Taking the Democratic Party Survey: Why I am a Democrat and Why I'm Currently Discouraged.

I have been getting TONS of email from national Democrats, asking me for money, asking if I've seen the President's latest You-Tube video, asking me for money....

Today, I received a survey asking me to share my opinion on the current state of the Democratic Party...since there was a place for long answers, I filled them out...and then decided to post them here, because A) this was the one place that some random web surfer might read them (I know they won't get read at party headquarters) and, B) because heaven knows it's time for a blog post.

So here are my responses.


How would you describe the current political climate? (Optional):

As a Democrat, I feel demoralized. In his first days in office, President Obama appointed two tax cheats (a Democrat who cheats on his taxes is just as bad as a Republican "Family Values" man who cheats on his wife.) Timothy Geithner felt like part of the same Wall Street Gang of thugs who got us into this mess in the first place. Then, the President was a month overdue before responding in a major way to the Gulf Oil Spill. He has done a lousy job selling his program, and when Democrats point out the missteps taken by the White House and ask them to please try and do better, they are told to "Stop Whining" by Vice-President Biden. So, the current climate: Grim and Uninspiring.

What do you believe the Democratic Party stands for? (Optional):

I think that's in flux right now...but here's what I think the Democratic Party SHOULD stand for:

A strong America.
A debt-free America.
An America that MAKES things again.

The Democrats know that, with the proper oversight, Government need not be an enemy. Instead, as long as our government remains free and open, it can be a powerful tool. Allowing groups of ordinary people to band together to create something larger then themselves (examples: The Space Program, Victory in World War 2, the Interstate Highway System, the Transcontinental Railroad, etc.). Government, again, kept under proper restraint, and driven by groups of activists, is also the only tool that has achieved the civil rights of the American People (The end of Slavery, the Enfranchisement of Women, the end of segregation.)

In times of great need, Government has successfully served as the great engine which restarts the economy...getting us moving again following the Great Depression, providing the needed economic mobilization to triumph over fascism. While these are the large examples, this pattern has been repeated in smaller crises throughout the century.

The Democratic party knows that, in order to create the conditions of prosperity and stability, taxes are necessary. Democrats know that the upper class may occasionally meet with success solely by their own efforts, but are more often aided by the efforts of their workforce, the public education system, the public police system, the public transportation infrastructure, the national defense, and, often, by doing direct business with the government.

Because of this, Democrats know that these people deserve to pay more in taxes, to support the society that supports them so well.

Democrats know that money taken from the top, and reinvested in the bottom creates a rising tide that raises ALL boats, not just those of the few...and brings financial growth and benefit to a greater portion of society. (Their prosperity, in turn, allows them to be customers of the rich...helping them well from this too.)

Democrats value and respect the entrepreneur. They understand that his vision and energy are a key part of the driving force of our economy. At the same time, they know that he is not the God-Like Figure imagined by Ayn Rand and her supply-side disciples. True Entrepreneurs thrive in an environment laced with infrastructure: Transportation, Police, Education, Energy, workforce. Because this successful businessman achieves success in aworld which has been tamed for him through the efforts of his fellow citizens acting together as a government, it is also understood that that self-same business person must pay to support that infrastruture. Not being a god-like figure, the entrepreneur is not to be placated by deferments, and releases from his obligation to provide support for the infrastructure without which his success would not be possible. Unlike Ayn Rand and her modern followers, Democrats do not heap sacrifices from the public treasury in the form of tax breaks at his feet.

Democrats know and respect the worker's role in economic success. Democrats also know that, by keeping the working class prosperous, a larger customer base is established, and the seeds of further economic growth are put in place, seeds which the business owner will harvest.

Democrats understand that, human nature being what it is, those who have money will seek to keep as much of it as they can. They will share no more with their workforce than absolutely necessary. They will voluntarily contribute to the infrastructure that supports them almost nothing. They will favor short-term profit over long term growth. Democrats understand that, while free market capitalism is the best way to run a successfull society, that it has an Achillies Heal. Left to its own devices, the free market will tend to stagnate, concentrating success and wealth in the hands of a few. Left in it's natural state, the only way to bring change is through periodic catastrophic failure. To avoid both the stagnation and concentration of wealth, which leads to tyranny of the few over the many, and at the same time to avoid economic catastrophe and devastation which leads to periods of anarchy, terror and hardship, Government is needed to bring stabilty....while it does tend to remove the highest of the high points (enjoyed only by very few), it also reduces the lowest of lows...and that helps the population as a whole.

Democrats should know that they need to be fiscally responsible...keeping the national account square, paying as they go, breaking this rule only in economic emergencies (such as the present crisis), and returning to normalcy as soon as possible.

The Democrats know that people often need a helping hand to lift themselves up. That children need a good education to rise in the world. At the same time, Democrats have come to understand that welfare should be a hand, not a handout, and that while there are no limits to our desire to help, there are limits to the amount of help we will give to those who will not help themselves.

