Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion: Presidential
Sat Sep 27th 2008, 08:00 PM
McCain’s numerous attempts to mislead and outright lie to the American people clearly brand him as the debate loser. But the truth of the matter is that he has little choice. He can’t afford to be honest with the American people about his long record
There seems to be an attitude among many TV talking heads that since John McCain didn’t self-destruct in his first presidential debate against Barack Obama, that the debate should be considered a win for him or at least a tie. But presidential debates are too important to the American people to be judged in that manner. The substance of what a candidate says should be considered much more important than the style (Obama’s style was far superior to McCain’s as well, in my opinion, but that’s more subjective). And the truth is that John McCain’s debate arguments were filled with misleading information, half truths, and outright lies. Here are some of the most important examples:


McCain’s statement of support for the bailout bill

After helping torpedo the Democratic version of the bailout bill on Thursday, McCain lamely let himself be pressured by debate moderator Jim Lehrer into promising support for the bill.

LEHRER: Are you going to vote for the plan, Senator McCain?
MCCAIN: I – I hope so. And I...
LEHRER: As a United States senator...
MCCAIN: Sure.
LEHRER: You’re going to vote for the plan?
MCCAIN: Sure…

McCain doesn’t even know what the plan is going to look like yet when it comes up for a vote, and yet he let the moderator quickly pressure him into agreeing to vote for whatever it is, instead of having the presence of mind to say that he couldn’t promise to vote for a bill that hasn’t even been written yet.

McCain then went into a lecture about the importance of accountability. Apparently he doesn’t understand the connection between accountability in the private sector and government oversight and regulation, since he has always been unabashedly and ideologically against government regulation of corporations, as he has previously made clear:

“I’m always for less regulation,” he told The Wall Street Journal last March, “but I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight” in situations like the subprime lending crisis, the problem that has cascaded through Wall Street this year. He concluded, “but I am fundamentally a deregulator.”

Later that month, he gave a speech on the housing crisis in which he called for less regulation, saying, “Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”


McCain’s claim that Obama voted to increase taxes on people making as low as $42,000 a year

Without specifying the vote McCain was referring to, it is impossible to evaluate with any confidence his claim that Obama voted to raise taxes on individual making as little as $42,000. Many bills are filled with dozens of unrelated items, where a Congressperson is faced with the choice of voting for all of them or none of them. In such cases, cherry picking specific items with which to criticize someone is often taken out of context and highly misleading.

The salient point is that Obama has put forth a tax plan that will not raise taxes for anyone making less than a quarter million dollars a year. He has been steadfast in sticking to that point, and his tax plans have consistently been displayed on his website. He has made it quite clear over and over again that he will reverse the Bush tax cuts on the rich while decreasing taxes on the other 95% of us. For McCain to repeatedly claim that Obama will do otherwise, without pointing to anything in his plan or a specific vote that proves otherwise, is highly disingenuous.


McCain’s claim to have saved taxpayers $6.8 billion by killing a Boeing contract

To display his fiscal credentials McCain noted during the debate:

I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it…

But what McCain didn’t mention were the ties of his campaign staffers to a Boeing competitor. From an article titled “John McCain: Did his Lobbyist Ties to Airbus Cost American Jobs?”:

The Pentagon announced last month that it would award a $35 billion contract for new Air Force tankers to European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., instead of to Seattle-based Boeing Co.

McCain had pushed the Pentagon to open the bidding process to EADS, and some question whether the three former EADS lobbyists who are on his campaign staff had anything to do with that. “Mr. Clean has a bunch of lobbyists that work for a company that won that contract,” House Democratic Caucus chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said. “Some people claim the way the specs were written, it was all but certain that the company that his campaign lobbyists worked for couldn’t but get that contract.”


McCain’s claim that Obama’s health care plan would hand health care decisions to the federal government

McCain said during the debate:

Well, I want to make sure we're not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama's health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government.

McCain has repeated this statement many times in the past. He either hasn’t read Obama’s health care plan, doesn’t understand it, or else (more likely) he is outright lying about it.

Obama’s health care plan is explained on his website. The plan would make health care affordable to tens of millions of Americans who currently can’t afford health insurance, by giving them government subsidies to purchase health insurance. The plan has nothing in it that would give the federal government the responsibility of providing health care or would in any way interfere with a person’s choice of physician or type of care. It would be run on the same principle that Medicare is now run.


McCain’s claim to have opposed President Bush on torture of our prisoners

McCain’s repeated claims to have opposed George Bush’s torture policies are partially true. Though McCain has achieved a reputation for challenging George Bush’s torture program, and he has in fact said that torture “should never be condoned”, for which he deserves credit, when push comes to shove, he almost always votes with Bush on supporting his torture plans. The most recent example was when McCain not only voted against a bill that would have required CIA interrogations to conform to the U.S. Army Field Manual, but he urged George Bush to veto the bill when Congress passed it.


McCain’s support for the Iraq surge

In order to brag about how well the “surge” that McCain supported turned out, he said:

There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity.
That's what's happening in Iraq…

Peace comes to the country? This year alone, long after the McCain/Bush surge was initiated, there have been 266 American military deaths, nearly two thousand American soldiers wounded, and many times that many Iraqi civilians killed. Granted, the American military death toll is less now than it was prior to the surge. We have more soldiers there to keep the violence down, and the violence is indeed down. But American soldiers are still being killed, and the reason they’re being killed is because Iraqis deeply resent the U.S. occupation of their country. We have killed over a million of them, created more than four million refugees, and destroyed the infrastructure of their country. They have quite understandably wanted us to leave for a long time. Where is the “honor” in all that, which John McCain so often invokes to justify our imperial occupation? Furthermore, this is how the editors of The Nation explain the apparent “success” of the surge:

Second, the surge has had an ugly flip side. To reduce the violence, the US military built concrete walls to separate Sunnis and Shiites, which facilitated ethnic cleansing by both sides but especially by Shiite militias against Sunni residents of Baghdad. The drop-off in violence reflects the fact that ethnic cleansing led to the internal partition of Iraqi cities and regions, reducing the opportunity for sectarian killing.

Third, the surge has not created the conditions for political reconciliation or a stable Iraq, which, after all, was its main purpose. The "success" of the surge was based on Sunni repression of jihadi extremists, ethnic cleansing and separation walls, not compromise. The Shiite-led government seems no more willing to compromise on key issues than it was before the surge…


McCain’s claim to have opposed Bush on global warming and clean energy development

McCain said that he has opposed Bush on the issue of global warming, and he claimed to have supported the use of clean alternative energy. The truth is quite a bit different.

Words are cheap. McCain often uses populist rhetoric in an attempt to gain the allegiance of independent voters. But when it comes to his voting record, his corporate backers know where he stands.

Though McCain has made a big deal of pretending to go against George Bush on the issue of global warming (I have received e-mails from him noting the necessity of doing something to combat it), in an attempt maintain his reputation as a “maverick” and vie for the votes of Independents, his actions speak otherwise. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gives him a 24% lifetime score for his global warming policies, and a 0% score for 2007. His overall environmental score with the League of Conservation voters is 0%. And in an act of political cowardice, he was the only Senator to fail to show up for a recent vote on a clean energy bill that failed to pass by one vote.

When McCain was asked his opinion on subsidies for clean energy technology such as wind and solar, he said:

I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time… There’s a point where you should let the free-enterprise system take over.


McCain’s concern for our veterans

As he always does, McCain made a big deal about how much he cares about our veterans:

I know the veterans. I know them well. And I know that they know that I'll take care of them. And I've been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans. And I love them. And I'll take care of them. And they know that I'll take care of them. And that's going to be my job.

But the truth is that McCain almost always votes against veterans’ benefits. Here is a listing of some of his most important votes, compared with Obama’s votes (pro-veteran votes are in blue, anti-veteran votes are in red).

