My Kerry Moment
(A work of fiction(?) by The Left Shue)
Dear Diary, (January 30, 2005)
Oh my goodness, what a dilemma I was faced with this week. As I have confided to you previously, I have been catching a lot of doo doo from the lefties at home for supporting our glorious war effort in Iraq. Well, last week, I was faced with George's choice to replace that wimpy Colin Powell as Secretary of State. He picked Condi Rice!!!!! A first I thought I would be home free with this vote. After all, she IS a BLACK WOMAN. I mean, what better way to reach out to those liberal elites in Seattle? But then that Barbara Boxer from California had to stir up trouble by bringing up all that old WMD business and how Condi had lied about whether there were WMDs or if that was the REAL reason for invading Iraq or just what all that was about. I mean, why does any of that even matter now? Boy did it ever stir up the folks at home though. I must have gotten a couple thousand emails before I told the staff to turn on the auto-responder.
But then it hit me.........remember when I was worried for John Kerry over that business of saying he would vote for war all over again EVEN when he knew there were no WMDs............ and then nothing happened? I mean, he had already gotten the nomination so, like, who else were the lefties going vote for? Duh........I mean I just made a couple of phone calls and soon realized that I had the full support of my state party already. After all, there is no way they are going to risk an incumbent's seat....(especially after Chris' mess).......duh! Still, I figured I better call Patty to see what she thought. After I told her I wasn't calling for money (yet), she said that, since she was digging for more pork (or did she say port?) money, she would probably be voting for Condi. The way she sees it, no matter what happens, Condi and George will both be gone by the time she has to account for her vote.
So here I am to say that I am a true believer in the power of incumbency. Oh sure, the lefties are pretty PO'd (pardon my french) right now but Paul and the rest of the state party board have already started the "We have to fight for Maria" bit. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about our new primary (or lack of a primary) thingy we have in Washington now. Paul says that, even if the lefties were to find somebody to run against me, there is no way I won't make the top two vote getters just based on name recognition. He says that everything will be forgotten and forgiven in 6 years.
Well Diary, I have to go vote for more money for Iraq. I will let you know how that goes.
Senator Maria
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Saturday, January 29, 2005
My email to the DNC
Like many others, I received an email from the DNC asking me to help them in their opposition to Bush's Social Security privatization plan. While my personal opposition on this issue is strong, I chose to give this request for funds a pass and, instead, to write the following email.
Dear Democratic National Committee
I received an email from you, the subject of which was "Stop Bush Cold on Social Security." In it you asked me to contribute "seed money" for "the most extensive, far-reaching, and effective grassroots issues campaign America has ever seen." You also mentioned that you were "counting on [my] active participation and [my] strong financial support."
The problem I have with this request for funds is the absolute "top-downness" of it all. You ask for my money and tell me you will soon give me a "fact sheet" to hand out. But you completely fail to ask me what I think or how I feel! You want my money and my sweat, but you don't give a damn about my heart or my mind! Nowhere in that email was there the possibility of communicating with you other than to contribute, to subscribe or to unsubscribe.
In case you haven't noticed, grass grows UP, not down. I am part of the grassroots of the Democratic Party, but I expect more from my party leadership than to have the occasional load of manure heaped on me.
For example, if you had listened to the grassroots, every single Democratic Senator would have stood with Barbara Boxer in challenging the Ohio election results. They would have stood in solidarity against the confirmation of Condaleeza Rice.
I don't know who will be selected to chair the DNC for the next four years, and I have no power to influence it either. But if it isn't Howard Dean, I despair for my party and my country. The single most important thing he did to inspire his legion of admirers was to not only talk to them, but to listen as well. It wasn't easy. There are a lot of us. But he did it. And we felt empowered as a result.
The DNC (and the DLC even more so) has lead this party to the "center" for 20 years or more. From inside the beltway, you may not have noticed, but every time we have leaned to the "center" the other guys have shifted further right. Today the most extreme right-wing thinkers in America are in power, and the Democratic Party has completely lost touch with its power base on the left. It doesn't bode well, boys and girls.
I won't be contributing to this effort. I'll write letters to my elected representatives as well as to my friends and relatives. I'll talk to my friends, co-workers and acquaintances. I'll do my own damn fact sheet.
If you want me to pay, you are going to have to let me play. Include me in the conversation or leave me alone!
