Winston Smith (funny!) in the comments got me thinking:
Like Chris Christie, George W Bush was a trainwreck of a leader: a dangerous combination of hubris, bombast, and stunning incompetence.
The problem liberals and Democrats faced with Bush wasn't documenting his many, many flaws and catching his many, many contradictions and hypocrisies. The problem was introducing this portrait of Bush into the mainstream.
9/11 provided a suit of armor for Bush that he wore for a good, long time. He was able to start a war with a country that was never a threat to us, fail to capture the mastermind of the worst terror attack in US history, push an insane package of tax gifts for the wealthy, destroy the environment, and still get reelected - all because the media refused to see him as he really was.
It was only a matter of time before the entire thing came crashing down, but the media needed a catalyst; a failure so catastrophic that they couldn't help but change their views of Bush. Katrina was that catalyst. Because it was a disaster so unprecedented in scale, and because Bush's response was so staggeringly inept and uncaring, the punditocracy was forced to bring their perceptions of Bush in line with the reality of Bush.
Looking at history, it is very tempting to draw the parallel to Christie. The Great Recession is his 9/11; it shields him from real scrutiny of his foolish behavior and despicable policies. All we have to do is wait for some major screw up to become his Katrina and undo him. And maybe hope it happens early enough to unseat him in three years. I find myself wondering if this fiasco with Bret Schundler could possibly qualify.
But now I realize that I've been making a huge mistake. Because the real lesson to be learned from the Bush years is that you can not assume good faith on the part of a man who has none.
Too many Democrats voted for the original Bush tax cuts, which gave him cover to cut even more in 2003. Too many Democrats voted for the Iraqi War resolution, which Bush abused by starting a war before weapons inspectors had finished their job. Too many Democrats negotiated with Bush on No Child Left Behind, which became quite possibly the largest unfunded mandate in American history (let alone an education abomination).
Now that pattern is repeating here in New Jersey. Cory Booker, a man who should be leading the loyal opposition as a presumptive gubernatorial candidate in 2013, stands next to Christie and supports his insane property tax cap that will decimate cities and towns like Newark. Steve Sweeney, who should be leading a forceful legislative defense of our towns, our schools, our taxpayers, and our public servants, poses side-by-side with the governor and abets him in pushing a tax cap that is even worse than the one the governor originally proposed.
I believe Booker and Sweeney are decent, honorable men who want to return the Democrats to power. But they have made a strategic blunder of epic proportions. They must learn the lesson of the Bush years: fight Christie early, fight him often, and don't assume he is as honorable as you are.
Even if they think a tax cap is good policy (I don't, because it does nothing to address the real cost drivers and regressive taxes that are killing this state), it is unacceptable for our Democratic leaders to campaign side-by-side with Christie on an issue where they are adamantly opposed by the Democratic base. It is unacceptable for him to set the terms of a cap. It is unacceptable to stand idly by while he mischaracterizes both Democratic positions and his own policies.
The only thing their bipartisan show will gain them is a swift kick in the teeth whenever it suits Christie's purposes. He has shown that he will throw even his closest allies under a school bus whenever it serves his political agenda or his ego.
Had national Democrats stood on principle in Bush's first term, they would have had a much better chance of installing John Kerry in the White House. They would have had a much better chance of having a competent director of FEMA in place when Katrina made landfall. They could have presided over a faster withdrawal from Iraq. Many people quite literally died because the Democrats fell in line too easily behind Bush.
The stakes are smaller here in New Jersey, but the concept holds. Democrats should not allow our state's schools to be destroyed, our economy to be left in tatters, our middle-class homeowners to be taxed out of their homes, our AIDS patients left to die, our state's environment to be ravaged, our towns to be cut adrift, and our public servants to be vilified because we could muster up little better than a watery resistance to Christie's incompetence and incoherence.
This fiasco with Schundler was not Christie's Katrina. We can't wait for his Katrina; we must oppose him NOW. He has proven that he can't be trusted, and we must never, ever forget that.
