Diana

I know I haven’t written in awhile, but I want to today…

This may sound stupid to my regular readers, but I need to commemorate the tenth anniversary of Princess Diana’s death. I know in a political blog it doesn’t hold much weight, but as a (now) 37-year-old woman – it was a watershed moment in my life…

I started reading a daily paper when I was ten, in 1980, and much of the news at that time was about the impending nuptials of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer; for a ten-year-old, it was a real-life fairy princess tale…

Diana was a decade older than I, yet the event still held that “could hope for” factor. I, at ten, collected a folder’s worth of press clippings - everything about Diana as well as everything wedding. I watched the wedding in the wee hours of the morning and she was everything a fairy princess could be. Seriously, it was an entire fantasy world.

I kept up with Diana and her sons – I remember the day Prince William was born – I kept up with her faithfully – she was such an antithesis to what us Yanks stereotyped Brit royalty to be, and she struck a place in my heart and mind and made it hers both because of her great compassion and her intense drive for some sense of normalcy in her life in spite of her title.

Like many of us, no doubt mostly women, we watched her life go from something to admire to the bit of a prison that it was in reality. Even through the muck and the mud and the contentious divorce, Diana still had a common touch and empathy – no matter how dignified and first class she was – she still was always and will remain – one of the people. She was a woman in her own class – she defied traditional typology.

She transcended boundaries that it was not thought that a royal would ever even cross. She brought attention to things that were not talked about - things that had an impact, especially on those less fortunate - and she made a difference. She was brightness in a world that seemed more and more self-absorbed.

When I heard about her death, I was at my folk’s house, and I got a phone call; it was a time when I needed to sit down. I did not have the press clippings folder from my childhood anymore; but I did have the memories of watching her grow from naïve teenager to full blown people’s princess, who brought voice to many who didn’t have it, who was virtually shunned by the royal family during that period, and who raised two very fine young men.

On this day, the day of the tenth anniversary of Diana’s untimely death, I am mourning again. Yes, I know that may seem strange, but to all who were girls in 1980/1981, she was such a hope – an example of you could become - of possibility.

She was so young; she was so beautiful; she was so vibrant; she was a beacon of hope to those not so fortunate among us. And she would be so proud – she is so proud – of the men her boys have become – trials, travails and all. Just looking at William and Harry today must make her so proud – they make me feel fortunate to have gotten to watch them grow up.

So today I am mourning as well as proud, not only for the many causes she herself brought to the forefront of consciousness, but also for the fine legacy she left behind, both in cause and offspring.

Princess Diana – English Rose – I miss you and mourn you today – 31 August 2007.

Let's Take It Back!

There are many things the GOP has either trumpeted, co-opted, been inadvertently given, or outright stolen during the past 15 years: terms of language, ideologies and philosophies, even tangible things. These things are either now found to be somewhat (and that’s being nice) lacking in the GOP; some are even blatantly contradictory. As a Democrat, and actually as an AMERICAN, I say, LET’S TAKE THEM BACK!

I’ll start with the somewhat obvious things and go from there; feel free to add to the list.

The Constitution, in all its glory: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Rule of law: a country where no one, and I mean NO ONE is above the law: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The ability to vote and not have to (seriously) wonder whether or not it was going to count: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Going to vote without having to find out that you are not on the list as “registered” even though you know you DID register: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Our courts, especially the Supreme Court; remember when justices were chosen for their respect for the law and not simply raw ideology? And remember when justices, once appointed to the Court, would give their best reading of the law and constitution while trying their damnedest to leave their partisan natures out of it? Maybe, just maybe, (has it not crossed anyone’s mind) the reason so many justices are thought to be conservative, yet once they get onto the Supreme Court, turn out to be more liberal, is that the law unfettered by partisan bias IS in fact Liberal-leaning? Hmmm… Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people”: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Religion and faith: who ever said these would be so narrowly construed as to mean only marriage, abortion, and gay rights? Religion and faith encompass so much more than just these things: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Family values. The party of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Newt Gingrich, Ted Haggard, Rudy Giuliani, et al, has been preaching about but not necessarily living a family values worthy life. Family values they’re for? I don’t think so: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Freedom of speech, which means the ability to protest government without fear of retribution or invasion of privacy: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Raising taxes as a total detriment – they say it’s a terrible thing; and when you think about it, it is, for a very VERY small segment of the populace who have forgotten the duty that comes along with wealth, which was known to families like the Roosevelts, Johnsons, and Kennedys; the solemn duty to help others less fortunate; this is consistently mentioned in the Bible; perhaps those who have forgotten it need to re-read: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Where Contempt of Congress is a serious issue and doesn’t refer to, as Jon Stewart so succinctly put it, “the existential disgust we all feel for Congress”: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The term “bipartisanship” – talk about hijacked… We should get this straight from here on out and be VOCAL about it: bipartisanship is NOT a fancy way to say “agree with me;” it’s actually a way of denoting two opposing parties truly working together – with real give and take – to find real solutions for real people in this country and those representing this country in various ways around the world: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The term “tax and spend”: last I checked, if I didn’t save money for something, I either couldn’t buy it or had to borrow on credit for it, which added an interest bill for each month I could not pay in full. Now conventional wisdom tells me it’s much MUCH better and cost efficient for me to save the money and then buy what I would like (borrow and spend leaves a bottom that could fall out and who wants that?) So “tax and spend,” or more commonly known now as “pay as you go” is a pretty good solid economic philosophy, and most anyone who’s ever held a credit card can vouch for that; Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The term “big government” as a detrimental thing. Anyone, seriously, who has kept his or her eye on government for the past 7 years, cannot with a straight face, say that this government believes in “small” government. The argument of “big” government is simply a boogeyman that the righties can use, even though it’s pretty blatant that they don’t truly believe in it themselves. And railing against “big” government is one of their signature issues even though “big” government can be beneficial; Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Diplomacy in our foreign affairs and responsible use of our military resources; we owe it to our men and women in uniform who do their duty for our country not to use them frivolously and to exhaust every last option before asking them to put their lives on the line. For years, the righties have claimed this issue as their own: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Science, the study of, the findings of, the experiments of… So many people nowadays seem to think that if they can manage to get somewhat scientific words out of their mouth, then they have formed a scientific theory (such as “intelligent design.”) But scientific theory is much more than a regular theory; in order to be a scientific theory, the hypothesis (first stage) MUST be testable over and over again: if it’s not, then it CANNOT become a SCIENTIFIC theory – it’s just a regular old run-of-the-mill theory along the level of “I think the world will be greener looking tomorrow.” Oh wait, even that’s testable. So as far as intellectuals know, there is a vast difference between scientific theory and other theory. Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