(Mr) Jackie Minchew
5607 S. 2nd Ave
Everett, WA 98203
425-339-3622
Dear Democratic National Committee
I received an email from you, the subject of which was "Stop Bush Cold on Social Security." In it you asked me to contribute "seed money" for "the most extensive, far-reaching, and effective grassroots issues campaign America has ever seen." You also mentioned that you were "counting on [my] active participation and [my] strong financial support."
The problem I have with this request for funds is the absolute "top-downness" of it all. You ask for my money and tell me you will soon give me a "fact sheet" to hand out. But you completely fail to ask me what I think or how I feel! You want my money and my sweat, but you don't give a damn about my heart or my mind! Nowhere in that email was there the possibility of communicating with you other than to contribute, to subscribe or to unsubscribe.
In case you haven't noticed, grass grows UP, not down. I am part of the grassroots of the Democratic Party, but I expect more from my party leadership than to have the occasional load of manure heaped on me.
For example, if you had listened to the grassroots, every single Democratic Senator would have stood with Barbara Boxer in challenging the Ohio election results. They would have stood in solidarity against the confirmation of Condaleeza Rice.
I don't know who will be selected to chair the DNC for the next four years, and I have no power to influence it either. But if it isn't Howard Dean, I despair for my party and my country. The single most important thing he did to inspire his legion of admirers was to not only talk to them, but to listen as well. It wasn't easy. There are a lot of us. But he did it. And we felt empowered as a result.
The DNC (and the DLC even more so) has lead this party to the "center" for 20 years or more. From inside the beltway, you may not have noticed, but every time we have leaned to the "center" the other guys have shifted further right. Today the most extreme right-wing thinkers in America are in power, and the Democratic Party has completely lost touch with its power base on the left. It doesn't bode well, boys and girls.
I won't be contributing to this effort. I'll write letters to my elected representatives as well as to my friends and relatives. I'll talk to my friends, co-workers and acquaintances. I'll do my own damn fact sheet.
If you want me to pay, you are going to have to let me play. Include me in the conversation or leave me alone!
(Mr) Jackie Minchew
5607 S. 2nd Ave
Everett, WA 98203
425-339-3622
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Psychology of Abuse in American Politics
I have known women who have been in abusive relationships. A common thread between these women and their place in the relationship has been a twisted sense that they are serving a purpose in the relationship by providing an outlet for the partner's anger and frustrations. They develop a sense that they are needed, and the abuse, while objectively perverse, dangerous, and demeaning actually gives them a sense of self-worth. The abuser, on the other hand, is motivated by a need for control. The abuser lacks self-confidence and maturity, and approaches the relationship in the style of a playground bully, dominating physically, but also putting up the front of mental and emotional control by refusing to evidence any weakness. The abuser rules by fear, and responds to any questioning by either hitting or sending an emotional message of "I'll leave you" or "You don't love me" or "You're worthless."
I've decided that this is the kind of relationship that the American people have developed with the Bush Administration. Any psychologist worth their salt will tell you that the abuser is manipulative and crafty. They choose their words and actions carefully in order to maintain the control that they so desperately need. The Bush administration evidences this in their total incapacity to take responsibility for their actions. But the American people fear to stand up to them and make them accountable because it's so easy for the people to feel traitorous or unpatriotic. That's the beauty of "you're anti-American" - you can't argue it with people who have the control of defining what "anti-American" is. To question their definition is to bolster their case, and so we're stuck in this cycle of abuse. Furthermore, when outsiders question the global actions of the United States, we're quick to respond with details on how much aid we give to poor countries, or how our economy provides stability to the rest of the world. What I mean is, that as a society, we are quick to come to the defense of our nation because, in truth, we really do love America - despite the abuse heaped upon us by Bush and Co.
Of course the Bush administration is far more sinister than your average domestic abuser. The domestic abuser is a human, and often the abuse is a response to their own inner pain, sadness, loneliness. OK, sometimes they're just plain mean. But the Bush administration suffers none of the internal demons that plague us mere mortals, and that's what makes them so psychopathically dangerous to all peoples, both foreign and domestic.
So what we need is a good psychologist. Someone to help us realize that we are in an abusive relationship, someone who can give us the tools to break that emotional lock. The only problem is, we have come to a point where there isn't anyone with the power to set the bully down and give them a good talking to. And this bully is not a person, and doesn't listen. Sticks his fingers in his ears and says "If you question me, I'll hit you again." And again. And again. And until we are bigger than the bully, we will have to keep taking it.
