Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) delivers his speech at the Democratic National Convention:
A very energetic speech about what has been accomplished in the past 8 years.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Dear American Issues Project: Your Ad Is So Powerful...
...I had to get up an leave the room until it aired out.
I just saw your ad, and I have to say: Hyperbole Much?
Honestly, you create a connection between Obama and Ayers that supposes that Ayers is some sort of social outcast, save for the close personal friendship of Obama. In fact, Ayers, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern. A law professor himself, it is very unlikely that the two would not have to work together. Seriously, the current president can be tied in such loose terms to Osama bin Laden even. Additionally, you've also neglected to consider that Ayers has a long history in the Hyde Park neighborhood, including many political connections in the Chicago scene (again, a place where the two of them are unlikely to spend much time without cooperating sometimes).
Additionally, you've connected them both as working together on the Woods fund board of Directors. What you fail to say is that they were appointed to that non-profit fund by the Mayor of Chicago, nor do you plan on ever informing your viewers what the fund is (judging from your site you probably think it is "evil Communism").
For an organization that seems intent on further informing public opinion and changing minds, you are severely closed minded about how much Mr. Ayers can change his own mind over the course of 40 years.
I also browsed the rest of your site, and I can find really nothing of substance save for the "extensive research of the Obama-Ayers connection". Much of this "over 100 pages" is highly redundant reporting, back story about the Weather Underground, and even a 7 page discussion of 9/11 and United 93, carefully planted to evoke sympathy and/or anger from the reader.
Your energy security "idea" is pretty sparse to say the least. You drop in some shout-outs to numerous renewable energy sources, but your prime focus is on non-renewable resources. In fact, all of the photography is photos of offshore oil wells. You make a big pitch for coal and shale-based energies as well. I can't help but feel that your priority is to preserve the current resource hoarding, depletion, and control markets. Really, you have nothing new to share, and even the regurgitated party lines aren't even discussed in detail.
Your "strong economy" says nothing about how your proposals will help to strengthen the economy. Your bullet points "Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts", "Opposing any attempt to raise taxes in any form", "Supporting free trade", "Opposing over-regulation of American business and industry" all promote an approach to public policy that HAS NEVER HELPED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, PERIOD. We tried this over the past 7 years: nothing. Remember the 80's? Yeah. The "roaring" 80's! Fat chance. I don't know anybody who wants a return to the 80's. What about the 20's? The "Roaring 20's"? Well, they culminated with the dawn of Great Depression (a market correction event of similar size to the unregulated growth during the 20's). Harding + Coolidge + Hoover = Great Depression. Say it all together.
Additionally, your proposals in "Safe & Secure Homeland" seem to be in conflict with yours from "Strong Economy". How would you propose we pay for the fencing, the monitoring, the supervision, and the enforcement of such a strong border policy. I think that it is impressive that there isn't more illegal immigration with the system that we have currently, and it is a testament to how strongly the border patrol and support people manage to work with what they have. As you try to narrow that group of illegal immigrants down to zero you reach a point of diminishing returns. Surely you are familiar with these, as you purport to know so much about strengthening the economy.
As for your "Protecting American Families" agenda, you speak nothing of actually protecting families. You speak worlds about how you will enforce creating more families, ones without planning. What do you plan to do to protect them? I can't see a single mention of any family services or assistance that you will support. Surely if you care so much about precious children, you also care that they live in supportive and nurturing homes. By the way, no "Activist Judge" in Massachusetts "thwarted the will of the people". The issue of gay marriage was actually a vote in the statehouse. Seems that you see no problem "thwarting the will of the people", however, when it suits your own agenda. You must be thinking of New Hampshire. I know, it is hard, they are some of 'dem smallish states up the the nor'east. Okay, give your brain a rest for a minute...
Better? Good. Judicial "Activism" has not given us a single thing that you report on your site. Can you explain to me what threat to you or your agency is posed by gay marriage, abortion, or removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
Hey! You know what, I can't believe that activists in the Executive branch inserted "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. What was his name? Eisenhower? Yeah, he built that big public works project: the Interstate System. Remember that? I am surprised that you don't think of the large, federally subsidized and regulated network of highways to be "Socialism". It definitely fits the description. Ah, that's right, the guy in charge of it is your hero. Well, I guess that just changes everything now doesn't it.
