Tomorrow is the day we take back our country

Imagine that you've been watching your favorite professional football team all year, and they make it into the playoffs, and finally into the Super Bowl.

Imagine that the game is close - very close - and as the final seconds run down, your quarterback has the ball in the air to an open receiver, who comes down in the end zone... victory!

But suddenly the unthinkable happens. A referee makes a terrible call and the touchdown is called back. Your team loses the game. On an erroneous technicality.

Now imagine that you are losing your home, your job, you have no health care, your life has gone downhill in a thousand different ways in the past eight years... your kid is off at war and can't come home because he or she keeps getting redeployed over and over and over again. You have had it. You are going to change this country, and so you register to vote and you get in there early and you cast that vote for change.

Now imagine that your vote, and others like it all across the country... magically disappear.

The landslide that the polls all indicate is right around the corner... doesn't happen. All because an IT firm is secretly flipping bits inside touch screen voting machines and undermining our democracy. Right under our noses.

It could happen again.

I have been agonizing over this election for years, and tomorrow is the day... but I don't feel any better tonight than I did two years ago. We are the ones who have everything to lose. Our government -- even and especially the Democratic Party, who should have known better -- has done nothing to fix this rampant problem.

Here are two must-read stories from truthout.org -- because our mainstream media is light years behind on this do or die issue that concerns the foundation of our democracy.

The first, from Greg Palast:

It's November 5 and the nation is in shock. Media blame it on the "Bradley effect": Americans supposedly turned into Klansmen inside the voting booth, and Barack Obama turned up with 6 million votes less than calculated from the exit polls. Florida came in for McCain and so did Indiana. Colorado, despite the Democrats' Rocky Mountain high after the Denver convention, stayed surprisingly Red. New Mexico, a state where Anglos are a minority, went McCain by 300 votes, as did Virginia.

That's the nightmare. Here's the cold reality.

Swing state Colorado. Before this election, two Republican secretaries of state purged 19.4 percent of the entire voter roll. One in five voters. Pfft!

Swing state New Mexico. One in nine voters in this year's Democratic caucus found their names missing from the state-provided voter registries. And not just any voters. County by county, the number of voters disappeared was in direct proportion to the nonwhite population. Gore won the state by 366 votes; Kerry lost it by only 5,900. Despite reassurances that all has been fixed for Tuesday, Democrats lost from the list in February told me they're still "disappeared" from the lists this week.

Swing state Indiana. In this year's primary, ten nuns were turned away from the polls because of the state's new voter ID law. They had drivers' licenses, but being in their 80s and 90s, they'd let their licenses expire. Cute. But what isn't cute is this: 566,000 registered voters in that state don't have the ID required to vote. Most are racial minorities, the very elderly and first-time voters; that is, Obama voters. Twenty-three other states have new, vote-snatching ID requirements.

Swing state Florida. Despite a lawsuit battle waged by the Brennan Center for Justice, the state's Republican apparatchiks are attempting to block the votes of 85,000 new registrants, forcing them to pass through a new "verification" process. Funny thing: verification applies only to those who signed up in voter drives (mostly black), but not to voters registering at motor vehicle offices (mostly white).

And so on through swing states controlled by Republican secretaries of state.

Read the rest here...

And yet another from truthout.org (they are obviously as worried tonight as I am. But then, they have been covering this issue for years.)

Is the Election About to Be Stolen in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Elsewhere?

Last Friday, a federal court judge in Cleveland, Ohio, ordered Michael Connell, an information-technology consultant to the McCain '08 campaign, to give a deposition in a court proceeding. Mr. Connell, whose firm, GovTech Solutions, built Ohio's 2004 election results computer network, was in a position to have knowledge about the alleged manipulation of electronic voting results in that presidential contest (a technique known as "flipping") in order to switch the winner in Ohio from Sen. John Kerry to President Bush. The deposition is scheduled to take place today, November 3, one day before the 2008 general election.

Connell is a former associate of Karl Rove, who is believed by those familiar with the events in question to have engaged in witness intimidation to prevent testimony about what happened in Ohio in 2004. They also believe that IT companies associated with the Republican Party have redeveloped the capacity to manipulate electronic voting results in Tuesday's election, both within Ohio and outside, including Pennsylvania and other key battleground states such as Colorado and New Mexico. One such firm, Triad GSI, is managing voter registration databases in 55 of Ohio's 88 counties and is hosting 25 of those databases.

All this has led to speculation that the McCain campaign's insistence that they can win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states, despite being (in some places, significantly) behind in most of the polls, could be prompted by having been informed about planned cyber interference with electronic voting results. The reality is that a successful cyber attack only requires a few skilled IT experts with an in-depth understanding of digital security. Election returns in many states are presently emailed from local databases for statewide consolidation, without even the standard safeguards routinely used by banks and corporations. In other words, voting data can be relatively easily hacked.

Read the rest here...

I noticed a special on the hacking of our elections on a public television station this evening. I didn't want to watch it. I'm trying to get some actual sleep tonight. I flipped through the stations, only to find that 'Recount' was playing on HBO. Stolen elections have finally made it into the public awareness. Apparently I am not the only one with that sick, gnawing feeling in my stomach tonight.

May justice and democracy prevail tomorrow. Be vigilant. Be wary. Pay attention. And don't let anyone bully you out of voting.

As Fredrick Douglass once said -- and I've read this twice today, in two different places, so I know its relevant:

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

McConnell to Stevens: Resign from Senate or be expelled

Politico is reporting that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has joined a growing list of senators demanding that Ted Stevens resign from the United States Senate:

"I think he should resign immediately," McConnell said. "If he did not do that ... there is a 100 percent certainty that he would be expelled from the Senate."

The article notes that McConnell, who originally held back from demanding Stevens' resignation, is locked in a "tough reelection fight in Kentucky" (red state Kentucky? Times they are a-changin!)

It appears that McConnell - a former chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee - is finally throwing Stevens under the bus.

GOP Presidential hopeful and Senator John McCain, along with Republican senators Norm Coleman, Jim DeMint, John Sununu and Gordon Smith all called on Stevens to resign on Tuesday. Once McCain demanded that Stevens step down, even Sarah Palin decided to let Stevens sink or swim on his own.

It appears that Senate Republicans are desperately hoping that Alaskans will do the 'dirty work' of getting rid of the inconvenient Stevens problem by electing Democratic candidate and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich:

While the Senate can expel Stevens, senators are clearly hoping that he saves them from the excruciating and embarrassing task of expelling him – or that Alaska’s voters do it for them when they go to the polls on Tuesday.

"Voters will determine Ted Stevens' fate much more quickly than the Senate could at this point," said one Senate Republican aide. "Should he be reelected, however, he will most certainly face serious and immediate consequences in the 111th Congress."

Another top GOP aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that “the voters in Alaska will be the judge and jury” in deciding Stevens’ fate at this time, not his Senate colleagues.

Obama fighting hard for Indiana

If Indiana turns blue at last, it won't be simply because of overwhelming turnout in Lake County or the Democratic cities like Indianapolis and Bloomington. If Indiana turns blue, it will be because Indiana Hoosiers are disgusted with the Bush Administration... and because Obama has run a terrific ground offensive in this state. He has done what many (including myself) might have thought impossible: he is making serious headway in the wealthy Republican suburbs that ring Indianapolis:

Bruce Babcock, a lifelong Republican and a retired executive with a Fortune 100 company, had no reluctance about advertising his newfound political allegiance with an Obama sign. "Bush has not done a very good job. And the Republicans don't deserve another chance at all." Babcock’s last words were designed to underscore that he has no animus toward McCain: "They'd have to resurrect Lincoln to get me to vote Republican."

This is actually hard for me to visualize, because I used to live in the area bordering Dan Burton's district, and it is about as GOP as GOP gets. But I have been hearing for months that there is a quiet revolt happening in the White, Republican suburbs. Republicans in the wealthy suburbs that encircle Indianapolis are turning on the GOP and mobilizing for Obama:

Westfield, Indiana, is at the very center of Hamilton County, one of the most Republican counties in the country, and the location of my home. It was in my home that a couple of dozen Republicans for Obama (RFOs) met last week to socialize. Yes, I said Republicans for Obama, a phenomenon similar to the Reagan Democrats of the 80's. While the GOP is denying we exist as a movement, the Obama campaign is prepping to support our group on a national level with a presence on barackobama.com as well as staffer support for meetings like this one.

