Don't be a Lieberman. Do the right thing on health care

For those whose juices are stirring because of the health-care legislation now emerging, could I suggest a pause to consider what the other side is planning? Take a few minutes and click on this piece with the title “Republican Guide to Undermining Health-care Reform.”

Don’t neglect to click on the link therein to Frank Luntz’ memo on the words to use. Who’s Frank Luntz? Think of Karl Rove and you’re in the same league.

My email inbox overflows with my progressive friends mad as hell at the “lying” Democrats in Congress who aren’t ordering from the progressive menu. Yes, you’re right. But what if at the end of the day your opposition to the bill helps to cause its defeat?

Yes, writing legislation is like making sausage. We’re going to have to live with it until we elect a better Congress. If this drive will increase coverage and stop the rise in health costs, it will be pretty darn good. If progressive opposition to the bill combines with clever conservative opposition and defeats it, will we be better off? Not in my best guess.

I’m with Paul Krugman’s message in today’s NY Times column. If you’re not with us, you’re being a Lieberman. 

Yesterday I saw MSNBC where Big Ed Schultz tried to get Rep. Dennis Kucinich to say he would vote against a health-care bill that didn’t have a state option for single-payer. Even Kucinich was – yesterday, anyway – not willing to go that far.

This is a signal to me to moderate opposition. Get ready to suck it up.

And PS: Thanks to Krugman for the tip on the existence of the blog at the White House Budget Office. Very sharp exchange therein between Peter Orszag, the budget director, and Fred Hiatt, editor of the Washington Post editorial page.  It seems pretty plain that Hiatt didn’t know what he was writing about. We have to be wary against being led astray.

Guest blogger: Should impeachment be "On the table"

Guest blogger: David Cooper

I know David through membership in Veterans for Peace. Here he writes about impeachment, then and now …

Should Impeachment be “On the Table”

July 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment were read into the Congressional Record. The House then voted to send them to the House Judiciary Committee. The following are statements of some of the Republican members of that committee, which are also part of the Congressional Record.

Lamar Smith (R-TX): We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the President. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States. Not some laws, all laws… The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment, had he not resigned, contained this statement, ‘The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen of the United States…’ This will not be an easy task, in fact, it is a difficult ordeal for all Americans, but we will get through it. We are a great nation and a strong people. Our country will endure because our Constitution works, and has for 200 years. As much as we might wish to avoid this process of impeachment, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The President’s actions must be evaluated for one simple reason, the truth counts… No one is above the law. Actions have consequences. We the People should insist on these high ideals.[1]

James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) Being a poor example isn’t grounds for impeachment, undermining the rule of law is… Impeachment is one of the checks the Framers gave the Congress to prevent the Executive, or the Judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical… What is [at issue] here is the truth and the rule of law.[2]

Howard Coble (R-NC) Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ‘Sin has many tools, but the lie is the handle that fits them all.’ And the centerpiece to this scenario, I am convinced, is indeed the lie. It is the handle to the tool. And if we turn a blind eye to perjury in this instance, what precedent do we establish when subsequent cases involving perjury must be resolved fairly and impartially?[3]

Elton Gallegly (R-CA) A society without law is anarchy. Societies that ignore the law are condemned to violence and chaos… I believe in the rule of law. This President violated the Constitution. To condone this would be to condemn our society to anarchy. Mr. Chairman, I cannot, and will not, condone such action.[4]

Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) Implicit in that idea is that no one is above the law, including the chief executive. If we truly respect the presidency, we cannot allow the president to be above the law. When a factory worker or medical doctor or retiree breaks the law, they do so with the knowledge that they are not above the law. The same principal must also apply to the most powerful and privileged in our nation including the president of the United States. To lose this principal devastates a legacy entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers and protected to us by generations of American families… I have a Constitutional duty to follow the truth wherever it leads. The truth in this case leads me to believe that the president knowingly engaged in a calculated pattern of lies, deceit and delay in order to mislead the American people.[5]

Stephen Chabot (R-OH) It’s become apparent to me that impeachment is the only remedy that adequately addresses this president’s illegal and unethical acts… When we cast our votes, we are not voting as republicans or democrats, we are voting as Americans. Our allegiance does not lie with any one president, but with our country. Our charge is not handed down from any one political party, but from the Constitution.[6]

Chris Cannon (R-UT) We are in a defining moment in our history. What we do here will set the standard for what is acceptable for this and future presidents. I believe profoundly that the behavior of this president is unacceptable because I agree with John Jay, one of our Founding Fathers, who said, ‘When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure…’ I submit that in the spirit of our Founding Fathers, and John F. Kennedy, that our first duty is to provide for the security of the fundamental rights of Americans. To properly perform that duty, we must vote to impeach the president. Thank you.[7]

All of these statements by these Congressmen were made during the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. If they were right then, regarding a president lying to Congress about an extra-marital affair, then their words hold true today.

