The Supreme Court is once again considering the rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Arguments on both sides suggest the case to be a no-brainer.
All prisoners have a right and must be given access to full representation and all charges and supporting information brought against them. This is one of the cornerstones of any democratic society and a primary and significant difference between democracies and non-democracies. Without these rights, the ability to accurately determine guilt or innocence cannot be ensured.
A departure from this standard would only be another chink in the armor of our way of life. If we are fighting for democracy, we must ensure we hold ourselves to the highest standards, or we have already surrendered the battle. Justice without a fair trial is not justice at all, and is regularly practiced in non-democratic societies around the world. We should genuinely fight for and defend our founding democratic principles.
The Supreme Court has two choices: the right choice and the ideological choice. This decision is a defining moment for this Court and will not be forgotten by the history books of tomorrow nor the tyrants and despots of today.
UPDATE: This case has been thrown an important, if indirect curveball. According to new reports, Senate and House Intelligence Committee members of both parties were apparently briefed as early as 2002 about the CIA's use of waterboarding in detainee interrogation. While not directly related, it certainly enhances the necessity of detainee's receiving proper representation and fair treatment under the law. If the U.S. Congress can sign off on torture, federal courts should have the ability to review the cases.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
An Offer We Cannot Refuse
Someone has finally breathed new life into the Bush administration, and it has come for a most unlikely source: the Department of Defense. At last, an indication that someone on the inside is thinking clearly, speaking their made, willing to be honest with the people who sign their paychecks.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made an offer that I don't think anyone can refuse. In his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday, Secretary Gates commented that if the new Iraq war funding bill proposed by House Democrats, which would end funding of the war in July, is passed, he would be so short on funds that he would likely be forced to close at least part of the Pentagon in August or September, that he could not even issue paychecks to some employees.
Deal.
I think we have to take this offer, it might be the only one we get. The Iraq war has cost around $500 billion, (plus, of course, the 3,377 American troops killed and untold thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, many innocent bystanders) thus far (and could cost $1 trillion or even $2 trillion). Secretary Gates also just asked Congress to fund the Pentagon and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. Plus, I shouldn't have to mention that the Department of Defense has at the very least "augmented" the catastrophe in the Middle East if it is not the outright cause of the problems in the Middle East. This department has clearly been quite pricey for the shareholders, and I'm for as small a government as the next guy. Maybe shutting down for a month or two might do everybody a bit of good. Give everyone a chance to unwind, reflect, refocus and re-energize so they can start fresh in October and re-open (start?) the hunt for bin what's his face.
Secretary Gates, we humbly accept your offer.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made an offer that I don't think anyone can refuse. In his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday, Secretary Gates commented that if the new Iraq war funding bill proposed by House Democrats, which would end funding of the war in July, is passed, he would be so short on funds that he would likely be forced to close at least part of the Pentagon in August or September, that he could not even issue paychecks to some employees.
Deal.
I think we have to take this offer, it might be the only one we get. The Iraq war has cost around $500 billion, (plus, of course, the 3,377 American troops killed and untold thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, many innocent bystanders) thus far (and could cost $1 trillion or even $2 trillion). Secretary Gates also just asked Congress to fund the Pentagon and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. Plus, I shouldn't have to mention that the Department of Defense has at the very least "augmented" the catastrophe in the Middle East if it is not the outright cause of the problems in the Middle East. This department has clearly been quite pricey for the shareholders, and I'm for as small a government as the next guy. Maybe shutting down for a month or two might do everybody a bit of good. Give everyone a chance to unwind, reflect, refocus and re-energize so they can start fresh in October and re-open (start?) the hunt for bin what's his face.
Secretary Gates, we humbly accept your offer.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Time Is Now
Now is the time for Democrats to act. Now is the time for the Democrats to solidify themselves for years to come as the party of spine, the party of strong, committed decision-making, the party of honest assessment and perspective.
Many Republicans have begun to comment that they will have a decision on Iraq by “September.” September is four months away, four months more of decision-making time lost, of soldiers killed and maimed and families destroyed, four more months of a enormously unpopular and increasingly irrelevant president and minority in Congress setting the terms of the debate in this country. It is also four more months of this administration not only not being held accountable, but getting them closer to the date when they will never be held accountable.