My wife, Sharon, and I have been Republicans since Reagan's first term. We hosted this first "Central Indiana Republicans for Obama In Home Social" on the evening of Thursday, July 24th. Two dozen Republicans attended, as well as several members of the Obama campaign who came to show their support for our nonpartisan efforts. Even a reporter from The Indianapolis Star attended to report on what could be said to be a historic event.

And that was only August.

From Salon:

Finding Democratic voters in fast-growing suburban Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis, seems as unlikely as spying a herd of giraffes frolicking in a mall parking lot. In 2004, Bush rolled up the kind of victory in Hamilton County that Vladimir Putin might envy -- obliterating Kerry by 51,000 votes with a 74 to 25 percent margin. Yet Obama has two storefront offices in the county (among 44 offices statewide) and is running an aggressive canvassing operation. This unusual commitment of resources is not lost on the Republicans. "Obama's campaign has targeted the Doughnut Counties" -- local lingo for the eight counties that ring Indianapolis --"particularly Hamilton County," says Clark, the GOP chairman. "They are targeting upscale voters, particularly women."

About a dozen Obama canvassers headed out Saturday morning from the newly opened campaign headquarters in affluent Carmel; I accompanied Barbara Kirk, a retired psychotherapist wearing a black Obama T-shirt with a peace sign in place of the "O," and Beth Maier, a photographer who just moved to Indiana with her husband, a medical scientist. They were making the rounds in the Smokey Ridge neighborhood, where houses list for about $500,000. Carmel, where 89 percent of all high school graduates attend four-year colleges, is not anything like a typical Indiana community. But this is an area where the downside of the Bush era's hard-right tilt of the Republican Party can be observed -- as upscale moderate voters who might be attracted to John McCain for economic reasons recoil because of the social conservatism symbolized by Palin's presence on the ticket.

Laurie Dwyer, a youthful looking 62-year-old woman wearing a Citadel T-shirt (her husband's alma mater), is just this sort of repentant Bush 2004 voter. "I don't say that I'm a Democrat or a Republican," Dwyer told the Obama canvassers, after admitting that she would be voting for their candidate. "I just think that McCain did us all an injustice by choosing his running mate. McCain has made so many mistakes running his campaign, who knows what he would do as president." Offered an Obama lawn sign, Dwyer, presumably thinking about the reaction of her neighbors, said softly, "I better not." (Her precinct went for Bush in 2004 by a vote of 780 to 247.)

But not only the wealthy Hoosiers are 'getting it.' Indiana has been slammed by enormous factory job losses. We're being hammered by weather changes that have threatened our corn crops (alternating floods and droughts -- the weather here has been spooky even by unpredictable Indiana standards.) And the Indiana unemployment rate is now the highest that it has been in over 20 years.

Hoosiers aren't stupid. I've kept my ear to the ground, and have struck up conversations in rural restaurants, hardware stores, and with repairmen who have come to our house. Every conversation has turned to outrage with Bush, comments about how our government has gone 'straight to hell,' or about the ill treatment of returning war veterans.

I recall one conversation that I had with a repairman last year. He came to our house to fix our plumbing, and ended up spending an extra 20 minutes ranting about how badly his brother was treated when he returned from Desert Storm. He died from the strange 'Gulf War' illness that affected many returning vets, and according to the account I heard, he received little if any medical treatment from the government. When he died, his brother the repairman was outraged that the military would only provide a taped recording of Taps for his funeral. This is Indiana; blue-collar, working class Indiana.

People here are angry. People here are more than ready for change. All they want to hear is that someone really means the political rhetoric and really understands the suffering.

Back to the Salon essay:

But if Obama wins the state, more than anything it will be due to the best voter-contact operation Indiana has ever seen. Even Murray Clark, the Indiana Republican chairman, says with grudging admiration in his voice, "Obama's done these things right. That's how he nearly beat Hillary in the primary."

Ignored for decades by presidential candidates, Indiana in 2004 boasted a dubious distinction -- the lowest turnout rate among registered voters (57.4 percent) of any state in the union. Had the Obama campaign been pinched for cash instead of raking in a jaw-dropping $150 million in September, Indiana probably would have remained the Midwest's leading flyover state. Instead, buoyed by the primary turnout, the Obama team saw opportunity amid the decades of neglect. As Emily Parcell, the Indiana Obama coordinator puts it, "Unlike Iowa, where every election is hard fought and where a good field operation can add only about 3 percentage points, there is a much greater opportunity for a good field operation here. Hoosiers are not used to Democrats coming to their door. They're not used to being told about early voting."

If you live in Indiana, get out there and talk to people! Or simply listen and then tell them how you feel about Barack Obama. You may be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.

UPDATE: The Indianapolis Star ran a story yesterday about the struggling Indiana economy. More fodder for discussion while canvassing local voters:

After five years of concerted effort by government and business leaders, Indiana's economy is still falling behind.

About 40,000 high-paying industrial jobs have vanished since 2003, and efforts to replace them with a high-wage tech economy have not taken hold.

That means Indiana paychecks still are rising less than the U.S. average, a process that began decades ago and shows few signs of reversal despite successful efforts to increase biotech, advanced manufacturing and service jobs.

Those efforts were partly undermined by the rapid disintegration of the national economy brought on this year by high fuel prices and the global lending crisis. Hoosier unemployment, for example, was below the national average for years but suddenly surpassed it this summer as the U.S. economy slumped and high gas prices hit Indiana's RV industry.

Cross posted from Daily Kos, ePluribus Media, and Blue Indiana.

Passive-aggressive racism in the media

American Heritage Dictionary
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I was encouraged to read some very strong words this week from White Republicans, condemning John McCain's initial refusal to quiet the racist overtones coming out of his campaign. Unfortunately the national media often lags far, far behind.

This morning I was floored to see an article in the Washington Post - an article purporting to address the issue of race now creeping into daily election dialog - take Democratic congressman John Lewis to task for saying basically the same thing that Republicans Andrew Sullivan and Frank Schaffer said in their own powerful essays.

No mention of the fact that others who are not African American, not civil rights leaders (and not Democrats - heaven help the man who is all three) had evoked similar and equally powerful images before Lewis said a single word.

From the Washington Post, Issue of Race Creeps Into Campaign:

Yesterday, civil rights leader John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia, became the latest advocate to excite the racial debate, condemning Sen. John McCain for "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" and accusing the Republican nominee of potentially inciting violence.

In a provocative twist, Lewis drew a rhetorical line connecting McCain to the segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace, and through Wallace to the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham that killed four girls. McCain voiced outrage at the comments, which also drew a mild rebuke from an aide to Sen. Barack Obama.

McCain has treated the subject of race gingerly, moving quickly to reject loaded remarks by some supporters while at other times accusing the Obama campaign of "playing the race card" and claiming racism to avoid legitimate criticism.

McCain has been 'moving quickly to reject loaded remarks from some supporters?' What planet has Anne Kornblut been living on all week?

My response:

"Lewis yesterday used a racial frame to leverage one of the harshest cases against McCain this year."

Here we go again.

When a White Republican named Frank Schaffer blasts McCain for "deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence," gosh, that's OK... although none of you in the national media covered his words (I just happened to read the OP-ED in the Baltimore Sun.) I like the fact that Schaffer said that we will hold McCain responsible for any violence... because we will.

And there are many other White Republicans demanding that McCain back off as well; some with very strong words of their own. White Republican Andrew Sullivan said "McCain is playing with fire. If he really wants to put country first, he will attack Obama on his policies - not on these inflammatory, personal, creepy grounds. This is getting close to the atmosphere stoked by the Israeli far right before the assassination of Rabin." I see you didn't cover that.

So why is it that as soon as an African American civil rights leader brings this issue up -- and believe me, he would know -- suddenly he is playing the race card and you write about it here in the Washington Post? Take a good, hard look at yourselves please.

I live in Indiana. I am White and I am very worried that McCain has stirred up racist Klan types that still live in this state -- I also worry about violence breaking out at the polls. All of us who are White or Black non-racists and who have ever come into contact with racists and racist threats are worried that McCain has been stirring a very dangerous pot that could easily turn into violence among his followers.