The hearts, minds, and ethics of MSM journalists. Ok ok – I know this is a tough order, but watching guys like Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert do it every night proves that it can be done, if we can find more journalists with ethical scruples and get them out there. Let’s TAKE the airwaves BACK!

The term “liberal;” it has been made into some kind of dirty word when by definition it’s not. It actually means “open-minded” “tolerant” “marked by generosity” “broadminded”: who wouldn’t want to be these things? Yet as the righties would have it – these things are BAD, very very bad. Must. Be. Lock. Step. And Disciplined. Anti-Liberal. Let’s TAKE LIBERAL BACK!

The term “hate” being co-opted to mean anything said that is contradictory to anything the righties stand for. It’s time they were told that “hate” is NOT an interchangeable word with “disagrees with” or “thinks is bad.” “Hate” also is not something indigenous to the left, alone; Let’s TAKE IT BACK to its original definition!

And my last one for now, shallow as it may seem: the color red. I happen to like the color red and am not gonna stand here while some right wingnut (or anyone else) tells me it means anything but red is a good color. It shouldn’t mean Republican. Let’s TAKE IT BACK!

Oh yeah, one more thing: the Presidency: Let’s TAKE IT BACK!!!!!

Until next time, a bientot!

The New American Unspoken Manifesto

I have been thinking lately about that old quote from Nobel prizewinning author Sinclair Lewis: “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Thinking in terms of the past several years of the Bush 43 Administration, I can’t help but draw many parallels; from the claims of “compassionate conservatism” to the current occupier of the White House consistently trotting out his faith, in a way to reassure that we’re on the side of the angels and being led by a guy who is a really devotedly religious fellow. And we all know about the patriotism, or lack thereof, that have been regularly employed in an attempt to stifle any dissent. “Wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” How easy it would be to take over this country simply equipped with well-crafted and sellable rhetoric…

Like several of my fellow citizens, many Democrat or Libertarian, but Republican as well, I worry that what began seemingly in the name of “protection” of our “homeland” has evolved, blatantly and more rapidly as time goes on, into a raw power grab consolidating ultimate power in a “unitary executive” which is essentially a fancy name for a King.

So have we come full circle as a country? From throwing off the chains of oppression by a monarch and attempting our experiment in a free republic to letting a “monarch” take over our republic just a mere 231 years later? What does that say about us? What does that say about our fear, which seems to be guiding us? What does that say about how much the terrorists have taken from us?

I would be forced to conclude that perhaps we are coming full circle; there is still some time left to stop the procession towards monarchy again (and by using monarchy, I am using the nicer word, even though tyranny may be more apt at this point.) It is also clear to me that the citizens in this great country don’t care to exercise the advanced citizenship we are afforded; we simply don’t care; as long as we are getting ours, we have a collective “it doesn’t affect me attitude.” Most people won’t realize that anything is different until they are told that they can’t do or have that. But by the time this happens, it will too late to rectify without some sort of coup, overthrow, or revolution.

By letting our government have carte blanche in the name of our own fear that the downfall of the country can ONLY come in the form of violence and physical destruction, we have given them tacit approval to remake the fabric of this country that the founding fathers so carefully wove in their grand experiment. The reason for the separation of powers was specifically to prevent one branch from becoming the main power branch. The theory of the “unitary executive” is a theory proposed by conservatives who clearly don’t truly buy into the “strict constructionist” idea, though many of them do claim to be proponents of so-called “original intent.” Being a proponent of a “unitary executive” and a subscribing to “original intent” or “strict constructionist” views are contradictory at best and hypocritical and nefarious at worst.