Democrats know that this country must become as self-sufficient as possible, and especially in the area of energy.

Knowing that there is no one magic bullet that will replace foreign oil as a source of power, Democrats are ready to apply the power of Government to fund R & D that is not yet attractive to the private sector in search of the short term sure profit.

Democrats understand that these efforts will pay off in a big way, giving America a commanding lead in the renewable energy field, providing us, once again, with a a product to sell to the world, reversing our negative balance of trade.

Democrats should never be ashamed to be America. Democrats should never shrink from defending her. At the same time, Democrats know that "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" and that a foreign policy that, while always serving to advance American interests, does so with fairness and a a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.

Why are you a Democrat? (Optional):

I am a Democrat because I believe in a strong America. I believe that this nation should offer both political and economic freedom to all. I believe that the Democratic Party's record on the economy for the last 80 years speaks for itself. Economics, practiced with a Keynesian bent, has created a wide-spread prosperity in all segments of this society. Supply-Side economics has concentrated wealth in top 1% of our society, during the years (from Reagan on) that supply-side economics have been in the drivers seat, we've seen this nation become a debtor to the world. We have seen our manufacturing jobs move overseas. We've seen government have to ride to the rescue of the Savings and Loan Industry and now the Financial Sector...all because we've removed the regulations in place that keep one company from growing so big that it crowds out the others, growing so big that it becomes "too big to fail".

I am a Democrat because I believe that,in the long run, the Democratic party has a better history of taking care of the nation as a whole (rather than of it's leading citizens). I believe the Democratic party, for all it's faults, and they are many, is a better steward of the economy and of our political freedom.

There are times when, as a Democrat, I become discouraged. There are times I become discouraged because the left wing of our party has seized control, forgetting that, while we believe in an active government with a strong role to play, we are NOT a socialist party. While we believe in a fair and level playing field, we are not a "leveling" party...we do not seek to enforce equality of outcome.

At the present time, I am discouraged for other reasons.

President Obama is a pragmatic centrist. He understands the need to use government to stabilize the economy and has done a fair job ending the free fall. The American Recovery and Reinvestment act has represented a strong investment, not only in jobs, but also in building for the future. Back in the day, people called the CCC "make work" - but today, as we enjoy our parks, roads, etc. we realize what a debit we owe to the men who worked in the program and the government who, not only saved them from starvation, but bequeathed a legacy to us. I strongly believe that some 20, 30 years hence, we will look back at the ARRA and realize that we made some good moves.

Obama's appointment of Geithner and the moves to bail out Wall Street are probably necessary, even though they leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Less excusable are Obama's constant early efforts to meet the Republicans more than half way. Screw Them....the new Radical Republican party of Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox, Beck and Boehner have never shown the slightest consideration for us. Those of that ilk have never shown the slightest indication to wish to reason together, or compromise...they are radical fundamentalists. Their motto is "join us or die"....our motto in regard to the radicals should be: Cathago delenda est. To any others who wish to talk, then yes, we'll hold out the hand of friendship...but those kinds of Republicans are damn few and far between theses days (and the few that remain are being driven from their party by the Christine O'Donnells and Sarah Palins of the nation.)

Because of the President's need to play nice, there are those who have argued that the stimulus package was too SMALL- big enough to make Americans nervous about the debt, not big enough to create movement in the economy fast enough.

On the Gulf Oil Spill, the President was, quite frankly, on the wrong side...even before it happened. As a nation, to remain strong, we MUST break the addiction to fossil fuels. And yet the President was advocating offshore drilling off the most populated areas of our coastline.

A mere month later, the BP spill proved the folly of that approach in a major way. President Obama did reverse his drilling policy, but he remained silent on the spill for over a month, while the Gulf coast suffered.

From the stand point of policy, President Obama (far from being too far to the left, as his Tea Party critics paint him) has been, if anything, too much on the side of the establishment and big business. For the most part, I can live with this...especially since he heads a party who can tend to drift too far to the left if not properly skippered.

But in terms of shear political performance, the ability to sell your policies and vision to the people, President Obama has just not done a good job of staying out in front. His minions have even been bitter, when we, the foot solders of the party have criticized their approaches, they tell us to "quit whining"about their political ineptittude...and yet they still send me emails...up to three a day...asking me to give money to the DNC.

Well, sorry guys...but no. No little (but big to me) check for you this year. I will work with my local party to reelect my Congressman, Tim Walz. I'll work with my local Democratic party to make sure that we return our local legislators to the State's House and Senate....but as for you in Washington...no...no cash for you...not until you get your act together.

Who knows, an enemy Congress actually helped spur Bill Clinton on to great things (Welfare Reform, a Balanced Budget)...maybe having a bunch of nuts in the House will help put some hair on Obama's chest. He has great potential, but so far, he hasn't lived up to it.

Silly Facebook Arguments: The Oil Spill....

Yesterday, I saw a great idea on Facebook, and posted it as my status.

