The Clinton Years Are Over!

In a Washington Post article this morning announcing Karl Rove’s resignation it read, ” In the interview with the Journal, Rove painted a typically upbeat picture of what the future holds for Bush and the Republican Party. He predicted that conditions in Iraq would improve in coming months as the effect of the surge is felt, and that Democrats will split over issues like wiretaps in the name of national security. He said he believes the Democrats are likely to nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for president in 2008, and speculated that Republicans would have "a very good chance" of holding onto the White House for a third consecutive term.”

I doubt he will be right about the first prediction although the Bush administration has a success record of convincing the predominately ignorant American people that things are other than reality. After all they twice have cast enough votes for Bush to allow the Republican Mafia to easily steal the election, 2000 in Florida, and 2004 in Ohio. American voters are reality adverse. Bush is not a rational human being. He is an insecure, delusional human being lacking in intelligence and exhibits sociopathic behavior patterns. This man is an embarassment to our country, a threat to world order and to our democracy.

And in the case of the second prediction, Rove is not all that prescient in predicting the Democrats will split over issues like infringement on individual rights and freedoms in the guise of being absolutely essential to national security. Just look at the history of the last ten years or more. Most elected Democrats in congress are spineless prostitutes of the worst kind.

But Rove is most certainly right about prediction number three if Hillary were to become the Democratic Party’s nominee. Rove predicts that with Hillary as the candidate to run against, the Republicans can win, or more correctly, will once again be in a position to steal yet another election. I reluctantly agree.

I think the Democrats just might nominate Hillary and that just could be the kiss of death for the party in 2008. Many progressive Democrat's feel she’s just too controversial, her negatives are too high, and her lightening rod quotient is off the charts. A recent analysis of her campaign pointed out that she carefully avoids being pinned down on her positions on the issues and speaks in generalities and political double-speak. This is typical of politicians who have mastered the game. A Hillary nomination would likely assure a big anti-Hillary turnout of Republican and Cristian right-wing voters, a lukewarm, hold-your-nose-and-vote turnout for many Democrats, and a no-show by disaffected Greens and independents. Maybe not - but it's very possible.

Progressive Democrats realize that a Hillary presidency would result in acquiescence to corporate power, capitulation to Republican hoodlums, triangulation and a centrist approach that almost guarantees no change in the direction of this country or the problems we face. Under Hillary we will likely stay in Iraq for many more years, our borders will remain open, corruption in government and the trade deals will hold fast or will increase assuring a continuation of obscene corporate profits, a bleeding of good paying American jobs, an ineffective attempt at healthcare system reform, continued deterioration of infrastructure, etc. Despite the popularity of Bill Clinton he was a free trader and a corporate mistress who helped get us in the mess we are now in. If she is elected, Hillary will continue to coddle and defer to the corporate powers.

It’s plain and simple – we need change. The Clinton years are over. There are too many Democrats who held their nose and voted for Kerry who don’t want to have to do it again for Hillary. We need a candidate who is not just charismatic and politically savvy but one that offers a dramatic change from the culture of corruption, wealth and corporate power that DC insiders, the DLC and K-Street lobbyists are scrambling to protect. We need someone who can be honest regardless of the potential fallout and who instills a real feeling of confidence in their leadership ability by virtue of their courage to take on the obscenely corrupt corporate-political hierarchy and return the power to the people. In 2004 that candidate was Howard Dean. Instead we were force fed DLC puppet and political hack, John Kerry, by the Democratic Party.

In 2008 there are a couple of developing Democratic candidates that might possibly have the courage and ability to foster the hard-choice changes this country needs to make that will help steer us back in the direction that made this country great in the beginning. These two candidates are the only ones in the field that also have a strong potential to be elected if nominated. That would be Barack Obama and John Edwards.

But there is one leader amongst us that has the vision and proven courage to effect change, and who more than qualifies to lead this nation, and who would likely win with a sizable swell of support from the ranks of all political factions including a good number of Republicans. This is the only potential candidate that would attract the support of almost every Green Party member, the biggest percentage of independents, an overwhelming majority of Democrats and this time I would wager, even the full support of the rebel populist Ralph Nader.

That would be Al Gore.

If only he will run.

Is Gore Too Good for the US?

I got this comment from Dick Pohlman's American Debate blog. I think it sums up what a lot of people who voted for Bush and Nader are feeling, makes the point that We the People are what's really wrong with this country, and nails the Republicans and the Democrats for what they really are.

I hated Gore in 2000, and voted for Nader. (I live in NY; it didn't matter as to the scoreboard, under our dumbassed system. But there are still very few things in my life I regret more.)

But I now feel that Gore is, frankly, too good for this country. He sees the myriad and deeply rooted systemic obstacles to any kind of positive change, and he puts the blame where it belongs--on We the People, who have allowed all the greatness of our country to leech away over the last 40 years or so. Gore's a better man than I am, because he still seems to think there's hope of reversing the trend. I do not. I just see:

--a cadre of deranged nuts on the right who aren't even smart enough to realize that, in their fetishization of brute force and utter hatred of those with whom they disagree, they're essentially fascists;

--a bunch of "Democrats," so-called, who are far more obsessed with retaining their illusory power than actually using it for any constructive purpose;

--and hundreds of millions of us in the left, right, and middle who don't really care if our nation goes down the crapper, so long as we personally get fed and entertained.

Frankly, I'm as guilty of this as anyone else. What we don't realize is that as our democracy goes, our material prosperity is very likely to follow sooner or later.

I'd like to point out that I'm not as guilty as the poster or as many of the rest of you. I've realized this all along.

Will Al Gore Run - Or Not? There Might Be Something There

I am frequently asked as I was last night by a political ally at the annual Gore Family Dinner, “Do you think Gore is going to run?”

"I'm not sure either way", I told them. Even after talking to a few people high up in his current organization, people like Josh Cherwin, Roy Neel and Lisa Berg, I have no real clue. I don’t think they know either, but I do know Al continually leaves the door ajar even when he could easily shut it and lock it. After what happened in 2000, never say never is something I suspect Al Gore understands very well. "Who woulda thunk" back then that Gore would not succeed Clinton?

When I asked Roy Neel he told me “Al Gore is not a candidate – at this time”. To me that’s like saying keep your powder dry which is the old mountain man quip that means “be prepared”. I didn't say he is running, I didn't say he isn't.

Even Harold Ford Jr. speaking at last night’s event commented, “I see a lot of you wearing Gore stickers tonight”. He paused and said, “There might be something there.”

When Gore was recently asked by Larry King what would have to fall in place that would cause him to run Gore replied he hadn’t really given that much thought to it (bullshit!) but he would know it when he saw it. That means he’s watching - which is enough to keep me hopeful, energized and prepared.

I think Gore understands that if he were nominated he would most probably win the election easily. The electorate, Republican and Democratic, are fed up with Bush-Cheney, the Republicans and the corruption. This nation wants change. The Republicans in office have made such a mess of things that I believe even a lightweight, controversial Democratic candidate could win if he/she were fortunate enough to be nominated. Well, except for maybe a woman – or a minority candidate. It’s a romantic idea that we as a nation might do that, but despite early popular support there is some question whether this nation, once in the voting booth, will actually pull the lever for either.

As for Gore, it’s the election process that turns Gore off. He suffered through it and is quick to say there are things he’s not good at and campaigning is one of them. He’s still wary of the media and the unfair way he was attacked and maligned in 2000. I’d say he’s bitter toward the media in general and disillusioned by the errant and compromised electoral system.

Is he going to eventually run? Who knows? I don't think even Gore himself knows for certain.

Gore, I think, is somewhat unconsciously running by not running. I don’t think it’s intentional but he’s not doing anything to keep it from happening. Everyone is aware of the attraction created by playing hard to get and I think it’s happening in Gore’s case but I don’t think he planned it. Everyone is attracted to those things that seem just beyond reach. You can have Hillary, Obama, Edwards or the rest just for the asking, but Gore . . . he’s just tantalizingly there - on the highest shelf – very desirable but not for sale, and at least not until Gore’s value shoots through the roof would he likely become available. Like I said, what’s happening is just happening, and Gore is just an observer like the rest of us, but I’m convinced he’s paying very close attention. Maybe the stars won’t align properly - but then what if they do? What if providence awakes?

Morris Udall was quoted as saying “There is only one cure for presidential ambitions and it’s embalming fluid.” If that’s actually the case then Gore will not pass up the grandest of all opportunities to fulfill that most pervasive ambition of those who seek public office. Consider also, Al Gore Sr. who reportedly was intent on grooming his son for the highest office. One might presume that Al Gore Jr., a polite southern boy, would not intentionally deny his daddy that dream.

Whatever comes, it remains that Al Gore is the man for our time. The nation at large knows he was denied an election that he in fact won. They now see the folly of those who envisioned the New American Century and their attempt to rule the earth at everyone’s expense except their own.