Even the theory of “original intent” is conclusive that the framers put all into the constitution that they (in collective agreement) thought suitable and necessary to guide the nation. Nowhere in there is anything close to a “unitary executive.” That is unless you are a judicial “activist.” And it would be the height of hypocrisy for those judges who have so vocally claimed that they are “original constructionists” and railed against judicial “activism” to back such a brazen activist reading into the constitution. If they do, they are simply political opportunists, and not worthy of the mantle of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Clearly, to me, the terrorists are winning and must be laughing as we not only make just about every mistake we possibly can regarding the war in the Middle East, but as we sit silently by while the powers that be attack, surreptitiously, the very fabric of our nation. The million dollar questions are how much damage has been irreversibly done already and how much more will be done before the citizens of this country WAKE UP!

Like the quote from Sinclair Lewis at the beginning: “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

We need to WAKE UP!

It Ain't Over Til It's Over...

previously posted elsewhere...

I wanted to share a few things that I read Sunday that were a bit of U.S. History but also were, to me, good omens...

I am a contributing author to a couple political science textbooks that will be published later this year. I have been writing about various people and issues in politics and Sunday I profiled Harry Truman for the elections section of the American Gov't book.

Anyway, I was doing some extra research and I ran across several things that I thought I'd share with you all. It was somewhat of a comfort to read them, and there are some parallels... The excerpts come from both the Truman Library as we well as PBS: The American Experience. I bolded some of the more important parts. Sorry it's so long...

On Truman's Senate Re-election in 1940 (TruLib):

His 1940 reelection bid was much more difficult. The Pendergast machine was in ruins. He had no campaign funds and no support from President Roosevelt. Truman barnstormed the state, emphasizing his experience in Washington.

"I was nominated by a plurality of 8,400 votes [out of 665,000 cast] in the August primary, after the most bitter, mud-slinging campaign in Missouri's history of dirty campaigns."

On the Press (TruLib):

Truman liked the "working press" and got along well with the reporters who covered the White House. He also gave photographers new status. They made Truman honorary president of the "One More Club," named after their constant request for "one more" photo. Publishers and columnists were another matter. In his view, most of them were Republicans who provided hostile and biased coverage of his administration. He bristled at criticism he received from syndicated columnists such as Drew Pearson and Westbrook Peglar. Truman was known to call his press critics "guttersnipes" and "character assassins," and their newspapers "lie outlets."

On his agenda:

Harry Truman had an ambitious agenda. He hoped to enact a broad program of domestic reforms including national health insurance, public housing, civil rights legislation, and federal aid to education. [This was referred to as the "Fair Deal."]

And finally, regarding the 1948 election (from PBS):

Harry Truman entered the 1948 presidential campaign an almost certain loser. As America moved from war to peace, the economy faltered. The country suffered through strikes and shortages of consumer goods. Two years earlier, in the 1946 midterm elections, voters had delivered solid majorities in both houses of Congress to the GOP. Now Truman, known as a lackluster campaigner, faced an uphill battle against Republican Thomas Dewey, the popular governor of New York. Every poll, every journalist, and even Bess Truman, the president's wife of 28 years, predicted that Truman would lose by a landslide. But Harry Truman would not give up.

The president began an unofficial campaign early in June, during a cross-country train trip to the University of California at Berkeley, where he was scheduled to receive an honorary degree. Along the way, Truman made a series of what came to be known as whistlestops -- quick stopovers in cities and towns along the path of the railroad. At each whistlestop, Truman made a brief public appearance, often speaking to crowds from the back of the train.

The whistlestop tour proved an unexpected success. During the trip west, a new Harry Truman emerged, one who spoke casually, yet confidently, one who relaxed in front of a crowd. The president smiled and laughed. He introduced his family to audiences, so people got to know him as a family man. And he peppered the Republican Congress with accusations of laziness, incompetence, and bias toward the rich and influential. People loved the new Truman, yet he returned to Washington weeks later, still an underdog.

In his nomination speech at the Democratic national convention, held in Philadelphia that July, Truman rallied a weary crowd by hammering the Republicans with the charge that their 1948 platform was built only for the purposes of the election. He vowed to call Congress into a special session to give Republicans a chance to make good on their campaign pledges. He also promised a Democratic victory.

The Democratic party had problems of its own. Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's former vice-president and secretary of commerce, had left the Democrats to run as the Progressive party candidate. His candidacy threatened to draw some traditional Democratic voters -- liberals and African Americans -- away from Truman. Conservative Southerners, angered at Truman's support for civil rights, split from the Democrats after the convention to form the States' Rights Democratic party, with Strom Thurmond as their candidate. The defections, from the right and the left, meant trouble for Truman.

