I live in the hottest battleground for the Pennsylvania primary-- suburban Philly's Bucks County. The candidates are visiting our county, THE county that could decide the state's primary, every week.
Last week, I attended an Obama rally and today, I'll be attending a Hillary rally.
At the Obama rally, a Hillary operative re-raised the Wright-Farrakan connection, in an effort to keep the issue alive and embarrass Obama. This kind of attack gave me an idea.
We need to start peppering Obama and Clinton with questions on impeachment and the reasons for impeachment. Here's what I plan to ask today:
Recent Polls show that about 65-70% of registered democratic voters support impeachment of Dick Cheney. (Look around and speak to the audience.) How about all of Democrats here do tonight? Do you believe Cheney and Bush have violated laws? I'll be amazed if there isn't a big rousing agreement. Then go back to the candidate; Do YOU believe Bush and cheney have broken laws?-- US, constitutional, the Geneva convention, basic human laws-- by allowing and encouraging torture, by violating the laws through the use of signing statements, by unauthorized spying on Americans? And do you believe that those crimes warrant prosecution or impeachment hearings.. And remember, hearings are the only way to force the people to speak who Bush has used executive privilege to protect. I ask you this because Bill Clinton/your husband failed to prosecute George Bush for crimes he appeared to be involved in. And that failure, which would have tainted his son, enabled our current war criminal to run for office. I want to be assured that you will instruct the attorney General you appoint to open hearings and investigate ALL the abuses of power and politicizations of the justice department and other agencies. Will you do the job? Will you set the investigations in motion, or cover them up by saying you want to heal the country and move on-- which, in the minds of a big majority of democratic voters, would represent a failure by you to protect the constitution and stand up for the law, for democracy?
That's long and I don't think it's a good idea to read it. I may bring a note card that reads:
-poll 65-70% dems support impeachment
-Crowd;Cheney, Bush broken laws?
Cheney/guilty torture, signing statement spying> Impeachment/prosecution hearings= beating exec privilege Bush sr. Appoint AG vs cover up Will you say you want to heal and move on? = failure to protect constitution democracy, law.
Now, if you can get to one of these events, I encourage you to ask the same or similar questions. Go with a group and have all the people in the group spread out through the crowd and all raise your hands when it's time to ask questions. Bring video cameras so you can make sure you record it.
Obama wasn't my first choice and I'm not sure where he stands on some of the issues.
I want to see the end to corporate personhood. We can ask about that too.
You could ask a question like this: Currently, because of a twisting of the 14th amendment, corporations have the right to be treated like a person-- the idea of legal corporate personhood. They end up claiming privacy rights that even humans don't have, or can't afford to defend. They use this right as a way to influence the vote, which in the past, corporations were not allowed to do. This is a bad situation. Corporations are too wealthy, immortal and immoral. Would you support laws that would take away corporate rights to personhood?
I am furious with Paulson's plan to give the Federal Reserve-- a private, non-government organization-- more power and freedom. We can ask about that too:
Where do you stand on Paulson's proposals to give the federal reserve more power, while eliminating regulatory controls by other government or government regulated agencies? Do you believe the federal reserve is a solution or a problem?
Thats a question the Ron Paul libertarians can get their teeth into.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
The Obama website has a link for press inquiries, mainly to get an interview with the candidate or a staffer. You can pose a question, and I did that yesterday. I asked, in view of the recent disclosures that torture was authorized at the highest levels of the government, whether the candidate is prepared to hold anybody accountable for criminal involvement. If so, who? If not, why not? I received a prompt, pro forma acknowledgement of my email and a promise to follow up.
by
Steve Fournier (31 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 40 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 8:50:40 AM
but I pray it just isn't my cynicism, but I recently heard a statement tha cheney made after they won in 2000 to a staffer about setting an agenda: "You don't expect us to keep promises we made to people in the campaign?"
I'm not sure I believe a damn thing they'd answer to any hard questions. I can almost hear them now, "Oh, we'd like to but, blah, blah, blah ...", or "I do support it, but,...
