Heroes Don't Vote for Criminals.

Rebecca Solnit has written a diatribe in the form of a letter that is being passed around under the title of "We could be heroes."

Yes, we could be heroes, if we were to challenge the two-party dictatorship of the American Brand of Fascism that controls our semi-democratic institutions.

Here is my response.

 

LOL! Poor Rebecca, having to whine about whiners whining about whiners. Where does all the whining begin? Must be the big bang that whines through the ages.

Poor Rebecca says, “I have a grand goal, and that is to counter the Republican right with its deep desire to annihilate everything I love and to move toward far more radical goals than the Democrats ever truly support.”  Now, I’m all for ambiguity as the natural state of reality, for complexity in goals, for aiming at goals that are actually in different directions, for conundrum and paradox in political positions, but the idea that the road to achieving these two goals of Rebecca’s leads through the town of supporting the Democratic Party is just plain wrong.  It is a misreading of the map so fundamentally upside down that it is like driving to Seattle to see the manatees and gators.

Rebecca can call me “rancid” and I could come up with a few choice adjectives for her, but I will just stick with “poor Rachel” as her letter presents both a poor grasp of politics and of human nature.  Poor Rachel can’t see the cosmology of the radical left because she closes her eyes and ears to it, not because it is not presented.

So, Poor Rebecca admits that she does not deplore with a lot of fuss the “bad things” that Obama does because she expects him to do those bad things.  In other words, she expects him to assassinate people as the stated foreign policy and to kill US citizens and to torture and to pay off his Wall Street buddies while foreclosures burn, and the list goes on and on.  She just doesn’t deplore the leader who fiddles while America burns because she expects the fiddling.  That is the attitude of poverty of thought.

STRAW MAN:  Then Rebecca wheels out the straw man argument that she couldn’t talk to her leftist friends about our ex-Governor Schwarzenegger’s positive respects. That is a straw man argument which has nothing to do with the actual positive and negative aspects of the current president.  Basically, all Rebecca presents in her rant is variations on the logical fallacy of the straw man. 

Next, Rebecca tells us as if we are children in kindergarten that “There are bad things and they are bad. There are good things and they are good, even though the bad things are bad.”  Yes, Rebecca we know this truism. We also know where the wild things are.

Rebecca wants to know, what purpose does it serve to point out that a person who claims to be anti-death penalty is condoning the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs?  Dear Rebecca, the purpose is to point out the blanket label of “anti-death penalty” is qualified not absolute.  You can celebrate the coolness of Kamala Harris; just don’t claim that her coolness gives her a free pass to escape criticism for where she is not so cool. Rebecca acts as if Obama’s saying he is for peace should not be countered with all the examples of his pro-war mongering including drones killing wedding participants and assassination of US citizens. What Rebecca is blind to is the insanity of a man accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and in his acceptance speech talking about how he is a better warrior. 

Rebecca claims she wants to focus on fixing problems or being compassionate, yet her rant is just as uncompassionate as those she rants against.  Her rant is also just as void of focus on fixing problems as she moans about others.  There is not one fix suggested for our democratic system presented.

Poor Rebecca calls unconstitutional and impeachable acts by the president “dimples on the imperial derriere” and says they are not worth discussing.  Yes, Poor Rebecca doesn’t want to discuss such dirty and troubling things; she wants to talk about the things that look good.

If Rebecca votes for Obama with the belief that fewer people will suffer, then that is her choice based on her calculation. If I vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, with the belief that fewer people will suffer then why doesn’t she grant me this choice, but instead says that my belief is wrong and my vote is just “choosing the greater of two evils”?  See? Rebecca is as guilty of left voter suppression as anyone.   The “evils” slogan in this context comes from the Democrats, not from the leftists, but Rebecca adds another straw man argument claiming that it is leftists who coined and push the “evils” meme.

Another straw man argument made by Rebecca is the one that rants against the left for saying “that there’s no difference” between the two parties.  But there is no leftist who makes that argument.  When people say the choice between the Republican and Democratic candidates for president is a choice between Pepsi and Coke, they are not saying “there is no difference.” Everyone knows that Pepsi and Coke taste different.  What is being said is that when it comes to the things of most importance to the voter the differences in taste are not as significant as the similarity in sugar content.  

Yes, Rebecca, we are facing a right wing that has abandoned all interest in truth and fact.  I call them the American Taliban. And yes, to oppose them requires that we be different from them.  They support and reelect their president no matter what crimes he commits, so we must be different and not support and not reelect our president because of the crimes he commits. Calling Obama’s crimes “minor differences” of opinion is just plain disgusting.  Overlooking Obama’s crimes insures that there is no possibility of changing the conditions that allows him to continue committing those crimes. 

Rebecca’s form of defeatism is the fetishism of the politics of hope that blinds her to the actual crimes being committed in her name.  People need hope. But they need hope that is real not just the false promise of hope by a con game played on the voters using the two-party tyranny that keeps the Republicans and Democrats in power switching back and forth.  Rebecca says she want to achieve the goal of countering the Republican right, but that goal can’t be achieved by supporting the very same Democrats who depend on the Republican right for their reason for existence.  Democrats could have countered the Republican right many years ago but have failed to do so becauseit is not in their interests to do so. 

If we want to talk about fixing the problem, about compassion for democracy, let’s talk about fixing the system.  I ask all "big D" Democrats: if you truly believe in "small d" democracy, then why don't you demand that your party (1) turn over the Presidential Debates to a public commission and (2) allow any candidate on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral college votes to participate?  If you are a Democrat, how can you say you support democracy yet don't allow a true competition in the political marketplace? The American Brand of Fascism is based on the two-party tyranny of our democratic institutions. The single most important first step to fixing the institutional system of democracy in the USA is for the people to take the control of the presidential debates out of the hands of the private corporation that runs them and is controlled by the two parties themselves and return thepresidential debates back to the people.

 

 

 

 

Protest should mean not placating.

This is a response to the article "Obama Needs a Protest Movement" by Francis Fox Piven in The Nation (see below.)

Oh my, I am astonished. Frances Fox Piven says, "The astonishing election of 2008 is over. Whatever else the future holds, the unchallenged domination of American national government by big business and the political right has been broken."

What election is she talking about? While, for the time being only, government has been wrestled from the hold of the political right wing of the big business party, Obama and his centrist Democrat supporters are as equally dominated by the liberal wing of big business as the political right wing of big business ever dominated the Republicans. Otherwise, for just one example, Joseph Lieberman wouldn't still be chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and instead, there would be talk about the dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security.

If Piven's premise is true that the domination by big business was “unchallenged”, then it can only be true because the Democrats were the ones not challenging in Congress, There were plenty of challenges from outside government. Every indication of Obama's transition decision making so far shows that there will continue to be no challenge to those big business interests coming from the White House and Congress shows no signs of challenging bib business either.

Since Piven's whole article, and excellent history lesson, is really about the need to have a challenge to the continuing domination of American national government by big business, I wonder why she opens with such a patently false premise? In my view, such placating of Democratic centrists by massaging their egos and self-delusion when it comes to their being dominated by big business is exactly the problem we progressives have, not our solution. The bottom line is that if Obama needs a protest movement it is only because he doesn't want one, and that is the problem the American people have with the big business interests controlling Obama and Congress, whether they are called Democrats or Republicans.

Gregory Wonderwheel

----- Original Message -----
From: moderator@PORTSIDE.ORG
To: PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:30 PM
Subject: Obama needs a protest movement

Obama needs a protest movement
by Frances Fox Piven

The Nation - 11/15/08 this article appears in the Dec. 01, 2008 issue

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/piven

The astonishing election of 2008 is over. Whatever else the future holds, the unchallenged domination of American national government by big business and the political right has been broken. Even more amazing, Americans have elected an African-American as president. These facts alone are rightful cause for jubilation.

Naturally, people are making lists of what the new administration should do to begin to reverse the decades-long trends toward rising inequality, unrestrained corporate plunder, ecological disaster, military adventurism and constricted democracy. But if naming our favored policies is the main thing we do, we are headed for a terrible letdown. Let's face it: Barack Obama is not a visionary or even a movement leader. He became the nominee of the Democratic Party, and then went on to win the general election, because he is a skillful politician. That means he will calculate whom he has to conciliate and whom he can ignore in realms dominated by big-money contributors from Wall Street, powerful business lobbyists and a Congress that includes conservative Blue Dog and Wall Street-oriented Democrats. I don't say this to disparage Obama. It is simply the way it is, and if Obama was not the centrist and conciliator he is, he would not have come this far this fast, and he would not be the president-elect.

Still, the conditions that influence politicians can change. The promises and hopes generated by election campaigns sometimes help to raise hopes and set democratic forces in motion that break the grip of politics as usual. I don't mean that the Obama campaign operation is likely to be transformed into a continuing movement for reform. A campaign mobilization is almost surely too flimsy and too dependent on the candidate to generate the weighty pressures that can hold politicians accountable. Still, the soaring rhetoric of the campaign; the slogans like "We are the ones we have been waiting for"; the huge, young and enthusiastic crowds--all this generates hope, and hope fuels activism among people who otherwise accept politics as usual.