Oh yeah. And the "In God We Trust" on our money? That was added during the civil war by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury Secretary. Another "activist" from the executive branch.
Neither of these were performed by popular vote, or even by popular legislative process. Instead, they were "activists" in high places pulling strings to get their messages across.
Well, seems that you *do* like "activists" after all, just only when they are suiting your agenda. Otherwise, they must be evil and must be stopped and represent everything "Un-American".
In closing, from the poorly researched bullet points on your site, the vague position statements, lack of documentation and references, and blatant contradictions and hypocrisy I can only conclude one thing: You are merely a front group that was created (on or around 05-August-2008) for the purpose of publishing misleading ads to drag public discourse into the putrid, feces-laden pig-sty that you have set up shop within. You provide nothing here to inform newcomers of why your positions and proposals are "American" or even beneficial. Rather, you merely seem to be blowing your cash on misleading your viewership. I suppose that it must be so lonely and pathetic in your world that you can only find company by lashing out to the rest of us up here in a sad attempt to drag us down to your level.
When you have real discourse, research, and well-thought out ideas (rather than rehashed Reagan talking points), you can participate in this debate. Until then, you will remain mired in the loneliness that is your own ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to adapt to the real world.
This article is my rebuttal to The American Issues Project, and it's latest attack ad (linked on the site).
I just saw your ad, and I have to say: Hyperbole Much?
Honestly, you create a connection between Obama and Ayers that supposes that Ayers is some sort of social outcast, save for the close personal friendship of Obama. In fact, Ayers, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern. A law professor himself, it is very unlikely that the two would not have to work together. Seriously, the current president can be tied in such loose terms to Osama bin Laden even. Additionally, you've also neglected to consider that Ayers has a long history in the Hyde Park neighborhood, including many political connections in the Chicago scene (again, a place where the two of them are unlikely to spend much time without cooperating sometimes).
Additionally, you've connected them both as working together on the Woods fund board of Directors. What you fail to say is that they were appointed to that non-profit fund by the Mayor of Chicago, nor do you plan on ever informing your viewers what the fund is (judging from your site you probably think it is "evil Communism").
For an organization that seems intent on further informing public opinion and changing minds, you are severely closed minded about how much Mr. Ayers can change his own mind over the course of 40 years.
I also browsed the rest of your site, and I can find really nothing of substance save for the "extensive research of the Obama-Ayers connection". Much of this "over 100 pages" is highly redundant reporting, back story about the Weather Underground, and even a 7 page discussion of 9/11 and United 93, carefully planted to evoke sympathy and/or anger from the reader.
Your energy security "idea" is pretty sparse to say the least. You drop in some shout-outs to numerous renewable energy sources, but your prime focus is on non-renewable resources. In fact, all of the photography is photos of offshore oil wells. You make a big pitch for coal and shale-based energies as well. I can't help but feel that your priority is to preserve the current resource hoarding, depletion, and control markets. Really, you have nothing new to share, and even the regurgitated party lines aren't even discussed in detail.
Your "strong economy" says nothing about how your proposals will help to strengthen the economy. Your bullet points "Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts", "Opposing any attempt to raise taxes in any form", "Supporting free trade", "Opposing over-regulation of American business and industry" all promote an approach to public policy that HAS NEVER HELPED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, PERIOD. We tried this over the past 7 years: nothing. Remember the 80's? Yeah. The "roaring" 80's! Fat chance. I don't know anybody who wants a return to the 80's. What about the 20's? The "Roaring 20's"? Well, they culminated with the dawn of Great Depression (a market correction event of similar size to the unregulated growth during the 20's). Harding + Coolidge + Hoover = Great Depression. Say it all together.
Additionally, your proposals in "Safe & Secure Homeland" seem to be in conflict with yours from "Strong Economy". How would you propose we pay for the fencing, the monitoring, the supervision, and the enforcement of such a strong border policy. I think that it is impressive that there isn't more illegal immigration with the system that we have currently, and it is a testament to how strongly the border patrol and support people manage to work with what they have. As you try to narrow that group of illegal immigrants down to zero you reach a point of diminishing returns. Surely you are familiar with these, as you purport to know so much about strengthening the economy.
