Reflections Eight Days Later

Since the election I've opted to breathe, reflect and contemplate our country's new political order. I've forced myself not to post online in recent days and decompress after a frenetic pace of activism as well as three years of blogging in opposition to America's corporatist theocracy. Was it really two years ago that I phone-banked in October 2006 with a sore throat in desperation to retake congress? Only a few months ago I anguished over which of the Democratic candidates to support during the primaries. Thankfully, my preferred candidate John Edwards did not get the nomination.

Like many of you I responded to Howard Dean's clarion call in his magnificent March 2003 "What I want to Know" speech. Eight days after electing our first black president Dean's closing paragraph seems especially poignant:

"I want my country back! We want our country back! I am tired of being divided! I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore! I want America to look like America, where we are all included, hand in hand. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together - black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America! The Democratic Party! We are going to win in 2004! Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Stand up for America, Stand up for America, Stand up for America!!"

One of the first things I did the morning after Obama's election was re-read the entire text of that speech. Howard Dean started the fire that achieved critical mass with Barack Obama's candidacy. He would make an ideal choice to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and Obama should pick him over anyone else.

Four years ago while phone-banking for John Kerry I realized Democrats were in trouble when speaking to an out of work laborer who claimed he preferred Bush because Kerry wanted to "take my gun." Several weeks ago I felt a spark of hope when calling a blue collar man in Ohio who observed that "Maybe I have more in common with blacks who know something about hardship than those fat cats on Wall Street."

Shamefully, even as we elected our first black President the electorate displayed intense homophobia with numerous ugly state ballot propositions as was the case in California. Gay rights are human rights and we can't ignore the dignity of homosexual Americans while celebrating Obama's achievement. I suspect President Obama will not want to expend political capital on the cause of gay rights while dealing with the economy. Hence, the human rights of our fellow citizens will have to be taken up on the grass roots level to facilitate change.

Overall, we progressive/liberal activists must remain vigilant. Already the corporatist theocratic vultures are circling and claiming Obama doesn't have a mandate for anything beyond being different than George W. Bush. We must not let them get away with it. Now is not the time to go wobbly and accept "half a loaf" while millions don't have health insurance, wage earners and small business entrepreneurs are under siege, people in poverty are ignored and America's infrastructure is crumbling. Now is not the time to become hesitant while our planet is faced with the calamity of global warming and America's military continues to occupy two countries. Now is not the time for caution while America is competing in a global economy with a second rate education system.

It is up to us to embolden President Obama, congressional Democrats as well as governors and state legislatures when they're addressing the moral center of economic and social justice, civil liberties and transitioning America from an empire culture to become better global citizens. In doing so they will be virulently attacked by elements of the old order such as the corporatist media, economic predators and religious zealots.

Equally important though is that we never neglect our roles as truth tellers when progressive core values are compromised for expediency. The first step was winning on November 4th. However, there remain plenty of Democrats who supported torture and looked the other way during the worst excesses of the Bush Administration. We should seize opportunities to challenge them in upcoming primaries as a reminder that we have long memories and have taken names.

The years ahead will be lean thanks the mess left behind by the conservative nomenklatura. Municipalities and industries nationwide are severely strapped as multiple sectors of our economy are in a crisis mode. Geopolitically, the world is not only confronted with global warming but the economic collateral damage of globalization.

Yet I am cautiously optimistic we'll dig our way through. Necessity is a mother to invention and even following the dark legacy of predatory conservatism I still believe we can achieve a society based upon liberty and justice for all.

1932 Redux?

By now you're all aware of the latest financial calamity coming out of Wall Street with Lehman Brothers declaring bankruptcy and Merrill being bought out by Bank of America. Meanwhile, the American Insurance Group is teetering on the abyss and forced to lean on their subsidiaries for $20 billion in loans.

One has to wonder if standard depository banks are also endangered. The Federal Deposit Corporation (FDIC) created during the New Deal era is ultimately just an IOU. If this financial calamity however extends to depository banks all of us are in serious trouble. Thankfully, depository banks are subject to more regulation and have avoided calamity so far. But for how long can they remain immune?

Was it so long ago that George W. Bush and his plutocratic soul mates such as John McCain advocated for putting Social Security into this morass? If Republicans had their way, millions of elderly Americans would be confronting poverty right now.

Our current mess is the direct result of conservative ideology that pushed for the deregulation of the financial services sector. Consequently we're on the same path of economic catastrophe that we found ourselves in 1932 when FDR first ran for president.

With Barack Obama we have some hope. John McCain only offers more lipstick for pigs.

Kudos To Joe Biden

I've always had mixed feelings about Delaware Senator Joe Biden. On domestic issues his support of the bankruptcy bill undermined both wage earners and small business entrepreneurs. However, his home state relies on the financial services industry for jobs so I understood.

In October 2002, Biden showed poor judgment in supporting the resolution to go to war against Iraq. Overall though he's been an articulate voice on foreign policy. I thought his presidential campaign was an honorable attempt at substance over show biz and deserved more attention from the media.

Today, Biden effectively responded to President Bush's disgraceful fear mongering before the Israeli Knesset. Bush was specifically targeting American Jewish voters on behalf of McCain. Jewish voters typically vote for Democrats about seventy percent of the time. Obama has a perceived weakness among that constituency. As an American Jew I was offended by Bush's pandering through fear mongering and appreciate Biden's forceful response.



Iran is a complex and layered society. To learn more about the Iranian people and their system of government, click here to listen to an interview I conducted with Mideast expert Barbara Slavin last year. Slavin's informative book, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation had just been published when the interview took place.

An Interview With Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist and Author Fred Kaplan

Most Americans are eager to turn the page on the Bush years. Yet even as we elect a new president we’re still coming to terms with an era that has both tarnished America’s reputation and diminished its influence.

Fred Kaplan chronicles the folly of the Bush years in his new book, Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power (John Wiley & Sons).

Kaplan writes that,

“Nearly all of America’s blunders in war and peace these past few years stem from a single grand misconception: that the world changed after 9/11, when in fact it didn’t.

Certainly, things about the world changed, not least Americans’ sudden awareness that they were vulnerable. But the way the world works – the nature of power, warfare, and politics among nations – remained essentially the same.”

Kaplan also postulates that the Bush Administration as well as most Americans falsely believed we emerged from our Cold War victory stronger. In reality, our geopolitical position was weakened after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 because America’s allies were free to pursue their own interests. In a bipolar Cold War world, America’s allies depended on our protection and remained subservient to our leadership. Once the Cold War ended however, maintaining international coalitions required more compromise and skilled diplomacy because we didn’t enjoy the same leverage.

Tragically, the Bush Administration completely misread our geopolitical position and alienated the world at the very moment we needed friends. Even more remarkable when one considers how much of the world was initially sympathetic to America following 9/11.

Compounding these misconceptions was a Secretary of Defense in Donald Rumsfeld who simply viewed Iraq as a laboratory to demonstrate how easily America could topple a sovereign government’s regime. As Kaplan notes in his book, once Saddam’s government fell, Rumsfeld lost all interest in the required follow through as Iraq went to hell.

Kaplan also provides anecdotes in his book to explain that in George W. Bush’s universe, freedom is humanity’s default state. Hence, all one had to do was use military power to eliminate an obstacle to freedom like Saddam Hussein or hold elections in Palestine and freedom would magically appear. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never considered the hard work of establishing conditions that facilitate a civil society so necessary to freedom as important.

Thomas E. Ricks, the author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure In Iraq, had the following praise for Kaplan’s book:

“This is the inside history of our time, told with precision and confidence by an author who knows where the secrets are kept – and also that the most powerful and dangerous weapon in Washington, D.C. is a new idea.”

Kaplan who writes the “War Stories” column for Slate was a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the Boston Globe while covering the Pentagon and post Soviet Moscow. He’s also the author of the classic book, The Wizards of Armageddon and has written for The Atlantic Monthly, the New York Times, the New Yorker and The Washington Post among other publications.

Kaplan agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his book and national security policy during the Bush years. Our conversation was just over forty minutes and covered the concept known as a “revolution in military affairs,” the fateful decision to disband the Iraqi army and ban members of the Baath Party from serving in high level positions, the Bush Administration’s bizarre path to a diplomatic accommodation with North Korea, the dysfunctional reign of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, the current dynamic with Rumsfeld’s successor Robert Gates and the path future presidents will need to follow for a sensible foreign policy.

Please refer to the media player below. This interview can also be accessed for free via the Itunes Store by searching for “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”

When Top Gun Declared "Mission Accomplished"

What is the driving force behind the progressive blogosphere’s relentless pursuit of truth? Where does it come from and why the intensity? Well, for a lot of us President Bush’s cheap imitation of Tom Cruz in Top Gun four years ago today is a powerful symbol.

