Sage of the Big Apple: A Podcast Interview With Congressman Jerrold Nadler

New York State’s Eighth Congressional District is a diverse mosaic covering Manhattan’s West Side below 89th Street, Lower Manhattan, and areas of Brooklyn including Borough Park, Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sea Gate, Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst. Since 1992, Congressman Jerrold Nadler has ably represented the eighth in the House of Representatives following his sixteen years of service in the New York State Assembly.

Nadler is a senior member of both the House Judiciary and Transportation committees. In 1998, Nadler gained national prominence as a steadfast defender of President Bill Clinton during the House Judiciary’s impeachment proceedings. Mostly, Nadler’s legislative career in Washington has been focused on championing civil liberties and progressive causes such as universal access to healthcare. His service on the Transportation Committee is especially important for his district as increasing demands challenges New York City’s mass transit system.

9/11 had the greatest impact on Nadler’s district where the World Trade Center used to reside. Yet even as America was consumed by fear and irrationality, Nadler continued to champion civil liberties, peace and prudence in our foreign policy. On Saturday, Nadler joined activists from New York and around the nation, at the National Mall in Washington, DC to protest the Bush administration’s War in Iraq.

Nadler just authored the Protect the Troops and Bring Them Home Act (HR 455), which stipulates no funds can be used in Iraq except to protect the troops and arrange for their withdrawal beginning in one month and ending by December 31, 2007. Nadler’s act also provides that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq cannot be increased at any time. In a press release issued on January 26th, Nadler observed:

“It has been wrongly asserted that Congress cannot force the President to de-escalate or withdraw from Iraq because it cannot use its only real power – cutting off funds - lest it be accused of ‘abandoning the troops.’ But if Congress appropriates funds, but limits those funds to protecting the troops and redeploying them from Iraq, that would be the best way of supporting the troops. In fact, keeping (or adding) American soldiers in the middle of a civil war with no end in sight is the ultimate act of abandonment. We must save American lives by bringing them home as soon as possible.”

Nadler was also recently named new Chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. He noted in a press release issued on January 24th that,

“In 1995, our Republican colleagues, upon assuming control of this committee, changed the name of the ‘Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights’ to the ‘Subcommittee on the Constitution.’

I have long promised that, were I ever in a position to do so, I would put the words ‘civil’ and ‘rights’ back in the name of this subcommittee. Today, the Judiciary Committee does just that.

Now, more than ever, it is vitally important that we give meaning to these words through action. Civil rights and civil liberties are under assault in this nation. We are at a pivotal moment in our history and we have to decide as a nation whether we are willing to fight for the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights.”

Congressman Nadler graciously agreed to be interviewed by me in a podcast format. Our interview took place just before he left for an event and had to be squeezed in a tight schedule. Among the topics we covered were his proposed legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, former President Carter's controversial book, Israeli-Palestinian relations and the merits of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney. 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."

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?

Was I Right About Chuck Hagel vs. Hillary Clinton?

The Washington Post reports Chuck Hagel is seriously considering competing for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008. On August 27th, I pondered the possibility of a race between the rhetorically anti-war Republican Chuck Hagel and the mealy mouthed Hillary Clinton in a post entitled, "Reminiscing About the Future: Chuck Hagel vs. Hillary Clinton." I was innudated with emails from people who considered me crazy for even suggesting such a scenario. In a crossposting at Daily Kos, many commenters from that community also rejected the possibility. It doesn't seem so crazy anymore does it? I stand by what I wrote then,

"Hillary is the wrong messenger for Democrats to defeat him. She’s too mealy mouthed, too corporatist and too insincere. True strength stems from authenticity combined with a record of clarity and sound judgment. Hillary Clinton embodies none of those virtues. Preposterous as it sounds, a Hagel vs. Clinton race means Republicans prevail on a platform to exit from Iraq. We can’t let them get away with it."

Senator James Webb: A Tough Liberal

E.J. Dionne wrote a terrific column about newly elected Virginia Senator James Webb in today’s Washington Post. It was Webb who delivered the Democrat’s pugnacious response to President Bush’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. I hope the mealy mouthed Hillary Clinton took copious notes during Webb’s speech. As Dionne wrote,

“Webb's performance was a salutary sign that Democrats just might be getting over the battered party syndrome that has left so many of them terrified of saying exactly what's on their minds. Then again, maybe Webb was just speaking for himself. Having lived on the Republican side of politics during the Democrats' most traumatic years, he may have escaped the traumas associated with defeat.”