There’s this great post by Larry Abrams in the Huffington Post entitled Weighing the Field. Abrams likens Hillary to an 800 lb gorilla and says that Gore is the only other 800 lb gorilla in the room. He comes to the conclusion that Gore himself holds the outcome of the next election in his hands. Abrams states, “I don't think Al is going to run unless it looks like Hillary's going to sweep the field in the early primaries. Nonetheless, we can be sure he's paying close attention.” Abrams thnks despite Obama’s surge of popularity there are only two candidates in the end who can take on Hillary, Edwards and Gore. “Edwards is in decent shape, but is still a little light in the butt. He needs to put on about ten pounds of muscle to be a real heavyweight.” As for Gore, Abrams says, “Al Gore needs to take a good look at himself, without his shirt on, in the mirror.”

The DLC Dog and Pony Show at Opryland

The Democratic Leadership Council's National Conversation will be held July 28-30 at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville. Harold Ford Jr., chairman of the DLC, and the rest of the leadership will be in attendance and I suspect that may include, Hillary Clinton, who chairs the DLC’s American Dream Initiative.

Ford is also scheduled as the featured guest of the 3rd annual Gore Family Dinner the night before, on the 27th (tonight) being held at Lowe’s Vanderbilt Plaza. This event is the big annual fund raiser for the Davidson County Democratic Party that normally has Al Gore in attendance. Unfortunately Al and Tipper Gore are not going to be there this year. This may come as a surprise to those attending. The organizers failed to point this out when promoting this event. I suspect it may have affected ticket sales – do you think?

Speaking of Harold Ford Jr., when asked to chair the DLC earlier this year, Harold fawned all over Al From calling the previous DLC work “exemplary”.

Exemplary of what? Twelve years of Democratic Party failure? Twelve years of Republican rule, political corruption, raiding the treasury and corporate excess? Twelve years of seeing our jobs outsourced and immigration laws ignored? Twelve years of rolling over for Republicans? Twelve years of serving corporations rather than the people? Twelve years during which they supported the invasion of another country that didn’t attack us or threaten our safety and then continues to fund this ill-begotten war and all the carnage and damage to our reputation it’s caused?

I recently remarked to a prominent national Democrat that Harold could thank the progressives for paving the way for Harold’s almost successful campaign for the open senate seat here in Tennessee even though many progressive Democrats who supported his campaign did not approve of his positions. He didn’t comment but looked sideways at me in a suspicious manner like – you’re not one of us, are you?

They don’t get it. It was Howard Dean and the progressive Democrats who opposed the war long before it began. It was Howard Dean and the progressive Democrats who raised hell, shook the party by the shoulders and said “wake up!” It was Howard Dean and the progressive Democrats who showed the rest of the Democrats how to run a modern campaign utilizing the internet and grassroots activists; that you can raise campaign funds from average Americans rather than rely on corporate bribery.

That’s what gave Harold Ford Jr. a chance to win here in Tennessee. Not the policies of the DLC.

It’s the corporate-funded DLC; the free trading, Clinton fawning, Republican-Lite centrists, who have caused and allowed the Democratic party to decline in power. You know the ones – those who allowed Bush to steal the elections in 2000 and 2004, those who wouldn’t stand up to Bush and the Republicans on the war and all the other issues, those who keep funding the war, those who are against impeaching Bush and Cheney, and those who didn’t want Dean as DNC Chairman and then criticized Dean’s 50 state plan which is now bearing fruit. Without the progressives and Howard Dean battling Bush and laying the groundwork, Harold’s campaign here in Tennessee wouldn’t have been nearly as successful as it turned out. In fact, he probably wouldn’t even have attempted it.

And even more so, the elections in 2006 wouldn’t have returned control of Congress to the Democrats without Howard Dean and the progressives setting the stage.

Harold said before becoming DLC chairman the DLC should put out a booklet similar to a previous DLC publication, “Putting People First”. What a joke! Everyone knows people come last on the DLC’s agenda. DLC members come first, then their friends, and then the corporations, and then the party, and then finally the people – if at all. “Putting People First is a populist slogan and the DLC is anything but populist.

So, I find it not surprising that Harold is now taking shots at any form of populism by saying, “Right-wing populists claim immigrants are stealing Americans' jobs. Left-wing populists say trade is shipping our jobs overseas. Both look backwards toward an allegedly better past and argue that, by sealing our borders and retreating from global markets, government can recover it. Our country's problem isn't immigration or trade, its uneven prosperity.”

That’s like saying the environmental problem isn’t companies and manufacturers, it’s the toxic chemicals and waste entering our food, water and air.

Of course corporations are all for unrestricted immigration and trade, wide-open borders and wide-open trade, which are not the problem according to Harold. Spread your legs wide America and the corporations will implant you with prosperity while having a great time at it. Harold Ford Jr., the Clintons and the rest of the DLCers are corporatists, free traders and globalists, not national populists, so why are they pretending to put people first?

The DLC and the crowd of sycophants who support them are part of the corrupt system of beltway freeloaders who kiss corporate ass as a means to stay in office and feed off the more and more corrupt system that politics in DC and our government has become. The DLC is so accustomed to being in power, controlling the party and picking the candidates, they don’t like it when someone like Howard Dean, who ran outside the system, shakes their tree. It worries me that Barack Obama, who appears to be a populist, will become just another DLC fraternity member if he hasn’t already.

Harold Ford Jr. and the DLC will meet here tomorrow in Nashville to discuss a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline, reforming the federal tax code to reward work, innovators and long-term investing and expanding international trade while vigorously enforcing trade laws to punish rule breakers. Also the need to rectify long-standing social injustices and ensure that no U.S. worker is left behind in today's competition for the world's best jobs. And how to close America's education achievement gap by attracting better teachers and paying them well. And how college must be more accessible and affordable for all Americans. We used to rank first as the nation with the most citizens with post-secondary degrees and now we rank seventh. They’re also going to discuss how we can guarantee all Americans affordable health insurance and reduce the cost of health care to individuals and businesses, and root out inefficiencies and stamp out the greed in our health system. Those and other issues.

Sure! When have we heard all this BS before?

Most of our elected representatives don’t really care how thinly veiled their motives and agendas are. They know most Americans are fools and are easily manipulated.

The average Venezuelan peasant is likely better informed, understands and participates more in the politics of their nation than most Americans do theirs. Those who control our government know how to dangle bright shiny objects in front of us, distract and entertain us, while they pick our pockets and have their way with us.

There will be staging and rehearsal of the newly scripted DLC dog and pony show at Opryland Hotel this weekend. Look for it to open in your neighborhood soon.

Gary

Americans Have Had it With Iraq?

More and more of our elected representatives, Republicans and Democrats, are coming to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq has not produced the expected results and that the patriotic fervor of Americans who once supported this invasion has sputtered out. But this apparently wasn't easy for them to grasp. It took them five years. Most Americans were way ahead of them on this.

Republican and Democratic elected representatives have seen what happened to many of their fellow representatives in 2006 who supported the war and stuck by Bush and the American warlords, and they’re getting nervous and edgy as the 2008 election season is about to begin. Apparently the corporate whores up for reelection, rats that they are, will quickly jump ship as their reelection chances begin to take hits.

For example: Responding to Republican Pete Domenici’s defection, Susan Collins, a Maine Republican up for re-election next year said “talks with voters" in her district convinced her that the war remained the top issue and she joined Republican Senator Domenici, also up for reelection, in saying the patience of many Republicans with the Iraqi government was virtually exhausted.

Patience with the Iraqis? She spins it in a way that suggests the voter’s have exhausted their patience with the Iraqi government, not that voter’s have lost patience with her and the rest of those representatives in congress who supported this war, both Republican and Democrat. How astute of Collins to all of a sudden figure out that 70% of Americans are against this war – but only after “talking” to her voters. If she is just now finding this out she’s really paying attention isn’t she? It shores up your faith in her leadership ability doesn’t it?

Collins wants us to believe that Americans have finally lost patience with Iraqis, a people whose country we invaded and turned into a living hell; a people who, despite Saddam’s brutal treatment of those under his rule, didn’t want us to invade their country and destroy it with weapons and bombs, didn’t want us to kill and maim upwards of 200,000 of them, to occupy their country and steal their oil. A full 80% or more of them may have wanted Saddam gone - but they didn't want American occupation or the destruction of their country and their lives.

And Representative Susan Collins says the American voters have just about had enough of them – the Iraqis that is – not the elected Republicans or Democrats, but they’ve had enough of the Iraqi government.

I just wanted to make that clear. How insolent of the Iraqis to not be grateful, cooperative and fully submissive after what we’ve done for them?

How benevolent of American voters to have supported the effort to turn Iraq into an American territory with a puppet government selling out to American corporate and military interests. Voters in Susan Collins’ district have endured the Iraqi people for five years now but have finally lost patience – with the Iraqis that is – not with Bush, her and other elected representatives.

The Iraqi people were supposed to greet us with flowers and dancing in the street like we were told they would. They didn’t.

