PurplePolitics

2008-11-04T11:22:00.000-08:00

The Youth Vote

The conventional wisdom this election cycle is that first time voters will make all the difference in who the next president will be. College campuses have become central battlegrounds for voter registration drives and the youth of America see a kindred spirit in the Obama campaign that is not reflected on the McCain side of the equation.

Florida's senior citizen population, firmly in the McCain camp have wavered as the Palin factor has raised eyebrows and the decimation of retirement income has raided pocketbooks. McCain loses when the economy is at the forefront of the national discussion and his inability to excite on college campuses dooms him even more.

The young people are the new electorate and this election has placed them front and center in the idealogical battle for political supremacy. And while the new voting age demographic flexes their political muscles today (November 4th, 2008) an even newer demographic is struggling to make their voices heard. The youth of tomorrow. The 16-year olds who desperately want to be included in their country's future but are marginalized by arbitrary voting-age laws. All across the country there is a movement afoot to amend voting-age laws and allow more of our young people to have a say in their future.

A good discussion of this can be seen here: http://www.wandsandworlds.com/blog1/2008/11/those-who-cant-vote.html

It's not just the 18+ individuals that should be moving our country in a new direction. Stand up and be counted if you are legally able to do so and cast your vote for your future. If you are too young to vote, join the drive to lower the voting age and get involved in determining the path for America.

2008-10-31T11:48:00.000-07:00

The trap has been set.

In 2000, Republicans captured the reins of government and stepped into the “power trap.” Believing that conservatism had triumphed and was here to stay as the dominating political force, they set out to recreate the world to their liking with a go-it-alone, take-no-prisoners approach. They marginalized anyone who disagreed with their policies and rammed their agenda down the throats of the country.

They shredded the Constitution which they claim to be their inviolate bible by turning a blind eye to activities like torture, unlawful imprisonment, and illegal wiretapping, all in the name of security but Ben Franklin summed it up best when he said, “Those who sacrifice liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Invoking war powers to justify any and all actions they plunged the country into costly and violent military engagements that have alienated the U.S. to the rest of the world and lowered our standing in the eyes of our allies. The benefits of these actions are still unknown but forcing democracy on people who don’t seem to particularly want it does not seem like a winning strategy to me.

President Bush has placed himself outside of the law by appending signing statements to a plethora of bills passed by Congress, reinterpreting or outright ignoring the document he just signed and making a mockery of the entire process. Injecting partisanship into every aspect of his administration the so-called “uniter-in-Chief” drove a Grand Canyon-sized wedge between those who agreed with him and those who didn’t.

No president should ever wear rose-colored sunglasses but they appear to be standard issue for the current occupant of the Oval Office. Free speech was actively disdained and protesters were arrested, illegally detained and hidden from view in order to maintain the illusion of an agreeable public.

Raising hypocrisy to new heights the Republicans crowed about sanctity of life for the unborn while gleefully signing death warrants for those on death row. I guess you can put a price on a life. If it’s discovered that an innocent man was executed it’s lamented as the price of justice. Instead of working to raise the moral discourse on abortion or providing adoption incentives thereby lowering abortion rates, conservatives continue their slash and burn policy of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, inviting the return of coathangers and back alley abortions and praising that possible future.

Trillions of dollars have vanished in a sea of appropriately colored ‘red’ ink with no obvious benefits to the American public. Our education is in a shambles, our health care system is crumbling and our retirement system is relying on prayer to see us through. The free market has imploded through corporate greed spurred on by “trickle-down” economics that never quite met the promise of helping the middle and lower class. The conservatism of the last 8 years has bankrupted our country for ourselves and our posterity.

Should the Democrats prevail on November 4th, the trap will be set for them. I have the audacity to hope that they will not spring the trap and that the country will be on a better road than we are on right now.

2008-10-21T09:09:00.000-07:00

I can't say it better than this

I found this comment on an article discussing a Republican's comments that some of her fellow legislators are "un-American".

http://minnesotaindependent.com/14022/bachmann-controversy-upends-views-of-her-re-election-prospects

I have cut and pasted the comment in it's entirety as a neat summation of what the last 8 years have wrought and what further Republican control would mean. In addition to the comments below I would add that the abortion issue hangs in the balance as well. While I personally lean towards the pro-life thinking, the remedy separates me from the conservative position. Overturning Roe v. Wade means back alley abortions, intentional poisonings to induce miscarriage, and trips to Canada to end pregnancies. I believe that making abortion the least favorable/desirable option while still allowing it as a medical procedure is the way to go. All of our efforts should be directed toward lowering the number of abortions in this country by elevating the issues of morality, increasing education on the issue, providing incentives and protections for adoptions as well as abolishing the death penalty. The hipocracy of sanctity of life advocates who rail against abortion but stand idly by while people are legally put to death for crimes they may OR MAY NOT have committed continues to astound me. If all lives are equally important then both ends of the spectrum must be supported.