I've decided that this is the kind of relationship that the American people have developed with the Bush Administration. Any psychologist worth their salt will tell you that the abuser is manipulative and crafty. They choose their words and actions carefully in order to maintain the control that they so desperately need. The Bush administration evidences this in their total incapacity to take responsibility for their actions. But the American people fear to stand up to them and make them accountable because it's so easy for the people to feel traitorous or unpatriotic. That's the beauty of "you're anti-American" - you can't argue it with people who have the control of defining what "anti-American" is. To question their definition is to bolster their case, and so we're stuck in this cycle of abuse. Furthermore, when outsiders question the global actions of the United States, we're quick to respond with details on how much aid we give to poor countries, or how our economy provides stability to the rest of the world. What I mean is, that as a society, we are quick to come to the defense of our nation because, in truth, we really do love America - despite the abuse heaped upon us by Bush and Co.
Of course the Bush administration is far more sinister than your average domestic abuser. The domestic abuser is a human, and often the abuse is a response to their own inner pain, sadness, loneliness. OK, sometimes they're just plain mean. But the Bush administration suffers none of the internal demons that plague us mere mortals, and that's what makes them so psychopathically dangerous to all peoples, both foreign and domestic.
So what we need is a good psychologist. Someone to help us realize that we are in an abusive relationship, someone who can give us the tools to break that emotional lock. The only problem is, we have come to a point where there isn't anyone with the power to set the bully down and give them a good talking to. And this bully is not a person, and doesn't listen. Sticks his fingers in his ears and says "If you question me, I'll hit you again." And again. And again. And until we are bigger than the bully, we will have to keep taking it.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
A letter to Senator Boxer
I thought that Senator Barbara Boxer should know how important she is to the Democrats at this juncture. As all of the ass-kissing of Condoleezza (how DO you spell that??) Rice has proceeded, she has been the only speed bump to this express confirmation. "Please don't try to impugn my integrity." What integrity, Condi? Where? So Senator Boxer deserves our thanks and our support. She may be the last friend we have left.
Senator Boxer,
As an American I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for being just about the only person in the Democratic party to stand up to the fraud and deceit perpetrated on the American people by our current administrations. I watched the Ohio vote hearings, where you and representative Tubbs-Jones made empassioned pleas for justice and fairness. I was mystified that while others Democrat Senators made statements, they did not vote? Why the disunity? What were they afraid of? Their non-vote made the Democrats again seem fractured and spineless.
As a Washingtonian, I was embarrassed that my own Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, made no move to support your efforts. It is high time that the Democrats stood up to the GOP bullying. Why did John Kerry wait until Martin Luther King day to say anything about evidence of inconsistency and fraud in Ohio? I came back to the Democrats after moving to the left in support of Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000. But only because I feared the damage that another four years of Bush would reap. I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Cantwell and Murray, and perhaps you can start this debate within the party: I don't want people representing me who are willing to back down when core values are at stake. That means voting. That means education (my wife and I are both public school teachers). That means health care. That means a foreign policy of cooperation, not confrontation.
We reap what we sow, and if the Democrats sow the seeds of frailty, indecision, and compromise, then I will move back to being a third party voter, and I won't be the only one. Democratic politicians must not think that fear of the GOP will secure their votes. I guarantee it won't, because many of us feel that our vote is being squandered by ineffectual party leadership. By all rights we should have won this last election, but still Democrats call for Terry McAuliffe's reelection as DNC chair.
So, Senator Boxer, I thank you for your tenacity, for your openness, honesty, heart, backbone, and desire to see this country set right (not THAT kind of right) again. However, please let your colleagues know to get on board with this movement. History is repeating itself while we watch and we may be reliving Germany circa 1935 if we're not careful.
Peace,
Jason Call
Senator Boxer,
As an American I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for being just about the only person in the Democratic party to stand up to the fraud and deceit perpetrated on the American people by our current administrations. I watched the Ohio vote hearings, where you and representative Tubbs-Jones made empassioned pleas for justice and fairness. I was mystified that while others Democrat Senators made statements, they did not vote? Why the disunity? What were they afraid of? Their non-vote made the Democrats again seem fractured and spineless.