A new strategy means making a new decision. When even President Bush decided a new strategy was needed, his decision was to offer more of the old strategy. He continues to do so. The President is the last person who wants to make a decision. He has offered every excuse in the book as to why no decision should be made. Republicans in Congress are equally happy to continue on the same path. If the 2008 elections rolled around with the same policy in place, there is still ample doubt in the minds of the electorate as to which party should be power. The Democrats have to be the party that finally makes a decision.
Setting aside the absurd Republican argument that timetables and benchmarks are “unpatriotic” and “don’t support the troops” and “embolden the enemy,” Democrats now have the opportunity to move forward, starting today, as the unambiguous, incontrovertible, indisputable, party of responsible, professional, mature, good governance. If they do not make the only decision, history will be no kinder to the Democrats as it will be to President Bush and his supporters.
The facts are in on Iraq (and have been for some years now). The United States military can do nothing more to support a stable progression toward self-rule in Iraq (to say nothing of the broader Middle East or the rest of the world for that matter, at least with the current administration in power). The choice the Democrats have to make is not whether to “pander” to the “radical left” or the “vehemently anti-war” wing of the party or to move toward the middle, where at least 60% of the country opposes the war. The choice the Democrats have to make is much larger. Will they continue to be the party that has enabled historic tragedy and immeasurable damage to the both the United States and the world?
Most Americans, and probably most citizens in most countries around the world, are still willing to restore American prestige and are ready to be led by the city on the hill once more. But Democrats must decisively embrace the opportunity they now have to end the war, not just before September, but before the end of this month. By May 31, Americans and the world must know definitively what the U.S. position in Iraq will be before President Bush is out of office.
The United States still can do substantial good in Iraq. It cannot do so with the current administration in charge. Americans are ready for decisive leadership. The Democrats can define themselves for many elections to come and they do not even have to make a choice. The choice has been made. The Democrats need to make it happen.
Many Republicans have begun to comment that they will have a decision on Iraq by “September.” September is four months away, four months more of decision-making time lost, of soldiers killed and maimed and families destroyed, four more months of a enormously unpopular and increasingly irrelevant president and minority in Congress setting the terms of the debate in this country. It is also four more months of this administration not only not being held accountable, but getting them closer to the date when they will never be held accountable.
A new strategy means making a new decision. When even President Bush decided a new strategy was needed, his decision was to offer more of the old strategy. He continues to do so. The President is the last person who wants to make a decision. He has offered every excuse in the book as to why no decision should be made. Republicans in Congress are equally happy to continue on the same path. If the 2008 elections rolled around with the same policy in place, there is still ample doubt in the minds of the electorate as to which party should be power. The Democrats have to be the party that finally makes a decision.
Setting aside the absurd Republican argument that timetables and benchmarks are “unpatriotic” and “don’t support the troops” and “embolden the enemy,” Democrats now have the opportunity to move forward, starting today, as the unambiguous, incontrovertible, indisputable, party of responsible, professional, mature, good governance. If they do not make the only decision, history will be no kinder to the Democrats as it will be to President Bush and his supporters.
The facts are in on Iraq (and have been for some years now). The United States military can do nothing more to support a stable progression toward self-rule in Iraq (to say nothing of the broader Middle East or the rest of the world for that matter, at least with the current administration in power). The choice the Democrats have to make is not whether to “pander” to the “radical left” or the “vehemently anti-war” wing of the party or to move toward the middle, where at least 60% of the country opposes the war. The choice the Democrats have to make is much larger. Will they continue to be the party that has enabled historic tragedy and immeasurable damage to the both the United States and the world?
Most Americans, and probably most citizens in most countries around the world, are still willing to restore American prestige and are ready to be led by the city on the hill once more. But Democrats must decisively embrace the opportunity they now have to end the war, not just before September, but before the end of this month. By May 31, Americans and the world must know definitively what the U.S. position in Iraq will be before President Bush is out of office.
The United States still can do substantial good in Iraq. It cannot do so with the current administration in charge. Americans are ready for decisive leadership. The Democrats can define themselves for many elections to come and they do not even have to make a choice. The choice has been made. The Democrats need to make it happen.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Oprah W
What would happen if Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee? More precisely, what would happen now that he officially has Oprah in his corner, a TV personality with greater market share than anyone on TV and someone who has never previously endorsed a candidate? Would a better world result?
Would there be a challenge to his appearance on her show as an immeasurable in-kind donation to his campaign? Probably. Would his opponent or opponents agree to appear on her show as well? Could they expect an equal opportunity to express their positions?