Full credit for everything following goes to "Frank". Whoever, you are, you're singing from the right hymnbook.

Frank USComment posted October 21, 2008 @ 11:04 am

Do John McCain, Sarah Palin or conservative republicans respect the moral foundations of our country? The U.S. Constitution is abused by conservative republicans at every turn.
U.S. Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of ReligionBecause of conservative republicans, your tax dollars are funding religious groups you may not agree with. To add insult to injury, conservative appointed judges have ruled that you do not have a right to challenge this expenditure.
Amendment IV - Search and seizureUnder the guise of court action against abortion, Conservative republicans had John Ashcroft subpoena all the medical records of literally thousands of women like you and members of your family. Conservative republicans invade your privacy every day by browsing your email and phone records. Unfortunately for all of us, they don’t appear to care about our U.S. constitution, and they certainly don’t care about your privacy.
Amendment X - Powers of the States and PeopleJohn McCain and conservative republicans have tried consistently to overturn States Laws. They used your hard earned tax dollars to destroy the will of the people of Oregon, and the famous “Death with Dignity” law; they lost, but undoubtedly will try again. Conservative republicans and John McCain do not respect States Rights. If your state votes for something conservatives don’t agree with they will use federal powers to overturn it regardless of how you and your fellow voters feel.
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishmentWould you rather die, or support a government which supported and sanctioned torture? The founding fathers would rather have died. The founding fathers were proud to fight and die for our government: A government which specifically outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. Conservatives don’t agree with this philosophy. Conservatives are at odds with our founding fathers on this score, and too many others to count.
John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the conservative republicans have already gone too far in destroying the moral foundations of our country. I urge you to keep this in mind in the coming election as we rebuild our nation together by voting for Obama, who stated that in his first 100 days he would eliminate all of Bush’s unconstitutional signing orders as a start.

2008-05-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

WMD's again!

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was recently quoted about the reasons for going to war in Iraq as saying, "concern about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the fundamental reason." This is in response to former Press Secretary Scott McClellan's claims in a new book that the runup to the war involved administration deception to the American public.

Her quote may actually be true although I believe that the WMD's made a convenient lynchpin for a war the administration WANTED to fight. The real issue for me is that the administration settled on WMD's as the cause celebre and then ignored any facts that didn't support their contentions. In addition they willfully manipulated the intelligence they had to make their point making war inevitable as opposed to possible.

That is the real crime. January 20th, 2009 can't come soon enough.

2008-05-06T10:49:00.000-07:00

America needs to move forward

Hillary Clinton recently was quoted as saying, “We need to get on track in America...to go forward you put the car in D and to go in reverse you put it in R,” drawing an obvious Democrat-Republican analogy.

I love that quote. As a matter of fact I would make it my sig at work if it wouldn't raise a ruckus which unfortunately, it probably would. It needs to be a bumper sticker.

After all the votes are counted and the nominees are settled we all have to make the decision about which way this country should go.

Even though I am trying very hard to give Senator McCain a fair evaluation, his words are beginning to sour in my mouth. Tax cuts are suddenly good again even during fiscal downturns, roe v. wade should be overturned, the supreme court needs more conservative judges, the iraq war needed to be fought, and on and on. As McCain courts the Republican base he has abandoned his principles to garner favor and electability. He represents the road to nowhere for America today. A continuation of 8 years of failed Bush policies and constitutional abuses is the last thing that the country needs but it is exactly what McCain is offering. If you liked the last 8 years, he's your man.

We have to try something else. Put the car in "D".

2008-04-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

My brother, my pastor

I don't know about you but there are plenty of times I have listened to a sermon at my church and disagreed with the priest. Heck, I disagree with the Pope on any number of issues but these disagreements don't prompt me to leave my church or my faith.

It would be a rare find indeed to locate a parishioner who agrees with everything that they have ever heard spoken during a sermon by a presider. The world is full of opinions and interpretations of the bible and world events and priests are no different.