"I certainly in my legislative district feel comfortable making the case healthcare reform - for the reform the House adopted," Wisniewski added. "I believe John Adler made the right decision for his district. He knows his district."
Obviously, Wisnewski wants us to understand this as just another vote. It's not unusual, after all, to see members feel pressure. Democrats have picked up Republican votes in swing districts this way from time to time. So we hear that it is just necessary politics, and it's the voters' fault after all. Adler is admirable for siding with the Republicans in his district. Even if Wisnewski doesn't really believe this, he surely thinks his job to publicly support his incumbents. Political parties, after all, are as much about a group gathering and holding onto power as they are about advancing some noble principles.
But principles do come into it, especially for ordinary voters and the activists who make up "the base." The Democratic base is very unhappy with John Adler, because this wasn't just another vote. We all know the Republicans decided to oppose a moderate bill to destroy Barack Obama's Presidency and the Democratic Congress, openly admitting that they aimed to make it his "Waterloo." Meanwhile, Democrats, as Ted Kennedy's beautiful memoir reminded us, have been fighting for universal health care for over a generation, and Obama and Adler promised health care reform in their campaigns. In this context, for Adler to join the other side and attack the bill was an astonishing betrayal. (Let me say, too, that his announcements in both votes came while we know frantic negotiations with Stupak et al. to round up votes were still going on; I believe Adler was not "released" by leadership.)
Perhaps Wisniewski would think we're worrying too much about a bill, that after all, passed anyway. But I would remind him, and any other party leaders, of the tremendous disasters of the last decade. You see, to the people who vote and volunteer Democratic, from 2000-2008, and even earlier, the disasters were not solely due to Republicans. Democrats acquiesced as Republicans lead us into those disasters. Some Democrats in Congress voted to invade Iraq, not only due to their "districts" but many because they thought it would help their presidential campaigns! Some Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts that wrecked our finances. Some Democrats voted to dismantle the system of financial regulation that had served us since the New Deal (I include the 1990s votes here) returning us to the pre-FDR world of financial panics every decade. Democrats voted to curtail civil liberties. They agreed to torture detainees and bypass the court system. In short, Republican administrations have easily found Democrats to go along with every lousy, disastrous, extreme conservative idea they could dream up. (Only on privatizing Social Security in 2005 did Nancy Pelosi finally keep Democrats together to say no, or rather, "Never. Is never good enough for you?")
And so, I fear, and I suspect many in the base fear, that John Adler has shown that the lessons he learned from the Bush (43) Administration is that the cowardly Democrats, the Democrats who voted with the conservatives, were the smart ones. This is why, I think, Adler's no vote on health care reform is even worse than a vote to abandon one core principle and undermine his party's President. if John Adler remains in Congress long enough, and finds himself in Congress with a Republican Administration, for all I know he'll be voting to invade Iran, end the inheritance tax, deregulate the banks, or give Social Security to Wall Street. It could be any crazy conservative idea, because "It's the right thing for his district." I definitely don't want Republican Jon Runyan to win. I'm even putting my time into that. But the truth is, I no longer really want Adler to win.
Blue Jersey readers, what do you think? Am I too harsh? Do you feel otherwise? Should Wisniewski defend Adler's vote?
The Honorable Governor Chris Christie says, "we must share the pain." He wants to cut $850 Million from the state education budget. He needs to do this to support a tax cut of $900 Million to people who make over $400,000 per year.
What pain is he asking the poor suffering masses who make over $400,000 per year to share? The pain of sunburn from a few extra days at the beach on the French Riveria? A few more days jetlagged? An additional hangover?
But Christie's priorities don't surprise me. He is a Republican. His economic policies are the same failed economic policies of Hoover, Reagan, and George W. Bush. We need to listen to Keynes, Daly, Stiglitz, and Krugman.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush, turned up to a fundraiser for Republican gubernatorial nominee Chris Christie tonight.
"He was invited by one of the host committee members," said Christie spokeswoman Maria Comella.
The host committee member reached out to Bush directly and did not check with the Christie campaign.