The Republicans chose New York governor Thomas E. Dewey as their candidate. Confident, handsome, and a polished public speaker, Dewey had run as the Republican presidential candidate four years before, losing to the revered Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But Harry Truman was no FDR. Dewey seemed capable of losing the election only by shooting himself in the foot.

When the official phase of Truman's 1948 campaign began, the president repeated the whistlestop strategy he had honed on his trip to California in the spring. He blasted the Republicans in speech after speech, telling voters that Dewey and the GOP wanted to dismantle Roosevelt's New Deal and make America a nation by the rich and for the rich. "Give 'em hell, Harry" became the battle cry of his supporters.

Meanwhile, Dewey focused on looking good, speaking in platitudes, and being inoffensive. And his strategy seemed to be working. Just days before the election, the media still gave him a big edge. Some of his aides had even bought houses in Washington, D.C., anticipating work in a Thomas Dewey White House.

On the evening of the election, November 2, Truman stepped out of the spotlight, retiring to a hotel suite in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. He ate dinner, had a drink, and went to bed early. At midnight, an aide awakened Truman to tell him that he was ahead, but still expected to lose. At 4 a.m., the president was awakened again. This time, he found his lead growing, not shrinking as expected. It seemed that the impossible -- a Truman victory -- was about to happen.

At just after 10 a.m., Thomas Dewey conceded defeat. Harry Truman had refused to surrender, and he had engineered the greatest upset in the history of American politics. But for Truman, perhaps the most triumphant moment of 1948 was yet to come. On his way back to Washington by train, Truman was handed a copy of the November 3 Chicago Tribune . "Dewey Defeats Truman," the headline read. As photographers' flashbulbs exploded, a beaming Truman held the paper aloft. The headline -- and the campaign of 1948 -- would become political legend.

And from the Library:

How did he do it? His civil rights program attracted black and liberal voters. Farmers rewarded his backing of price supports and other benefits. Labor backed his attacks on the Republican's anti-union record. Urban machines delivered the cities. And despite the defection of the "Dixiecrats," he still held on to several Southern states.

Now, Truman is my favorite president, so I am biased. (I'm not saying he was perfect, mind you - he wasn't, and even he knew it.) But there are parallels in Truman's story that give me hope.

He was a blunt, honest, and plainspoken man who didn't hold back or mince his words.

The publishers and columnists and MSM didn't like him.

In his 1940 successful Senate bid, he had no campaign funds or party support.

He had a similar agenda (to JRE) as President, known as the "Fair Deal" and saw the bias toward the rich and influential - a country by the rich for the rich - essentially, the Two Americas.

He took his campaign to the regular people via his whistlestop tours; sort of like Small Change for Big Change.

He ran against a popular New York politician that the MSM were sure would win and to whom they gave a big edge.

Every poll, every journalist, thought he would lose in a landslide, but he wouldn't give up.

So to me, viewing this in a different light, I have to say regarding our guy JRE - it AIN'T over til it's over.

Here are the reference links if you like:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/ 33_truman/index.html

Again, my apologies for length and going wonky on y'all again...

--poligirl

p.s. yes, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an Edwards supporter

Crossing That Partisanship Border: Can It Be Done?

Well. There certainly are a lot of people talking about “amnesty” these days, and I’m reasonably certain that most of them don’t really understand the term; they’re just parroting the right-wing talking heads, Lou Dobbs, and a few not-so-distinguished members of Congress. So perhaps I should try and explain to them so they might understand what the word “amnesty” actually does mean; ya know, for those who don’t “do” 10-dollar words.

According to my dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, circa 2001, the word “amnesty” means “a general pardon, especially for political offenses.” Did you all get that? Lou? Rush? Senator DeMint (R-SC)? Republican presidential candidates? (Except for Senator McCain (R-AZ) of course.) It does not mean forgiving a bunch of criminals and letting them stay here and feed off of our welfare programs, etc… That’s what they’re doing right now without the bill. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) probably said it the best this past Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos; he stated that it would bring the 12 million illegal immigrants under the law.

Yeah, that’s right, UNDER THE LAW; it will force them to have to obey our laws, pay a fine for their political crime, learn English, pay into the tax system, the Social Security system, etc… In other words, no more free ride for them; plus, in exchange, they won’t be exploited by some rather nefarious people that happen to be citizens of THIS country. It’s a win-win situation.

And it’s either put them under the law or nothing; anyone who’s ignorant enough to think that we would actually be able to round up 12 million people and deport them is off their rocker and may seriously need to have their head examined. How do we find them? And IF we do, how do we afford to round them up and deport them all? The people advocating against this bill I don’t think truly understand what they are talking about. They haven’t quite thought it all the way through to the bigger picture.

A political crime. Hmmm… A political crime is a lesser crime than Scooter Libby’s crime. Rush Limbaugh has committed far more serious crimes and he’s still here (as much as I wish we could deport him…) A political crime is a lesser one than getting pulled over for speeding; think about that for a moment; most of us are guiltier of far worse crimes than the people who, simply and without permission, crossed the border to find a better life here. Sure, there are some bad apples, no more so than in any other group of people in this country, and those illegal bad apples will be deported, unlike our own bad apples.

