The political firmament shook briefly post-November 7 raising hopes change would follow the Republican's drubbing at the polls and the Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the GOP sweep in 1994. Presumed new House speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped the tremors making it clear no substantive change will be on the table when when the 110th Congress convenes on January 3. Instead, she announced to those paying attention it'll be business as usual (as it always is) as she intends to work with the president in a spirit of bipartisanship and not be "obstructionist" even though Republicans for past 12 years never returned that courtesy or even made a pretense of doing it.
Pelosi made it clear the Democrat victory will be just another betrayal of the electorate that sent her and the Democrats a strong message it voted for a mandated populist anti-Bush, anti-war agenda it won't get. It's always for the same reason - because those controlling the political process in Washington owe their allegiance to the interests of wealth and power that select and fund them and of which these officials are a part. The Democrat (anti-populist) Leadership Council (DLC) made that position clear when it participated in a November 10 post-election made-for-television spectacle in the Oval Office so the whole world could watch their new congressional leadership line up in a shameless public display of partnering with a criminal enterprise in the White House posing as a legitimate government they've been complicit with all along. Should anyone understanding how things work in Washington have expected anything else?
Politics 101, Washington-style teaches that nothing can be taken on its face, campaign promises are empty and disingenuous, and in the nation's Capitol the criminal class is bipartisan. Pelosi, whose background is one of privilege and not populism, and her leadership collaborators plan on business as usual come January. They intend taking full advantage of their newly empowered status to grab a bigger piece of the political pie without sharing any of it with their constituents beyond a few crumbs that exclude the most important things people voted for - ending the Iraq and Afghan wars of aggression and bringing US forces home, impeaching Bush and Cheney, addressing critically needed social services like health care and public education Republican and DLC Democrat rule have ignored and allowed to deteriorate, restoring our civil liberties, finding and prosecuting everyone involved in the cesspool of rampant endemic corporate and government corruption both parties allowed to go on and that only a few have had to answer for - and that's just for starters.
What about restoring constitutional democracy and the rule of law complete with checks and balances, the separation of powers and our elected officials held accountable to the public for all their actions and made to face the music when they betray the public trust. What about ending the privatization of the most fundamental element of a democratic process and returning control of it to the people - the electoral process (now corporate run and corrupted) that can only be fair under a system of verifiable paper ballots counted by hand by civil servants unconnected to either party or the corporatocracy that funds and owns them. What about allowing real alternative party candidates the right to run under a system of proportional representation and break the monopoly of a corrupted two-party, winner take all system. What about that and a lot more that a real democracy demands, and the sham one we now have won't allow.
Post-election, we're light years from any of that which was confirmed when the other newly empowered Democrats were also quick to show their shameless deference publicly. They, too, had their Oval Office moment, genuflected obediently for the cameras while there, and pledged their fealty to an unindicted war criminal who's done more harm to the core principles of the country and the welfare of everyone around the world (other than the elitists like themselves) than any former president since Richard Nixon who was forced from office in disgrace. Expect little chance of that for George Bush if the Democrats' disgraceful display of servility indicates what's ahead, which it does unless people wake up and demand the accountability everyone deserves.
New Senate majority whip Richard Durbin showed the public what it's up against. He expressed the victor's spirit of conciliation and complicity saying both sides spoke of "moving forward on an agenda, finding things that we can agree on to start off on the right foot." Incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid was even clearer than the Illinois senator saying "The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness, and to get some results....and that's what we're going to do." And the man the Wall Street Journal calls "the architect of the Democrats' Senate win," New York Senator and Senator to Tel Aviv Charles Schumer, said in a November 11 Journal interview "If we are seen as just blocking the president, it will not serve us well in 2008."
With acts of this kind of obeisance, any hope the 110th congress will address the key issues people voted for and demand faded like a late autumn sunset. For one thing, Nancy Pelosi said any notion of following through on what a growing majority of the public wants is off the table - impeaching George Bush (87% of participants in an MSNBC online poll still in progress said "yes" to impeachment). Pre-election, incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers said that would be a priority for him, but on November 10 he reneged saying "The incoming speaker has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."
The public needs to remind Mr. Conyers how he laid out the grounds for impeachment last December in a detailed 350 page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-Ups in the Iraq War" and later updated it to include "illegal domestic surveillance." Now the Michigan Democrat, just reelected to a 22nd term by his constituents, can do no better than say "To be sure, I have substantial concerns about the way this administration has abused its authority, but impeachment would not be good for the American people." Is he saying war crimes, crimes against humanity and the destruction of a democratic republic gone unpunished are good for the people?
In the past, Conyers had a record of being one of the few in Washington remembering who elected him and supporting their interests. What is this man now thinking in backing off on a crucially important issue with mass public support, and why after over 40 years in the Congress is he willing to renege on his word on a fundamental matter needing resolution before the country can move on? Mr. Conyers has the power to end our "long national nightmare" that will go on unless he does the job the public demands of him - and if he won't, he needs to step aside and let someone else do it.