The Iraqi people were supposed to submit to us, their liberators, their betters, and allow us to tell them what to do, how to do it, and relinquish all control to us. They didn’t.

The Iraqi people were supposed to accept the puppet leadership we set up to govern them, a leadership that must follow our direction and approval. They didn’t.

The Iraqi people were supposed to roll over and give up their oil to the corporations we appointed to take over their oil fields. They didn’t.

The arrogant ingrates! The insolent bastards!

So now, according to Republican Susan Collins, American voters in her district have just about had it with them and I suppose that the other seventy percent or more of Americans feel they have also lost patience with the Iraqis – not with Bush and our congress. I just wanted to make that clear.

The fact is, Saddam’s Iraq, despite the sanctions that were making life miserable for Iraqi’s and for which they still angrily remember the role played by the US, was not anywhere near the chaos and hell it now is. People forget that before the Gulf War America was buddy-buddy with Saddam and encouraged him to attack Iran. The American government provided weapons and support to Saddam including biological weapons, and turned their heads as Saddam used these weapons, even against rebellious factions within his own country. And then they practically baited Saddam to invade Kuwait which precipitated the Gulf War.

Iraq was generally stable after the brief Gulf War; and citizens traveled relatively freely within and outside of Iraq. And although a brutal dictator, Saddam was not a religious fanatic. He was likely a deist or atheist and, as so many have observed after the rush to invade this boiling pot of manic Muslim fundamentalist crazies, even Christians and Jews were allowed to meet and worship in Saddam’s Iraq.

While Iraq’s Sunnis of which Saddam was a member controlled the government and held most of the positions of authority, they found ways to keep the various religious and ethnic factions, like the rebellious Shiites and Kurds, under control. It was obvious to middle-eastern experts that only a ruler using the tactics and methods employed by a brutal dictator like Saddam could be effective under the conditions he and his ruling party were faced with.

This boiling pot of unstable bedfellows was a result of a disingenuous legacy wrought by the invasion of the British early in the last century that established borders for Iraq without consideration for tribal territorial claims and religious factions. What should have remained a separate Kurdistan was lumped together with Sunni and Shiite tribal lands, two religious factions that had been at war with each other for centuries.

History is clear. When Bush and Cheney stole the election in 2000 they gathered together those who saw opportunities for mega-billions in profits now that they had control of the government. The corporatists from the oil and defense industries and all others in line to profit were falling all over themselves to invade Iraq. The lure of black gold and profits from war and extending American empire were just too much for the gang of thieves that hi-jacked our government to resist. Indeed it was in the planning long before the office of president was illegally grabbed by the Republicans. They had deluded themselves into believing they could pull all this off – and you know what – they were right.

Only four years in office were needed to make most of them obscenely wealthy but they hit the big lottery in 2004 –four more years. American voters, who were stunned, confused and full of fear due to the events of 9/11, were manipulated once again and punched the ticket for the evil cabal to ride the gold train to a thief’s paradise. They now have billions upon billions of illegal war profits and stolen treasury sacked up and stashed away - they just don’t have the oil completely locked down yet.

Oh well, even without controlling Iraq’s oil for the long term it worked out well enough for most of them – and it’s not over. Even after their removal from office the lingering corruption and the power and influence of those who have gained this illicit wealth will continue to take its toll on Iraq and on America. It will take several decades to get rid of the debt, weed out the criminals, and repair the damage to our nation and that of Iraq caused by the most corrupt and evil power grab this country has ever seen.

How sad that most Americans were so easily deceived and manipulated. Even the election of someone like Gore in 2008 and eight years of their leadership won’t easily wipe away the disastrous effects of Bush and company. Our country may never recover.

A Thief Living In Your House?

Why would you allow a thief to live in your house and rob you and your family blind? Sadly, it's actually happening and you are allowing it with hardly a whimper of protest. Why would you not stand up to protect your family’s future, stop this thief and bring him to justice?

The huge expense of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow seem eerily familiar to the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that lasted 10 years and put Russia in dire financial straits. Russia is still in recovery. That war was also a failure. Now the US has been sucked into the same quagmire and will likely suffer the same results. This can mean nothing but trouble and hard times ahead for the average American.

The Bush administration has ran to the bank over and over to borrow billions upon billions of dollars to finance this war and has used the war as an opportunity to reward themselves and their corporate partners in crime who are robbing this country and its citizens blind. They are also destroying our military and our national security in the process. Bush and his administration will go down in history as the most corrupt and the worst this nation has ever had. And he will smugly flip his middle finger at us as he and his gang of greedy corporate madmen ride off with the biggest treasure ever amassed by a criminal cabal and thieving horde.

The stories of corruption, hundreds of millions of dollars missing and over-billing by Haliburton and other contractors is mind-boggling. Continuous cost overruns on every project, bribe money, inflated overcharging and other extremes are going unchecked and unaccounted for by the Bush administration and the military. There are reports of warehouses in Iraq that contained pallets loaded with shrink wrapped hundred and thousand dollar bills that have disappeared without a trace. Haliburton has reportedly constructed a plant to produce cola drinks for the troops and is charging American taxpayers $45 per six-pack. Haliburton or another contractor is charging our government $99 to launder a small bag of clothing that could easily be washed by the troops for three dollars. That's just two tiny examples of corruption and theft.

And get this: Haliburton and the other contractors must have security while they steal from us, so our own tax dollar financed military provides free security along with employees of another Bush-buddy contractor, Blackwater, who reportedly has about 40,000 security personnel on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, a sizable mercenary army that is not subject to any law or military command.

And consider this. These free-range, private contractors, most of them managed by recently discharged career military officers, are hiring away our troops as their enlistments come up. This is depleting our military of trained and experienced men and women who simply quit the military and go to work for these criminal enterprises at five to ten times what they were being paid to do the same jobs they were previously doing while serving in the armed forces. This drain on experienced troops has caused the military to lower admission requirements for new enlistees thus affecting the quality of our military overall. These replacement troops must be trained and are being moved quickly through the training process which is an abbreviated training regimen that allows improperly and poorly trained troops to be sent to combat zones imperiling not only their own lives but those of the career military who must rely on them and the civilian population as well. In turn, the morale of those in uniform is taking a big hit as they watch their once fellows-in-arms now working along side them, doing the same jobs, but banking a hundred to two hundred thousand a year instead of the $25,000 to $35,000 they are being paid.

When will sanity return to this nation – or will it ever? Are we doomed at the hands of these greedy madmen in office, both Democratic and Republican, who parade and posture as American patriots but are instead nothing but unconscionable criminals? Are they nothing but low-life thieves living in our house and systematically robbing us and our children of our future, our freedom, and the opportunity to live the American dream?

Private contractors outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq
New U.S. data show how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of the war-torn nation.
By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer
July 4, 2007

The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government's capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.

More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

For the complete report go here.

Want To Have a Beer With Al Gore?

No? Why not?

The idea pushed by the media, the Bush campaign, the “moral majority” and the right-wing spin machine during the 2000 campaign, that George W Bush was someone you would want to have a beer with but Al Gore was not, exemplifies just how stupid American voters are. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone to run our country based upon their ability to entertain you over a beer and not someone with the intellect, education, experience, compassion and sound reasoning ability to make the decisions that would benefit this nation and the rest of the world? Please tell me!

First, why would you want to drink a beer with George W Bush, someone who has an alcohol problem? And why would you vote for him based upon that one stupid criterion, that he’s someone you would enjoy having a beer with? One clue that you might be making a mistake voting for George is that he got into trouble drinking beer (and doing drugs) in the past. He has a record of being irresponsible and has an addictive nature – not good attributes for the leader of the free world. I’ve drank beer with problem drinkers and they are not necessarily fun to be around and are often unreasonable, arrogant, pathetic and even scary.

On the other hand, despite the contrary, Al would be real interesting to have a beer with. I know Al Gore and have seen him when he isn’t under media scrutiny. He laughs easily, is always up for a good joke and honestly – he knows how to relax when he’s not in the spotlight. It’s a mystery why so many people have formed a poor opinion of Al Gore until you think about it.

Yesterday at Home Depot I had an encounter that exemplified this mystery. It’s hard for me to explain yet I somehow understand it completely.

As I was checking out I remarked to the woman employee at checkout that I was dismayed over the drastic increase in the cost of materials for a plumbing job I’m doing. I told her that a short ten years ago you could buy some of the material at 10-20% of today’s cost and that this rate of cost increase does not speak well for the so-called bustling economy or our country’s leadesrship. I said while the economy was benefiting a few, the average person’s buying power was shrinking, especially those on a fixed income as I am. I then pointed to a button on my cap that reads “Al Gore 2008”, and told her this might help.

She half smiled a pained look and said, “I don’t know if I would go that far. But I will agree he was right about Global Warming.” I smiled back and said, “Yes, and he was also right warning us about most everything else including what would happen if we invaded Iraq. We would now be much better off as a nation if Al Gore had been elected“. She didn’t comment further but it was evident she didn’t like Al Gore. But why not?