The new immigration bill being revived, thank God, is going to get a second chance to pass the yahoo squad of idiots named above, plus a few other notable yahoos from both political affiliations. And I can tell you this, I am going to get some major heat for this column from my party too, but ya know what, this bill, this immigration bill, is an example of people from both political affiliations working across the aisle, giving and taking, (just like New Dogs), and crafting a bill that encompassed an acceptable compromise. I’ve said it before - there is no such thing as a perfect bill – no such thing. Most of the people fighting tooth and dagger against this bill have no sense of history and perhaps a twinge of racism in them as well – they don’t want to beef up the Canadian border, where some of the September 11th hijackers crossed, they want to beef up Mexico only. They’ve got no problem with Russian mail order brides, but heaven forbid we have Mexicans living among us en masse.

And the bill HAS the “beef up” the borders components in it; try reading the damn bill. And seriously folks, I don’t know how many of you have actually done this, but hiking in the hot damn desert for miles and miles and possibly having to make a run for it or packing 25 people into a small van for a long ride – these are probably not gonna be the ways of choice for major terrorists to get through – most of them have at least minor standards. And luggage.

It’s not like we haven’t had this problem before either; we as a people have never been terrifically welcoming to other groups, ethnic or religious; this is just another one of those times in our history where our, ahem, bias is showing (and that’s the kind b-word, not the original one I thought of.) And like Senator Graham said Sunday - this is it, this is the last chance for a long time; if we don’t get this done NOW, that 12 million will still be hear illegally and we will be up to 20 million in no time. Is that what the aforementioned idiot squad wants? There will not be a Republican immigration bill passed. There will not be a Democratic immigration bill passed. The only hope for an immigration bill IS this bipartisan effort. Period.

I feel terrible for guys like Senators Graham and McCain, who seem to be taking most of the heat (at least from their party and in the public) for this bill. Heaven forbid they (gasp) work with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)? Good God! He’s a Democrat! How could they possibly want to make a law if it includes that devil Kennedy? And how can a law that Ted Kennedy has his hands in possibly be good?

Our big problem is that since bitter partisanship has dug its heels into our national psyche, we can’t see past “my” way or “their” way; we just see “us” and “them”; we don’t seem to want middle ground. People complain that there is gridlock in Congress, this is precisely why; no one in this country really wants us to unite, people only want to divide us, and those people are doing a hell of a good job. And the few that dare try to be uniters in this time of apocalyptical partisanship get trashed up and down by their own party and the MSM for trying to do so; controversy always got ratings and most regular people don’t understand the intricacies of legislation enough to appreciate a good, solid pragmatic compromise.

Let me give you a little American history lesson kids. Most of the laws in this country have been passed in bipartisan fashion. Once upon a time, the members of Congress, as partisan as they were, still understood the value and virtue of a well-made law that both sides could agree upon. They understood what the word “compromise” truly meant. The parties and Congress were not “at war” with each other. Ted Kennedy has been in Congress long enough to remember those days; McCain may even remember, though probably not from his days in Congress; but Rush, Jim DeMint, even Lou Dobbs – they were just young kids back then and possibly did not grasp what was going on politically. But age is no real excuse, seeing that age doesn’t factor in with Lindsey Graham - even young Mr. “Is this Watergate or Peyton Place” gets it - and he’s come a long way since he uttered those words. Now let’s hope the rest of them can find their way across that rabidly partisan border. Here’s to New Dog Politics! God Bless ‘em!

My Random Thoughts: 11 June 2007: Joe Gets 5 for Fighting

Ok. It’s official. Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) has made it into the penalty box; I think at minimum five for fighting, or at least for trying to instigate a fight; and he may get traded this time. His remarks about Iran on Face The Nation are not only irresponsible and reckless, but are fairly naïve. Lieberman’s bravado rhetoric shines a bright light on just how little he knows about the Middle East. It almost seems as though he is lumping Iran in with Iraq and the rest of the Middle Eastern countries; this is one of the dreadful mistakes we made in regards to Iraq, yet here’s Joe spouting a “wash, rinse, repeat” philosophy yet clearly skipping the “rinse” phase.

I believe that intelligence on Iran is considered sketchy at best, but apparently not too sketchy for good ole Jostlin’ Joe. I’m not sure whether he’s just trying to match his Republican buddies bravado in preparation for becoming one of them, or if he’s listening a little too hard to special interests, or if he seriously thinks that adding yet another country to the list of countries we are at war with is a good thing. I have no idea other than the man has seriously lost his senses. He should go over to Rudy Giuliani’s (R-NY) house and borrow some of the books Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) sent to Rudy a few weeks ago so he could brush up on the Middle East. I agree with the anonymous blog commenter I once quoted in this column – watching Joe Lieberman now is akin to watching your favorite uncle succumb to Alzheimer’s.

Speaking of Rudy Giuliani, here’s my rundown of the Republican debates that took place last Tuesday on CNN.