As for your "Protecting American Families" agenda, you speak nothing of actually protecting families. You speak worlds about how you will enforce creating more families, ones without planning. What do you plan to do to protect them? I can't see a single mention of any family services or assistance that you will support. Surely if you care so much about precious children, you also care that they live in supportive and nurturing homes. By the way, no "Activist Judge" in Massachusetts "thwarted the will of the people". The issue of gay marriage was actually a vote in the statehouse. Seems that you see no problem "thwarting the will of the people", however, when it suits your own agenda. You must be thinking of New Hampshire. I know, it is hard, they are some of 'dem smallish states up the the nor'east. Okay, give your brain a rest for a minute...
Better? Good. Judicial "Activism" has not given us a single thing that you report on your site. Can you explain to me what threat to you or your agency is posed by gay marriage, abortion, or removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
Hey! You know what, I can't believe that activists in the Executive branch inserted "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. What was his name? Eisenhower? Yeah, he built that big public works project: the Interstate System. Remember that? I am surprised that you don't think of the large, federally subsidized and regulated network of highways to be "Socialism". It definitely fits the description. Ah, that's right, the guy in charge of it is your hero. Well, I guess that just changes everything now doesn't it.
Oh yeah. And the "In God We Trust" on our money? That was added during the civil war by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury Secretary. Another "activist" from the executive branch.
Neither of these were performed by popular vote, or even by popular legislative process. Instead, they were "activists" in high places pulling strings to get their messages across.
Well, seems that you *do* like "activists" after all, just only when they are suiting your agenda. Otherwise, they must be evil and must be stopped and represent everything "Un-American".
In closing, from the poorly researched bullet points on your site, the vague position statements, lack of documentation and references, and blatant contradictions and hypocrisy I can only conclude one thing: You are merely a front group that was created (on or around 05-August-2008) for the purpose of publishing misleading ads to drag public discourse into the putrid, feces-laden pig-sty that you have set up shop within. You provide nothing here to inform newcomers of why your positions and proposals are "American" or even beneficial. Rather, you merely seem to be blowing your cash on misleading your viewership. I suppose that it must be so lonely and pathetic in your world that you can only find company by lashing out to the rest of us up here in a sad attempt to drag us down to your level.
When you have real discourse, research, and well-thought out ideas (rather than rehashed Reagan talking points), you can participate in this debate. Until then, you will remain mired in the loneliness that is your own ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to adapt to the real world.
This article is my rebuttal to The American Issues Project, and it's latest attack ad (linked on the site).
Thursday, August 21, 2008
How Do You Win An Occupation?
McCain and others have talked about the need to win in Iraq, to let the troops come home with a victory. I suppose this kind of language makes sense if we are talking about a football game, but I'm really not sure how "winning" applies to Iraq.
The war ended when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished." From then on, this has been an occupation.
So, how exactly do you win an occupation? Is it won when the U.S. has secured control over the natural resources that belong to the Iraqi people? When U.S. corporations have made a certain amount of profit from the curious economic activity of blowing up infrastructure and homes and forcing the victims to pay them to rebuild it? When ethnic and religious differences have been used to divide a once united country? When the Iraqi people have been so demoralized and have so completely lost hope that they stop resisting?
Americans should not want to "win" in this situation. Leaving Iraq (all troops, all contractors, and all bases) isn't about winning or losing. It's about finally doing the right thing--by international law, by American law, and by basic human decency.
The war ended when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished." From then on, this has been an occupation.
So, how exactly do you win an occupation? Is it won when the U.S. has secured control over the natural resources that belong to the Iraqi people? When U.S. corporations have made a certain amount of profit from the curious economic activity of blowing up infrastructure and homes and forcing the victims to pay them to rebuild it? When ethnic and religious differences have been used to divide a once united country? When the Iraqi people have been so demoralized and have so completely lost hope that they stop resisting?
Americans should not want to "win" in this situation. Leaving Iraq (all troops, all contractors, and all bases) isn't about winning or losing. It's about finally doing the right thing--by international law, by American law, and by basic human decency.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Information Hiding and the Olympics
So, you may have all heard of the controversy surrounding He Kexin (the gold medal winning gymnast from China). If you haven't, you can get the scoop on her wikipedia entry.