Alex: just joined the "Stop the Spill by Using Sarah Palin to plug the pipe"....awesome idea!

I got a fair number of positive responses, but a good friend of mine, who also happens to be a die hard Republican wrote back:

GOPFriend: Oh sure... Your boy has sat back with his arms crossed for a month and yet you feel the need to throw Palin in the drink? Hmmm....

Here's my answer to my friend. I don't make any claims for scholarship or style...but in substance, it seems about right on the nose:

Alex: Sorry, buddy, I know you GOP types want your Katrina moment...and I'll even admit that I give Obama a pretty low grade on his response to this. But that does NOT change the fact that BP was allowed to put a dangerous rig in place with out adequate safety plans, etc.
On who's watch did THAT happen?
Why George W. Bush...of course.
Now, who campaigned on DRILL Baby DRILL?
Why...Sarah Palin, of course.

To be completely fair, Obama said he would allow more off-shore drilling about a month before this happened...if you saw my FB posts at the time, you'll remember that I expressed displeasure with "my boy" and urged other Democrats to write to the White House.

(This by the way was on March 31- by early May, the BP created disaster had struck. It was only a matter of time...it's ironic that it came so quickly.)

But, while Mr. Obama's reversal was disappointing, when it comes to comparisons between the two parties...there isn't one.

Between the failed banking system and Republican inspired lack of regulations....the irresponsible tax cuts which have helped plunge this country further into debt (Bill Clinton had the deficit headed in the RIGHT direction...and that's not politics, that's HISTORY- you can look it up.)...and now, with what we see was an 8 year free ride for the Oil Industry to do any damn thing it wanted and take any stupid risk it cared to...

...your "boys and girls" have proven that they can't even be trusted to go to the corner store to pick up a loaf of bread...let alone run the country.

So, there is blame enough for all...the American People (and I'm included) for using a car when feet or a bike will do and the Democrats (including President Obama) who play it politically safe and give into the calls of the addicts when they cry "Drill Baby Drill"...

...but I still think we may be allowed to reserve a special circle of blame for those members of the Republican party who cheerfully, actively lead us into the mess. Don't forget, and don't let anyone else forget, that from 1994 to 2008 the GOP controlled at least TWO of the THREE branches of Government- and from 2004 to 2006 they controlled all three branches. The patterns of today were set in those years.

To be honest, I thought my friend Jennifer had the best plan...postulating that ex-Governor Palin was too skinny stop up the pipe, Jennifer suggested that we add Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Sean Hannity...sounds like a plan to me.

It's gonna be the Economy Stupid...

In difficulty, there is always opportunity. Following 9/11, several opportunities presented themselves to the United States. We could have used the tragedy to change our world-wide energy strategy- pioneering in developing new sources of energy and efficiency which would be the envy of the world. We could have followed up on early victories in Afghanistan to crush Osama Bin Ladin and his Taliban allies. But, of course, we did not.

Now, the United States is facing difficulties again. I've been listening to a series on NPR about economic impact in the US. I highly recommend it. People are hurting and they are frightened and those things are going to come into play in the next election.

The American People will be looking for their political representatives in Washington and State Governments to implement solutions. They will be right to do so.

They will want to see America's public treasury taken care of, not squandered. They will want to see our society find ways to embrace a growing global economy- WITHOUT surrendering our jobs and our livelihood. They will want to see our representatives close loopholes that allow our wealthy to skirt their duty to the society at large- to admit that even the self-made man cannot make money or acquire property without the help of others (workers, educators, policemen, firemen, etc.)

At the same time, I hope that the American people will not miss the opportunities that have been presented to them in the midst of their hardship. In the NPR series, for example, one woman complained that she had to think twice, no, three times before taking a car trip.

But that is precisely what we should be doing- in times of lean, and in times of plenty. We should be thinking- we should be acting responsibly. And we should be taking responsibility for ourselves and the world in which we live.

It is only be regaining self discipline, and by learning to distinguish what we "need" from what we "want" that America will find her way back to success.

Times are hard right now, but opportunity to change ourselves, gain strength and ... well, grow up...is also here.

I hope America will take her moment this time. If not, there are others who will take it from her.

Climate Change and National Security

The debate about Global Warming has often been presented as a fight between hard-headed, profit seeking business types and fuzzy minded bunny hugging hippies.

It is time however, that America woke up and started confronting some of the REAL issues which may arise from a massive change in our climate. These go far beyond the loss of habit for small furry creatures...and may include famine, flooding, terrorism and war.

The US intelligence community has released a secret report to Congress, The National Security Implications of Global Climate Changes to 2030, which outlines to the nation's law makers the potential for global instability arising from massive migrations, failure in food supply, and opportunities for extremists to exploit political failures and up the tension levels.

As NPR's Tom Gelton puts the case: "With this report, the National Intelligence Council, coordinating the analysis of all US intelligence agencies, puts climate change in the same category as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and radical Islam: it's officially a security threat."

