2008: Another Bullet Dodged -- Gingrich Won’t Run

Plus, Clinton votes for another war

The Speaker has chickened out after all. Good for the republic if not for the Republicans. With the GOP bench so shallow and his ego so wide, it must be breaking his heart not to be in the race. Probably thinks he can afford to wait four years, then run as the antiwar candidate against President Clinton.

So is that it?: Fred Thompson vs Hillary Clinton? Oy.

At least the Mike Huckabee-Bill Richardson vice presidential debate will be fun.

Although she has run an obsessively controlled campaign so far, there is still plenty of time for Sen. Clinton to stumble, especially if she is as close to lunacy as she appears in the clips The Daily Show pieced together last Tuesday of her wildly inappropriate cackling during her talk show marathon the weekend before. Apparently, her handlers think a laugh track will make her appear more human. Maybe it would have gone better if they hadn't given her that Chucky doll to practice with.

Ever the advocate of executive power, the junior senator from New York voted this week for the mischievous Lieberman-Kyle amendment -- the dybbuk from Connecticut must be feeling especially clever right now -- that Sen. Jim Webb characterized as "Cheney’s fondest pipe dream" and "a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action" against Iran (see, Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure by Gareth Porter, Huffington Post 2007-09-27).

Just for the record, Lieberman-Kyle passed by a disheartening 76-22 (go here for the roll call of dysfunction). Barack Obama conveniently was MIA on this tally, so he'll be off the hook no matter how it all turns out: he can criticize Clinton if things go badly in Iran; or knock Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who voted no -- along with Richardson and John Edwards, who came out strongly against the resolution -- in the unlikely event that the contretemps somehow ends well for the United States. The very junior senator from Illinois has advocated missile attacks on Iran and Pakistan in the past, but since the idea of another preemptive war can't be sitting too well with his Hollywood funders, he's showing good sense in not dwelling on the issue now (he did release a post-facto statement saying he would have voted against the amendment had he troubled himself to be there).

Also, while we're on the subject, Sen. Diane Feinstein voted aye, too. Probably hopes another war will be good for topping off hubby's already bulging coffers. Those people who decry earmarks should reconsider: they are far less costly -- in lives, capital and national reputation -- than military action at privatizing tax dollars. (If you're in the mood, call Feinstein and Clinton and let them know how you feel about their enabling another war: Feinstein 202-224-3841 and Clinton 202-224-4451.)

The "movement" is particularly smug about the vote, thinking it's responsible for softening the language in the amendment, but textual subtleties won't stop Bush or his successor from using the legislation as authorization for another Mideast war.

But I digress.

About the Speaker, I am pleased to have been wrong:

by Sarah Wheaton (NYTimes, 2007- 09-29)

Newt Gingrich has sent so many hints pointing in so many different directions that we’re dizzy trying to follow them all. But now, it appears, he’s made up his mind.

Rick Tyler, Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman, confirmed today that the former Republican House speaker has decided against a presidential run in 2008.

Mr. Gingrich was “presented with legal advice this morning,” said Mr. Tyler in a quick phone interview. “There was a choice presented.”

The choice was to remain chairman of his political action committee, American Solutions, or to allow advisers to move forward with an exploratory committee. But he could not, legally, do both, Mr. Tyler explained.

“So Mr. Gingrich made a choice to remain a citizen activist,” he said.

Citizen activist. Love it.

The rest of the story: The New York Times

Politics: One legislator, one vote?

Here's a fun video of the Texas ledge in action. The issue of proxy voting is more complex and probably less sinister than this breathless local CBS "expose" makes it sound, of course, but it's fun to watch nonetheless.

Although, it does raise a question: how many representatives would need to be present to hold a vote of the full body?

One?

The Coast: In Beach Enclave, Affluent Are Split Over Effluent

By Regan Morris (New York Times, 2007-09-25)

RINCON POINT, Calif. — Septic tanks or sewers? The question of how to treat wastewater in this exclusive beachfront community is pitting neighbors, surfers and environmentalists against one another.

Sewers would cost residents like Brook Harvey-Taylor and her husband, Billy, who oppose them, about $80,000 per home.