Pick any bible passage and ask a bunch of priests to interpret and a I can guarantee that there will be vast differences. Some priests look at the passage in the context of the time in which it was written while some attempt to bring the passage forward to modern times and shoehorn it's message into current events. Neither is wrong or right. Just an opinion from a person of faith who has thought long and hard about what it all means in the context of the spiritual journey we are all on (agnostics and atheists included).

Reverend Wright is certainly on the radical side of the fence right now and Senator Obama is right to repudiate those ideas that don't aid in his own faith and go against his personal beliefs.

But I take issue with the thought that the words of Reverend Wright can be assumed to be the words of Senator Obama or that the ideas and thoughts that accompany those words are an integral part of the Obama creed.

Hillary Clinton claims she would leave a church that preached the sermons of Rev. Wright. That is her choice. But if disagreeing with a sermon means you have to find a new church you'll be switching churches every month.

I listen to a sermon and I reflect on what I hear. I discard those things that I disagree with and I hold onto the words that help me and strengthen my faith. That is what I expect from my priest. No more, and no less.

2008-04-23T09:16:00.000-07:00

There can be only one!

Satistics are flying fast and furious as the Pennsylvania voting is tallied and Hillary crows about her 10% win over Barack. The statistic that matters most is completely unknown at this point and no amount of polling in my opinion can discern what the voting public will do when there is a single nominee on the Democratic side to go up against John McCain.

Sure you can ask the question but the answers are all viewed through the prism of two candidates competing for the prize. If you're a Hillary fan you're already predisposed not be enamored with Barack and vice versa. Would a Clinton supporter cast a vote for Obama if he is the nominee? My bet would be yes, in most cases.

It's going to come down to "more of the same" or "something different". McCain's positions continue to evolve and change to reflect the current administration thinking as he tries to pander to the Republican base so as much as McCain hopes to avoid the "Bush" stigma, I think he's going to have to wear that stink around his neck during the runup to November. If you liked the last 8 years and you think that the country is on the right path, check the (R) box. If not it's going to be a (D).

Put me in the "something different" column.

2008-04-11T11:05:00.000-07:00

Safe at any cost! Safe at $5000 a second?

The current statistic for the Iraq war cost is that American taxpayers are paying $5,000 dollars a second to fight this war. President Bush argues that the cost is well worth the security that it affords the United States. I can't see it. If we spent $5000 a second here at home to increase security we could secure all the shipping ports, inspect all the shipping containers, put the best screening technology that money can buy in every single airport in the country, put antimissile technology on all the airliners, build the best darn wall money can buy across the southern border and the list goes on and on.

I don't see where I am safer with a Hussein-less Iraq. If we drive Al-queda out of Iraq won't they just setup base somewhere else? Why isn't oil revenue from Iraq financing this fight at this point? Why are we using our money to rebuild? We claim (the administration claims) that the sorry state of Iraqi infrastructure is the result of 35 years of baathist/dictatorial rule. Isn't the U.S. at least partially responsible for the deplorable conditions in Iraq?

The Vice President says that it doesn't matter what the people desire of their government and I for one am appalled at that cavalier attitude toward American democracy. The Presidential spokesperson says that the people had their say in the 2000 and 2004 elections and after that we leave it in the hands of the elected officials. I didn't realize that our system was supposed to work that way.

I don't feel safer. I think the financial cost (not to mention the human cost) incurred by our Iraq occupation far exceeds the illusion of safety that this administration tries to tout. We should look after ourselves and use that money domestically. January 20th, 2009 cannot come soon enough for me. Anybody in the oval office has to be better than the current occupant.

2008-04-11T07:39:00.000-07:00

Is compromise really that hard?

Another chance to demonstrate either my political naivete or my ability to see the obvious when all around me are blind. It's probably the former but let's pretend it could be the latter.

The President wants a trade agreement with Columbia. He doesn't bother to work with Congress on an acceptable agreement (which is his right) but instead works it out and sends it to Congress for consideration. The Democratic Congress balks at tying the hands of the next President (which they assume will be a democrat) and delays consideration. The President pulls out his "you're not a patriot card" and accuses the naysayers of endangering the deal, all future trade deals, damaging our economy (as if the economy needed any more help in it's freefall), damaging our national security as well as damaging our relationship with Columbia. Basically the standard kitchen sink approach that this Administration uses to pooh-pooh anyone that opposes their heavy-handed approach to an issue.

Is this really that hard? Can't the trade agreement run through January 20th 2009 with clauses to allow renegotiation or dissolution by the incoming administration? What am I missing here?

