Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts

Friday, March 28, 2008

Spineless, Centrist CATFIGHT!!!

Okay I just thought I'd throw a misogynistic term out there right away so all the people that want to slam me with sexist claims will stay away from the post from the get-go.

It's interesting to me to see how this feud is developing. Hillary Clinton runs a dirty campaign where she constantly attacks Barack Obama, who is certain to become the party's nominee for the Presidential general election. Knowing she can't win by the will of the people, her team scheme in every possible way to steal it. They play the racism card against him, say he's not as qualified as John McCain, go after his church and then Hillary goes completely batshit crazy and thinks she was an action hero star who dodged sniper fire in Bosnia and was the person who brought peace to Northern Ireland. No really, former leader of the DNC and DLC douchebag Terry McAuliffe actually said that:

But now the Clinton campaign is really pushing the blarney boat out. On March 4th, Terry McAuliffe, her campaign chairman, has gone the further that I can see. “We would not have peace today had it not for Hillary's hard work in Northern Ireland," he said on CNN on March 4th. Well, that’s certainly news to those who were there at the time.


Of course the Irish have something altogether to say about that lie.

Anyway all the while they were going the smear route (and here's a partial list of the attacks), they were dreaming of ways to steal this. Go after Super Delegates, challenge the legality of caucuses, declare Michigan and Florida's delegates should be seated even if Hillary signed a pledge not to campaign and no other candidate's names were on the ballot in Michigan. Hell they even went as far as to suggest that she was going to try to twist the arms of Pledged delegates in order to subvert the will of the voters.

Of course there was going to be public pressure on Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi to say something in this regard. Especially with Hillary both slamming Obama as worse than McCain AND begging to be on a ticket with Obama at the same time.



So she did and the Hillbots went nuts. Her rich corporate donors decided to try to blackmail Pelosi and the party if she stands in the way of the Superdelegates cheating for Hillary.

Basically they feel that if Pelosi stops the Superdelegates from stealing the election for Hillary that they will withdraw the support that they give to Democratic Candidates.

Upon closer inspection though, these twenty donors who signed this letter should give serious pause to any Democrat who actually wants change in this country. All this does is open up more questions of why the Clintons still refuse to release their tax returns and makes you wonder how much money from these donors has made it into their personal finances. And if it made it into their personal finances, then you can makes claims of illegal donations to the Clinton campaign since she used some of the wealth she's obtained to lend $5 million to her own campaign. After all, if she received money from these people and then funded herself with it that's a ridiculous loophole for one to use to cheat their way around campaign finance reform.

And look at the donors. 7 of them stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House when the Clintons were practically renting it to their corporate buddies. One of them got in serious trouble for selling missile secrets to China. This is a rather notorious list of people to be trying to strong arm our party.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be, at least my definition of it has always been, the party of the people. While it was no secret that the GOP only cared about rich people and corporate interests, the Democrats were supposed to be counter to that. The opposition party.

Allowing these donors to dictate anything is bad for the party and frankly, bad for America. We already have a party that caters to the rich and is willing to destroy the poor and middle class for their benefit.

In this fight I would almost certainly support Nancy Pelosi. Yes she has been a great disappointment. When she ran against former Tennessee Congressman and current head of the DLC Harold Ford for House Minority Leader after Dick Gephardt retired she was painted as the liberal San Franciscan Democrat who would bring the party to some sort of tree hugging hippie revival or something. When she won the election amongst Democratic members of the House there was a feeling of hope that she would be the strong liberal she was painted as. After all, nobody in the House looked very strong at that point and Republicans were playing every dirty trick in the book to get legislation on the floor before anyone could read it, deny Democrats meeting rooms and pretty much silence the Democratic voice completely.

Pelosi held her own but when it was clear in 2006 that public sentiment and backlash was so strong that she could see a Democratic tidal wave of new House members elected and she could become the Speaker of a huge majority, she decided to play the spineless centrist card we all feared. Before the 2006 mid-terms she declared that impeachment was off the table. I could somewhat understand that being said before the election.

After all there are 30% of the country that are completely lacking common sense or understanding of the world and they would come out in droves to save their leader from facing the crimes he committed. So keeping them at home made sense. But after they won there was no excuse. Bill Clinton committed perjury on a personal indiscretion. The House Republicans which spent $60 million of taxpayer money and could only come up with this weak charge, impeached him.