Lewis has every right to say what he feels needs to be said without being accused in the national media of playing the race card! McCain threw it down first -- we are all answering it. What you in the media are plainly saying is that there is still a double standard - for you - concerning what an African American man can say about racist attacks. And guys -- that is racist.

I could go on and on - with example after example - of this media double-standard. What I think about it really doesn't matter. The real issue is that I can say whatever I want about racial inequality because I am White (that, and no one listens to me anyway - I'm not a democratic congressman from the Deep South.)

If only... I could make one suggestion to the national media, I would encourage them to tread with care when accusing anyone of 'playing the race card' until they have checked more than their own syntax and spelling. Double-standards lurk in the white spaces between the text.

Obama blasts McCain over 'Lipstickgate'

Be careful what you pray for

I keep hearing rumors (I don't pay attention to 90% of what I read, but this is amusing) that one of the GOP Evangelical preachers asked everyone to pray that Obama's speech would be rained out at the DNC in Denver.

It appears God has a sense of humor. Its beginning to look like the entire RNC will be 'rained out.'

It's too bad this demonstration must be at Louisiana's expense again... although perhaps the landfall was simply a much needed reminder for everyone who was trying so hard to forget, that this is also the anniversary of Katrina. Katrina Katrina Katrina. And everything that terrible aftermath told us about GOP governance (or lack of.)

Be careful what you pray for... or why you pray for it. As I recall, Jesus was always rather particular about motives.

Electoral vote power grab in California?

I say - if you are going to do it in one state, do it in all of the states (might be fun in Indiana.) But if you are going to cherry-pick only states that will give GOP advantage -- geez guys, haven't we seen this before? Will you guys stop at nothing to rig rig rig elections?

Let us freaking VOTE already.



Here is the story, from Huffington Post - by Senator Barbara Boxer:

If you haven't heard already, Republican strategists recently announced plans to begin raising money for a dangerous initiative that would radically change the way California apportions our electoral votes in presidential elections. Rather than awarding all of California's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote -- the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska -- their scheme would divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of Congressional districts each candidate wins.

What does this mean? Well, if the last few elections are any guide, rather than the Democratic nominee winning all 55 of California's electoral votes in 2008, this new partisan scheme could hand 20 of California's electoral votes to the Republican candidate and only 35 to the Democrat.

Don't get me wrong: After the 2000 and 2004 election debacles, I'm a strong advocate for election reform. But it's absolutely wrong for California to go it alone. It's just patently unfair for a large "blue" state like California to change our system for awarding electoral votes while other large states which trend "red" like Texas and Florida don't change their system at the same time.

This isn't reform -- this is a partisan power grab by Republican operatives in the Karl Rove tradition.

Here we go again.

Just another brick in the voting wall. The GOP will try to block Democrats from voting where they can, change electoral rules where it will benefit the GOP (but never Democrats, as if they were to change this in Indiana or say Texas;) change entire districting -- and then plant their easy to hack Diebold machines without paper trails from sea to shining sea.

At least a few Democrats are finally putting up a fight (not that the Democrats haven't done their share of this in the past - Chicago's original Mayor Daley made partisan politics into an art form, where even the dead turned out the vote.)

I am growing tired of the banana republic. Surely we can do better than this -- all of this.

If you want to help Barbara Boxer fight this California electoral vote grab, sign her petition here.

Personally, I wish we could do one of two things: either do away with all parties, and thus 'party politics' and the inherent corruption, or move to a parliamentary style government with many parties represented. Our current parties represent... well hardly anyone these days. I think most Republicans and many Democrats would agree with me.

Indecision 2008: Jon skewers shallow media

I know... where's the challenge in that?

Perished from the earth

Over a hundred years ago, Abraham Lincoln gave one of the most stirring speeches in American history:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Surely the American Civil War as a time of much greater fear and terror than anything we have ever known in our sheltered, spoiled lifetimes.

And yet President Lincoln never demanded that the people BE AFRAID, never cut Congress out of the loop. He created a bipartisan cabinet of brilliant minds to guarantee that the best interests of the nation would be upheld, even at the cost of his own personal comfort (many of them hated him, and openly looked down on him because of his humble background.)

This was no rich men's pawn. This was a president. This man was one of us; and he believed in us.



Lincoln suspended habeas corpus when riots broke out in cities all across the North, and threatened the safety of the masses. (We citizens have never really liked our wars... have we?) And Lincoln later lifted it. We will find out today if our Senate thinks the current suspension of habeas corpus is worth lifting... without a single American city in flames, or even one lawless riot rampaging through our streets. Yes, we will see.

Lincoln was trying to save our nation... not destroy it for his own, personal gain. Lincoln believed in the dream of our nation's founders.

Democracy. Liberty. Justice.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Yes, wars will do that. Quite a lot of 'testing' goes on during wartime. 58,168 Americans died in the Vietnam war. 54,246 Americans died in Korea. 407,316 Americans died in WWII. 116,708 Americans died in WWI.

558,052 Americans died in the American Civil War, in the course of only 4 years... out of a total national population of about 30 million (today we have a population of 300 million.) Imagine the impact on society, on towns, cities and farms all across America. And imagine... they didn't toss out the Constitution - and Lincoln still conferred with Congress before going to war.



The South fought to form their own, new Constitution; the Union fought to defend the current. Each side was, in their way, fighting for their vision of America... just as today, angry voices on the right and angry voices on the left all fight for their own vision, their own American reality.

We disagree on everything else, but we all do love our country.

Unfortunately for us, corporations do not love our country. They want to rule our country. They want ever more money, ever more power, ever more control. But no, they do not love anything... but money.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. - Thomas Jefferson

Commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic. - James Madison

We were warned. We have been warned by everyone; from Jefferson to Eisenhower. We didn't listen. We were lured by trinkets and toys, and capitalism grew and grew, until at last it ate democracy.

But back to Gettysburg. Back to the battlefield.

We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

We are engaged, once again, in a war. But this war was never about freedom. This war was never about ideals; although the money powers spun it a way that would inspire yet another generation of idealistic, patriotic warriors to fight.

This war has always been about money.



We are daily met on a battlefield of a war. We just haven't yet awakened as a nation to the true nature of our war; and exactly who it is that has declared war on us.

We are misled, co-opted, enslaved... more and more, every day. Our freedom is being stolen from us at every turn by the money powers that lurk in the shadows; the powers that pay for our politicians, own our media, and call the shots. The money that wields the real power behind the scenes in Congress.

Do we think -- do we really think, for one moment, that anything we see is happening without their consent?

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

And how do we do that exactly? How do we end this 'perpetual war' that was declared against our will? This war... this endless war that will kill generation after generation of American and 'enemy' warriors alike, along with untold millions of innocent civilians...while destroying our very democracy in the process?

How do we resist this 'war beast' that is intent on killing us?

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Ah, father Abraham... that is the crux of the matter. That is the heart of everything. Because you see, we no longer are a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' That government has indeed, as you once feared, perished from this earth. It happened in increments. It happened with a bill here, an amendment there, and many, many signing statements. It happened while we went to work, went to school, eat, watched TV and slept. It happened quietly and in back rooms.

All across this country, people are demanding justice, demanding the removal of this lawless presidency. For some reason, the Democrats - who we elected to 'make it right' and save our democracy - refuse to act. Most of them refuse to even listen to the voices of the people.

Even Senator Feingold who I have held in the very highest esteem and never once doubted - not for a moment - seems to believe that impeachment is not worth the time.

How can saving our Constitution and our balance of power in government, not to mention our own voice - the voice of the people - how can this not be worth the time?

Lincoln would have thought it worth the time.



Yesterday, Senator Feingold posted a diary on Daily Kos. He responded to the many angry impeachment comments that completely flooded his last diary on Kos. He restated that he feels that impeachment is not a good use of time.

I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.

When I try to contact anyone about impeachment (congressman or senator,) I hear much the same... only unlike Senator Feingold, (who did approach us in good faith and is listening,) they speak to me as if talking to a small, confused child. It is as though I must be some left-wing radical to even broach the subject of impeachment. I have to tell them that I actually LEFT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OVER THIS before they stop and listen.

I will never belong to any party, ever again. I have lost all faith in parties. Party before nation? NEVER. I put the onus on the Democrats to restore that faith by doing something - anything - to save my country from slipping into a fascist dictatorship.