Sometimes, encouraged by electoral shifts and campaign promises, the ordinary people who are typically given short shrift in political calculation become volatile and unruly, impatient with the same old promises and ruses, and they refuse to cooperate in the institutional routines that depend on their cooperation. When that happens, their issues acquire a white-hot urgency, and politicians have to respond, because they are politicians. In other words, the disorder, stoppages and institutional breakdowns generated by this sort of collective action threaten politicians. These periods of mass defiance are unnerving, and many authoritative voices are even now pointing to the dangers of pushing the Obama administration too hard and too far. Yet these are also the moments when ordinary people enter into the political life of the country and authentic bottom-up reform becomes possible.

The parallels between the election of 2008 and the election of 1932 are often invoked, with good reason. It is not just that Obama's oratory is reminiscent of FDR's oratory, or that both men were brought into office as a result of big electoral shifts, or that both took power at a moment of economic catastrophe. All this is true, of course. But I want to make a different point: FDR became a great president because the mass protests among the unemployed, the aged, farmers and workers forced him to make choices he would otherwise have avoided. He did not set out to initiate big new policies. The Democratic platform of 1932 was not much different from that of 1924 or 1928. But the rise of protest movements forced the new president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers.

The movements of the 1930s were often set in motion by radical agitators--Communists, Socialists, Musteites-- but they were fueled by desperation and economic calamity. Unemployment demonstrations, usually (and often not without reason) labeled riots by the press, began in 1929 and 1930, as crowds assembled, raised demands for "bread or wages," and then marched on City Hall or local relief offices. In some places, "bread riots" broke out as crowds of the unemployed marched on storekeepers to demand food, or simply to take it.

In the big cities, mobs used strong-arm tactics to resist the rising numbers of evictions. In Harlem and on the Lower East Side, crowds numbering in the thousands gathered to restore evicted families to their homes. In Chicago, small groups of black activists marched through the streets of the ghetto to mobilize the large crowds that would reinstall evicted families. A rent riot there left three people dead and three policemen injured in August 1931, but Mayor Anton Cermak ordered a moratorium on evictions, and some of the rioters got work relief. Later, in the summer of 1932, Cermak told a House committee that if the federal government didn't send $150 million for relief immediately, it should be prepared to send troops later. Even in Mississippi, Governor Theodore Bilbo told an interviewer, "Folks are restless. Communism is gaining a foothold. Right here in Mississippi, some people are about ready to lead a mob. In fact, I'm getting a little pink myself." Meanwhile, also in the summer of 1932, farmers across the country armed themselves with pitchforks and clubs to prevent the delivery of farm products to markets where the price paid frequently did not cover the cost of production.

Notwithstanding the traditional and conservative platform of the Democratic Party, FDR's campaign in 1932 registered these disturbances in new promises to "build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put...faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid." Economic conditions worsened in the interim between the election and the inauguration, and the clamor for federal action became more strident. Within weeks, Roosevelt had submitted legislation to Congress for public works spending, massive emergency relief to be implemented by states and localities, agricultural assistance and an (ultimately unsuccessful) scheme for industrial recovery.

The unruly protests continued, and in many places they were crucial in pressuring reluctant state and local officials to implement the federally initiated aid programs. Then, beginning in 1933, industrial workers inspired by the rhetorical promises of the new administration began to demand the right to organize. By the mid-1930s, mass strikes were a threat to economic recovery and to the Democratic voting majorities that had put FDR in office. A pro-union labor policy was far from Roosevelt's mind when he took office in 1933. But by 1935, with strikes escalating and the election of 1936 approaching, he was ready to sign the National Labor Relations Act.

Obama's campaign speeches emphasized the theme of a unified America where divisions bred by race or party are no longer important. But America is, in fact, divided: by race, by party, by class. And these divisions will matter greatly as we grapple with the whirlwind of financial and economic crises, of prospective ecological calamity, of generational and political change, of widening fissures in the American empire. I, for one, do not have a blueprint for the future. Maybe we are truly on the cusp of a new world order, and maybe it will be a better, more humane order. In the meantime, however, our government will move on particular policies to confront the immediate crisis. Whether most Americans will have an effective voice in these policies will depend on whether we tap our usually hidden source of power, our ability to refuse to cooperate on the terms imposed from above.

Copyright c 2008 The Nation

[Frances Fox Piven is on the faculty of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. She is the author, most recently, of Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America ].
_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: moderator@portside.org
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive

Back Street Gets the Shaft While Wall Street Gets Welfare & Main Street Gets Conned

We hear a lot about Wall Street and Main Street these days but the politicians and the main stream media are doing their absolute best to ignore the Back Street as usual.

Every single Democrat and Republican who is supporting the Wall Street welfare plan is nothing but a hypocrite!

Republicans voting for the $700 Billion gift to the rich, whose platform is to oppose the "welfare" state, are completely hypocritical because they support the welfare-for-the-rich state. Hating the very word "socialism," the Republicans eagerly engage in privatizing their profits while socializing their risk.

Democrats who are voting for the boondoggle are hypocritical because, while they may support welfare (as I do), they are not giving the welfare to the people who need it and instead are giving it to the rich who don't. While claiming to be for working people the Democrats are working against the interests of working people and those on the back streets.

This scenario is as old as our nation and is the direct echo of the first Congress' consideration of the first funding bills in the new Congress of 1790.

Among the most important of the very first issues the new Congress had to deal with was the funding crisis. The primary issue was paying off the national debt owed to people holding Continental Dollars that were the script issued by the Revolutionary Army to fight the war. Most of the debt was owed to farmers and shopkeepers when the Army was taking supplies to fight the war. Much of it was also in soldier's pay some of it held by the widows of the soldiers. The Continentals had the name of the person they were issued to written on them along with the dollar amount. They were more like today’s checks than currency.

During the time of the Articles of Confederation between 1783 and 1789 there was no assurance at all that these Continentals would be paid by the new nation while the Confederation Congress fought over whose responsibility it was to pay, the states or the federal government.

Some states, like Pennsylvania, just went ahead and honorably paid off the Continentals. Others did not, claiming it was the National debt.

When the first Congress convened under the new Constitution the debt payment issue came up again. In the mean time speculators had been going around the country buying up Continentals paying widows, poor farmers and other note holders at only pennies on the dollar. While the debate was going on in Congress, many Congressman were buying up Continentals using agents and brokers.

The Debate boiled down to the positions between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Hamilton wanted to give anyone currently holding the Continental its full dollar value. That of course meant that anyone holding them in speculation having paid only pennies on the dollar would make a giant windfall profit. Hamilton used the exact same arguments we are hearing today: it is necessary to being about confidence in the financial system, the people who bore the risk should not have to lose anything, it is good for the country.

Madison's position was that any original note holder currently holding a Continental should be paid full face value but if the current note holder was not the original person it was issued to then the current holder should only get a reasonable rate of interest on his investment and the remainder should go back to the original note holders, the widows, farmers and merchants who had to sell them to survive while Congress diddled.

Needless to say with so many Congressmen themselves holding Continental notes in speculation the Hamilton position won out and the rich shared in the spoils at the taxpayer's expense.

The parallels should be obvious today as we watch the rich both inside and outside of Congress put out the phony claim that this is needed for Americans to have "confidence" in the system when what they are doing is actually a confidence game on American taxpayer no less egregious than Hamilton's was.

There are many good solutions out there but the majority in Congress are not interested in listening. They know where and how their bread is buttered and even with all their stated concerns about Main Street, their only care is for Wall Street. And Wall Street is only a legalized gambling institution.

Where are the Back Streets in this debate?

Some Democrats and Republicans supporting this Wall Street welfare would tell you that there is help for Main Street in this package. But I don't take tax breaks for Microsoft, Wal-mart, and Harley-Davidson to be helping the people on the Back Streets. I don't see the tax breaks for toy wooden arrow makers in Oregon and Wisconsin to be helping the Back Streets or Back Roads. Those business interests are on the up side of the tracks and such pointed specific tax breaks are exactly the kind of special interest loopholes that the people want Congress to stop dealing out.

The increase of FDIC insurance from $100K to $250K isn't about the Back Street or even most of Main Street. The people I know are going from pay check to pay check and if they have $10,000 in the bank they feel lucky.

Only the Progressive Democrats like Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, et al., have so far seemed to really care about the Back Streets of America.

What does the Bible have to offer?

As a Buddhist, I find it very hypocritical of Republican and Democratic congresspeople voting for the Wall Street welfare package to be claiming to be good Christians in this con game.

It used to be--in the long ago days before Nixon and Reagan--that good Christians saw Wall Street as a dens of gamblers who were nothing but parasites on society. Nixon began and Reagan solidified the unholy marriage of fundamentalist Christians and Republican Wall Street gamblers where each agreed to ignore their animosity for the other if they agreed to support the specific narrow issues of the other. Essentially Wall Street speculators said, "If you support us and stop calling us parasites we will support you and you anti-abortion crusade."

Of course the fundamentalist evangelical Christians were sold on that con-game and even though the promise was false from the beginning-- because Wall Street knew it could not deliver--the gamblers of Wall Street have reaped the profits of their con.

