"For in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, 'hold office'; everyone of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve."~~ John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage [p. 265]
My friend Bernie says he's not only tired of making excuses for Democrats, he's sick and tired of it. "We've worked our backsides off since 9-11 getting people in office with the courage to derail Bush and Cheney's Constitutional death train," Bernie wailed. "We had our feet on the ground, our eyes on the prize, our noses to the grindstone, our backs to the wall, our shoulders to the wheel --" he paused, mentally clicking off body parts.
"Your head in the clouds?" I suggested helpfully.
"Yeah. That too," Bernie said. "We believed them when they said they wanted to end the war. They promised to stop the torture, the slaughter of innocents, the killing and maiming of our own citizens. Just give us the power, they said, and we'll put a stop to Bush and Cheney's killing spree -- we'll jerk a knot in Gonzales' tail, stop the illegal spying on Americans -- restore our battered Constitution. They promised to impeach the treasonous warmongers, and we believed them. Well," Bernie said, "we were wrong. We gave them the power -- and they betrayed us."
Bernie's right. They betrayed us. Scarcely had the polls closed in November before the victorious Democrats were out in force, backing down, caving in, reassuring George Bush and Dick Cheney they had nothing to worry about. Incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi held an immediate news conference, then hit the airwaves, to include CBS 60 Minutes and Tim Russert's Meet the Press, with a single announcement -- impeachment is no longer in the Constitution. Oversight...accountability...checks and balances...all gone.
Senator Chuck Schumer candidly admitted that getting elected and getting along were his top priorities regardless of what the people expected. He told the Wall Street Journal that "75% of this election was about the people's opinion of the president," but added, "...If we are seen as just blocking the president, it will not serve us well in 2008."
Others, like Rep. Charlie Rangel can't see the point in challenging Bush since he threatens to veto anything that is not what he wants. Rangel said, "We don't want really a fight with the president. What we want to do is to prove we can govern for the next two years..." And Rep. John Dingell, who's been around longer than anybody, agrees, saying the Democrats will "do what makes good sense, while not getting into any extreme positions on any matter."
What is it about 75% -- three-fourths -- of the votes that these craven gerbils don't understand? The 2006 election was an indictment of a president who is ruthlessly destroying our republic, our democratic freedoms, our way of life -- simply because he can. And he can because we let him. Apparently, Democrats are so brain dead they think the "voice of the people" they heard was permission to show they can manage a treasonous genocidal war better than Bush. Whereas, if like Bernie, they'd put their ears to the ground, they'd know that each vote was a primal scream erupting from the masses -- a mandate to stop the madness. Now.
The corrupt political cabal before whom Democrats and Republicans grovel is evil, disgusting, and dangerous. But even more so are their lame excuses for allowing Bush to strip the other two branches of government of their powers and to rule via signing statements and Executive Orders. We believed his lies, they say. We don't want to be blamed for opposing him if there's another attack on the "homeland." We can't speak out...we can't take a stand for democracy lest we be accused of aiding the enemy...please don't hurt us...
I can only hope that Dante was right when he said, "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." The silence of the Democratic lambs has been deafening since Constitutional traitors on the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 election to strike the first blow against democracy. Since that time, the erosion of personal privacy and the alarming increase in citizen-control laws has been achieved by this administration under cover of fighting a senseless, baseless, illegal "war on terrorism."
And Bush grows bolder with each victory. He's determined to have no restraints placed upon him in any area. Immediately upon ramming through the USA Patriot Act just six weeks after 9-11, the administration went on a spree of sweeping up and detaining thousands of citizens without charges and no access to counsel. This act was, and continues to be, the greatest threat to American liberties in our history. It is buoyed by Bush's Military Commissions Act of 2006, or "no consequences torture bill," giving himself the empirical right to torture anyone he views as a "terror suspect."
Perhaps this act is one reason Democrats remain so subservient. Right up front, in Section 948a(2), Bush has the empirical right to decide who is a "lawful enemy combatant." If you are a "member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States," or even a "member of a volunteer corps or organized resistance movement and you wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance," Bush has the power to decide you are not only hostile but are an enemy combatant.
Bush IS the United States -- a government of Bush, by Bush and for Bush. He has seized the power to "grant" or "take away" basic inalienable rights of American citizens. "I will decide who serves in my government," Bush recently told a member of the media questioning him about calls for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Does it not follow, then, that those coming out against the war, those not supporting the troops by insisting they come home, or those calling for impeachment would be engaged in hostilities against the United States? Isn't that right, Mrs. Pelosi -- Mr. Conyers?
