Money is seen by too many as an expression of free speech, but when did the size of a candidate's campaign fund become the votes necessary to bestow political office?
The fact that Mrs. Clinton's campaign accounts are bulging doesn't mean that the American people would select her as their candidate, much less their president, despite all the hype about her "winning" in the media lately. It's as if the alleged "original intent" – holding that only those owning large properties of value being allowed to vote – was put quietly into force, negating almost a century of near-universal suffrage. Sadly, the Democrats appear to be complicit up to their necks in this morass.
The situation has Dave Lindorff asking Can the Democratic Party be saved? He notes that the "Democratic" Congress has continually voted to make legal the numerous predations on the freedoms of American citizens in the name of security, and also to approve additional war funding despite the view of a majority of American voters to the contrary. Add in the refusal of the top three Democratic presidential candidates to pledge to remove all U.S forces from Iraq by 2013, and one has to wonder just whose side the Democrats are on.
Ed Martin launched his J'accuse at the Congressional Democratic leadership:
Our leaders in Congress have been collaborators with George Bush in his crimes… I don't think that Pelosi or Reid…. understand that they could be remembered in history as the people who stood up to George Bush and saved the United States instead of being remembered as the people who collaborated with him and destroyed it.
Instead, it seems that Reid and Pelosi are doing their level best to protect the Havemores.
Christiane Brown of KJFK, Reno caught Senator Reid short when she was interviewing him regarding impeachment. You can read the summary – or you can listen directly – and note how What-the-heck Harry is unable to produce a good reason for not pursuing the impeachment of Bush administration officials.
Across the Capitol, his House counterpart let slip her disdain for We, the People of the United States of America, when she complained that First Amendment rights prevent her from removing protesters from her property. "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering," she sniffed to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post.
Well just who the hell is she, then – Nancy Marie Antoinette? Let them eat yellowcake?
Despite her brash assertion to Milbank that "We are leaders", Ms. Pelosi doesn't seem to want the responsibility of her position. She is quoted telling David Cook of The Christian Science Monitor that activists should persuade GOP lawmakers to end the war. She's far too busy holding lots of meetings while on the national dime to do the work of the people she nominally represents.
According to Ryan Grim of politico.com, Pelosi has converted the Democratic caucus into a 'meet market'. Grim relates how the former Republican leaders made decisions at the top, where "consensus is generally reached with a hammer" and then informed the members how to vote. This is still going on, as demonstrated by the failure of the Democrats to peel off Republican votes for veto-proof passage of their measures.
Instead of following the GOP model of leadership – not always a bad thing in and of itself – Grim quotes former Rep. Marty Meehan, who observed that "The speaker is trying to develop a consensus.”
A House GOP leadership aide said, “That explains why they can’t get anything done.”
But I find it much more telling as to where House-Made [sic] Nancy's allegiances do lie, as revealed through this article about Pelosi's sponsorship of the use of public property for private profit from the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center.
Pelosi is the "personal friend" of Don Fisher, the multi-billionaire founder of Gap, Inc., who is among the nation's top donors to Republican candidates and causes. With Nancy's assistance, Fisher is seeking to plant his "massive collection of international investment-grade modern art" inside a Wal-Mart-sized Big Box – joining the Disney Family Museum, the Lucasfilm corporate headquarters, numerous privately-owned high-end restaurants, and a new privately-owned luxury hotel – on the public lands of the Presidio National Park. None of these private entities pays one red nickel-copper sandwich cent in property tax to California or to San Francisco.
This travesty of the public trust was legalized by Pelosi's Presidio Trust Act" of 1996 [PDF], which took control of the property away from the National Park Service and awarded it to a federal government-owned corporation called the Presidio Trust to be managed as an "innovative public/private partnership".
It gets better!
The Presidio Trust's current Executive Director is Craig Middleton, a former senior aide to Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi isn't the only Democrat lost to the Dark Republican Side of massively corrupting wealth. Citizen William T. Drake recently remonstrated to The Reporter of Vacaville, California: "I am really quite disappointed in Sen. Dianne Feinstein and cannot help but wonder whether she really is a Democrat."
I'd like to direct the attention of Mr. Drake – and anyone else who is interested – to page A-3 of the San Francisco Chronicle dated April 22, 2003, which reported that URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, was awarded an Army contract in April, 2003 that could bring in $3.1 billion over the eight year life of said contract.
That's a gigantic amount of "free speech" protecting personal interest, which in turn would motivate loyal support of Bush administration initiatives, such as those presented by Mr. Drake in his letter cited above:
Sen. Feinstein recently joined with the Republicans in voting to pass the Kyle/Lieberman amendment to the Department of Defense Budget, which essentially gives Bush the authority to attack virtually any country that he decides should be attacked…[S]he was one of 22 Democratic senators who joined the Republicans in condemning the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times that portrayed Gen. David Petreaus for what he really is, just one more of George Bush's military hacks who will do and say what he is told to do and say…
She also recently voted to approve Bush's appointment of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, as one more in Bush's efforts to stack the judicial system with right-wing zealots. She did this, in spite of Southwick's judicial history of favoring special interests against workers and consumers, his demonstrated bigotry against racial minorities and women, and his homophobic judicial decisions based on sexual orientation.
