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
Sun Oct 12th 2008, 05:41 PM
The McCain/Palin presidential campaign has been one of the most dishonest ever conducted. Such a strategy could only have been undertaken in the belief that the national news media would be grossly negligent in its duty to confront the campaign with
The most important purpose of our national news media is to report, clarify and explain issues that have the potential to affect the lives of the American people. Especially in the days, weeks and months preceding a Presidential election, the press should hold the candidates to account for misleading voters with respect to the major issues of the day. Since John McCain has repeatedly misled our country’s voters on so many issues, it is especially important that they confront him with his lies and mis-statements, and give him a chance to explain them.

The list of questions that McCain should be confronted with is very large. I realize that these questions aren’t at all likely to be asked of McCain by our corporate news media, but here are 10 that I think are especially important:


Veterans’ health benefits

Senator McCain: You often make a big point of telling your audiences how much you care about our veterans and our troops. At a recent presidential debate you said:

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.

Yet you have consistently voted against health benefits for veterans, against minimum rest periods for troops in Iraq, and against adequate safety equipment for our troops. Most recently you opposed the GI bill sponsored by Senator Webb, which was supported by all of your fellow veterans in the Senate and passed in the Senate by a 75-22 vote.

You recently claimed that you have “received every award from every veteran’s organization”. Yet there are several veterans’ organizations that don’t support you, including for example the non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who gave you a grade of D for your Senate votes, while giving Senator Obama a B+.

When Senator Obama criticized your lack of support for Senator Webb’s GI bill, saying that he couldn’t understand why you believe the bill is too generous to veterans, you dismissed his criticism by saying that you wouldn’t listen to him because he has never served in the military.

My questions to you are: 1) How do you account for the large differences between your perception of your support for issues that veterans care about and their support for you on the one hand, and the perception of veterans’ groups on the other hand? 2) Why did you oppose Senator Webb’s GI bill? And 3) Do you believe that only those who have served in the military have the right to discuss these issues with you?


The Iraq War and occupation and the “surge”

In 2003 we invaded and occupied a nation that posed no threat to our country. That war and occupation has resulted in the deaths of more than a million Iraqis, made refugees out of over four million, and ruined their infrastructure. Polls of Iraqi citizens, whose freedom we claim to be fighting for, have consistently shown that over 90% of Iraqis want us to set a timetable for withdrawal and that more than 60% approve of violence against U.S. troops. Former N.Y. Times reporter Chris Hedges has summed up the attitude of many U.S. politicians and news media towards the tragedy of the Iraqi people by writing:

The reality of the war – the fact that the occupation forces have become… a source of terror to most Iraqis – is not transmitted to the American public… The Iraqis, those we kill, are largely nameless, faceless dead.

You often boast about your early support for George Bush’s “surge”, which was followed by reductions in the monthly toll of American soldier deaths in Iraq. To demonstrate the success of the surge you publicly led a Republican Congressional delegation from Baghdad’s airport to the city center, claiming that that was proof that one could “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad, while neglecting to tell the American people that you were wearing a bullet proof vest and accompanied by 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.

At the same time, you often criticize Senator Obama’s opposition to the surge and his plans for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, saying that those plans and his opposition to the surge would have precluded our ability to achieve victory in Iraq and “withdraw with honor”.

My questions to you are: 1) Given the vast amount of death and destruction we have brought to the Iraqi people for the purpose of “liberating” them, and the fact that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us to leave, where is the “honor” in staying there longer, and why do you consider Senator Obama’s plan to withdraw our military forces “dishonorable”? And 2) When you led the Congressional delegation through Baghdad to demonstrate how safe it was, why didn’t you tell the American people about the vast amount of U.S. military support that accompanied you?


Obama bill to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners

One of your campaign ads claims that Senator Obama supported "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." The bill that the ad refers to would have required “age-appropriate” sex education for kindergarteners. One of the major elements of the bill was to provide kindergarteners with the ability to recognize and refuse unwanted sexual advances, as illustrated by the following wording:

Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance.

Do you think it was fair to disparage Senator Obama for supporting “comprehensive sex education” of kindergarteners when the main purpose of that legislation was to protect kindergarteners against sexual predators?


Earmarked legislation

One of the major themes of your campaign is your consistent stance against earmarked legislation. In a September 2008 speech you said “I have never asked for a single earmark, pork barrel project for my state of Arizona”

However: In 2006 you co-sponsored legislation that asked for $10 million for an academic center at the University of Arizona to honor the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist; In 2003, you won authorization to buy property to create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona; and, in 1992, you asked the Environmental Protection Agency to provide $5 million toward a wastewater project in Nogales, Ariz.