It seems to me that the aim of this administration is to ratchet up the us vs them mentality and brand the naysayers as traitors as well as questioning their intelligence. This is one of it's biggest faults (among many). This administration believes that their way is the only way and should be followed unquestioningly. Differences of opinion and alternate scenarios are highly discouraged in the oval office. The President wakes up every day and put on his rose-colored sunglasses (much like the citizenry of the Emerald City of OZ who view their world through green prisms) so that his optimism and certainty about the country's direction will remain intact regardless of all evidence to the contrary. The cadre that surround this President ensure that all appearances are populated by those that agree with the administration so that Mr. Bush won't be subjected to any negativity that could mar his rosy outlook.

This administration does not believe in compromise. It's all or nothing. The damage to our country is self-inflicted and starts in the oval office. Until an administration is in place that will restore the word compromise to the political lexicon we are doomed to spin our wheels in all the things that Washington tries to accomplish. Without the word compromise, it really is that hard.

2008-04-07T19:10:00.000-07:00

Iraq: Wasteland or Oasis?

Over 5 years of war and 500 billion plus dollars have now been invested in Iraq, costing over 4000 American lives and close to 100,000 Iraqi deaths (this number is in dispute and represents the low end of the scale). How does the country of Iraq look after this "investment."

Every picture I see in the paper of downtown Baghdad shows bombed out buildings, rubble, impoverished civilians, broken windows, armed troops in the streets and burned out cars. Every interview with the citizenry is filled with woe, citing limited food, electricity and basic necessities as well as dodging rocket attacks and bombs. I saw a picture of a line of cars waiting for gas in an extremely oil-rich country. I don't see the success and the improvement in Iraqi lives that this administration trumpets. I don't see the rebuilt schools, the feeling of safety to walk in the streets or an environment to raise children that is safe and nurturing. The violence appears to continue unabated.

Senator McCain is the new Bush cheerleader, brimming with optimism, begging for more time to win this war for democracy in a country that does not seem to want what we are struggling to provide for them. He sees an oasis in the desert.

Senators Clinton and Obama are the antithesis of the war optimists and appear to be more realistic about what has been accomplished and what is still possible. To them the oasis is a complete illusion masking the wasteland that is the Iraq of today. Sure, they point to the worst images to make their point just as the other side crows when an Iraqi family finds enough bread to eat for a day or gets enough electricity to light a bedroom so that their child can have a bedtime story read to them.

Are we safer today then we were five years ago? I don't think so. The terrorists will find safe havens no matter what happens in Iraq and continue to threaten us. We're close to losing Afghanistan back to the Taliban. And that will be the foreign policy measuring stick that will be used in the fall campaign.

I grind my teeth imagining what 500 billion dollars could have bought in this country in terms of safety. Better airport screening, complete screening of all maritime imports, radiation detectors for all major cities and the list goes on and on.

Has the surge helped? Yes. Can we somehow eek out a result that we can really label a "success?" No. I'm sure we will find some political way to claim success but it will be an illusion. We can't help those who don't want to help themselves and the Iraqis do not appear to want to work through the growing pains of a fledgling democracy.

Spend the money at home. Pull back the troops from combat roles and fall back to supporting roles. Give Iraq to the Iraqis and let them take the lead in the direction their country takes as it struggles to find its place in the world. More money and American lives will not buy success and make an oasis in the desert.

2008-03-28T07:22:00.000-07:00

Rose Tint My World

As the cities and towns of Iraq erupt into new violence and rockets rain down on the green zone, the Commander-in-Chief sees real progress and return to normalcy. The chasm between these two views leaves me breathless with incredulity. It reminds me of the Rocky Horror Picture Show song, “Rose Tint My World”:

I'm a wild and an untamed thing I'm a bee with a deadly sting you got a hit and your mind goes ping your heart'll thump and your blood will sing so let the party and the sounds rock on I’m gonna shake it 'til the life has gone rose tint my world, keep me safe from the trouble and pain

This would appear to be the mantra of George W. Bush. As long as he believes that things are going swimmingly then his world requires no further action on his part. If he says it long enough and forcefully enough then people will come around to his way of thinking, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The situation in Iraq is not much improved. General Petraeus will almost certainly state in his upcoming testimony that as many troops as possible must remain if the military can find some way to keep the entire troop situation from imploding from endless tours of duty, shortened leave time and suspended stop-loss. The economy is crumbling at all the corners with major banks sinking, the Federal Government frantically trying to shore up the infrastructure while juggling the books to keep 12 billion dollars a month flowing to an oil-rich non-occupied war zone where have no business being in the first place.

