All Posts Tagged With: "GOP"
California GOP Breaking Reagan “Commandment”
Ronald Reagan’s hard-and-fast rule was ‘thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican,’” Now former California Governor Pete Wilson has broken that 11th Commandment ripping into Senator Tom McClintock and picking scabs off of some of the very worst scandals in recent political history. Wilson says in a letter mailed on behalf of GOP player Doug Ose, McClintock’s rival “As governor, I could never count on Tom McClintock.”… “He was always first to criticize, but the last to help the team. His record doesn’t match his rhetoric.”
Term limited uber conservative California Senator McClintock ran for Governor among over 130 others during the circus-like recall elections of then Governor Gray Davis and placed right behind winner Arnold Schwarzenegger but, also permanently bumped himself out of any serious run for higher office in California. So, McClintock - whose current seat is in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties - is “carpet bagging” to the far north to run for Congress in the north east corner of the state in what has turned into a real dust-up as Wilson’s letter reflects.
The 4th District is one of the most conservative in all of ultra liberal California with Republicans holding a 5 to 3 margin in registered voters. The seat was help by Republican John Doolittle since 1991. He was Doolittle was a member of the group known as the Gang of Seven, which had a role in exposing the House banking scandal. Mormon Doolittle became entangled in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal and his wife’s commissioned fund raising involvement and various lobbying issues. brought him down and he is not running for reelection opening the seat and current brouhaha.
Move over, Nancy. Shirley’s on the table!
In November 2006, nobody was more excited than I when the Democrats took back control of the House (and the Senate). The election amounted to the equivalent of a ‘no confidence’ vote for the Bush administration. Equally as exciting was the prospect of having the first-ever female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. As an avowed political junkie, I followed many candidates, not just those in Massachusetts. I had always considered Pelosi a solid liberal. Those of us who knew for certain that the Bush-Cheney administration had committed plenty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ honestly believed that articles of impeachment would finally be filed. The euphoria came to an abrupt end on November 8, when Pelosi said during a news conference, “I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.” Impeachment, or the lack thereof, was just the first of a string of disappointments that would be served up by this particular crop of Democrats.
The disappointment over impeachment was made even more intense by the Democrats’ failure to end the war in Iraq. This was undoubtedly the most important issue of the mid-term elections. Not only couldn’t the Democrats end the war, but they also signed the check each and every time George Bush delivered it to them. On April 24, 2007 Dennis Kucinich filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney that still languish in the House Judiciary Committee waiting for John Conyers (D-MI) to take action. Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), also a member of the committee, undertook an online petition to force some kind of action months ago, and he is still pushing today to no avail. I do not remember exactly when I heard of Shirley Golub, but I remember being impressed that an ordinary citizen was willing to take on the powerful Nancy Pelosi. I began to follow Shirley’s campaign more closely.
Last week, when I received an email with her rubber chicken ad, I decided I had to get in touch with Shirley Golub to get her take on Pelosi, impeachment, Iraq and other issues. We made contact via email and set up and appointment for a phone interview. We spoke just this morning on a variety of topics.
On Impeachment
Shirley’s campaign prioritizes a number of issues including ending our occupation of Iraq, providing health care for all, and passing the Matthew Shepard Act. However, her primary reason for running in San Francisco’s 8th district is that she believes that Nancy Pelosi is the roadblock to impeachment.
D: What have you heard about the articles of impeachment that have been hanging around Congress? I’ve heard rumors they’re moving along, but I do not actually see any movement.
S: I haven’t heard anything about them going ahead. It’s been in the Judiciary Committee and that’s where it’s stalled. It’s up to John Conyers to move it ahead. Of course, Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida is also on that committee and he’s been demanding that they move forward. He has an online petition going. I’m not sure where the count stands right now, but the last I heard is that he had over 200,000 signatures. Impeachment still isn’t moving ahead.