As a Washingtonian, I was embarrassed that my own Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, made no move to support your efforts. It is high time that the Democrats stood up to the GOP bullying. Why did John Kerry wait until Martin Luther King day to say anything about evidence of inconsistency and fraud in Ohio? I came back to the Democrats after moving to the left in support of Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000. But only because I feared the damage that another four years of Bush would reap. I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Cantwell and Murray, and perhaps you can start this debate within the party: I don't want people representing me who are willing to back down when core values are at stake. That means voting. That means education (my wife and I are both public school teachers). That means health care. That means a foreign policy of cooperation, not confrontation.
We reap what we sow, and if the Democrats sow the seeds of frailty, indecision, and compromise, then I will move back to being a third party voter, and I won't be the only one. Democratic politicians must not think that fear of the GOP will secure their votes. I guarantee it won't, because many of us feel that our vote is being squandered by ineffectual party leadership. By all rights we should have won this last election, but still Democrats call for Terry McAuliffe's reelection as DNC chair.
So, Senator Boxer, I thank you for your tenacity, for your openness, honesty, heart, backbone, and desire to see this country set right (not THAT kind of right) again. However, please let your colleagues know to get on board with this movement. History is repeating itself while we watch and we may be reliving Germany circa 1935 if we're not careful.
Peace,
Jason Call
Jackie's Ongoing Conversation
Last Thursday evening, I read the following statement to a particularly well-attended 44th LD meeting. I did so for selfish reasons: I wanted those with whom I will be working to know something real about what I believe to be important. It has been suggested that I should share my views with a wider audience. To that end, here it is. I have since attended a lecture by Michael Ruppert, author of "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil." I am even more aware of the urgency of having these conversations.
My two key points as of 1/13/05:
1) Responsibility to lead: I believe The Great American Experiment in Representative Democracy is at a turning point. The current Presidential administration represents the closest America has come to a truly fascist government. Republicans control all three branches of our government as well as the majority of the mainstream news media. Corporations wield more power and influence over our elected officials than is healthy. To the extent that the leadership of the Democratic Party continues to drift to the right in an effort to more closely resemble the ever victorious Republicans, they are failing to lead! Therefore, the responsibility falls to the grassroots. That means you and me!I believe the way we fulfill that responsibility is first to stay informed, and then to communicate with our elected officials, from Lovick and Dunshee to Larson, Inslee, Murray and Cantwell. At times we will want to communicate with our Republican representatives as well. If we don’t tell them what we think, they won’t know!In order to stay informed, we must pay attention via the internet as well as more traditional means. We cannot depend on the mainstream media to keep us informed. They are mostly owned and operated by and for the Republicans. Communication can take place via email or snail mail, telephone or fax. But we must be diligent in our efforts and clear in our intent.Who will be the next DNC Chair? Will we let Bush privatize Social Security? Is a flat tax or a national sales tax in our future? These and other decisions will be made with or without our input. I say with is better.
2) The conversation: The conversation is where it starts. I believe we must seize every opportunity to talk about things that matter. I am no longer interested in talking about so-called “reality” TV shows, what Oprah is giving away this week, or sports. There are too many more pressing things on my mind.There are a multitude of important issues confronting us today. A quick look at the Party Platform bears this out. Each of us must work to advance those we deem to be of greatest importance. For myself, I have two topics at the top of my list. First is something I think a lot of people are almost completely unaware of, and the other is an urgent, if somewhat sensitive topic for our country.
a)Peak Oil – Logic tells us that 1) there is a finite supply of crude oil in the world, 2) consumption is steadily rising and 3) at some point, consumption will exceed our production capacity. I am one who believes this problem is more imminent than many people realize. It is a very complex issue with implications not only for transportation, but also for agriculture, manufacturing, U.S. and world economies and much more. I have been told that there is no satisfactory alternative to fossil fuels. Even most of the so-called alternative energy sources are somewhat dependent on petroleum products. The main reason I put this issue at the top of my list is simple: if you are standing on the train tracks and you see the train coming, the first order of business is to get off the tracks. I believe America needs a two-pronged crash program: development of alternatives, and an extreme program of conservation measures. The Apollo Project is a step in the right direction, but not enough.