Whenever I ponder what 12 billion dollars a month could do for the people of this country (assuming that there was really 12 billion dollars laying around in the coffers to be distributed) in terms of domestic security, education, poverty, hunger, health and retirement, I grind another layer of enamel off my teeth.

I think when Gary Trudeau returns from his vacation and restarts Doonesbury, he needs to add a nice pair of Elton John rose-colored sunglasses to the battered centurion helmet that symbolizes the Great Decider. That would more accurately reflect our own modern day Nero who fiddles while everything around him burns.

2008-03-11T17:33:00.000-07:00

Ready on Day 7

If Senator Obama wins the presidency, it appears that we're in for a rough first week. Bill Clinton said in 1992 that the most important criteria for the vice presidency was "someone who would be a good president if, God forbid, something happened to me a week after I took office."

Hillary has spent the last month wallowing in the mud and painting Obama as unprepared on Day 1 for the highest office in the land. This week the Clinton campaign began floating the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket. I'm confused.

We know from Hillary that Obama will not be ready on Day 1. Hillary now thinks that Obama will make a fine VP (despite the fact that she is behind in the delegate count) and Bill has defined the VP as being ready to go within 7 days.

So let's prepare for a rough ride from January 20th thru January 27th if Obama occupies the Oval Office. We'll be OK if it's Hillary because she's ready on Day 1.

Bush has had over 7 years to figure out the job and he's still floundering so I guess I should take some comfort in the fact that the Democrats will be firing on all cylinders within 7 days if they take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That will certainly be an improvement over the current situation.

2008-02-05T10:56:00.000-08:00

Do as I say, not as I do

CIA directory Michael Hayden testifies before Congress and states that 3 detainess were subjected to waterboarding. "He said he opposed limiting the CIA to using interrogation techniques permitted in the U.S. Army Field Manual, which bans waterboarding. CIA interrogators are better trained, and it works with a narrower range of suspects in its interrogations."

From my reading on this the US has objected to waterboarding of it's citizens by other countries and has prosecuted individuals when it can that have used this technique on the grounds that it is torture and that it is illegal.

I assume from the Director's comments that we can assume that it is now OK for American citizens to be subjected to waterboarding and that the US will not object because we do it ourselves. Or will we complain that our unfortunate citizens were tortured by "untrained" personnel but it's not torture when the CIA does it because our "interrogators" are better trained.

The hypocrisy of the current administration is the primary reason our standing in the world is in tatters. Democracy for all as long as it's on our terms allowing the US to ignore freely elected Hamas leaders; Waterboarding by the US only due to our better trained CIA torturers; Nuclear power for the US and its allies while denying the same capabilities to governments we oppose (not necessarily our enemies); Preemptive actions against shadow enemies but if the same was exercised against us we would denounce the action; Warrantless wiretaps even though a special court exists to handle these requests and the wiretap can be placed immediately with court action deferred; Holding citizens with no filed charges and no access to family or legal counsel; Secret meetings with energy businesses to set energy policy that benefits business at the expense of the citizenry; and the list goes on and on.

We deserve our current standing in the world.

2007-08-10T19:42:00.000-07:00

Georgie at the Bat
(with apologies to Ernest Thayer)

The Outlook wasn't brilliant for the NeoCons that day:
The war was going poorly, with but one inning more to play.
And then when Shinseki was ignored, and Bremer took some blame,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only George W. could get but a whack at that -
We'd put up even money, now, with George W. at the bat.

But then Rumsfeld let George W. down, as did also General Casey,
And the former was a lulu and the latter was a waste;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of George W. getting to the bat.

But Gates showed us some candor, to the wonderment of all,
And Patraeus, the war messiah, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and they saw things weren’t so bad.
There was Robert hinting victory and David securing Baghdad.

Then from millions of throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For George W., mighty George W, was advancing to the bat.

There was stubborness in Georgie’s manner as he stepped into his place;
There was arrogance in Georgie’s bearing and a smile on Georgie’s face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas George W. at the bat.

All eyes were on him as he lied about Iraq;
Every tongue applauded when he said victory was a lock.
Then while the naysayers protested and said no more Americans should die,
A sneer curled Georgie’s lip, defiance gleamed in Georgie’s eye.