If anyone considers themselves to be a Christian, then I tell you the Bible couldn't be clearer: the rich are not on your side, they are not to be trusted, they are not to be honored, they are gamblers and thieves who are parasites on society. There is nothing at all in the Bible about being against abortion, yet how many Christians really take the teachings on riches to heart?

Sure there are some nice rich people, but the fact remains that no wealth has ever been amassed in the entire history of the world that was not at root ill-gotten gains, created in some manner by greed, hatred, or ignorance.

Most of us know the Jesus quote from Matthew 19:23-24:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

How many really give it their attention?

And take these for instance:

Proverbs 28:5-7:

5 Evil men do not understand justice,
but those who seek the LORD understand it fully.
6 Better a poor man whose walk is blameless
than a rich man whose ways are perverse.
7 He who keeps the law is a discerning son,
but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.

Proverbs 28:27:

He who gives to the poor will lack nothing,
but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.

Proverbs 20:9:

A generous man will himself be blessed,
for he shares his food with the poor.

Proverbs 22:16:

He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth
and he who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty.

Proverbs 22:22-23:

Do not exploit the poor because they are poor
and do not crush the needy in court,
for the LORD will take up their case
and will plunder those who plunder them.

Psalm 49:16

Do not be overawed when a man grows rich,
when the splendor of his house increases;
17 for he will take nothing with him when he dies,
his splendor will not descend with him.

Micah 3:

9 Hear this, you leaders of the house of Jacob,
you rulers of the house of Israel,
who despise justice
and distort all that is right;
10 who build Zion with bloodshed,
and Jerusalem with wickedness.
11 Her leaders judge for a bribe,
her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Yet they lean upon the LORD and say,
"Is not the LORD among us?
No disaster will come upon us."
12 Therefore because of you,
Zion will be plowed like a field,
Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble,
the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.

Micah 6:

6 With what shall I come before the LORD
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

What's the point? The Wall Street Welfare for the rich has nothing to do with benefitting the people of Main Street or the Back Streets. Those who support the Wall Street Welfare are not doing so for any religious or moral reason. So, why are they doing it?

As always: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Wake Up America - Best Speech at the convention.

So far the best speech at the convention by far was by Dennis Kucinich. It will be very hard for Obama to top "Wake Up America!"

Considering that Kucinich was given only 5 minutes and not the 20 he deserved, I'd go so far as to say it was the best 5 minute political speech in my lifetime of 58 years.

The Obama campaign made a big mistake putting Kucinich in the sub-prime time slot. So far Obama is running a "safe" campaign just like Kerry in 2004, and so far the polls show that Obama may get the very same result.

Putting the inspiring Kucinich into sub-prime time, and giving the uninspiring corporate spokesman Warner the keynote address shows the low note that the Obama campaign is playing, and the note sounds pretty sour too.

The Obama campaign is micro-managing and controlling the convention just like Kerry did in 2004, and they are driving the party into the same ditch.

Betsy Rothstein at TheHill Opens her report with

Obama tightens grip on podium speeches
Written by Betsy Rothstein

DENVER — Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is tightening the reins on campaign speeches and stressing that speakers emphasize a rags-to-riches theme.

Members of Congress and others who have been asked to address the convention must have their speeches approved by the Obama campaign. In many cases, the speeches are drastically changed — to the point where the original speech is completely scrapped, Democratic sources say.

This kind of propaganda management of the convention drains the life out of it. It is no wonder that most of the speeches are so poor. The leadership of the Democratic Party needs to learn some day that its vitality is in the free voices of the people, not in the scripted advertising of political professionals. If Candidate Obama won't let the authentic voices of his own Party speak, people had better get prepared now for the same or worse treatment from President Obama. Folks, people don't change when they get to the White House, they become more tight in their control not less.

Rothstein also reports on the Obama tampering and censorship with Kucinich's speech:

Yet not every speech has been completely overhauled. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who was asked by Obama to speak about the economy, was scheduled to deliver his speech Tuesday afternoon. The Obama campaign struck just one line from his speech, which slammed the Republicans and the Bush administration, according to a Democratic source.

That line, addressing Republicans, read: “They’re asking for another four years — in a just world, they’d get 10 to 20.”

Too bad that was censored. I bet it would have brought the roof down.

Here's the YouTube video of Dennis' speech.

Here's the text from the Convention website (edited to what Dennis actually said.)

Dennis Kucinich, (OH-10)Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 04:35 PM

Hello Fellow Democrats. Are you ready for November?

This one's for you, Stephanie.

Fellow Democrats let's go to Election Day. It’s Election Day 2008, and we Democrats are giving America a wake-up call. Wake up, America. In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neo-con artists seized the economy and added 4 trillion dollars of unproductive spending to the national debt. We now pay four times more for defense, three times more for gasoline and home heating oil and twice what we paid for health care.

Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, their pensions. Trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war paid for with borrowed money. Tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons disappeared into thin air, at the cost of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis, while all the president’s oilmen are maneuvering to grab Iraq’s oil.

Borrowed money to bomb bridges in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No money to rebuild bridges in America. Money to start a hot war with Iran. Now we have another cold war with Russia, and the American economy has become a game of Russian roulette.

Now, if there was an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating, this administration would take the gold. World records for violations of national and international law. They want another four-year term to continue to alienate our allies, spend our children’s inheritance and hollow out our economy.

We can’t afford another Republican administration. Wake up, America. The insurance companies took over health care. Wake up, America. The pharmaceutical companies took over drug pricing.

Wake up, America. The speculators took over Wall Street. Wake up, America. They want to take your Social Security. Wake up, America. Multinational corporations took over our trade policies, factories are closing, good paying jobs are being lost.

Wake up, America. We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10-a-gallon gasoline. The oil administration, they want to drill more, into your wallet. Wake up, America. Contrators, those war contractors want more. An Iran war will cost 5 to 10 trillion dollars.

Now, this administration can tap our phones. They can’t tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. But they can’t open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. They lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline and electricity skyrockets. Now they skillfully played our post-9/11 fears and they've allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many. Every day we get the color orange, while the oil companies, the insurance companies, the speculators, the war contractors get the color green.

Wake up, America. Now, this is not a call for you to take a new direction from right to left. This is call for you to go from down to up. Up with the rights of workers. Up with wages. Up with fair trade. Up with creating millions of good paying jobs, rebuilding our bridges, our water systems, our sewer systems, our ports. Up with creating millions of sustainable energy jobs to lower the cost of energy, lower carbon emissions and protect the environment.

Up with health care for all. Up with education for all. Up with home ownership. Up with guaranteed retirement benefits. Up with peace. Up with prosperity. Up with the Democratic Party. Up with Obama-Biden.

Wake up, America. Wake up, America. Wake up, America.

The Democratic Primaries Are Over, I'm Headed for Greener Pastures

After watching what the Democratic Party has done to Dennis Kucinich, it is abundantly clear that the Democratic Party doesn't care a whit about democracy or the principles of fair play.

Rather than conducting a primary election for delegates in which every candidate has an equal chance to collect delegates going to the convention, the Democratic Party has rigged the game so that candidates who represent a minority view within the party are disenfranchised.

The Democratic Party does this in many ways but the two chief ways are through the manipulation of the voting system using the 15% rule, and the manipulation of the debate system by collaboration with the media-military corporations. Just as the Democrats in congress have sold out the Party over the war and impeachment, the Democratic Party has abdicated its own authority over its own primaries and convention by giving control of our public elections to private corporate interests.

This cannot stand if we are to have a viable democracy. It is not the neo-cons to blame only. Instead the Democratic Party is bringing us a neo-fascism that is sold with the expertise of Madison Ave. By having no principles when it comes to the conduct of the primaries and the debates the Democratic Party has shown its true colors.

There used to be a time when conventions were open and the delegates at the convention picked the Party nominee after a few or many rounds of voting. This was because candidates could get delegates in any amounts and build up a minority pool of delegates. When several candidates get a minority of delegates each then it is much more difficult for one delegate to get a majority. For example, if four candidates have 14% that is 56% and the fifth candidate can only get 44% and not go into the convention with a majority.

Of course over a hundred years ago it used to be that the delegates to the conventions were selected through party machines in the various states and at the convention where the nominees were selected, as Franklin D. Roosevelt said, thorough "a system typified in the public imagination by a little group in a smoke-filled room who made out the party slates." The direct primaries were created and adopted to make the nominating process more democratic, as FDR said "to give the party voters themselves a chance to pick their party candidates."

The primaries used to begin in summer after the June recess of Congress. By creeping competition to be first, they now begin in January and we are all familiar with the most recent controversies over this front loading of primaries with the Michigan and Florida voters now disenfranchised from the primary process through no fault of their own in the wrangling between state and national party bosses, sometimes even party bosses of the opposite party setting the date of the primary.

However, more than front loading, the major threat to giving the party voters themselves the chance to pick their party candidate is the 15% rule that effectively reinserts the party bosses into the direct primary in a sly and ingenious manner. They have done this by manipulation of the debate system and by rigging the voting system.

Manipulating the Debate System:

I have found the blogs and comments discussing the question of Dennis Kucinich's exclusion from the debates to be most informative. Many people who would otherwise call themselves liberals or progressives resort to the most fallacious arguments against fair and democratic debates when it is in the interest of their own candidate getting an advantage. Thus all kinds of arbitrary ideas are put forward about why Kucinich should be kept out of the debates with no regard for measurable objective standards.