Just last May in a Washington Post op-ed piece, the Michigan congressman had a different view than now saying a new Congress needs to get answers about whether the "intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war (and if) high-ranking (administration) officials approved the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees." If evidence was found, he indicated these would be potentially impeachable offenses and left no doubt he believes the constitutional law of the land is sacred, and if the president of the United States violated it he must be forced to answer for it like anyone else.
He did violate it, and there's plenty of evidence found to prove it. So why did John Conyers decide not to follow through on the evidence he found as he promised to do. The public needs to remind the congressman of the oath he took and the word he gave and demand he reverse his statement and chalk it up to a case of temporary bad judgment. He'll be forgiven if he does, but damned if not. It now remains to be seen if he's man enough to see his error, say he's ready to do the job he said he would, and be willing to fulfill the public trust with the power entrusted in him.
Conyers has all the evidence he needs in The Downing Street (Memo) Minutes mentioned above and in the title of his report. It refers to the secret 2002 Washington meeting of high level US and British officials when the intelligence claiming justification for the 2003 Iraq war was cooked to fit the policy already decided on by the Bush administration and is clearly stated in so many words. It was smoking gun evidence the president and his close advisors lied to the public to make their fraudulent case for the Iraq war. It had nothing to do with the falsified justification given for it, and that alone is grounds enough for initiating impeachment proceedings.
One of the war-planning co-conspirators practically admitted his guilt when Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld and now World Bank president, later gave an interview in Singapore and was asked publicly how it was he and others in Washington decided on WMDs as the reason to go to war. He answered "it was the only thing we all could agree on."
The new Democrat leadership apparently didn't hear him or bother to read the Downing Street Memo. It also fails to grasp that if Bill Clinton could be nonsensically impeached for lying in a sworn deposition about his sexual proclivities, the present incumbent deserves at least as much for going to war based on lies and murdering 655,000 or more Iraqis and counting plus the many thousands of Americans killed, wounded and to be affected by the war for the rest of their lives along with their families. He and his spurned Republican allies also need to be held to account for six years of wanton abuses of the public trust in all aspects of their agenda from hell still ongoing and unaddressed.
The list is endless and includes waging two illegal wars of naked aggression to supporting and funding the two illegal ones Israel waged over the summer with one still raging below the radar that's murdering defenseless Palestinians daily and that no one is acting to stop. It includes waging war on the public at home, dismantling or ending essentially needed social services, endangering the economy by a policy of reckless spending, destroying our civil liberties and seizing absolute state control through a power-grab coup d'etat the Democrats supported by their votes in the Congress or silence when they could have acted to thwart it with strong public support backing them.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
Certainly everything you've said appears to be confirmed in the post-election rhetoric of the newly-elected and re-elected.
It's the reason I've spent the last decade doing my best not to read, watch, or listen to the news, haven't voted in any election, and have incorporated the ambition of going through an entire presidential term without knowing the identity or party of the president (I haven't yet succeeded, but I've managed not to know the name of two vice predidents).
I don't see any solution in your article, and I can't fathom one, myself. I leaning toward crawling back into the hole where I spent the last decade middling happy not knowing what the hell was going on.
It's a roomy hole, and it's wall-papered with the words, "If you can't do anything to change it, it ain't your business".
Maybe it's a cop-out, but unless there's some meaningful alternative I'd just as soon spend my remaining years there.
Thanks for sharing your observations.
Jack
by
Jack Purcell (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 102 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 11:19:31 AM
My solution is at end of article - what Jefferson told us we need - a generational rebirthing by revolution and he'd be screaming for one now if he were here.
I'm just as frustrated with the criminal class running the country and Dems just as bad as the neocons. Neocons were Dems one time and decided sticks work better than carrots. Easy to say when we have lots more sticks than anyone else but they solve nothing as now even the neocons know.
by
Stephen Lendman (268 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 12:56:03 PM
I always hear people speaking of revolution. What I don't ever hear is what they would do to change things. Could I please hear your version of America under your administration? And please, not just vague "feel-good things." I would like to see something of substance. I am not trying to be argumentative but am actually curious.
by
larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 5:02:49 PM
I spent considerable time writing my new book Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government. In it, I call for a Second American Revolution, and Part 2 of the book presents considerable analysis and details on exactly what could and should be done, peacefully, without violence. I continue to be amazed that no organization out there advocates a complete set of political and policy reforms that altogether would constitute a revolution in our political system. So I ask those of you that did not drink the Democratic Kool-Aid and are not in a state of euphoria over the election results to please check out the book on my website www.delusionaldemocracy.com; thanks for a great article..
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (131 articles, 32 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 524 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 6:21:04 PM
I don't want to go to your website and wade through 800 pages of writing to see what you think. I asked you to do a fairly simple thing. Can you do this or not?
by
larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 10:22:23 AM
Sorry, I work 12 or more hours daily, 7 days a week. You can easily find what you want in minutes, and I have no time to offer more than pointing the way. Sloth is not one of the characteristics I admire. Along with indifference it's why we're in the mess we now face.
by
Stephen Lendman (268 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 10:35:51 AM
That was the word that jumped into my mind as well. Back at you. You said you were retired so I figured you had a couple of minutes to answer a simple question. Now I no longer care. Alas,another talking head in an empty suit.
by
larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 9:12:12 PM
I find your observations insiteful but somewhat flawed.