Listen to the story at National Public Radio. (Where you are there, check out their story about off-shore drilling as well, another story Rip and Read has been squawking about.)

Trucks, Trains, and Tractors: The Rising Cost of Deisel

All I can say is that the next President really better know what he, or she, is doing.

In a country which has inflicted upon itself a long war in the Middle East with no certain end date or plan of victory, in a country where the credit crunch has helped to gobble up the equity of homeowners, comes a new report of trouble on the horizon: our commercial transportation infrastructure is being hit hard by the rising cost of diesel.

There is an article in today's New York Times, "Paying at the Pump", by Christopher Maag.

At first glance, it may be hard for those in the environmental left to feel sympathy for people paying higher fuel prices, but it should be kept in mind that we are not just talking about giants like Walmart- but about small Mom and Pop trucking companies, tug boat captains, the railroads, and of course farmers.

Not only are the high fuel costs likely exact high personal costs by those employed by these fuel dependent industries- driver layoffs, foreclosed property, lost farms, but the rest of us will begin to feel the pain as well, as we begin paying higher prices for needed commodities.

From the Times:

Rising fuel costs come at a difficult time for America’s transport companies, already hit by slumps in new home construction and consumer spending. Truck tonnage fell 1.5 percent in 2007, to just under 11 billion tons, said Bob Costello, chief economist of the American Trucking Association. Rising diesel costs will almost certainly lead to higher consumer prices and more bankruptcies, he said.

In the long, the very long run, it might be good that this is happening now. Such stories bring home to the American people that "The End Of Oil" does not lie in some far off future, but is a looming date which has a very real impact on our lives today.

We will need leaders who will begin the painful chore of laying the groundwork for this new world. AND we need a public who will engage, and hold their leaders accountable for the work being done.

But in the short run, we are going to need a President capable of some fancy footwork, who can help spare the American people the worst of what is probably coming and who can help put the pieces back together as quickly as possible.

Global Warming? The End of Oil? Who can Argue with God?

Terrific op-ed piece in the NYT this week by Timothy Egan: Oil's End.

The Age of Oil is at an end. Maybe not this year. Maybe not for five years. But signs of the coming collapse are evident.

Start at the White House. There, a week ago, President Bush touted tax breaks for oil companies that have just posted the largest profits in the history of American business. Yet he was dumbstruck when asked about the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a price that will force many families to choose between food and basic travel.

“Wait — what did you just say?”, the president asked after a reporter solicited his advice for Americans facing that price, which was predicted by many analysts.

“Oh, yeah?” Bush said. “That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.”

It's definitely worth reading, and I hope you will check it out.

HOWEVER-

That is not what prompted ME to start typing today. What inspired me to the keyboard was not the piece (good as it was), but one of the responses.

What got me was reader comment number 12:

I personally feel that ecollogy minded people are sacrificeing the living conditions of people today for the conditions of the future, which may never happen. We need to back off the csare tactics of global warming and start useing some of the energy resources that are available to us in abundance.
Even if we tried to destroy this earth we couldn’t if God is not ready for it to happen[emphasis added]

As John Stewart might say--- wait, wait a minute, can we hear that again?

Even if we tried to destroy this earth we couldn’t if God is not ready for it to happen

Uhm...wow. I mean...wow.



I'm tempted (and obviously, I'm giving in, even though I'm covering myself with a bit of deniability by pretending that what I'm about to write is hypothetical...what I MIGHT say IF I gave in to temptation...kind of like Huckabee telling us which spot he MIGHT have run if he'd wanted to, by getting that spot front and center on the evening news.)

As I say, I'm tempted to ask this commenter:

If God is not letting anything happen against HIS will, why then won't he save your quality of life for you whether or not the bad ole greenies are lookin' over your shoulder?

I'm tempted to ask:

So, what? It's okay to jump up and down on a box of dynamite because you'll only blow up if God WANTS you to?

I'm REALLY TEMPTED to ask:

What kind of freakin' MORON are you, anyway?

But instead, I wonder if it's not more apt to dwell on a few verses from the Bible.

There is 1 Corinthians 15:32-34 for example.

Paul makes the point that there are some who might argue that there will be no resurection, it would make sense to say:

If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE.

33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals."

34 Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning

And then, there is the Parable of the Talents from Matthew 25

14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Surely, this little lesson from Jesus reminds us that we must be both CAREFUL and WISE with what He places in our trust.

It can be said that the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes, and I'm sure that is true...but many times, the devil can do everything he wants through shear ignorance and shortsightedness.

Signs of the Times: Climate Change, the Military, and Civilization

Readers know that, unless you are gazing upon my blog from the FAR right fringe, rip-and-read is not a home for wild-eyed lefty ideas. Unless you are a snake handling evangelical republican stock broker, I'm not all THAT Liberal...not much further left than, say, Harry Truman or Bill Clinton.