That was a minor offense. A misdemeanor at best. Bush has committed treasonous acts against his country. It's well documented that he broke FISA laws, used signing statements to break a majority of other laws that have been passed and then tried to cover his tracks by breaking yet another law and deleting all computer records of communications. We're not even addressing the obvious election theft that they should be prosecuted for.

For the future of our country and to send a statement to American citizens as well as children who are learning about the Constitution and how America works we should have impeached and prosecuted the entire bunch of criminals. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice... all of them.

The problem is the Senate is too closely divided to complete the conviction and removal from office. So Pelosi figured a failed impeachment would look bad and partisan to the American people.

The issue isn't whether or not that was true because that reasoning certainly isn't misguided it's that it fails to recognize how the media coverage of the impeachment and the trials which would be covered nationally, interrupting daily television programming so everyone could see, would prove without a doubt the crimes they committed and turn public sentiment for the conviction so strongly in favor of it that even the safest of DLC and Republican incumbents would have to consider their own necks versus saving Bush.

She never even gave that proposition a second thought and just kept impeachment off the table.

It's that sort of spinelessness that kills Democratic hopefuls before they ever get a chance to be elected and make an impact on Congress. It reinforces every bad stereotype of the party and does it in a way that the Right Wing talking heads and the mainstream media pundits alike can attack and have some credibility on. After all some credibility is way more than the zero they usually have.

So I'm usually inclined to think everything Pelosi says is garbage, but she's absolutely right here. The will of the people should trump the opinions of party insiders and rich donors.

But even when I am warming to the idea of supporting Pelosi in a fight of this magnitude she says something stupid again.

"We can't allow the tension and pressures of a spirited Presidential contest to spill over and harm hard-working Democratic candidates running to strengthen our Democratic majority in the House," Pelosi wrote in an e-mail sent to a vast list of Democratic donors and supporters. "I will do whatever it takes to protect our candidates and make sure their campaigns to drive change forward don't skip a beat."

And Pelosi urged potential donors to make a contribution to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee before the March 31st deadline for the current fundraising quarter.

Her appeal comes two days after a group of 20 Clinton backers sent a letter to Pelosi chastising her public position that superdelegates should support the will of the people -- in other words, vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates.


See that's the problem. Who does Pelosi urge you to send money to? The former Clinton Administration official turned Congressman Rahm Emanuel's DCCC.

The DCCC, run by Emanuel and the DSCC run by the other New York Senator Chuck Schumer are breeding grounds for DLC Centrists. Their purpose is supposed to be to help all Democratic House and Senate candidates win their races against Republicans.

The problem is they don't stay out of the primaries. They endorse the weakest, most centrist candidates whom they feel will be easiest to control in continuing their goals to serve their corporate masters. This was never more apparent than in Minnesota's 2006 Senate Campaign when centrist Amy Klobuchar who didn't really have positions on a lot of major topics was losing debates to the progressive Democratic candidate Ford Bell. Schumer ran the DSCC in, endorsed her before the primary was close to done, got big name Democrats to do fundraisers for her and voila, she had a boatload of cash and party backing to squash all opposition voices.

Those weak kneed candidates are the ones that the DCCC and DSCC constantly try to prop up. They want to infuse as much cash as possible into those candidates in specific winnable races where they can gain a seat, brag about it and claim that their strategy of a Republican, er, Centrist Democratic Party is what the voters want.

Then they act surprised when voters, the media, the pundits all see the forest for the trees and call this group of Democrats cowards when they vote for Bankruptcy laws that help Credit Card companies but not the middle class, or when they have a shot to end the war but refuse to cut off funding, when they can show backbone and stick up for the constitution and impeach Bush but don't lift a finger to do so, when they have a chance to stand up to Bush on FISA and telecom immunity and then let the bills even get to the floor.... well at least the House stepped up to the plate on that one.

In 2006 Democrats won in places they hadn't before. Thanks to the 50 state strategy employed by Howard Dean at the DNC. Considering it was his first national election as chair of the DNC and we won so big, I'd say he did a great job. Emanuel and Schumer went off on him for not limiting our money to races they targeted that we could win. Aka spend money only on a few seats in Blue states or in places where we absolutely know we can win.