Many have said that most of the newly elected are more conservative,not so. Many new progressives were voted in and hopefully will help bring new life into a stagnated system. Mr.Conyers just might be sandbagging until he is assigned the Judiciary post before spouting off about Impeachment. Especially if he plans ontaking an airplane flight in the near future.Why would you show your hold card before the last card is dealt. Play them close to
the chest is what I say. So as not to seem too gulible, I will give the Dems until after the Janary turnover to pass final judgement.
by
nymta3 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 8:24:21 PM
Ah yes, that faction of the progressive left that gets all..
...warm and fuzzy when discussing the idea of a new American Revolution.
It reminds me of that scene early on in Gone With the Wind where Rhett Butler addresses the men of the aristocracy of Atlanta who lusted for war against the 'Yankees':
RHETT BUTLER : I think it's hard winning a war with words, gentlemen.
CHARLES: What do you mean, sir?
RHETT: I mean, Mr. Hamilton, there's not a cannon factory in the whole South.
MAN: What difference does that make, sir, to a gentleman?
RHETT: I'm afraid it's going to make a great deal of difference to a great many gentlemen, sir.
CHARLES: Are you hinting, Mr. Butler, that the Yankees can lick us?
RHETT: No, I'm not hinting. I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we. They've got factories, shipyards, coalmines... and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton, and slaves and ...arrogance.
MAN: That's treacherous!
CHARLES: I refuse to listen to any renegade talk!
RHETT: Well, I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
CHARLES: Apologies aren't enough sir. I hear you were turned out of West Point Mr. Rhett Butler. And that you aren't received in an decent family in Charleston. Not even your own.
RHETT: I apologize again for all my shortcomings. Mr. Wilkes, Perhaps you won't mind if I walk about and look over your place. I seem to be spoiling everybody's brandy and cigars and...dreams of victory.
--------------------
Keep talking revolution, and the fact that people from the ideological right have all the guns in this country will make a great deal of a difference to a great many progressive gentlefolk.
I'm sure the Charles Hamiltons out there in progressive-land will have all sorts of chides and insults for me. But if you think for one second that the conservative right will sit idly by while the Constitution is scrapped via some sort of Ukranian style orange, bloodless progressive revolution, you really dont know what those folks are like. Read Free Republic www.freerepublic.com and you will see. If a revolution comes, those folks will not hesitate to shoot every one of us. You can take that to the bank.
by
Steven Leser (226 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1615 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 11:42:29 PM
Why would you show your hold card before the last card is dealt[?] Play them close to the chest is what I say. So as not to seem too [gullible], I will give the Dems until after the [January] turnover to pass final judgement.
As will I. While there are things happening in the news that should be more than enough reason for even more elation here (Dumbsfeld gone and likely to face prosecution in Germany for war crimes), it is a surety that we won't really know what's really coming until the new congress truly becomes the new congress. Until then, I think there should be some benefit of the doubt given to the newbies coming to Capital Hill.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 3:37:21 AM
You call what I wrote flawed - I call you pretty naive. Sure some good people got elected, the kinds we want and need. So what. They have no more power than you or I. The leadership has the power and the committee chairmen if they choose to use it and when they don't like Conyers we learn they're all mouth and don't really give a damn.
Get all progressive leaders and one in White House and a little will change. Nothing will change in January. I know that now. You'll find out soon enough.
Don't you know how our system works. Giants corporations own and run the country and world. Politicians are selected, funded and put in office to serve them, not us. It's about time you figured that out on your own.
by
Stephen Lendman (268 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 6:12:41 AM
The beauty of your thesis is it is completely unprovable and
undisprovable. If I were elected to congress, I would possibly vote for a tax break for companies that pay a living wage to workers. God help me if one of those companies every made a campaign contribution to me. Without being inside someone's head, it is difficult to tell exactly why they did something.
The minimum wage increase we are about to see would not have happened if the Democrats didnt win, but thats ok, they are the same as Republicans.
Rumsfeld would still be in power if the Democrats didn't win, but thats ok, the Democrats are the same as Republicans.
The emphasis on getting out of Iraq would not exist without the Democrats about to come into power, but thats ok, the Democrats are the same as Republicans.
It really is too bad that there are thinking people who rely on trite campaign-type propaganda, sensationalism and demagoguery as their primary political message. Five seconds of thought is all that is needed to completely discredit you and what you say and write.
You COULD be intellectually honest and say, while there are significant differences between the two parties, they are not different enough for me, but I guess that isn't exciting enough for you. Too bad, that sort of an honest message would show a lot more respect for those you are trying to reach too. I wonder if you ever thought of it that way.
by
Steven Leser (226 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1615 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 1:19:29 PM
Don't know where you're coming from. My conclusions are slam-dunk provable. Have you been asleep, not paying attention or too young to know the difference.
by
Stephen Lendman (268 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 1:29:02 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
