Recently in
Government Reform Category

I had an interesting conversation with Casey the other week. Participating in the blogosphere the last three years opened my eyes to the idea that participatory democracy is an idea whose time has come.

Look at our hard work during the heartbreaking KE-04 campaign in 2003-2004. Witness the birth of DCP, and participating on the blogs from KOS to Firedoglake, Culture Kitchen and beyond. Witness the triumph of the 2006 elections as well as the frustration which we voice vehemently on a daily basis. Look at the media focus on Yearly KOS 2 with all the democratic contenders in one room—ready to employ us.

We worked hard to create something out of our rage and desire to change. And for me, it has produced an evolution in my way of thinking about what we want in our leaders. It led me to ask Casey—for so long we’ve been looking for a leader, a hero, a father, even, to be our President. Are we ready to relinquish the President’s role as father/mother/leader and go instead for partner?

[Photo of Shirley Shor painting "Leaning, 2005", by Gallery Paul Anglim]

Self loathing is an ugly thing. The despair that it can cause in the human heart can wreak havoc on the world around. And this, sadly, is where Senator Larry Craig seems to be.

Last night, in what I can only think of as a sad and desperate act, Senator Craig (R-ID) indicated, through a spokesman and others, that he wanted to perhaps, rethink, his position on his resignation.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital, told The Associated Press.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight _ and stay in the Senate," Smith said.

Someone should tell him that the Republican leadership doesn't do takesies backsies, and that public life doesn't provide for do overs. Especially not when the news of your decision comes, not just from your spokesperson, but from the fact that you left a message, on stranger's phone machine, thinking it was your high-priced Washington lawyer's phone machine.

Clearly, stress is having an effect on Craig's judgement, and the pressure he is feeling is evident in his voice. The level of tension and his desperation to hold on to the fiction he has created for himself is tragic.

But the tragedy is compounded when one thinks of the effects of Craig's many votes during his 27-year Senate Career on GLTB issues.

I can only speculate that what is in Craig's mind, which is that he does not see himself as gay. He sees himself as having deviant urges that must, somehow, be suppressed, both in himself, and others. And when that twisted thinking is applied to his voting in the Senate, he turns the tragedy on everyone else.

How does this tragedy manifest itself on a daily basis? Here's one small example: Larry Craig married a woman with three small children. He subsequently adopted those children. To all observers, he has been a steadfast and loving parent to them. So much so, in fact, that one of them appeared on Good Morning America this morning to give public statements of support from himself and his two siblings. But that parental relationship never would have happened in a Larry Craig legislated world, because he opposed gay and lesbian adoption. And as a result, those children likely would have been deprived of the parent/child relationship that quite obviously developed to the benefit of all.

That is the tragedy of the closeted life expanded into a legislative life.

It's a hard lesson to learn, but maybe now Craig will understand that the legislature, be it state or federal, has no place in the bedrooms of consenting adults. And should this public fiasco result in him remaining in the Senate, one would hope that he would bring some newfound compassion for the persecution that homosexuals endure in our society, and reevaluate his Senate votes on these issues.

Of course, I won't be holding my breath, but I can always hold out hope that people will learn from their own personal tragedies.

Craig would say he supports freedom, but what freedom is there in constantly feeling as though you have to hide a most basic part of your self?

[Editor's Note: Link to Talking Points Memos Story added after initial posting of this story. Further note: changes made to correct grammatical and spelling error, incorrect links, and other coffee deprived errors. Apologies for the confusationess. ]

Finally. The American Bar Association decides to stand up for the Rule of Law. It's about damn time.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The American Bar Assn. voted Monday to urge Congress to override a Bush administration order authorizing the CIA to use interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, and sensory and sleep deprivation.

The nation's largest lawyers' organization also called on Congress to give federal judges more oversight of government efforts to use the "state secrets" doctrine to throw out legal challenges to anti-terrorism programs.

[...] Like Opotowsky, Harvey quoted an article recently published by P.X. Kelley, a former Marine commandant, and Robert Turner of the University of Virginia's Center on Law and National Security, who in the past have been supportive of the administration's war on terrorism. In this instance, however, they wrote that they could not "in good conscience" support the executive order, saying it affords the CIA "carte blanche to engage in 'willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.' "

Ya think?

Arrghh. One can only hope that this small trip into the painfully obvious position of supporting the Geneva Conventions may lead them to express a position on the attitude and actions of utter contempt from the law that abounds from the nation's top law enforcement official, Alberto Gonzales.

