen phone calls to their members of Congress regarding bills that are relevant to the survival of constitutional government.
Shame on Robert Wexler for exploiting outrage for campaign purposes. Congratulations to Chris Dodd for using his candidate's platform to organize Americans around issues that clearly matter to him. If you want an America dedicated to important issues rather than focused on the endless campaign, do what you can to support candidates like Chris Dodd. (Sources: ChrisDodd.com, WexlerWantsHearings.com)
- In his address to the Senate on December 17, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd had this to say about proposed legislation to immunize from judicial review any specified or unspecified program to engage in surveillance against the American people using telecommunications data mining:
If we are to do our Constitutionally-mandated job, we need more than token oversight; we need full hearings on the terrorist surveillance program before the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
Without that, we remain in the dark—and in the dark we're expected to grant the president's wish, because he knows best.
Does that sound familiar to any of my colleagues?
In 2002, we took the president's word and voted to go to war on faulty intelligence. What if we took his word again—and found, next year or the year after, that we had blindly legalized grave crimes?
If this disastrous war has taught us anything, it is that the Senate must never again stack such a momentous decision on such a weak foundation of fact. The decision we're asked to make today is not, of course, as immense. But between fact and decision, the disproportion is just as huge.In 2002, Senator Dodd made a big mistake: he trusted George W. Bush's assertion that there was slam-dunk evidence of large numbers of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Assuming that George W. Bush knew best given the classified data available to him, Chris Dodd voted to give George W. Bush authorization to go to war against Iraq. That was a mistake. A big mistake. A huge mistake. A tremendous mistake.
But now this is 2007, and Senator Dodd has been asked again to give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt when Bush tells him and other members of Congress that the President absolutely must have the power to spy on Americans without a warrant in order to stave off a terrorist attack … but won't share the proof that such powers are necessary, and won't even tell the Congress what sort of spying on American has been done. He has the proof, and he has the need, Bush says, and he could show you the proof and the need if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to, because of the terrorist threat that's so huge it demands unprecedented power but so classified the Congress can't see evidence of.
It's a circular argument with no basis in reality provided. It's ridiculous on its face. But the majority in the Congress, I'm sad to say, is falling for George W. Bush's ruse all over again. They are unwilling to learn from their past mistakes. It is the hallmark of a progressive politician that she or he is willing to reconsider past positions, is willing to engage in re-examination of evidence, of logic and of principles. Every person makes mistakes. A progressive should engage in an examination of past mistakes for flaws in thinking and flaws in evidence. That's part of what makes a progressive part of the "Reality-Based Community" that the Bush administration once so mockingly derided.
When you examine the past and the present of the presidential candidates, it would be ideal to find a candidate who has always been right on every issue. But although some candidates may protest otherwise, you'll never find such a candidate no matter how hard you keep looking. What's more important to look for is the pattern in how a candidate has gone about making decisions in the past. Has she or he followed the herd or questioned authority? Has she or he relied on sound bites or sound thinking? When a candidate has shifted position, why? Is your candidate capable of learning and growing while maintaining adherence to the principles that work best and matter most? These aren't easy standards for a candidate to satisfy. But then again, leading the most powerful nation on the globe is not an easy job. (Source: Speech of Chris Dodd before the Senate on December 17, 2007)
- A months after John Kerry had been defeated by George W. Bush, I asked myself: Whatever happened to the ideals of the Democratic Party? Then, I slapped my forehead. What a stupid question. It's become quite clear that the Democratic Party, as an organization, is motivated by the preservation of power, not by any ideals. Witness the moaning of Democratic politicians after the 2004 election about how Democrats should change their ideals in order to make sure that they will win elections next time. This attitude only makes sense if the purpose of the Democratic Party is to win at all costs. For those of us Democrats who are in politics because we want to promote our ideals, a victory accomplished through compromise of our principles is no victory at all.
I was registered Democrat, and for the few years before then, I had been fighting like hell to save the soul of my party from power-hungry, weak-spined collaborationists like the U.S. senators who did nothing as Chris Dodd fought the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. In fact, all of us who write for Irregular Times write because of the ideals that we believe in, not because we're devoted to seeing the Democrats win power at any cost. That means that when the Democratic Party splits from the progressive values that we support, we will split from the Democratic Party, and blast it just as much as we blast the Republicans.