Imagine the slimey ads that will undoubtedly coat the airwaves about every supposed “dark” corner of his past and the sinister motives behind his positions. Oprah could devote show after show to debunking each and every detail in front of a spellbound national audience of millions, faithful minions willing to support her in nearly every cause. Can Oprah exploit the right wing noise machine for what it really is? Can Oprah fix political reporting in this country by forcing it to make real and honest assessments of the positions of candidates, rather than simply offering a medium for each side to air its views uncontested. The democratic process falters when non-partisan means each side gets equal airtime instead of each side being challenged equally.
I wonder what effect Oprah’s support will have on Obama’s positions, if any. How do they presently differ? Obama may not have to pander to the wants and needs of Oprah’s audience, and it is probably too diverse to find a message that speaks to all of them, except that Oprah’s fans do seek a better world for themselves and those around them, and if that is Obama’s vision, he may be our next president.
Would there be a challenge to his appearance on her show as an immeasurable in-kind donation to his campaign? Probably. Would his opponent or opponents agree to appear on her show as well? Could they expect an equal opportunity to express their positions?
Imagine the slimey ads that will undoubtedly coat the airwaves about every supposed “dark” corner of his past and the sinister motives behind his positions. Oprah could devote show after show to debunking each and every detail in front of a spellbound national audience of millions, faithful minions willing to support her in nearly every cause. Can Oprah exploit the right wing noise machine for what it really is? Can Oprah fix political reporting in this country by forcing it to make real and honest assessments of the positions of candidates, rather than simply offering a medium for each side to air its views uncontested. The democratic process falters when non-partisan means each side gets equal airtime instead of each side being challenged equally.
I wonder what effect Oprah’s support will have on Obama’s positions, if any. How do they presently differ? Obama may not have to pander to the wants and needs of Oprah’s audience, and it is probably too diverse to find a message that speaks to all of them, except that Oprah’s fans do seek a better world for themselves and those around them, and if that is Obama’s vision, he may be our next president.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Jon Stewart
I think that it is hard to underestimate the value of Jon Stewart in the modern media climate. The questions he asks ensure that his audience gets important, difficult to digest information in an easy to understand format. Consider his exchage with former Iraqi Defense Minister Ali Allawi from last night.
The comparison of the events at Virginia Tech to daily life in Iraq is the exact analogy all Americans should use to properly assess the results the effects of the war.
Many media personalities are not permitted, or are unwilling, to ask a wide variety of questions, for fear of offending advertisers, for fear of losing access to sources or even for fear of losing their jobs. Whether their timidity is justified or not, the country and the world lose out on valuable information crucial to their everyday lives. Corruption is less likely to be exposed, I do believe that when the history of today is written and studied many generations from now, it will be noted and highlighted is that one of the few contexts in which honest questions about current events were able to be asked without fear of retribution was through the "comedy" of the Daily Show. It is an unfortunate state of affairs. How long will Jon Stewart be labeled "fake" news (and how long will he consider himself "fake") and which "real" reporters will have the courage to help him out?
The comparison of the events at Virginia Tech to daily life in Iraq is the exact analogy all Americans should use to properly assess the results the effects of the war.
Many media personalities are not permitted, or are unwilling, to ask a wide variety of questions, for fear of offending advertisers, for fear of losing access to sources or even for fear of losing their jobs. Whether their timidity is justified or not, the country and the world lose out on valuable information crucial to their everyday lives. Corruption is less likely to be exposed, I do believe that when the history of today is written and studied many generations from now, it will be noted and highlighted is that one of the few contexts in which honest questions about current events were able to be asked without fear of retribution was through the "comedy" of the Daily Show. It is an unfortunate state of affairs. How long will Jon Stewart be labeled "fake" news (and how long will he consider himself "fake") and which "real" reporters will have the courage to help him out?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Gen. Peter Pace
General Peter Pace:
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in an interview with the newspaper. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."A few things I think are immoral:
- Waging war based on less-than-exhaustive "research" and in many cases, flat out lies.
- Making major assumptions about the aftermath of the war and as a result, doing very little, if any, post-war planning.
- Not providing troops who have volunteered to fight appropriate body armor.
- Not supporting fellow soldiers (especially other generals) who give their honest assessments about troop needs before the war and are fired.
- Torture, obviously torture. I mean, I can't believe I even have to put it on the list.