Let’s remember that impeachment does not mean removal from office. Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment, the same way a Grand Jury brings charges against an average citizen. If the House votes to impeach, hearings will be held to determine if there is enough evidence for a trial, which would be conducted by the Senate. After the trial, the Senate will vote to convict or acquit.

The hearings in the House of Representatives are the only way that We the People can check the power, or abuse of power, of our elected officials (and those that are appointed) through our representatives. It is these hearings that we are entitled to, and should be held. Let the chips fall where they may. The House may decide to send it to the Senate or not. The Senate may vote to acquit as they did in the Clinton case or they may convict, as they surely would have in the Nixon case, had he not resigned first. Virtually all Republicans, and a large number of Democrats were initially against the impeachment of Nixon. It wasn’t until the “process” of hearings that exposed the corruption and the abuse of power of the Nixon administration that a Senate trial was possible.

It is this “process” of democracy that is important. It is how we remain a self-governing people. Without the “Constitutional process” we no longer have a government of, by, and for We the People. When the Congressional leadership takes impeachment “off the table,” when they deny us the “process,” they deny us our democracy. While the Founding Fathers never mentioned God in the Constitution, (and only mentioned religion once, in the context that the United States will not have a state, or “official” religion), they mentioned impeachment no less than seven times.

David Cooper

July 15, 2008

References: Transcripts of opening statements to the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings are at:

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/smithtext121098.htm

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/sensenbrennertext121098.htm

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/cobletext121098.htm

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/galleglytext121098.htm

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/goodlattetext121098.htm

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/chabottext121098.htm

[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/cannontext121198.htm

Yes to Torture, say Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balarts

Our three Republican members of the U.S. House have voted for torture. Yes, let’s reaffirm that: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21), and Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) voted Thursday with 186 other Republicans on the Nay side of a measure that the Democratic majority put forward to bar CIA agents from using waterboarding while questioning suspected terrorists.

Thank goodness that the Republicans no longer are in the majority in the House – the measure passed in a 222-199 vote. Let it not be said that the Democrats are worthless in Washington.

That said, we don’t know what will happen when this measure hits the Senate with its lovely rules and scant Democratic majority.

Here’s the story on DailyKos with a link therein to the full vote tally. A puzzle to me was why Dennis Kucinich was on the Nay side with most Republicans. I looked at his campaign web site and U.S. House web site and saw no explanation. Kendrick Meek was on the Aye side, while Debbie Wasserman Schultz was not voting.

27 minutes of Cheney impeachment in House of Representatives

Was this a foretaste of Congress in the coming months? A reasonable person will see grounds for impeachment in our vice president’s conduct over the past five years. Will it actually happen? Could it be true that many Republicans are ready to impeach?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, one of the eight Democrats running for the presidential nomination, had the floor for 27 minutes Tuesday and laid out all his wherases to the effect that Cheney’s actions warrant “impeachment and trial and removal from office.” He claimed support of 21 colleagues in putting forth his resolution.

The crawl on the bottom of the C-Span screen said that President Bush wanted Congress to act on the trade agreements with Peru and others. Would it be that trade matter? Or a couple of months of debate on Cheney, then Bush, and whether they remain in office? Or would it be the stuff the Democratic leadership wants – health care and vetoes etc.?

The immediate following step was to bring up the next speaker and next subject, and business as usual in the People’s House.

But about an hour and a half after Kucinich spoke, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) got up and moved to table (kill) the draft impeachment resolution.

Kucinich was heard shouting no amid the voice votes.

The acting speaker, Jose Serrano of New York, declared the motion had been killed by the voice vote, but Kucinich demanded votes be recorded.

Surprise (to Kagro over at DailyKos, who said, Expect it to be killed): the House voted strongly to keep the resolution alive. It remains to be certain what the final vote was.

The C-Span announcer said at one point the result “was unexpected by many on the House floor here today.”

There was a lot of vote-switching along the way. At one point my running tally had the kill motion winning 290-102, but as the “15-minute vote” stretched over an hour, more and more Republicans came over to Kucinich’ side, while most Democrats remained with Hoyer’s kill motion.