And perhaps the Democrats are satisfied to have a Democratic dictator rather than a Republican. Perhaps that is the deal that was brokered behind our backs. As long as the uniform is blue instead of red... and the right party 'wins.'



NO.

This was a government built on the rights and the voice of the people; and no one gives a damn about us anymore except when we're actually voting, excepting of course that our elections are now broken too.

And do you know why that is? Because lobbyists now outnumber lawmakers 24-1.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

Why would Congress give a damn about us? We don't pay their way... the corporations do. Perhaps the money powers who own the candidates and the media (except for a couple of mavericks - the ones who are ignored by the media by some strange coincidence;) perhaps these king makers told the Democratic party that they will not receive any endorsements - any money - for next year's election if they push through with impeachment.

Has anyone considered this?

These corporations are growing fat on the Bush Administration's policies, on this contractors' war, on land giveaways, cutbacks on corporate oversight, plundering of the environment, union-bashing, corporate tax cuts... this is pig trough heaven for the corporate world. In fact, corporate lobby representatives now oversee every single oversight agency; and corporations now make the rules and 'police themselves.'



And that is why I now believe that we will never, ever get this back; this government of the people. The whole thing has already gone too far under Bush and Cheney; the corporations will never give up all of this power now. And no one in Congress (other than Dennis and a handful of others) has the courage to stand against them.

One of the starkest Lincoln quotes I've ever seen was written in a letter to an officer during the Civil War. Some people have insisted Lincoln didn't write it, but a historian tracked it down and verified. I was floored when I saw it. How could he have... forseen this? But since that day, I have read many other warnings, going all the way back to our founding fathers. This danger has been looming since the very beginning of our nation.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. - Abraham Lincoln

If even Senator Feingold says 'do nothing,' it must be because he cannot see any way that Democrats can win next year without keeping impeachment off the table. And what on earth... would make a man like Senator Feingold, who so obviously loves the Constitution and agrees that these tyrants deserve to be impeached; what would make him suggest that impeachment was a bad use of time?



Perhaps the threat of continuing, lawless Neocon rule.

The sad thing... is that if this is true, and it is all about campaign finance: the Democrats are being played.

The corporations will never allow the Democrats to take over Congress or the White House unless they agree to keep things just as they are now. The corporate world will never give up a single tool in their presidential toolbox. I had nothing at all against Hillary; nothing at all... until she became lost in Rupert Murdoch's shadow. And of course Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. And Times Warner. Why would Hillary concern herself with listening to me? I will never have that kind of money.

But I still doubt that they really want Hillary; they'd much rather have a greedy Neocon like Fred Thompson.

I'm imagining a different scenario. I expect they will tell the Democrats to toe that line just a little too long... until the people become increasingly enraged and disaffected.

Then they will toss the people an independent candidate to split the weakened, Democratic vote. And of course, the gravy train will go right on, as if nothing ever happened. Giuliani or Fred Thompson. Probably Thompson because he was a lobbyist. Who better for the new corpocracy?

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thomas Jefferson

Do I sound cynical? Machiavelli called this hundreds of years ago. Jefferson foresaw it during the birth pangs of our nation. Adams predicted that our fledgling democracy could not survive, but would eventually 'commit suicide.'

It must have leapt while we weren't looking.

If we've lost Senator Feingold, we've lost our Democratic Congress. And they were all we have to represent us in these dark, dark days.

We have no Lincoln... except the one with the tired, sad eyes, staring out from the dusty, faded pictures of our past. The man, the president of the people; who saw the future, and is perhaps still trying to warn us across time and space.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. - Abraham Lincoln

Al... you could end this nightmare

This letter has been writing in my mind for a long time, but today I've reached my threshold. Al... you could end this nightmare. All of it.

Al wrote an Oped in the New York Times today, upping the ante on climate change (the very climate change we're already doing nothing about, because we've got a president who seems hell bent on destruction.)

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

Thanks for the warning Al... but if you really want to help us fix this... RUN FOR PRESIDENT.



I don't know if you've noticed, but you are the only 'FDR' or 'Lincoln' or 'Washington' our generation is going to get. We're in dire times here, dire straits. Our government has been overrun by jackals in high office, looting the coffers and gutting our federal agencies -- including the EPA.

You want us to step up? I'm doing everything I can here at our house, with our income constraints... but we need a massive, rapid change in direction on a national level. The people want this -- we're not stupid, we want to live and we want the next generation to have a chance. But we continually run into roadblocks from our government and the hulking corporations standing in the shadows. Do you think we wouldn't all be using solar power by now if it were cheap and readily available? How about solar cars?

And what is stopping us? Corporations. Their interests, not ours. So much for government of the people. Words are fine, but the reality is quite different these days.

Hell yes, we all need to do more to stop climate change. And to do this, we need strong, devoted, moral leadership. We need another Lincoln, who will speak to the 'better angels of our nature,' and reunite this house divided. We need a Kennedy who will entreat us to "ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country." And then the planet.

Our current leaders want us to live in fear. They spy on us, and steal our freedom in tiny, barely noticed increments, while misdirecting us with propaganda media. The frog is nearly boiling now. They are fanning the flames of hatred both here and abroad; and while we are distracted, they are eating away at the most basic framework of this government that has stood for over 200 years.

This is not the way out: it is the way of chaos, destruction and despair.

Step up, Al. You've done so much already -- there must be a reason you didn't take office in 2000. Perhaps you 'lost' because you had other, more pressing work awaiting you. Perhaps you were being forged in the fires of life; traveling your own 'hero's journey,' so that you would grow into the magnificent and fearless leader that you are today.

If you had been just another politician, just another corporate tool, you would have become a lobbyist after leaving office. Instead you chose to teach, and then to travel the world warning of impending climate change. This is not the behavior of a politician. This is the behavior of a leader!

You are now exactly what this nation needs: not just our nation, but the entire world. Your country is calling, and never has our need been greater. It is time for you to take that office we elected you to hold in 2000, bringing all of your fiery passion, leadership skills, intelligence; your knowledge of government, Constitution and history; and yes... political courage with you to the White House.

We need our FDR. We need a president who will say NO to fear and hatred and divisions between blue and red, and instead say "there is nothing to fear but fear itself." It will take every one of us working together if we are to get this done.

You will notice the current administration is doing the exact opposite: sowing discord and distrust. Divide and conquer. I have never seen the people so divided, into 'blue' and 'red;' conservative and liberal.

And while we are all busy fighting each other, the Executive Branch is busy amassing power, gutting our CIA, discrediting our FBI, has thoroughly embarrassed FEMA, made a mockery of the EPA, a laughing stock of the DoJ. Now they are privatizing our army (actually, they are creating their own army,) while our National Guard is destroyed overseas; doing tour after tour after tour. Our army is being systematically broken on the rocks of Iraqi civil war, as our government is quietly being outsourced at home.

If our hamstrung, ineffective Democratic 'majority' can't or won't do anything to stop this downturn, we will need a master of leadership to bring our country back to something again resembling a constitutional democracy and government of the people. And this is assuming there is still time... that we are even still a Republic in 2009. Our forefathers made no such promises that this democracy would last through time, without our own vigilance and a strong citizen media.

Lincoln's great fear has come to pass: corporations have been enthroned, and the Republic is on it's last gasp. You are the only life-support that many of us can see anywhere on the horizon. You are the only person who truly cares and possesses the knowledge and the leadership to bring us through this mess. And yes, you do care; and Al, we can all see that you care, about us and about life on this planet. We also know that you grasp the challenges (those of us who have read "The Assault on Reason.")

Al: we will need you to restore our federal agencies, reign in these rampant corporations and lobbyists, restore corporate oversight, bring our troops home and then rebuild our military. We will need you to somehow restore the trust of prospective enlistees, so they will know that their leader cares about them, and will have their back while they defend our country. And all this, while fighting climate change and weaning America off of oil.

This will require a herculean effort, and you are the only person in the country completely qualified to step up to this task. Al; I cannot stress this enough. We need you.

There is no one else, Al. No one else who can do this job. You are our best, our greatest, and maybe our only hope. Please... put on the mantle you were born to wear, the one you have been groomed to wear -- not by your political training and career, or even by the popular vote in 2000... but by the trials, disappointments and struggles of life itself.