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 999 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 9:41:48 AM
There may be some truth to what you say, but we MUST try. We must do all we can to challenge these candidates, to push them left, towards more progressive stances. Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel, through their participation in the early primaries absolutely helped. They sacrificed greatly to do it. We need to do the same, not that it's that great sacrifice to ask a few questions.
by
Rob Kall (718 articles, 3747 quicklinks, 304 diaries, 1475 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM
I'm a bad boy. A cynical old-fart who has heard too many say anything just to get elected. But no where did I mention we should not try - I'm all for trying anything and everything to get some progressive programs enacted and will be swinging from my coffin doing so. So go for it.
And your plan is good if people will participate. And it can be fine turned where if one person in a team gets to ask a question, then another can do a follow-up question to the first in case a candidate should try to deflect or not fully answer a question.
I'm continually asked, "But what can I do?", when trying to get people motivated and when going into the fact that this still is a government where you can actually go see elected officials, you can see them slump their shoulders and almost hear them thinking how they'd have to break their routine to do this - it's just too much trouble you know, they might miss American Idol. Ah, crap, there goes that cynicism again...
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 999 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM
Obama and Clinton promise those in the rust belt new jobs. The world economic crises has now spread to food riots. Yet we burn our food supply in autos.
The questions that need to be asked are HOW do you propose to produce jobs? When will those jobs be available? What will those jobs be? How will our economy sustain? What are we going to do for resources? Why do we continue to add foreign job seekers in a catastrophic downturn? 772,000 job seekers either failed to find work or were laid off in the past 90 days, how will you change this?
For if these questions are not asked, and if acceptable answers are not forthcoming, we will find ourselves in depression very, very soon.
by
Mike Folkerth (97 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 464 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 9:43:55 AM
We can shove Obama to the left with pure shame in the general election.
I want Hillary gone. I want to trust Obama to do the honorable thing and the thing that will promote his legacy.
Pull out the no-win question this early and it will sink both candidates.
It's a total wedge issue -- between the elites and the people, I mean. The elites have access -- remember the stand-down in Dallas -- and we do not need another RFK-level conspiracy. Obama can fire us up without having to demoralize and traumatize the country beyond where it already is.
I think we both agree that this is where things need to go...but it's a matter of tactics. Passion, in this case, is not a good tactic.
by
Richard Volaar (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 183 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:33:37 AM
why pose this to Obama? He has to get elected to change thin
This is exactly the sort of question that would ensure Obama won't get elected.
It takes the entire discussion of how Obama would serve ALL US citizens, create jobs, get health care for all, and turns it into a single issue that Barack himself cannot change.
The only way we will get real change is to have a great President and a majority in congress.
We need a strong majority in congress, in order to have an impeachment.
We don't have that now, and shooting down the Obama campaign so that he cannot win just means NEVER changing what is going on in DC now.
by
Laura Roslin (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 32 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM
Rob, Cokie Roberts is going to be here in Tulsa this week speaking on the topic 'An Insiders View of Washington'. I have been having the same thoughts as you in my planning process about dress and demeanor, going with a group, etc.
I think it would be good for the group to decide in advance the questions to be asked and list them in order of importance. The first called on asks question #1, the second #2, and so forth.
Some of the questions I would like to pose would be about: David Gregory dancing with Karl Rove; the general hilarity of the press during the dinner when Bush did the 'WMD must be somewhere' routine; Chris Matthews' statement that 'We (the press) are McCain's base; again, the laughs of the press to Bush's singing about Scooter finally free of the prosecutor; almost no mention of Bush's admitting to torture while the pages and channels are full of Rev Wright and bitterness......I just hope I can screw up enough courage to try to make this happen.
by
via (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:54:30 AM
It's obvious that the bush administration holds the
average American in contempt, Via. They laugh in our faces at every opportunity and do it without any fear of reprisal. They know that nothing will be done, other than the voice of disapproval from the people. Not even the media points to the disgraceful, childish skits and jokes using their own most treasonous acts as punchlines. They know they have nothing to fear in the way of legal recourse as they know that NO democrat is going to call for hearings. Not now, not ever. I hate being a stone cold cynic, I'd like to believe that we have at least a handful of honest men and women in our government who have the balls to stand up for what's the absolute right thing to do. The days of Woodward and Bernstein are long gone. No one http://www.heroism.org/class/1970/wood.html has the desire or the bravery to take on an administration which everyone has finally realized grew and gained strength and power by collusion with the mob, acts of assassination, murder and character assassination. Hilary has the constitution of a corporate politician and she's not about to change colors so there's no point in asking any questions which would expose any intentions of hers to aid in the prosecution of the bush party since she has none and never will. As far as Obama goes, we don't really know enough about him or his aspirations but it seems that he is, as far as voting goes, our only shot. We should probably focus on discrediting Clinton's intentions and supporting Obama as he is. Who knows? At this stage we have nothing more to lose. We're heading for disaster, especially after this election, when we all find out that the democrats are the republicans and we are all alone.