As I left the store I thought about this mystery, the one that makes so many Americans screw-up their noses when you mention Al Gore – especially here in Tennessee. My wife and I are constantly asking ourselves “what has Al Gore done to have so many people dislike him?” Every charge or claim regarding Al Gore, which are all unfounded, petty and insignificant, have been proven false. It’s mind-boggling until you think about what happened in 2000.

The woman at the cash register most likely wouldn’t be able to answer when asked what Al Gore has done to deserve her opinion or to offend her. She would probably say that she just doesn’t like him or trust him. Who do you think put that idea in her head? It was our wonderful Media.

During the campaign of 2000 the Bush Campaign, the Republican Party, and the right-wing Christian movement along with the eager cooperation of the right-wing element of the media orchestrated a full blown attack on Al Gore’s character using fabricated lies and by twisting Gore statements to use against him. They mocked him and viciously attacked him over and over regarding things like Al Gore claimed he invented the internet and that he exaggerated other claims regarding his experience and his record.

Unexplainably the majority of the remaining media piled on just like the chickens of a barnyard flock all join in to persistently attack one of their own in an attempt to drive it from the flock or destroy it. Why the media gave the word-flubbing, simple-minded and incompetent George W Bush a free pass to screw-up, lie and mislead but instead decided to gang up on Gore with such a vengeance is one of the most unexplainable and egregious media crimes of this century - thus far.

I remember when I was in my early thirties I had a number of friends who in conversation would remark they were a Republican or a Democrat, a Catholic or a Baptist, or they had this belief or that. I would often ask why are you this or that and why do you have this or that belief? Most often they couldn’t defend their choice. They would say that’s what they believe. I would ask why do you believe that way. They couldn’t really say – just that they did.

There are two explanations for people who accept a belief without exactly knowing why. One reason is they are simply following family tradition, their parents were Catholics, or Democrats, etc. that’s what their parents believed and that’s how they were raised. They feel an obligation to their family to not question them or to be disloyal. The underlying reason is they have been conditioned to accept and believe without questioning.

Another reason is that as a person matures they feel that as adults they have the responsibility to have well formed opinions of what they are for or against. It takes a serious effort to read or inquire, to study and consider. It takes no effort to just accept or go along with others; to just identify with one group or another. It’s the easy and most painless way out. It’s lazy – and stupid.

My point is, the woman behind the counter at Home Depot represents the average American that was led by the media down the let’s-all-hate-Al-Gore path because he’s a boring wonk, he exaggerates and he’s not someone you would want to have a beer with. My God! We as American voters let some corrupt, half-wit whores, that make a living selling hate and fear, and sensationalizing issues like Terry Schaivo, Brittany Spears, and Anna Nicole Smith, force feed the American public a consensus opinion of someone based upon lies and innuendos – and let them dictate who we should vote for to run this country based upon who we would most like to have a beer with? How insane is that?

The woman behind the counter probably has no opinion of Gore other than one she picked up from the right-wing spin machines. She represents the majority of American voters who don’t take the time to read or seek the truth before they form opinions. They just respond to propaganda, succumb to peer pressure, join the crowd and follow blindly along while thinking they are making sound decisions and participating in our democracy. They don’t have a clue – just the way those who manipulate these poor folks planned it.

By the way, I would really like to have a beer with George W Bush.

I would like the opportunity to ask him some pointed questions and tell him how I feel about his failed policies and how he and his administration have caused this nation so much pain.

Who's Your Lying Daddy?

Beginning tomorrow, April 24, the army leadership is being grilled by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (gently warmed and coddled is more likely) over the lies they told regarding the cover-up of the death of Pat Tillman and the manufacturing of the Jessica Lynch rescue story.

It has been obvious for sometime that our media is totally corrupt and no longer serves the people or this nation. We also know that our military public relations is a self-serving propaganda machine. How can we trust any of our institutions in the future? Free countries don’t remain free when the government and public institutions are taken over by the wealthy elite and corporate cabals who own the media and all facets of government including our “elected” representatives - or more accurately - corporate hired and strategically placed operatives.


How can we trust a government that’s corrupt to its very soul?

Remember how in school we were taught that the US is a highly functioning democracy, honest and truthful, even saintly compared to most other nations and especially the communist regimes of the evil USSR and China that lied to their people and brainwashed them with national propaganda?

How are the last few decades here in the US much different from the USSR, China, and other despotic run nations back then?

Kennedy’s assassination was a cover-up as was Martin Luther King’s. Not only was the Gulf of Tonkin incident a lie but we were lied to about Viet Nam from the beginning. There is mounting evidence that we were lied to big-time about 9/11 and we certainly know we were lied to about WMD and the reasons for invading Iraq.

It’s a corporate owned congress and military folks. Our “president”, his administration, our CIA and most members of congress are all part of a larger corporate led conspiracy to control and manipulate the economic and military engine of the most powerful nation on earth to serve this elite cabal of competitive madmen.

This hearing should be good C-Span entertainment - like dark humor. I hope I'm wrong. I hope Henry Waxman turns the heat up and exposes how corrupt the system is and how little respect the military leadership has for our troops and this nation's people. Go to link in first sentence for details.

In Jessica Lynch's defense, she didn't play along with the official scam. After the dust settled and she had the chance to speak without fear of serious reprisal she told the truth. It will be interesting to see if "they" have bought her off.

Rock the boat!

Bring Back The Military Draft

Whether or not we should reinstate the draft is a controversial issue for most Americans. My belief is that our democratic form of government and the security of our nation are in real danger because we no longer have a draft. I contend that if our military had consisted of a large percentage of draftees in 2001, because of concern for their safety and that of other sons and daughters coming of age, we would not be in Iraq today. The public would have demanded more proof of a direct threat to our nation before committing the lives of their loved ones to the horrors of war.

When I was a young man this country required all able-bodied young men to serve in the military for a minimum of 2 years. Instead of waiting for the draft I enlisted and served four years in the Air Force, a choice I made rather than be drafted into the Army. I have often questioned the decision to put my private life on hold for four years instead of only the two years required by the draft, but now that I look back I don’t regret the decision. I learned a lot about who I was, I gained good experience and developed a set of skills that still serve me today. And, as a result of four years exposure to the military culture, I have an insight into how the military functions and thinks which helps me understand what we face as a nation in time of war.

Ever since the US ended the draft and changed to an all volunteer military I have been concerned. Even though I now have grandchildren whose lives could be affected, I fully support a return to the draft. I applauded Rep. Charlie Rangel when he called for a reinstatement of the draft. His concerns are the same as mine.

First, an all volunteer army can come to have no conscience and can be easily moved to venture out on reckless missions. They can also be more easily persuaded to serve special interests or convinced to follow a would-be dictator. They become essentially paid mercenaries. They are career warriors with a mindset for war and many among them crave action. The loyalty of a mercenary or volunteer army tends to be first concentrated towards its leaders and not necessarily to a nation or its people. It's the nature of the beast.

Second, Democracies are formed around the idea of citizen armies that represent the will of the people and a nation's spirit. It follows that an all volunteer military does not represent a full spectrum of a nation’s people or the will of the people. Individual families from all walks of life are not fully invested because sons and daughters from all levels of society are not equally at risk. Under these conditions the general public can be too easily whipped into a hawkish, patriotic frenzy, and coerced and coaxed into supporting an illogical war when no members of their immediate family are directly at risk or otherwise affected.

When we have a member of our immediate family subject to death and dismemberment most of us will have a different view regarding any supposed threat to our nation and the reasons given for entering into war. If every family in this nation faced the prospect of having their sons and daughters subject to being drafted and sent to war in Iraq or to some other arena of conflict, there would have been a completely different public attitude concerning Iraq and entering into any future war.

In today’s NY Times there is a good example that bears out what I’m talking about.

Matthew Dowd, a former chief political strategist and ex-aide to George Bush, Karl Rove and both Bush campaigns, and a former senior advisor to the Republican National Committee has admitted to a recent come-to-the-alter experience regarding the Bush presidency and the war in Iraq. Dowd is feeling remorseful that he came over to the Republican side and worked hard to get Bush elected – not once, but twice. While there are a number of reasons for his change of heart, primary among them is the fact his oldest son was sent to Iraq as a member of the military. He now has someone dear to him at risk of losing life or limb in what Dowd now thinks is a misguided war.

According to the NY Times report, “His views against the war began to harden last spring when, in a personal exercise, he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor.”

Chalmers Johnson, author of Is the American Empire on the Brink of Collapse?, his most recent book,commented on the draft and the citizen army vs. the all volunteer army.

“That is one reason the military so much prefers the volunteer army, since 1973, as distinct from conscription. Conscription does mean a citizen army. You know why you're there. When I was in the Navy in the Korean War, it was an obligation of citizenship, it was not as it is today. Service today in our armed forces is a career choice, a decision about how to make your living. That alters things a great deal.