There is no topic more sobering for a nation than war. Yet, on May 1, 2003, our adolescent President dressed up as a fighter pilot and made a spectacle of declaring “Mission Accomplished.” The corporate media, MSNBC's Chris Mathews especially, opted to uncritically praise President Bush’s tawdry exploitation of symbolism. As a patriotic American, I was embarrassed by my President’s behavior that day and deeply offended by bastions of the mainstream media such as Chris Mathews and CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Unlike a real news organization such as Knight Rider, much of the mainstream media ignored that the American intelligence bureaucracy had considerable doubts about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. Then they compounded their sins by celebrating President Bush’s cynical use of the symbols of war such as a fighter pilot’s uniform and a navy carrier. A day that will live in infamy as an example of the media’s disgraceful failures the previous six years and a reminder of why the elitists on your television screens have blood on their hands.

Media Matters has provided detailed transcripts from some of the most egregious coverage from that day which I pasted below.
*******************************************************************************
Chief among the cheerleaders was MSNBC's Chris Matthews. On the May 1, 2003, edition of Hardball, Matthews was joined in his effusive praise of Bush by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and "Democrat" Pat Caddell. Former U.S. Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-CA) also appeared on the program.:

MATTHEWS: What's the importance of the president's amazing display of leadership tonight?

[...]

MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That [...] if you're going to run against him, you'd better be ready to take [that] away from him.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Bob Dornan, you were a congressman all those years. Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was [that] the best picture in the 2000 campaign?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter, you're the first to speak tonight on the buzz. The president's performance tonight, redolent of the best of Reagan -- what do you think?

COULTER: It's stunning. It's amazing. I think it's huge. I mean, he's landing on a boat at 150 miles per hour. It's tremendous. It's hard to imagine any Democrat being able to do that. And it doesn't matter if Democrats try to ridicule it. It's stunning, and it speaks for itself.

MATTHEWS: Pat Caddell, the president's performance tonight on television, his arrival on ship?

CADDELL: Well, first of all, Chris, the -- I think that -- you know, I was -- when I first heard about it, I was kind of annoyed. It sounded like the kind of PR stunt that Bill Clinton would pull. But and then I saw it. And you know, there's a real -- there's a real affection between him and the troops.

[...]

MATTHEWS: The president there -- look at this guy! We're watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He only flew it as a passenger, but he's flown --

CADDELL: He looks like a fighter pilot.

MATTHEWS: He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him -- I mean, he seems like -- he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does.

CADDELL: Yes. It's a -- I don't know. You know, it's an internal thing. I don't know if you can put it into words. [...] You can see it with him and the troops, the ease with which he talks to them. I was amazed by that, frankly, because as I said, I was originally appalled, particularly when I heard he was going in an F-18. But -- on there -- but the -- but you know, that was --

MATTHEWS: Look at this guy!

CADDELL: -- was hard not to be moved by their reaction to him and his reaction to them and --

MATTHEWS: You know, Ann --

CADDELL: -- you know, they -- it's a quality. It's an innate quality. It's a real quality.

MATTHEWS: I know. I think you're right.

Later that day, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Matthews said:

MATTHEWS: We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

On the May 7, 2003, edition of Hardball, Matthews asked former Nixon administration official G. Gordon Liddy what he thought of the response to Bush's landing on the Abraham Lincoln. Looking at the footage, Liddy commented that Bush's flight suit made "the best of his manly characteristic." From the May 7 Hardball:

MATTHEWS: What do you make of this broadside against the USS Abraham Lincoln and its chief visitor last week?

LIDDY: Well, I -- in the first place, I think it's envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man. And here comes George Bush. You know, he's in his flight suit, he's striding across the deck, and he's wearing his parachute harness, you know -- and I've worn those because I parachute -- and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those -- run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape.

MATTHEWS: You know, it's funny. I shouldn't talk about ratings. I don't always pay attention to them, but last night was a riot because, at the very time [U.S. Rep.] Henry Waxman [D-CA] was on -- and I do respect him on legislative issues -- he was on blasting away, and these pictures were showing last night, and everybody's tuning in to see these pictures again.

Various media figures hyped Bush's National Guard experience but made no mention of evidence that emerged during the 2000 presidential campaign that Bush may have received special treatment in getting into TANG and during his tenure. On the May 1, 2003, edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Blitzer noted that jets like the F/A-18 Hornet "helped win the war in Iraq" and twice commented on Bush's TANG background -- at one point calling Bush a "one-time Fighter Dog." From the May 1 edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports:

BLITZER: There was a riskier landing that the president wanted to make. The Secret Service, though, just wouldn't let the commander in chief ride in an F/A-18 strike fighter. But CNN's Kyra Phillips will be doing just that in a matter of only a few minutes. She's in the cockpit of this F/A-18 Hornet. Right now, Navy jets like this one, of course, helped win the war in Iraq. Now, they're headed home. We'll talk with Kyra as soon as she catapults off the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. That's coming up.

A little bit of history and a lot of drama today when President Bush became the first commander in chief to make a tailhook landing on an aircraft carrier. A one-time Fighter Dog himself in the Air National Guard, the president flew in the co-pilot seat with a trip to the USS Abraham Lincoln. And he then mingled with the pilots and the crew members of the carrier on its way back from a deployment which covered the war in Iraq and before that, the war in Afghanistan. From that same deck tonight, the president will make more history. He'll deliver a major address to the nation.

[...]

BLITZER: And the president clearly pleased by his own landing aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

[...]

And as we mentioned, President Bush is no stranger to military aircraft. He flew F-102 fighter jets in the Texas Air National Guard. He joined at the height of the Vietnam War but was never sent overseas and never saw combat. There's a picture of the young George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard.

On the May 1 edition of CNBC's The News with Brian Williams, Williams, now anchor of NBC's Nightly News, said of Bush:

WILLIAMS: And two immutable truths about the president that the Democrats can't change: He's a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit. He is a former pilot, so it's not a foreign art farm -- art form to him. Not all presidents could have pulled this scene off today.

On the May 1 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Sustern, correspondent Jon Scott reported:

SCOTT: Greta, the president made just about as grand an entrance tonight as the White House could have asked for. He came in aboard an S-3B Viking. That's a sort of a workhorse of the carrier fleet, an aircraft that is sometimes used for aerial refueling. It can also drop targeted and non-targeted bombs, the so-called dumb bombs. It can do a little bit of everything, and today it brought some very important cargo, namely the president of the United States, the first time ever that a sitting president has landed on a moving aircraft carrier.

Now, of course, President Bush flew fighters in the Air National Guard, but no pilot, no matter how experienced, can land on an aircraft carrier first time out. The president did take the stick for a short time during his flight, but he let another pilot handle the landing. Now, he -- when he got here he was absolutely mobbed by the 200 or so crew members who are normally on deck during flight ops, as they call them. The people in the multicolored jerseys reached out for a handshake, a photo, anything they could get of this president. One observer here tonight said it was like the Beatles climbed out of that plane, and that's very much what it looked like from here.

On the May 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, White House correspondent Wendell Goler reported:

GOLER: With a tailhook landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, President George W. Bush made history in advance of a historic speech to the nation in which he'll declare the war in Iraq is all but over. Mr. Bush traded his suit and tie for a flight suit and took a 20-minute flight to the ship during which he briefly called on his skills as a pilot in the National Guard.

[...]

HUME: Wendell, the president said "Yes, I flew it," right? And you said he did. How much flying did he actually do today?

GOLER: Brit, the president says he flew the plane about a third of the way from North Island Naval Air Station to the carrier Lincoln. He says the pilot asked him if he wanted to do some maneuvers, but he flew it mostly in a straight line. He says he sure misses flying but that the S-3B Viking is a lot more sophisticated than the planes he flew during his time in the Air National Guard.

The print media joined in the collective swoon the following day. From a May 2, 2003, article in The New York Times by staff writer David E. Sanger:

But within minutes Mr. Bush emerged for the kind of photographs that other politicians can only dream about. He hopped out of the plane with a helmet tucked under his arm and walked across the flight deck with a swagger that seemed to suggest he had seen Top Gun. Clearly in his element, he was swarmed by cheering members of the Lincoln's crew.

Even in a White House that prides itself on its mastery of political staging, Mr. Bush's arrival on board the Lincoln was a first of many kinds.

Never before has a president landed aboard a carrier at sea, much less taken the controls of the aircraft. His decision to sleep aboard the ship this evening in the captain's quarters conjured images of the presidency at sea not seen since Franklin D. Roosevelt used to sail to summit meetings.

Mr. Bush was clearly reliving his days as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, more than three decades ago. "I miss flying, I can tell you that," he told reporters who bumped into him as he moved around the ship.