Aug-01: Bill to increase the amount of medical care available to veterans by $650 million
McCain: Nay

April-03: Vote to table bill to provide $1 billion in make up for shortfall in equipment for Air National Guard and Reserves fighting in Iraq
McCain: Yea

October-03: Vote to table bill to provide $322 million for safety equipment for forces in Iraq
McCain: Yea

March-04: Bill to increase medical care for veterans by $1.8 billion
McCain: Nay

April-05: Vote on $2 billion for veterans’ health care
McCain: Nay
Obama: Yea

March-06: Bill to increase medical care for veterans by $1.5 billion
McCain: Nay
Obama: Yea

April-06: Bill to increase outpatient care for veterans by $430 million
McCain: Nay
Obama: Yea

May-06: Bill to provide $20 million for veterans’ medical facilities
McCain: Nay
Obama: Nay

June-06: Resolution for withdrawal of troops from Iraq
McCain: Nay
Obama Yea

July-07: Vote on cloture of bill to specify minimum rest periods for troops in Iraq
McCain: Nay
Obama: Yea

And it is not true that veterans groups generally support him. Because of his anti-veteran voting record, the opposite is often true. Here is what Hispanic veterans have to say about this issue:

We Hispanic Veterans want to know why McCain voted against health care funding for our troops and veterans in 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007. We want to know why John McCain did not vote for the new G.I. Bill for our troops and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars…. Why doesn’t John McCain want our troops and veterans to have health care or the opportunity for education? John McCain gets his health care provided by the US taxpayer and his education was provided by the US taxpayer…. These are questions John McCain will not allow or give a straight answer to. John McCain likes to USE our Troops and Veterans as puppets and photos opportunities.


Obama’s willingness to meet with foreign leaders without preconditions

McCain repeatedly made a big deal about Obama’s willingness to meet with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. He said:

What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.

Dangerous? Legitimize Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel? So, I suppose that Churchill and FDR legitimized Stalin’s actions when they met with him? And Nixon legitimized Mao’s actions when he met with him. Or did FDR, Churchill and Nixon require Stalin and Mao to apologize for their massive slaughter of their respective countrypersons before they met with them?

Who’s the naïve one here? Enemies have met to discuss and negotiate their mutual problems throughout history. As Obama said during the debate, “I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.”


Debate summary

Barack Obama did a thoroughly credible job during the debate, demonstrating a solid grasp of every issue he was asked to speak about. Though some talking heads incredibly criticized him for agreeing with McCain on too many issues, thus appearing “weak”, I think that most Americans want a president who is level-headed, not quick to anger, and willing to find areas of agreement with his opponents. To reflexively criticize everything McCain said would have been un-presidential and dishonest. I do, however, acknowledge that Obama could have (and should have) done a more aggressive job of calling McCain out on his many lies and distortions.

John McCain, on the other hand, came across as incredibly condescending, arrogant, and hostile towards Obama, and he exhibited some very ugly and weird facial expressions. I don’t like or expect to see our leaders use that kind of behavior to make their points, in place of reasoned argument.

But McCain’s style was not by any means the worst aspect of his debate performance. His numerous attempts to mislead and outright lie to the American people clearly brand him as the debate loser. But the truth of the matter is that he has little choice. He can’t afford to be honest with the American people about his long record in Congress because he has consistently followed a pro-corporate and far right ideological agenda, to the great detriment of the American people.
Discuss (20 comments) | Recommend (25 votes)
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change


The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas.


The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office

In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.

Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…”

Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation.

Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level.

Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this.


Election fraud

The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration.

I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship.

My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001.

The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers.

I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later.

Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal.

In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention.

In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen.

Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008.


The tragedy of the Bush administration

The fake war on terrorism

I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.

With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city.

Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose

To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners.

Lying us into war

It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country.

Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy?

George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way.

I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too.


Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans

It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America.

Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans:

Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious"

Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles?

The movement for privatization of government functions

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service.

Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article.

The need for a free and independent press

Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media.

Health care

Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote.

An enquiring mind

One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country.

The dignity of all human beings

Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject.

A summary

And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans.


Historical events that help us understand our present

Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long.

Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate.


Political ideas

Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores.

But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists.

If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8793 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.