Forty-One Lame Donkeys

After watching the Republican presidential debate this morning, I am reminded yet again why I vote Democrat no matter my disenchantment. Ron Paul of Texas merits respect even though I disagree with some of his far out libertarian views. The rest are a scary group of fear mongers who shamelessly equate the struggle against militant Islam with 1938 during the Nazi Era or the conflict with Soviet communism.

They're a cabal of one note insipid careerists who have no sense of proportion, history or perspective. And the record shows conservative doctrine about combating terrorism weakens America's geopolitical position. In particular, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani is a joke. This trite figure of testosterone banality actually put his emergency communication center in the World Trade Center following the first bombing in 1993. Why the hell should we trust his judgment?

With fiscal and tax policies this group offers standard conservative boilerplate to justify rewarding wealth over work. Once again we hear the same supply side nonsense that an economy can be "grown" and not nurtured. How do we deal with crumbling infrastructure problems such as the collapsing bridge in Minnesota? Why cut taxes of course. Cutting taxes is the magical elixir that will enhance revenue without pain as as our blood and treasure continues to be spilled in Iraq and Afghanistan. What planet are these people living on?

The Republican presidential candidates also boasted this morning that they support replacing the income tax with the so called "fair tax." What's fair about a sales tax that sanctions working people with a 23% fee? What this is really about of course is the Republicans coddling wealth at the expense of the middle class. They don't want to tax capital gains or people earning high incomes. But they're more than happy to levy a 23% tax on single moms for purchasing groceries. And they're opposed to expanding health coverage for that single mom's kids. If anyone raises an objection to those policies they're attacked for waging class warfare.

So I remain with the donkey party. Putting all that aside however, much work remains to be done in transforming my party. It's wonderful that Democratic presidential candidates are attending Yearly Kos and ignoring the Democratic Leadership Council. But we still have a long way to go.

Forty-one pathetic Democrats in the House of Representatives supported the Bush Administration's grab at more power for the executive branch and voted in favor of the recent domestic surveillance bill. How can Democrats support giving a proven congenital liar such as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales even more power with this bill?

Obviously, the Democratic Party continues to suffer from battered wife syndrome. Below is a list of the forty-one House Democrats who supported this bill. If any of them represent your district, please click here to express your objections.

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia)
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois)
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma)
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida)
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania)
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky)
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee)
Jim Costa (20th California)
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama)
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee)
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana)
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana)
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota)
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana)
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas)
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia)
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah)
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana)
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota)
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas)
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas)
John Salazar (3rd Colorado)
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina)
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio)
John Tanner (8th Tennessee)
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi)
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio)

Can Rudolph Giuliani Inspire A Secular Awakening In the GOP?

I don’t like Rudolph Giuliani. In 1993, I was 24 and living in the East Village when Giuliani defeated incumbent David Dinkins to become mayor of New York City. I vividly recall watching the police intimidate black voters that day and telling my roommate about it in horrified wonder. I didn’t like Dinkins either primarily because of how he handled racial tensions in Crown Heights. I thought New Yorkers were ill served with both men that year and cast my vote for a protest candidate instead.

In my opinion, Giuliani was the consummate charlatan as mayor. He ran a corrupt patronage mill, dismissed his first police commissioner, William Bratton because he received too much positive press and governed incompetently. Prior to 9/11, Giuliani’s fiscal mismanagement was exposed and New Yorkers were fed up with his volatile immaturity. And his last police commissioner, Bernie Kerik knowingly benefitted from a relationship with a mobbed up construction firm.

Giuliani received too much credit for crime reduction and exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to accumulate wealth. I think The Onion put it best when they noted Giuliani was running to be President of 9/11. As a Yankee fan it sickened me whenever Giuliani joined broadcasters John Sterling and Michael Kay in their radio booth while they heaped gratuitous praise upon him.

That said, I applaud these words from Giuliani’s recent speech at the Houston Baptist College:

"Here are the two strong beliefs that I have, here are the two pillars of my thinking, that always inform my judgments about this. One is, I believe abortion is wrong. I think it is morally wrong, and if I were asked my advice by someone who was considering abortion, I would tell them not to have the abortion, have the child. And if nothing else, the adoption option exists, and it’s one that I would hope personally, if I knew you, if you were a friend or relative. That’s pillar No. 1. That will always remain the same. I can’t imagine ever changing my mind about that. I’ve believed it since I can remember, I’m going to believe it until I die.