Washington Post staff writer Karen DeYoung reported on May 2, 2003:

Bush, who had taken off his helmet and thus avoided photographic comparisons to presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis's unfortunate episode with a tank helmet during 1988 campaign, jumped down in full flight regalia, a smile splitting his face. The Navy had planned an official greeting, with Bush being piped aboard and walking through two rows of "sideboys" saluting him -- a tradition that dates from the days when visiting officers were hauled up the side of the ship in a boatswain's chair.

Bush ignored it all, swaggering forward and pumping hands with everybody in sight before they could salute. "Here's a man with a birthday," he yelled at a television cameraman as he swung his arm around a sailor. "Put him on C-SPAN." For once, there were no security concerns to keep Bush from pressing flesh, and he made the most of it, hugging and patting everyone on the back -- from the greasy flight deck crew to F-18 pilots waiting to fly home this afternoon.

"Great job, great job," he kept saying. "I flew it," he shouted back to a reporter's shouted question about his flight. "Yeah, of course I liked it. It was fantastic."

Later, Bush explained that he had taken the controls from the pilot, Cmdr. John "Skip" Lussier, for about a third of the 15-minute flight at 360 knots, but had just steered during the "straight" parts. It was, he said, "much more sophisticated" than the jets he used to fly during his tour in the National Guard. Bush had a briefing from the Air Wing Commander and crew members who described their personal experiences flying in combat, watched gun camera footage and heard a battle damage assessment.

The weekend news programs brought even more praise for Bush's performance. On the May 4, 2003, edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer and Time columnist Joe Klein had this to say:

SCHIEFFER: As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time. And if you're a political consultant, you can just see campaign commercial written all over the pictures of George Bush.

KLEIN: Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me. And it just shows you how high a mountain these Democrats are going to have to climb. You compare that image, which everybody across the world saw, with this debate last night where you have nine people on a stage and it doesn't air until 11:30 at night, up against Saturday Night Live, and you see what a major, major struggle the Democrats are going to have to try and beat a popular incumbent president.

On the May 4, 2003, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume recounted Bush's bravery:

HUME: But this was risky business. You know, there's grease and oil on the decks of those aircraft carriers. The wind's blowing. All kinds of stuff could have gone wrong. It didn't, he carried it off. Somebody, perhaps he, obviously, believed he could. But this was no slam dunk.

On the May 3, 2003, edition of CNN's The Capital Gang, then-Time columnist Margaret Carlson spoke of the "stirring tableau":

CARLSON: A hurricane couldn't have interfered with that particular parade. It was so well done, and even though we knew that everything was choreographed down to, you know, catching that fourth hook on the ship, it was still a pretty stirring tableau. Cecil B. DeMille couldn't have been done better. And even though you know there's no Santa Claus, Christmas is still great, as it was with that particular moment.

And appearing on the May 4, 2003, edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham discussed her reaction:

INGRAHAM: Speaking as a woman, and listening to the women who called into my radio show, seeing President Bush get out of that plane, carrying his helmet, he is a real man. He stands by his word. That was a very powerful moment.

Tell theTruth: Are You A Liar?

So when did you first realize our country was led by liars? Was there a particular incident, campaign or speech resulting in an epiphany? Did a cynical role model let you know our country’s decision makers could not be trusted to tell the truth?

For me it was at the age of fifteen in 1984. I was watching television when a campaign commercial for Mary Mochary, who challenged New Jersey incumbent Senator Bill Bradley, was aired. On screen appeared President Ronald Reagan sitting behind his desk at the oval office. I’ve tried to find a transcript or even footage of this commercial online but haven’t had any luck. So, I’m relying on memory.

As I remember it Reagan said, “I’m not the sort of fellow to tell another person how to vote, but I support Mary Mochary.” It was something like that. And Reagan had this self-effacing aw shucks expression when he said it. I later learned Reagan aired similarly scripted commercials on behalf of other Republican candidates that year.

It just amazed me how an American president, arguably the most political persona in the world could say with a straight face, “I’m not the sort of fellow to tell another person how to vote.” At fifteen I was politically aware. I knew Reagan was a former governor of California and had previously campaigned for president before defeating Jimmy Carter in 1980. Hence, this was somebody who told people who to vote for quite often.

The lie itself was harmless. It wasn’t about arms for hostages, the Contras or the phony war on drugs. Nevertheless, the memory stands out as the moment when I internalized how politicians would even shamelessly lie about small things. And we therefore had to listen to their words with critical ears because if they could lie about something small, a big lie was just around the corner.

Three years later, I was disillusioned when California Senator Alan Cranston was exposed as one of the infamous Keating Five. In the summer of ’86, I sent Cranston $100 which at seventeen wasn’t peanuts. Cranston was in a tough reelection fight and I admired his stance on nuclear disarmament. So in 1987, when I watched Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire who sat on the Senate Ethics Committee roughly question Cranston in public, I was devastated. I had believed in him.

In 1992 I supported Paul Tsongas for president. I disagreed with his economic positions but believed Tsongas was the most honest candidate seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination that year. Sadly, Tsongas wasn’t honest about his recovery from cancer and he died in 1997.

You get older and learn life isn’t always so black and white. None of us are pure and the best of us have moral lapses. And in a world of nuance, lies become easy to rationalize. Many of us lie in our personal and professional lives. We lie to our boss as our boss lies to us. We tell “white lies” to our family and friends. In the movie “The Departed,” Vera Farmiga’s character admitted she lied to keep things on an “even keel.” And she proceeded to live a lie while cheating on Matt Damon. Later she dumped Matt Damon upon learning about his lies. More often than not the “even keel” Farmiga’s character refers to are lies to preserve a self-serving image we’ve constructed.

In America our politicians and military leadership have lied for all kinds of reasons. In 1960, President Eisenhower was caught in a lie following the Gary Powers U2 spy plane incident. Embarrassing but Americans didn’t hold it against Eisenhower. It was the Cold War and the public believed their president had his heart in the right place about protecting our national security.

John Kennedy partly won the presidency in 1960 by lying about a “missile gap” with the Soviet Union that didn’t exist. President Lyndon Johnson lied about the pretext for war in Vietnam while his Pentagon misinformed the public about our "success." President Nixon lied about Vietnam as well as not being a crook and President Clinton practiced in front of mirror before telling the world, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

One person’s shit is another’s ice cream and some lies are considered necessary. Americans were largely in the dark about FDR’s polio and he lied about his true intentions during World War Two. He promised to keep America out and manipulated behind the scenes as best he could to put us in the conflict. Yet FDR’s place in history is secure. The Axis Powers had to be defeated to ensure our survival and a different president might have appeased Hitler. Hence we don’t judge FDR harshly for misleading about his health or war plans. FDR’s lies are deemed good lies.

Americans don't judge Clinton overly harshly either. Many of us are guilty of similar offenses and would’ve lied to protect our marriages, families and reputations. His testimony about the word “is” will always remain the butt of jokes but most Americans would gladly take him back. A friend recently confided to me that his marriage ended when his wife caught him in the act while he cheated on her. Unable to come up with a convincing lie he said, “honey it’s not what it looks like.” I don’t judge him harshly for it. Nor am I judgmental about Clinton or Vera Farmiga’s character. They didn’t lie maliciously. For them lies were shields against human frailty.

So, one could say that lies are simply part of the human condition and our leaders reflect this reality. Nonetheless, from my vantage point, a culture of destructive lying has become dangerously pervasive in recent years. This decade, corporations such as Enron shamelessly lied to their shareholders and dutiful employees, Jayson Blair hoodwinked the New York Times and Dick Cheney stood before the Republican Party National Convention in 2000 and promised the country a “stiff dose of the truth.”

Ironically, the same President Bush who promised a restoration of honor and integrity has become synonymous with lies – too many to summarize here. His Attorney General can’t keep track of his own lies. Former CIA director George Tenet has written a memoir whining about his “slam dunk” lie being taken out of context. And there are the shameful lies from the Pentagon about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. If that's not bad enough, the Bush Administration is pathologically devoted to covering up evidence about global warming. From Kartina to Iraq, how many people have died because of all these lies? And how many more deaths are to come?

Recently, my Dad sagely observed to me in a telephone conversation, “None of this is new. I’ve seen all this stuff before. All politicians are full of it. They’ll always be full of it. That’s life.” Perhaps. And when it comes to life and politics, my Dad, like many Dads is a human oracle of experience and wisdom. But I remain optimistic because within this morass of deceit, a counter-culture of truth is emerging.

As our institutions and the mainstream media fail to deliver the truth, a hunger for reality is expressing itself among the people. Hence, we have the ascendancy of blogs. It’s undisciplined and irreverent out here. One has to be a discriminating consumer among thoughtful bloggers and those who are simply rhetorical bomb throwers. But there are golden nuggets of truth among ordinary people challenging elites about their destructive lies, disinformation and exploitation.