- Walter Reed
- Sending injured soldiers back to Iraq.
- Killing between 58,000 and 600,000 Iraqis.
Monday, March 12, 2007
An Open Letter to Al Gore
Dear Vice President (President?) Albert Gore,
Please do not run for President. Now is not the time or the place. You are doing far too much good in the fight against climate change. You'd have to stop you work for the next two years in order to focus on the campaign, and as you keep saying, time is of the essence in race to save our green earth.
Plus, don't you think you could be much more useful (and fun) to be the Secretary of Energy in a Democratic Administration? Think of all the great meetings you could have with oil company lobbyists and former Halliburton executives:
Gore: Hi, thanks for coming by.
Oil Lobbyist: Sure thing, thanks for having me. Let me fill you in on where I left off with the Bush administration.
Gore: Hold on a second. I wasn't aware the oil industry had anything useful to contribute to national energy policy any longer. We will be operating in the real world now with actual science used as the basis for policy. You have nothing to say? Like I said, thanks for coming by.
In either case, give the job some thought. It's much better for you than the Presidency.
Please do not run for President. Now is not the time or the place. You are doing far too much good in the fight against climate change. You'd have to stop you work for the next two years in order to focus on the campaign, and as you keep saying, time is of the essence in race to save our green earth.
Plus, don't you think you could be much more useful (and fun) to be the Secretary of Energy in a Democratic Administration? Think of all the great meetings you could have with oil company lobbyists and former Halliburton executives:
Gore: Hi, thanks for coming by.
Oil Lobbyist: Sure thing, thanks for having me. Let me fill you in on where I left off with the Bush administration.
Gore: Hold on a second. I wasn't aware the oil industry had anything useful to contribute to national energy policy any longer. We will be operating in the real world now with actual science used as the basis for policy. You have nothing to say? Like I said, thanks for coming by.
In either case, give the job some thought. It's much better for you than the Presidency.
News
Has the news always been about highlighting the stories that will attract the most viewers or the stories that are most important for the public to know? If it hasn't always been about the viewers, when did it change? Would Walter Cronkite cover Jon Benet Ramsey or Lacy Peterson, let alone Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith? If there was a change for stories of importance to stories of excitement, why was the change made? Or, has our interest in news changed from a need to know to a need to be entertained? I suppose we'd all rather be massaged than punched in the face.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Nancy Boyda
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy,
Why must you make it so much harder to get re-elected? What is the point of not accepting campaign funds from the DCCC? Because you won as an "independent Democrat" in 2006 after losing by 15 points in 2004 with support from the national party?
Don't get me wrong, I voted for you in '06 and I'd do it again if I still lived in your district, but why create an uphill battle in an already tough fight? I appreciate and applaud your desire to be independent from and not beholden to special interests. But it looks like you are already $80,000 behind your now declared opponent, Jim Ryun, who outraised you by $400,000 during the campaign. Plus, you're feeding the conservative machine that regularly and gleefully proclaims that Democrats are divided. What is the danger in being associated with the Party you represent in Congress in a state that now boasts a 48-44 edge in self identified Democrats versus Republicans.
Why must you make it so much harder to get re-elected? What is the point of not accepting campaign funds from the DCCC? Because you won as an "independent Democrat" in 2006 after losing by 15 points in 2004 with support from the national party?
Could it also have been due to the fact that in 2004 there was a generally popular Republican President in George W. Bush at the top of the ticket while in 2006, there was a very popular Democratic Governor in Kathleen Sebelius at the top of the ticket and widespread disapproval of the Republican Party around the country that contributed significantly to your victory?Boyda has said, in fact, that she made that decision based on experience. The 2006 race was her second consecutive try to unseat Ryun. Two years earlier, she was strongly supported by the national party and had high-powered advisers on hand — and lost to the Republican incumbent by 15 percentage points.
“She ran an independent campaign for the 2nd District of Kansas [in 2006] and that was what was behind her decision not to be included,” Boyda chief of staff Shannan Guinn told CQPolitics.com on Friday in explaining Boyda’s decision to turn down the DCCC’s Frontline offer. “
Don't get me wrong, I voted for you in '06 and I'd do it again if I still lived in your district, but why create an uphill battle in an already tough fight? I appreciate and applaud your desire to be independent from and not beholden to special interests. But it looks like you are already $80,000 behind your now declared opponent, Jim Ryun, who outraised you by $400,000 during the campaign. Plus, you're feeding the conservative machine that regularly and gleefully proclaims that Democrats are divided. What is the danger in being associated with the Party you represent in Congress in a state that now boasts a 48-44 edge in self identified Democrats versus Republicans.