Save our country: then give us the tools and leadership so that we can work with you to save our world.

American Freedom Agenda

The following was written by a group of conservatives that includes Bruce Fein (associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, and a member of the ABA Task Force on presidential signing statements,) who just wrote a devastating indictment of Dick Cheney in Slate.

These guys are right on the money. I want every candidate to sign off on this, and I want my congressman to uphold it. This is the American way... this is what we have always believed, the very principles on which our nation was founded.

Yes -- this is a description of being American. I don't know what those other people are, but this is an agenda that should have been sacred; and so ingrained that it feels unreal to be discussing it.

The American Freedom Agenda 'Freedom Pledge:'

I, (candidate), hereby pledge that if elected President of the United States I will undertake the following to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances, to honor fundamental protections against injustice, and to eschew usurpations oflegislative or judicial power.These are keystones of national security and individual freedom:

1. No Military Commissions Except on the Battlefield. I will not employ military commissions to prosecute offenses against the laws of war except in places where active hostilities are ongoing and a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony and to prevent local anarchy or chaos.

2. No Evidence Extracted by Torture or Coercion. I will not permit the use of evidence obtained by torture or coercion to be admissible in a military commission or other tribunal.

3. No Detaining Citizens as Unlawful Enemy Combatants. I will not detain any American citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant. Citizens accused of terrorism-linked crimes will be prosecuted in federal civilian courts.

4. RestoringHabeas Corpus for Suspected Alien Enemy Combatants. I will detain non-citizens as enemy combatants only if they have actively participated in actual hostilities against the United States. I will urge Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to permit any individual detained under the custody or control of the United States government to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal courts.

5. Prohibiting Warrantless Spying bythe National Security Agency in Violation of Law. I will prohibit the National Security Agency from gathering foreign intelligence except in conformity with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and end the NSA’s domestic surveillance program that targets American citizens on American soil for warrantless electronic surveillance.

6. Renouncing Presidential Signing Statements. I will not issue presidential signing statements declaring the intent to disregard provisions of a bill that I have signed into law because I believe they are unconstitutional. Instead, I will veto any bill that I believe contains an unconstitutional provision and ask Congress to delete it and re-pass the legislation.

7. Ending Secret Government by Invoking State Secrets Privilege. I will not invoke the state secrets privilege to deny remedies to individuals victimized by constitutional violations perpetrated by government officials or agents. I will not assert executive privilege to deny Congress information relevant to oversight or legislation unless supreme state secrets are involved. In that case, I will submit the privilege claim to a legislative-executive committee for definitive resolution.

8. Stopping Extraordinary Renditions. I will order the cessation of extraordinary renditions except where the purpose of the capture and transportation of the suspected criminal is for prosecution according to internationally accepted standards of fairness and due process.

9. Stopping Threats to Prosecuting Journalists under the Espionage Act. I will urge Congress to amend the Espionage Act to create a journalistic exception for reporting on matters relating to the national defense. As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, until such an amendment is enacted I will not prosecute journalists for alleged Espionage Act violations except for the intentional disclosure of information that threatens immediate physical harm to American troops or citizens at home or abroad.

10. Ending the Listing of Individuals or Organizations as Terrorists Based on Secret Evidence. I will not list individuals or organizations as foreign terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations for purposes of United States or international law based on secret evidence.

I will issue a public report annually elaborating on how the actions enumerated in paragraphs 1-10 have strengthened the ability of the United States to defeat international terrorism, secure fundamental freedoms, and preserve the nation’s democratic dispensation.

___________________________

(Candidate)

Date: ______________________

Conservatives fed up with power grab

Disaffected conservatives set a litmus test for '08
Want vow to curb presidential power

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 12, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A new political group recently asked Mitt Romney to promise not to wiretap Americans without a judge's approval or to imprison US citizens without a trial as "enemy combatants." When Romney declined to sign their pledge, the group denounced him as "unfit to serve as president."

Bravo!

Note to Republicans and Democrats in Congress: this means you too, all of you.

Such rhetoric might be expected from liberal activists. But these critics, who call their organization American Freedom Agenda, are hardly leftists. They represent what they insist is a growing group of disaffected conservatives who are demanding that the Republican Party return to its traditional mistrust of concentrated government power.

"Mitt Romney's ignorance of the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses would have alarmed the Founding Fathers and their conservative philosophy," said Bruce Fein, one of the group's co founders and a Reagan administration attorney, in a press release last month attacking Romney for not signing the pledge.

The American Freedom Agenda, which intends to put all candidates in both parties to the same test, is aiming to revive a strand of conservatism that they say has been drowned out since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The conservative principle of limited government, they say, means not just cutting the budget, but imposing checks and balances on those who wield power.

"Conservatives have to go back to the basics," said co founder Richard Viguerie , a veteran direct-mail strategist and author of "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause." "We have to go back and re launch the conservative movement. And for traditional conservatives, it's part of our nature to believe in the separation of powers."

People of every party; Republican, Democrat and Independent -- we're on the same page here. I actually feel badly for my Republican friends, because they feel betrayed by their party. This 'big government' and mounting debt was what they came to expect from the Democrats. Imagine their surprise to see a Republican administration take it to this extreme.

Congress, Impeachment and the "Black Hole"

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am simply an American citizen.

Because I am outraged by the outright refusal of congressional Democrats to bring impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney, even amid mounting evidence of treason and high crimes, I have done quite a bit of digging.

A lawyer would be a much better at this... but as a citizen, I have the right to expect action and I believe I have a personal duty to my own democracy. Quite a number of reputable lawyers have already laid the groundwork for impeachment. What is needed now from Congress is the will to proceed: on behalf of our nation and our very democracy.

By refusing to put impeachment on the table - and if it is indeed true that Democratic leaders are willfully advancing the partisan agenda of keeping Bush and Cheney around as a 'punching bag for Democratic candidates' - congressional leaders are ignoring a myriad of critical consequences, and playing partisan, political games with lives and with our very democracy.

An argument could also be made that they are breaking their oaths to 'protect and serve the Constitution of the United States,' which has been directly undermined by the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens without their knowledge:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not only has the Democratic majority taken ownership of the Iraq war and its consequences when it was in fact holding all of the cards, but Pelosi's refusal to allow the impeachment process to commence has also made this Democratic majority complicit in any future bombing of Iran, any further erosions of our Constitutional protections, and any lasting damage to our planet due to our refusal to take immediate action to curb carbon emissions.

In the face of an outraged country, and accusations of betrayal from the very people who elected them, the only answer seems to be this lame excuse from some nameless Democratic aide:

"No American troop will go without … just so the most liberal activists in the country can be quieted," said a senior House Democratic aide. "If it means Democrats in Congress get tea bags and hate mail, so be it - we will not be irresponsible with the lives of our troops."

Ah yes, the 'we can't leave our guys out there, throwing bullets at Al Qaeda' argument again. "Our hands were tied."

Believe me, this may fly with those who haven't learned how the system works, but it is a lie. The Democrats have the power of the purse - the power to end the war. They chose not to use it. They had Bush on the ropes, but they chose to let him go. And now the war will drag on forever -- or until the GOP base finally revolts and Bush backs down from the people who will stand up to him: his own party.

Once again, and so predictably, the Democrats were 'afraid' of what the GOP would say about them, forever locked in the victim mindset. Just look at Harry Reid... and then Dick Cheney, and tell me honestly: who is the bully, and who is the skinny little kid with glasses? Does Cheney take Harry's milk money too, or simply beat him up on the way home from school?

If you see a crime being committed and you refuse to take any action, you are complicit. You are obstructing justice and betraying the public trust. I believe a case could be made that congressional Democrats' unwillingness to take action when faced with mounting evidence of executive lawlessness, and with the very real danger that we could fall into a dictatorship with little or no warning, is in and of itself 'treasonous.' It is also obstruction of justice.

Both are impeachable offenses.

Are these fighting words? You betcha. There are very real consequences for inaction. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Any elected official in our government can be impeached, and impeachment charges have been brought against 16 officials in our history as a nation:

Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.

Impeachment is the process by which any civil officer can be removed from office: for treason, bribery, or other 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

As stated in our Constitution:

Article. II.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

We have never - in our entire history - actually removed a president from office via the impeachment process. Impeachment is not (as many believe) an outcome, but rather a process - a trial - that leads to a final outcome of either conviction, or acquittal. The process is an investigation into apparent unconstitutional and criminal behavior; with charges filed by the House, and the case tried in the Senate with the Supreme Court acting as the judges.