That sort of alienates the rest of the Democratic Party who are trying to push back against the Republican majorities that this sort of ignorance created.

Obama's success in traditional red states is not just that he won in most of them, it's that he drew such large numbers of voters there. Voters that were not there before Howard Dean started employing his strategy to build the party in states that were not Democratic safe havens. The only way to win for the long term is to get into every state, every city, every region and get our message out there. Republicans count on and depend on these locations not having Democratic challengers and they have been able to maintain one voice, one theme on the airwaves in that area precisely because there has never been opposition there. In those cases many Democrats just refuse to vote. Why bother? Your party isn't putting out serious challengers or backing them in a meaningful way so you'll lose badly no matter what.

And that's precisely what's wrong with Nancy Pelosi here. Even when she has these people blackmailing her, she goes out and tells people to support another one of them.

There are organizations like MoveOn, Blue America, Progressive Democrats for America, etc that support progressive Democrats. That fight for candidates that aren't just status quo defenders of the rich. And short of telling people to go outside the party for help from these groups she should be telling people to help Howard Dean and the DNC out here.

Thanks to Hillary's prolonged primary battle, the DNC will be weakened considerably in the fundraising arena. Of course maybe that's what the Clintonites want since they hate Howard Dean anyways.

Even when it's clear she's in the right in a situation, Nancy Pelosi muffs the punt so to speak and fumbles away what would be an opportunity to finally recognize the impact people-driven politics has over the old-school lobbyist-funded fat cats that used to run the party. She could have driven people to places that support the power of grassroots and away from the DLCers who have helped kill the party in almost every way since Bill Clinton's 1992 election win.

In her best chance to do what was right, she couldn't even hang on to the ball.

It's a shame really.

-Rp

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Another reason why Presidential Powers need to be curbed

Two words. Recess Appointments.

Yesterday Bush, after decrying the Democrats for taking their spring vacation (ironically since the guy has spent an average of 2 out of every 5 days on vacation since he took office 6 years ago), did what he always does. He turned around and pulled slimey reprehensible actions behind everyone's back.

This time he appointed three people to offices who had no shot in hell of being appointed. Most notable was Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium. Fox is the Missouri billionaire who gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who slimed, lied and distorted John Kerry's record so horrifically in 2004. Wonder why Bush didn't denounce those ads? They were the best thing he had... well aside from election fraud scams in Ohio, to win that damned thing. So when the Senate showed Mr. Fox some serious teeth (including a fantastic rebuttal by John Kerry fighting back against the liars who tried to assault his character), Bush asked that the nomination be withdrawn.

Likely with the complete intention of putting him in as long as Congress was looking the other way.

Fox though wasn't the only person that Bush installed.

Bush's second recess appointment, Andrew Biggs, was appointed as deputy commissioner of Social Security. Biggs has been working very hard to privatize social security and had no shot of being put in to work for the very organization he wants to overhaul and dismantle.

Same can be said for the third appointment, Susan Dudley. Dudley, appointed to the Office of Management and Budget in a regulatory oversight capacity has been a stern opponent of regulatory practices at George Mason.

According to Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars:

Some of her targets have included EPA health standards for smog, opposition to lower-polluting cars, opposition to air bags, and opposition to stronger regulations for arsenic in drinking water. For some reason, the Senate had some concerns about her nomination. The White House not only doesn’t care about the concerns, it also decided it doesn’t care about the constitutional nomination process.


Nice. Sort of reminds me of August 2005 when Bush used these same recess appointment tactics to install the no shot in hell of being confirmed, John Bolton.
You know the guy who said, "There is no UN" and that "we could lose 10 stories [at the UN building] today and it wouldn't even matter"?

Yeah that guy, who was appointed during recess to be the US Ambassador to the United Nations. Foxes guarding the chicken coop. Bush seems to like putting people in place to work at the very agencies they want to destroy.

Something like Grover Norquist's whole we need to "reduce government enough so we can drown it in a bathtub" comment I suppose.

The whole point is to deregulate everything for big business to make more of a profit. Get rid of government programs that help the poor and the environment and you can cut taxes for the rich and give corporate subsidies and government contracts. Then those favors turn into money back in the form of large contributions to the Republican party and candidates. Essentially Republicans are stealing your tax money and using government policy as a money laundering scam.