Tony Snow
I wonder how many war supporters think like Tony Snow speaks and how many are just trying to score cheap political points in the effort by Democrats to debate Iraq war strategy. Sno:w posed a question to Congressional Democrats:
This simple, all or nothing line of thinking suggests that the troops will be deployed indefinitely. What can happen that will override the "support the troops" mentality that will convince war supporters that bringing the troops home is still supporting them? Many Republican representatives were signatories to the 1995 Congressional resolution demanding President Clinton seek their approval before sending troops to Bosnia and refusing to financially support any endeavor? Obviously they have changed their minds. It is absurd to think that a 2002 Senate vote could not be withdrawn or acknowledged as a mistake four and a half years later with mountains of new information. Anyone who has not reconsidered their position has lost touch with not only reality, but how rational human beings think.
"What I would say to members of Congress is: Calm down and take a look at what's going on, and ask yourself a simple question: If you support the troops, would you deny them the reinforcements they think are necessary to complete the mission?"'This line of questioning reveals so much about the Republican mindset: the simple, black and white framing of questions of war betrays such a high level of contempt for the American people. Clearly most Americans are interested in re-examing war policy. Remember that Democrats retook both houses of Congress last fall? President Bush consistently reminds us that the decision to send troops to battle is the most difficult decision the Commander-in-Chief can make, and indeed war is never a simple issue. Wouldn't any honest person ask more than just a simple, ill-informed question before making any major decision? By attempting to portray war policy in simple terms, they are demeaning everyone involved in the process of war policy-making. During the war planning process, did the policymakers simply ask "how much support will the troops need?" Of course not. Likewise, while they are there (and as President Bush also acknowledges), there will be changes to the strategy with every new development. Anyone not adapting would, and should be, deemed incompentent. Why are those who question the wisdom of the current, or any, war strategy, labeled "traitors who should be hanged?"
This simple, all or nothing line of thinking suggests that the troops will be deployed indefinitely. What can happen that will override the "support the troops" mentality that will convince war supporters that bringing the troops home is still supporting them? Many Republican representatives were signatories to the 1995 Congressional resolution demanding President Clinton seek their approval before sending troops to Bosnia and refusing to financially support any endeavor? Obviously they have changed their minds. It is absurd to think that a 2002 Senate vote could not be withdrawn or acknowledged as a mistake four and a half years later with mountains of new information. Anyone who has not reconsidered their position has lost touch with not only reality, but how rational human beings think.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Same Sex Marriage
I can't stand it when people oppose same sex marriage. It infuriates me to no end. But that is another post for another time. For now, the Kansas State Legislature is considering a bill that would prevent local municipalities from passing their own legislation that would permit domestic partner benefits and potentially even civil unions, despite the 2005 Kansas Constitutional amendment banning same sex marrige.
State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, said his proposed ban would keep state law on domestic relationships uniform and protect the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.What I do love is when purported "conservatives" rant and rave about small government and no interference in the marketplace and on and on about how no one should be able to tell others how to live or spend their money and then use the most personal of issues - religion, sexuality, marriage, medical decisions, and make them the benchmark of their campaigns. I don't know how what "Republican" Representative Kinzer believes in Olathe should have any affect on what I believe in Lawrence or what my friends in Horton believe or what George Tiller believes in Wichita about the role of their local government. If Rep. Kinzer wants to come out in favor of big government, fine. But I think that he, like most other "social conservative" politicians, have simply run out of ideas about how to make Kansas, or the United States, or the world, a better place to live. Scare tactics work for bullies, but true statesmen, true leaders have a vision for everyone.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Republicans for Impeachment
Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has threatened President Bush with impeachment if either of the two Border Patrol Agents who were sentenced to prison for killing an unarmed illegal immigrant suspected of smuggling drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border are killed in prison. Apparently one of the men was assaulted last week which infuriated Rep. Rohrabacher.
At least he is willing to consider impeachment.