I do know one thing that the bush crowd would fear but it never occurs to them. A true uprising of society supported by the military.The thought of the entire administration being dragged out of their homes and offices in cuffs and locked up for trial would certainly upset their cocky demeanor but, alas, they know the people and our elected officials well enough to know that won't happen. Shame, it seems that is the only chance of any of them will ever have a seat in a hearing.
I understand your motives Rob. I admire you for being one person who has stepped up and put himself on the line for the sake of his country but I believe that the time for questions has passed. We need demands and we need collateral in order for those demands to be met, serious collateral which would effectively influence positive action of our so-called leaders. One small threat would be for any sitting democrat to be voted out in the election. Everyone. Those who are appointed officials who have shirked their responsibilities to the people and have failed to take action against bush and his traitors for war crimes and treason should have charges filed against them. Perhaps if Pelosi faced federal charges for her inaction and Ted Kennedy faced charges of failing to lead his senate we may get action. Remember, we only needed ONE democrat to keep the count going in 2000. If we got that we wouldn't have a president bush. Where was Kennedy?
The other alternative is something that none of us would want to see but I honestly don't understand how it hasn't already come to that. Our country has fought two wars with much bloodshed in order to preserve a way of life which is being threatened again. I hope, for all of our sakes, that someone, somewhere who knows what it will take to put our government right digs deep inside themselves and does the right thing. There are people out there with power and information which could effect the changes in circumstances neccessary to put an end to the bush administration and ANY members of the government who believe that this corporate takeover is our fate and provide punishment which would insure that our future leaders understand that we, the people, will not be f**ked with.
by
PeterJ (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 2:33:04 PM
ALL the candidates need Bush to remain in office. He's their only chance of attracting voters by looking good in comparison to the incumbent. With a different incumbent, they'd be left virtually naked with nothing to say for themselves as being a potential improvement.
Also, keep in mind that it is a precedent for incoming Presidents to issue blanket pardons to everyone in the previous administration. That's a simple professional courtesy just in case the new President ever has need of the same courtesy. So all the major party candidates are committed to doing just that, something they couldn't justify as precedent if Bush was no longer in office.
You can ask, you can push, but I've lived long enough and watched history repeat often enough enough to be able to predict. No major party candidate will support impeachment and all of them, if elected, will adhere to precedent.
Better questions might be why did they vote to fund and commit themselves to continue the crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Iraq for which most of us would like to see Bush and Cheney impeached?
But unless Code Pink crashes the party, nobody will ask that question because doing so would jeopardize their credentials to attend similar events.
If you have been credentialed to a presidential campaign event or convention, the best thing you can do for your country would be to give your credentials to Code Pink, because they'll ask the questions you dare not ask.
by
Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 761 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM
The only pertinent question to ask these phonies is why, in the light of recent polls showing a growing distrust of the official 9-11 story among hundreds if not thousands of credible people, they are not supporting a new, independent investigation. Every other issue is subserviant to this one
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 239 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 1:02:17 PM
It is the definitive question.The problem is the media. Until our liberal media steps up and demands real answers, not these ridiculous National Geographic exposes' or Popular Mechanics' investigations. I'm surprised that there wasn't an investigation by the Catholic Digest.
No one who even feigns credibility will touch the absolute story of a lifetime. Why not? Even comedy shows which seem to breack the mold on how far to go such as Jon Stewart won't go near it. Obviously, a terrorist act of this magnitude commited on American soil by Americans demonstrates the ruthlesness of those involved and not too many who do have absolute proof of their crimes want to be Kennedied. If they'll murder 3000 innocents and send thousands more to die overseas through the use of outright, in your face lies they sure won't have a problem killing a few more. You must remember what we are dealing with is a dictatorship with the demeanor of Hitler.
There's only one way to deal with this type of government.
by
PeterJ (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 2:59:11 PM
Why should they listen when PDA sells out to them?