I love the way the story is written. They make it sound like Jeb Bush just turned up at the fundraiser, SURPRISE!
A few things. First, I flat out do not believe that you invite the brother of the former President/former Governor in his own right without running it by the campaign. Second, not checking doesn't mean they didn't notify the campaign of Bush's potential attendance. I can't believe that Jeb Bush just walks into a fundraiser by himself without the campaign knowing and preparing. And it doesn't matter who invited him, he was there for Christie. By this measure, if it was George Bush they'd probably say the parking attendant brought him.
I am doing research on my district (CD7) and am looking for articles and or quotes showing Leonard Lance supporting Bush and his policies. I'm having trouble finding anything directly linking him to supporting Bush, if anyone knows of anything or links to articles that you could direct me to would be great.
The economic policies of the Bush Administration are not unprecedented. Like Ronald Reagan, and John McCain should he succeed him, George W. Bush is dismantling the infrastructure put in place by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, James Earl Carter, and William Jefferson Clinton.
I expect my government to plan for the future and regulate corporate behavior the way I expect it to secure the borders, protect the air, water, and natural resources, and provide police protection from muggers, rapists, and criminals. However, George Bush, and John McCain, like Herbert Hoover, believe that "Rugged Individualism" means not "one nation under God" but "every man for himself" and that government interference in the economy is "socialism." Hoover spoke eloquently on the campaign trail in 1928, saying "Our country has become the land of opportunity ... not merely because of the wealth of its resources and industry, but because of freedom of initiative and enterprise."
Unfortunately however, the reality of that Republican Administration fell short of ideal when the excesses of the non-regulated 1920's created the Great Depression. Hoover, personally unaffected by the Depression, stood rigid and wooden, a slave to his beliefs and misconceptions, unwilling and unable to help his fellow citizens.
Similarly, Bush stood idly by in the face of Hurricane Katrina, impotent, unable to do anything but pat his well-connected friend, the head of FEMA, on the back and say 'Heck of a job'. And today he does nothing to spur the development of Clean Energy - Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Marine Current, etc., choosing instead to beg the Saudis to produce more oil.
We Americans, in the midst of The Great Depression, knew better than elect a laissez-faire Republican to the White House in 1932. Will we know better today?
Before reading this diary, consider what role you think a U.S. senator should have in securing federal money for her or his state. Should senators act as passive conduits for federal dollars and only allocate what is necessary for their state, or should they actively lobby for federal dollars for their state, using influence, power, and committee positions to secure this money -- especially when their state receives disproportionate amount of tax dollars in return from tax dollars sent to the federal government? No matter your political philosophy on this question, the fact is that New Jersey receives the least amount of federal tax dollars returned (scroll to New Jersey) from money sent to the federal government.
Currently, New Jersey is dead last in terms of tax dollar expenditures to the federal government vs. tax dollars returned. In other words, as The Tax Foundation states
New Jersey taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than any other state.
On one hand, this is somewhat understandable. The federal income tax relies on progressive system of taxation, which means those with higher income pay a higher percentage of net income, in turn, to the government. New Jersey consistently ranks as one of the richest states in the country, so there would be some structural fiscal reasons why a state with such high income residents would pay more to the government; that said, Maryland, one of the richest states in the country, is consistently in the top 20 for federal dollars returned on taxes, and Alaska, another rich state, also receives very high returns on taxes spent versus taxes returned.
This disproportionate amount of tax money returned to N.J. is a major reason why the state has such a problem with high property taxes. Many a policy expert and economist have stated that, if N.J. received more tax dollars back from the federal government, our property taxes and fiscal health could be bettered. According to one award-winning journalist
Even a small bump in federal money could help close an estimated $2 billion budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year, giving the legislature a potential source for property tax relief.
One could say, and there have been analysts who claim this, that the Republicans in Washington, when they were in power, were punishing N.J. for being such a Democratic state by not sending us federal money; but the disparity existed during the Clinton years into the Bush years, putting a hole in this theory of deliberate malfeasance. Both during the Clinton and the Bush years, the Fiscal Year Budget (FYB), which is then sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee, has been incredibly unkind to our state.