For example, people have said that Kucinich should be kept out of the debate because "no one gives a shit" about him, as if that constitutes a rational argument. I have read people arguing that if Kucinich is in the debates then any person who simply registers as a candidate should be in the debates as if it doesn't matter that Kucinich is actually on the ballots of all the states. Cataloguing the logical fallacies would take a separate blog in itself.

But even more pernicious and diabolical to democracy is the acceptance of the idea that private corporate interests, the very interests who are today's party bosses operating in a smoke-free room out of public scrutiny, should be allowed to determine which candidates may fairly participate in the most important public election in the nation. The party bosses have entered into an unholy alliance with their corporate backers and masters to allow the media machines to manipulate the perceptions of the public in a manner that keeps bona fide but minority voices outside the forum of the legitimate debates, thus delegimatizing those critical voices.

As Kucinich pointed out on Democracy Now! yesterday:

AMY GOODMAN: You’re just about to come to the studio, and so we’ll be having you join in the debate you were excluded from last night. But before you do, as you pull up right near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., explain your lawsuit and what happened at the last minute last night as the case made its way through the courts of Las Vegas.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: NBC, GE, maintained—well, they—you know, we were invited and as a result of meeting criteria of being in the top four in a national poll. This was before Bill Richardson dropped out. And when I met the criteria, NBC then announced they had changed the criteria so it would only be the top three that would be invited.

We challenged that as a contract, and attorneys in Nevada won a case before a superior court judge, who said that NBC had an obligation to provide me with a place in the debate, and if they did not, he would stop the debate from happening.

NBC—and when that account was journalized, NBC then immediately contacted the Supreme Court, and a hearing was held. I was told it was an extraordinary hearing of all seven members of the Supreme Court, who—three of whom were in Carson City, Nevada and were teleconferenced in, and they heard a presentation by NBC’s attorneys, who maintained that the debate was essentially a private matter and that no—you know, really little discussion on their part of any public interest came up. They alluded that, alternatively, this was a matter that should have been brought before the FCC, not a contract matter, and then, in the same breath, said that cable networks aren’t [inaudible] to the FCC.

So we’ve—you know, we’re in a conundrum here about what the public’s rights are, because this goes far beyond my humble candidacy. It goes right to the question of democratic governance, whether a broadcast network can choose who the candidates will be based on their narrow concerns, because they’ve contributed—GE, NBC and Raytheon, another one of GE’s property, have all contributed substantially to Democratic candidates who were in the debate. And the fact of the matter is, with GE building nuclear power plants, they have a vested interest in Yucca Mountain in Nevada being kept open; with GE being involved with Raytheon, another defense contractor, they have an interest in war continuing. So NBC ends up being their propaganda arm to be able to advance their economic interests.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Kucinich, in the court filings, NBC painted itself as the victim. It said, “Mr. Kucinich’s claim is nothing more than an illegitimate private cause of action designed to impose an equal access requirement that entirely undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment.”

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know, the double [inaudible] here is apparent. First of all, they’re, you know, broadcast licensees. NBC operates its network under the FCC Act of 1934, supposedly to function in the public interest, convenience and necessity. They do not do that. And some of the law they were citing related more to newspapers, which have a broad First Amendment protection, and newspapers, of course, are not licensed. You know, broadcast licensees have an altogether different responsibility. But they were claiming that they were shielded from that by a congressional action which exempts cable companies from FCC purview. So, you know, this is one of those things that my attorneys are going to take up with the FCC, certainly, but you haven’t heard the last of legal action on our behalf here with respect to NBC.

I think that what they’re trying to do is stack a presidential election using their broadcast media power, and they’re doing it to further the interests of their own parent corporation, General Electric. And this is something that I am not going to stop challenging, because this is really important to issues of democratic governance, what kind of country we’re going to have, because the corporations are really in a position where they’re using the broadcast media to rig presidential elections by determining who’s viable based on who gets coverage; in the advent of an election, who goes on the news shows and who is getting their contributions from their executives. This is a real serious matter.

AMY GOODMAN: As we break the sound barrier, including Congressmember Dennis Kucinich in the presidential—Democratic presidential debate that took place last night in Las Vegas, we now turn to a question asked by Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press.

TIM RUSSERT: The volunteer army, many believe, disproportionate in terms of poor and minority who participate in our armed forces. There’s a federal statute on the books, which says that if a college or university does not provide space for military recruiters or provide a ROTC program for its students, it can lose its federal funding. Will you vigorously enforce that statute?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Yes, I will. You know, I think that the young men and women who voluntarily join our all-volunteer military are among the best of our country. I want to do everything I can as president to make sure that they get the resources and the help that they deserve. I want a new twenty-first century GI Bill of Rights, so that our young veterans can get the money to go to college and to buy a home and start a business.

And I’ve worked very hard on the Senate Armed Services Committee to, you know, try to make up for some of the negligence that we’ve seen from the Bush administration. You know, Tim, the Bush administration sends mixed messages. They want to recruit and retain these young people to serve our country, and then they have the Pentagon trying to take away the signing bonuses when a soldier gets wounded and ends up in the hospital, something that, you know, I’m working with a Republican senator to try to make sure never can happen again.

So I think we should recognize that national service of all kinds is honorable, and it’s essential to the future of our country. I want to expand civilian national service. But I think that everyone should make available an opportunity for a young man or woman to be in ROTC, to be able to join the military, and I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women in the military and their families.

TIM RUSSERT: Of the top ten rated schools, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, they do not have ROTC programs on campus. Should they?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation. But they should certainly not do anything that either undermines or disrespects the young men and women who wish to pursue a military career.

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Obama, same question. Will you vigorously enforce a statute which says colleges must allow military recruiters on campus and provide ROTC programs?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Yes. One of the striking things, as you travel around the country, you go into rural communities and you see how disproportionately they are carrying the load in this war in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. And it is not fair.

Now, the volunteer army, I think, is a way for us to maintain excellence. And if we [are deploying our military wisely, then a voluntary army is sufficient, although I would call for an increase in our force structure, particularly around the Army and the Marines, because I think that we’ve got to put an end to people going on three, four, five tours of duty, and the strain on families is enormous. I meet them every day.

But I think that the obligation to serve exists for everybody, and
that’s why I’ve put forward a] national service program that is tied to my tuition credit for students who want to go to college. You get $4,000 every year to help you go to college. In return, you have to engage in some form of national service. Military service has to be an option. We have to have civilian options, as well, not just the Peace Corps, but one of the things that we need desperately are people who are in our foreign service who are speaking foreign languages, can be more effective in a lot of the work that’s going to be required that may not be hand-to-hand combat but is going to be just as critical in ensuring our long-term safety and security.

TIM RUSSERT: This statute’s been on the book for some time, Senator. Will you vigorously enforce the statute to cut off federal funding to a school that does not provide military recruiters and a ROTC program?

JOHN EDWARDS: Yes, I will.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Kucinich, would you?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Absolutely not. Our society is being militarized. And part of the problem is NBC, which is a partner defense contractor through the ownership of General Electric of both NBC and Raytheon. So NBC is really promoting war here.

The truth of the matter is that we need to make it possible for our young people, if they desire to go in the military, they can go to a recruiter’s office, instead of telling campuses that if you don’t let recruiters on campus, you’re going to lose your money. That, to me, is antithetical to a democratic society.

We should be finding ways for young people to be able to go to college tuition-free, and I have such a proposal that would enable every person, every young person who wants to go to a two- or four-year public college or university go tuition-free, by the government spending money into circulation.

We need to reorient our society. These kind of questions really are intent on continuing the militarization of our society and of telling young people in a very covert—well, actually in a very overt way, “Well, here are your options for a career in the military,” which is an honorable career, of course, but at the same time, in our society, young people are finding not only are they having trouble being able to afford a college education, but once they get that degree, what are their options after that? I mean, our economy has been a mess.

Until the Democratic Party asserts control of its own debates and takes the question of who may be in or out of the debates out of the hands of the corporate media that is dominated and literally owned by the same people who are benefiting from the war contracts and prevention of a fair health care system, among other things, the primary system is broken in such a way that it can not be called democratic.

As I see it, the most logical, fair, and reasonable way to determine who should be in the debates is to be consistent with the purpose of the primaries which is to gather delegates for the convention. This is a two-prong test to determine if a candidate is a bona fide candidate. so that every bona fide candidate will be in the debates. Any candidate who is on the ballots of enough states to theoretically get a significant and substantial number of delegates should be in the debates as long as he or she is an active candidate.

The first prong is not whether the candidate has simply declared as a candidate, but whether the candidate has a national campaign that has gotten the candidate on the ballot in a certain number of states. I would suggest that the number of states should be any combination of states that control between half to two-thirds of the delegates. It doesn't make much difference to me whether the cutoff is 50%, 60% or 67&, but it should be a discrete number that is objective to measure. There is no personality preference involved, no polls or ranking of candidates.