"I tell you, Mr. President, if these men -- especially after this assault -- are murdered in prison, if one of them lose their lives, there's going to be some sort of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill," he told a press conference in Washington D.C.While I am disappointed in the citizens of California's XXX district who voted for a person who esposes values such as these, I suppose the House of Representatives was created with the intent of providing representation for citizens from all walks of life, regardless of any inherent bigotry, racism or other embarrassing thought processes. But I am more disappointed in the 434 other representatives, not mention the RNC, DNC and just about any other political operation that doesn't constantly remind everyone that Americans, regardless of political stripe, do not believe in spreading hate. Why no one is standing up and saying that the rule of law still trumps any political beliefs is astounding. Why Californians would put up with a Congressman like this is equally puzzling. Statements like this suggest Rep. Rohrbacher condones murder, which I hope he does not.
At least he is willing to consider impeachment.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Lisa Nowak
Would you care more or less about the Lisa Nowak case if, simultaneously, there was a criminal trial occuring involving a former senior administration official charged with lying about and obstructing justice in the search to determine who exposed a covert CIA operative investigating weapons of mass destruction directly after said administration at least exaggerated if not outright lied about the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction and the CIA operative's husband exposed the exaggerations and/or lies?
Which is more important? Which has zero importance? Which draws more viewers and increases the price of commercial time?
Which is more important? Which has zero importance? Which draws more viewers and increases the price of commercial time?
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Molly Ivins
We lost a great one last night. Molly Ivins helped shape the way I think not only about politics but about the world. She inspired me through some very tough times. There is something special about someone who regularly makes you laugh at the horrors of the world while you cry thinking of the ensuing battle to right those wrongs. If there is a definition of "keep on fighting the good fight," it is Molly Ivins.
The best way to honor her and to continue striving for the values she so eloquently elaborated upon, year after year, is to follow some of her most recent advice:
"Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous."
Thank you, Molly.
The best way to honor her and to continue striving for the values she so eloquently elaborated upon, year after year, is to follow some of her most recent advice:
"Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous."
Thank you, Molly.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Brownback for President
Sen. Brownback has announced that he will no longer resort to divisive social issues to win the hearts and minds of voters. This much, I am all for.
Stem cell research is not a divisive issue, especially if more than 60% of the country is in favor of expanding stem cell research (scroll down for numbers). It is surprising that Sen. Brownback did not get the memo from his neighbor, former Missour Senator Jim Talent, who lost his seat (and therefore, arguably the Republicans lost the Senate) in large part because of his opposition to state funding of stem cell research, which Missourians approved. Sen. Brownback is only hoping to get a sound bite or two that attemp to make him palatable to non-extremist voters. But his true positions are easy to find, and any support he initially garners for supporting efforts to combat climate change, human trafficking and poverty will evaporate when voters remember his bread and butter.
On his website and in his platform, he still repeatedly supports a variety of divisive issues, from banning abortion to "defining" marriage to the completely arbitrary "activist" judiciary. Is he positioning himself as an attractive VP candidate to moderates like Romney, Giuliani or McCain (not that he is a moderate, he's just palatable to the voters), a la the West Wing?
The point is, 24 hour cable news and more importantly the internet, will not allow candidates to pander to all corners of the political spectrum for much longer. Candidates will be eliminated from contention much more quickly during this cycle strictly because of YouTube. Need proof? Look at what is happening right now in Virginia. I'm sick of politicians, particularly Republicans, harping on and on about accountability for everyone but themselves. When the pefect medium for providing accountability comes along, why are Republicans the first to be against it?
Just because Brownback put out a carefully scripted press release doesn't erase his viciously partisan, divisive behavior. I'm sure he's just triangulating based on the results of the midterms, finally realizing that the Christian Right is not a majority in this country even if Christianity is the largest religion. In either case, I'm glad he's running because he will only divide the Republicans even further and the resulting furor from the losing side will probably produce a split ticket and it will be 1992 all over again.
We need statesmen who talk about poverty and health care and education and human rights and foreign relations and have little time to waste on the "debates" over abortion and gay marriage and torture. Politicians who waste their time obsessing on those issues don't care to tackle important, pressing problems.
Kansas senator and presidential candidate Sam Brownback said Tuesday that he would focus his campaign on issues that have a bipartisan consensus, a break from his trademark social conservatism.This is a fascinating move for a guy who has made a name for himself with his advocacy for socially divisive issues. Remember this gem?
"The political discourse automatically goes to the most difficult issues, and then we can't talk about them," said Brownback, in Iowa for the first time since announcing his bid on Jan. 20.