It makes it easier for the officers. Everybody who was ever in the armed forces knows that, with a citizen army, the people are very sensitive to whether the officers are lying, or whether they know what they're doing, whether the strategy makes any sense or not. There's a degree of fairness at work. The Vietnam War was certainly a working-class war. The total number of Yale graduates killed in Vietnam was one, and that is a fact.”

It angers me that Bush, Chaney, Rove and the rest of these arrogant chicken hawks so eager to send our troops to war have never served themselves (Bush’s AWOL stint in the ANG doesn’t count) would eagerly send your grandchild or mine to face the horrors of war but would never allow their children to be placed in harm’s way.

The people of this nation should demand that the draft be reinstated and that the wealthy, the privileged and politically well-connected are no longer allowed to avoid military service. Americans who have amassed money and power are no better than average Americans when it comes to serving our nation. They and their children should be required to pay the same price and face the same dangers as those average Americans that make this nation prosperous and keep it strong.

Where’s the outrage?

David Sirota and Paul Waldman to Speak at Progressive Conference

If you're like me, Music Row Democrats and their progressive allies here in the mid-state area have greatly missed the many inspirational and informative speaking events held at the Belcourt Theatre back during the heat of the 2004 campaign. Those events allowed Democrats and progressives from both inside and outside the music industry the opportunity to see and hear national personalities not ordinarily available to Nashville audiences.

Well, here is another opportunity. David Sirota and Paul Waldman, both noted progressive activists and best-selling authors will speak Saturday, April 14th at the Tennessee Alliance for Progress Compass IV Conference being held at the Cohn Adult Learning Center in West Nashville, April 13-14, 2007.

David Sirota, a fierce critic of neo-liberal economics, full-time political journalist and best-selling author, has been a guest on, among others, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR and the Cobert Report. Sirota, whose book Hostile Takeover: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered Our Government - and How We Take It Back is posted on the MRD and TAP websites, is at the vanguard of progressives who fearlessly speak out regarding our broken government and the failure of both parties to fairly and justly represent the people. Read his recent Alternet article People Party vs. Money Party: Who's Who Among the Democrats as evidence.

Paul Waldman, author of Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success and Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why The Media Didn't Tell You, is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America and previous associate director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Waldman will speak on Saturday and will also join TAP's progressive leaders in a statewide network strategy session on Friday, April 13th.

For registration and details on the conference go to the website. Tennesse Alliance for Progress. Pre-registration has been extended to April 6th however early registration is advised.

This is a wonderful chance for local progressives to join with those from across the state to network with each other and to meet and hear these two popular and distinguished progressive leaders speak.

Power to the people!  

Pointing To The Wolf

We have procedures in this country for dealing with unsatisfactory political leaders, for removing the incompetent from office. It's called impeachment. Last November, the American public brought the opposition party into power in Congress, and immediately the leaders of the opposition party said impeachment is off the table. Well, if impeachment is off the table, then it may well be that Constitutional democracy is off the table, too. -- Chalmers Johnson, author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic

My God! How much does it take to wake Americans up – and as I’ve said before, just how stupid is the majority? And what has happened to the Democratic Party? Why has the leadership of the party caved and rolled over to Bush-Cheney and the enemy within - the run-amok, criminally insane, imperialistic corporate aristocracy that has taken over the Republican Party? Could it be these Democrats are also card carrying members of the same run-amok aristocracy?

Chalmers Johnson has written two previous books that warned of the dangers our country now faces by continuing to embrace imperialistic ideals and dreams of world empire. His latest book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, is the most frightening and alarming. Alternet has posted an interview with Johnson which I urge everyone who considers themselves an American to read.

Chalmers points out that we have been warned over and over of the dangers to our nation but as a people we have not only not been vigilant enough, we have ignored those warnings and have allowed our nation to reach a state where we are teetering on the edge of collapse. He suggests we did not win the cold war as we think we did. He claims that we and Russia both lost only Russia fell first and that we are falling now, ending up like Russia did, deeply in debt, on the brink of bankruptcy, over extended militarily and facing defeat in attempts to colonize sovereign nations.

Chalmers is one of a growing number of progressive voices that have not just suddenly popped awake and become aware of some danger that appeared overnight. This is no knee-jerk reaction to a recent turn of events. There are many American patriots who have been trying to get the attention of the masses for years and even decades. The progressives who have severely criticized the Bush regime and elected representatives of both the Democratic and Republican parties are not irrational alarmists, not delusional bleeding heart liberals warning of imaginary dangers. They are clear-headed, intelligent, and prescient visionaries who are solidly in touch with reality. They have carefully studied history and see clearly what is about to happen if we don’t come together as a nation and demand a change of leadership and direction.

Progressives aren’t just crying wolf. They are pointing to a real wolf that is about to pounce and are crying out for their fellow countrymen to turn and defend our country and our way of life before it’s too late.

It's Amazing How Stupid Americans Are

I don’t buy the idea that George W Bush and the rest are good people with good intentions but are simply incompetent leaders with faulty judgment. They know exactly what they are doing and it’s the most serious crime ever perpetrated against this nation.

In your face you stupid Americans, say George W Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest.

After four years of this brutal war most Americans still accept the explanation that we went to war to protect the US from terrorists. For the first time in our history the US invaded a sovereign nation that did not first attack us and one that was no threat to our nation.

And despite the glaring evidence most Americans still can’t see that it was big corporations and their representatives, both big oil and those that profit from war, the military-industrial complex, that were the one’s who planned and orchestrated this atrocity against the Iraqis and against Americans and the rest of the world. They are the REAL terrorists.

The rest of the world sees this – they know this – but the majority of Americans are as stupid as rocks – blinded by fear and ignorance.

Those radical Muslim terrorists who attacked on 9/11 didn’t go after the American people; they went after big business and oil interests by attacking the World Trade Center. They also went after corporate America’s private army, the US Military, by striking the Pentagon. We are told the fourth plane had the heads of the big oil monster as a target, the corporate henchmen who occupy the White House.

Don’t forget George W Bush’s Trifecta remark, “You know, when I was running for President, in Chicago, somebody said, would you ever have deficit spending? I said, only if we were at war, or only if we had a recession, or only if we had a national emergency. Never did I dream we'd get the trifecta." Ha, ha, ha, responded his supporters. George is so funny, he’s just a good ol’ boy, and he’s one of us. Ha, ha, ha.

How could anyone but a madman joke about pain and suffering, so many people losing their lives and the horrors of man’s most atrocious act, the act of war that maims and destroys innocent civilians and innocent soldiers - a purposeful violent act that destroys thousands upon thousands of lives and destroys a nation’s land, their infrastructure and their culture, an intentional act that creates such havoc with people’s lives both physically and mentally.

And that includes American soldiers and their families. How many lives of those who serve in this conflict are being destroyed along with their families? Besides the horrific physical injuries and disabilities there will also be economic hardships and irreparable emotional and mental injuries that will plague the military survivors for the rest of their lives and for their children’s lives.

And what does George W Bush mean when he jokes about deficit spending? It means borrowing billions upon billions of dollars against the American people and distributing it indirectly to himself and his family and to his friends in the corporate world. It means robbing Americans and putting them, their children and their children’s children into massive debt and by so doing causing average working Americans needless suffering. It also means threatening our country’s economic stability and ability to defend ourselves for decades to come.

As you read Greg Palast’s following report, look closely at the name on the oil tanker, it’s the “Condoleeza Rice”. And if you doubt the Bush-Cheney-Rice connection to big oil go here to see the glaring proof.

How f---ing plain does it have to be that these people expect you to sacrifice your children’s and your grandchildren’s lives so that their family’s are guaranteed to be wealthy and powerful for decades to come. They even had the arrogance to name the invasion of Iraq "Operation Iraqi Liberation" – OIL.

How does it feel to be considered so stupid that you won’t recognize when you’re being screwed?

Wave your flag – it will only hurt for a little while.

It's STILL the oil: Secret Condi Meeting on Oil Before Invasion

by Greg Palast
Sunday, March 18, 2007

Four years ago this week, the tanks rolled for what President Bush originally called, "Operation Iraqi Liberation" -- O.I.L.
I kid you not.

And it was four years ago that, from the White House, George Bush, declaring war, said, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people." That Dick Cheney didn't tell Bush that Iraqis speak Arabic … well, never mind. I expected the President to say something like, "Our troops are coming to liberate you, so don't shoot them." Instead, Mr. Bush told, the Iraqis,

"Do not destroy oil wells."

Nevertheless, the Bush Administration said the war had nothing to do with Iraq's oil. Indeed, in 2002, the State Department stated, and its official newsletter, the Washington Post, repeated, that State's Iraq study group, "does not have oil on its list of issues."

But now, we've learned that, despite protestations to the contrary, Condoleezza Rice held a secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. (It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne.)

In all the chest-beating about how the war did badly, no one seems to remember how the war did very, very well -- for Big Oil.

The war has kept Iraq's oil production to 2.1 million barrels a day from pre-war, pre-embargo production of over 4 million barrels. In the oil game, that's a lot to lose. In fact, the loss of Iraq's 2 million barrels a day is equal to the entire planet's reserve production capacity.