The second prong is a practical question of whether the candidate still has an active campaign. This is most important to keep objective and not subjective. Many, if not most, people who address this question confuse their subjective impression of an active or inactive campaign for objective indicators. I suggest the following as truly objective indicators of an active campaign:
(1) Obviously the candidate has not announced withdrawal.
(2) The candidate is continuing to actively raise money and report to the FEC.
(3) The candidate has visited and personally campaigned in or has an open campaign office in the states in which the candidate is on the ballot.
(4) The candidate has won at least one percent of the vote in one primary on the previous three primary dates. I call this a "three strikes" rule. Failure to hit at least once on three consecutive primary dates and you're out of the debates until you get at least a one percentage hit in a following primary.

These four qualifications would insure that the barrier is low enough to guarantee an open and fair access to the debates not depending on the super-rich status of the candidate's supporters while also keeping the number of participants to a realistically practical number. Having an objective measurement for the cutoff prevents the irrational arguments that are currently being used which amount to nothing more than rationalizations why "my" candidate should be in the debate and "you're" candidate is boring.

Rigging the Voting System by the 15% Solution

By moving to direct party primaries, the voters were able to have direct influence on the conventions. The primaries, not the party bosses, selected the delegates to the convention. The delegates were then only beholding to the candidates they were pledged to, and to the voters who elected them, not to party bosses who appointed or controlled their appointment.

Thus, a candidate who represented a minority view could go from primary to primary collecting a minority of delegates, but still have enough delegates at the convention to have a potential to effect the outcome. In addition to presenting that minority view through the debates, that candidate representing a minority view could represent that view at the convention itself.

However, by changing the rules, the Democratic Party has created s primary system that rigs the process even more in favor of the most well funded candidates who of course are the very candidates who are beholding to the Party bosses and their corporate backers and masters. Now, in order to be awarded delegates in a state primary or caucus a candidate usually must reach a 15% threshold.


That 15% barrier guarantees several results: (1) any candidate who is under 15% can't collect delegates (2) primaries are no longer about collecting delegates for the convention but about public perceptions of "winners" and "losers", (3) the playing field of the primaries is tilted toward the early frontrunner who becomes perceived as a winner well before any significant number of delegates have been distributed.

Since a candidate under 15% may still represent up to 14% of the voters, those voters are disenfranchised by a system that removes them from the process. Whether a candidate represents 2 to 14% should be irrelevant in a representational democracy where that 2 to 14% should be represented as a minority viewpoint within the party. However, but ensuring that a candidate uner 15% doesn't win any delegates at all, there can be no incentive for voters to continue supporting the candidate who gets nothing for their efforts.

If a minority of voters sees that their candidate is receiving his or her fair share of delegates in the process then they can be happy to continue supporting their candidate who they know will take their minority of delegates to the convention to represent them. However, if they get nothing for their efforts, there is no way the minority candidate can continue to solicit the financial support needed from event the minority of constituents who suport them. Thus the party bosses use the 15% rule to get rid of the minority voices within the party as soon as possible, makeing a charage out of the process pretending that the primaries are fair but rigging them so that the minorty gets nothing for their efforts and is instead guaranteed to be left out of the delegate distribution.

We have only to look to the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary to see how the party bosses and their media backers and masters have competely distorted the process. As far as the caucus distribution of delegates was concerned, Iowa was a virtual three-way tie. Obama won 16 delegates, Clinton was a close 2nd with 14 delegates, and Edwards was a close 3rd with 14 delegates.

Imagine the difference in the direction of the primaries if the Iowa vote had been reported as a close 3-way race and virtual tie. Since a candidate needs 2025 delegates to be nominated, the difference of one delegate each in the distribution of the first 45 delegates was statistically insignificant. To be truthful, the media should have reported the Iowa results as a virtual tie with the outcome as statistically insignificant. Instead, we got the mind-blowing hype of an incredible win for Obama, and the reorting that Clinton came in third by the popular vote, when in fact, due to the distribution of the vote by county she actuall came in second in the delegate count.

Consider this when it comes to the reporting of Clinton's "third place finish" in Iowa: Why didn't Al Gore win the presidency when he won the popular vote? Because he lost the electoral college count. It is just the same in Iowa, Clinton came in ahead of Edwards in the delegate count so she should have been reported as teh second place finisher in a squeeker of a race. She should not have been reported as the third place finisher because the popular result of the distribution of Iowan state delegates was not the determining factor of the literal result of the distribution of national convention delegates.

So instead of reporting the results in Iowa in an accurate, fair, and dispassionate manner, i.e., that the results were the statistically insignificant 16-15-14, the media manipulated the results and called Obama the "winner" of an upset and Clinton the 3rd place runner up when she was actually second.

An identical distortion of reality occured in New Hampshire. Clinton was declared the amazing comeback winner, when in fact the New Hampshire results were a literal tie: both Obama and Clinton received 9 delegates. The media should have reported: "New Hampshire a tie". Instead the voters were misled about the results, now in Clinton's favor, by calling Obama a "loser" in New Hampshire, when in fact he came in tied in a dead heat.

All this fundamentallly misinforms the voters about the primary process, drawing the attention of the public to the voting results as if the "winner" of the election "wins" the state's delegates, and drawing attention away from the truth that delegates are distributed generally proportionally, but not counting those under 15%.

After New Hampshire the delegates count by one caucus and one primary was Obama 25, Clinton 24, and Edwards 18. Yet anyone reading or listening to the media would not have known this. They would not have known that Edwards was still a viable candidate. And since then, with this manipulation of the reporting and distortion of the truth, we have seen Edwards' hopes fade from day to day, as the media now concentrates increasingly on Obama and Clinton as a two-way race.

The unfair winnowing of Edwards will be complete as soon as he falls below the 15% barrier because he will then get nothing for his efforts and so his supporters will get nothing for continuing to support him.

Instead of the primary process being one in which candidates can fairly compete for delegates in every state and at the end of the primaries at the convention compare results and see what the distribution of delegates are for the various candidates and their positions, the primary process is one that is rigged to throw out minority candidates early so that only the most corporately well funded candidate can compete.

People call the primaries a horse race, but imagine a horse race in which at every other furlong or turn the horses in the rear are forced out of the race. By the home stretch it is virtually guaranteed that only one candidate is left in the race. Is that democracy? It isn't because in fact primaries should not be a horse race, because in that home stretch there are states where the voters would have liked to have their votes count fairly toward delegates at the convention. This is the reason that the absurd frontloading of primaries becomes necessary and the primaries that used to only occur after June are now beginning in early January.

The Democratic Party is Corrupt

The abject and total failure of the Democratic Party to hold fair debates and instead turning the public debates over to the private interests of private corporations and the rigging of the primaries though the 15% barriar that prevents the fair distribution of delegates according to their actual support means that the Democratic Party is corrupt when it comes to its own democracy.

And what is worse is that the Party denies the problem and denies its reeponsibility for creating the problem. Why? Becasue to adknowledge the problem means to acknowledge that the private corporations control the party lock, stock, and barrel. Any semblance of democracy within the selection of candidates is a complete and fraudlent charade. The party bosses select which candidates they will accept every bit as much as the Supreme Council of Iran slects determines the official candidates, and then the Democratic Party bosses send the candidates out to the primaries where only the super-rich (i.e., the ones whom they support) can survive. Only the Demcratic Party restrictions are more pernicious to democracy than Iran's because it is hidden within the process and denied by the very party bosses who use the restictions and rules to manipulate the process and benefit from that minipulation.

I see no way that the grassroots of the Democratic Party can fix this. I admire Dennis Kucinich greatly for trying to work within the Party to give voice to the people. I truly believe that in fact the positions and voice of Kucinich are the voice of the majority of Democrats in the rank and file. The issue polls show this clearly. When no names are mentioned, the Democratic Party voters agree more with the Kucinich positions than with any other candidate. But the personality polls demonstrate that the issues can be so manipulated by the media and the party bosses and the process so rigged by the rules, that a majority position gets turned into and characterized as a minority viewpoint, and even worse a minority viewpoint that is not allowed to gather delegates fairly.

I see no hope for the Democratic Party. I can't buy the notion that I should vote for a corrupt party doing the bidding of the super-rich transnational corporations just because the exploitation by Democrats is less than the exploitation by Republicans. I can of course completely understand and appreciate why the exploited voters would want to vote for the kinder and gentler master, so I won't begrudge you or any voter personally for staying within the confines of the corporate controlled Democratic Party. But as long as you vote for corporate Democrats like Obama and Clinton, I do ask you to accept responsibility for the continuation of the war, for the lack of a really universal, nonprofit, and fair healthcare system, for the lack of fair elections, for the continuation of the militaristic society, for the US exploitation of Africa, for the US support of the illegal occupation by Isreal of Palestine, etc., etc., etc. The Democrats are as completely responsible for these as the Republicans.

So, until the Democrats decide to give up corruption and decide to play fair to minority perspectives and to have hold fari primaries I will not be voting for any Democrat who doesn't call for or work for real and actual reform within the Party. Since neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards is calling for reform within the Party I won't be voting for any of them.

I'll be voting Green in Novemeber.

Ron Paul is the "Least" Offensive Republican Candidate

I really get a laugh, sadly, over centrist and liberal Democrats who think Ron Paul is a devil. From my view as a self described radical progressive, Ron Paul is actually the least objectionable of the Republicans. As I see it, while the other Republican candidates are 80 to 90% wrong, Ron Paul is at least 50% right.