And now the Iraq Study Group gave good suggestions, written with care,
And Georgie just ignored it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the Great Decider the suggestions unheeded sped-
"That ain't my style," said Georgie. "Strike one," the naysayers said.

From the benches, black with NeoCons, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Defeatists, with no troop support!" shouted someone on the stand;
And its likely they'd a-killed him had not Georgie raised his hand.

With a Cheshire smile of compassion, great Georgie’s visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the war go on;
He signaled to those who disagreed, and once more suggestions flew;
But Georgie still ignored them, and the naysayers said, "Strike two."

"Fraud!" cried the maddened NeoCons, we’re in this war to win;
But one scornful look from Georgie stilled the rising din.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that George W. wouldn't fail this war again.

The sneer is gone from Georgie’s lip, his rhetoric is bland;
He pounds with cruel violence his fist into his hand.
And now a war report comes due, he’ll cherry-pick the facts,
But there’s no denying Georgie’s war is coming off its tracks.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy for the NeoCons – George W. has struck out.

2007-05-05T13:08:00.000-07:00

With apologies to Aaron Sorkin

Alberto Gonzales: You want answers?

Committee: We think we're entitled to them.

Alberto Gonzales: You want answers?

Committee: We want the truth!

Alberto Gonzales: You can't handle the truth! We live in a country that has laws. And those laws have to be manipulated and controlled by those in power. Who's gonna do it? You? You, the committee? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for free-thinking attorneys and you curse the conservatives. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the firing of these attorneys, while poorly handled, probably strengthened administrative loyalty. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, benefits conservatism...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want to have the power to manipulate the law. You need the law.We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a committee who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very laws that I manipulate, then questions the manner in which I manipulate them! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you find the power to manipulate the laws you way you want. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Committee: Did you fire the attorneys for partisan reasons?

Alberto Gonzales: (quietly) I did what the President wanted.

Committee: Did you fire the attorneys for partisan reasons?

Alberto Gonzales: You're goddamn right I did!!

2007-04-23T08:29:00.000-07:00

Who is actually prosecuting the IRAQ war? Who do the generals take their orders from? Is this war being manager by the generals or by the Command-in-Chief?

I ask this because President Bush has stated that "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job"

Excuse me! I was under the impression that the President himself was deciding on strategy (supposedly with the advice of his generals in mind) and that the generals then execute the strategy that the President approves. To my mind, that's a politician in Washington telling the generals how to do their job.

And since when is it wrong to have an opinion about the war? Yes, Harry Reid has influence over congressional actions relating to the war but if he believes that the war has been lost at this point then is it not his duty to state that to the American people. The people elect their representative to be an advocate for them in the political arena. I actually agree with the administration when they say that if a congressman believes the war is lost then that congressman should vote to defund the war and Harry Reid should do that.

I am reminded of a quote from the movie "1776" when the delegate from Georgia states
"'that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.' It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament." If any member of Congress believes that the war is lost at this point based on his judgement and the information that he is afforded as a member of the legislature, then no matter how unpopular the action may be, he should vote to defund the war.

The other point that galls me no end is the idea that the administration trumpets that any action against the current war footing is a betrayal of the troops, a morale crusher, an aid to the enemy, etc. I don't believe that. If the action is to bring the troops home, then I see that as more supportive of the men and women who have pledged to fight for our freedom(s) then to use them as cannon fodder in a bloody civil conflict a half-a-world away.

Ulysses S. Grant used superiority in numbers to force an end to the United States Civil War with the loss of a great number of lives. Robert E. Lee tried to use the same tactic to win the Battle of Gettysburg with Pickett's charge and failed although he lost a great number of men in the attempt. The President must believe that success in IRAQ will mirror Grant's success while the general population and the Congress are coming to the conclusion that Lee's failure will be the model for our fight in IRAQ.

Either way our troops are being sacrificed on the altar of freedom.

2007-04-21T08:13:00.000-07:00

Mums the word for this Administration

Especially if you disagree with them. "White House officials can exclude dissenters from taxpayer-funded appearances by President Bush without violating the protesters' rights."

The argument here is that the Administration has some kind of right to control the message being promulgated at these events. Excuse me! Private events and GOP funded events can be as restrictive as they want in terms of the guest list, what gets reported, what the message is and who the audience is.

Taxpayer-funded events are another story and here that ugly "free speech" thing comes into play. The administration has had no problem staying on message but I think that once again, they are chipping away at the constitution under the guise of firmness of resolve. One message, one voice, that's the mantra being chanted in the White House. But at taxpayer-funded events the opposing voices should not be silenced.