D: It’s discouraging…
S: It’s reprehensible. Impeachment is the only avenue we have right now to keep Bush and Cheney from moving ahead with whatever plans they have. I’m not privy to exactly what their plans are, but they can’t be good given their past track record.
D: I’ve written to my local Congressman, John Tierney, and he repeats what I hear most often from the Democratic side: It’s either that there isn’t enough time to advance articles of impeachment or that pursuing impeachment will get in the way of the Congress working on more meaningful legislation. What meaningful legislation? Nothing meaningful has come out of the Congress. What about the American people? Where is the outrage?
S: Well, the American people have been brainwashed by both the Congress and the mainstream media. Have you seen “Body of War\” by Phil Donohue?”
D: Yes, I have.
S: Well, it was the same thing back then. The mainstream media and certain members of Congress just keep repeating what the administration and the generals are saying when they say the surge is going well, or the war is going well. And that’s all the American people hear and those who don’t explore alternative news media believe what they hear. It’s the same principle with impeachment. They constantly hear that there’s not enough time or that there are more important issues to deal with, and that’s what they believe. They think the Congress knows better than they do. They need to be educated. You know, the web site afterdowningstreet.org refutes all these points about impeachment.
And as for more important legislation, Congress will point to the stimulus package. You know what they can do with their stimulus package! Look, this idea that there isn’t enough time to pursue articles of impeachment is not valid. Two weeks ago you had the president admit on national television that he approved the use of torture. That’s an impeachable offense! It would take no time to file articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney.
D: What’s your take on why Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? I’ve had people tell me that she’s taking the politically expedient route. She doesn’t want to be accused of ‘paying back’ the administration because it might hurt her politically down the road. Do you think that’s valid?
S: Well, first of all, let me say that if she moved to impeach Bush and Cheney, she’d be President, so it isn’t about political expediency. I’ve heard a number of rumors. First of all, there has been wiretapping going on for years, so who knows what the administration may have found out about her. Is she or her family being threatened? There have been rumors about that. Is it corruption? She’s very well off financially, so how much money does she need?
D: So nobody knows the real reason for her taking impeachment off the table.
S: Not really. All I know is that when you take an oath of office you better take it seriously or step down.
On Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, was another woman I had been following. Cindy is as outspoken about the war as Shirley is about impeachment. After a brief period of disillusionment, Cindy Sheehan announced that she would run against Pelosi if she didn’t bring the war in Iraq to an end. The mainstream media had covered Cindy Sheehan for a while, but then the story dropped off the face of the earth. I could not find an update anywhere.
D: Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? I had heard she was going to challenge Nancy Pelosi, but she seems to have disappeared!
S: Not at all. Cindy said she was going to take some time off and she did that. She has now moved to San Francisco. You don’t have to live in the district where you’re running for Congress, but she felt it was the right thing to do. Just this past Friday, she filed papers with the City Election Office and Cindy’s now working to get the 10,000+ signatures she needs to appear on the ballot.
Now, people say to me, “You’re running against Cindy! How can you do that?”
I am not running against Cindy and this is what has people confused. It’s important that people understand this. I’m actually running in the June 3 primary to oust Nancy Pelosi so that she doesn’t even get to run in November.
D: So we need to make it clear you’re running in the primary and that’s coming up in June.
S: Right. I’m running in the primary as a Progressive Democrat. I’m running because we need action on impeachment now and I firmly believe that Nancy Pelosi is the stumbling block we have to get past. We need to send a message to Congress that we’re not going to have our rights taken away by anybody. Now, Nancy Pelosi won’t physically be out of Congress until January 2009, but if she’s defeated in November, she will be incapacitated.
Cindy is the fall back position, if you will, in the event that Pelosi doesn’t lose in the primary. Cindy’s road is a bit tougher as she is running as an Independent, and the November turnout is likely to be much higher than that of the June primary. We’re hoping that the June ballot issue on rent control will motivate the voters to come out since 70% of the people in the 8th district are renters. We’re hoping it will increase the turnout of progressive thinkers.