Indeed, Webb pulled no punches about Bush’s reckless war in Iraq which timid wrong-headed Democrats like Hillary supported. Webb also didn’t hold back about the class warfare waged against working people struggling to make ends meat.

Webb is not a corporatist nor is he a mealy mouthed “triangulator.” For a generation the Democratic Party was a self-gelding machine of ineptitude. Even President Clinton was unable to prevent the party’s decay. Thankfully, Democrats such as Webb doesn’t carry that baggage. And by the way, we kooky bloggers championed Webb early on because he spoke our language. It’s the language of truth over expediency and action over centrist inertia. Senator Webb, thank you for joining the Democratic Party.

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.

I'm Proud of My Alma Mater

I am an alumnus of Sarah Lawrence College. Over the weekend, I read a diary posted by "rba" at epluribus Media about a statement of “academic freedom” published by Sarah Lawrence’s Board of Trustees in 1938. That statement became an important part of history during the McCarthy Era.

In November 1951, Louis Budenz published an article in American Legion Magazine accusing SLC, along with other colleges and universities of employing "subversive" and "communist" faculty members. Subsequent to this insidious publication, the newly formed Americanism Committee of the Westchester County American Legion accussed Sarah Lawrence faculty members of being communists.

The Legion regularly presented reports from the Americanism Committee targeting individual faculty members at Sarah Lawrence who they considered communists. Their first target was Joseph Barnes. Ultimately, the Legion targeted almost a dozen faculty members at Sarah Lawrence. I'm proud to say the leadership of Sarah Lawrence reaffirmed their 1938 statement of academic freedom and refused to be bullied. Click Here to read about this history on Sarah Lawrence’s website.

Yawn: Hillary's Running

Hillary Clinton made it official today and joined the fray. Click here to listen to Clinton’s official announcement from her website and here to read the actual text.

Frankly, reading and listening to Hillary’s announcement is like drinking soda without carbonation. It's focus grouped for the political fifty-yard line. Just like Al Gore in 2000, Hillary will campaign from weakness. Too fearful to offend the “middle class” or appear weak on national security will result in a mealy mouthed posture. Strength stems from authenticity but does Clinton even know who she really is anymore?

Clinton is very closed and insular and listens to a tight circle of advisors like Bush. As we’ve seen, such an insular governing style is dangerous. Her husband was far more open, hungry even for a diversity of information as president. Hopefully, he will serve as an information conduit for her as Eleanor Roosevelt did for FDR. My suspicion however is Hillary would be obsessed with leaks as president and drown inside her bubble. Also, she has the imagination of a grapefruit.

Edwards interests me because on domestic issues he’s offering specifics about valuing “work over wealth” whereas Hillary’s a corporatist. I remain troubled about Edwards’ record on Iraq and therefore I’m not quite sold on him yet. Obama to this point is a platitude machine but his candidacy does intrigue me. How will he handle the fishbowl? Is there more to him than “something new”? I’m curious to find out.

An Al Gore candidacy would intrigue me because he’s grown as a person since 2000. I suspect he would campaign on candor instead of being afraid to lose. I'd sign up for his campaign in a heartbeat. Alas, it doesn’t appear he will run.

I used to believe Hillary was authentic with a core but unlike Gore, the former first lady has regressed. I hoped Hillary would emerge as a Robert Kennedy sort of figure in the senate but she has not put her prestige on the line for the working poor or the cause of peace.

Hillary is so afraid of appearing weak that she appears weak. Her pandering on an amendment for flag burning last year has me wondering what else she would surrender to project an image of values and toughness. We don’t need that sort of weakness undermining the progressive cause. Hillary has proven she can take a punch. She also deserves credit for providing effective constituent service as a senator. As a senator, Hillary has been a workhorse more than a show-horse unlike Obama or Edwards when he served. As a New Yorker I respect that.

But her original support of the Iraq war was a callous and cowardly act of political expediency. Her tepid “if I knew now what I knew then” explanation regarding Iraq is neither believable nor acceptable. War and peace requires a different standard of leadership. Not calculating cynicism resulting in needless bloodshed.