3.8m Jersey residents to get rebates to the tune of 3.2b
Bush signs, Menendez reacts:
I would have preferred the Senate's stronger original plan, which Republicans obstructed - it would have included more residents of high-cost of living states like ours, coverage for those who have lost their jobs, and assistance with the high costs of energy. Nevertheless, because of our efforts in the Senate, more than a million New Jersey seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans across the country will have access to rebates.
So what will you do with your stimulus check? An new I-pod? Pay some bills? A low-yield CD?
(Both our Senators sit on the Senate budget panel, so if any has the grapes to curtail Bush's spending priorities, it's them.)
Menendez:
(President Bush) is leaving behind a fiscal legacy of lost opportunity, lost priorities and lost values. Health care, homeland security, the environment and education are areas in which we should be investing, but those are four of the areas which the president has put on the chopping block. The fact is that while President Bush left out of this budget enormous costs like the war and fixing the Alternative Minimum tax, he will leave behind a mountain of debt for our children and grandchildren. As a member of the Budget Committee, I plan to stand up for the safety and well being of the families of our state and the nation in the face of this cynical budget proposal."
A few days ago, we heard that several of New Jersey's Republican Congressmen, fearing for their electoral lives in 2008, seem to be preparing to shift their positions on Iraq. Among those Congressmen is longtime Bush rubberstamp Jim Saxton (R-03).
When asked if Saxton has even considered changing his stance, [Press Secretary Jeff] Sagnip said it was "possible."
Such an election year conversion won't fool voters in the 3rd district. Because Jim Saxton has already demonstrated he has neither the judgment nor the leadership to be trusted when it comes to Iraq.
One of the most damning examples of Jim Saxton's failures as Congressman came in the run-up to the Iraq war. At the time, Saxton was a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Warfare & Capabilities (He still retains these positions). In those high-ranking positions, Jim Saxton had an obligation to ask the tough questions and do the kind of oversight that could have helped prevent the current debacle in Iraq.
Instead, Saxton was busy leading a crusade against France.
Recently, President Bush commuted the 30-month sentence of Scooter Libby, Vice-President Cheney's former Chief of Staff and an accomplished attorney. Libby had been convicted of lying to the grand jury. By commuting his sentence, the President ensured that Libby would serve no jail time. This is the same President who has presided over a Justice Department that prosecuted others when they lied before grand juries. In one such case, a person was sentenced to more months in prison than Libby. His sentence was not commuted by the President. When the imposition of punishment is based on caprice and political considerations rather than on the common good, our system of justice is undermined. When it is the President who is undermining our nation's system of justice, it is a national embarrassment.
Dubya misused the American Revolution in a July 4th address before members of the Air National Guard and their families in West Virginia, in an attempt to justify continuing the carnage in Iraq.
Once again he played the fear card, saying that "If we were to quit Iraq before the job is done, the terrorists we are fighting.... would follow us here, home," he said. Perhaps he hasn't heard about the recent car bombs in England and Scotland--after all, his staff does a very effective job in filtering out the facts his brain can't handle.
"For the security of our citizens, we must support the Iraqi government and we must defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq," said Bush, who still won't admit that al-Quaeda wasn't there before we invaded.
The president began by comparing today's American soldiers to those who fought in the Revolutionary War. "We give thanks for all the brave citizen-soldiers of our Continental Army who dropped pitchforks and took up muskets to fight for our freedom and liberty and independence," Bush said.
Wouldn't it be nice to welcome the President to New Jersey next Wednesday by having Assemblyman Reed Gusciora introduce his impeachment resolution in the state legislature that day?