Can you explain on what basis you consider this legislation that you sponsored not to constitute earmarked legislation?


Obama handing over our health care system to the federal government

You have repeatedly said that Senator Obama’s health care plan would turn health care over to the federal government. At the first presidential debate you said:

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.

But the Obama/Biden health care plan, posted on their website, contains no mention of government provision of health care. Rather, it offers Americans the option of purchasing health insurance from the government, with the aid of government subsidies. Furthermore, Americans have the option of sticking with their current insurance or purchasing government insurance, along the same principles used by our Medicare program. In summary, the Obama/Biden health care plan does not restrict the choices of the American people with respect to either the health care that they receive or the health insurance that covers them.

I have two questions for you: 1) Do you believe that Medicare interferes with the ability of families and individuals to make their own health care decisions and gives that power to the federal government? And 2) On what basis do you say that the Obama/Biden health care plan hands the health care system over to the federal government and interferes with the ability of families to make their own health care decisions?


Energy independence and global warming

Another major theme of your campaign is our need for energy independence from foreign oil. Related to that theme, you claim to have distanced yourself from President Bush by acknowledging the risk that global warming poses to our planet and the need to take corrective action. However, many of your policy positions and statements cast doubt on your commitment to the development of alternative energy sources that would increase our energy independence and reduce the load of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by our nation’s industries and people.

First, you have consistently opposed government subsidies for clean energy development. When asked your opinion on government subsidies for clean energy technology such as wind and solar, you 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.

Secondly, you have proposed no plans for improving energy efficiency, as Senator Obama’s energy plan does.

Thirdly, you have made it clear that you favor the appointment of so-called “strict constructionist judges”, four of who argued in dissent, in a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, that carbon dioxide, “which is alleged to be causing global climate change”, is not an air pollutant.

Fourthly, though you say that you support a cap-and-trade system to lower greenhouse gas emissions, earlier this year in a Republican presidential debate you denied that a cap-and-trade system is a mandate, and you expressed your belief that voluntary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by industry will be sufficient to lower greenhouse gas emissions in our country by 60% by 2050.

And fifthly, the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has given you a 24% lifetime score for your global warming policies, and a 0% score for 2007.

So, my questions to you are: 1) Why have you consistently opposed government subsidies for wind and solar energy development? 2) Why doesn’t your proposed energy plan include ideas for improving energy efficiency? 3) Do you agree with justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts that carbon dioxide in not an air pollutant? And 4) Why do you believe that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by U.S. industry should be voluntary rather than mandatory?


Obama “pals around with terrorists”

Your running mate has repeatedly accused Senator Obama of “palling around with terrorists”, which has incited hatred and calls for violence at your recent campaign rallies. You have gone along with these tactics by claiming that Obama has not adequately answered questions relating to this subject.

These accusations are apparently related to Obama’s tenuous relationship with William Ayers. Professor Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground, an anti-Vietnam War protest organization which took credit for some non-fatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capital building and was characterized by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization during the 1960s, when Senator Obama was eight years old. Ayers has denied any involvement in terrorist activities and has repudiated terrorism in any form for any reason, stating “Terrorism is never justifiable, even in a just cause. I’ve never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it”. He and his wife turned themselves in to the FBI in the 1980s, and all charges against them were subsequently dropped.

Senator Obama served with Ayers on a Chicago public education improvement project in 1995, and from 1999-2001 Obama and Ayers simultaneously served as board members for a charitable foundation. In 1999, Ayers hosted a campaign event for Obama in his bid for election to the Illinois State Senate. Beyond those associations, Obama has denied any relationship or contact with Ayers other than running into him a little over a year ago in the neighborhood in which they both live. Obama has repudiated the actions of the Weather Underground.

Do you believe that it is fair to characterize Senator Obama’s relationship with William Ayers as “palling around with terrorists”, or do you think that it is fair to characterize Obama in any way as “palling around with terrorists?


The “Bridge to nowhere”

Your running mate, in an effort to establish her credentials as a crusader against wasteful spending, announced at the Republican Convention, and at least 36 times since then, that “I told Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere”.

The truth of the matter is that as a candidate for Alaska Governor in 2006, Sarah Palin supported the bridge, saying

This link (the bridge) is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper… I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project.

After becoming governor Palin changed her mind about the need for the bridge. However, by that time Congress had already made the decision to provide Alaska with $223 million of the approximately $400 million needed for the bridge construction. Palin accepted the money that the U.S. Congress provided, and used it for other projects.