Now, you saw what happened with Donna Edwards in Maryland where she defeated seven-term incumbent Al Wynn in the Democratic primary. So, people will respond if the information gets out there. If we can do that, then I think we have a definite chance of defeating Nancy Pelosi in June.
On Funding the Iraq War
The voters were clear back in 2006. It was time to end our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible. Nancy Pelosi herself said, “This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer.” The Democrats made a commitment to the American people to end the war. Fast forward to 2008: Not only is the war still going on, but there has also been an escalation (which we refer to as a ‘surge’). If that isn’t enough, the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi continue to rubber stamp George Bush’s budget requests to continue fighting in Iraq.
D: Let’s talk about Congress funding the Iraq war. Instead of simply cutting off funding, what we have are the Democrats attaching amendments to the bill so that they can get something in return for giving Bush his war money. Do you find this as disturbing as I do? They could simply stop funding the war right now and be done with it.
S: Let’s face it Congress has the power of the purse strings. Nancy Pelosi decides which bills will come up and which will not. What she is doing right now is combining the $100 billion Bush is asking for right now with the $78 billion planned for the fall so that it doesn’t come up again and get in the way of the election.
D: Again, ‘political expediency’ seems to be the operative phrase here.
S: It’s disgusting that she’s doing this, and you can tell I’m passionate about running against Nancy Pelosi! You know, we don’t have enough money to spend on education in this country because we’re spending billions of dollars on this war. Bush is putting your children and grandchildren in debt for years to come because he’s borrowing money from China, Japan and other countries to fund the war. They own us!
On the 2008 Election
I couldn’t resist bringing up the election, not that I see either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as progressive candidates. The only progressive candidate in the bunch was Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Oddly enough, it was Kucinich who inspired Shirley Golub to run.
D: What do you think about the 2008 presidential election? What about the two Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
S: Well, they are both incredible people, but I haven’t got a clear picture of where they stand on the issues and they do shift from time to time. Neither support HR676, which is basically Medicare for all. You know, we are the richest country in the world and we spend the most money on health care, but the health of our people is consistently ranked between 27 and 34, depending upon which study you read. The point is that for the amount of money we spend, our rating is incredibly low. More than half the bankruptcies in this country are around medical issues.
People feel secure if they have a health plan in place, but what they don’t realize is that a significant percentage of the premiums they pay, sometimes as much as 30%, go to administering the program. The money does not go to the doctors or hospitals. It’s a profit-oriented system. If we had Medicare for all, it would be a vastly different situation. I don’t know if you remember a doctor named Patch Adams.
D: I certainly do.
S: He still travels around the country raising money for ‘humane’ hospitals, hospitals that will treat everyone regardless of their financial or insurance situation. He has been taking the time to talk about the benefits of HR676 along the way.
D: I have to tell you that I am terrified we’ll end up with John McCain, who I see as a carbon copy of George W. Bush. What do you think of his chances?
S: Of course, we don’t have a crystal ball, so we cannot know for sure. In 2000 and 2004, George Bush really should not have been given the gift of the presidency. In 2000, there were significant election issues in Florida and then there were irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 campaign. Will we even get to an election?
We’ve heard about the possibility of martial law on the Internet and, of course, you have to take that with a grain of salt. However, martial law would effectively suspend the elections.
D: I wouldn’t put anything past this administration.
S: Exactly.
About Her Impeachment Play
Shirley Golub is countering the brainwashing being conducted by the administration and mainstream media by producing a full two-act theater production about the impeachment trial of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney. I asked her to provide a bit more detail.
D: So tell me a bit about your impeachment play! Sounds interesting!
