All Posts Tagged With: "legislation"
The Three Horsemen of Moral Hypocrisy
The Republicans have precious little to be excited about these days. Things are looking bleak. The evangelical Christians aren’t excited about John McCain becoming president, so their support is less than enthusiastic. A feeling of utter desperation must be why a group of conservative right-wing Republicans recently pulled the Federal Marriage Amendment out of the closet, so to speak. Only this time it’s called the Protect Marriage Act. It’s impossible to keep the name straight anymore but, regardless of what it’s called, what this law seeks to do is write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Thankfully, this particular piece of legislation has a very long shot at even getting a hearing. Still, it’s particularly irksome on two fronts. First, this continuous attack on the Constitution is getting to be the Theater of the Absurd. Enough is enough. Second, we gay folk are tired of being used as a polarizing issue when all we really want are our civil rights as guaranteed in said Constitution (not ’special’ rights as the conservatives would have you believe). I discovered the ultimate in hypocrisy when I went to look the bill up and discovered that two of its cosponsors are none other than Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) and Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), two far-right conservatives whose sexual exploits make a mockery of heterosexual marriage.
For those of you who need a review, we’ll start with Senator Vitter. During his campaign for the senate, the good Mr. Vitter was accused of carrying on a rather lengthy tryst with a French Quarter prostitute. At the time he labeled the accusation as “absolutely and completely untrue.” It was after he was elected that his telephone number was found in the phone records of the famous ‘DC Madam.’ At that point denial seemed silly, so instead he pulled the rehabilitation and reconciliation routine out of his pocket. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling,” said Vitter. Signing on to write discrimination into the Constitution must be his way of purging his guilt.
Senator Larry Craig’s sponsorship of this bill is even more absurd. On August 27, 2007, we learned from the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, that Craig had been arrested trolling around the men’s bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport looking for extramarital homosexual favors. Unfortunately, he was soliciting homosexual favors from an undercover policeman. This is the same Senator Craig who appeared on Meet the Press at the height of President Clinton’s impeachment trial (1999) and informed Tim Russert that the majority of citizens in Idaho thought that Bill Clinton was a “nasty, bad, naughty boy.” Yes, those are his exact words. What do you suppose they think of Senator Craig if they think Bill Clinton was bad, naughty and nasty?
Senator Craig was accused of playing ‘footsy’ in the bathroom stall with the officer, who was in the adjoining stall. After much wrangling and gnashing of teeth, the charges were reduced and Craig pled guilty to a lesser charge of ‘disorderly conduct.’ However, there had been rumors and innuendo about Craig’s homosexuality in the past and this incident brought it all front and center once again. In late 2007, the Idaho Statesman ran an exhaustively-researched story revealing that Craig has been accused of having a history of homosexual encounters dating back to 1967. (For the record, he has had more than one men’s room encounter.) No fewer than eight gay men came forward to tell stories to the Statesman of having had sex with Craig after seeing him deny his homosexuality on television. Should he resign if he’s a homosexual? Hell, no.
There are gays in office who serve both their constituents and the government admirably. Likewise, there are people in office who have done far worse than solicit sex with someone. (Just take a look at our imperial president’s dismal record of service to this country. He still has his job.) However, Larry Craig should come clean. It’s difficult to believe that all of these gay men are uniting to spread lies about Craig. If the prostitute-loving David Vitter is still serving, Larry Craig should be allowed to serve. After all, Vitter could just as easily have been caught in a sting and charged. What cooked Vitter’s goose was that his name was posted on the web by the D.C. Madam herself. What neither of these clowns should be doing is preventing those who truly do want to be married, regardless of their sexual orientation, from doing so. This is a double dose of hypocrisy.
Our third horseman is still a babe in the woods compared to Vitter and Craig, but no less hypocritical. This guy hasn’t even been elected yet and he’s got a first-class scandal under his belt. His name is Mike Erickson and he’s running on a pro-life ticket in Oregon’s 5th Congressional District. What’s Erickson’s transgression? How about the fact that he’s running on a pro-life ticket but paid for his girlfriend’s abortion. Perhaps ‘girlfriend’ isn’t an appropriate term here. Let’s just say he had an intimate relationship with someone who became pregnant in 2000. According to the woman, “not only did he pick me up and drive me to the abortion clinic, he completely encouraged me to do that.” The woman also revealed that he withdrew $300 from his bank account to pay for the procedure. Of course, Erickson is claiming that he didn’t know he was paying for that type of medical procedure.
The unnamed woman, a Republican, first thought about coming forward when Erickson ran (and lost) in 2006. She had received a mailer highlighting his endorsement by Oregon Right to Life and was disgusted by the fact that he was running on a pro-life ticket. However, she backed down after setting up an interview because she was afraid of the repercussions of coming forward. In 2008, she decided to share her story with the Portland Tribune. The story appeared on the front page on May 12. The 33-year-old Clackamas County woman states, “I think it’s completely hypocritical that he would solicit or ask for an endorsement from Right to Life.” There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on this one.
According to Lois Anderson, political director for Oregon Right to Life, she spoke to the woman at length back in 2006 and found her to be credible. She also spoke to Erickson, who denied it all. Since the allegations were uncorroborated, Oregon Right to Life allowed its 2006 endorsement of Erickson to stand. Oregon Right to Life stated that the woman had been clearly traumatized by the abortion and the organization would have no choice but to give an explanation if they retracted their endorsement. In Anderson’s mind, there was no way to do this without revealing information that was harmful to the woman. “I don’t have any reason to doubt her,” Anderson states, “I think the fuzziness is because of the trauma.” In 2008, Oregon Right to Life did not endorse Erickson. Instead, they endorsed his Republican challenger, Kevin Mannix, also running on a pro-life ticket.
What’s the point? The point is that government is a haven for hypocrites. Public servants are neither here to tell people how to live their personal lives nor to legislate morality. The U.S. Constitution is very clear about its basic tenets: All men are created equal. All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means that everyone has the right to marry. There is nothing in our Constitution now that denies same-sex marriage. Yet, the threat has been introduced because politicians have muddied the waters by blurring the line between church and state. Our government isn’t based on the Bible, but on the Constitution. I’m confident that our founding fathers would never approve of the Constitution being amended for the purpose of denying a specific group of people its civil rights. While many of them were God-fearing men, they clearly understood that religion and politics do not mix.
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.