Is it any wonder that legislators on both sides of the aisle recoil and beat a fast retreat when they look up and see Bush, caught up in the wild influences of his own idiotic imagination, running at them with a lighted firecracker in each hand? Is anyone surprised that Bush so easily got them to agree to his Protect America Act of 2007, which allows the continued secret collection of Americans' phone calls and e-mails with no oversight...no checks...no balances?
It is madness to stand upon the precipice of a Constitutional crisis and even consider for one moment plunging into the abyss by giving Bush additional time to spy on Americans, to torture and kill innocents abroad, and to abandon an exhausted and ill-equipped military on the killing fields of a nation embroiled in the spiraling violence of civil war.
When party loyalty gets so screwed up it is based on a commitment to -- obsession with -- opposing ideologies neither of which, in all its twisted glory, concerns itself with doing what is right for the people in this nation, it's time to take a break from that loyalty. John F. Kennedy was right when he said, "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer."
We still have a Constitution. And we have a choice, perhaps the last one we are free to make. We can either use it -- or lose it.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites.
Sad, isn't it? During the campaign, all we heard was "vote for me and I'll fight for impeachment!" Well, we voted for them, and as soon as they gave Bush everything he demanded to widen the spying on Americans, they cut out on "vacation." What few people know, however, is that they were in a hurry to go to Israel for an AIPAC-sponsored "education" tour. As many as 80 of them -- two tours of 40 each -- got their indoctrination. Sure beats going home and facing their constituents, doesn't it?
by
Sheila Samples (50 articles, 3522 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 377 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 2:06:04 PM
Are spinning in their graves, as Democracy dies a slow death, accelerated by their own party. That is why I will no longer support the party of Nancy Pelosi. I am supporting Cindi Sheehan against her and will vote for Dennis K if he runs, or Ron Paul, or no one. God Bless.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1313 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 2:00:16 PM
I'm still holding out for Al Gore. He's the only one with the intellect, integrity and experience to clean up this mess. I also support Cindy, but weep for her when I think of how they (especially her fellow Democrats) will devour her if she wins...
by
Sheila Samples (50 articles, 3522 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 377 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 3:06:08 PM
Please keep your eyes on a proposed ballot initiative for California's June '08 ballot. It's been in the Daily News, Los Angeles Times ,on Hardball as I'm writing (2:01 p.m.) PST and was on the Sit Room last hour.
Proposed by the California Republican Party, all it'll cost them to get it on the ballot is about a mil to to collect signitures. Then there will be all the money to advertise it. Basically, it will drastically change the way California's electoral votes will be distributed. Right now, we're a winner take all state.
The Dems have an opposing measure, but what little I know about it, it doesn't sound much better.
Just because the founding father Brahmans didn't trust us to one-man-one-vote elect a president, doesn't mean they were right. I say we trash the electoral college and leave it to the pres is the man or woman who get the most votes.
I asking because I may never figure out these ballot measures more than enough to vote NO on both of them, but honestly, not enough to write intelligently about them.
This country and this state are becoming really scary places. Anybody know of nice quiet island for sale somewhere. I kind of like the idea of retiring to the Isle of Sandia. T'would be good to be the queen.
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 170 diaries, 1276 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 4:18:38 PM
I don't understand what is happening -- seems like, from the Hardball coverage of it just now, that the Republicans are trying to get Ahnold to defeat it. So I guess, until I research it more, if the Repubs are against it, I'm for it...
Out here in Tom Joad Country, I don't have to worry about where the votes are going --
by
Sheila Samples (50 articles, 3522 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 377 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 6:28:20 PM
My understanding is that it's a Pub-sponsored initiative, and if I remember the numbers correctly, in '04 W. would have gotten 22 of our 55 electoral votes giving him something that would look like a landslide. As it was, Kerry got all 55 electorals.
If the Republicans get their way, it will totally change future elections...unless all the other states adopt the same system, then they're back to square one, and it all evens out. But, that could take years.
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 170 diaries, 1276 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 8:37:18 PM
One issue is CA changing how electorial votes a distributed.
Aaaarnold's issue is redistricting. From today's [8/24] Los Angeles Daily News:
Governor takes aim at district boundaries
BY MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 08/23/2007 09:43:20 PM PDT
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that he would try for a second time to reform rules at the heart of how California selects legislators and members of Congress - a system he says has all the fairness of loaded dice.
Flanked by former Govs. Gray Davis, a Democrat, and Pete Wilson, a Republican, Schwarzenegger said he wants voters next year to consider changing the way the state carves out districts for legislators and members of Congress.