DINO Dianne isn't the last Democrat whose loyalty to the traditionally populist values of the 99% of America's population who don't make up Bush's "base" produces suspicion. There is Hillary and her long-standing ties to corporate America and to supporting the Bush administration's wild-eyed dreams of international dominance.
In New Hampton, Iowa, on 10/07/07, Senator Clinton "sounded defensive and paranoid" when she was called to account by an Iowa Democrat for her votes to authorize the use of force in Iraq and in support of declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. New York Times Op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd opined in this report that "Hillary’s hawkish Iran vote was an ill-advised move…" considering Hillary's animus toward the "untrustworthy" Dick Cheney, who was revealed as promoting the fabrication of a casus belli against Iran by Sy Hersh in The New Yorker.
Is Dowd's snarky comment the reason why Hillary opened herself to future charges of being a flip-flopper when she reversed her position concerning diplomatic solutions concerning Iran? The Times will tell.
I opened this post with the observation that "free speech" in the form of lots of money was not of the same legal status as votes for a candidate to win office. I'm very disturbed that our "liberal" media is already touting Hillary as the Democratic nominee due to her large campaign funds despite not a single vote being cast for her. I believe that to be the reason that Mrs. Clinton is piling up the endorsements (Google "endorse Clinton" on the news page and you'll see what I mean.).
It's my opinion that it is far too soon for anyone to be endorsing anyone. The voters are not being given the chance to test the candidates – yes, all of them, even the Republicans – to see if any of them meet with the criteria each voter deems important prior to voting.
But what is important to Hillary? Hillary's ambitions clearly drive her more than party affiliation or the good of the national commonweal does. In an interview with the Washington Post, Mrs. Clinton declared, "I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up."
Because questions abound for all of the candidates of both major parties, I support the positions of both Sen. Tom Harkin and the Service Employees International Union: No Endorsement. Not for anyone. But the fact is that the Hillary bandwagon is rolling onward at ever-higher speed. Is there a rock in the road that can bring her to a stop? Some believe that rock is Al Gore.
Despite the popular buzz that Al Gore should be drafted to run in 2008, I am against that notion. Gore displayed a serious lack of political leadership in 2000, and that personal shortcoming hasn't changed despite his receiving an Oscar, and an Emmy – and now a Nobel Peace Prize – all in one year.
Certainly, these prestigious and variegated awards confirm that Al Gore is an achiever, but such awards don't bestow the leadership qualities necessary to run this nation, especially after the Bush cabal gets done with it (assuming they ever do). And, from recent comments from former aides, Gore may well understand that he isn't The One.
Gore's spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider said, "He has no intentions of running for president in 2008." Long-time adviser Carter Eskew said, "I can tell you he's making no moves and no sounds to indicate to me that he's going to run." Former aide Julia Payne says, "The last time I talked with the Vice President, we talked light bulbs, not politics."
But someone is going to run, and yet there is great distress in the membership of both the progressives and the religious which currently see no relief in the candidates of their nominal parties. Dave Lindorff speaks to the progressives, saying:
[Progressives] should cut their ties to the Democratic Party that is ignoring them and their key issues. I am proposing that progressives quit the Democratic Party — actually go down to their local voter registrar's office, and re-register as independents. They are also signaling, by quitting, that if the Democratic Party doesn't come around, they are open to the idea of a new party. And if large numbers of progressives cut their ties to the Democratic Party, that is a threat that should really scare party leaders.
That is the same motive being promoted by the membership of Will Durst's "God's Only Party", which he describes as "a clandestine cadre of controlling conservative Christian captains" who "[threaten] to run from the GOP if any infidel they don't anoint is nominated for president. [Because]…evangelicals are sick and tired of being taken for granted, and count on party bigwigs to remember how Ross Perot threw the 92 & 96 elections to Bill Clinton."
That could be a real threat, for the GOP ranks are seen as no match for the Democrats' legions. Thus the GOP has less room to lose supporters, yet another motive for why the GOP seeks to constrain or eliminate Democratic voting rights in order to tilt the electoral battlefield back to their advantage.
Speaking of battlefields, I wonder how the barbed-wire bastioned Texas Airstreamer Irrational Guard might feel about a candidate who expressed that "freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want [or] be anything they can be."
Would you vote for such a candidate? Then you better look more closely at Rudy Giuliani. Back in 1994, he also said, "Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
If Hillary wins, by definition she is the lawful authority. Are you ready to cede "a great deal of discretion about what you do" to her? Me neither! Nor to Rudy, nor to Mitt, nor to anyone in the media who is trying to convince me that the presidential election sequence is a waste of time, and that they will decide for me. I don't believe that "Freedom is about authority", nor that media moguls have the authority to tell me who my representatives will be.
I believe that Freedom is about Freedom. Authority is about the will of the Majority.
Anything else sprouts evil.Powered by Sidelines