Ron Paul is to the Republican Party what Dennis Kucinich is to the Democrats: a person whose politics is based on analysis according to principle rather than expediency according to power. As a person of libertarian principles, Ron Paul is as much a pariah to Wall Street Republicans as Kucinich's progressivism is anathema to Wall Street Democrats.

Now, as a progressive I personally find that libertarianism has a profound flaw consisting of myopic lacunae as deep as a canyon resulting in an irreparable breach of logic that is avoided and wrapped in dense layers of denial. Because of this flaw, libertarians are hated by both sides of the Wall Streeters who control bot parties. Leaving aside for now the nature of the flaw of libertarian analysis, merely on the principle that a political philosophy that is so hated by Wall Street can't be all bad, I would imagine that liberal Democrats would not be so hostile towards it or Ron Paul.

For now, Wall Streeters are in control of both the Republican and Democratic Parties and so they set the machinery of marginalization against those within the two parties represented by Paul and Kucinich. Libertarians and progressives (real progressives, not the fake kind like Clinton) within each party who rest their analysis of political events and foreign and domestic policies upon principled positions rather than upon lobbyists and vested interests are hated the most by the Wall Streeters because money plays no role in the decision making process, except where it really counts, in determining what the actual costs of proposals will be.

For example, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans make decisions under the influence of who will profit? The cost of the Iraq war is hardly a concern for Wall Street liberals and conservatives alike. However, to libertarians and progressives, the cost of the Iraq war is outrageous to historical proportions and who is profiting from that cost is an abomination of justice, and of both republican and democratic (small "r" and "d" intended) principles.

Now, libertarianism as represented by Ron Paul, has a very solid basis in support of civil liberties. This is the area of agreement where libertarians and progressive can find their most common ground. Also in the arena of foreign policy, libertarians like Paul agree with progressives that the Constitution gives the war powers to Congress, not the President, so a Paul presidency would oppose interventionism and the adventurism of regime change such as is occurring in Iraq. Liberal Democrats should recognize those pluses without apology.

Clearly, it is in the area of fiscal analysis and policy that libertarianism and progressivism diverge the most widely. Libertarians and progressives both believe in the general principle of balanced budgets, but libertarians would balance a budget by minimizing government spending while progressives would balance a budget by maximizing revenue collections, especially by increased tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations. While libertarians and progressives tend to a much greater degree to be Constitutionalists, from the progressive point of view, the libertarian view of minimal government is carried to a such an extreme that it reaches the point of violating the Constitutional purpose of Promoting the General Welfare. Progressives view libertarians to be fundamentally anti-social and in that extremism to deny the inherent and basic social premises of the Constitution

But even with this most fundamental disagreement, I would rather engage in a debate over this Constitutional principle with a president like Paul who would engage in that debate on the basis of principles, than with any other Republican who cares not a whit for analysis, principle, or debate, and instead simply states like Bush, "I'm the decider."

Updated Post Script: Just to be clear about "Dr. Paul" as his fans like to call him. The most offensive thing about him to me is that he is supported by white supremists and he doesn't go far enough to disavow their views. Paul says that racism is incompatible with libertarianism because libertarianism is individualism. He says the "collectivist" view sees people as part of a group, such as "whites" and "blacks," but as a libertarian he sees all people as individuals. That sounds almost good, but again, it really amounts to a denial of our social reality by hiding it behind the label "collectivist".

An individualist who denies the collectivity of social groups is as one-sided as a collectivist who denies the essential uniqueness of the individual.

Paul needs to say plainly that racism, prejudice, and segregation are wrong. But I don't think he can say that because in the view of libertarian individualism, individuals are allowed to be racist as an individual right. He can say it is wrong to not see and treat people as individuals, but he doesn't seem capable of saying that prejudice is wrong.

Because he believes in individuals and that government should be as limited as possible, he believes that the government should not enforce desegregation or prevent racial prejudice. That is why he is found so attractive to white supremists who see in him the dismantaling of the protections against wrongful discrimination. Paul would let the military, government, and all public accomodations allow discrimination as the exercise of individual rights even when he is supposed to be opposed to collectivist views, becasue he puts the right of the individual to be collectivist (e.g., racist) above the right of the individual to have to suffer from the collectivist view if it requires government to enforce that protection. This is another example of the failure of libertarianism to deal adequately with the social contract.

Updatede Post Post Script Well, the more I think about it the more tenuous I feel about the title of this blog. The problem is that Ron Paul is very on target with so much of what he says, but the stuff that he is off target about is to off target that it goes between the goofy to the really creepy.

Compare Ron Paul and the second least objectionable Republican John McCain. McCain seems like a relatively good guy, but he endorsed the war and supports the war with such a vengence that it is hard to compare the deaths of hundreds of thousands,if not over a million, of Iraqis for US pride with the delusional racism of Paul that doesn't seem to have any current credibility beoynd the loony reich wing. In other words the things that Paul is offensive with are very offensive but have little clout in todays world and in fact are so ridiculous that they really make him laughable. What is scary about him is that he and his followers take him so seriously and don't see the irony of a politician who make individualism into a fetish yet is a white supremacist.

Here's a link to a pdf file of the Ron Paul Political Report of June 15, 1992, Volume VI, Number 6, titled "A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism."

Some of the nasty quotes from this offensive writing include:

Of Washington D. C. he says,

"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced?"

And this gem:

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."

Here's a link to a New Republic story on it.

Here's a link to a DailyKos contributor's diary about this, titled Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Revealed

And here are comments by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dPD832-gsw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRdUqh3oJr0

I don't see any way for Ron Paul to argu his way out of responsibility for this racist piece of writing.

The Zen of Kucinich's "Strength Through Peace"

A diary by WinSmith (short for Winston Smith the protaganist in Orwell's 1984) in the Dalily Kos blog site had a witty attack on Bush and the Republicans that brings up Zen:

When the President Poops, It Is Not Poop
Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:50:46 AM PDT

I've come to the conclusion that the radical republican zealots running this country aren't actually the batshit insane sexually frustrated war mongering incompetents that they appear to be.

They're actually Zen Buddhist Eastern Mystics offering us the most profound Enlightenment we could ever hope to acquire. We just can't see it.
[...]
The republicans aren't just the most corrupt, anti-American and disastrous political party to hold power in this country's history. They're also teaching us a valuable lesson in perception:

What we see is not what we see. Poop is not poop.

Reality is simply a construction in our minds. It's whatever we want it to be.

Oh sure, this fact free form of self delusion has gotten hundreds of thousands killed and damaged the entire 200+ year framework of our government.

But it's so mystical, man.
[...]
Because so long as we lie to ourselves inside our own minds, so long as we control our own critical thinking to automatically fall into line like intellectual lemmings, we will never again have to worry about anything at all.

Just wait for our cues.

Let the mouthpieces at Fox simply tell you what the new "truth" is, and PRESTO, it is!!

Think about how wonderful and glorious that state of mind will be!!

We can WIN in Iraq even as the country descends into chaos and disaster. We care about a "culture of life" even as millions of American children are denied healthcare.

But none of that will matter. Because if the president says his poop is not poop, then it is not poop.

It is the Zen Republican Mantra of "truth."

And it will set us all free of worries. Free of our money. Free of our environment. Free of a future.

I thought it was cute, but it does present a misunderstanding of Zen that is every bit as false as the falsehoods of the Republicans that are being criticized.

Another blogger, MarkC, wrote in response:

Could you choose a better analogy?

One of the things I like about Zen is that it is not well suited to denying reality in an "Emperor has no clothes" kind of way. Its denial of conventional reality is not selective -- you can't say "When the president takes a poop, it is no longer a poop" unless you're also saying "when anyone takes a poop, it is not a poop."

Most kinds of Zen are asking you to question the things you believe are objective about reality, but not selectively. It is part of a therapy to realize that the things you think you desire like immense wealth are not really desireable. If the Republicans were really such "Eastern Mystics" they would realize that material goods, profit off of no-bid contracts, and bloody oil windfalls would also not be real, just as their poop is not real. And we'd all be better off for it.

I agreed with MarkC and added the following post to clarify the issue of views of reality and why Zen advocates including the absolute view along with the plain but relative truth view of reality.

You are right, Zen is about truth and love.

Okay, I'm going to be serious here and discuss why the Diarist is insulting Zen,even though he means well.

The false charge of mysticism against Zen is based on a misunderstanding about the polarized mental frames that in fact Zen teaches us to avoid.

When Zen says "reality is not reality" it is not just a mystic's nonsense. It is saying "your mental construct of reality should not be mistaken for actual reality." It is not saying "your mental construct of reality should be replaced by my mental construct of reality. Zen points oat the very interesting awareness that comes from recognizing the function of mental constructs.

In Buddhism there are "three views of reality" which are the false view plus the two truths. The first of the three views of reality are the false views based on imagination. This is the view of reality of the "horn on the rabbit" or the "fur on the turtle." We can imagine this as a fact of reality even though it is not real. This is the false view of reality of George Bush when he imagines WMD in Iraq as a fact.