I think Senator John McCain (R-AZ) held up really well; not being the front-runner is a better place for him to be; he comes across as more genuine. He also had the cajones to stand up and hold his own on the current Immigration Bill, in spite of the fervor against it, whipped into a frenzy by the hard-core conservatives. An act of political courage that was; kudos to you Senator McCain.

Rudy did ok, but so far I believe this was his worst showing. His decision to embrace his personal views is commendable in that crowd, and he had the line of the evening when the thunder zapped the sound as he was asked about abortion. Made me wonder how many watching truly thought that it might be a sign from God not to go with Rudy?

And what was Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) trying to say with his non-sequitur/null set mumbo jumbo? I swear, at that moment I almost thought he seemed like one of us wonky Democrats. Of course, it took me a few seconds to realize that he didn’t really know what he was talking about or at the very least wasn’t phrasing it adequately, and trying to sound fancy-schmancy in that crowd probably didn’t do him well either. It probably just drove home the fact that he was from Massachusetts, home of Senator John Kerry, also a fancy-schmancy wonky.

Governor Tommy Thompson (R-WI) struggled a bit; I felt bad for him – his line about not sending Bush to the UN was funny, but the crowd took its time in giving him a laugh. Both Governor Jim Gilmore (R-VA) and Gov. Thompson suffered from what I think Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) suffers from: an easily recitative and always at-the-ready laundry list of accomplishments, and when they cite them (every time) they lack the charisma that a candidate needs to possess. It would be one thing if they were just tired once, but these guys do this every debate – that’s 3 times for Thompson and Gilmore, and twice for Richardson. I’m not saying these guys are bad guys; they just don’t have the aura we expect to see in a president.

Senator Sam Brownback’s (R-KS) speaking style is very soothing, easy to listen to; I don’t agree with him, but if my beliefs were similar to his, he would have my rapt attention. He just sounds very down to earth, very pragmatic. He’s got a likeability factor for me, though I would never vote for him.

And the same goes with Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR). He’s just so damn likeable. He seems like the great down home guy you want to hang out with and just talk to; he’s friendly, funny, and easy-going. If my beliefs were anywhere similar to his or Brownback’s, one of them would get my vote.

With this last debate, was Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) even there? He was almost off the radar for me. He seems to be caught in a web similar to Govs. Thompson and Gilmore – not much new to offer, not much charisma. He built that border fence, by God, and that’s what we know about him.

And oh, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), where do I start? He’s got a very pleasant manner about him – an easy speaking style, like Sen. Brownback, and his answer to what he would do with Bush made a lot of non-die-hard righties (and lefties) laugh heartily; and he was justified in that answer too. But the problem I have with Tancredo, and it really showed in this last debate, was he is pretty much a one-issue candidate. And he takes such a hard-line on immigration, especially from Mexico, that he almost sounds like he’s a bit racist – mind you – I’m NOT saying that he is, I’m just saying that his rhetoric almost makes him sound it. And being a one-issue candidate is not going to help him out much in the long run anyway.

I saved the best for last. Representative Ron Paul is the smartest man up on stage during these debates. He’s pretty articulate, but not enough to overwonk folks. And he knows what he’s talking about, especially in terms of the Middle East. As soon as he mentioned Mossadeq when Iran was being discussed, I knew he knew what was up. If the Republicans are smart, they will at the very least take a foreign policy tutorial from this guy – he knows. I wanted to stand up and cheer that there was actually a man on stage learned in the Middle East, and not taught by simply military service, or September 11th, but a guy who had actually gone out of his way to do some studying up on the area and all of its complexities. God bless Ron Paul – he may be able to salvage the GOP.

But of course, nothing can help a party that really doesn’t want to be helped. Going back to tried and true hasn’t worked very well; you actually have a few brave members willing to work together to try and piece together decent laws and the hard-core partisans just shoot them down. Seriously, when I’m reading about a Republican chairman urging other Republicans in his state not to support their own Senator (Lindsey Graham R-SC) because of one issue – yeah - ONE, that’s when I’ve had about enough of partisanship. And don’t y’all get it? Most people aren’t fond of hard-core partisanship, and it’s fostered great cynicism about politics among the general public. Granted, there are other factors, but geez, can we let up on the partisanship? The GOP was heavily partisan from 1994 onward and now it’s biting them in the leg – you are losing guys like my pop – a loyal and active Republican for more than 40 years – yet your own hubris, having tasted the cup of power, won’t let you find your way back down to where the humbled masses stand on most issues. And that my friends is going to be why you lose in 2008.

And one other thing for tonight, regarding a possible no confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: Do you think for yourselves? Do you think about your country and what’s best for it? If you answered yes to either of these questions, then you have no choice but to stand up and symbolically vote no confidence. Of course, that is, unless you think Alberto Gonzales is doing a great job, lying and all. If it’s acceptable to you that end runs were made around a sitting Attorney General while he was almost incapacitated in the hospital. If you thought Gonzales’s testimony was really believable in Congress (and we all know it wasn’t.) I know it sucks to be between the dilemma of becoming a circular firing squad or just mere lemmings of your party – I’m a Democrat for crying out loud! But you guys need to cowboy up this time; we know you like political theater – you all perfected it for roughly 12 years, and yeah, it sucks to be on the other end, but you guys can rise above it if you can find your political courage.