But as I sat here over my British Breakfast this morning, two news stories from home caught my eye and I couldn't let them pass without notice.

Both come from the Associated Press.

In the small town of Orme, Tennessee, the water has gone. According to an AP story by Greg Bluestein,this tiny (pop. 145) municipality is importing water from nearby Alabama by fire truck. Residents have to make the most of their mere three hours of running water each day.

Between 6 and 9 every evening, the town scurries. Residents rush home from their jobs at the carpet factories outside town to turn on washing machines. Mothers start cooking supper. Fathers fill up water jugs. Kids line up to take showers.

"You never get used to it," says Cheryl Evans, a 55-year-old who has lived in town all her life. "When you're used to having water and you ain't got it, it's strange. I can't tell you how many times I've turned on the faucet before remembering the water's been cut."

In a related article, as Southern States are being squeezed by the drought tensions over the water supply are beginning to mount. Orme's mayor is quoted by the AP as saying: ""I feel for the folks in Atlanta. We can survive. We're 145 people. You've got 4.5 million people down there. What are they going to do? It's a scary thought."

The Tennessee mayor is not the only alarmist, it seems. In fact, in a separate article, the AP reports the conclusions of a recent report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security.

According to the article, climate change:

Left unchecked, "the collapse and chaos associated with extreme climate change futures would destabilize virtually every aspect of modern life," said the report, comparing the potential outcome with the Cold War doomsday scenarios of a nuclear holocaust.

The report, according to the article by Arthur Max, postulates that a shift in the world's climate will give rise to bitter and bloody conflicts for water resorces, a scrabble for land, as sea levels rise, increased immigration to the United States (and conservatives, take note, these immigrants will NOT be coming because we offer political freedom- but because they want our water and our dry land- it's your worst xenophobic nightmare come to life), and a proliferation of new diseases born of malnutrition, and nasty diseases able to expand their range...imagine, the return of malaria to Pennsylvania...won't that be fun?

Clearly, it is time (past time, actually) for us to start planning for this change. We will need to reduce our dependence of nonrenewable energy (which would have the extra benefit of depriving the middle east of the power it now holds over us) and putting systems of transportation, distribution, and conservation in place that will help us cope, and compete in this new, and unpleasant world.

Again, please take note, I don't make this argument out of some fuzzy "We are the World" bunny-hugging perspective. Personally, I want the United States to remain number 1. I don't want to see us fall far behind. I bear the rest of the world no ill will, but at the same time, I've no desire to live in a world where the culture of Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia is calling the shots. I'm very happy, overall, living in a world which is run according to the principals of the Western Enlightenment. The fact that we are able to indulge in this luxury is due only to the fact that we are at the top of the economic heap. Thus, I'd like to see us stay there.

Still, I have no doubt that, if this report becomes news at all, rather than seeing as a call to Arms to save the American way of life by making needed changes, the Rush Limbaugh crowd will develop a counter argument which enables their voters to discount it and go back to sleep.

Inept: The Threat From Al-Qaida Grows

I have an email pen-pal who is very conservative. When challenged (on almost anything political), he almost inevitably responds with a jab toward the "Rad-Libs" (Radical Liberals- a group which seems to include everyone from Jane Fonda to the Clintons to Lee Iacocca and perhaps even including Republican Pete Domenici). In general, the refrain from the right reads as follows: "Well, perhaps you Rad-Libs will realize how wrong you are when Al-Qaida has blown up Boston. You just don't seem to get it: everything you say is helping the terrorists."

There is news today that will fuel the fires of the debate. The AP is reporting that: "A new threat assessment from U.S. counter-terrorism analysts says that Al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001."

Conservatives will use this report to say: "See? We told you so."

But the real question is: "George W. Bush has had SIX YEARS to deal with this very real threat. During FIVE of those years HIS PARTY held control of both houses of Congress. What the Hell is he Doing? Why is Al-Qaida STRONGER THAN EVER?"

The answer is, of course, that this President is either Inept, or Corrupt, or, most probably, both.

George W. Bush and his administration had the support of the Congress, the People of the United States and most of the World to send our military into Afghanistan, and demolish Al-Qaida once and for all.

Instead, they chose to use their opportunity to invade Iraq and attempt to secure it's oil supply for the United States. At the time of the United States action against Iraq, there was no Al-Quada presence in Iraq. But now, according to the reports:

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited Al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq."

In other words, we sent our troops to Iraq to fight an enemy that was not there when we arrived but who managed to get in AFTER we entered. Meanwhile, Bush has allowed Al-Qaida's forces to dribble across the boarder into Pakistan, where we have no political authority to pursue them.

The Clinton Card

Right-wing friends will, at this point, offer up their old Chestnut: Clinton Had Al-Qaida's Osama Bin Laden in his sights and failed to kill him.

Like a lot of propaganda, this is a distortion of the facts wrapped around a tiny nugget of truth. The Clinton White House did have Osama Bin Laden in their sights and did fail to act. MSNBC had the story here in 2004.