I don’t underestimate Hillary. She’s disciplined, smart and tough. And I'd love to support a woman for the White House. We could certainly do worse and this country has. But her candidacy for president does not inspire me and I expect to support somebody else.
***************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: Click here to review the comments from my crossposting of the above topic on Daily Kos. Special thanks to The Nation magazine for linking today's post under "Newsfeeds." Hopefully it will stay there for awhile. Also, a special thanks to Blue Gal for including a link to this post in the blog roundup for Crooks and Liars. If you look under my left side bar you will find a link under "Intrepid Voices" to Blue Gal's terrific blog. I love her style. Her recent post entitled "Death Of A President" is a must read.

Where's the Beef?

It was 1984 and a youthful looking Colorado Senator named Gary Hart was getting traction as the candidate of “new ideas.” Presumptive front-runner, former Vice President Walter Mondale appeared to be a dinosaur as Hart scored an upset in New Hampshire.

The two candidates were about the same age but the combination of Gary Hart’s hair and “new ideas” slogan propelled him to the top tier. Only fifteen at the time, I was astounded how Gary Hart succeeded while offering so little substance.

You may recall a popular television commercial for the fast food chain restaurant, Wendy’s at the time. Gray haired Actress Clara Peller stared at an unimpressive looking hamburger and asked, “Where’s the beef?” Mondale effectively neutralized Hart’s momentum by asking the same question about his rival's program.

I happen to respect Gary Hart. Our country should have heeded the report about terrorism he co-authored with former Senator Warren Rudman. This country would be far better off if we had. However, in 1984 Gary Hart was a platitude machine hiding behind the slogan of “new ideas.”

This week Barack Obama announced the formation of his exploratory committee to run for president and he noted the public wanted “something new.” Reading that I immediately thought of Gary Hart and Clara Peller. Where’s the beef?

As E.J. Dionne observed in today’s Washington Post, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is running on specifics. Edwards has stated his immediate priorities are not balancing the budget but addressing the nation’s investment deficit. Dionne writes:

“Most Democrats don't like to talk about it, but somebody's taxes are going to have to go up. Edwards, at least, is willing to say which taxes he would raise to keep the deficit from going through the roof. He would start by eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners, which he defines roughly as those earning more than $180,000 to $200,000 a year.

He wants to increase the capital gains tax for an interesting reason: In an interview this week, he argued that it's wrong to tax income from work at a higher rate than income from capital -- an extension of his long-standing theme that the country should not value ‘wealth over work.’ He also favors a windfall-profits tax on oil companies.

But since health coverage and ‘transforming the energy economy of this country’ are first on his to-do list, Edwards says he is prepared to disappoint voters who make a balanced budget their top priority.

Edwards deserves points for honesty and for stating the politically difficult truth that both fiscal and social balance demand a comprehensive health-care fix.”

My favored candidate for 2008 was Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold but he’s not running. My next preference is former Vice President Al Gore but it doesn’t appear he has the fire in the belly anymore.

As I’ve written previously, Edwards record about the Iraq War troubles me. I believe he supported the congressional resolution supporting President Bush’s misguided venture in Iraq out of political expediency. I can’t help but wonder if his “apology” for supporting the war is also about political expediency. War requires a higher standard of leadership than he’s provided. Yes, today he’s speaking out but seventy percent of the public is with him now. We needed Edwards to speak out in 2002-2003.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the progressive campaign Edwards is waging on domestic policy and the specifics he’s offering. In 2004, I regarded Edwards as a Ken Doll and his “two Americas” campaign a mere slogan. This time it appears he’s rising above platitudes.

Do platitude machines Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have any beef to offer? A cynic might recall how Walter Mondale was honest and specific. He told a nationally televised audience at the Democratic National Convention:

“President Reagan will raise your taxes. So will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”

The deficit was out of control but Reagan promised not to raise taxes, won in a landslide and raised taxes for the middle class anyway, which he called “revenue enhancements.” And he got away with it.

An optimist however might note John Edwards on his worst day is far more charismatic than Walter Mondale ever was on his best day. Perhaps Edwards is just the candidate to sell a specific progressive program and earn a mandate for real change. Without either Feingold or Gore in the race I don’t know which candidate I’m going to volunteer for yet. For damn sure I want more than platitudes such as “something new” offered by Obama. I want to know where the beef is.