Surfers have long complained about getting sick at the world-class surf break here that straddles Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. And blame for the pollution has long been laid on the septic tanks of the multimillion-dollar homes in the gated enclave of Rincon Point.

After nine years of debate and several lawsuits, homeowners are to vote next month on whether to convert from the tanks to a sewer system. While most residents appear to back the conversion, a vocal group of residents is questioning its wisdom, with several saying they feel bullied into paying for an expensive system that would only encourage more development and more pollution.

“There is no evidence that our septic tanks are polluting anything,” said a homeowner, Billy Taylor, who with his wife, Brook Harvey-Taylor, is a surfer and an outspoken opponent. “Are we cleaning up the ocean? Or are we just moving our waste into another part of the ocean?”

The rest of the story: The New York Times.

Will the Democrats Betray Us?

"...no confidence.

"Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood - are we safer? - was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate." -- Frank Rich, Will the Democrats Betray Us? (New York Times, 2007-09-16)

Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair

The romance of the Obama campaign has muddied the waters somewhat, but finally the primaries come down to this: the cult of personality vs issues politics, "winning" vs governing, business as usual vs progressive policy, the corporatist "centrism" of the DNC vs Democratic (and democratic) values, the status quo vs a "new deal" for the American people: Hillary Clinton vs John Edwards. -- JG

John Edwards, Standing up to corruption, cronyism and modern day money changers.

by Karita Hummer

Among the most inspiring elements in the John Edwards campaign is his insistence on the reigning in of Lobbyist influence and putting the brakes on corruption, cronyism and insider influence and unfair bottom line practices by some corporations to the detriment of the common good (such as outsourcing, tax shelters, unfair loans. bankruptcy, pollution, etc.)

When I heard him speak last December in Santa Clara, before he declared his candidacy, John Edwards rightly said that it wouldn't due to trade unfair Republican election practices with Democratic election practices that kept the status quo. In other words, in all things, be as principled in our own matters as we expect of the Republicans in theirs.

The corruption, cronyism and rampant favoritism to certain corporations in the Bush Administration is almost without parallel in the history of our national politics. The Bush/Cheney/Rovian political machine has been incomparably efficient in only two areas, putting cronies in place and keeping Republican criticism and nay defection to a bare minimum, and they have been mean-spirited and ruthless. It's as if the ghost of old Tammany Hall (New York City) descended in the White House and took hold throughout government on a national level.

But, if we really want reform, if we really want the common good to be the new bottom line for America, like John Edwards says, we can not trade their corrupt machine for ours. We must rid the Democratic Party of its own tendencies toward machine politics, corruption, cronyism, and the money changers in our government - including no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for high rollers orchestrated by Republican or Democratic machines.

Enough is enough - of the lobbyists and campaign finance high rollers/money changers in our government. Squeaky clean, fair and transparent is the way to go.

This is how Wikipedia describes a political machine:

"A political machine is an unofficial system of a political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines sometimes have a boss, and always have a long-term corps of dedicated workers who depend on the patronage generated by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many United States cities, especially between about 1875 and 1950, but continuing in some cases down to the present day. It is also common (under the name clientelism or political clientelism) in Latin America, especially in rural areas, and also in some African states and other emerging democracies, like postcommunist Eastern European countries. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power in suburban and rural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies. (American Journey, 2005)

The key to a political machine is patronage: holding public office implies the ability to do favors (and also the ability to profit from graft). Political machines generally steer away from issue-based politics, favoring a quid pro quo (something for something) with certain aspects of a barter economy or gift economy: the patron or "boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_m achine>

While political machine approaches do have their admirers (it gets work done efficiently, so some say), by and large, the systems are stifling, reduce creativity and increase a sense of dis-empowerment in the governed. Such systems are usually antithetical to participatory democracy.

I grew up as a child in Pittsburgh,PA. Machine politics was part and parcel of the political fare for the community. It felt oppressive and authoritarian and corrupt. It wasn't until Pete Flaherty was elected Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA, in 1969 did one feel a sense of real citizen empowerment and potential.