For the purpose of comparison, the actual impeachment of Bill Clinton proceeded as follows:

The infamous "Starr Report" outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998, and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.

Even with a Republican majority, Clinton wasn't actually convicted.

Compared with the case against Bill Clinton, the charges leveled against Richard Nixon were much more serious -- and this undoubtedly led to his resignation before the impeachment process began. It was the threat of impeachment (and the dirt that would be uncovered in the process) that led to Nixon's resignation... not impeachment itself. Nixon was never convicted, although many people now believe he would have been found guilty due to the seriousness of the evidence against him.

Charges against Bush and Cheney are remarkable in their similarity to those leveled against Nixon:

After five men hired by Nixon's reelection committee were caught burglarizing Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. "In all of this," the Articles of Impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974. The Articles of Impeachment, which can be viewed at http://watergate.info/, leave no doubt that these charges qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," justifying impeachment.

The precedent has been established.

What congressional leaders don't want the average American to know, is that the House doesn't have to prove its case in advance before bringing the charges and starting the impeachment process. Dennis Kucinich has already filed impeachment papers against Cheney. Many are now calling for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, because he lied under oath and deliberately obstructed justice. Somehow, the Democrats can't even pull that one off.

This raises a very serious question: why are the Democrats so afraid to act?

Impeachment would kick off a very thorough and public investigation -- something that is much needed if we are to protect our democracy. Some question whether powerful Democrats in leadership positions are compromised by lobbyist ties, and thus fear that they may be caught in their own investigative net. Of course, this has everything to do with partisan politics, and their chances in the 2008 election.

Without this as a possibility, their actions are truly implausible. Pelosi won't say why she won't allow impeachment 'on the table.' We are left to speculate and question on our own.

Democrats have already managed to clutch an enormous moral defeat from the jaws of victory with their refusal to force Bush into accepting a timetable in Iraq. They have alienated not only the many independent and even Republican voters that backed them in the 2006 elections -- but they are now losing their own base as well:

The number of Americans who identify themselves as independent voters is on the rise. According to an average of CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls, this year, 42 percent of Americans now consider themselves to be independent.

Thirty-three percent identify themselves as Democrats. Twenty- five percent now say they are Republicans.

Why on earth would the Democrats implode like this - and apparently doom their own 2008 election hopes - while claiming that they are in fact trying to protect them?

In a terrific commentary titled 'Cowering In The Suburbs of Berlin,' David Michael Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York, rails against the apparent implosion of Democratic leadership when dealing with the Iraq war:

What choices remain for Americans today? They have an administration which they despise, enacting policies they loathe. So they did what the good citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, they went out in large numbers and voted in a new government. We should make no mistake about what the landslide election of 2006 meant. Democrats had no agenda to put forth and were not chosen for the purpose of advancing any such non-agenda. They had one qualification going into last November’s contest, and it was the one which got them elected: They were the non-Republicans, the non-regressives. Their singular mandate was to curb the excesses of the insane kleptocracy which, by all manner of nefarious techniques, had seized control of the American democracy and was taking every step imaginable to destroy it.

So what did the Democrats do? They immediately put impeachment off the table. We should understand clearly what that meant. By doing this, the Democratic leadership was saying that no matter what crimes might be uncovered, their sense of political expediency in serving their own personal interests would come before those of the country they were paid to be serving instead.

Next, they have demonstrated the depth of their impotence by refusing to impeach Alberto Gonzales, despite the fact that his transgressions - which now manifestly also include perjury and obstruction of justice - are as obvious as they are deep, and despite that these crimes involve the Justice Department, a part of the federal government that is supposed to be most insulated from Rove style politics. Instead of impeachment we’re to be treated to a Senate vote of no confidence. Golly, that’s bold. Knowing that nice man in the White House as I do, I’m sure that will compel him to do the right thing about this darned vexing situation!

What’s most astonishing about the whole affair is that Democrats still haven’t awakened to the fact that the core thrust of the entire scandal was yet another scheme to steal elections from them. Why don’t they just get it over with and form the Caspar Milquetoast Society for the Slow Suicide of Superfluous Political Parties? Just as in the case of the elections of 2000 and 2004, these guys don’t even put up a fight when it comes to the one issue you’d think even such self-serving sycophants might actually care about, namely, keeping their jobs.

It’s absurd and it’s tragic that the Democrats will not touch Bush, Cheney or Gonzales, but this week’s caving on funding for the Iraq war is in a league by itself. When they took over Congress, these guys had just one thing they needed to get right. They didn’t. They had a moral responsibility to end a war which they’ve long known, and which Harry Reid has even publicly admitted, is lost. They wouldn’t. They had virtually all the right political conditions in their favor, from a public mandate to a despised president for a political opponent. Still, they couldn’t.

And why exactly were their hands so very tied when they had the mandate of the American people and held the power of the purse?

Lobbyists.

Are the lobbying groups and the corporate behemoths they represent now so powerful, and our representatives so compromised by lobbyist ties, that Democratic leaders (along with their GOP counterparts) are nothing more than puppets serving a corporate master? Did the master in fact lay down the law and refuse to allow any impeachment process to take place?

Something stinks here.

It is impossible to know the true extent of congressional complicity while Congress continues to refuse impeachment... and the only branch capable of bringing impeachment charges against this president and vice president is our Congress itself. In spite of a mandate by the people and a whopping House majority, the Democratic Congress refuses to even discuss impeachment. This speaks volumes.

None of this is really new:

Since President McKinley and the Spanish-American War, overseas adventures have been the oligarchy’s response to the public’s demand for reform. Whether it was Populists or Progressives, rank-and-file Republicans or Democrats leading the charge for domestic change, the major party bosses and their partners on Wall Street have worked together in “collusive harmony,” in the words of political historian Walter Karp, to divert the country from its just demands by embroiling them in deadly foreign entanglements.

Reform movements are an ever-present worry for both parties’ bosses, because any successful reform put forward by regular citizens and insurgents in Congress tends to excite the electorate with the possibility of actually controlling their own government. The ruling class well understands that as the engagement of the citizenry waxes, their own power wanes. And it is war and the threat of war that provide the best excuse for not passing social-welfare legislation, and calling anyone who demands it “unpatriotic.”

It is obvious how we got here: corporate interests. Oil. The lucrative 'war contracting' business, and the Military Industrial.

The system 'of the people, by the people and for the people' has been compromised by money interests, and Lincoln's great fear has come to pass: corporations have been enthroned. These corporations have no intention of giving up the power they have gained under this administration. Their best guarantee of continuing the gravy train is by 'buying' representatives from both sides of the political aisle, possibly blackmailing them, and effectively undercutting efforts to fix the system from the outside.

It is working beautifully, I might add.

We have the right to demand an investigation. The question now is how to overcome our current 'rulers;' the ones we can see, and the ones behind the scenes.

I call these behind the scenes manipulators the 'black hole.' We can tell something is there, even if we can't quite see it. We can 'see it' by the uniform pull it manifests on all surrounding 'objects', which include the three branches of our Federal government and our media. Someone or some organization is quietly pulling strings, and the marionettes are all dancing their complex choreography to a tune we citizens cannot hear. Its no wonder we are confused and dismayed.

If 70 cities, 11 state legislatures, numerous state Democratic parties and hundreds of thousands of average citizen voters (this is unprecedented in our history) are pressuring Congress to impeach, and credible legal minds have listed impeachable offenses and laid out a prosecution groundwork... well gosh, there might actually be a FIRE somewhere under all of this smoke:

More than 70 cities and 14 state Democratic parties have urged impeachment or investigations that could lead to impeachment. The most common charge is that Bush manipulated intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war. Other charges include spying on Americans and torturing suspected terrorists in violation of U.S. and international law.

Most recently, the Massachusetts Democratic Party voted to push impeachment of both men. The 2,500 state convention delegates voted almost unanimously against Cheney; the vote against Bush was closer.

Massachusetts' Democratic Party thus joined 13 others on the investigate-or-impeach bandwagon, including: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Among the cities and towns, the largest and most recent is Detroit, where the city council voted 7-0 this month to urge Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney for "intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify the war."