The Democratic National Committee's new chair, Howard Dean, has been told that his main job is to raise money for the Democratic Party, but this idea is symptomatic of the short-sightedness of conservative Democrats. The plain fact is that the Democratic Party will not be able to raise adequate funds unless it can convince people that the Democratic Party still stands for something. It isn't enough anymore just to frighten us with the terrible nationalist agenda of the Republican Party, because the plain fact is that a shameful number of Democrats in Congress are collaborating with the Republicans to promote that agenda. We are working for a cause, and the Democratic Party is clearly only working for the sake of self-preservation.
If Dr. Dean cannot re-unite the Democrats in Congress behind the cause of traditional progressive values, it won't matter how many wealthy Democratic insiders he has lunch with. Those Americans who are interested in politics for the sake of power have already fled like rats to the Republican Party. So, the only fuel that the Democratic leadership really has to work with is the burning moral outrage of the 48% of America that opposes Republican nationalism. Fail to harness that energy, and the Democratic Party will fall apart - and if that happens, I'll be the first to say good riddance.
- This morning, I came across a pathetic and frightening blog entry. It seems that another liberal blog is shutting itself down out of fear of reprisals from angry Republicans. The blogger writes, "It's time I started job-hunting, and the last thing I need is to try to find a job in ultra-conservative Lubbock, Texas, when there's a big ol' weblog saying I'm a raging liberal. And no, leaving Lubbock is an option I would not prefer — I've got family here, and it would fill me with sorrows undreamed-of if I have to leave them. So I'm shutting it down to make sure I can find another job."
I'm not going to mention the name of this blogger, or link in to his web site, because he, apparently, wants to remain anonymous. However, I wouldn't refer to this omission as "out of respect" for the blogger, because, frankly, I don't have respect for him.
I know very well that there is a great deal of economic pressure upon Americans to conform to the Republican nationalist agenda these days. Until recently, I lived in a small Upstate New York community, in a Republican-dominated part of the state. While there, I had conversations with at least a dozen people who were quite liberal in person, but registered as Republicans and spoke as Republicans in public. These people explained to me that it just wasn't possible to get a job with the county unless they registered with the Republican Party first. The same was true for the big private employers around town. When the election season arrived, locals refused to come to any meetings for Democratic candidates unless the meetings were held in private homes. They worried that if word got out that they attended a meeting of Democrats, they'd be fired.
I understand why the liberal blogger from Lubbock has decided to shut his web site down. Not just in Lubbock or Upstate New York, but all across America, Republican elites are using their economic power to suppress dissent. I understand what the liberal from Lubbock is doing, but I don't respect it.
Fear only works as a source of power in American politics when people allow it to work. The plain fact is that if Republican business owners fired all their liberal workers, those Republican businesses would quickly cease to function. So, it's not necessary for liberals to be afraid of the economic power of the Republican elites - so long as we stand together for what we believe in.
Unfortunately, many American liberals are not standing up for what they believe in. Many liberals have been shocked into stupid submission by Republican displays of power. These liberals may make life easier for themselves in the short term, but in the long run, they're setting themselves up for lives of repeated submissions. Every liberal who puts on a Republican mask for the sake of getting a job or keeping a job makes it more difficult for other liberals to defy the Republican pressure to submit. So, the next time these weak-spirited liberals apply for a job, they'll be forced to go through the charade all over again.
The only way that we will free ourselves from this sickening cycle of submission and suppression is to refuse to surrender our public voices. Speak out against the Republican dominance of America, and Republicans will be forced to contend with liberal ideas.
Self-censorship is a symptom of a corrupt society in which obedience is valued more highly than honesty. Such a society cannot thrive, for without honesty and open discussion of ideas, innovation withers. Without innovation, the economy cannot grow, and it will be a struggle to find work no matter how much we simper and tell the Republicans what they want to hear.
- In November 2007, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed and forwarded on to the broader California Democratic Party the following resolution of censure against Senator Dianne Feinstein: