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 Oct 04th 2008, 10:55 PM
Biden’ performance was stellar. Following the debate, 53% of previously undecided viewers said they had a better opinion of him, compared to 5% who said they had a worse opinion of him. And Biden was generally very well regarded by the American publi
I was so impressed with Joe Biden’s debate performance Friday evening. We could hardly have hoped for better.

Sarah Palin’s performance was also better than expected. She didn’t implode. And viewers who listened only superficially to what she said, without thinking about it, may actually have gotten the impression that she knew what she was talking about, was generally truthful, or had something important to say.

Biden hit on many of the major principles of the Democratic Party and explained why he and his running mate support them. In particular he repeatedly challenged the idea that ushered in the Reagan Revolution in 1981, that government has no useful role to play in providing its citizens with the opportunity to make a decent life for themselves. He thoroughly and repeatedly answered the moderator’s questions in sufficient detail to show that he is thoroughly knowledgeable on the issues and where the Obama/Biden ticket stands on those issues.

Palin, on the other hand, could only come up with distorted facts, evasions, clichés, and generalities. Anyone who thought she “won” the debate was either not paying close attention or was so partisan that their opinion was pre-determined.

Here are examples of some of the biggest differences between them from the October 3rd debate:


General political philosophy

Asked by Gwen Ifill what the VP candidates would do if they suddenly became President, Biden used that opportunity to concisely, yet specifically, lay out the major principles of the Obama/Biden ticket. In doing so, he was not the least bit ashamed to acknowledge that government does indeed have an important and useful role to play in peoples’ lives:

I would carry out Barack Obama's policy, his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure they get a fair break, making sure they have access to affordable health insurance, making sure they get serious tax breaks, making sure we can help their children get to college, making sure there is an energy policy that leads us in the direction of not only toward independence and clean environment but an energy policy that creates 5 million new jobs, a foreign policy that ends this war in Iraq, a foreign policy that goes after the one mission the American public gave the president after 9/11, to get and capture or kill bin Laden and to eliminate al Qaeda. A policy that would in fact engage our allies in making sure that we knew we were acting on the same page and not dictating. And a policy that would reject the Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation…

Palin’s answer to the same question provided no useful information other than to make the point that she and McCain are against greed and corruption and to emphasize the good old Republican cliché about the horrors of “big government”:

I would… continue the good work he (McCain) is so committed to of putting government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington… So that people there can understand how the average working class family is viewing bureaucracy in the federal government… Just everyday working class Americans saying, you know, government, just get out of my way.


Taxes and fairness

Anyone who has studied the Obama and McCain tax plans understands the primary difference between them. McCain would continue and even increase the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, whereas Obama would reverse them to Clinton era levels while providing additional tax breaks for the middle and working classes.

Biden was asked by Ifill to explain why the Obama/Biden idea of reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy doesn’t constitute “class warfare”. He responded:

Well Gwen, where I come from, it's called fairness, just simple fairness. The middle class is struggling. The middle class under John McCain's tax proposal, 100 million families, middle class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change, they got not a single break in taxes. No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised… And 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break….John wants to add $300 billion in new tax cuts per year for corporate America and the very wealthy while giving virtually nothing to the middle class. We have a different value set.

Palin’s strategy for talking about taxes was right in line with the McCain campaign’s strategy (same as the Bush 2000 strategy) from day one: Make no distinction in your rhetoric between tax cuts for the wealthy vs. nothing for the middle and working class; use every opportunity to tell the American people that your opponent plans to increase taxes, even if you have to lie about it. That was the whole theme of the debate for Sarah Palin. She repeatedly came back to this issue, regardless of what topic the debate moderator tried to get the candidates to talk about. Here are some excerpts:

Now, Barack Obama and Sen. Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times… Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year…

Biden explained in detail how Palin’s statement on Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the middle class was a lie. But she kept coming back to it, and included it in her closing statement as well:

Voters on November 4th are going to have that choice to either support a ticket that supports policies that create jobs. You do that by lowering taxes on American workers and on our businesses. And you build up infrastructure, and you rein in government spending… Or you support a ticket that supports policies that will kill jobs by increasing taxes. And that's what the track record shows, is a desire to increase taxes, increase spending…


McCain’s zeal to deregulate

One of McCain’s biggest vulnerabilities is that his long Senate history has been marked by radical anti-regulatory rhetoric and ideology. That history is especially difficult to defend now that we are faced with what many believe is the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, given that it is widely agreed that the fundamental cause of the crisis is several years of Republican-fostered deregulation of the banking and credit industry. Biden emphasized that issue in detail during the debate:

Two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis. John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub prime mortgage problem. John McCain, while Barack Obama was warning about what we had to do, was literally giving an interview to The Wall Street Journal saying that I'm always for cutting regulations. We let Wall Street run wild. John McCain, and he's a good man, but John McCain thought the answer is that tried and true Republican response, deregulate, deregulate. So what you had is you had overwhelming "deregulation." You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself. And while Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation. As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry.

And what was Palin’s response to this issue of monumental importance to the American people? First, she ignored it and launched into her false claim of Obama tax increases on the middle class. Biden exposed that lie, and then he called Palin on her evasion of McCain’s long anti-regulatory history:

BIDEN: If you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild….

IFILL (to Palin): Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: … And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people…

And then she launched into some more of her anti-tax rhetoric. In other words, fuck this debate and fuck any American citizen who wants to understand how the candidates stand on the issues. Sarah Palin will talk about whatever she damn well wants to talk about, or what she was pre-scripted to talk about.


The economy

Biden explained how out of touch John McCain is with the state of our economy:

It was two Mondays ago John McCain said… that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Two weeks before that, he said – we've made great economic progress under George Bush's policies. Nine o'clock, the economy was strong. Eleven o'clock that same day, two Mondays ago, John McCain said that we have an economic crisis…

Palin rebutted that with the same stupid argument that McCain has used:

John McCain, in referring to the fundamental of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the American workforce. And the American workforce is the greatest in this world…

Now, Barack Obama, of course, he's pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line, not having that proof for the American people to know that his commitment, too, is, you know, put the partisanship, put the special interests aside, and get down to getting business done for the people of America.

Huh? So if McCain and Palin equate the economy with the American work force, then why is it that one day it’s sound and later that same day we’re having an economic crisis? What happened to “the greatest work force in the world”?

If anyone can understand what Palin means by that second paragraph above, then please explain it to me. The best I can make of it is that she’s trying to say that because Obama usually votes with the Democratic Party, that means that he’s partisan, favors “special interests”, and doesn’t represent the American people.


Health care

This is how Palin compared the Obama and McCain health care plans:

He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program and unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds.

There are so many problems with that short description that it’s hard to know where to start. First, what kind of idiot thinks that $5,000 a year is enough for Americans to obtain adequate health insurance? Secondly, as meager as that figure is, how on earth can she say that it won’t cost the government anything to give a $5,000 tax credit to every family in the country? And thirdly, she lied about Obama’s health care plan, or else she is completely ignorant of it. Obama’s plan is not a mandate (anyone can refuse to participate in it), and it does not involve health care being taken over by the government. It is simply a plan for the government to offer Medicare-like health insurance to all Americans, so that every American has the opportunity to have their medical needs met. I guess that there was so much to respond to here that Biden decided merely to concentrate on explaining the woeful inadequacy of the McCain “health care plan”:

Do you know how John McCain pays for his $5,000 tax credit you're going to get? … He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health care plan through your employer. That's how he raises $3.6 trillion… taxing your health care benefit to give you a $5,000 plan, which his Web site points out will go straight to the insurance company. And then you're going to have to replace a $12,000 – that's the average cost of the plan you get through your employer … 20 million of you are going to be dropped… So you're going to have to replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you just give to the insurance company.


Global warming

As Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin has often maintained that there is no proof that global warming is caused by the activities of man. So when asked about that issue in the debate she kind of squirmed her way through:

There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet… But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?... John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts.

Biden responded by explaining the Obama/Biden approach to the question, the absurdity of trying to address a problem without questioning its cause, and then describing the woefully deficient McCain approach to the problem:

I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. … We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels… The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.

When Biden directly contradicted Palin’s statement that McCain has supported an “all of the above” approach to global warming by pointing out his many votes against clean energy funding, Palin had no answer to that – which is not her fault, since there is no answer to it except to admit to it.

In answer to Ifill’s question on whether or not she and McCain support capping carbon emissions, Palin said that they both do support that. What she didn’t say was shat McCain doesn’t consider “capping carbon emissions” to be a mandate. In other words, he believes that carbon emissions should be capped, but he thinks they should be capped voluntarily. And that is precisely why Mark Hertsgaard says that McCain’s plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not likely to work.


The role of the Vice President

Amazingly, Sarah Palin seemed to agree with Dick Cheney’s assertion that the Vice President is a member of the Legislative Branch of government (though she was typically bumbling in her explanation):

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

Biden set the record straight on that:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.


McCain similarity to Bush

One of Joe Biden’s major (and appropriate) themes in the debate was to draw striking parallels between John McCain and George Bush. In response, Palin would often accuse him of “looking backwards”, as if anything that has happened in the past is not relevant to the current debate. Biden responded:

Look, past is prologue, Gwen. The issue is, how different is John McCain's policy going to be than George Bush's? I haven't heard anything yet. I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush's. It may be. But so far, it is the same as George Bush's. And you know where that policy has taken us…

Ask anybody… whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years. And then ask them whether there's a single major initiative that John McCain differs with the president on. On taxes, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on the whole question of how to help education, on the dealing with health care…The middle class has gotten the short end. The wealthy have done very well. Corporate America has been rewarded. It's time we change it.

Palin never had any answer to that, except to change the subject.


McCain the maverick

Sarah Palin’s favorite strategy, as has always been the case with her, was to talk in generalities. Whenever she was stumped by a question, she’d go to the old stand-byes: We’re for reform; we’re against greed and corruption; we’re against pork; we’re against “big government”; and most of all, “we’re mavericks”. Biden finally had all he could take of that one:

Look, the maverick – let's talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives.

He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there.

He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against -- he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.

He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table….

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.

So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.

Palin had no answer to any of that.


Palin’s short answer strategy

Another of Palin’s favorite strategies for responding to questions that she knew nothing about was simply to answer yes or no and then quickly change the subject.

On a bankruptcy bill:

IFILL: Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage-holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt. This is something that John McCain supported. Would you have?

PALIN: Yes, I would have. But here, again… (changes subject)

And she had nothing else to say about that subject, while Biden went into great detail to explain how an Obama/Biden administration would improve the situation.

And when Biden went into great detail to explain what an abject failure the Bush administration (which McCain supported 90% of the time) has been:

IFILL: Has this administration's policy been an abject failure, as the senator says, Governor?

PALIN: No, I do not believe that it has been.

And she had absolutely nothing else to say about it.

And when Palin went to great effort to criticize Obama for saying that he would retain the option of meeting with our enemies without preconditions to engage in diplomacy, there was this exchange:

IFILL: Governor and senator, I want you both to respond to this. Secretaries of state Baker, Kissinger, Powell, they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former secretaries of state are wrong on that?

PALIN: No… But again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women's rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down…

In other words, no, but, yada yada yada. So Sarah, were those Secretaries of State right or wrong?


Conclusion

There was so much more in this debate that could be used to make similar points. But that’s enough for now.

Biden’ performance was stellar. Following the debate, 53% of previously undecided viewers said they had a better opinion of him, compared to 5% who said they had a worse opinion of him. And Biden was generally very well regarded by the American public before the debate.

Palin’s improvement numbers were also pretty good: 55% had a better opinion of her, while 14% had a worse opinion of her. But her approval numbers were so bad prior to the debate, coming off her abysmal interviews with Katie Couric, that it would have been difficult not to improve.

The percentage of previously uncommitted viewers who now see the candidates as “knowledgeable about important issues” went from 79% to an amazing 98% for Biden. For Palin, that number went from 43% to 66%.

But probably the most important statistic was the percent of previously uncommitted voters who decided to vote for the candidate’s ticket:

Obama/Biden: 18%
McCain/Palin: 10%
Discuss (11 comments) | Recommend (9 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.