Sense and Nonsense—A Political Primer
From the editor: It all starts with the ineffectiveness of Congress. Between “Blue Dog” Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and Joe Lieberman in the U.S. Senate, it is truly a wonder that our elected representatives bother to convene at all. It is a Congress that is bought and paid for by corporate America led by big oil, pharmaceuticals, and the gun lobby. It has no “backbone” because neither political party has a workable majority. It is an OBSTRUCTIONIST Congress. There are three primary reasons why it functions to block progressive social justice and fails to promote true fiscal responsibility.
The Blue Dog Coalition
The 47-member Blue Dog Coalition was formed 13 years ago ostensibly to promote fiscal responsibility and social conservatism. The website at www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs opens with the greeting, “The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American Public.” This website claims 49 members in one article and 47 members in another article. The Wikipedia article states that the “Blue Dog Democrats are a group of 48 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives.
In spite of their stated mission, goals and reasons-for-being, they have been labeled as “Bush Dogs” by the liberal weblog “OpenLeft” because of their actual voting record which includes the following votes:
In 2005, the members of the Blue Dog Coalition voted 32 to 4 in favor of the bill to limit access to bankruptcy protection (S. 256).
Voted for Iraq war funding in May 2007.
Voted to grant President Bush warrantless wiretapping powers.
According to the New York Times, “The Blue Dogs” have objected to creation of a program that would guarantee veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan a year of in-state college tuition for each year served in the war zones in the name of not being able to find a way to pay for it.
In short, the Blue Dogs are very sincere about the principle of “pay as you go,” but they are extremely hypocritical about admitting how much the Iraq war impacts choices about domestic spending and veterans’ benefits. I am still searching for a Blue Dog Democrat who will object to the $10-12 billion per month price tag of the Irag War and the ridiculous Bush tax cuts for the top !% of Americans in this country. I have not found one yet. For a list of the members of the Blue Dog Coalition, go to the website cited above. The appropriate question is: Are “Blue Dogs” more Republican than Republicans? If their voting record indicates the same support for moneyed interests including the military/industrial complex and “wedge” social issues such as guns, gays, and God, they should be targeted for defeat in the first available Democratic primary election and replaced with a social liberal and fiscally responsible Democratic candidate.
Joe Lieberman and Doctor No
Contrary to media characterizations, Democrats do not have a majority in the U.S. Senate. Even though Sen. Lieberman joined the Democratic Caucus in the Senate, he certainly is not an Independent or a Democrat. He is a turncoat Republican. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s efforts to keep Lieberman “within the fold” is an exercise in futility. Reid works hard to keep Lieberman happy since his presence in the Democratic Caucus allows Reid to appoint Committee chairpersons. Lieberman sits strategically on the Armed Services Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and serves as committee chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. His militant, dangerous urging to strike Iran militarily is in “lock step” with the far right wing in Israel, and, as such, represents continuation of the disastrous Bush/Cheney policy of preemptive war. He was elected to the Senate as an Independent candidate from Connecticut in 2006 after being defeated in the Democratic primary in that state. He technically allows Reid to occupy the “Majority Leader’s” chair, but Reid represents a majority on paper only. On key votes, Lieberman tips the balance toward Republican control of the Senate in day-to-day proceedings.
To make matters worse, one Republican Senator -- Tom Coburn of Oklahoma -- continues to successfully obstruct the passage of almost 80 pieces of legislation by abusing the Senate rule that allows a single Senator to put a “hold” on bills without any debate. According to the New York Times, the bills include items to commemorate “The Star Spangled Banner,” as well as bills to curb pornography, cut drug use and help victims of Lou Gehrig’s disease. Labeled “Dr. No,” by his Senate cohorts, Coburn is a family physician who is a top anti-abortion crusader who conducted regular workshops for young staff members on sexually transmitted diseases. First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican “revolutionary” in the class of 1994, he continued to deliver babies while he was in the House. The Senate did put a stop to this “moonlighting” while he is serving in the Senate. With Coburn abusing the Senate’s tradition of “unanimous consent,” and his fellow-Oklahoman Sen. James Inhofe’s pumping out propaganda on global warming, both need to be targeted for defeat. Inhofe comes up for re-election this year (2008) and Coburn’s current term ends in 2010.