"I'd rather work on a core set of issues that we can agree on."
Stem cell research is not a divisive issue, especially if more than 60% of the country is in favor of expanding stem cell research (scroll down for numbers). It is surprising that Sen. Brownback did not get the memo from his neighbor, former Missour Senator Jim Talent, who lost his seat (and therefore, arguably the Republicans lost the Senate) in large part because of his opposition to state funding of stem cell research, which Missourians approved. Sen. Brownback is only hoping to get a sound bite or two that attemp to make him palatable to non-extremist voters. But his true positions are easy to find, and any support he initially garners for supporting efforts to combat climate change, human trafficking and poverty will evaporate when voters remember his bread and butter.
On his website and in his platform, he still repeatedly supports a variety of divisive issues, from banning abortion to "defining" marriage to the completely arbitrary "activist" judiciary. Is he positioning himself as an attractive VP candidate to moderates like Romney, Giuliani or McCain (not that he is a moderate, he's just palatable to the voters), a la the West Wing?
The point is, 24 hour cable news and more importantly the internet, will not allow candidates to pander to all corners of the political spectrum for much longer. Candidates will be eliminated from contention much more quickly during this cycle strictly because of YouTube. Need proof? Look at what is happening right now in Virginia. I'm sick of politicians, particularly Republicans, harping on and on about accountability for everyone but themselves. When the pefect medium for providing accountability comes along, why are Republicans the first to be against it?
Just because Brownback put out a carefully scripted press release doesn't erase his viciously partisan, divisive behavior. I'm sure he's just triangulating based on the results of the midterms, finally realizing that the Christian Right is not a majority in this country even if Christianity is the largest religion. In either case, I'm glad he's running because he will only divide the Republicans even further and the resulting furor from the losing side will probably produce a split ticket and it will be 1992 all over again.
We need statesmen who talk about poverty and health care and education and human rights and foreign relations and have little time to waste on the "debates" over abortion and gay marriage and torture. Politicians who waste their time obsessing on those issues don't care to tackle important, pressing problems.
A Careless President
The first three paragraphs were (slightly edited) published in the Lawrence Journal World yesterday.
Is this President the most careless President in recent memory? President Bush regularly declares that the war in Iraq will set the course for peace and prosperity in the Middle East, that a democratic Iraq will be a beacon of hope throughout the region and that a progressive democratic government in Iraq will be a blueprint for change for its neighbors. Yet in a 50 minute State of the Union address, the President spent hardly more than five minutes discussing the war. Even worse, in those minutes, he did nothing more than recycle failed policies and broken promises.
The United States is at war. If sending troops to war is the most difficult decision a President can make, then we owe it to the troops to hear from the Commander-In-Chief about the danger they endure day in and day out, especially if the situation is so bad that it requires more troops. It is so disappointing to see the President openly admit that even he is not happy with his own handling of the war but stubbornly refuse to consider the advice of even many members of his own party, not to mention the majority Democrats, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, many retired generals and nearly 70% of the country.
If Iraq is the central front to the war on terror, and the battle against Islamist extremism is the decisive ideological struggle of our time” and the “fight for our way of life,” then why commit only 150,000 troops to the war? Why refuse the counsel of the Iraq Study Group? Why ignore the midterm election results? Either the President is not being forward about the true nature of the war, or he not equipped to properly fight it.
What is the point in rejecting any constructive criticism? Is it purely for the potential benefit to his legacy that would come from any potential success in Iraq? Should democracy ever take hold in Iraq, President Bush would be able to claim nearly sole credit for the success. But the damage caused today because of his Iraq policy may be so devastating to our relationships around the world, to our need to educate our children and to our ability to research cures and fight disease and to prevent their spread that the question has to be asked “is Iraqi democracy more important than anything else we hope to achieve?” The Republican Congress passed very little meaningful legislation and spent nearly half trillion dollars fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no question that a democratic Iraq would be beneficial to the Middle East, the United States and the world. But is it more important than making college education available and affordable to all U.S. citizens who want it? Or ensuring all Americans have health insurance? Or providing water sanitation to the more than one billion people around the world who do not have access to clean drinking water? Or making a substantial contribution to the quest to cure HIV/AIDS (maybe even enough to find a cure)?