Yesterday, PDA leaders went to the Clinton and Obama caucuses and promised their all to Obama and Clinton if only they would be made delegates. Clinton and Obama didn't have to do anything to get their support. If they were selected as delegates, Obama and Clinton had their support. It is sad.
by
Zan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 1:51:32 PM
The Progressive Democrats of America? If so bare in mind that purges of progressive delegates have been taking place in both the Clinton and Obama camps. Obama rescinded the purge and a good thing too since the progressive movement has done much already to put Senator Obama where he is today.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 290 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 2:58:54 PM
NO, IT'S TIME TO STOP DOING THE REPUBLICAN'S DIRTY WORK
Impeachment at this late date in 08 is a Republican distraction to keep us attacking Democrats instead of the them. Your criticism of Bush and the other criminals is correct, but your conclusion is way off and tactically dumb. Seems you write the fitst thing that comes to you without analysis or critical thinking. You make 'progressives' look like morons without any hint of political insight. Let me explain it this way: Our electoral system is like a roulette wheel with Republican and Democratic slots instead of odd/even or red/black. That's the choice, dislike it as we might. You can bet on Purple, but you might as well burn your wager instead. Same for your vote. No wonder people don't send money. Who wants to financially support what's not in their interests--which is riding our country of the criminals. All else is bs.
by
James Cordray (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 43 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 2:28:24 PM
the American people have the right to know where their candidates stand on issues that are important to them. If this were placed in the hands of the 70% of the population who are pro impeachment, Cheney would have been on the outside looking in 6 years ago. He'd also be in the custody of the International War Crimes Tribunal along with the rest of his entourage.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 290 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 3:04:02 PM
I'm all for peppering the presidential candidates with questions. They are running for the highest office in the land, and it's important to know where they stand on issues.
The trouble is that Mrs. Clinton and Obama are politicians who excel in the art of avoiding questions. They act like they're giving you a well-thought-out, enlightened, and satisfactory response, when in fact they're just pandering to their audience or giving their same old spiel from a different angle.
This happened when Senators Clinton and Obama appeared on a special edition of Beyond the Beltway--the weekly nationally syndicated radio talk show--with a live audience in Youngstown, Ohio, a couple months ago. There was rhetoric and speechifying aplenty, such as: (Obama:) "Hillary says that promises won't put food on the table. Well, you know what? NAFTA didn't put food on the table either." Both candidates talked about what's wrong with the war in Iraq, but offered few specifics as to how they would end the conflict.
Contrast this with somebody like Ron Paul, who explains exactly why the war in Iraq is unconstitutional and how he's going to put a stop to it as soon as he gets in the White House.
Or with "Average Joe" Schriner, whose specific and detailed plan includes:
a formal apology to the Iraqi people for invading their land and stealing their oil; more intensive training of the Iraqi military; humanitarian and financial assistance for rebuilding the country; and a gradual withdrawal of troops effective immediately.
Let's keep asking Mrs. Clinton and Obama those good questions, since the questioning process progressively exposes them as opportunistic politicians and mega-corporate stooges. Gold is tried in the fire, and competent candidates for public office in good questioning.
Go Ron Paul and go "Average Joe" Schriner.
by
Justin Soutar (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 2:46:51 PM
Personally (just like Chesterson-Is-Alive), I think all politicians need to be asked tough questions, especially prior to elections.
The problem is, which questions to ask?
We all know that if they ask any questions about Bush breaking the law, lying, or even bringing up the torture memo, will send both candidates into a talking point frenzy that skirts the issue (as Chesterson noted)…
They will say… “I cannot comment on that until an investigation has laid out the facts...”.
And guess what... in a way, you have to admit, they are correct. If the investigations have not been done, no matter how obvious the crime is, they still have not had their day in court. Until I hear otherwise, even obvious criminals are considered innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty in court.
So think hard, and phrase your questions very carefully. Do not ask a question with an obvious out.
Example,
A) “Do you think that the Bush administration has been guilty of violating the Constitution?” Bad question. It asks the respondent to presuppose guilt before investigations or trial. You're asking them to verbally convict someone prior to an investigation.
B) “Do you think that congressional investigations into Abu Ghraib and the torture memo written by John Yoo, are warranted”? Good question. No easy way out.
Ask the right questions.
by
John R Moffett (78 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 587 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 3:43:41 PM