Don't get me wrong here. Disruptive behavior either for or against a particular position is wrong no matter how you slice it.

The parties in the issue at hand here had a "No blood for oil" bumpersticker. They also had anti-Bush T-shirts on but these were not displayed nor was there any disruptive intention (or so they say). Regardless of their intentions, they were summarily refused entry to the event.

The current administration flexes its muscles at every opportunity but once again I feel they have overstepped their authority. The voice of the opposition cannot and should not be silenced.

One of the main problems that I have with "W" is the unwillingness to hear other ideas. This "arrogance" is not "resolution". We are a weaker nation because of this attitude. The answers to many of our issues often can be found in the middle of the road but the unwillingness to listen and be open to compromise builds a wall that cuts off everything but a single lane of that road.

Maybe 2009 will see a widening of our political highways and a new willingness to stay to the middle. Go Purple...

2007-04-16T19:18:00.000-07:00

During every congressional election cycle, regardless of the winning party, my optimism for a change in the way our democracy functions is always at its highest. I naively think that the majority will put the people of this country first and the goals of the party second. My disappointment this time is even more unpalatable because I believe that putting country over party will always produce a better result and the Democrats are missing the opportunity in a big way.

What have they done? Put troop funding into a bill laden with pork with unrealistic withdrawal timelines to bring the ill-conceived war in IRAQ to an ignominious end. The bill is set up this way in order to garner votes across the full spectrum of liberalism and conservatism. The Democrats had lots of options and chose the absolute worst in the belief that it would benefit the party. I'm sad, disillusioned and demoralized.

What are the other options? After the President vetos this ill-conceived bill the democrats propose "a second bill that would tie U.S. economic and military support to the Iraqi government's ability to meet performance benchmarks." OK, that's a little better and should have been the opening gambit in this game of one upmanship that has nothing to do with what is best for the country.

And here is a third option that was hinted at in the early stages of this game. Attach a requirement to the bill that the President will certify future troop readiness and necessary equipment and if he chooses to send in untrained and/or ill-equipped troops, he would provide that statement to Congress.

I like option 3 a lot. The first two options handcuff the President as Commander-in-Chief and result in Congressional micro-management of the war effort. Option 3 simply puts the President on notice that he has to keep Congress informed about troop readiness (or unreadiness as the case may be). The war will still be the Presidents to win or lose. The troops will be fully funded with no strings attached and the system of checks and balances that form the core of our democracy will be strengthened after 12 years of Republican apathy toward their congressional duty.

What is the downside? The only one I see is that troop morale may take a hit (even more than it already has) when the President sends troops into the war knowing full well that they are not properly equipped or not properly trained or they have not had enough time with their families between deployments. The men and women of our military are ill-served by a President that knowingly orders them into a war zone under these circumstances. But the people will be informed and Congress will be informed and democracy will flourish under option 3. The people can then judge how well our Commander-in-Chief is prosecuting HIS war and vote accordingly.

My vote is for Option 3.

2007-03-10T15:57:00.000-08:00

OK, I can't resist this blog about Jenna Bush and her new book. Read the whole blog entry here :

http://motherreader.blogspot.com/2007/03/thoughtful-thursday-baca-and-scrotums.html

The quote I particularly enjoy is this:
>
(from her interview with USA Today):
“Jenna Bush, in a rare interview, says her forthcoming book for teens — about a 17-year-old single mother in Panama who is living with HIV — will end with a ‘call to action.”

... the “call to action” line, ohmigod! Do you realize how incredibily annoying it is for people living under your dad’s uncaring, uncompassionate, uninspired polices for six freaking years to hear that you want to issue a “call to action” on social issues? You want a call to action? Start with calling your father and talking to him about single mothers, HIV, and foreign aid and then you get back to us.
>

The idea that the current administration wants to extend a helping hand to the less fortunate is ludicrous given their 6 year record. From tax-breaks for the top 1% to Katrina, the neo-cons seem to want to end hunger (very low food security) and poverty (would they say 'very low money security) by casting them adrift and hoping they go away and don't come back. The vast resources of the government are now concentrated at the top of the heap, rewarding businesses and rich people in the hope that somehow the benefits of the haves will 'trickle down' to the have-nots. It didn't work under Reagan and it doesn't work now.
Jenna Bush, from her perch near the top of the heap needs to do a lot more than trade on her name and foist platitudes on the public under the guise of wanting to make a difference.