In other words, the war has caused a hell of a supply squeeze -- and Big Oil just loves it. Oil today is $57 a barrel versus the $18 a barrel price under Bill "Love-Not-War" Clinton.

Since the launch of Operation Iraqi Liberation, Halliburton stock has tripled to $64 a share -- not, as some believe, because of those Iraq reconstruction contracts -- peanuts for Halliburton. Cheney's former company's main business is "oil services." And, as one oilman complained to me, Cheney's former company has captured a big hunk of the rise in oil prices by jacking up the charges for Halliburton drilling and piping equipment.

But before we shed tears for Big Oil's having to hand Halliburton its slice, let me note that the value of the reserves of the five biggest oil companies more than doubled during the war to $2.36 trillion.

And that was the plan: putting a new floor under the price of oil. I've have that in writing. In 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." Now, you might think our government shouldn't be writing a plan for another nation's oil. Well, our government didn't write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants.

The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq's oil. That's not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq's oil production -- and thereby keep the price of oil high.

Of course, the language was far more subtle than, "Let's cut Iraq's oil production and jack up prices." Rather, the report uses industry jargon and euphemisms which require Iraq to remain an obedient member of the OPEC cartel and stick to the oil-production limits -- "quotas" -- which keep up oil prices.

The Houston plan, enforced by an army of occupation, would, "enhance [Iraq's] relationship with OPEC," the oil cartel.

And that's undoubtedly why Condoleezza Rice asked Fadhil Chalabi to take charge of Iraq's Oil Ministry. As former chief operating officer of OPEC, the oil cartel, Fadhil was a Big Oil favorite, certain to ensure that Iraq would never again allow the world to slip back to the Clinton era of low prices and low profits. (In investigating for BBC, I was told by the former chief of the CIA's oil unit that he'd met with Fadhil regarding oil at Bush's request. Fadhil recently complained to the BBC. He denied the meeting with the Bush emissary in London because, he noted, he was secretly meeting that week in Washington with Condi!)

Fadhil, by the way, turned down Condi's offer to run Iraq's Oil Ministry. Ultimately, Iraq's Oil Ministry was given to Fadhil's fellow tribesman, Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted bank swindler and neo-con idol. But whichever Chalabi is nominal head of Iraq's oil industry in Baghdad, the orders come from Houston. Indeed, the oil law adopted by Iraq's shaky government this month is virtually a photocopy of the "Options" plan first conceived in Texas long before Iraq was "liberated."

In other words, the war has gone exactly to plan -- the Houston plan. So forget the naïve cloth-rending about a conflict gone haywire. Exxon-Mobil reported a record $10 billion profit last quarter, the largest of any corporation in history. Mission Accomplished.

Republican, Democrat - or Progressive?

Here in America we essentially have a two party political system although many would like it to be otherwise. There is also the Green Party, the Libertarians, and a few others but these are unfortunately very small groups with little power and influence. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party dominate politics – for the time being.

Without going into how both these major parties have evolved and changed over the past fifty years it is apparent there is a bifurcation taking place within the Democratic Party, a splitting off of members within the party who believe differently than what most refer to as “establishment” Democrats represented by the “Clintonistas” and the Democratic Leadership Council who tend to be centrists and more corporate-serving than populist. This element of the Democratic Party was referred by the Howard Dean campaign as “Republican Lite” as opposed to the more liberal-leaning faction of the party which Howard Dean often called “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”, a phrase coined and popularized by the late Senator Paul Wellstone.

While the label “progressive” is not new and has been used by local Democratic factions in the past, this latest movement made up of more liberal-leaning Democrats has morphed a new faction and power block within the national party who call themselves “progressives”. This group consists of primarily young, energetic, compassionate, smart, and technologically hip Democrats, plus a good number of us old coots who have been progressive all our lives and a growing number of disillusioned Republicans.

Hell-bent on returning the Democratic Party to it’s old glory as the party of the people, a party of compassion, common sense, equality and justice for all, this factor is the bane of the DLC and the DC establishment which marches to the orders of big moneyed interests and corporations. The "progressive's" goal is nothing short of taking over the leadership of the party. If this “progressive” movement fails to take back the Democratic Party from the corporate lackeys and the power elite that now controls the Democratic Party, it has the growing potential to become a separate national party replacing the Democratic Party as the only party of power to challenge the Republican Party, a party which no longer represents this nation’s people but instead is wholly owned by corporations and their representatives which have taken over our government, our military and a big part of our courts and our judicial system.

In an effort to explain what a progressive is, Mike Lux of American Family Voices, speaks out as to why he calls himself a “progressive”. Following is the first installment of a series he hopes will define what “progressives” represent.

Gary

I believe a country should do the best that it can to be like a good family. In the family I grew up in, we were taught to look out for each other, to take care of the ones who were sick and give a helping hand to those struggling to find their way. We were told to share our toys, and be gentle and kind with each other. We were told to keep an eye on the neighbor kids and help them if they were in trouble.
We were lucky that we grew up in families like that, way too many folks don't. I was a special beneficiary of it. A little bit of family history you may not know: when I was about 2 months old, I got a toy caught in my throat when I was in the crib. Luckily for me, your grandma walked by before it was too late, but it was in there long enough to cause some brain damage. (Aha, you say, now I know why he is a liberal Democrat! And it might be part of the reason.) As a result of the accident, I developed a mild form of cerebral palsy. It took me a long time to walk and I had braces on my legs for a few years. It meant that I was a terrible athlete, always the slowest and most uncoordinated in my classes in school. But my confidence didn't suffer, and I never felt sorry for myself because of the kind of family we had. Everybody in the family treated me with great kindness and patience and gave me the support I needed to flourish.

Another step that was central to my growing up was that before I can even remember, an African family, came to Lincoln so that the husband could study at Nebraska Wesleyan. When his wife suffered a miscarriage, your grandparents heard about it and about how deeply depressed they were. They reached out to them and became their family away from home. This was in the late '50s/early '60s, and they didn't think twice about taking foreigners, Africans, into their home. A few years later, another African family came as well. I was in middle elementary school by then, and I walked their younger kids to school. More than once, we were confronted by bullies yelling "nigger" and worse. My courage sometimes failed me, but I knew my job was to hold their hands and take their part and comfort them afterwards.

When I was 11, your grandparents took another stranger into our home, a foster child with mental and physical disabilities you now know as one of your uncles. I wasn't sure at first about dealing with his disabilities, and I didn't always do as well as I should have, but I knew my job was to play ball and hang out with him just the way my older siblings did with me. And I grew to love him as my brother, and my relationship with him has been one of the most fulfilling in my life.

Like any good family, our family took care of the weak and the slow and the disabled, instead of making fun of them. We welcomed the stranger and the immigrant. We loved the kids who were "different" just as much as we loved the kids without special needs. We were taught not to make fun of people who were different, but to take special care of them. That's what I want America to be. That's why I rejected a party whose leader in the 1980s (Reagan) made fun of "welfare queens" and whose leader in the 1990s (Gingrich) described Republicans as the party for "normal Americans." Normal Americans? I guess that wouldn't have included me with my cerebral palsy, or others in the family and neighborhood with disabilities. I preferred to be part of a party and movement that embraced those who were different, not as talented or lucky or rich or normal as other people.

I want an America that welcomes and looks out for the people who are different and who are weaker and who are hungry and who are sick and who are immigrants, just like my family did. I prefer the philosophy that we are all in this together rather than one that says you are on your own. That's why I am a progressive. I know both parties and movements have their faults, but I have always preferred to err on the side of compassion and gentleness than to risk the sins of unkindness and intolerance, sins which I feel your party and the conservative movement sometimes fall victim to.

It’s Only What We Do That Has Consequence

John Ruskin (1819-1900), 17th century British art and social critic, had a lot to say about the social ills of his time. Almost all are applicable today.

One of my favorite Ruskin quotes that I often do not follow religiously enough myself is this:” What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do.” Amen! Can I get a witness?

If only we all would heed this wise counsel, but most often we stand back and remain indifferent to the problems we face as a nation and as a society. We expect others to do the heavy lifting of assuring national security, freedom, justice and social change. We expect others to stand up and call for equality and fairness while we mumble and complain in the background.

How many Americans are quick to voice their disapproval and condemnation of our nation’s policies and of our elected representatives but don’t go to the polls to cast their vote?

In the 2004 election the turnout was a dismal 64% of registered voters yet was up from 60% in the controversial 2000 election in which, although Al Gore won both the popular vote and the electoral vote, the election was awarded to Bush by the Supreme Court. How many registered Democrats did not vote in 2000? How many eligible voters who favored the election of Gore didn’t even bother to register?

In the 2006 elections the number of those under thirty who went to the polls was the most of any election in 20 years yet only 1 in 4 eligible voters under 30 years voted. Where were the other 75%? Did they not have an opinion? Did they not care?