The probability that Bush would be impeached by a two-thirds vote in the current, partisan Senate seems remote, but the point is to bring due process anyway, force White House compliance, and get to the bottom of these charges. Let the democratic process work. We the people are the rightful owners of our government in a democracy, and as such we have the right to know what crimes have been committed by our elected officials.

A few days ago I read a story explaining why the Democratic party doesn't want to impeach.

The writer states that Democratic leadership won't consider impeachment because they believe that allowing Bush and Cheney to stay in office will actually help their party's chances in the 2008 election. I strongly disagree. The longer the Democrats refuse to act, the greater the likelihood that the American people will decide that Democrats are weak, capitulating windbags without any teeth.

The story begins by describing apparent worries within the Democratic leadership that there just 'isn't enough proof' to bring impeachment charges, and fears that there will somehow be a political backlash - among the people, rather than the obvious objectors, the corporate lobbyists.

According to the article, there are three "policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base:"

Some don't see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors." They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they haven't yet.

Let's debunk that one right now.

There are are now countless volumes of legal arguments, written by experienced and brilliant legal minds - all laying out the framework for impeachment.

Any activity that deliberately undercuts the Constitution is both a 'high crime' and treasonous. The president and vice president both took an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of their swearing in process. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales -- all swore the oath. Any direct action they have taken against the wording of our Constitution is grounds for impeachment.

Impeachable offenses include:

1. Outing Valarie Plame, a verified covert CIA agent. Felony offense, high crime.
2. Lying to Congress and to the American people, with the intent of invading a foreign, sovereign nation. High crime, possible war crime, and treason.
3. Misrepresenting information provided by the CIA. Obstruction of justice, high crime.
   
4. Illegal rendition. High crime, possible war crime.
5. Refusing to turn over evidence such as emails. Obstruction of justice
6. Using outside email accounts for White House correspondence. Obstruction of justice, violation of the Hatch Act.
7. Destroying logs of official visitors to Cheney's residence to avoid having them entered into the Presidential record. Obstruction of justice, abuse of power.
   
8. Holding prisoners without due process. High crime.
9. Secret torture camps. High crime, potentially war crime.
10. Promoting CIA torture practices. High crime, possibly war crime.
11. Tampering with election outcomes. Felony, high crime, treason.

But the biggest case for impeachment, according to most legal scholars, is the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. This can arguably be considered both a high crime and treason.

Even Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

Elizabeth De la Vega, a 20-year federal prosecutor has probably laid out the best legal case for impeachment in her book "United States V. George W. Bush et al." This is a brilliant and well crafted legal analysis, and there are many others.

Here are a few of the better ones:

1. The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff


2. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, from The Center for Constitutional Rights


3. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney, by Dennis Loo


4. George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying, by John Conyers Jr.


5. The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman

The Democrats are either remarkably illiterate when it comes to the impeachment process, or are pretending to be ignorant in the hope that the American people will believe that they are helpless, none of this is their problem, and that impeachment is a waste of time.

I have also heard them say that they would rather concentrate on the real issues (issues? You mean like getting our troops out of Iraq?) They would like everyone to believe impeachment isn't viable. And as always, Democratic leaders are acting out of fear of GOP reprisals, rather than from a strong and forceful position of principle and moral strength.

Americans want strong leadership. The Democrats are in the drivers' seat and in the perfect position to show that they are strong and moral leaders. Instead, they seem determined to prove that they are weak and afraid. I cannot see how this can possibly be successful.

The second reason for not impeaching Bush and Cheney is that the Democratic leadership apparently fears...

a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush.

Backlash? From the voters? Hardly.

There apparently wasn't enough 'backlash' against the GOP after their impeachment of Bill Clinton to keep George W. Bush out of the White House in 2000.

In spite of our collective distaste for the GOP's hatchet job on Clinton, the Monica debacle did affect the campaign of then Vice President, Al Gore. It was the invisible albatross around his neck throughout the entire campaign -- his unfortunate association with a President embroiled in a 'sex scandal'.

There was absolutely no backlash against the GOP at all -- none -- although God knows there should have been. The media should have led the charge against this ridiculous charade and mockery of the impeachment process, but of course they were delighted by the sensationalism, and wallowed in the muck. Coverage of the Clinton impeachment was decidedly x-rated. I found it remarkable that a party so anti-sex and loudly 'pro-Christian, family values' could leak and publish documents so explicitly sexual in nature that parents were forced to keep their kids away from newspapers.

If the GOP could negatively affect Gore's campaign with a bogus impeachment trial against a very popular president -- how on earth could impeaching an extremely unpopular president with a 28% rating cause a backlash? This president started an entire war based on lies, undercut our Constitution protections and our Bill of Rights, spied on American citizens without a court order, leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent, completely dropped the ball after Katrina, gutted our EPA, our FDA, FEMA and other governmental oversight agencies, tampered with election results... how could prosecuting Bush and Cheney bring any sort of public outcry?

And don't confuse the will of the people with a backlash from the media. You know who they report to.

Defend us, already. Defend our Constitution. Hell, show a little patriotism!

If there will be a backlash, it will be the Democratic majority's failure to impeach when it became obvious that over 70% of Americans now believe this president is leading our government right off a cliff. Failure to impeach proves both weakness and capitulation. And perhaps something more sinister:

The third is that they're eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign.

Ah, here it is. This is all a partisan game. And if this is true, it is... profoundly and unforgivably immoral.

It is hard to believe that any person or party would put partisan gain ahead of lives, morality, justice, and the future of life on our planet. If the Democrats are truly motivated only by the 2008 horse race to the Presidency - how are they really any different or any better than Karl Rove? So much for holding the high ground.

Lack of action is action.

If Democratic leaders want to prove that Democrats aren't the cowering weaklings the GOP claims they are, they must do a lot better than this. It is time for them to muster some courage, face the neocon bullies and their corporate power brokers, and act on behalf of the nation. John Ashcroft managed it from a hospital bed... surely Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can reach deep and find a little patriotic fire and loyalty of their own.

It is time for the Democrats to take a strong and moral position against the crimes committed by this administration. Dedication to the rule of law will earn the respect of the people -- not capitulation. Strength and justice will earn success in 2008. We are not idiots out here. We know courage when we see it. We also recognize cowardice and betrayal.

On Martin Luther King Day in 2006, Al Gore gave a powerful speech about our collective obligation to protect our Constitution:

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.

Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law.

As John Adams said, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.

In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

If Congress doesn't take real action soon to impeach Bush and Cheney, there may not be much Constitution left to uphold -- and we will no longer be having this discussion. The future of our democracy can now turn on a dime, and entirely at 'the pleasure of the president.' At his own discretion and without any warning, the president can now declare martial law. Habeas corpus has already been taken away. Our liberty is in very real danger.

We're out of time, Nancy. I'm tired of calling your office. Everyone I know is tired of calling your office. We're tired of asking. Now we are telling you...

IMPEACH.

Truth or consequences

I wonder if we as Americans can ever break free of media influence and elect a president that will really represent us.

Oh we have plenty of leaders: candidates with integrity, honesty, new and creative solutions to serious national issues - even a little 'fire in the belly' from time to time. We also have legislators with strong records of defending our interests in congress, instead of toeing the lobbyist line.

Yet for some mysterious reason, we we allow our television media - and powerful corporate donors - to pick our candidates for us, and the best people seem to fall right off the radar. If a candidate doesn't have that desired 'look' or 'slick packaging', they are marginalized - ignored - summarily dismissed as irrelevant. We are letting corporations and the media dictate our democracy to us, based on... appearances and sound bites.

Why is that? Can't we think for ourselves anymore?

I often find myself comparing our current, broken electoral system with the one that was in place just before the Civil War, when the fledgling Republican party had recently formed out of a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery (hint to angry Democrats and Republicans - we've formed new parties before, and quite successfully.)

Abraham Lincoln made made a national name for himself as an outspoken critic of slavery, and as a brilliant orator during a series of debates with popular and charismatic Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 (both were running for the US Senate seat from Illinois.) In spite of his gawky, tall frame, ill-fitting suits and high, reedy voice, Lincoln had a rare gift: he could inspire an audience by connecting with them on a human level, and by telling them the truth.