Well, Bruce Fein, a constitutional scholar who actually wrote the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton and Alberto Gonzales, wrote it along with several other gifted people. Of course, Gonzales stepped down before he was impeached. The play is called “I,” and it opens on May 17 at the International Studies Academy Theater, which holds about 500 people. We need everyone to come out and see it. It’s designed to be educational so that people will understand why impeachment should be on the table. Of course, the Congress stretches time out as much as it can, but it’ll only take us a couple of hours to educate the public!
Our conversation came to a close on that note, and I was even more convinced that we
need more courageous people like Shirley Golub and Donna Edwards to challenge those
who have become too comfortable in their positions.
Vote for McCain in 2008 (if you think George Bush deserves a third term)
Maybe my reasoning is flawed. But why would Americans want to give a third term to the most unpopular administration in American history? While many Americans still envision John McCain as the straight talking, special interest-disdaining maverick candidate of the 2000 election season, the fact is that he’s never really been any of those things. To make it worse, he’s even changed his position on the issue of waterboarding. Why? Now 71 and perhaps sensing his “running” days are coming to an end, he is John McCain, candidate for President of the United States and it is now or never. Be afraid. Be very afraid. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush and a McCain win is akin to giving our current imperial president an undeserved third term.
Marching in step with the Bush war doctrine
Mr. Bush recently stated that the GOP will prevail in the 2008 election so that we can continue what he no doubt feels is the good fight in Iraq. If this is the case, then Bush’s worldwide aggression is in good hands. John McCain is a full-fledged “hawk” and a staunch supporter of President Bush’s war effort. Not only is he on record stating that the surge is “working,” but McCain also believes that the Iraq war is winnable and that winning is essential. Citing our long-term occupation of Korea, Mr. McCain has no problem at all seeing U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq for many years to come. He has acknowledged, however, that he must convince the American people that the war is noble and worthwhile during the campaign’s stretch run. Another notable point is that McCain is in lockstep with George Bush on Iran. There is no question he’d use military force against Iran if he deemed it necessary. This is a dangerous equation, given the milquetoast character of Congress. Would they stand up to John McCain or roll over and play dead as they have for George W. Bush?
America’s reputation has deteriorated under the Bush regime. Regardless of the thought process behind the “Bush Strategy,” his unwarranted invasion of Iraq has reduced America to worldwide bully status. George Bush proudly refers to himself as a “war president,” and he is right. In seven years, George W. Bush has, excuse the term, “pissed away” more than two hundred years of diplomacy, favoring instead the pre-emptive strike position so strongly advocated by the neo-cons. The Bus administration was so intent on attacking Iraq that it managed 935 outright lies to justify American aggression in the lead-up to the invasion.* Make no mistake that John McCain was one of the leading advocates of the Iraq war, he is presently one of the most vocal “cheerleaders” of the Iraq war, and he will no doubt carry on with (or expand) Bush’s Iraq policy. Invading Iran remains on the table now and, unless Mr. Bush twists a few facts and tells a few lies to justify invading Iran before he leaves office, it will remain on the table for the entire term of a John McCain presidency.
Out of touch with reality on reproductive rights
An issue that should be of concern to all American women is that of reproductive rights. On this count, the National Right to Life Committee gives McCain a 72% rating for the years between 1997-2000, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a 1% for the same time frame. Senator McCain is generally out of touch on this subject. When pressed on the issue of contraception during a bus trip between campaign stops, McCain fumbled around for an answer, sounding like anything but presidential material. It was actually painful to read this exchange. Yet, when McCain was asked specifically if grants for sex education should speak to the the use of contraception or if it should adhere to Bush’s “abstinence only” position, he chose abstinence only. McCain’s mentor on all things reproductive is none other than Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose name he invoked several times on that bus trip. Coburn is not only a Senator, but also a doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career. Senator Coburn believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion in all cases, except in the rare case where the mother’s life is in danger. It should also be noted that Senator/Doctor Coburn advocates the death penalty for abortion providers, a position that is – at best – disturbing for a doctor to take.