How many Americans were against the invasion of Iraq but stood silently by and allowed the Bush administration to invade a sovereign nation that did not attack us and was no serious or immediate threat? A nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11.

We instead rely on our verbal and financial support for change. Sure, there are a few of us who will sign a petition or donate to this cause or that cause; a little to this campaign or that campaign, but those actions are not nearly enough.

How many of us will get off our ass to go to meetings and rallies and how many will volunteer to knock on doors and write letters? How many will call their representatives to let them know their views on an issue? And how many will speak up when confronted by a verbally and physically threatening bullies who are have learned to use hatred, violence and fear to get their way?

How many just stand back and quietly take satisfaction in the idea that their knowledge and beliefs are on the right side of the issues? I guess they feel God knows where their heart is and that’s what counts.

Tell me this. What if the God you know, the God you worship and trust in is just like you? What if your God conveys wonderful thoughts and words of love and salvation but does not feel any responsibility to DO anything about it? Who will save your ass then?

It’s time we all take active responsibility for our nation, the plight of our fellow men and our world. I reiterate Ruskin:” What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do.”

Democrats Who Don't Know What's Going On

Some weeks ago I read an interview with Robert Kennedy Jr. who was quoted as saying, “Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's going on."

I think he's right. Many of the voters who voted for Bush are really former Democrats or at least are conservatives who are more philosophically aligned with Democrats than with the Republican Party.

So, what made them desert their former convictions and vote for a party that does not represent average American citizens but instead mainly represents corporate and special interests? Why do they align themselves with those who are sending our jobs offshore, profit from illegal immigrants, oppose universal healthcare, social security, public schools and worker’s rights and safety? Why do they ride shotgun for big polluters, corrupt corporatists, bigots, religious fanatics, and those who preach hate and war? Why do they vote against their own interests?

The simple answer is - they know not what they do.

At first glance it's hard to explain why so many people who were once Democrats have left the party in recent years and voted for Bush, or voted for his father before him and perhaps Reagan. These good folks who grew up in Democratic Party families now label themselves as Republicans - but they really aren't sure why. It's not so much what they are for but more about what they're against that leads them to vote with Republicans. Most of what they are against they attribute to Democrats. Democrats have become the whipping boy for all the problems wrought by greed-gone-wild, corporate corruption, and all other societal ills.

Here are some of the reasons as I see it.

Many of these used-to-be Democrats remain bigots and racists although they pretend they aren't. They grew up under racist parents who still use the "N" word and when they get together privately they talk about how the black element has ruined society, are responsible for most crime, and believe in general that black people are stupid, lazy, irresponsible and worthless. They abhor the hip-hop culture, the music, the lyrics, the clothing styles and the bling, the foul language and the association of that culture with violence and crime. They view too many black Americans as a burden on society; as the main recipients of welfare and one of the major reasons taxes are so high.

These Democrats turned Republicans are also people who have a low tolerance for gays and those with alternative lifestyles. They see these people as products of liberalism gone wild. Too much freedom and tolerance. They liked it much better when gays were in the closet and they see the open gay lifestyle as a threat to their children and grandchildren who they think might become attracted to that lifestyle and become gay as a result.

These Democratic Party defectors, even though they themselves are descendents of European ancestors have a problem with most foreigners, they're uncomfortable with most immigrants, illegal or not, who they see as interlopers and invaders who are not welcome in our society and should go back where they came from. These new Republicans are tired of our nation being the nation that takes in the world's poor and oppressed. They feel we have enough social problems without adding more.

They view themselves as Christians whether they attend church or not and are mostly intolerant of any other religion. They tolerate those of the Jewish faith but only barely. Although they pretend not, they remain anti-Semitic and after 9/11 they consider all Muslims evil.

These Democrats turned Republicans have a fear of becoming social outcasts if they support a woman's right to choose because abortion is considered "murder" by the far right and any good Christian should oppose it. Many of these same people are hypocrites who publicly disapprove of abortion but when faced with a pregnant teenager or a victim of a rape in their own family will quickly and secretly have the fetus aborted.

The average "Christian church" has increasingly become a powerful political institution that serves the Republican Party and shames members to become Republicans. Those who admit they are Democrats are treated as sinners that have lost their way. The pressure to convert to "Christian Republicanism" is cult-like, strong and pervasive. Many life-long church-going Democrats fear any discussion of or disclosure of their party affiliation.

So, how can these people remain Democrats when they see the Democratic Party as the representative party of over-the-top liberals, arrogant intellectuals, Blacks, Latinos, gays, poor minorities, fallen sinners and most other kooks or minority factions that exist? They don't see themselves as part of that mix. They don't want to be associated with a party that is the party of blacks and gays, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, criminals, environmentalists, Devil worshippers, geeks, arrogant intellectuals and wimpy liberals.

They want to belong to the white Christian party. Many of these one time Democrats see the Republican Party as the party that best represents not American values, but "white" values.

They think that Democrats are all pacifists, unpatriotic, and are weak on national defense. Since 9/11 they trust the more authoritarian, father-figure Republicans with their safety. They fear anyone viewing them as unpatriotic and are led to believe that any criticism of the president or the government when we are "at war" borders on an act of treason.

These people are not mostly wealthy people like so many Republican leaders are; those that set the Republican agenda to aid and support their own interests. They aren't all small business owners and not that many of them are what might be considered professionals. Whether they live in cities or rural areas, they are mostly ordinary, hard working, middle income to low income citizens who are very fearful and confused about what or who they should support.

If you engage them regarding the issues, they are against the corporations screwing over ordinary folks, but they unwittingly support the party of corporatists.

They are against big healthcare and pharmaceuticals and skyrocketing health and insurance costs but they unwittingly support those who scheme against them.

They are against illegal immigrants swarming over our borders but they ignorantly support the party whose elite and most influential members profit from cheap labor and don’t want to see our borders closed. They fail to see that the Republican corporatists practically engineered the invasion by over 20 million unskilled, uneducated immigrants and that the wealthy are the ones who profit from it.

They fear terrorism and are for strong national security but they side with the Republican corporatists that fought airline security measures that could have prevented 9/11 and a Republican administration and congress that for six years have failed to protect our ports and our borders.

They are for fiscal responsibility and smaller government but they support a party that gave tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations, an act which shifts the burden to individuals by increasing the cost to individuals for all social services and takes money away from states and from other social programs.

They vote with a party that has grown the federal government to its largest size ever and spends money like a drunken sailor. They don't seem to realize that the record deficit is the result of money borrowed to run this country, to finance the war, and for huge giveaways to corporations and war profiteers. They are members of a party that has nurtured corruption and theft of our national treasury while the debt grows to bankruptcy levels.

These good people are simple victims of a well planned and executed takeover of our country – and as Robert Kennedy Jr. says, most of them are not really Republicans – they’re just confused “Democrats who don’t know what’s going on”. The Democratic Party has a huge tent that welcomes diversity of race, religion, lifestyles and ideas. Remaining a Democrat requires a lot of understanding, soul searching, reasoning and critical thought. Becoming a Republican requires very little thought and carries no risk as most neoconservatives see it. Our country right or wrong, support our troops, one nation under God, wave the flag and follow the leader.

May God awaken these strayed sheep, these prodigal sons and daughters, and return them to the fold in time to save our nation and our world.

If Only I Were As Forgiving As Al Gore

I haven’t made any secret about how I feel towards Ralph Nader and the role he played in the 2000 election. If Ralph had dropped out and freed up his supporters the Florida vote would have easily gone to Gore and there would have been no decision for the Supreme Court to make.

And nothing infuriates me more than those who say,” Get over it!”, as if the stolen election had no real consequence – that it’s just politics as usual in America.

I would like these same people to tell the families who have lost a family member to the war in Iraq to “Get over it!”; those 10,000 and growing number of soldiers with limbs blown away, faces burned away, and injuries they and their families will suffer for the rest of their lives. Tell them to “Get over it!”

Al Gore himself and others have clearly stated prior to the Bush War in Iraq that they would never have invaded Iraq without just cause, that Iraq posed no serious threat to the US.

Iraq was contained. Strict sanctions were in place. We had daily fly-overs by our fighter aircraft. Iraq’s weapons supplies and parts had been successfully denied them, their military was in shambles, no aircraft, no missiles or armored force to speak of, and what they did have was old, falling apart and broken down for lack of parts.

Saddam was no longer a threat to any of his neighbors as a result of UN sanctions but was fearful of his arch-enemy Iran, so he pretended to have weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent to Iran. We knew this. International weapons inspectors verified this over and over.

Al-Qaida was Saddam’s enemy as well. They hated him and he loathed them in return. There was no haven for Al-Qaida in Iraq.

Gore and others understood the many implications, the foremost being rival religious and ethnic factions, and that deposing Saddam could open a hornet’s nest in the middle-east. Bush and his handlers ignored this and acted recklessly and criminally by preemptively invading this sovereign nation with no plan or regard for the repercussions. Gore wouldn’t have done this and as a result the middle–east today would be strikingly different had he become president – as would the United States.