You know, Republicans, being in the Senate IS a tough job, and sometimes you have to do tough things. And your job is partly political – you all know this – hell, y’all exercised it with impunity while you were in charge; don’t prove to the world that you’re hypocrites now. And a vote against cloture is the same thing as a vote of confidence in Gonzales. A “No” vote on cloture says you think that what Gonzales is doing is acceptable. You want to win an election, but you can’t seem to stop loving Bush, his cronies, and his policies; and I don’t need to remind you - I’m sure you know where his poll numbers are. Besides that fact, what did George W. Bush ever do for you? Dragged your entire party down the toilet with his idiot policies and advisors like Gonzales, he did; but you still love him; just like the little obedient servants you are. I guess the saying is true: Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line.

Speaking of hypocritical, didn’t you guys impeach a sitting president for lying under oath and obstructing justice in a civil lawsuit based upon an extramarital affair? But Gonzales, his crimes are ok in your opinion? And so are Scooter Libby’s? And you all wonder why you are so closely associated with a “culture of corruption?” Sure there are 2 Dems in ethics trouble – 1 indicted and 1 being investigated, but 2 is nothing compared to the 9 Republicans (from Congress to staff to White House) who have already plead guilty, been indicted, or were convicted. In addition to those 9, there are at least 7 more Republican members of Congress who are currently under investigation. So you all go give Gonzales his free pass and Libby a “Get Out of Jail” free card; it’ll give the oppo plenty of ammunition going into 2008. Possibly even might be like shooting fish in a barrel – fun for me, bad for the fish.

And my wrap up – yep, that’d be the Angels and the Red Sox on top of their divisions – best 2 teams in baseball… And oh yeah, the Stanley Cup will be residing in Southern California until at least next year… Congrats to our Ducks! And it looks like I may be able to play Fantasy Football again this year (last year was the first I’ve missed since 1995.) I pay to play on ESPN – I like high-level competition, so if anyone wants to be in a league, lemme know, my user name is manihi on ESPN. I warn you though – I have 4 league championships to my name. ;D

Until next time! Adieu!

My Random Thoughts: 04 June 2007: May The Force Be With You

It’s time again for my monthly awards in Brilliance in Rhetoric so let’s start there. Of course, “brilliance” depending on the quote, can be tongue-in-cheek. Again, Madden Rules apply. So here are the winners for May.

Honorable Mention:

To Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM), who very well may have lost New England as well as New York with this little paradox: “My favorite team has always been the Red Sox. I’m also a Yankees fan…” Ouch!

To Senator John McCain (R-AZ), commenting on Governor Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) bashing of the Senate’s new immigration bill as constituting “amnesty”, in spite of the fact that Gov. Romney supported a similar yet less restrictive Senate bill a mere two years ago on the basis that that one was not “amnesty”. Of this, Senator McCain said: “Maybe I should wait a few weeks and see if [Romney’s position] changes.”

Runner Up:

To Aasif Mandvi of The Daily Show, doing a riff on one of President Reagan’s classic lines when commenting about the “sado-optimist”-heavy rhetoric during the first Republican debate: “It’s midnight in America, Jon.”

Finally, May’s Best In Show:

To the unnamed Republican on a short hop-flight back to D.C. from South Carolina following the Republican debate there last month. As noted by Republican political consultant Tucker Eskew in The State (a South Carolina newspaper), in addition to himself, there were several prominent Republicans packed onto the small plane, including four of the presidential candidates, South Carolina’s own two Senators, and two high-level strategists from other campaigns. Said the unnamed Republican (one of the above as reported by Eskew): “You could really clean up American politics with one plane crash.”

Also in the news, the CNN Democratic Party debate was this past evening, so here’s my take: I think Edwards, Obama, and Biden did much better this time around than in the first. Edwards (and yes, I’m biased) again injected substance into his answers, only this time, it prompted some actual issue discussions. He got scrappy with a few of his compadres and I believe necessarily so. I thought he was very strong in this debate. He needed to distinguish himself and he did that marvelously last night.

I also disagree somewhat with the assessment that Hillary gave about the differences being very few amongst the Dems and more apparent between the Dems and the Repubs. First off, in very generalistic terms, that’s a “no duh” statement. Secondly, that’s sort of changing the subject to a viewpoint that benefits Hillary the most. Essentially, she is taking some flak from Dems about some of her positions, especially on the War in Iraq, so she needs to point out that we Dems are all one big family; she needs that friendly cloak. And her statement, while it in and of itself is true, does not mean that there are not bona fide differences between the Democratic candidates. In order for the Democratic voters to pick the best candidate for them, these differences need to be shown. Unfortunately for Hillary, she is forced to use the past, her husband, and platitudes to overcome her deficiencies amongst Democrats, which does not bode remarkably well for a presidential candidate.