He alluded to the possibility of calling a special session of the Legislature to take on the issue. He said he was prepared to make trade-offs to get what he wants in negotiations in Sacramento, and he didn't rule out going to the ballot on his own if the Legislature doesn't act.
He wants the proposal on the Feb. 5 ballot, the same date the state holds its presidential primary.
In races for the Legislature and Congress, "there's no competition," the governor lamented. He noted that in hundreds of races over three election cycles, only four of those seats changed party.
"By reforming the way the districts are drawn and by taking it out of the politicians' hands, we can ensure that our elected officials are always working hard and are competing
for your vote," Schwarzenegger said.
The actor-governor has talked about the idea for years as part of his plans to upend the political status quo in Sacramento - a goal that has largely eluded him. Schwarzenegger pushed a similar proposal in 2005, which was snubbed by voters along with a slate of other initiatives to curb spending and public union power.
His idea is to give an independent commission the authority to draw district boundaries. Currently, legislators slice up districts for themselves and Congress every 10 years to reflect population shifts, a practice often criticized as a blatant conflict of interest.
Many California districts are heavily skewed to favor candidates from one party, turning them into fortresses of incumbency. Several attempts to take that role away from lawmakers over the years have been rejected by voters, including Schwarzenegger's 2005 proposal.
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 170 diaries, 1276 comments)
on Friday, August 24, 2007 at 8:23:00 AM
Arnold cool to changing California's electoral-vote rules
Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 08/23/2007 08:47:17 PM PDT
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave a chilly reception Thursday to a GOP-backed plan to change the way California awards electoral votes in presidential elections - a proposal critics say could tilt the outcome in favor of Republicans.
"In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game," the Republican governor told reporters.
Schwarzenegger added that he wasn't versed in details of the ballot proposal and stressed that he wasn't taking a definitive position. But his uneasy response is likely to make it harder for supporters to build momentum and could chill fundraising.
The California Republican Party has not taken a position on the proposed ballot initiative.
California currently awards all 55 of its electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation.
But the winner would get only two electoral votes under the change being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the state Republican Party.
The rest would go to the winning candidate in each congressional district. That, in effect, would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.
Although California has gone Democratic in the past four presidential elections, 19 of its 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans.
That means the Republican presidential candidate could lose the state overall but still pick up 19 electoral votes for finishing first in every Republican district. During the 2004 election, President George W. Bush was handily defeated in California, but carried 22 districts.
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 170 diaries, 1276 comments)
on Friday, August 24, 2007 at 8:32:27 AM
I have only one criticism of this otherwise quite good piece
-- when you write "Perhaps this act is one reason Democrats remain so subservient," you suggest that the D's are frightened of actually being declared enemy combatants, tossed into Gitmo & tortured, if they stood up to oppose the tyranny that has overtaken this nation.
You are flattering the Democrats by implying that the explanation for their subservience & complicity is anywhere near so reasonable as that. The truth is far, far worse.
The reason they don't oppose the tyranny is that they don't really disagree with it. They don't disagree with its aims at all, & they have at most only limited qualms about its tactics & implementation. The tyranny aims basically to advance the interests of the US ruling financial oligarchy. Very few elected Democrats have any problem with that.
They are not much different from, say, a mid-level executive at a bank that makes predatory "subprime" loans. They're not going to risk their cushy positions by standing up & saying, "No, Mr Chairman, that is simply immoral and I refuse to go along with it!!" Rather, they know very well what's required to get along in the organization, & how to make positive career moves. It's crazy to assume that these guys are cut from some superior moral "heroic" cloth. Their game is not "defending the Constitution" but simply understanding who wields real influence, & how best to please those wielding such influence. Virtually all of them conform to power, in the same way that any careerist does.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1121 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 2:07:39 PM
I didn't mean to suggest they feared being tossed into Gitmo and tortured..LOL...although you may be right. I think that we have reached the point where everything is politics and getting elected, thanks to Rove. The votes were still being counted when the campaign for the 2008 elections hit the road.
But you have a point that they don't disagree with tyranny -- it's so damn profitable, and if it's coming anyway, why not be on the winning side? And, I think we would be very surprised -- even horrified -- if we knew how they really perceived "the masses." Er, that would be you and me. They tell us what they have to in order to get elected. After that, they don't want to be bothered with such trivial matters as homeless vets, starving children, an education system in ruins...we have to hunt the "terriers" down before they come over here and bite us...
There's morality, and then there's politics. The two don't mix in politics anymore -- if they ever did...
by
Sheila Samples (50 articles, 3522 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 377 comments)
on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 3:18:29 PM