[Image credit: Wichita State College]

It seems that many a Republican presidential candidate are finding themselves with they YouTube jitters, and the CNN YouTube debate may not happen at all.

1. Why do you think the candidates are trying to avoid this format of debate?

2. What question would you ask a Republican candidate via You Tube that you think would have a hope in hell of getting through the selection process?

3. Do you agree that there should be, as some have suggested, an American Idol type call in voting immediately following the each of the future Democratic and Republican debates, to get people used to voting for political candidates and not just entertainment stars?

4. Did you think that question number three was a real question? It wasn't. I made up the whole thing, especially the "some people have suggested part". See how easy it is to be a journalist? All you have to do is add "some people" into any question, and it can make any idiotic assertion look like a plausible and reasonable question to ask. Right up there with asking Barack Obama if he's "black enough".

5. What the hell does "black enough" mean?

6. Anyone here think that Alberto is trying to get himself out of perjury charges by pretending to spill the beans on "other intelligence activities" as a cover?

7. And is it the height of incompetence to suggest that you have committed a lesser sin than perjury by admitting instead that you were talking about a whole other program of spying, so heinous in its illegality, that half of the Justice Department was ready to take a walk if they didn't knock it off?

8. Was the Hillary/Obama "fight", carried on thoughout last week to the interest of almost no one, utterly stupid and vapid?

9. Anyone know who did the John Edwards "hair video"? It's an education in itself how to react to this sort of absolutely idiotic nonsense, namely the hubub about his haircut. You respond with ridicule. If you missed it, it's here for viewing. And by viewing, I mean viewing in non-partisan terms, but as a piece of strategy and response in today's media culture. I don't endorse any candidate for office. I endorse solid political thinking.

10. Will Solicitor General Paul Clement appoint a special prosecutor to the DOJ USA firings investigation? The best I can come up with is, maybe. I am positive that if Ted Olsen were still the Solicitor General of the United States, he would and do so swiftly. As much as I dislike Olsen's stand on any number of social issues, I have always admired him as a good legal scholar who loves the law. Same goes for James Comey, and many, if not most of the employees at the justice department. So the question becomes, does Paul Clement love the law, or does he love some other ideology which ascends some folks above the reach of the Rule of Law for its namesake?

BONUS QUESTION: Now that Inslee is putting a Gonazales impeachment bill in the hopper, has Harry Reid thought about the problem of President Bush using the August recess to dump Gonzales and do a recess appointment of a new Attorney General without any Congressional oversight? Hmmm...

I have questions. You have answers. Pick a question or ten and let's get the discussion going.

[Photo credit of eggs frying on sidewalk: operapixels]

All the kids I know are asking if you can really do this...yes, you can, but it's disgusting. I give that answer alot these days.

[UPDATE: Harriet Miers blows off the subpoena. Conyers responds here. My response? Throw her ass in jail. Now. What's your response?]

Speaking of these days, you don't need me to tell you that it's summertime. The mercury is through the roof, and we're all seeking a little shelter. And while you seek that shelter, what are you talking about with your friends and neighbors? More important, what are you talking about with strangers? You know, the folks in line at the grocery store, or in my case, at the town pool.

I usually know what's on the minds of my close friends and neighbors, but I've found that what's on the minds of strangers usually provides the most insight as to what the country, as a whole, is talking about.

So here's what people are talking back about:

As AfterDowningStreet.org's David Swanson reports this morning:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "Impeachment May Well Be the Only Remedy"

Remarks on the floor of the U.S. House, March 15, 2007
www.kucinich.us

This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.

The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.

The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter states, "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . ." Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal.

Article VI of the US Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land. This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the US Constitution and the UN Charter.

This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.

Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.

Hmm. The MSM is reporting that the legislative branch is finally growing a backbone.

And it's about damn time, too.

WHITE HOUSE CRISES SHOW NEW ACCOUNTABILITY
Bush faces opposition Congress with subpoena power

For the first time since taking office, Bush confronts political furors on multiple fronts and an opposition Congress armed with the subpoena power to investigate them.

The response to the dispute over dismissed federal prosecutors underscores the inexperience of a White House accustomed to having its own party in control on Capitol Hill. After first brushing aside suggestions from a Congress that had been reluctant to exercise oversight for the last six years that the firings may have been improper, officials then sought to minimize White House involvement in the mass ouster. Tuesday's release of e-mails documenting the role of key administration figures in the decision to dismiss the prosecutors provoked outrage on both sides of the aisle.