From unreliable electronic voting machines and millions of uncounted ballots, to partisan election officials and 10 hour waits at the polls, it’s clear our electoral system is in dire need of an overhaul. To build a more just, secure and robust dem-ocracy, support the following 10-point Voters’ Bill of Rights:
1. Eliminate Rigged Voting Mechanisms — Hard Copy Paper Ballots are Most Reliable It’s demonstrated indisputably that no type of voting machine produced is “tamper-proof.” All mechanisms available today, whether voting by lever, computerized electronic machines, optical scan devices, even systems that offer “paper trail receipts” can record your vote as cast but actually vote for the other candidate in the tally — the final vote count. The only real tamper-proof system is voting by paper ballots with votes physically marked by the voter, and those votes tallied with non-partisan oversight conducted under oath with federal penalties for misconduct in the election vote counting. This must be our national standard for democracy.
2. Replace Partisan Oversight with Non-Partisan Election Commissions It’s time to overhaul our federal, state, and local election agencies to guarantee fair elections. We must replace the current system of partisan election administration, in which partisan secretaries of state, county clerks, election commissioners, and other partisan officials are able to issue rulings that favor their own political parties and themselves, with a non-partisan, independent system of running elections. We must end the practice of contracting out fundamental election functions, such as the maintenance of voter lists, to private corporations. We must also insure that independent internnational and domestic election observers are given full access to monitor our elections.
3. Celebrate Democracy: Make Election Day a National Holiday People should not be forced to choose between exercising their right to vote and getting to work on time. While the laws of 30 states guarantee the right to take time off from work to vote, many workers and employers are unaware of these laws. Holding national elections on a national holiday will greatly increase the number of available poll workers and polling places and increase overall turnout, while making it much easier for working Americans to go to the polls. Election Day is already a holiday in Puerto Rico in presidential election years, and many Puerto Ricans celebrate and make Election Day a fun and festive party with a purpose. It's time for the United States to follow Puerto Rico's lead.
4. Make it Easier to Vote Many citizens are discouraged from voting by unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and restrictions. We must simplify and rationalize voter registration so that no one is again disenfranchised for failing to check a superfluous box, as occurred this year in Florida, or for not using heavy enough paper, as nearly occurred in Ohio. We must require voter registrars to sign affidavits promising to submit any registrations in their possession in a timely manner. We must eliminate police intimidation, language, physical disability, extra-legal requirements of personal identification, and other barriers to voting. To ensure that all qualified voters are able to vote, we must follow the lead of states like Minnesota and Wisconsin by replacing restrictive voter residency requirements with same-day voter registration, allowing qualified voters to register at the polls on Election Day itself.
Our current system forces millions of voters to wait up to 10 hours to vote. This is unacceptable, and it disenfranchises those who cannot afford to wait. To increase access to the polls, all states must provide sufficient funding for enough early voting and election day polling places to guarantee smooth and speedy voting. To ensure equal access and minimize the wait at the polls, election authorities must allocate resources based upon the number of potential voters per precinct. We must put an end to the government-backed practice of allowing partisan activists to challenge the voting rights of individual voters at the polls. Instead, the government must invest in campaigns designed to educate voters about how they can exercise and protect their right to vote.
5. Count Every Vote! Voters must know that their vote will count and make a difference. Every recent presidential election has been marred by the discounting millions of spoiled, under-vote, over-vote, provisional and absentee ballots. This discounting of votes has disproportionately impacted people of color, especially African Americans, and is a fundamental voting rights and racial justice problem. Election officials must ensure that every voting precinct and wards is adequately staffed with sufficiently trained personnel and professional supervision; that old and unreliable voting machines are done away with; that absentee ballots are mailed with a sufficient time for delivery; that all ballots, including provisional ballots, are counted; and that provisional ballots count for statewide and federal contests regardless of where the vote is cast. Election officials should wait until after any recounts have been completed to provide final certification of election results.
6. Re-Enfranchise Ex-Felons & Non-Felons The permanent disenfranchisement of former felons, a practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms, is an unreasonable and dangerous penalty that weakens our democracy by creating a subclass of four million excluded American citizens. The practice has also been used to purge voter lists of hundreds of thousands of citizens never convicted of any felony. Because the criminal justice system disproportionately penalizes African American males, this disenfranchisement is racist in its impact and is constitutionally suspect. Those states that permanently disenfranchise felons (Florida, Virginia, Nebraska, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa, Alabama, and Arizona) must amend their laws and practices to restore full citizenship to ex-offenders.