Obama legitimately held his own tonight; gone was the greenness of the first debate. He dealt with criticisms well, and did not get completely dressed down as he was during the first debate. And although he is starting to put together plans, he still speaks mostly in platitudes.

Biden was forceful, and while he was on the wrong side of some of the issues for many of the rank-and-file Dems, he was knowledgeable and spoke like a true statesman last night. He was blunt and forceful in getting his points across and made some very good ones.

Dodd, for me, impressed me more tonight than he has so far in the race. He had his ideas, which are in line with much of the base, and he articulated them with strength, and that’s one thing I’ve not seen him do until tonight.

Richardson still doesn’t look or sound too good. Unfortunately for him, although he does have the credentials, as far as form and delivery, he just doesn’t have that impact that many of the others do – that presidential “aura” if you will…

Again, Gravel and Kucinich seemed to be largely on the outskirts, both in physical positioning as well as in views. They both made some good points, but in all, I felt they were looked at only in terms of comic relief. And CNN could’ve been a bit better with time in terms of speaking – these two guys could’ve possibly benefited from a bit more time. Very differing views are essential in the Democratic Party; we are the big tent party…

So there you go. I hope to have commentary on this Tuesday’s Republican debate up soon afterwards as well.

On the subject of the new immigration bill that’s being discussed, criticized, and basically bad-mouthed by folks in both parties, here’s my view. This is a good bill. This is not a perfect bill. There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect bill seeing that there are at least two parties with members who have varying degrees of viewpoints as well as an electorate with the same, if not even more, varying degrees of opinion. I mean, come on folks, what exactly is the definition of a “perfect” bill on immigration? That question will get a plethora of answers, most differing a little at the very least.

I think the 12 Senators got it as right as they could, and they did it exactly the way laws should be made – a coming together by members of both parties in serious meetings over several weeks, discussing their views and constituent stories and hammering out a bill that encompasses a compromise palatable to those on both sides. That’s working across the aisle; that’s bipartisanship. That’s compromise – there is no such thing as a one-sided compromise.

Everyone (except the 12) seems to want to pick on any flaws in this bill, but I certainly didn’t see the critics putting serious effort into any other immigration bill. Not to mention, like I said before, there is no such thing as a perfect bill: no such thing. And I think in terms of immigration, this may be as close to perfect as it gets; bravo to the 12 for their valiant attempt to seriously tackle a very tough and divisive issue. It’s right along the vein of my New Dog Politics philosophy; I would’ve nuanced it down a bit further, but with the time constraints and the fact that something needed to get done ASAP, this by all means was a good effort in terms of viewing it through the prism of the New Dog approach. Good pragmatic politics – God bless it.

And what’s up with the two Senators from Oklahoma? They seem to be on a warpath, though not a terrifically advisable one methinks. One, Senator James Inhofe (R), thinks that global warming is a complete hoax foisted on the public by Vice President Al Gore and a bunch of scientists with intentions of a dubious nature. The other, Senator Tom Coburn (R), blocked a simple senate resolution honoring environmental pioneer Rachel Carson, who would’ve turned 100 in late May. These types of resolutions are approved all the time in the Senate, and Rachel Carson was one of the first people to bring attention to the environment through her book The Silent Spring. Though her book was about the dangers of the pesticide DDT (which was banned as a result), recently the World Health Organization approved it for use indoors to combat malaria. Seizing on this, Senator Coburn believes Carson created an “unscientific” (sic) bias against the cancer-causing agent and that this hysteria within the environmental movement caused millions of deaths in the developing world. It’s so nice to see that Senator Coburn finally cares about those folks in developing countries, now maybe we can do something about the overwhelming poverty and genocide happening in them as we speak. And Oklahoma – what’s with your Senators? Both of them seem rabidly anti-environmentalist - not just non, but anti. What’s going on there in the heartland?

Also, I have decided to name this presidency the “Mistakes Were Made” Presidency. Blame was assigned to everyone but it, and I believe we will be haunted by its doings for years to come. Lord let’s hope for something better this next time…

On another topic, I watched the tributes to Star Wars that were run last week on the History Channel. I loved the movies, from seeing the first one in the big theater (Big Newport) when I was a kid, to seeing the prequels in the theater as an adult. Star Wars was the first movie to knock my socks off, and I did see the inherent good versus evil philosophy played out in it, even back then. But in watching the Star Wars: The Legacy History Channel special, I was blown away by just how deeply rooted the story was in many things including past history, philosophy, literature, religion, mythology, etc… It was a learning experience – even for someone who like me has seen the movies an umpteen million times a piece. Kudos to George Lucas for his innovative nature and love of storytelling in a way that was much more layered than I could’ve ever imagined. Bravo to you sir!

One last aside – how ‘bout those Angels and Red Sox – still tops of the AL West and AL East respectively! And hey, did I mention that the Ducks are leading the Stanley Cup Playoffs 2 games to 1 over Ottawa. My my, I AM a happy girl… :D

Well folks, that’s it for this time! See you soon! Ma’assalama!