Yesterday, another blogger used search engines to find information on the age of the gymnast. You might be pretty surprised at what they were able to turn up:
Yesterday, another blogger used search engines to find information on the age of the gymnast. You might be pretty surprised at what they were able to turn up:
"Go back, these are not the gymnasts you are looking for."
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Things That Will Reduce Gas Prices By As Much As Offshore Drilling
1. Clubbing baby seals...recreationally
2. Littering
3. Mass-producing those plastic things that hold six-packs together and throwing them into the ocean
4. Removing breakwalls and anything else meant to prevent erosion.
5. Cutting down trees...in parks...again, recreationally
6. Introducing invasive species into ecologically fragile areas
7. Dumping hazardous waste into rivers
8. Targeting dolphins when fishing
All of these things will reduce gas prices by the same amount as offshore drilling. That is, they will have NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. In the words of the Energy Information Agency (part of the U.S. Department of Energy), "oil prices are determined on the international market...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
But if you're going to propose a completely useless energy policy solely to paint the other candidate as an environmentalist elitist, go all out. I hear clubbing baby seals can reduce gas prices by 87% (it's a psychological effect).
2. Littering
3. Mass-producing those plastic things that hold six-packs together and throwing them into the ocean
4. Removing breakwalls and anything else meant to prevent erosion.
5. Cutting down trees...in parks...again, recreationally
6. Introducing invasive species into ecologically fragile areas
7. Dumping hazardous waste into rivers
8. Targeting dolphins when fishing
All of these things will reduce gas prices by the same amount as offshore drilling. That is, they will have NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. In the words of the Energy Information Agency (part of the U.S. Department of Energy), "oil prices are determined on the international market...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
But if you're going to propose a completely useless energy policy solely to paint the other candidate as an environmentalist elitist, go all out. I hear clubbing baby seals can reduce gas prices by 87% (it's a psychological effect).
Sunday, August 17, 2008
What good are Pundits, anyways?
Steven Stark. I want you to look at yourself in the mirror.
Take a good, long, hard look. I want you to ask yourself this question, and really think about it-- What good does your column do for voters? And let's be intellectually honest about it.
The horse race style "coverage" is handled well enough my the corporate media. Do you really think that your stats and pontifications-- which seem to be nothing more than a redux of 24 hour news network coverage-- adds anything of any value to the mix?
Does it benefit the voters, most of whom don't even understand what Single Payer Healthcare is, and have never even heard of HR 676, yet know the very real pain and frustration of being denied vital life-saving coverage by their health insurance corporation?
Does your column help us to understand the platforms of the candidates? Does it help us to understand the root causes of the issues that we face in our daily lives?
Does your column help us to stop the killing by allowing the voting populace to know the details of the exit strategies of all candidates? (Obama and McCain both want to leave troops in Iraq permanently, for instance.)
Telling us which demographics the Big Two politicians are polling well with-- does this give us the tools we need to make an informed decision about which candidate matches our own personal platforms?
Rehashing polls done by corporate-owned news media, with margins of error large enough that they are statistically insignificant, does not aid the average voter who is struggling to pay the bills and is looking for real solutions to the problems they face in their life. Most Americans really don't care that you've decided who is going to win.
So, I'll ask again, and I hope you do as well: What PURPOSE does your column serve?
It's nothing more than an empty hall of mirrors. You, telling us, what we are supposedly telling you, that we're thinking. Why not give us something to think ABOUT?
The inane fluff you publish as a pundit distracts from the fact that there's a WAR going on-- with over a million innocent Iraqi's and over 4,000 US soldiers dead, that the US Gov't is trillions of dollars in debt, that we have a growing trade deficit with just about everybody, that the Federal Reserve is destroying the power of the US dollar, and that in America NINE TIMES the number of people who died on 9-11 die EVERY YEAR simply because they lack access to adequate health care, or were denied coverage by their insurance provider.
What are the candidates going to do about any of this? Regarding health care, both McCain and Obama both want to put your tax dollars directly in the pocket of health insurance corporations-- who play a middle man between you and your doctor, telling you what treatments your doctor can give you, not for your own health, but for the health of their shareholder's stock returns. But of course, you're not going to let us know about that. You're just going to tell us what we think about gaffes, petty branding disputes (Change? Hope? Puppies? Apple Pie?) and other such drama more appropriate to high school lunchrooms. Actually, I take that back. Your average high school student probably cares more about the platforms of the candidates than your average pundit.