Yes, Clinton DID miss an opportunity, no doubt. It will be yet another imperfect spot on his imperfect record.*

However, just because Bill Clinton screwed up- this is no excuse to let George W. Bush off the hook.

As your mother used to say to you: "If Bill Clinton Jumped off the World Trade Center, would you do it too?"

What Now?

The AP article also includes this speculation:

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

WHY? Why, every time this President Screws up, are the media and the right-wing noise machine able to drum up the argument that, because he has been so horribly wrong for so horribly long, that we need to give him MORE support?

This.
Makes.
No.
Sense.

But enough about Bush. This is what Democrats must do:

My right-wing friend is right about one thing: THERE IS A GRAVE ISLAMIC TERRORIST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.

This threat must be countered.

In the short term, we need to consolidate our military operations, and refocus the fight on AL-QAIDA...

In the long term, we must, WE MUST refocus our energy policy to find a way to cure ourselves of our oil addiction. As long as we are addicted, militant Islam will be our drug dealer.

That is a plain and simple fact.

*Postscript

And, of course, I'm not going to just sit here and let the "Clinton Chestnut" stand unchallenged. As the MSNBC article points out, when Clinton was hunting Osama Bin Laden in 1998, it was a very different ballgame:

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.[emphasis added]

The American Public had not yet solidified their support for an all out war on Al-Qaida in 1998...at that point the largest terrorist attack in American History had not been perpetrated by Islamic Terrorists, but by home-grown right-wing nutballs in Oklahoma. Even the USS Cole attack (in October 2000) was two years in the future.

The situation for Clinton was muddy...and he bungled it.

The situation for Bush was crystal clear...and he screwed it up beyond belief, paying the price with thousands of American Lives.

It is not hard to know where the Lion's Share of the Blame belongs.

What If?Could we have broken our Oil Habit?

It is a sad truth that I buy books much faster than I can read them. Thus, the late John Kenneth Galbraith's 1994 work, A Journey through Economic Time has been sitting on my shelf since I purchased it, used, a few years ago.

This summer, however, it has finally made the the journey from bookshelf to nightstand...the book is full of nuggets, but here is one I just couldn't pass up.

In Chapter 20, "The Dim Years", Galbraith is describing the "stagflation" that gripped the economy of the 1970s: unemployment levels are rising along with prices, while the country is reeling from Vietnam, Watergate, and massive social upheaval. This is the environment which breeds Archie Bunker.

In the middle of all of this, Arab nations flexed their political muscles for the first time, sending gas prices flying and tempers soaring. It is not hard to make the argument that the mistakes we made then, and the policy we set (or failed to set) has helped push us into the current Iraq debacle with which we struggle.

Galbraith describes a meeting of Carter's advisers as they determine how to wrestle with the economic shocks of the 1970s...

Proposals for rationing the supply and the controlling the domestic price of petroleum products, the natural answer to embargo and an external control of supply, were dismissed out of hand. Urging a simple gasoline rationing program at a meeting of economists at Camp David in the summer of 1979 at the peak of the oil-price crisis, I managed only to establish myself as mildly eccentric.

If we had taken that advice then, if we'd broken our oil addiction, and thus the power that the Middle East wields over us...just imagine how different today might have been.

More H. 520 ...at Green Mountain Daily

I spent WAY too much time yesterday blogging about H. 520 and the Democrats' .... well, I don't know what to call it. My gut still says capitulation, but others have labeled merely a "strategic" mistake...

Anyway, I always enjoy playing over in the Green Mountain Daily sandbox with Odum, Jack, JD Ryan, Brattlerouser and others... it certainly beat working.

And the comment threads were fun....

If you just can't get through the day without a dose of Rip and Read (or goDLC)... check out:

Let Me Rephrase That...Another Take On H.520

and the comment string on yesterday's cross-post:

Dems Cave on H.520, or, Now I know How Rush Limbaugh Felt.

More On H. 520

A couple of good editorials on H.520 today....

From the Rutland Herald: June 19, 2007

[After Stamping his Veto on the Legislature's Engery Bill] Douglas has come up with his own energy-efficiency program, and he is urging the Legislature to act on it.

If the override fails, Plan B for Symington will come in January when the Legislature reconvenes. The Legislature is not prepared in a special session in the middle of the summer to act on a complex proposal like the one Douglas has offered, which has come, not in the 11th hour, but in the 13th...

Douglas cannot stymie the Legislature's action, then loft his own plan into the debate after the fact, then pretend that he is the one taking the initiative. The Legislature took the initiative, and now that Douglas has shot down the Legislature's bill, he must accept responsibility for the lack of action.

By Judy Bevins, Vice-Chair, Vermont Democratic Party, Letter to the Editor: Times Argus

All [H. 520] does is readjust the rate of taxation Vermont Yankee pays, which was frozen in place by the Republican-controlled Legislature and the governor in 2003, making that rate the same as what new wind developments will pay.