b)Separation of Church and State – I believe America is drifting inexorably towards a plutocratic theocracy, with only a hint of democracy standing in the way. (Anything we can do to reinforce the integrity of our electoral process will help with this.) My greatest concern is with the extent to which religion is being injected into politics. God is on our money and in our Pledge of Allegiance. The 10 Commandments are on huge monuments and small plaques at courthouses and civic buildings. At every “swearing in,” whether of a witness at trial or of an elected official, we hear the words “…so help me God.” And religious beliefs are being used more and more in determining who should receive political appointments. In some parts of the country “creation science” is part of the public school curriculum. Most of this came about during the 20th century. There is every reason to believe it is contrary to the wishes of the Founding Fathers (or as one author has it, the Founding Brothers), and is absolutely contrary to the best interests of a democratic republic such as ours! I believe all good Americans of whatever political or religious affiliation have an obligation to discuss this matter openly, despite the fact that it makes some folks uncomfortable. Let us keep religion in places of worship, in homes and in the hearts of men and women of good will. Likewise, let all matters pertaining to government and politics be separate from religion as much as possible. Indeed, it may be time to discuss a constitutional amendment to affirm the separation of church and state.
For more than 50 years, I was a non-player in politics. I have a lot of catching up to do. To that end, I will attend any meeting, make any phone call, knock on any door and engage in any conversation I can in order to advance my top two issues as well as many other very important issues. To the extent I can, I will assist anyone else in the advancement of their top issues. I urge all others to do the same. We must engage one another in conversation, being reasonable, honest, clear and persistent about what we believe. In my opinion, The Great American Experiment in Representative Democracy depends upon it!
Jackie Minchew
My two key points as of 1/13/05:
1) Responsibility to lead: I believe The Great American Experiment in Representative Democracy is at a turning point. The current Presidential administration represents the closest America has come to a truly fascist government. Republicans control all three branches of our government as well as the majority of the mainstream news media. Corporations wield more power and influence over our elected officials than is healthy. To the extent that the leadership of the Democratic Party continues to drift to the right in an effort to more closely resemble the ever victorious Republicans, they are failing to lead! Therefore, the responsibility falls to the grassroots. That means you and me!I believe the way we fulfill that responsibility is first to stay informed, and then to communicate with our elected officials, from Lovick and Dunshee to Larson, Inslee, Murray and Cantwell. At times we will want to communicate with our Republican representatives as well. If we don’t tell them what we think, they won’t know!In order to stay informed, we must pay attention via the internet as well as more traditional means. We cannot depend on the mainstream media to keep us informed. They are mostly owned and operated by and for the Republicans. Communication can take place via email or snail mail, telephone or fax. But we must be diligent in our efforts and clear in our intent.Who will be the next DNC Chair? Will we let Bush privatize Social Security? Is a flat tax or a national sales tax in our future? These and other decisions will be made with or without our input. I say with is better.
2) The conversation: The conversation is where it starts. I believe we must seize every opportunity to talk about things that matter. I am no longer interested in talking about so-called “reality” TV shows, what Oprah is giving away this week, or sports. There are too many more pressing things on my mind.There are a multitude of important issues confronting us today. A quick look at the Party Platform bears this out. Each of us must work to advance those we deem to be of greatest importance. For myself, I have two topics at the top of my list. First is something I think a lot of people are almost completely unaware of, and the other is an urgent, if somewhat sensitive topic for our country.
a)Peak Oil – Logic tells us that 1) there is a finite supply of crude oil in the world, 2) consumption is steadily rising and 3) at some point, consumption will exceed our production capacity. I am one who believes this problem is more imminent than many people realize. It is a very complex issue with implications not only for transportation, but also for agriculture, manufacturing, U.S. and world economies and much more. I have been told that there is no satisfactory alternative to fossil fuels. Even most of the so-called alternative energy sources are somewhat dependent on petroleum products. The main reason I put this issue at the top of my list is simple: if you are standing on the train tracks and you see the train coming, the first order of business is to get off the tracks. I believe America needs a two-pronged crash program: development of alternatives, and an extreme program of conservation measures. The Apollo Project is a step in the right direction, but not enough.