Do you believe that Governor Palin’s oft-repeated line that “I told Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere” is misleading and dishonest, and do you think she should quit using it?


War for oil

You said at a town hall meeting in Denver a few months ago:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will – that will then prevent us – that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

However, at the time that our country was considering going to war against Iraq, you espoused a very different reason for the need to go to war. You said at that time:

I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom.

Do you believe that our need for another nation’s oil justifies our going to war against them, and do you believe that that was the reason that we went to war against Iraq? If not, then what sense does it make to say that your energy policy will prevent us from ever having to go to war again in the Middle East?


Alleged dishonest attacks by Obama against Palin

In September you released an ad that quoted FactCheck.org, saying “The attacks on Governor Palin are ‘completely false’ … ‘misleading’”. Those words are repeated while a picture of Senator Obama appears on-screen, thus giving the impression that FactCheck.org accused Obama or his campaign of making false attacks against Governor Palin. But Senator Obama never made the accusations that are the subject of the ad. FactCheck.org had this to say about that ad.

The McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

Do you believe that this ad was dishonest? If not, then why is Senator Obama pictured on-screen as the narrator says that the attacks against Governor Palin that are the subject of the ad are false and misleading?


The need for some hard questioning of the McCain/Palin campaign

The McCain/Palin presidential campaign has been one of the most dishonest ever conducted. Such a strategy could only have been undertaken in the belief that the national news media would be grossly negligent in its duty to confront the campaign with its numerous false assertions.

Fortunately, the U.S. national corporate news media has not been wholly negligent in reporting on the many lies of the McCain campaign – and that explains in part why Obama is beginning to put together a somewhat comfortable lead in national polls. In addition, Internet bloggers have greatly contributed to shining a light on most of the lies and distortions.

But the response of the national corporate news media has been far from satisfactory. Many millions of Americans believe the many lies and distortions that they hear from the McCain campaign. Worse yet, some of those lies have so inflamed with hatred certain segments of the U.S. population that the potential for violence appears to be greatly enhanced.

In response to the escalating toxic atmosphere engendered by his campaign, Senator McCain recently (and belatedly) made a substantial attempt to calm down his crowds, stating that Senator Obama is a “decent family man” and that our nation has nothing to fear from him if he were to be elected President. Senator McCain deserves credit for that, and I applaud his efforts in that regard, as does Senator Obama. Hopefully he will continue on that tack, and reign in his pit bull as well.

But the great bulk of the lies and distortions remain unaddressed. Our national corporate news media needs to do a much better job of holding the McCain campaign accountable for its numerous lies and distortions. Here is a list of 47 lies perpetrated by the McCain campaign, accompanied by detailed explanations, which need to be addressed much better than they have been. In addition to what I’ve discussed in this post, those lies include:

McCain 'suspended' his campaign.
Obama will raise your taxes.
Obama called Sarah Palin “a pig.”
Obama opposes all free trade.
Obama will increase spending by $1 trillion.
Obama will “hand the health care system over to the federal government.”
Obama thinks Iran “doesn’t pose a serious threat.”
Obama wants to bomb Pakistan.
Obama voted against funding the troops.
Obama voted for higher taxes 94 times.
Palin “vetoed millions of earmarks.”
McCain tried to reform Fannie Mae
Offshore drilling will reduce the cost of gas.
US companies pay world’s 2nd highest corporate taxes.
Obama will tax electricity.
McCain invented the BlackBerry.
Obama volunteer for the same charity.
Obama supports “infanticide.”
Obama thinks troops in Afghanistan are “just” killing civilians.
Obama snubbed wounded troops.
Biden supported McCain on Iraq until this election.
McCain refuses special interest money
Sarah Palin commands the Alaskan National Guard
Obama agrees that the economy is fundamentally strong
Alaska Produces 20% of US Energy
McCain's Campaign has no Connections to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
Palin Rejected $500 million Earmarks
Obama is 'mum' on the economic crisis
Palin sold the Governor's jet on EBay
Obama gave big oil millions in subsidies
Palin took on big oil
Obama Killed Immigration reform
Palin visited troops in Iraq
Obama wants to increase government size by 23%
Obama opposes the electric car
Obama is advised by the former CEO of Freddie Mac
Obama wants to bomb Pakistan
McCain supports a 'bipartisanship' in the bailout
"23,000 People at our rallies"
Palin Fired Trooper for Performance Reasons
Obama is part of the corrupt Chicago establishment


Discuss (20 comments) | Recommend (29 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.