The Power of a “Bald-Faced” Lie
In recent years, the power of the “bald-faced” lie -- the deliberate and intentional distortion of facts -- has been one of the most effective “arrows” in the opposition’s quiver of sharp-pointed propaganda projectiles. Although the deliberate lie did not originate with the Swift Boat Vietnam veterans, it is certainly one of the most important case histories in the use of this unethical and immoral strategy. According to FactCheck.org, “None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry’s boat.” The Navy’s official records document that the “Swift Boaters’” versions are filled with lies. Internal Revenue Services records show the initial funding for the ads came from a Houston home builder by the name of Bob J. Perry. Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group by the end of June, 2004. This effort proved so successful in the 2004 presidential election that it replaced the deliberate lies leading to the Iraq occupation on the “honor roll” of Machiavellian abuses of power.Other prime examples of the bald-faced lie include the hatchet job done on Georgia Senator Max Cleland -- a triple-amputee veteran of the Vietnam War, and -- more recently -- the internet lie claiming that Senator Obama is a Muslim. A recent Newsweek survey shows that 12% of the American public believe Obama is a Muslim.
Lies and distortions got us involved in the Iraq occupation, and since Congress passed the
War Resolution on October 16, 2002, Congress has been living the lies they naively believed precisely because they are afraid they will be branded as soft on national security just as Sen. Max Cleland experienced.
Other than Senator Russ Feingold, and Representatives Henry Waxman and John Conyers, it is very hard to find an elected representative in either chamber of Congress that will call a “lie” a “lie.”
Conclusion
For the most part, politicians are followers, rather than leaders. They are followers because they are constantly trying to get re-elected. They are constantly fund-raising, rather than doing the business of the people. Although the election of Barack Obama is absolutely essential for the country in November, it is equally important for the Democratic Party to achieve a 60-member, veto-proof majority in the Senate, and a much larger majority in the House of Representatives. With overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the “followers” will become “leaders” overnight. The media will focus upon the “Race for the White House,” but we citizens need to focus upon the Senate and House races as well. It is imperative to elect Democrats who will vote against preemptive war and for social justice.The Justice Department Mess
From the editor: The two most important facts dictating the importance of a Democratic take-over of the Presidency and Congress are the need to 1) stop the Federalist Society’s takeover of the Supreme Court, and 2) restore some integrity in the U.S. Department of Justice. Without a reversal in these two trends, social justice including the 4th Amendment right to privacy will be a distant memory in this country. The Justice Department’s own Inspector General, Glen A. Fine, has issued two reports in June and July documenting that former senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales violated federal law and the Justice Department’s own policies for subjecting candidates for Justice Department career positions to politically based evaluations. The reports focused primarily on Monica Goodling, the Department’s White House Liaison.In chapter eight of the report, the Inspector General also determined “that in several instances Goodling and one of her predecessors as the Department’s White House Liaison, Susan Richmond, opposed on the basis of political affiliation the extensions of details for career Department attorneys working in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, even though these candidates had the full support of the Deputy Attorney General and his staff.”
In addition, the Inspector General also investigated allegations that Kyle Sampson, Goodling, and another predecessor of Goodling -- Jan Williams -- inappropriately considered political and ideological affiliations in selecting immigration judges (IJs) and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, all of which are career positions.
The report concludes, “In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs, which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.”
The second of the two reports issued July 28, 2008, found that White House officials developed a method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called “The Thorough Process of Investigation.” According to the report, Justice Department officials then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words in an applicant’s background, like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “Florida recount,” or “guns.”