And then Jim Douglas vetoed the bill. Why? Because he worries about the "message" this sends to the business community. Actually, the message that the governor is sending to his friends in big business is, "Whisper in my ear, and we'll make a deal."

It was only after his inaction started hurting him politically that Jim Douglas cobbled together a "plan" to address energy efficiency. What does the governor's plan do? It requires average Vermonters and Vermont businesses to take out loans to pay for efficiency measures. The message Gov. Douglas has sent Vermont citizens and small business owners with this so-called plan is, "Want to save energy? Why don't you go further into debt. You can afford it, right?"

The problem is many Vermonters, already struggling with high costs and debt from a variety of sources, including home mortgages, student loans and credit cards, can't afford it. Rather than close a loophole that allows a business to pay less than its fair share to both the General Fund and the Education Fund, Jim Douglas is putting the burden on the backs of ordinary Vermonters.

A Couple Of Random Things That Yanked My Chain

No real time for a blog today...but I still got some complainin' to do.

AMERICA - Your Prius is ready.

Driving through Boston yesterday, I saw a billboard from Toyota that Said "America, Your Prius is Ready"...if that doesn't just say it all...that we...the former heavyweight champion of the manufacturing world...are waiting on some other country to serve us up the right car. Whooff!

Republican Fundraising- Bush's Birthday.

The DOP (that would be: Damned Old Party) is sending Bush a Birthday Card...and asking for money! You can see it here for yourself...I don't even have to go into why this bugged me, do I?

Bill O'Reilly: The No Spin Zone.

I was standing in line waiting for my sandwich and heard the announcer introduce Bill O'Reilly's show as "The No Spin Zone"....what a lot of crap!

Oh well...back to work.

Delenda est Carthago H.520: Overriding The Veto

I am not an expert on the History of the Roman Republic. But what I do know leads me to believe that I would never have gotten along with Marcus Porcious Cato The Elder and, (which is basically to say the same thing in a different way) if Marcus Porcious Cato was alive today-- he would have been a neo-con.

Thus, it may seem odd that I would turn to Cato as inspiration in the fight to save H.520....the Vermont Energy Bill.

(The Vermont Legislature passed H.520, Governor Jim Douglas has Vetoed it...and it's going to take a lot of work on everyone's part to help the Vermont Legislature rise to the occasion and Override the Veto..."Ed's" post on GMD is a great summary of the issues involved.)

However, Cato the Elder was nothing if not single minded, and like him or hate him, his single-minded approach lead to results. Having decided that the Rome's rival city-state, Carthage, constituted a major threat to the Republic, Cato developed a single minded obsession with that city.

He therefore ended every single speech, no matter what the topic, with the phrase: "Delenda est Carthago"- which means: Carthage must be destroyed.

And so his speeches would sound something like this: "....and so we must implement this agricultural policy...AND CARTHAGE MUST BE DESTROYED."

Eventually, Cato's single-mindedness paid off, and Carthage was literally wiped off the face of the earth.

Why tell this story? Simple...I would like to propose that Vermont's liberal blogging community adopt a similar tactic between now and the July vote to override the Governor's Veto of H.520....

...write about whatever you want...but somewhere in each post...don't forget to mention "...AND H. 520 MUST BE PASSED."

You could even write in Latin if you want...but, like George W. Bush, I’m not sure if there is a Latin word for "Veto".

At any rate, I hope you have a great weekend...and H.520 MUST BE PASSED.

Please Note: This post appeared, in slightly different form, at Green Mountain Daily and H.520 Must be Passed.

H 520. Overriding a Douglas Veto

I've already written about my support for H 520, the energy bill which the Vermont Legislature passed, and which Governor Douglas swears will wither under the heel of his veto, and which the Democrats who control the Vermont House are going to fight to keep alive in a summer session.

I believe that, in addition to a strong symbolic blow against Global Warming (at, at the beginning of an uphill battle, symbolism is actually very, very important), this bill would also be the first step towards creating a business climate in Vermont which would favor small innovative companies...companies which would supply good jobs, and opportunities for citizen ownership and Independence...building, in short, post-industrial version of Jeffersonian Democracy.

There are other reasons to want this bill passed over Jim Douglas' objections. As John Odum, over at Green Mountain Daily has pointed out:

Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today - and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.
Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it...

...if a Douglas veto -any veto - is overridden, that'll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.

The Burlington Free Press raises an interesting point in a Monday Editorial( yes, the Burlington Free Press...no, I'm not kidding) on Governor Jim Douglas and H.520. In speaking of Douglas' alternative to H 520, the Free Press asks:

At the same time, if the administration had the ideas and the power to act on global warming without legislation and without a new tax, then why did the governor wait until after the session to make his move?
...At the same time, if the administration had the ideas and the power to act on global warming without legislation and without a new tax, then why did the governor wait until after the session to make his move?

I think, alas, the answer to the paper's question is obvious: Vermont Republicans have adapted the Republican National Strategy.