b)Separation of Church and State – I believe America is drifting inexorably towards a plutocratic theocracy, with only a hint of democracy standing in the way. (Anything we can do to reinforce the integrity of our electoral process will help with this.) My greatest concern is with the extent to which religion is being injected into politics. God is on our money and in our Pledge of Allegiance. The 10 Commandments are on huge monuments and small plaques at courthouses and civic buildings. At every “swearing in,” whether of a witness at trial or of an elected official, we hear the words “…so help me God.” And religious beliefs are being used more and more in determining who should receive political appointments. In some parts of the country “creation science” is part of the public school curriculum. Most of this came about during the 20th century. There is every reason to believe it is contrary to the wishes of the Founding Fathers (or as one author has it, the Founding Brothers), and is absolutely contrary to the best interests of a democratic republic such as ours! I believe all good Americans of whatever political or religious affiliation have an obligation to discuss this matter openly, despite the fact that it makes some folks uncomfortable. Let us keep religion in places of worship, in homes and in the hearts of men and women of good will. Likewise, let all matters pertaining to government and politics be separate from religion as much as possible. Indeed, it may be time to discuss a constitutional amendment to affirm the separation of church and state.
For more than 50 years, I was a non-player in politics. I have a lot of catching up to do. To that end, I will attend any meeting, make any phone call, knock on any door and engage in any conversation I can in order to advance my top two issues as well as many other very important issues. To the extent I can, I will assist anyone else in the advancement of their top issues. I urge all others to do the same. We must engage one another in conversation, being reasonable, honest, clear and persistent about what we believe. In my opinion, The Great American Experiment in Representative Democracy depends upon it!
Jackie Minchew
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Protect Social Security
To Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressmen Inslee and Larsen:
Dear Washington State and Snohomish County Delegation,
I almost feel foolish in sending this email to you all. After all, I should be able to expect anyone I voted for to defend Social Security as if it were their own personal possession. However, with the re-installment of George W. Bush as occupant of the Whitehouse and ruler of America, I believe it is important to remind you all (as I did in 2000) that George Bush does not represent the majority of the American people and, therefore, you should stand as a proud opposition party in defense of the values your constituency embrace.
As someone who lives in a 4 Generation household, I believe I see the issue of Social Security in a unique way. At the top, I have an 80 year old mother who depends on her Social Security check for her sole income. She is of that generation to whom Social Security was a solemn promise from a compassionate government to its hard working and sacrificing citizens. My wife and I are just a brief decade or so from receiving those checks ourselves. Due to outsourcing and off shoring in the recent Bush years, we have had to make deep withdrawals from our retirement plans to stay afloat while we were looking for our new, lower paying jobs. Needless to say, this has increased our anticipated dependency on the system we have paid into for so many years. We now have working children who are torn between the threatening and fear mongering rhetoric of the Bush Administration telling them that the system will fold long before they will ever see a cent of their payroll tax deductions returned to them and the reality that the current system (if left alone and not raided to fight illegal wars) is solvent well beyond their working years. Finally, we have a granddaughter (2 1/2 years) who, depending on the decisions you make today, may see herself needing to take on the responsibility of support for aging and ailing parents as well as trying to provide for her own family.
When George W. Bush slipped through the back door into Washington DC in 2000, he came with a tax scheme that the majority of Americans voted against. He said it would drive our economy and move the job market. It did both of those things. It drove our economy into massive debt and moved our job market offshore or into the ground. Most of you saw this and stood up against those "borrow and spend" plans. Now he is back with a plan to destroy Social Security by pulling TRILLIONS of dollars out of the account. His plan calls for my working children to invest their retirement money (some $25 or $35 per week is their typical payroll deduction) in the stock market on the CHANCE that they will invest wisely and not need Social Security. In the mean time, how does he propose to make up for newly created shortfall in current funding for my mother and my wife and I? He says we (you) will BORROW the money! We are talking TRILLIONS of dollars. Who will you borrow this money from? My granddaughter? Or, worse, the Saudis, Chinese, and Japanese who already hold much of our massive Bush debt?
What makes this scheme so much more bothersome is that it is being proposed by a republican to a republican controlled Congress. This is the same republican party whose one-time leader, Newt Gringrich said that the republicans were content to watch Social Security "wither on the vine". Does anyone in their right mind truly believe that the republicans would approve the borrowing of TRILLIONS of dollars to save a program they despise? Just as they did with the Bush tax scheme, they will gladly roll back the funding, only borrow a token amount of the new debt for the photo-op and sit back and watch the program die a painful death.