7. IMPLEMENT INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING (IRV) AND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (PR) We must replace our current “first-past-the-post” system with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Unlike our current system, which forces voters to reject their preferred candidate in favor of a “lesser evil” who may have a better chance of defeating the candidate they most fear, IRV allows them to choose both. In this way, it eliminates the so-called “spoiler” and “wasted vote” effects and gives voters a more democratic set of choices. Under IRV, voters simply rank candidates in order of their preference (first, second, etc.). If a candidate wins a majority of first choice votes, that candidate is the winner. If no candidate gets a majority of first choices, the lowest vote-getting candidate is eliminated, and his/her votes are given to the candidates whom the supporters of the eliminated candidate chose as their second option. Counting continues until one candidate has received a majority. IRV therefore not only allows voters to voice their real preferences; it also ensures that the will of the true majority, not a mere plurality, produces the winner of each election. In addition, IRV makes it possible to conduct the runoff count without the need for a separate and expensive runoff election. Instant Runoff Voting is used successfully around the world, including Ireland, Australia, and most recently, San Francisco.
The right of representation belongs to all citizens. Our winner-take-all elections award representation to the largest factions and leave everyone else, often the majority, unrepresented. The winner-take-all system unnecessarily restricts choice, polarizes politics and limits political discourse. We must adopt Proportional Representation (PR) for legislative elections to ensure the fair representation of all voters. Millions of Democrats in Republican areas and Republicans in Democratic areas are unrepresented in our system, and the majority of Greens, Libertarians, and other independents are unrepresented at all levels of government. Our system should provide fair representation to all voters, in proportion to their numbers.
8. Replace Big Money Control With Public Financing and Equal Air-Time In a system where the amount of money a candidate spends is directly related to their likelihood of winning, it is not surprising that voters think politicians are more concerned with big campaign contributors than with individual voters. We must follow Maine's lead by establishing a nationwide system of full public financing for all ballot-qualified candidates. We must require the broadcasting corporations that license our public airwaves to provide air time for debates, and free time for all ballot-qualified candidates and parties.
9. Guarantee Equal Access to the Ballot and Debates In our current electoral system, independent parties such as the Greens and Libertarians face a host of barriers designed to limit voter choice and voice. Ballot access laws and debates specifically designed to exclude independent party candidates discourage voting and undermine the legitimacy of our elections. In most cases, the established parties have never themselves met the signature require-ments they impose on independent parties. We must eliminate prohibitive ballot access requirements, and replace the partisan Commission on Presidential Debates with a non-partisan Citizens Debate Commission.
10. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Statehood for the District of Columbia It is time to end the safe state/battleground state dichotomy and make all votes equal, no matter the state of the voter. We must amend the Federal Constitution to replace election of the President by the Electoral College with direct election by the voters. At the same time, for so long as the Electoral College persists, we must amend our state laws and constitutions to allocate each state's electors proportionately to the popular vote.