One of my favorite blogs may not be known to you and belongs to a dear personal friend, Kaiser Permanente – Corporate Ethics. My friend was an employee of Kaiser who lost her job because she’s an honest person. Her story is a long and complicated one and best learned from reading her blog. Her life is hard and she is unable to post as frequently as she’d like. Nonetheless, her site has become a repository for exposing the lies and cover-ups of Kaiser Permanente.

Not surprisingly, Kaiser mobilized their legal and PR machine to personally destroy her. But she perseveres as a courageous beacon of light against their greed culture of lies and malfeasance. More than once I observed to her that Kaiser reminds me of the Bush Administration. And as she put it to me once, “That’s because the people inside the Bush Administration come from corporate cultures such as Kaiser where truth can be tossed away like a can of tuna fish.” As only she could put it. It’s largely because of her inspiration I joined the blogosphere fray.

And there are the bloggers we know about such as JoshMarshall of Talking Points Memo, who pushed the story of the unscrupulous dismissal of the U.S. Attorneys. Marshall’s success at emphasizing a story the mainstream media initially ignored, illustrate how the façade of deceit so dutifully served and enabled by inside the beltway pundits such as David Broder, Joe Klein and David Brooks is finally cracking.

And I’m a part of it too in my own way. Of course I’m not the sort of fellow to tell another person how to vote.
*****************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to Mike Finnigan for including me in his most recent blogroundup on Crooks and Liars.

So Who Has That Vision Thing?

So how do you select the candidate you support for President? Is it issues? Hair? Charisma? Perhaps you’re persuaded by an impressive resume? Ideology? Is it their religion or ethnicity? A single issue that for you dwarfs any other consideration? And if you’re a Democrat or Republican, how do you know when candidate X is the one you support to be your party’s nominee? Perhaps you reject both parties completely and prefer nominees of third parties such as the Greens or Libertarians?

As a liberal Democratic Party activist, I’ll know the candidate I support when I’m compelled to knock on doors and phone bank in get out the vote (GOTV) efforts. Activism is disruptive to one’s life. It has to be coordinated around one’s work schedule and personal life. Often done after hours, on weekends and at the expense of more pleasurable activities.

Hence, I need to be inspired by a candidate before I sign up and help in their effort to become president. Inspiration is not something easily quantified. We know inspiration when we feel it. So, what are the ingredients that inspire activists to stuff envelopes and get doors slammed in their faces? What are we looking for in our next president?

Henry Adams, an American historian and the grandson and great grandson of two presidents once said that a president "resembles the commander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek." The first President Bush contemptuously described this as “the vision thing.”

Inspiring vision may come from unpredictable sources. Not many regarded FDR as a transformational figure prior to 1932. He was an ambitious politician often talking out of both sides of his mouth. Ironically, one month after becoming the Democratic Party’s nominee in 1932, FDR criticized incumbent President Herbert Hoover about government spending:

"Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits. Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse."

Ultimately, FDR governed with a very different vision and responded to the Great Depression with heavy deficit spending. The New Deal combined with FDR’s leadership in World War Two elevated this deal-making pragmatist into a transformational agent of change. Through an activist government, FDR presided over a vision of economic fairness and helped liberate millions from Hitler’s tyranny.

In 2004, activists such as myself were inspired by a single vision: deposing Bush. Bush/Cheney had set the American house aflame and I wanted him out of power before it burned down completely. I didn’t sense much of a vision from Kerry and I didn’t care. He wasn’t Bush and that was enough.

Now I’m looking for a candidate who can “force the spring” as Bill Clinton put it in his 1993 inaugural speech. I want to support a candidate that is an agent of transformational change and renewal. Admittedly, I am setting the bar high. There is no perfect formula for determining which if any candidate meets such a criteria. In most campaigns for public office I ask myself three questions about prospective candidates:

1) What do they know?
2) What have they done?
3) What are they going to do?

At this point, there is only one candidate among the announced field in the Democratic Party that intrigues me: John Edwards. His record on Iraq troubles me but I’m starting to believe Edwards is sincere about learning from his mistake. Edwards has also demonstrated life perseverance following the loss of a teenage son. His wife is an inspiring model of perseverance as she supports the campaign in spite of cancer.

Several years ago my Dad and I were talking about a particular individual who seemed to lack empathy. My Dad observed this was someone who would benefit from life, “knocking him on his ass.” Edwards has the knowledge of someone who has been “knocked on his ass” through emotional trauma. I’m impressed with how both he and his wife responded to tragedy.

This is also a self-made man. His critics or as Katie Couric would put it, “some people” might say you can’t trust a man who made his fortune as a trial lawyer. I see a man who rose from humble beginnings and became a champion advocate for aggrieved individuals against concentrated corporate power. That is what Edwards has done with his life. Indeed, Edwards life is far more impressive to me than a garden-variety insider’s resume. When conservatives speak of tort reform they’re talking about stopping effective advocates such as John Edwards from helping the common person stand up to entrenched power.

To this point Edwards has been admirably specific about what he intends to do. His healthcare plan is serious and substantial. On issues ranging from global warming to taxes, John Edwards has not shied away from articulating an activist progressive agenda. Listening to John Edwards makes me think of FDR when he spoke of the “forgotten man” in 1932:

"He works, he votes, generally he prays - but he always pays - yes, above all, he pays. He does not want a political office. He is the one who keeps production going. He is strongly patriotic. He is wanted whenever, in his little circle, there is work to be done or counsel to be given. He gives no trouble. He is not in any way a problem (unlike tramps and outcasts); or notorious (unlike criminals); or an object of sentiment (unlike the poor and the weak); or a burden (unlike paupers and loafers). Therefore, he is forgotten. All the burdens fall on him - or on her, for it is time to remember that the Forgotten Man is not seldom a woman."

I’ll wait a bit longer. I want to observe how the candidates conduct themselves through the fishbowl of presidential politics for a few more months. Perhaps Al Gore will surprise me and join the fray. Maybe Barack Obama can demonstrate he’s more than a platitude machine. Ironically, Obama today reminds me of John Edwards in 2004. Perhaps Bill Richardson can convince me he’s not simply an agent of the establishment. For damn I won’t support Hillary Clinton. At this time, John Edwards appears to be the one with the “vision thing.” And that means, I’ll likely be phone banking, canvassing and stuffing envelopes on his behalf in a few months.

"Hyperpartisanship"

Partisanship in politics is healthy. Robust and rigorous debate is the engine of democracy. There is a line however between principled partisan and "hyperpartisanship” which seeks to avoid competition and destroy any political opposition.

E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post adroitly explains the distinction in his column today:

“Hand-wringing over extreme partisanship has become a popular cause among learned analysts. They operate from Olympian heights and strain for evenhandedness by issuing tut-tuts to all sides, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

But the evidence of recent days should settle the case: This administration has operated on the basis of a hyperpartisanship not seen in decades. Worse, the destroy-the-opposition, our-team-vs.-their-team approach has infected large parts of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. That's a shame, since there are plenty of good people in both. Still, the tendency to subordinate principles to win short-term victories and cover up for the administration is, alas, rampant on the right.”

At one time the American conservative movement was based upon principled partisanship and the engagement of ideas. No ideology should go unchecked and both the New Deal and Great Society programs deserved criticism for overreach and excesses. That’s fine. Criticism is how we improve and the public is best served when our politics is an intense competition in the market place of ideas.

As Dionne notes in his column however, Republicans have taken partisanship to another level. Truthfully, the GOP engaged in hyperpartisanship long before George W. Bush was on the scene. Their power was contingent upon destroying America’s faith in government to legitimize crony capitalism under the guise of privatization. They successfully exploited racial divisions and persuaded working class whites to vote against their economic interests for a generation.

In recent years, conservatives issued dire warnings about the “homosexual agenda” and “secularists” as their instrument of fear and diversion. And for good measure, questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with their failed national security policies.

Meanwhile, the hyperpartisans in the Republican Party were empowered by “bipartisan” Democrats such as Joe Lieberman who legitimized their corporatist war mongering. Has the bough finally broken on the era of conservative hyperpartisanship?

Democrats will use congressional hearings to expose how the Justice Department terminated six United States Attorneys for not aggressively prosecuting cases in line with Republican Party interests. The scandal appears to be gaining traction in the mainstream media and even some Republican legislators have expressed outrage about the Justice Department’s conduct. Perhaps President Bush will even sacrifice Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez the same way Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was shown the door following the November elections.

My guess however is that right wing hyperpartisans will merely be temporarily slowed. The zealots in the Republican Party remind me of the Bolsheviks. Vladimir Lenin surrendered territory to the Germans with the “Brest Peace” in 1918 to purchase breathing room and space. But he hadn’t given up on exporting revolution.