A sudden change of heart on torture
Until recently, Senator McCain has been vocal critic of the President’s use of waterboarding and other extreme (and inhumane) interrogation techniques, having been subject to torture himself as a POW in Viet Nam. When both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney bowed out of the race, McCain’s nearly DOA campaign was not only given a new life, but also thrust into “frontrunner” status. With Mike Huckabee dropping out after the Texas and Ohio primaries, McCain is officially the GOP candidate for president. Now comes the need to cater to the very vocal and powerful right wing element in the Republican Party. Make no mistake about it, this is one faction of the party that is not enamored with John McCain and the candidate knows it. Suddenly waterboarding isn’t such a problem anymore. In fact, on February 13 of this year, the new John McCain voted against an intelligence bill designed to effectively outlaw torture by making the Army Field Manual the law of the land.
A legend in his own mind
McCain’s outward disdain of special interests and “soft” money donations is as legendary as Bush’s fundraising prowess. In fact, in 2002, Senator McCain and Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis) teamed up to pass the McCain-Feingold act in an attempt to eliminate large donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. They even won the Profiles in Courage award for their efforts. Do not be fooled. Here the only difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain quietly straddles the line that he himself draws in the sand.
In spite of his rhetoric to the contrary, McCain has done his share of favors for donors over the years. Few recall that McCain was one of the infamous “Keating Five,” five Senators who sought to influence the investigation into the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan and its chairman, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Mr. Keating was faulted for that failure, which reportedly cost taxpayers anywhere between $2.6 and $3.4 billion. After a reprimand, McCain won re-election as a congressman from Arizona’s first congressional district and was then elected to the Senate in 1986. In spite of his efforts to convince people that he and Keating were not friends, the facts show something different. By the time he entered the Senate in 1987, he had received $112,000 in donations from Keating, his family and his employees.
The New York Times reported that McCain’s association with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first campaign in 1999 concerned his staff. While he was photographed out and about with Iseman and even used the corporate jet of one of her clients, the issue isn’t whether or not they had an “extramarital affair.” The issue is that Iseman “lobbied” McCain on behalf of Paxson Communications, who had business in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Mr. McCain was the Chairman. In spite of his denials, the paper trail shows that John McCain wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson Communications as a result of her influence.
It’s time for a reality on the wisdom of electing John McCain. His 2008 campaign staff is like a role call of those associated with large soft money donations, like A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision and presently a McCain national finance co-chairman. Mr. Perenchio has raised a whopping $11.3 million in soft money donations since the 1998 elections. Several of George Bush’s moneymen also litter McCain’s landscape.
Can’t you see the real me?
We cannot see the real John McCain because the mainstream media is enamored with the mythological John McCain persona. They helped to create it and they continue to foster it. The one time a mainstream media outlet dares raise something questionable about Mr. McCain and the repercussions are clear. It appears that the Times has come under fire by its readers because they perceived the story as trashing the candidate by intimating he had an extramarital affair with Ms. Iseman without offering proof of said affair. Know what? Even if the Times had offered proof of an affair, that isn’t the most disturbing thing about their relationship. What is disturbing is that the article shows that McCain “talks the talk” but does not “walk the walk.” (This is another trait he shares with Bush.) He does not steer clear of lobbyists and is keenly aware of what they can do to put him in the White House.
It would be nice if we could have a real picture of the candidate so that people would know they are essentially re-electing George W. Bush, architect of the most unpopular administration in American history. George Bush knows it. He has endorsed McCain
GOP GOTCHA
Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are tied nationally at 30% each according to polls released Sunday. Remarkably Giuliani has collapsed by 17% in one month. Mitt Romney, who has become the Eddie Haskell (Leave It To Beaver) who runs around disingenuously complimenting everyone, is more than holding is own. But, it is John McCain who is surging. McCain has tied Romney in New Hampshire while Romney has surged well ahead in Iowa. John McCain has the highest favorable rating (52%) and the smallest number committed to voting against him (33%) of any Presidential candidate in either party.