It’s also time to end the disenfranchisement of the over half million Americans who reside in the District of Columbia. DC residents deserve the same political rights enjoyed by citizens of our nation's fifty states, namely full voting representation in both houses of the U.S. Congress, as well as legislative, budgetary, and judicial sovereignty. Washington D.C. is the only existing majority African American federal jurisdiction, and the denial of DC voting rights is thus inherently racist. Furthermore, the denial of DC voting rights can’t be defended on the basis of population size; the majority white State of Wyoming has a smaller population. It’s time to grant statehood to the District of Columbia. North Jersey Impeach Group
117 Chestnut Drive • Wayne • NJ 07470•5639
Contact impeachthem@gmail.com
• info@impeachthem.com
George W. Bush says he believes in up-or-down votes. He proclaimed it shortly after his first inaugural, and included that belief in his 2005 State of the Union address, when he demanded that “every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.” A one-vote majority, says the President, should decide nominations and issues. He constantly talked about up-or-down votes in the Senate for the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N., for bills to ban gay marriages, to make it illegal to burn the flag, and almost every bill his administration proposed. His words were echoed by the Congressional leadership and by the evangelical fundamental Christian base. He disagrees with Senate rules, which require 60 votes to override a filibuster. The reason President Bush believes in the “up-or-down” theory of governance is because for most of his Administration he has had a Republican Congress willing to do whatever it takes to advance a neoconservative political and social agenda. Since President Bush believes in one-vote majorities, it shouldn’t have been a problem for him to accept a 238–194 vote in the House and a 63–37 vote in the Senate to allow medical researchers to use stem cells from embryos, with their donors’ consent, that would have been discarded by fertility clinics. About 400,000 frozen embryos are in clinics; a few will be “adopted” by mothers who have them implanted in their uteruses; most embryos will be thrown away. Embryonic stem cells are the basic building blocks of life, cells that will develop into any cell in the body, and are the key to learning more about life itself. Stem cell research could lead to cures for Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes, numerous cancers, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s. Nancy Reagan, whose husband’s last years were spent in the fog of Alzheimer’s, is a strong proponent of stem cell research. Almost seven months after his first inauguration, President Bush declared that the federal government would fund research only on stem cell lines that had already been developed, and not for any new ones. He equated the medical use of stem cells with murder, and threatened to veto any new legislation to expand stem cell research. His veto threats had worked on 141 other bills over a five and a half year period, as the Republican-controlled Congress meekly revised bills or eliminated them. This time, Congress—faced by the political reality that about 70 percent of Americans supported expanded stem cell research—didn’t buckle. Fifty House Republicans broke from the White House legislative controls; in the Senate, nineteen Republicans and all but one Democrat voted for the bill. The President renewed his veto threat. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) had asked the President, ”not to make the first veto of your presidency one that turns America backward on the party of scientific progress and limits the promise of medical miracles for generations to come.” Bill Frist—heart surgeon, Senate majority leader, and one of the most active voices in pushing the Bush–Cheney agenda—also opposed the veto. “Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available,” Dr. Frist said. But the president did veto the bill, and neither the House nor the Senate had the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto. The President’s veto, said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is a “shameful display of cruelty, hypocrisy, and ignorance.” Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said he thought the President was “captured by his own ideology and taking his ideology to an extreme.” Research, said Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) “will now continue in the private sector with insufficient funding and a lack of government oversight, all while millions of people wait for cures to devastating diseases. President Bush said in April 2002, “We have a moral imperative to protect the sanctity of life,” and continued to throw “sanctity of life” in almost every speech or comment about stem cell research. At the time he explained his veto, he declared the bill—approved by significantly more than an “up-or-down” vote—“crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.” If the President honestly believed in a “moral boundary” and the “sanctity of life,” he would not have exploited a couple of dozen “snowflake babies”—children born from implanted embryos—by using them as props in the East Room when he explained why he vetoed the bill. If George W. Bush understood moral boundaries and the sanctity of life, he would not have lied about the non-existent ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda or the weapons of mass destruction he claimed were in Iraq in order to launch an invasion that has cost more than 2,500 American lives and caused injuries, many life-threatening, to another 18,000, in addition to 50,000–70,000 civilian deaths. He would not have decided that the Geneva Accords didn’t apply to thousands of prisoners that his Administration confined in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and other prisons. If he had any kind of a “moral compass,” he would have allowed prisoners to have due process, to be treated humanely, and not be subjected to “renditions,” the transfer to secret prisons in countries that use torture. If this former non-combatant National Guard officer had any concern for humanity, he would not have ordered severe cuts in combat pay and family benefits for active duty military, proposed a $1.3 billion cut in veterans’ benefits, and an increase in health care costs, while also pushing for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans. If he believed in a moral administration, he would not have allowed Halliburton, the financial empire once run by Dick Cheney, to continue to get several multi-million dollar no-bid contracts in New Orleans and Iraq after being exposed for price gouging and fraudulent business practices. If George W. Bush understood the meaning of the “sanctity of life,” he would not have spent several minutes at a photo-op in Florida where he read “My Pet Goat” to children after being notified that the first plane had hit the Twin Towers. He would not have been embarrassingly slow and seemingly unconcerned to respond following the Sumatra–Andaman earthquake/tsunami in Southeast Asia or after Hurricane Katrina hit America’s Gulf Coast. He would not have disregarded the ubiquitous warnings from the scientific community about global warming and the multitudinous pleas to preserve and defend the environment and all of its life. He would not have diverted funds for disaster relief, and cut back on health and welfare needs. He would not have placed political cronies into senior administrative positions in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and then cut that agency’s funding for disaster response. If he believed in “morals,” he would have cut all ties with his good buddy, “Kenny Boy” Lay, whose company cheated thousands of employees out of their pensions, while the executives were living in luxury. If the President of the United States was concerned about “morals” and the “sanctity of life,” he would have condemned hunting and the gun lobby that was one of the primary contributors to his political campaigns. He would have condemned the spurious and vicious attacks upon Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2000 primary contest, and the Swift Boat attacks upon Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 general election. There is a lot that George W. Bush, who campaigned on promises to bring morality to the White House, could do to prove he is a moral leader, one who believes in the sanctity of life. But, his record, not his rhetoric, shows otherwise.