Then there is the view of reality that is based on relative truth of the present. The sky is blue, the water is wet, the day is warm, the night is dark. These truths are grounded in the relative perceptions of the moment. They are the truths of people everywhere and form the basic aspirations of people. They are the basis of all folk wisdom and common sense. It is when we stray from this relative truth of reality into the false imagination of reality that we get into trouble.

The third view of reality is the absolute view of what is called the mystic experience of no-view. This absolute view can be called the experience of complete unification with reality. It is directly seeing the face of God. There are no words to adequately describe this view of reality, and because there are no adequate words, it is sometimes said, "reality is not reality" in order to drive the mind out of its complacent nesting in words and concepts. This giving up of words is necessary, otherwise, only the relative view of reality is accessible, and a person will never know the awesome joy of the unity of reality.

Without the experience of the view of absolute reality (i.e., the non-experience of the no-view) a person has a very difficult time distinguishing between relative truth view of reality and a false mental construction view of reality. When any person does have a grounding of the relative truth view of reality, it is because they have intuitively touched upon the absolute view of reality within their own mind, even if they are not conscious of having done it.

George Lakoff has presented the concept of framing in a way that helps people understand how the false mental constructions operate in arguments. But it is not just enough to provide an alternative frame or mental construction to counter the Republican false views of reality. The alternative view or frame must be grounded in the relative truth view of reality.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have as hard a time with false views of reality as the Republicans do. The Democrats often don't see the false framing by Republicans, or they share it, and so they argue about small differences within the paradigm, rather than about the paradigm itself. This is how Democratic leadership buys into the false views of reality that justify not impeaching the president, that justify continuing the war funding, that justify building a border wall between the USA and Mexico, etc.

For a good example of challenging the false view of reality that the Republicans and Democrats share in foreign policy look at Dennis Kucinich's campaign for "Strength Through Peace." This is a reframing of the paradigm of foreign policy that shifts from the false view of reality to the relative truth view of reality.

The Republican's false view of reality says that war is peace. The relative truth view of reality says peace is peace, war is war, and it is easy to tell the relative differences. The absolute view of reality says at the bottom, peace and war are relative terms that both come out of the unified state of reality so don't think that you are in a position to judge what is going on until you can tell the false view from relative truth within the context of unified truth.

This Zen view of absolute truth of reality expressed in the phrase "judge not, lest you be judged" is often mistaken as an immoral view. In deed it is not so. To help people find the absolute view of reality it is said, "think neither good or evil, what is your original face?" But once you see your original face (i.e., the face of God) then you will live in the relative truth world and know the difference between hot and cold without the confusion of being judgemental. Then you can tell the difference between real peace and war, without falling prey to the false views and propaganda that would have you support "our peace by taking the war to them" whoever that may be.

When we can see that it is a false peace that is achieved by war as an instrument of foreign policy then we can see the relative truth that says a real peace can only come by giving up war as a tool of foreign policy. You can see the relative truth that war is only useful to achieve peace when it is absolutely defensive for self protection, not for protecting the imagined ephemeral and false "US interests" anywhere around the globe. This is the meaning of Kucinich's very Zen-like "Strength Through Peace" campaign, which like the Zen in martial arts, recognizes that the master of a martial art is the one who doesn't have to use it, much less to threaten to use it, unless the other person attacks first.

Kucinich Would Win If People Dared To Vote On The Issues

Kucinich is the only candidate who really has a vision that is from the heart and not from the pocket book.

Kucinich is the candidate who transcends the political cynicism of the plutocracy propaganda. Those words "plutocracy" and "propaganda" probably turn off some people who just can't quite grasp what is going on in politics today. But the propaganda becomes clear when you learn that Kucinich is the candidate who speaks for the most people on most of the issues, yet his candidacy is marginalized by the media, the Democratic Party leaders, and by the Democratic Party rank and file who even acknowledge that he presents their views on the issues but they just can't vote for him because he is not seen as "electable".

I think it is plainly evident that when people speak on the issues and are not blinded by the hype of “electability”, “stature,” “charisma”, or “star power,” then Dennis Kucinich would be the next president of the USA.

Kucinich is the candidate who speaks for the majority of the American people. See the poll below if you don’t believe it. Yes it is unscientific; yes it is limited and skewed to internet users; but even given all of that, you must ask your self why the poll shows nearly 58% ranking Kucinich first place on the issues when the candidates name is NOT known. The next highest candidate gets less than 8% of first place rankings? Why is that? Don't you find this to be shocking?

We should look at all the issues to evaluate the candidate of our choice. I think everyone agrees with that.

So which issues do you look at most importantly? No candidate can be expected to agree with each of us on all the issues, but how is Kucinich wrong on the issues that you hold to be most important?

When people look at the issues in a “blind taste test” asking where they stand on an issue without a candidate’s face attached, the results are startling only to those who live within the media black-out of Kucinich and the propaganda of “horse race” elections. Kucinich speaks for the people. What is shocking is that the people don't get to know that due to the media filtering and manipulation of the reporting. For example, a recent PBS News Hour report on a Democratic debate made is seem that it was a debate between Obama and Clinton with the other candidates merely looking on.

Go to this website http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php to see how your views line up with the candidates on 25 issues:

I found the results to be quite accurate in my case, correctly scoring and ranking my agreement with the candidates in order of my preference on the issues: Kucinich 103, Gravel 77, Obama 56, Edwards 55, Clinton 55, Dodd 53, Biden 48, Richardson 47.

Here are some basic stats based on the submissions to the questionnaire at the time of calculation: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

At the time of 134,346 people answering:

Measuring how many people had the candidate as their first rank according to how they responded to the issues, NOT KNOWING THE CANDIDATE’S NAME:

Candidate | Number of first | Percentage of
------------ | place ranks -----| people responding
Kucinich - 77,824 -- 57.93%
Gravel - 9,522 -- 7.09%
Paul - 9,182 -- 6.83%
Romney - 5,912 -- 4.40%
Clinton - 4,903 -- 3.65%
Hunter - 4,195 -- 3.12%
Giuliani - 4,069 -- 3.03%
Obama - 3,942 -- 2.93%
Biden - 2,522 -- 1.88%
Richardson - 2,416 -- 1.80%
McCain - 2,256 -- 1.68%
Tancredo - 2,117 -- 1.58%
Edwards - 1,472 -- 1.10%
Dodd - 1,164 -- 0.87%
Huckabee - 986 -- 0.73%
Cox - 941 -- 0.70%
Thompson - 582 -- 0.43%
Brownback - 341 -- 0.25%
Total: 134,346 -- 100.00%


At the time of this response snapshot, nearly 58% of respondents had their positions on the issues rank Kucinich as most agreeing with them. The second highest candidate Gravel has a little over 7%.

When the responses are preference weighted for the top three candidates with a responder’s first rank getting a 3, second rank a 2, and third rank getting a 1, the following order appears:

Candidate | Weighted number ----- | Percentage of all
-------------| of top three ranks ----- | weighted responses.
Kucinich - 266210 -- 33.44%
Gravel - 160516 -- 20.16%
Obama - 61435 -- 7.72%
Clinton - 43352 -- 5.45%
Paul - 38148 -- 4.79%
Romney - 30525 -- 3.83%
Edwards - 27404 -- 3.44%
Hunter - 26314 -- 3.31%
Richardson - 22538 -- 2.83%
Biden - 21518 -- 2.70%
Dodd - 18236 -- 2.29%
Giuliani - 17854 -- 2.24%
Tancredo - 17717 -- 2.23%
McCain - 17286 -- 2.17%
Huckabee - 8031 -- 1.01%
Cox - 7368 -- 0.93%
Thompson - 6358 -- 0.80%
Brownback - 5266 -- 0.66%
Total: - 796076 -- 100.00%


Even with weighting the top three, Kucinich is still by far the number one ranked candidate on the issues by those responding. The difference between these two lists shows the vast number of Democrats who have positions that rank Obama and Clinton as second or third behind Kucinich and Gravel. Remember, these are ranks on the issues WITHOUT the names of the candidates attached, not on a rank of the candidate by name or personality. This shows that the Democratic Party leadership is not following the rank and file of the Party's views.

Iraq was of course the issue ranked most important by the most people, and clearly Kucinich speaks for the most people on this issue, even though the Democratic controlled congress does not follow Kucinich's lead and is still supporting the war.

Here are my important issues:

Kucinich was the first candidate to oppose Iraq and have the good judgement and level thinking to stand against it when 9/11 hysteria was giving in to Bush: right on that.

Kucinich is the only one for not-for-profit health care for all: right on that.

Kucinich is the only one for a Department of Peace to begin the education process away from war and violence as a way of solving both international and domestic issues: right on that one too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who says it is wrong to use war as an instrument of foreign policy (this is probably over the heads of the other candidates): and he is right on that issue.

Kucinich openly opposes nuclear weapons and commits to nuclear disarmament: right again.

Kucinich is the only candidate who is unequivocal about reparations for slavery: right on that one.

Kucinich is the only candidate against land mines, cluster bombs, and uranium munitions: right on that one again.

Kucinich is the candidate who says on his first day in office he will get out of NAFTA and WTO, and join the international criminal court: right again.