Recess Appointments, much like signing statements and executive privilege have been taken to the extreme by this President. Sure they have always been there and available to all previous Administrations but none of them combined have taken as many liberties with Presidential power as Bush has. When Democrats regain the Presidency and a larger majority in 2008, they need to work to reverse the massive damage this Administration has caused to America and then hand power and accountability back to Congress and the American people.

One final note, while nobody is crediting Pelosi for the end of the Iranian-British hostage standoff one has to wonder. Conventional wisdom says Tony Blair did the negotiating on Britain's behalf. Iranian President Ahmadinejad didn't concede that point and took credit for himself declaring their release a "gift to Britain". But even though she has taken no credit for anything other than supposedly reinforcing Bush's policies (as narrow minded and foolish as they are), Pelosi going over there still has Republicans most notably Dick Cheney himself, in a hell of a tizzy.

The Syrians actually claimed some responsibility for the release of hostages though and that has to make you wonder, if Pelosi had some impact. She might not want to accept credit for fear or political repudiation, but in my view if she helped to get a deal brokered even by just her mere presence and no other implied commentary then it shows what American diplomats could do to ease tensions and correct a lot of the problems we have in the Middle East.

Of course, first you need a President who wants peace, not unending war.

-Rp

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Manufactured Scandals


So the term "Manfactured Scandal", which Tom DeLay so famously decided to use to describe the real scandal with real legal implications known as the Alberto Gonzales-US Attorney Firing Fiasco, came to mind today.

Republicans have been Manufacturing Scandals pretty well since the Clinton Administration took oath (see Clinton killed Vince Foster and others). This one was a doozy.

Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria to provide a basic function this White House has refused to provide to allies and enemies alike since they took charge in January 2001... Diplomacy.

Syria is not our ally, but when we alienate them and leave them out of the discussion we are asking to create an even more tenuous relationship with them.

So Bush goes out and criticizes her trip and tries to play her off as a traitor for speaking with a country which sponsors terrorists.

Two things to remember here.

1. Republicans made a similar trip to Syria with cooperation from the White House just a few months back and didn't receive an ounce of flack.

2. As soon as she gets over there the Iranians (allies with the Syrians) release 15 British sailors they were holding hostage.

Wow, could it be that diplomacy actually works? Bush is probably irate because this took away one of their reasons for war with Iran.

Either way this is complete egg on the face of the Administration, to have Democrats going to the Middle East and in one fell swoop cleaning up messes they purposely made.

So that term, "Manufactured Scandal" comes completely into play. Republicans will try to make her seem like a traitor even though some of their own made the very same trip. The problem here is she went, soldiers ended up released and low and behold communication was made.

The problem is Bush is too focused on an Iranian war to want what's best for either side. We mentioned that state sponsor of terrorism label he put on Syria. Turns out Bush and Cheney have been funding Pakistani terrorists in an attempt to wreak havoc in Iran. It was one of the focuses of Cheney's recent visit with Musharraf.

Not to mention the magical word from right wingers that Iran is closer than ever to having Nuclear Capabilities. Of course the right and Israel has made this claim several times...

I just don't buy it. We're pressing this war. We're the ones funding terrorists to attack a country we don't like. We're the ones refusing to talk with them. We're the ones who bullshitted all of our intelligence to make the same exact case about Iraq before we invaded them.

It's interesting to me that any media outlet would take the Bush Administration and their Iranian Nuclear claims with any sort of legitimacy as if they have credibility at this point. Name a single topic since the beginning of this administration and there is likely a lie and a scandal behind each and every one.

Either way Pelosi going over there shows the difference in results between diplomacy and iron fisted ultimatums. Us versus Them doesn't work. It's too bad we've spent the past 6+ years with a President that seems deadset on setting the World's diplomacy tactics back to the dark ages (not to mention setting back science and other sectors of American life).

What a nice glimpse this gives of 2008 and the options on the ballot. The Bush World where nothing gets accomplished and America is hated universally, or the Democratic World where people of all nations can live peacibly and in agreement with one another on key points of life and security.

Time for a change indeed.

-Rp