Similarly, Gonzalez will be sacrificed to buy time. But the neocons and conservative hyperpartisans will never give up on their quest to destroy unions, consumer protections and the fabric of social justice. Greed and hate is simply too much a part of their DNA.

Let's Start Project 2012

An office colleague and I have engaged in an ongoing debate about the merits of political bosses from the pre-Watergate era over the current system. We’ll call him Buck. Buck’s a generation older than me, fought in Vietnam and describes himself as a “political agnostic.”

He’s not a liberal and politically incorrect is an understatement to describe Buck. Buck is a foul-mouthed renaissance man and delightfully entertaining. He would make a terrific blogger! Buck is vehemently opposed to the policies of the Bush Administration and nostalgic for the era of smoke filled rooms.

As an unapologetic liberal, I champion an open process that elevates people over elites selecting our leaders. Buck considers me an impractical idealist and argues that during the era of party bosses an unfit person such as George W. Bush could never have become president. I counter that elites from such an era were overly devoted to the status quo. Buck retorts that it took smoke filled room masters such as LBJ to pass civil rights legislation and Nixon to open diplomatic relations with China. I return fire and indict both presidents as warmongers who subverted the Constitution. And we’ll keep going back and forth.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I’m forced to acknowledge the era of smoke filled rooms was superior to the system we have now. At least candidates for president were vetted for their intelligence and capability to some degree in those days. Now it’s all about style, sound bites and raising money to compete in an obscene frontloaded primary schedule. Think of it this way: does anyone believe Harry Truman could’ve raised enough money to compete with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama under the current system? That said, I do not advocate a return to the era of party bosses selecting presidential nominees while smoking cigars.

Instead, I’d like to see a grass roots movement pressuring both parties to adopt the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) proposal promoting four regional primaries in 2012. Frankly, I’m more passionate about that cause then the current crop of presidential candidates in either party and believe it’s necessary for our democracy’s salvation.

The concept proposed by NASS is rather simple. Tradition is respected and both Iowa and New Hampshire are allowed to go one-two as before. The remaining forty-eight states would participate in four regional primaries. Every four years the order these primaries are held will rotate.

NASS’s proposal offers numerous benefits. First and foremost, every state has an opportunity to influence the outcome. As a New Yorker, I’ve long resented how my home state with its large population and diversity has mattered so little in selecting major party nominees for the White House. And if New York moves up their primary date to increase its influence and benefit Guiliani and Clinton, the process will be debased even more. A rotating regional primary schedule eliminates the need for states to move up on the calendar right behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Another benefit is more time for candidates to be properly vetted and compete on a platform of ideas. The compressed schedule we currently have discourages exchanges about substance and instead facilitates “horserace” coverage. With both parties effectively selecting their nominees in February 2008, substantive debates about important issues won’t take place when voters are paying attention. The candidates will be debating at forums for contests deciding their party’s nomination in early 2008 this year.

Regional primaries will both shorten and lengthen the presidential campaign. Currently, the campaign to become a major party nominee starts a year too early and ends too quickly. NASS’s proposal will allow candidates to begin campaigning in the latter part of 2011. With the primary struggles extended, there will be more time to scrutinize policy distinctions among the candidates and assess their respective temperaments under pressure.

Most importantly, winning won’t be contingent upon which candidate can purchase the most airtime in a bloc of large states. Suppose New York joins New Jersey and California in moving its primary date up to February 5th? That means a candidate would have to get their message out through aid buys in the three biggest media markets in the country on the same day. What chance would a worthy underdog have?

I had hoped Russ Feingold would seek higher office. I’m now relieved he didn’t. This champion of public financing would’ve had no choice but to opt out of the public finance system to have any hope. Internet/netroots fundraising by itself would not have been enough to keep him competitive and I doubt he could've tapped into other donors sufficiently.

Finally, I believe adopting NASS’s proposals would generate more interest among the public and increase voter turnout. As Howard Dean has previously said, he’d rather have 100% turnout and lose because ultimately it means a healthier democracy.

While my preference is for both parties to participate, I don’t believe Republicans could be persuaded to make the first leap. Hence, I’m hoping activists inside the Democratic Party can successfully pressure the donkeys to give in. Why not pressure Democratic candidates for president this year to adopt NASS’s proposals in 2012 should they become their party’s nominee? Hell, lets make it part of the platform.

Democratic Party insiders shiver at the thought of real competition. They’re under the misconception that the strongest party unifies behind a candidate in February. In their timid hearts, Democrats still competing while Republicans rally behind a nominee means automatic defeat.

I say just the opposite is true. Let’s put capitalism in our politics and embrace competition. If Democrats adopt these rules and the GOP doesn’t, the public will pay far more attention to the Democrats and be more inclined to vote for their nominee in November. Furthermore, Democrats will become more identified with electoral reform and perceived as the party that believes in elevating the people's voice over corporate insiders . It would demonstrate a powerful contrast with the Republicans and might further expand the Democratic Party base among independents.

If I’m right, the GOP will be compelled to follow in 2016 out of self-interest to remain competitive. Buck will no doubt accuse me of naïve idealism. And I’ll counter that idealism is required to salvage our democracy. For damn sure our salvation will not come from obsessing over whether Obama or Clinton have the upper hand for Hollywood’s money. Let's start Project 2012.

Champagne, the Price of Beer and Presidential Politics

Campaign 2008 reminds me of something former New York Yankee and member of the baseball Hall of Fame, Yogi Berra once said: “It gets late early around here.” The jostling, pandering, fundraising and lying are well underway in both parties for the most wide-open presidential campaign in over a half-century. And it’s only February 2007.

Yet as we focus on individual candidates, their platforms, tactics and even how they look in a bathing suit, it’s instructive to contemplate what these campaigns say about our culture.

We yearn for candidates that lead because most tack to the prevailing winds. Candidates who pander too much are diminished and appear inauthentic. Conversely, candidates who are too far ahead of the curve, come across as out of touch, quixotic or simply too weird for the job.

Campaign 2000 illustrated how vapid America’s culture had become. Yes Al Gore was smart and capable but George Bush was more likable because he didn't come across as a "know it all." Gore was supposed to epitomize the self-aggrandizing politician while Bush talked straight. Gore was a man who needed to “reinvent” himself and Bush was a humble man comfortable in his own skin. So we put a plainspoken liar in the White House who opted to project an image of leadership through war.

Campaign 2004 illustrated a darker side of America’s culture as perception triumphed over reality. Bush who avoided serving in Vietnam represented strength, principled conviction, and toughness in a dangerous world. Vietnam War hero John Kerry was a vacillator who could not be trusted to protect Americans from terrorists.

Kerry was compelled to pander to a fear driven culture easily manipulated by a national security state and their enablers within the corporatist media. I cringed when Kerry boasted, “I’ve killed people in war … personally.” He was desperate to break through and did what it took. Hence, Kerry’s stature was easily diminished and once again a lesser man prevailed.

I realize one can quibble about the tactics of both Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Certainly, both candidates had their failings and made agonizing mistakes in their campaigns. As a volunteer in 2004 for example, I was infuriated at Kerry’s inability to respond to the Swift Boaters for Truth smear campaign. One woman I spoke to while phone banking during this period actually said to me, “It’s on TV so it must be true.”

Ultimately, failures in both campaigns can also be attributed to our culture at those moments in time. The character of those presidential contests was a reflection of our society. Similarly, 2008 will serve as a lens upon our society. One aspect of American culture I’ve often contemplated is our desire for Champagne at the price of beer. Perhaps it stems from our bargain-hunting consumer driven culture. In that regard I’m as guilty as anyone. Money is tight and I won’t overpay for pair of sneakers if I don’t have to.

Politicians reflect that aspect of our culture when they talk to us. We’re promised an empire without cost of blood or treasure and Americans buy in. Instead people die, taxpayers are ripped off and Americans are upset at being lied to. Would they I wonder have a moral problem with our military presence in Iraq if we were winning and the price of gas plummeted?

A country can’t be run on the cheap. Everything from healthcare, education, law enforcement, disaster planning and response, infrastructure development, a genuine energy policy and national security requires investment and a high caliber civil service. A generation of conservative rule has transformed our country into a backwards-19th century patronage mill and moneymaking machine for corporatist elites. We’ve seen the results: two mismanaged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, 47 million Americans without health insurance, the decaying rot at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the systematic erosion of the middle class.

I want to believe our culture is poised for a tipping point of truth, justice and accountability. The outcome in the midterm elections gave me some hope because good people such as Virginia Senator James Webb and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison were elected. On the state level some fine governors such as my home state’s Eliot Spitzer are now in power. But it’s the 2008 presidential campaign that will serve as the real barometer for what our country is truly about now.