The second principle, the second pillar that guides my thinking on it is that in a country like ours, where people of good faith, people who are equally decent, equally moral and equally religious, when they come to different conclusions about this, about something so very very personal, I believe you have to respect their viewpoint. You give them a level of choice here. Because I think ultimately even if you disagree, you have to respect the fact that their conscience is as strong as yours is about this, and they’re the ones that are most affected by it. So therefore I would grant women the right to make that choice.

I’ve always believed both of those things. I will always believe them. And that will inform my decision-making about abortion. ...”

Yes, I know Giuliani’s speech is largely the result of political calculation. His dismissive mealy-mouthed views about abortion during the GOP presidential debate at Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Library were widely ridiculed. The Christian Right will never embrace him so Giuliani’s campaign has decided to stop pretending. He’s hoping to appear authentic and courageous while still appealing to Republican corporatists and security hawks. I get that.

Furthermore, I have no doubt Giuliani would embrace the Christian Right’s positions on abortion and other social issues if he could do so without appearing phony. This man would sell his soul to become president. And given the former mayor’s temperament, cronyism, incompetence and distorted worldview, if he’s the GOP nominee I’ll work my butt off to defeat him. For damn sure I don’t trust this man’s judgment about what civil liberties to compromise in the name of national security.

Putting my distaste for Giuliani aside however, I hope his candidacy awakens secular minded Republicans to take back their party for the good of the country. The scandal regarding the hiring and firing of Justice Department prosecutors powerfully illustrates that religious fanatics have infiltrated decision making in the corridors of power.

Former Justice Department official, Monica Goodling, was allegedly involved in the dismissal of as many as ten federal prosecutors. Ms. Goodling is a 1999 graduate of Regents University founded by Pat Robertson “to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world.” In 1988, when Pat Robertson finished second in the Iowa caucuses I considered him cartoonish. Ms. Goodling’s influence however, demonstrates how pervasive Robertson’s reach has become.

On May 12th, the New York Times reported that,

“Deeply religious and politically conservative, Ms. Goodling seemed to believe that part of her job was to bring people with similar values into the Justice Department, several former colleagues said.”

Ms. Goodling was inexperienced and thirty-one when she joined the Bush Administration’s Justice Department. During the 2000 election she worked as an opposition researcher at the Republican National Committee. Yet this young political operative was interviewing applicants for civil service positions at the Justice Department.

Ms. Goodling elevated her values above qualifications and professional competence when reviewing whom to hire or fire. The New York Times quotes one department official as saying Ms. Goodling even asked one applicant if he had ever cheated on his wife. Specifically, the New York Times also reported David C. Woll Jr., a young lawyer hired to a prestigious post in the Justice Department was asked this question. Mr. Woll had no comment for the New York Times.

I have no problem with people of faith or spiritually minded individuals entering public life. Many of us need to believe there is something bigger than ourselves. And people motivated to feed the hungry or promote social justice because of their faith are admirable. Martin Luther King and Ghandi were both people of faith for example.

Alarmingly however, virulent cadres of religious fanatics who believe their rigid interpretation of scriptures is above the civil laws and customs of American society are ascending. We see the repercussions in their ascent whenever a woman is denied her right to purchase morning after pills at a pharmacy or the half-baked theory of intelligent design is proclaimed legitimate science.

Whether one is liberal, conservative, libertarian, pro-business, pro-labor, hawk, dove, or everything in between, the imposition of religious values above our freedoms, science and recruiting the most qualified personnel in government is un-American. If Giuliani can mobilize a secular constituency within the Republican Party that becomes a counterweight to radical Christian evangelicals, I say halleluiah. We saw how timid Democrats were during the Terry Shiavo controversy. I don’t trust the Democratic Party to provide a counterweight to religious extremism by itself.

That doesn’t mean Giuliani can or will prevail with a candidacy that promotes tolerance for differing social viewpoints. The man is as flawed and imperfect a messenger as one can be. Someone with impeccable family values credentials without Giuliani’s personal baggage would make for a far better messenger. But he can have a positive impact in spite of himself that outlasts the 2008 campaign. Howard Dean didn’t win in 2004 but the Democratic Party has adopted more of Dean’s posture.

Next month Giuliani will address the Executive Series Luncheon at Regents University. Pat Robertson will be in the audience. I hope Giuliani stands tall and preaches the same message of social tolerance there that he did at Houston Baptist College. This country needs a strong secular counterweight in both major political parties. We’ll know progressives are getting somewhere when the center of political gravity pulls even the Republican Party in a more secular direction to remain competitive.

Giuliani was a poor mayor and would make a horrible president. Hopefully, his candidacy can at least awaken secular conservatives and restore a semblance of balance and sanity to our culture.