Kucinich is against the death penalty: right on that too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who has a plan for universal day care for pre-kindergarten for ages 3 to 5 (Clinton announced her program long after Kucinich had already announced his but her’s will start at age 4): right here too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who says that every American should have the right and opportunity to go to college and he has a program to make that real: right once more.

Kucinich is the only candidate with a comprehensive public works program focusing on green issues: right there as well.

Kucinich is the only candidate I've heard say that the war on terror is fake and that we should instead hunt down so-called "terrorists" as the criminals that they are using the international police structures and not aggrandizing these criminals by calling them combatants in a "war" which is really a sham: right, right, right.

Kucinich is for equal marriage rights: right on that too.

I also find it interesting that Kucinich is asking for the media to look into what it means that Hillary Clinton stands up in a debate and says she regrets that she was "lied" to and misled by Bush. Well, why couldn't she tell Bush was lying? I mean, his lips were moving, weren't they? So far the media is giving Clinton a free pass on this question and instead touts her so-called “experience.” Actually, Obama is quite right to point out he has been in elected office for more years than Clinton or Edwards have been. Of course Obama doesn't point out that Kucinich has been in elected office at the city, state, and federal levels longer than Obama and so has the widest experience at all levels of government.

Yet the propaganda machine doesn’t discuss his experience or his having the positions on issues that reflects the widest swath of the U.S. citizens. If only people would vote the issues by voting their conscience, rather than running scared and voting for horses in a horse race! Then we would have a leader who actually reflected the people and not just the wealthy.

Impeachment Is The Best Strategy

This is a response to the recent opinion piece by Bill Fletcher, Jr., in the Black Commentator titled "Accountability, John Conyers and The Impeachment Controversy." It was passed along recently by Portside in its continuing defense of John Conyers.
Here's the beginning of the article:

So, what do we make of the controversy surrounding the actions taken at the office of Congressman Conyers when protesters demonstrated against his alleged failure to move impeachment proceedings against President Bush? Did it make sense strategically? Was Conyers the right target? Where did race come into this, if anywhere?

The actions taken by Cindy Sheehan and the Rev. Lennox Yearwood aimed to bring attention to the matter of accountability. In that sense, they were morally correct. They protested the failure of the Democratic leadership to hold this lawless administration accountable, with the threat of impeachment being the preferred method of addressing accountability. There is little question but that most of the world views the Bush administration as composed of criminals, and it is equally clear that as a result, both the US government and the people of the USA are viewed with a jaundiced eye by much of the globe, because the people of the USA permitted the re-election of the Bush group.

That being said, does impeachment make sense strategically? This is where I have differences with my friend, the Rev. Yearwood and others. Yes, emotionally, I would love to see the Bush/Cheney team ousted through impeachment proceedings, but I continue to feel that more immediately, we must focus our attention on strengthening the movement against the Iraq war/occupation, as well as building mass and activist sentiment in favor of major structural reforms, such as single-payer healthcare. To that extent I think the impeachment movement is a well-intentioned diversion.
Continued at Impeachment Strategy Debate Part3

I like Bill Fletcher, having enjoyed his insights over cafeteria lunch with him one day at an SEIU sponsored labor event at California’s Sonoma State University many years back. However, I cannot agree with his defense of John Conyers’ refusal to put impeachment on the table. Fletcher asks “does impeachment make sense strategically?” While Fletcher says “No,” I answer this question with a resounding “Yes! How could anyone doubt it?” Rather than a diversion, impeachment is the necessary core to any strategy to getting us out of Iraq.

The first point that Fletcher makes is the old saw about the votes not being there. I really fail to see why good folks like Fletcher even think this is a credible point. Conyers puts the reparations bill on the table every year even though it hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in a hot hell to be considered, yet he continues to do it and for good reason. There is no rational argument why reparations should continue to be put forward without votes but impeachment, because it doesn’t have the votes, should not.

Fletcher’s second point, that we need to concentrate on ending the war and occupation of Iraq, also is in favor of impeachment. The war is illegal. The Democrats are refusing to face this question head on. That is why the Democrats have refused to vote to defund the war and instead have continued to vote to pay for the war. We must face the truth that the Democrats won’t lead, they have to be pushed. Sam Irvin didn’t lead us to impeachment of Nixon either. He was pushed by the people and the polls. Nothing the Democrats are planning has any effect on the President’s war plans. Bush has shown that he is willing to use the patriotism card against the Democrats as long as he is in office. Impeachment is the only tool that will provide the Democrats with the political cover against Bush’s use of the patriotism card. Impeachment is the stake in the heart of this vampire president. The Democrats are afraid to use it, so they have to be pushed.

Fletcher argues that the momentum building toward the September 21st Iraqi Moratorium is critical and must be supported. However, if the 9/21 Iraqi Moratorium does not admit that the war is illegal, and instead only makes the claim that it is unwinnable, then I want no part of such a lying deceitful protest. Only impeachment acknowledges that the war is illegal and that Bush got us there by his high crimes and misdemeanors, not by mere mistakes in judgement about how to do successful “regime change” and “nation building” after toppling Saddam

The question “should Conyers generally be considered an ally?” is a red herring as it applies to the argument of impeachment. Obviously, Conyers is an ally on some issues, but he is not now an ally on the impeachment issue. Nobody on the left is treating Conyers as “an enemy.” That is a straw-man argument. Criticizing Conyers for refusing to put impeachment forward is not calling him an enemy. Saying Conyers shows great courage by putting the reparations bill forward does not excuse his apparent cowardice at refusing to put the impeachment bill forward. In fact his courage in support of reparations puts into bright relief the credibility issues around his refusal to do impeachment.

The question of betrayal comes up only because of Conyers’ previous behavior. When he was in the minority party on the committee he could talk tough on impeachment. It was by his own previous tough talk that people got their hopes up that when the Democrats became the majority party and this tough guy actually became the chair of the committee that impeachment could go forward. It is Conyers’ own 180 degree turn on impeachment that is in fact a betrayal of his previous stance and of those in whom his previous rhetoric had encouraged and led on.

The real question is what is causing Conyers’ to appear cowardly when we know he isn’t a coward by character? The only answer to this is that he is being ordered by the Democratic leadership, specifically by Nancy Pelosi, to keep impeachment off the table, and he doesn’t have the courage to oppose Pelosi. Why? Because she can take away his committee chairmanship. Therefore Conyers just can’t say openly, “Gee folks, I’d like to do impeachment, but you know, the Boss Lady says I can’t.” I've kept quite under such conditions and I know it feels awful.

This is the hard strategy decision that Conyers is facing. Whether to be honest about his convictions or face the wrath of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership. Unfortunately Conyers has no easy way out. His friends like Bill Fletcher are doing the best they can to keep up appearances and provide the continuing cover for Conyers to hide the real reason that Conyers can’t act. But the inconsistencies of their defense only points to the real reason that is fundamentally irrational: Conyers can't do it for no reason of his own, but because he is told not to do it.

Conyers’ refusal to act in impeachment highlights the fundamental divide on the left: what is the role of the left in the Democratic Party? The companion question is whether the Democrats are truly a left party or really just the sometimes left leaning center party. The Democratic Party survives as an on-again off-again majority because of one reason alone: it is part of the two-party dictatorship of American politics. As long as the two-party dictatorship remains in place, the corporate centrist’s in control of the Democratic Party know that those on the left have no where else to go for any effective political impact. Therefore when they think it is not going to create any real structural change, the Democratic leadership can allow itself to sound left. There is no better example of this than Hillary Clinton. But when the chips are down, whether it is defunding the war or impeachment, the Democratic leadership refuses to support the real left positions.

The anti-war mobilization has become the proffered distraction to impeachment. “Just support the mobilization and forget impeachment” we are told. But those of us on the left who happen to believe that the Constitution is actually the bedrock of our liberties, also happen to think that the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t really give a damn about the Constitution any more than Bush does. The Democratic leadership’s refusal to put impeachment on the table against the worst President any of us have every seen in our lifetimes for his crimes and unconstitutional conduct speaks of power not truth. Conyers failure to speak truth to power against his own leadership is the real beef against Conyers and is the betrayal of the left.

With the chips going down on impeachment, Conyers is choosing to obey the orders of the centrist Pelosi, rather than to represent the left within the Democratic Party. Though Conyers’ is definitely not an enemy of the left, in Fletchers’ terminology Conyers' kowtowing to Pelosi makes him only “an ally of the moment” on left issues, and thus in this moment on this issue, he is no ally of the left at all. He has beome the centrist gatekeeper keeping the left left out. Impeachment is not only the best strategy to end the war in Iraq, it is the best strategy to expose the corporate powers in control of the Democratic Party who marginalize the left when it counts.

Which raises another important question: why has impeachment been marginalized as an issue of the left? There are plenty of honest conservatives with integrity who support impeachment, because they also believe that the Constitution should be used to protect the nation from a lying cheating deceiving criminal President. Anyone who argues that we should let such a president get a free pass on impeachment merely because of strategy considerations is basically at heart neither a supporter of the rule of law nor of democracy which depends upon it. The USA does not stand a chance of becoming the nation we know in our hearts that it is intended to be until impeachment is liberally exercised to remove president after president, if need be, who continues to do awful, unhumanitarian, and illegal acts in the name of the people and the Constitution.