Can somebody win telling it like it is? Is the country genuinely prepared to accept that universal healthcare is more important than tax cuts? Can Americans be inspired to conserve and sacrifice as we tackle global warming and seek to become independent of foreign oil? Are Americans finally capable of grasping that true leadership does not stem from a paternalistic figure projecting infallibility at the expense of accountability? Is 2008 the year the American people signal they understand you can’t have Champagne for the price of beer?

I’m not sold on John Edwards for president just yet. I need to see and here from him more. His record on Iraq does still trouble me and I wonder whether his apology for supporting the war was simply about political expediency. Nevertheless, the success of his campaign, at least rhetorically, appears to be the best bellwether for my questions. And the sickening exchange between the Clinton and Obama camps over Hollywood money makes me want to hear from Edwards more.
*********************************************************************************
CORRECTION: In a crossposting on Daily Kos, a Kossack named "Beachmom" who also posted a comment here requested a link to my quoting John Kerry as saying, "I've killed people in war ... personally." I genuinely remember Kerry saying this during the 2004 campaign, repeating it and even reading about it. I recall cringing when he did so. Nonetheless, I can find no link on the Internet of Kerry saying those words. If the quote is not indexed in the major search engines then he obviously didn't say it. Perhaps I recall him saying something similar. Typically, I reference all quotes with links but in this instance relied on my memory only. Lesson learned. I am not above acknowledging my mistakes. I regret the error.

A Stiff Dose of the Truth From Paul Krugman

With today’s post, I’ll simply defer to the wisdom of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. As usual, Krugman incisively captured the truth in his column today entitled, “Wrong Is Right.”

On the importance of admitting error:

“The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those now-famous three words from Mr. Edwards — “I was wrong” — matter so much to the Democratic base. The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn’t sound like another George Bush. That is, they want someone who doesn’t suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.

And there’s another reason the admission by Mr. Edwards that he was wrong is important. If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom on foreign policy, which still — in spite of all that has happened — equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security, and treats those who got Iraq right as somehow unsound. By admitting his own error, Mr. Edwards makes it more credible that he would listen to a wider range of views.”

I would add that Edwards was shrewd to apologize for his support of the Iraq War in 2005. Senator Clinton however would appear to be insincere and pandering if she apologized at this point. That’s not necessarily fair because I believe Edwards’ initial support of the war and his later apology were both acts of political expediency over principle. Nonetheless, that’s the way it is.

Krugman had this gem about John McCain:

“Senator John McCain, whose reputation for straight talk is quickly getting bent out of shape, appears to share the Bush administration’s habit of rewriting history to preserve an appearance of infallibility.

Last month Senator McCain asserted that he knew full well what we were getting into by invading Iraq: 'When I voted to support this war,' Mr. McCain said on MSNBC, 'I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken.'

But back in September 2002, he told Larry King, ‘I believe that the operation will be relatively short,” and “I believe that the success will be fairly easy.””

Although Krugman’s primary focus was Senator Clinton’s current political position, I thought this anecdote about Rudy Guiliani was the best part of his column:

“Here’s an incident from 1997. When New York magazine placed ads on city buses declaring that the publication was ‘possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for,’ the then-mayor ordered the ads removed — and when a judge ordered the ads placed back on, he appealed the decision all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

Now imagine how Mr. Giuliani would react on being told, say, that his choice to head Homeland Security is actually a crook. Oh, wait.”

When I contemplate the leadership qualities of Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani I want to cry for my country.

Inside Dick Cheney's Brain (Satire)

I feel like Count Vitte who served the insipid Czar Nicholas II in the final years of Russia’s monarchy. A stupid boy sovereign who believed he was annointed by God. His subjects, the ungrateful peasants and proletarians lost their stomach for a noble war.

Rabble rousers, subversives and opportunists sowing the seeds of dissent and undermining morale. “Peace, land and bread!” Now it’s peace, healthcare and raise the minimum wage! Put a mustache and beard on Senator Schumer and he resembles Leon Trotsky! Instead of Lenin’s propaganda pamphlets we have blogs. Hillary Clinton might as well be the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin’s wife Nadezhda Krupskaya.

Karl Rove is Rasputin. No way am I protecting the boy’s “turd blossom” when I testify in Scooter’s trial. Why should my guy hang for that faggot? At least my daughter is honest about who she is. And then there’s that closet fairy Ken Mehlman lecturing the party about ethics on his way out the RNC’s door. I’d like to take that hypocritical faggot on a hunting trip at my ranch.

Condi Rice is a waste of skin. Another token black with high approval ratings who forgets her place too much. Making Rummy ride shotgun to that woman in the Mideast during the Israeli-Lebanon war! Well, at least she doesn’t have a doctrine and medals to flaunt like Collin did. She’s a Nubian dilettante. Maybe I should unleash another subtle leak in the press about how Condi was shopping for shoes in New York while her people drowned in New Orleans.

Poppy’s mad at me. He should be mad at Collin who’s trying to salvage his precious reputation whenever he talks about the war. It was Collin, Baker and Scowcroft who didn’t want to go to Baghdad in 1991 and we hung the Shiite’s out to dry. That’s why we had to go back and get it right. Hell, Poppy would’ve won in ’92 if he’d only listened to me back then.

Everything is going fine but defeatists surround us! Most of Iraq is pacified. So some Arabs are fighting and dying in Baghdad? Who cares? The right strong man will emerge eventually and we’ll have our bases and the oil will flow. And when that happens we'll call it democracy. It’ll be like the good ole days when the Shah ruled in Iran with Savak.

Goddamn, every time a few soldiers die in an explosion the media has to hype it and make it a human-interest story. Some perspective please! Most Americans are not being asked to sacrifice for the war so why the unpatriotic criticism? Why can’t people just be happy that we’re fighting them over there instead of over here? Be a patriot and focus on your own life. Buy, sell and consume and stop asking questions. We know best or I do anyway.

Ah hell, nobody’s going to stop us. Let congress pass their stupid resolutions. Let them whine about us not having any authority to go into Iran. They’re not going to cut off funding. They’re not going to impeach us. They don’t have the balls. Pelosi certainly doesn’t have balls. And Kerry cried on the Senate floor the other day! Ha! We did miscalculate about James Webb. We’ll just have to Swift Boat him. And Hagel too. Murtha’s day is done now. Nobody listens to that ethically challenged son of a bitch anymore.

Our boy John McCain is going to take it in 2008. The people are such saps! He’ll criticize me to establish his independent bona fides but the fix is in already. We’ll even let McCain talk about “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government. But he’s on board with our vision of remaking the world. He’s actually a heck of a fellow!

Yeah, everything is fine. It’s not like the end of the Russian monarchy at all. And I have plenty of money too. Time for another Scotch! Is Fox and Friends on?

Has John Kerry Come Full Circle?

I admired John Kerry prior to his voting for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. The early years of his senate career were terrific. During his first term, Kerry went to Nicaragua and his determined pursuit of the truth resulted in the first exposure of the Iran-Contra scandal.

His Senate elders didn’t appreciate being upstaged by the upstart Kerry and they refused to give him a seat on the joint House/Senate congressional committee that investigated the affair. Kerry didn’t make friends easily in the Senate but he did good work.

He especially captured my attention in the 1980s when I was a teenager. Kerry fearlessly tangled with the feculent Jesse Helms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as I watched him on CSPAN. I observed how Kerry's Democratic colleagues were far more subservient with Jesse Helms and far less aggressive about uncovering the truth of Reagan's criminal foreign policy.

In today’s context it sounds absurd but in those years Kerry appeared authentic, articulate and assertive. Kerry’s investigative work during the BCCI scandal in the early nineties and his joint effort with John McCain regarding prisoners of war in Vietnam were also important contributions. As the years passed I regarded Kerry as a statesman and hoped he would run for president.

Kerry articulated a forceful critique of the Bush Administration’s failure to capture Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan while other Democrats remained timid. Watching Kerry on Meet the Press in the early months of 2002, I believed he was the best Democrat to challenge Bush in 2004. Alas, he opted to support Bush’s war in Iraq and my estimation of him changed.

In my opinion Kerry voted for the resolution out of expediency and not principle. I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton and Kerry’s running mate John Edwards. Consequently, I haven’t been kind to Kerry in my blog writing on this site or the community blogs.

Nevertheless, I worked my butt off for Kerry in 2004 once he earned the Democratic Party’s nomination. Kerry was flawed but at least he wasn’t Bush. I truly believed until the last days Kerry would win. Indeed, I believe Kerry really did win. What happened in Ohio was a disgrace.

But the Kerry campaign resembled an armless swimmer. He waited too long to respond to the Swift Boaters For Truth. Democrats have known since Mike Dukakis’ defeat in 1988 that failure to respond to the Republican slime machine was a recipe for disaster. Incredibly, Mike Dukakis’ former Lt. Governor didn’t heed the lesson.