Hoyer rose again after his kill vote failed and, looking nervous, moved to refer the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee.

“We are on the threshold of another war,” Kucinich said in a phone interview with C-Span as the tally was being recorded. Cheney misled the country into the Iraq war and now the administration “is doing the same thing with respect to Iran.”

“It’s not about me,” Kucinich told C-Span as the tally was being recorded. It’s to show “who’s on the side of the Constitution.”

Asked about the Republicans voting with him, he asserted that it wasn’t a partisan issue, and he said he was setting up a “national town hall” meeting in the coming days – on the internet and by phone – to advance what he called “a growing movement.”

Meanwhile, back here in Florida, some of our friends have been moving impeachment before the public eye whenever possible. Increasing frustration is their lot.

On Sunday Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, spoke at the University of Miami, and a crowd of my political friends held signs and tried to raise questions to demand movement toward impeachment.

Here are some of their notes and impressions.

Diane Lawrence: “Yesterday with Conyers was very frustrating for us … Conyers started by saying that ‘Impeachment is off Nancy Pelosi’s table, but it’s not off mine [applause].’ Then he proceeded to talk about the 14 months they have left to get legislation passed [oh, please]. He mentioned the threat that impeachment would fail and this it would do the Democrats harm – the corporate media would have a ball making fun of their mistake. … Of course, his standard excuse is not enough votes in the House or Senate, the Blue Dog excuse, blah blah blah. God damn it, BRING THE CHARGES, HAVE THE INVESTIGATIONS, DO YOUR DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. …

“The Republicans know the Democrats to be fools. The Republicans totally expected the Dems to impeach after taking office. Lincoln Diaz-Balart’s (R-FL-21) aide mentioned that at the beginning of our lobbying session when a constituent and I met with him. He said, ‘We couldn’t believe impeachment wasn’t started in February. We kept talking about it.’ As horrible as the Rethugs are, they are simply smarter than the Dems in their own evil way.”

Bonnie Daniels: “Conyers started by saying that never in history have there been so many people who are impeachable. The problem is that we don’t have the votes or the time. The legislative process would totally shut down and the corporate press would call us vindictive. Then he said, It’s ‘not a bad idea’ and ‘my mind is open.’ [yeah, right].

“Question asked: what if the people would rather have impeachment than any other legislation? C[onyers]: An impeachment that fails will do more harm than good. It will stop all legislation and the corporate media would turn the president into a victim and imperil the ’08 election. …

“Bush is ‘the most unconstitutional president in the 20^th and 21^st centuries bar none.’”

Simon Rose: “I love that analogy that someone made that it’s as if the police and firemen sat idly by as a gunman randomly shot people and a fire raged. The fact that our elected reps need to be reminded to do their jobs that they swore to do is outrageous. Do we need to remind the police and firemen every day to do their jobs? This lawless administration is running fast and loose over the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution. And now more and more politicians use this lawlessness as cover to perpetrate their own crimes.”

News from the R side: Ron Paul takes off

This bit of news rang in as a surprise. Ron Paul in a fund-raising stampede? What's doing on here? The Republican field is a strange bunch, and here's the old Parliament-burner Guy Fawkes raising his symbolic head on behalf of the libertarian from Texas. This comes from the NY Times blog Caucus, which does fine service in remembering the movie "V for Vendetta," one of the most subversive movies I've seen in years. Subversive to the established order, I mean.

The rebels are on the rise, and it's not only Ron Paul: Dennis Kucinich is banging the impeachment drum louder than ever, and John Edwards says "I'm with you, brother" when someone in the crowd says it's time for a revolution.

UPDATE: Over at DailyKos they're also recognizing that something's up with Ron Paul. Markos himself posts that the fund-raising was the most impressive people-powered thing yet in the presential campaigns. The DailyKos post includes a sharp analysis by Jerome Armstrong of how Ron Paul's internet campaign is different and successful. Lessons to be learned therein.

Dennis Kucinich at DFAM fund-raiser Sept. 8

The Ohio congressman and presidential contender is the star at Democracy for America-Miami-Dade’s Sept. 8 fund-raiser – the day before the Univision Spanish-language debate at the University of Miami. The event is at 6:30 p.m., at the Howard Johnson Plaza Miami Airport, 7707 NW 103^rd St., Hialeah Gardens.

Contact Barbara Walters for tickets, 786 287-7027, or bwalters1701@yahoo.com.

To see what Kucinich says about the Florida primary-date problem, this link will do.