You pundits chase after us, wondering what we are thinking and who we
are going to vote for so that you can make accurate predictions about
how we're going to vote, and you have nothing to offer but intellectual
cotton candy-- light, fluffy, no substance, no nutritious value, and
likely to cause tooth decay.
Only it's our society that is decaying.
Thank you Steven Stark for your contribution to the downfall of Democracy.
Or inversely, your total lack of any contribution whatsoever to a well informed voting population.
Asher Platts
Gorham, Maine
punk_patriot411@yahoo.com
207-776-5448
You can write Steven Stark yourself at sds@starkwriting.com
Take a good, long, hard look. I want you to ask yourself this question, and really think about it-- What good does your column do for voters? And let's be intellectually honest about it.
The horse race style "coverage" is handled well enough my the corporate media. Do you really think that your stats and pontifications-- which seem to be nothing more than a redux of 24 hour news network coverage-- adds anything of any value to the mix?
Does it benefit the voters, most of whom don't even understand what Single Payer Healthcare is, and have never even heard of HR 676, yet know the very real pain and frustration of being denied vital life-saving coverage by their health insurance corporation?
Does your column help us to understand the platforms of the candidates? Does it help us to understand the root causes of the issues that we face in our daily lives?
Does your column help us to stop the killing by allowing the voting populace to know the details of the exit strategies of all candidates? (Obama and McCain both want to leave troops in Iraq permanently, for instance.)
Telling us which demographics the Big Two politicians are polling well with-- does this give us the tools we need to make an informed decision about which candidate matches our own personal platforms?
Rehashing polls done by corporate-owned news media, with margins of error large enough that they are statistically insignificant, does not aid the average voter who is struggling to pay the bills and is looking for real solutions to the problems they face in their life. Most Americans really don't care that you've decided who is going to win.
So, I'll ask again, and I hope you do as well: What PURPOSE does your column serve?
It's nothing more than an empty hall of mirrors. You, telling us, what we are supposedly telling you, that we're thinking. Why not give us something to think ABOUT?
The inane fluff you publish as a pundit distracts from the fact that there's a WAR going on-- with over a million innocent Iraqi's and over 4,000 US soldiers dead, that the US Gov't is trillions of dollars in debt, that we have a growing trade deficit with just about everybody, that the Federal Reserve is destroying the power of the US dollar, and that in America NINE TIMES the number of people who died on 9-11 die EVERY YEAR simply because they lack access to adequate health care, or were denied coverage by their insurance provider.
What are the candidates going to do about any of this? Regarding health care, both McCain and Obama both want to put your tax dollars directly in the pocket of health insurance corporations-- who play a middle man between you and your doctor, telling you what treatments your doctor can give you, not for your own health, but for the health of their shareholder's stock returns. But of course, you're not going to let us know about that. You're just going to tell us what we think about gaffes, petty branding disputes (Change? Hope? Puppies? Apple Pie?) and other such drama more appropriate to high school lunchrooms. Actually, I take that back. Your average high school student probably cares more about the platforms of the candidates than your average pundit.
You pundits chase after us, wondering what we are thinking and who we
are going to vote for so that you can make accurate predictions about
how we're going to vote, and you have nothing to offer but intellectual
cotton candy-- light, fluffy, no substance, no nutritious value, and
likely to cause tooth decay.
Only it's our society that is decaying.
Thank you Steven Stark for your contribution to the downfall of Democracy.
Or inversely, your total lack of any contribution whatsoever to a well informed voting population.
Asher Platts
Gorham, Maine
punk_patriot411@yahoo.com
207-776-5448
You can write Steven Stark yourself at sds@starkwriting.com
Friday, August 15, 2008
Pelosi Book Tour becomes, "WHY HAVEN'T YOU IMPEACHED?!" tour
New York Times
Vote this up on Current.com
WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.
As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.
In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.
Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.
Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”
That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.
“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!
Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.
While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.
At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.
And they do not.
Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.
And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”
Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.
Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.
The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.
The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.
While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.
These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.
Vote this up on Current.com
WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.
As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.
In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.
Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.
Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”
That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.
“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!
Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.
While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.
At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.
And they do not.
Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.
And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”
Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.
Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.
The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.
The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.
While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.
These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)