This war veteran who went to Yale and could’ve opted for a draft deferment, was defined as a soft effeminate individual who “looked French.” And George Bush won re-election in spite of an approval rating under fifty percent. Even defeating Bush decisively in three debates didn’t help.

Since that campaign Kerry became a symbol of ineptitude. The gaffe about a “botched joke” towards the end of the recent mid-term election was the last straw. Thankfully, Kerry is not self-delusional and he dropped out. It’s my hope Kerry has taken a step toward becoming an elder statesman for the Democratic Party. In announcing he wasn’t running for president on the Senate floor Kerry said,

"As someone who made the mistake of voting for the resolution that gave the president the authority to go to war, I feel the weight of a personal responsibility to act, to devote time and energy to the national dialogue in an effort to limit this war and bring our participation to a conclusion."

I believe he means it. Hopefully, not running for president in 2008 will liberate Kerry to be the assertive champion of truth of his early years in the Senate and the young man who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after his return from Vietnam. In life we sometimes have to come full circle before we can move forward. Today, John Kerry took a step in the right direction.
*********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: Click here to review comments from a crosspost of the above topic on Daily Kos. One of the commenters named "fly" provided this link to the Bill Moyers 1987 documentary, "The Secrete Government: The Constitution In Crisis. "Among those interviewed in the documentary is John Kerry as a young Senator. It's been twenty years since I first watched the Moyers documentary. It's even more relevant today. Watching it again online, I can't help but resent the so called "moderates" who allowed our national security to be hijacked by insipid sociopaths.

Eliot Spitzer and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

George Pataki’s era of inertia and stagnation has been jettisoned. As the New York Times reports, state lawmakers are laying the groundwork for the “most ambitious government-financed stem cell project on the East Coast.”

When President Bush severely limited funding for embryonic stem cell research in 2001, it was up to state governments to fill the void. New Jersey immediately seized the initiative and pledged millions for stem cell research. Under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California implemented a $3 billion bond initiative, and other states followed with ballot initiatives or legislation to give scientists grants or to build research centers.

My home state of New York remained a wallflower in the stem cell research dance. Remarkable, as New York is the proud home of elite research universities, medical centers and biotechnology companies. Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research can be a huge tax windfall for New York and stimulate job growth. Under Pataki’s lethargic leadership, legislative efforts to direct state funding for embryonic stem cell research was at a functional impasse.

Spitzer has proposed passage of a $2 billion 10-year bond initiative for research and development. Half of the money is to be allocated for stem cell research. To entice upstate Republicans, the economic growth component of the project is being heavily promoted. Upstate New York’s economy even struggled during the economic boom of the nineties so this project is likely to even attract support from conservative representatives.

Embryonic stem cell research is one example of Albany's new breeze. Progressives are understandably focused on Washington Democrats because of their new majority and the Bush era of corruption and war mongering. However, I’m more excited by what’s happening under the leadership of Democratic governors such as Montana’s Brian Schweitzer. As a New Yorker I’m encouraged by Eliot Spitzer’s start. His policy initiatives are ambitious and sensible. Spitzer's proposals on embronic stem cell research, illustrate the reality based community has a dynamic advocate inside the governor's mansion. It's been a long time.

The Fool On the Hill

Paul McCartney is hardly my favorite Beatle (John Lennon is) and Magical Mystery Tour is not my favorite Beatle album (Revolver is). Yet the lyrics to McCartney’s “Fool On the Hill” have played inside my head since President Bush’s nationally televised “surge” speech last week.

McCartney’s lyrics aptly describe both the disposition and reputation of this President as he prosecutes a losing war in Iraq. Bush and his cabal of criminal enablers are insipid sociopaths. Foolish and simultaneously Machiavellian. For all the speculation over the years about Vice President Cheney being in charge, this group of ideological freaks are defined by George Bush. I leave the rest to Paul McCartney:

Day after day, alone on the hill
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him
They can see that he's just a fool
As he never gives an answer
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around
Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around
And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around
He never listen to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him
The fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around

Make Your Voices Heard

It’s not possible to be a little bit pregnant. Yet the Bush Administration prosecuted the Iraq War as if they were awaiting the results of a pregnancy test. Under Donald Rumsfeld the Pentagon tried to win on the cheap. Without boots on the ground however order could not be established after Saddam fell.

In 2004, President Bush ridiculed John Kerry during his re-election campaign for suggesting more troops were required. In his twenty minute speech last night the President finally acknowledged an insufficient number of troops resulted in chaos. Iraq was a war of choice and Bush waged it with timidity while claiming the fate of western civilization was at stake.

Of course this war was never about weapons of mass destruction, democracy, liberating people, empowering moderate Islam or saving western civilization. Thousands of young soldiers and who the hell knows how many Iraqis at this point have died for war profiteering, oil and to market George Bush as a magnificent war leader. Iraq was a neat diversion allowing Bush and his cronies to steal billions of dollars.

Underneath all the rhetoric about winning and catastrophic consequences if we don’t prevail is the truth. The simple truth is that 20,000 troops will not make a strategic difference. At this point military tactics are useless. The best we can hope for is containing the violence within Iraq’s borders until they grow tired of killing each other.

A policy of containment is despicable because it leaves Iraqis in the lurch after we wrecked their country. Shamefully, Bush/Cheney's incompetetence leaves us no choice. Our military presence will not facilitate a political solution. Containment is the only viable option left through a strategic redeployment.

The Bush/Cheney Administration is aware of this reality. They’re not as stupid as many people think they are. Hence, the “surge” is not about winning. Bush/Cheney are hoping to kick the can down the road with Iraq. They don’t want a helicopter lifting off the rooftop in Saigon moment happening on their watch. They prefer retreat to take place under the next president. If some more American soldiers must die or become permanently wounded, so be it. They don’t care.

Meanwhile, these insipid sociopaths are hoping they can divert us into another war by blaming the Iranians and Syrians for our failures in Iraq. It’s not hard to imagine another speech in five or six months claiming all of Iraq’s problems will be solved if we topple the regimes in Teheran and Damascus. The neocons especially want a crack at Iran. Finishing the job right in Afghanistan is not sexy enough for the neocons. They're a waste of skin.

A wise office colleague of mine wonders why the neocons have stopped distancing themselves from the Bush Administration and embraced “the surge.” It had become fashionable for intellectual elitist right wing crazies such as William Kristol to diss the Bush Administration about Iraq but lately they’ve been having love-ins. Perhaps the neocons know this surge is a pretext to widen the war and go into Iran? Just as Nixon’s escalation in 1970 resulted in an illegal invasion of Cambodia? Are we going to let it happen?

Non-binding congressional resolutions make for nice symbolism and may demonstrate bipartisan opposition to the Bush regime. Congressional leaders are pushing for that and Republican legislators may see it as an easy way to voice their opposition without having to really confront their President. I hope such a resolution leads to stronger action by congress. By itself however a non-binding resolution is worth a bucket of warm spit. Lives are on the line. As I've written previously there are only three viable options to save our country:

• Impeachment and removal of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney;
• Invoking the War Powers Act;
• Cut off funding.
  

CLICK HERE to contact your congressman and CLICK HERE to contact your Senator. Politics is not a spectator sport and apathy is unforgivable given the stakes. These people work for us and it’s your moral duty to make your voice heard.

Also, don’t be shy about writing editorials to your local newspaper. Even if they’re not published, letters to the editor may influence how newspapers cover the war and can have a ripple effect. Your obligation as a citizen doesn’t end on Election Day when your country continues to pursue a collision course with calamity.

Sayonara For Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, John M. Shalikashvili published an op-ed in the New York Times (Click Here) today expressing second thoughts about the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell policy” regarding homosexual personnel. Shalikasvili became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under President Bill Clinton in 1997. Clinton reneged on his campaign promise in 1993 to lift the ban on homosexual’s serving openly and instead instituted the infamous don’t ask don’t tell policy guiding the military today.

Shalikasvili contends our culture has evolved and the military is so over extended it may finally be time to allow homosexuals to serve the armed forces openly. Although Shalikashvili doesn’t advocate for a sudden change in policy he concludes his piece with this:

“By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose."

Our country’s treatment of homosexual personnel serving courageously in the armed forces is disgraceful. The time has long past for the military to let homosexual soldiers serve openly. When institutions such as the military sanctions prejudice a message is delivered to society that intolerance is acceptable. And as Shalikashvili notes in his op-ed, George Bush's military is over extended and needs all the help it can get. How ironic if Bush's imperial designs in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps Iran are buttressed by the very community his most loyal constituency has condemned to hell.