And get this, about Pete Flaherty, now deceased, who stood up to the Democratic machine of the city of that era:

"Mr. Flaherty, though outspent by a margin of more than 4 to 1, nonetheless cruised to a landslide victory in the 1969 election, launching an administration that would permanently transform Pittsburgh government." By James O'Toole, "Obituary: Pete Flaherty dies at 80, Former mayor and county commissioner", Tuesday, April 19, 2005 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05109/490 421.stm>.

So, did you catch that number, outspent by a margin of 4 to 1. (OK, everyone, remember those numbers and take heart!)

So, what am I getting at. I guess it's quite obvious that I am concerned about the seemingly machine like approach to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which would seem to translate in to the type of governance one could expect from her (if she could even get elected which I highly do doubt). The feeling I have about this is based on her attitude toward lobbyist campaign money and other high roller money (even from Murdoch), her seeming inability listen to people and her sense of entitlement to the presidency, based on her insider status.

Altogether, it gives me a feeling of authoritarianism and elitism, that feels antithetical to our best principles in the Party.

We don't need Machine Politics, from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We do need a Democrat who can stand up to the corrupting influences in our government today and say, "No, we aren't going to do business that way anymore. We are going to have a new bottom line, which is the common good - and there is no compromising on that."

That Democrat is John Edwards.

Defense of Lobbyists is old politics and throwing the money changers out is new politics. We need reform for our Country and reform for our Party. The old way doesn't work.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

Reposted from John Edwards Blog:
Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair

The Dems and Iraq: Confusing "can't" with "won't"

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting makes the point that, "Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May, major media outlets continued to 'explain' the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways....Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq - it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41....the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War - if they choose to do so."

The rest of the story: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

2008: Just the Facts

FactCheck.org has done yeoman work in service of the idea of an informed voting public. Now, it will no longer need to soldier on alone. PolitiFact.com has announced that it also will pan for truth in the stream of 2008 presidential rhetoric. The St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly have teamed to produce the new site, offering among other services a "truth-o-meter" that rates statements by the candidates for president on a scale from "true" through "half true" to "pants on fire." The site is organized well, the writing is crisp and to the point, and sources are hyperlinked where appropriate. Users can browse the commentaries by candidate or ad sponsor, by issue, by truth-o-meter ruling and, in the case of attack ads, by who is attacking whom. Twenty-one researchers, writers and editors from the periodicals have been assigned to the project. Both companies are affiliates of the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, a center for journalism education in St. Pete.

quote unquote: Hume on Patriotism and Tyranny

Mankind are, in all ages, caught by the same baits: The same tricks, played over and over again, still trepan them. The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy. – David Hume, “Of Public Credit,” Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1754)

Politics: Emanuel and Schumer protected the conservative domination of Congress in 2006

Progressive complaints about the failure of the Democratic majority to end the occupation of Iraq are based on a misunderstanding of what happened in the 2006 elections. A majority of Americans did not vote to end the war. As an article on Truthout makes clear, they were never given that choice (Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives by Matt Renner; 2007-09-06).

According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.

Appointed as head of the DCCC by then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel spearheaded the Democratic Party effort to regain control of the House of Representatives during the 2006 election cycle. Emanuel claimed credit for the Democratic takeover and was promoted to chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in the House. But his election tactics have been criticized by progressive activists and former Congressional candidates.

According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries....

How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff....But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

If the Democrats have a clear mandate, it is to put an end to the corruption that became pervasive in the legislature and the executive under Republican control. And in so far as the expectation of a cleanup in Washington has gone largely unfulfilled, the voters are right to be angry and disillusioned.

But on Iraq, there has been no sellout by anti-war Democrats. In fact, considering the conservative makeup of the Congress, Pelosi, Reid, et al, have done a remarkable job of moving the peace process along. The peace movement needs to keep up the pressure to bring more members of Congress to its side. Charges of "betrayal" and "cowardice" against potential Democratic allies are not only inaccurate, they also make putting together a Congressional majority in favor of getting out of Iraq more difficult.

The rest of the story: Truthout.Org