I would also like these Bush supporters to tell the people of New Orleans who lost family members, their homes and everything they owned to “Get over it!”

Hundreds of millions of dollars meant to aid these victims and restore New Orleans was mismanaged and lost to fraud and criminal contractors. Billions upon billions more of taxpayer’s dollars have passed through the Iraq war and ended up in the bank accounts of American and foreign war profiteers including the bank accounts of the Bush and Cheney families. Only a fraction of that money could have reestablished New Orleans families, their homes and neighborhoods that were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. A small fraction of the money spent rebuilding Iraq could have provided safe levees and hurricane surge protection against future storms. Jobs could have been created and people’s dignity restored.

Where is America’s pride that we would turn our backs on one of this nation’s most unique cultures and one of its largest and most historic cities, allowing it to lay in ruins as our nation’s wealth is siphoned off by corporate pirates and war profiteers? What must other nations think of America as they watch what happens here?

And consider those who lost a family member to the terrorist attack of 9/11, would you tell them to “get over it”?

Yes, even that tragedy may have been prevented had the 2000 election not been stolen from Al Gore.

In 1996, as a result of the TWA Flight 800 crash, President Clinton created a commission under Vice President Al Gore to report on shortcomings in aviation security in the United States. The Gore Commission's report thoroughly canvassed available expertise in and outside of government regarding aircraft safety and the terrorist threat. While the report did not directly address the issue of suicide hijackings or the use of aircraft as weapons, it did address the issue of hijackings in general and lax screening of passengers and what they carried onto planes. It also recommended more study of aircraft and airport security and that action plans be developed.

If Gore had become president those recommendations would have been put into action and it is quite possible 9/11 might never have occurred. But instead, Gore’s report was vigorously fought by the airline industry, and it was ridiculed and cast aside by the Republican controlled congress. It would cost too much to establish the report's safety and security recommendations they argued. Once again the corporate profit-mongers and their bought and paid for congressional puppets shortchanged the American public for profit and gain and lives were lost and destroyed.

Those are just several ways in which America could have benefited from the rightfully elected man taking office. The others are too many to elaborate here. Just imagine.

I will never “get over it” – this twist of fate – this crime against the American people and the people of other nations. If only Ralph Nader had stepped aside. Not only was his campaign failing miserably, he couldn’t even reach the 5% level of votes that would have allowed him to share in public campaign check-off funds. There was no other reason for him to stay in the race – none! He was warned that he could tip the race to Bush but he stubbornly refused to give in.

During the 2000 campaign Ralph Nader said there wasn't a dime's difference between Al Gore and George W Bush. What supremely faulty judgement for a man who wanted to lead this nation.

And prior to the election Nader attempted to defend his stubbornness by stating that suffering through four years of George W Bush might be good for this nation, that we needed a wake-up call, but even Ralph couldn’t have imagined this train wreck.

I will never forgive Ralph. This one act of stubbornness and pride has wiped out all the self-sacrifice and good he has done in years past. Ralph’s previous hero status has been burned away by all the damage Bush has done to this nation and to the world we live in.

I admit I’m not big enough to forgive Ralph but there is someone who is big enough – the very person whose election Nader helped sidetrack - Al Gore.
The following was reported by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, June 16th 2006

During Gore’s book tour last summer, Gore was signing books at Olsson's book shop in Washington, DC.

"I'm not supposed to say anything, just sign books," Gore announced when he started. But when he got to number 214 in the line, he noticed the lanky figure offering his book to be signed and stood up. "Nice to see you! How you doing? . . . I'm really so grateful to you for coming by."

After more pleasantries, Gore scribbled a line in the book: "For my friend, Ralph Nader. With respect, Al Gore."

Nader was smitten. "He's liberated!" Nader said. "He's defining what progressive Democrats should be about."

Had they reached such a rapport six years ago, Gore might have won the election in 2000, as two men in line reminded Nader. "Thanks to you, we had Bush all these years," said one. "How many are dead in Iraq because of that?"

Damn! I guess I’m not so liberated that I can forgive Ralph that easily.

The world is in too much disarray, the environment has suffered too much, too much blood has been spilled, too many families destroyed, too many laws have been broken, too much damage to America’s constitution and to its reputation around the world, too much corruption has been allowed and too much of America’s wealth has been stolen.

I respect Al Gore for having the grace and strength of character to get beyond what happened in 2000, for his compassion and his wisdom, for his passion for protecting the world’s environment, and for setting examples for people like me and you to follow.

But I don’t think Al’s really over it – I think he accepted it and is using it as energy to drive himself and his visions forward.

Maybe Al is fully liberated as Nader suggests. If that’s the case I would love to see Al Gore use his power to liberate the rest of us from the tyranny of the likes of Bush and company.

If Al Gore were to run in 2008 maybe then I could forgive Ralph Nader - but forget? I don’t think that’s possible. The scars are too deep.

How Much Can This Country Stand?

Although it has been clear since the beginning for many of us, It has become very clear by George W Bush’s appearance on 60 minutes Sunday that we indeed have a delusional madman in the oval office – one that needs to be immediately removed if it wasn’t for the frightening aspect that an even more seriously ill madman waits in the wings to take charge. This country and the rest of the world are in deep shit!

Who do we have to thank for this mess? There’s plenty of blame to go around but more and more I want to kick Ralph Nader’s ass. Despite all the good Nader has done in the past, the Bush presidency will be Nader’s most remembered legacy. Sad isn’t it?

And we also need to give thanks to the DLC and the good ‘ol boy power network, the elitist assholes who torpedoed Howard Dean and orchestrated John Kerry as the Democratic candidate for 2004. We need to thank them not only for four additional years of hell under George Bush but for the 12 years of blunders that handed power to the corrupt band of pirates and corporate thugs that are dragging this nation to its knees.

Let’s take a look at Bush’s appearance on 60 Minutes yesterday.


When asked, Bush said he saw the Internet video of Saddam Hussein's execution but stopped watching before the trap door opened under the former Iraqi leader. "I didn't want to watch the whole thing," Bush said.

What does that say about Bush? He said he “didn’t WANT to watch the whole thing.”

Did it make Bush queasy to watch someone die? The same Bush that as Governor of Texas reportedly delighted in ordering executions? Remember the infamous video of Bush mocking Karla Faye Tucker who pleaded for her life, screwing up his face and saying in a falsetto voice, “Please don’t kill me”, as he smirked and smiled in arrogant satisfaction with himself?

This is the man that many of you reading this voted for president. Think about it!

Or did Bush just lie to us again? Did he really watch the whole thing as many of us did but chose to lie to us? Was it a political ploy? Did he think if he said he didn’t watch it this might portray him as compassionate and sensitive - or as someone who was not titillated by violence and torture as his image, history and reports of his youth suggest?

Was he also trying to suggest that he doesn’t have time for such trivial events, that he is above the things that common men involve themselves with - that he is busied with his ongoing conversation with God, ruling the world, and making decisions for the good of all mankind?

Shudder! Shudder!

Like the mad and arrogant dictator he has become Bush also said he wasn't bothered by his low approval ratings and called himself the "educator in chief," arguing that sharing his views would help to overcome public and congressional resistance. "I'm going to have to keep explaining," he said.

What arrogance and insanity from someone totally out of touch with reality. This man, who the entire world except for a small number of confused Americans (30% we are told) recognizes as someone who is delusional and seriously lacking in intelligence and reasoning power, believes himself to be one who possesses a level of knowledge and wisdom superior to everyone else. Amazing and scary!

Here is a crazed despot, clearly as mad and delusional as Kim Jong Il, who says he must be patient with the ignorant subjects of his kingdom until they are finally educated by him.

And when asked about his decision to ignore Congress and the Iraq Study Group’s report and once again send more troops into harms way, Bush defiantly said "I fully understand they could TRY to stop me from doing it." And when asked whether he thought he had the authority to send additional troops in the face of opposition from the Democratic majority in Congress, Bush said: "In this situation, I do, yeah."

This delusional man-child king, with Cheney at his side, is defying Congress and the American people! Bush is so delusional he apparently has a Joan of Arc syndrome, believing he was visited by God and sees himself as the savior of the world from the evil Satan.

He as much as said, TRY to stop me from doing whatever I decide to do. Could this be a cry for help from a deranged person who subconsciously understands he’s out of control and wants to be stopped from committing more insane acts? Psychologists have discovered this very condition in pedophiles and serial killers.

Never in the history of this country, we are told, has there ever been a more dictator-like president, one who tramples the constitution, ignores the people and acts with the arrogance, ignorance and ineptness of one of the impudent, whimsical child kings of the middle-ages; one who believes he has God-ordained supreme power over all people regarding all things.

Isn’t it time his own party steps forward and takes action to save this country? Are they so blinded by ego and consumed by power and avarice they can’t realize the gravity of what Bush and Cheney are doing to this nation?

And as for the citizens of this nation, why are you not in the streets? Where is the public outcry? How much more can the people stand?