About Saddam Hussein: A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Saddam Hussein was executed yesterday. We can expect the mainstream media to provide saturated coverage of Saddam's brutal rule the next few days when they are not too busy lionizing Gerald Ford's memory. I certainly will not mourn this man's passing. Otherwise, all I have to say is to the left is a picture of President Ronald Reagan's Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1984. The same Donald Rumsfeld who served as President Gerald Ford's Secretary of Defense in the 1970s and designed the incompetent occupation of Iraq under President George W. Bush. Unless you've lived in a cave the past few years this picture should be familiar. Nevertheless, a reminder is in order.

Reminiscing About the Future: Al Gore's Announcement Speech

Working through whom to support for president in 2008 has been cathartic for me. Typically I try candidates on for size by writing hypothetical speeches in their voice and occasionally post the results. I did this with Russ Feingold several months ago and liked how it felt but alas he isn’t running. Recently I did the same for Barack Obama and enjoyed the challenge but it required writing in heavy religious overtones and felt uncomfortable. As I review the prospective field in the Democratic Party I neither see nor feel a president among Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsak.

Each has merits and flaws. From my vantage point however, the right candidate must combine maturity, gravitas, experience, intellect, authenticity, foresight and desire to serve a cause bigger than themselves. Al Gore has flaws of his own but is best suited for the job. We don’t need a nominee who sticks their finger to the wind and follows the politics of expediency. Now is also not the time to nominate a pretty face or sound bite machine with a glass jaw. The real question is will Gore run? So I decided to compose a hypothetical announcement speech in Gore’s voice and try him on for size. Looking at 2008 I like how Gore fits.

(Al Gore standing on a platform in Carthage Tennessee with his photogenic family and gathering of family, friends and media in the summer of 2007.)

To my beloved family, my wife Tipper and the great people of Tennessee I ask for your support as we embark on a quest to renew America. The previous six years our country has grown weaker, our moral standing is diminished and corporate interests have triumphed over the public. America needs to reconnect with its core values of fairness, justice and reward for an honest days work. We’ve lost our way.

I can’t help but think of my dad today. I can feel him with me today. Finest and bravest man I ever knew. He stood up for civil rights and fought against Jim Crow laws right here in Tennessee. He stood up and told the truth about Vietnam. The country wasn’t ready for truth and he lost his last campaign. He vowed the “truth shall rise again.”

Since my last campaign I’ve learned truth will not rise on its own. Truth requires a push. We need to stand up for truth. Fight for truth. Sacrifice for truth. Tell truth to power. Demand truth from our leaders and ourselves.

I was in public life along time and learned from experience. As a private citizen I’ve learned even more. I’m a little older. Grayer. Wiser. Humbler. A lot wider (smiles and laughs)! I’m still very charismatic (self-deprecating facial expression eliciting laughter). And what I’ve learned is politicians can be too afraid to lose. Expediency becomes more important than conviction and telling it straight is sacrificed at the altar of ambition.

Not this time. Not for me. Not for this campaign. The stakes won’t permit it. America has wasted time these past six years. Dependence on foreign oil is accelerating global warming and financing our sworn enemies. We’re on a collision course with calamity and shirking the truth won’t safeguard our future.

There are some among us who believe American society must engage in a global war on terror. They sow fear and rationalize taking away our liberties, deploying troops in wars of preemption and torturing detainees without regard to evidence or due process. They’re wrong. Horribly wrong. Irresponsibly wrong. Morally wrong.

The truth is we’re creating our own calamity. The so called global war on terror is a self-fulfilling prophesy of death and destruction waged by people who believe Armageddon is just around the corner. We’re actually empowering our enemies. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Yes America has enemies and vigilance is required against terrorism and those who want to establish a global theocracy. During my years of public service I was a hawk against terrorism. I still am. Yet when global war against Islamic terrorists abroad is waged by Christian theocrats at home – criminal behavior is justified in the name of righteousness.

In 1942, Christopher Dawson wrote in the Judgment of Nations,

“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.”

The true path to victory is combining a strong defense, pursuing sensible strategic priorities, enlisting international cooperation and setting an honorable example. Nearly six years after 9/11 our homeland security remains shamefully porous. President Bush and his enablers have managed to undermine national security and erode civil liberties simultaneously.

Security at ports and a broad range of facilities ranging from nuclear power plants to our reservoirs remain unprotected but your phones may be tapped. Nothing is done about nuclear proliferation but old ladies can be harassed at airports. Osama Bin Laden remains at large and the country that provided safe haven for the attackers - Afghanistan – is being taken over by a resurgent Taliban. But our military remains bogged down in Iraq’s civil war created by an ill-advised invasion. We have failed to empower moderate Muslims while civil wars rage in Lebanon, among the Palestinians and Iraq.

America is uniquely suited to empower moderates in the Muslim world by setting an example. Millions of Muslims have assimilated well in the United States and lead productive lives. I served in an administration that helped save Muslim lives in Bosnia. Last year a good and honorable man – Keith Ellison from Minnesota who happens to be Muslim was elected to congress. So America has real assets in communicating to the Muslim world.

Instead we’re seen torturing Muslims and citizens such as Congressman Ellison are not given the benefit of the doubt about their patriotism. Too many Muslim citizens are harassed for what they are and not judged by who they are as individuals.

Republicans hope to exploit fear and some in my party are too timid of being associated as America’s “Muslim Party.” I ask my country, have we grown so cowardly, so fearful and so intolerant that we can’t look upon our own citizens as neighbors? How can we expect to empower moderates in the Muslim world when we’re not committed to protecting liberties and dignity of our own citizens?

My Dad taught me America couldn’t be freedom’s beacon of light as long as segregation infected our soul. He was right. Today I’m standing up and telling my country America will never prevail in its quest to spread freedom and tolerance abroad if we remain regulated by fear and intolerance at home. I’m not interested in leading the Muslim Party, the Jewish Party, Christian Party, the black, yellow, brown or white party, the gay party or the straight party. Instead I seek the nomination for president from the true party of all Americans: the Democratic Party (sustained applause).

As President I will roll up my sleeves and work to address the important challenges of our time. Number one is saving our planet from global warming. Some of you might have noticed I made a movie about it (dry self-deprecating tone and facial expression eliciting laughter). I will be blunt: we have no time to lose.

Natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina will become the norm if we don’t take action today. It’s not a coincidence that glaciers and the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. This didn’t just happen. This is not fate. Nor is it imagined. Global warming is the direct result of our consumption-oriented culture.

As Americans we have a unique obligation. We consume resources greatly disproportionate to our population. From the ordinary citizen to the biggest conglomerate American society must adapt, mobilize and change. Already we’re falling behind, as companies in China no less are busy establishing themselves in the green industry sector. We fall behind at our own peril. America should be leading the way.

Let there be no doubt I will seek a mandate to mobilize our society for developing clean alternative energy and reduce our carbon emissions. My fellow Americans I’m stating it plainly: if you want to maintain the status quo, drive big cars, make no sacrifices and continue importing foreign oil then don’t elect me. If you want to continue giving your hard earned money to big oil and hostile foreign powers don’t elect me. I intend to empower an American society that’s energy independent, clean and prosperous. I don’t seek incremental change. I’m going to push this country to join the 21st century – culturally, scientifically and economically.

Our schools need to turn out the finest engineers, computer programmers and scientists if we’re going to adapt for a new age. That requires recalibrating our priorities. The task at hand will not come cheap. Oil companies, billionaires and multi-national corporations will have to make due with less. If they’re smart they’ll join in the effort and prosper from it. A used up planet doesn’t do anyone any good.

The average citizen can’t help in this however if they’re struggling to make ends meat. Once upon a time citizens merely needed a work ethic to enjoy a slice of the American dream. Too many Americans are not rewarded for an honesty day’s work because we’ve lost a sense of community.

Workers, small business entrepreneurs and families in George Bush’s America are expected to absorb all the risks, perform the tough labor and relinquish most of the rewards to high salaried CEOs who outsource our jobs. Corporate America and their enablers in Washington have replaced community values with computerized receipts. We haven’t created an ownership society or investor class. George Bush and his cronies have placed the American workforce on a fast moving treadmill and people can’t get ahead.

We’ve seen the results. An American community underserved when disasters like Hurricane Katrina strike. A public school system in decay, skyrocketing health care costs and depleted retirement savings. Environmental and tax laws written by corporate lobbyists while their enablers in Washington lecture the rest of us about values.

I’m a religious man and it angers me when the Lord’s name is used to coarsen our culture with hate, intolerance and greed. Faith has made me humble. I lay no claim to knowing what the almighty considers righteous. I just pray everyday for the wisdom to do right.

I believe what’s right is a bold agenda of progress. I need your help. Let all of us join together. Not for me. Let us come together to restore America’s honor and rightful place as a beacon of freedom, justice and opportunity.

Thank you and may God bless you.

And God bless America.

********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to "Mike" for including the above topic on his roundup at Crooks and Liars.