In the past, questions about its actions might have died down without the internal administration e-mails being made public. Now the White House is in the position of explaining why it has repeatedly changed its story.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Democrats will not let Bush brush aside controversies. "This is going to be a rockier year for the White House because every time there is a perceived mistake, they can fire up an investigation," he said. "It puts the White House on the defensive."

We received a call last week from the folks at Velvet Revolution about a campaign they have begun to assure a paper ballot for every vote in America.

Here is the letter they would like to see flood Members' offices:

Open Letter to all Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives:

We, the undersigned non-partisan election integrity organizations, strongly urge you, as a first order of business in the 110th Congress, to enact new federal legislation to protect the integrity of our elections. While there are many areas of concern for any such legislation, none is more essential to the accuracy of our elections and the confidence among our electorate than for there to be a paper ballot for every vote cast. Not a paper "trail" or a paper "record," but a paper ballot.

In light of lessons learned during the 2006 primary and general elections -- with myriad contests resulting in uncertainty and thousands of voters in state after state turned away from the polls unable to cast a vote on DRE systems which failed throughout the day -- we now hold that a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand, is the minimum requirement for any Election Reform legislation in which voters may have confidence. Such a requirement is needed to help ensure Americans that every legally registered voter can vote, that every vote is recorded precisely as the voter intends, and that every vote is counted and, if necessary, re-counted accurately.

"You win some. You lose some. And then there's that little known third category." - Al Gore -

Meet the new Congressman-elect from the Great State of Texas

Ciro Rodriguez

Last evening, in the last Congressional race of the 2006 cycle, Democrat Ciro Rodriguez beat the pants off of Republican Henry Bonilla, bringing the total number of seats gained by the Democrats in the US House of Representatives to 31.

But the Ciro Rodriguez story is not about Democrats versus Republicans for me. It's about the power of the people.

Remember how the Ciro story got going? It got started on Daily Kos, and Ciro's opponent in the Democratic primary, Henry Cuellar's people called it a one day story. THAT'S how this began. And Ciro lost that primary, but he never put away his campaign signs, and then next time out, he won, and went on to beat Bonilla last night.

Now, it's no secret that the DCCC pumped beaucoup bucks into the race in that last couple few weeks. That's not my point. My point is that a year ago, the DCCC would have been scratching their collective whatevers, and looking around that room with dazed blank facial expressions if someone had raised the name of Ciro Rodriguez. Back then, we would have had a response of yawning, not fawning.

No, the point here is that the PEOPLE brought Ciro forward as a candidate. The PEOPLE raised money through Act Blue pages, organized phone banks, reached out to fellow voters and in general worked their asses off for a guy that they believed might not win, but deserved a chance to compete. And they gave him enough support to bring him within striking distance of Bonilla, so that the DCCC would back him in the closing days.

THAT is power. And that is only ONE of the lessons to be taken from this story.

Here's another lesson from this story: Ciro Rodriguez won by nine points. In ALL of the Dec. 5, 2006 polling, Ciro was down by nine points. Let's all remember that the next time we see a poll that looks bad for a candidate that you support and it's a week out from an election.

And here's what I think is the most important lesson. Many political types, unfamiliar with what real political blogging is about, talk about the miracle of political blogging as the ability to raise money over the internets. How much money Howard Dean raised in small donor money is often cited. And yes, that was interesting then, and in this last cycle, that has become an even more formidable weapon in the PEOPLE'S arsenal than in the 2004 cycle.

But no, that was not the miracle of the Dean story.

The miracle of the Dean story was that complete strangers, from across the country, to across the world, talked to each other about politics and what mattered to them for the first time in a very long time. The miracle of the Dean story, is that complete strangers invited other complete strangers into their homes, their work and their lives. All for a political cause. All to take action. All of them, intent on making their voices heard and using some part of their lives in service to making the world a better place.

Now THAT is a miracle. And it's a miracle that the people can make happen.

More of that, please.

Photo from Lockheed Martin

The new Congress, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is set to take on the task of reducing corruption in government. Ethics is a concern when considering appointments to committees. A "culture of corruption" has developed which is strong enough to disturb the voters and undermine their confidence in Congress.

Powerful special interests historically pull hard on legislators, particularly from the "military industrial complex." Arms manufacturers make campaign contributions, but far more important is their leverage they exert on the Congressional spending of taxpayer money.

In Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union address, he said, "We must not relax our efforts to restore military strength. You know, we only have a military-industrial complex until a time of danger, and then it becomes the arsenal of democracy."