[Walter Brasch’s current books are America’s Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government’s Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights and ‘Unacceptable’: The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina. Both are available through amazon.com and other on-line sources. You may contact Dr. Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu]
(bump - this is really important kids. A sitting US Senator has reached out to us pajama wearing internet geeks to help frame a debate and get the media to pay attention to this. Let's help. - promoted by Media In Trouble)
Fortunately, today we have an opportunity to help answer that question. Let's partake in the political process as a team!
Over the weekend, Sen. Russ Feingold announced he was going to introduce a motion to censure the President. This is largely a symbolic gesture to ask the Congress to hold the President's feet to the fire over his blatant disregard for the law (see wiretapping, domestic and warrantless).
All you have to do is contact Sen. Lautenberg, and Sen. Menendez and ask them if they support Sen. Feingold's censure, if not why not, and if so have they made any plans to talk to the press about it.
Sen. Lautenberg:
(202) 224-3224
Sen. Menendez:
(202) 224-4744
While you are at it, you can call the rest of your Congresscritters (find them here, and ask them the same questions.
Below the fold are some talking points you can refer to on these exciting phone calls.
Once you do, report back here (in comments), and I will report back to Firedoglake and in the end, we should have a report about how all Congresscritters feel about Russ Feingold's maneuver. Of course, any congressfolk (or their authorized representatives that are reading this) can directly answer these questions in comments.
As Shakespeare's Sister reminds us, censuring a sitting President hasn't been accomplished since Jackson. I realize that like many other things these days, censuring Bush may require a pig and some anal unicorns to take flight but we can at least make a phone call to see if the forecast calls for swine.
(Every Senator needs to be put on the record about whether or not they support warrantless wiretapping in violation of the FISA Act, and whether they will holt the President accountable for violating our laws. - promoted by jmelli)
Update - March 12, 2006 at 23:05:36 EST by jmelli Firedoglake wants us all to call our Senators first thing Monday morning:
Your action steps: call both your Senators first thing in the morning and ask if they support Russ Feingold's censure proposal. If they don't, ask what their position is on the issue -- and why.
The more people we have calling, the more staffers in the offices start to realize that Feingold struck a political chord with a bunch of us in America. And then the more we continue to call, the more that message starts to sink in...and then some. Plus, it forces Senators to go on the record one way or the other, which is useful information for all of us to have.
Frank Lautenberg: (202) 224-3224, FAX (202) 228-4054 Bob Menendez: (202) 224-4744, FAX (202) 228-2197
We have to FLOOD their offices with phone calls, faxes, emails! They did not join Feingold in voting against the Patriot Act in the final vote, so they are obviously susceptible to GOP pressure or posturing for the next election.
A hand written fax can be effective, as well as a phone call.
Let us know what they say.
You can also call Feingold's office to thank him: Russ Feingold: (202) 224-5323