Lincoln lost the Senate race in 1858, but beat Douglas two years later in the 1860 presidential campaign, to become President of the United States. By this time, everyone knew who he was and remembered his fiery and persuasive arguments from the Illinois debates.

The two differed in more than background and education (Douglas received a classical education, and Lincoln was from a humble background and self-taught.) Douglas had chaired the Senate Committee on Territories, and helped enact the Compromise of 1850, which included the highly controversial Fugitive Slave Act. Passage of the Fugitive Slave Act outraged many abolitionists, and heightened their resolve to put an end to slavery once and for all. This act also served to bring the the subject of slavery squarely into the public eye, and many people who had previously been ambivalent began to question the morality of the institution.

Douglas was a proponent of 'Popular Sovereignty,' and was responsible for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to the outbreaks of unprecedented violence in Kansas. In contrast, Lincoln represented the growing anti-slavery movement that was taking hold across the nation, and believed that the country could not survive as one nation, half slave and half free. The country was being torn apart by the divisive issue of slavery, and people were paying close attention to the opinions held by each candidate - as demonstrated in both their words, and their actions.

The media of the time - which consisted solely of newspapers - was undoubtedly every bit as slanted as it is today, with the exception that there was no television: the people actually read, and thus were able to see actual transcripts of the candidates' speeches and debates, rather than relying on sound bites picked out by the television media. By reading the actual words of the candidates, citizens could discern where each one stood on important issues. And if a candidate was a talented writer/speaker, he could often sway many readers solely by his choice of words, the intensity of his argument, and his intellectual prowess as he made his case.

People have a pretty good sense for when they are being told the truth. In recent years, our contact with our candidates has been carefully screened by 'handlers' and edited by the powerful, corporately-owned media. But surely, people really do want the truth. They crave the truth. They have simply lost track of how to connect with the authenticity of the person for whom they plan to vote.

In the old days of 'stumping,' the people gathered around and actually listened to live speeches and debates. There was no hiding for these politicians - no lights, no make-up, no leading questions. They duked it out in a clever and intelligent war of words, and to the victor went both popular support... and the nod of his party. In those days, intelligence and grasp of issues easily trumped looks, lighting or corporate sponsors. The candidate sank or swam on his own merit.

Candidates were picked by their own party leaders - who had known them for years, and could vouch for their character. The chosen candidate's intelligence and ability was well established, and generally anyone who was picked to represent his party in a general election had the education, stability and leadership skills to eventually run the nation. It is believed that members of Lincoln's new party underestimated his independent nature, and expected him to take direction from more powerful leaders behind the scenes and basically toe the party line.

However once elected, Lincoln showed creativity and an unusual willingness to embrace non-partisanship, by picking for his cabinet political opponents and politicians who frankly and openly disliked him - all on the basis of their credentials. Lincoln demonstrated a remarkable ability to pick the most effective and competent person for each of his cabinet positions, and placed his loyalty to party - and personal comfort - behind the best interests of the nation as a whole.

We don't have to go back to Lincoln's time to find examples of political courage and devotion to 'nation over partisanship.' Lately we have been treated to some rather remarkable acts of political courage and devotion to truth, in presidential debates and on the House floor.

Last Wednesday, Dennis Kucinich claimed an hour of time on the House floor, and delivered a powerful and truthful expose on the inner workings of the oil industry and their designs on Iraqi oil. Kucinich explained how this lust for Iraqi oil led us directly into this current and disastrous war, and implied that we will never extricate ourselves while the Iraqi people manage to hold out against the interests of Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This was amazing, truthful and critically relevant testimony. Yet it received no mainstream, corporate media coverage, was largely ignored by other members of the House - even members of the Democratic party. I find it hard to imagine that something so critical and so fundamental to our current situation could have been swept under the rug, but there it is: it happened.

Kucinich is often laughed at or simply ignored by the national media. Whereas Lincoln was 'too tall,' Kucinich is apparently 'too short'; he speaks his mind, and sometimes comes across as a bit folksy or 'off the cuff,' (similar in many ways to Lincoln and his famous yarns.) The media pundits will also tell you something else - something that would have spelled disaster for Lincoln if he were to run for the presidency today. According to television media 'experts,' Kucinich doesn't look presidential.

I have often wondered if 'doesn't look presidential' really translates to 'we can't bully, influence or control you.'

The media would have us believe that issues are of far less importance... than how the candidate looks, and how well he or she 'spins.' Since most Americans claim that they do not want a president that lies or 'spins' every word, but rather gives it to us straight: it would appear that the television media and our best interests are at cross purposes.

In his own time, Lincoln suffered many of the same, lame media abuses. Cartoonists mocked him, portrayed him as an ape, a hillbilly and made fun of his home-spun humor, while describing him as an ignorant farmer. Of course as we know today, the truth was vastly different. Lincoln was one of the sharpest minds and wits in our presidential history, with a firm grasp of law, government, and even military strategy.

Somehow, the people saw through all of the media slander and connected with the character of the man. And they were rewarded with 'presidential courage,' and dedicated, bipartisan leadership during a time of national crisis.

If not for Lincoln's leadership, America would be two separate nations today... or perhaps it would have ceased entirely to exist. Perhaps we would now be a region of Canada, a 'state' in Mexico, or worse... the Nazis or Japanese would have eventually invaded and enslaved us during WWII. It is impossible to know where we would be today, had there been no President Abraham Lincoln to bring us through the bloody Civil War as one nation, intact.

I often wonder if we have lost our way as people, and as a nation. We seem to have forgotten to use our minds, but instead sit dumbly and passively in front of the television set, feeding on whatever garbage the media has served up for our consumption. Perhaps this is the result of several generations of Americans growing up with televisions as glorified babysitters; or perhaps there is some other brain deadening effect built into the medium that allows us to abandon our natural skepticism and reason when we flip on the set.

Do we really want the truth? Because candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be happy to tell us everything we say we want to hear, and more. Or are we instead willing to settle for a political 'American Idol;' with blow-dried, clean-cut and good-looking actor/politicians, posing for the cameras while carefully avoiding the issues - or heaven forbid - letting slip with any comments that might be construed as an actual opinion?

What about the pathetic state of our health care system, our disappearing jobs, the poisoning of our food, pollution, climate change, inflation, loss of our constitutional protections, and this horrific, bloody, illegal and budget-breaking war? These are issues that affect us all, every single day. Who on earth really cares or is affected by how much John Edwards paid for a haircut? How on earth can that possibly be relevant in a presidential campaign? When will we tire of this media circus, and demand some real honesty, authenticity and straight answers?

Dennis Kucinich gave us issues and answers, and he sounded a very loud trumpet of alarm. So did Ron Paul, when he lectured Rudy Giuliani on the finer points of U.S. history - and our years of intervention in Middle Eastern politics - during the second GOP debate. It is time for us to pay attention... even if this means occasionally watching C-Span, to find out what is really happening in our government (yes, it is boring to watch the House and Senate plod around.) It is time for us to break free of media influence, especially that of television, and instead turn on our active brains and doggedly pursue the truth.

Why are we in Iraq? What is the best plan of action to get our troops out? Every voting American should be asking these questions and actively seeking out the candidate that will best accomplish this end. John Edward's haircut has nothing to do with our nation's role in this bloody 'War on Terror.' Mitt Romney's declaration that he would like to 'double the size of Guantanamo,' and Rudy Giuliani's shameless promotion of torture are frighteningly relevant to our future as a nation.

What do we the people of this nation think it means to be 'American,' and what is our system of values? What do we believe in - what do we consider moral? Is torture moral? Are cluster bombs that kill hundreds of innocent civilians... moral? And are we truly willing to give up our democracy for a little 'temporary safety?' If not, we had better get off the couch and take charge of our government: it is ours, and we have been entrusted with its protection so that it will survive for future generations.

The Internet provides many new opportunities to hear our candidates as they wish to be heard, speaking in their authentic voices - whether via personal blogs, their own video and YouTube presentations (free of media influence,) or their own written dispatches. There is no longer any reason to settle for sugar-coated drivel dished out by mainstream television pundits. We don't need a cynical middle man editing our democratic dialog... we need truth.

I believe it was Mulder of 'X-Files' fame who said "the truth is out there." The opportunity to wake up, pay attention, and meet our candidates is available to us. The choice is in our hands.