These questions and those like it are the questions we will all wrestle with as the war progresses and eventually ends. Forget the political question of whether or not someone who questions the war supports the troops. Very few people don’t actually support the troops. The important questions are the moral questions of our priorities. In a capitalist society, the way we measure our values is in how we spend our dollars. A half trillion dollars is a major demonstration of our values. The world spent the second half of the 20th century trying to emulate the American way of life. Even as our military budget eventually exceeded that of the rest of the world combined, the world followed our lead in advancing contributions to medicine, science and industry. Under this President we have quickly diverted funding from areas that benefit the greater good in favor of funding endeavors that tear us apart. We have withdrawn from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Test Band Treaty and are now pursuing new nuclear weapons. Wasn’t nuclear annihilation the grave danger of the Cold War? Apparently we won the war but lost the lesson.
There are undoubtedly people who would like to see the downfall of the United States. Very few are fighting in Iraq. How long will we be considered a “city on a hall,” a beacon to people around the world? The United States was founded on a belief that there was a better way of living and of interacting with one another. Our behavior today indicates otherwise. My fear is not that the world will stop striving to become a partner in the search for a better world. It is that they will continue to emulate us.
Is this President the most careless President in recent memory? President Bush regularly declares that the war in Iraq will set the course for peace and prosperity in the Middle East, that a democratic Iraq will be a beacon of hope throughout the region and that a progressive democratic government in Iraq will be a blueprint for change for its neighbors. Yet in a 50 minute State of the Union address, the President spent hardly more than five minutes discussing the war. Even worse, in those minutes, he did nothing more than recycle failed policies and broken promises.
The United States is at war. If sending troops to war is the most difficult decision a President can make, then we owe it to the troops to hear from the Commander-In-Chief about the danger they endure day in and day out, especially if the situation is so bad that it requires more troops. It is so disappointing to see the President openly admit that even he is not happy with his own handling of the war but stubbornly refuse to consider the advice of even many members of his own party, not to mention the majority Democrats, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, many retired generals and nearly 70% of the country.
If Iraq is the central front to the war on terror, and the battle against Islamist extremism is the decisive ideological struggle of our time” and the “fight for our way of life,” then why commit only 150,000 troops to the war? Why refuse the counsel of the Iraq Study Group? Why ignore the midterm election results? Either the President is not being forward about the true nature of the war, or he not equipped to properly fight it.
What is the point in rejecting any constructive criticism? Is it purely for the potential benefit to his legacy that would come from any potential success in Iraq? Should democracy ever take hold in Iraq, President Bush would be able to claim nearly sole credit for the success. But the damage caused today because of his Iraq policy may be so devastating to our relationships around the world, to our need to educate our children and to our ability to research cures and fight disease and to prevent their spread that the question has to be asked “is Iraqi democracy more important than anything else we hope to achieve?” The Republican Congress passed very little meaningful legislation and spent nearly half trillion dollars fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no question that a democratic Iraq would be beneficial to the Middle East, the United States and the world. But is it more important than making college education available and affordable to all U.S. citizens who want it? Or ensuring all Americans have health insurance? Or providing water sanitation to the more than one billion people around the world who do not have access to clean drinking water? Or making a substantial contribution to the quest to cure HIV/AIDS (maybe even enough to find a cure)?
These questions and those like it are the questions we will all wrestle with as the war progresses and eventually ends. Forget the political question of whether or not someone who questions the war supports the troops. Very few people don’t actually support the troops. The important questions are the moral questions of our priorities. In a capitalist society, the way we measure our values is in how we spend our dollars. A half trillion dollars is a major demonstration of our values. The world spent the second half of the 20th century trying to emulate the American way of life. Even as our military budget eventually exceeded that of the rest of the world combined, the world followed our lead in advancing contributions to medicine, science and industry. Under this President we have quickly diverted funding from areas that benefit the greater good in favor of funding endeavors that tear us apart. We have withdrawn from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Test Band Treaty and are now pursuing new nuclear weapons. Wasn’t nuclear annihilation the grave danger of the Cold War? Apparently we won the war but lost the lesson.
There are undoubtedly people who would like to see the downfall of the United States. Very few are fighting in Iraq. How long will we be considered a “city on a hall,” a beacon to people around the world? The United States was founded on a belief that there was a better way of living and of interacting with one another. Our behavior today indicates otherwise. My fear is not that the world will stop striving to become a partner in the search for a better world. It is that they will continue to emulate us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)