The Republican national strategy, which has worked so well for George W. Bush, boils down something very simple: ignore the will of the people, they will go home eventually.

This is a strategy which has stymied progress and overridden the express choice of the people time and time again- the most recent and obvious example being the failure of the U.S Congress to force an end to the now pointless Iraq War.

And I think it is now clear that this Republican National strategy is seeping down to the State Level.

Ruling by fiat is so much simpler than engaging in debate with one's opponents. So much easier than crafting compromises.

Rather than engage in a debate, the administration will wait for the legislature to have it's say, and then, go ahead and do exactly what it wants, secure in the knowledge that the people won't be back in sufficient numbers come summer time....

...we'll see, I guess.

Al Gore Endorses Vermont's H520 Energy Bill

I just got an email alert from the Vermont Democratic Party...

Breaking News: Climate Change Bill gets Gore's support!

Vice President Al Gore has educated the nation on the threat of global climate change. Now, the Vice President has taken notice of the Vermont legislature's groundbreaking Energy Efficiency and Affordability Act and is offering his support for this legislation.

Vice President Gore confirmed Wednesday morning that he will issue a live statement in support of Vermont's legislation via video conferencing Thursday, June 7 at 3 p.m. Senate Pro Tem Peter Shumlin and Speaker Gaye Symington will introduce the Vice President at the Vermont Interactive Television studio in Montpelier. If you can't make it to the capital, satellite studios will be open in Bennington, Brattleboro, Middlebury, Williston and Saint Albans.

Of course, this makes me happy...however...as a member of the cast of Audio Dream Theater...I already knew Gore was in tight with our team!

Post Script

Although some businesses have expressed concern about H.520 others realize that this is a "pro-business" bill...or, at least, it's pro the kind of businesses that SHOULD define Vermont...Hear audio of the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility Press Conference here.

Also, Freyne has an interesting email from Rep. Tony Klein on his blog--here's the quote:

I noticed the [Douglas Administration] never mentioned the
companies that do support H.520 like our homegrown Ben and Jerry's, Green
Mountain Roasters and NRG Systems among many others. These companies were
created here by Vermonter's.

The Companies that [the Douglas Administration]seems to only represent
certainly weren't created here and certainly don't have their headquarters
located within the boundaries of Vermont.

Well Said.

The New Jeffersonian Democracy

cross-posted at Green Mountain Daily:

I'm in favor of the energy bill that was passed this session, and I'm sorry (but not surprised) that the Governor plans to Veto it.

More than just a climate change bill, I truly believe that the thinking behind this measure represents a step in the right direction for Vermont from a political and business prospective as well as an environmental one.

From the Burlington Free Press:

Supporters of the bill argue it offers a number of opportunities to save
Vermonters money on heating bills and, in the process, generate jobs.

Chuck Reiss is a Hinesburg homebuilder who's hoping for a change in state law that
would allow a group of homes he's building to share a wind turbine and sell the
excess power to utilities. That change in law is contained in the bill Douglas
has promised to veto.

"It's time to start helping small businesses instead of
large businesses," said Reiss, owner of Reiss Buildings and Renovations, who
added that he has several neighborhoods interested in running group wind
turbines if the law allows it.

In addition to striking a blow on behalf of the environment, this bill can also start setting the stage for a modern version of Jeffersonian Democracy here in Vermont.

In his original vision for this country, Jefferson saw a nation of small landholders...none powerful enough to tyrannize over their neighbors, and yet all enjoying the fruits of their labor and invested in "the system".

For Jefferson, the economic engine he envisioned was primarily agricultural. But the principle holds true in today's post industrial Vermont Landscape as well. The principal of many of us, owning our own business, making decisions here at the local level and wielding a collective amount of econonmic and political power is just as important to the health of our democracy as are efforts to decrease our reliance on oil to the environment.

This bill would begin to help generate economic stimulus needed to speed this process.

One of the things that I've always (begrudgingly) respected the Governor for was the way in which he made the point that Vermont kids SHOULD be able to grow up and do well economically RIGHT HERE AT HOME...

However, by opposing the logic of this bill, the Governor is turning his back on the future of Jeffersonian Democracyand the cause of meaningful employment here in Vermont in favor of a Hamiltonian emphasis on Big Business. The few good jobs we might gain for our youth would pale in comparison to the number we would loose by turning our back on small, forward looking, locally owned and managed Vermont Businesses.

I am glad to read in the Free Press that Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and other Groups are, according to director Will Patten, "not going to take no on this issue" .

Again, from the Free Press:

Patten said his group will continue to try to persuade the governor not to
veto the bill. Failing that, he said, the business owners hope to persuade
enough legislators to override the veto when the Legislature returns for a veto
session July 11.

According to State Senator Ginny Lyons and State Rep Robert Dostis (who I heard at the recent VBSR convention) letters to leaders really ARE effective...and I hope to write a few. Maybe you will too.