2007-02-14T07:27:00.000-08:00

A valentine for Al Gore

The field is full of also-rans
Who want to take your job
Some are good, woman or man
But you, you stand out from the mob
I wait for you to come to your senses
It's hard but you won't be alone
It's time for you to get off of the fence(s)
Our peril without you has grown

You've got my heart and you've got my vote
Make a difference, throw your hat in the ring
Our country is sinking like a leaking boat
It's time to dethrone the king

Your passion is clear
It's the earth you adore
2008 could be your year
Be my President, Albert A. Gore

2007-02-13T06:57:00.000-08:00

Backing the right horse

Checks and balances mean everything to me in the world of politics. I think our government works much better when the president and congress differ in their ruling parties. George W. Bush would have been a better president (marginally better) if Democrats had controlled congress forcing compromises and keeping the spectre of imperial presidencies in check.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. President Clinton became a better president when he lost the Democratic majority in congress. In fact, aside from his personal failings, I think he became a great president who will probably rate fairly high in the current pantheon.

Which leads me to my angst over the upcoming presidential contest. If the Democratic majority holds in 2008 (and chances are currently good that it will) then by the logic above I should lean toward the Republican standard-bearer (or a third-party candidate if one can emerge from the pack) but I am loath to do that after the disasterous 6 years of GW and 12 years of Republican majority rule in Congress.

Adding to my angst is the ever growing shadow of Hillary Clinton that looms over the Democrats. I personally feel that Hillary is not electable. If you thought Ralph Nader sucked the air out of the room in 2000, you ain't seen nothing yet. If Hillary is the nominee I predict that the Democrats will lose the general election.

And so I wait, on pins and needles as the campaign for 2008 taxis down the runway. I hope in my heart of hearts that Hillary falters early either through her own actions or the early primary voting results. I actually hope fo a Gore announcement if that happens.

There is so much more to the election than just backing the right horse but for my money I want the race to include a different set of mares and steeds. And they're off....

2006-11-23T17:35:00.000-08:00

Fear Factor

During my Thanksgiving travels I was looking at the big signs that now blanket our highways asking us to report any suspicious activity. Since 9/11 the administration has ratcheted up the fear quotient of this country to astronomical levels in the name of security. And not just security, the same fear has been used to cowl the electorate into casting their votes for "staying the course". And it has worked spectacularly well until this last election when people finally realized that they were not safer, that IRAQ is a disaster, and that the DEMOCRATS are not the devil. People are beginning to see that they are being lied to and manipulated for the good of the Republican party.

I am thankful for many things in my life. Family, health, food security (lol) and the fact that the eyes of the country are being opened. Thank God.

2006-11-21T14:49:00.000-08:00

Long Live the King

There is a popular quote from revolutionary times that is often attributed to Ben Franklin. Regardless of the author it is appropriate for this entry: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

The administration now claims that "enemy combatants" subjected to "approved interrogation" methods are denied the right to talk about how they were treated because the interrogation methods have been labelled "top secret" so the enemy combatants would be breaking security laws by revealing in what way they were "integrrogated" (read that as "tortured").

And everyone is OK with this?

I think the election was a step in the right direction to reign in the imperial presidency but I am stunned that anyone reads the above argument and nods in agreement.

The idea that we should be governed by leaders who do not reveal what they are doing under the guise of security is false. Our democracy flourishes with an open government that is beholden to the people and answers to the people.

I can only hope that we will continue our march back to the middle and end the current administration's efforts to increase presidential power and deny the people's right to know what is going on.

Let freedom ring.

2006-11-17T20:29:00.000-08:00

Judge not, let ye be judged.

I guess it was to be expected. POTUS talks the reconciliation talk but can't bring himself to walk the walk as he resubmits judicial nominations that are unacceptable to the incoming Democrats. It's disappointing that our leaders would rather throw up barriers to governing instead of leading, under the guise of standing on principle. It's going to be a long 2 years if the word "compromise" is expunged from the government dictionary.

2006-11-16T19:33:00.000-08:00

Democrats on the right track

In spite of Nancy Pelosi's meddling in the whip election, sanity triumphed and Steny Hoyer was the winner. I am breathing a sigh of relief. Just as I like the idea of divided government between the legislative and executive branch, I like the idea of Steny Hoyer moderating the much more liberal inclinations of Ms. Pelosi. Just a little more PURPLE makes all the difference in the world.