You MUST stand against this scheme! There can be no retreat or even compromise on this issue. Social Security, to many in this country, represents our government (and the Democratic Party) at its best. It is an issue worth fighting for and one that many at home will be watching. Do not let my mother down.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Dear Washington State and Snohomish County Delegation,
I almost feel foolish in sending this email to you all. After all, I should be able to expect anyone I voted for to defend Social Security as if it were their own personal possession. However, with the re-installment of George W. Bush as occupant of the Whitehouse and ruler of America, I believe it is important to remind you all (as I did in 2000) that George Bush does not represent the majority of the American people and, therefore, you should stand as a proud opposition party in defense of the values your constituency embrace.
As someone who lives in a 4 Generation household, I believe I see the issue of Social Security in a unique way. At the top, I have an 80 year old mother who depends on her Social Security check for her sole income. She is of that generation to whom Social Security was a solemn promise from a compassionate government to its hard working and sacrificing citizens. My wife and I are just a brief decade or so from receiving those checks ourselves. Due to outsourcing and off shoring in the recent Bush years, we have had to make deep withdrawals from our retirement plans to stay afloat while we were looking for our new, lower paying jobs. Needless to say, this has increased our anticipated dependency on the system we have paid into for so many years. We now have working children who are torn between the threatening and fear mongering rhetoric of the Bush Administration telling them that the system will fold long before they will ever see a cent of their payroll tax deductions returned to them and the reality that the current system (if left alone and not raided to fight illegal wars) is solvent well beyond their working years. Finally, we have a granddaughter (2 1/2 years) who, depending on the decisions you make today, may see herself needing to take on the responsibility of support for aging and ailing parents as well as trying to provide for her own family.
When George W. Bush slipped through the back door into Washington DC in 2000, he came with a tax scheme that the majority of Americans voted against. He said it would drive our economy and move the job market. It did both of those things. It drove our economy into massive debt and moved our job market offshore or into the ground. Most of you saw this and stood up against those "borrow and spend" plans. Now he is back with a plan to destroy Social Security by pulling TRILLIONS of dollars out of the account. His plan calls for my working children to invest their retirement money (some $25 or $35 per week is their typical payroll deduction) in the stock market on the CHANCE that they will invest wisely and not need Social Security. In the mean time, how does he propose to make up for newly created shortfall in current funding for my mother and my wife and I? He says we (you) will BORROW the money! We are talking TRILLIONS of dollars. Who will you borrow this money from? My granddaughter? Or, worse, the Saudis, Chinese, and Japanese who already hold much of our massive Bush debt?
What makes this scheme so much more bothersome is that it is being proposed by a republican to a republican controlled Congress. This is the same republican party whose one-time leader, Newt Gringrich said that the republicans were content to watch Social Security "wither on the vine". Does anyone in their right mind truly believe that the republicans would approve the borrowing of TRILLIONS of dollars to save a program they despise? Just as they did with the Bush tax scheme, they will gladly roll back the funding, only borrow a token amount of the new debt for the photo-op and sit back and watch the program die a painful death.
You MUST stand against this scheme! There can be no retreat or even compromise on this issue. Social Security, to many in this country, represents our government (and the Democratic Party) at its best. It is an issue worth fighting for and one that many at home will be watching. Do not let my mother down.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Thursday, January 06, 2005
An amazing show of Disunity
Someone please explain to me why we had but a single Senator support the contestation of the Ohio vote?? As I was watching Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and other Democrat Senators give speeches about the importance of protecting the right to vote, and further saying that this vote protest was not about overturning the election results, but rather the PRINCIPLE of guaranteeing that every person who had the right to vote, and wanted to vote, should have been able to vote freely and fairly...as I was watching htis, for a brief moment I thought "They did it! God damn it, they finally showed some guts!"
Then they took a vote on whether they would officially contest the votes. One single Senator had the guts to support this. And for the life of me, I don't understand why. It seems to me like we've just been set up...for four years from now. We've allowed this bullshit two elections in a row, with barely a lick of resistance from our elected officials.
Patty and Maria are done as far as I'm concerned. I swear I'm either going left or going North.
Then they took a vote on whether they would officially contest the votes. One single Senator had the guts to support this. And for the life of me, I don't understand why. It seems to me like we've just been set up...for four years from now. We've allowed this bullshit two elections in a row, with barely a lick of resistance from our elected officials.
Patty and Maria are done as far as I'm concerned. I swear I'm either going left or going North.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Will the Senate be silent?
Senators Cantwell and Murray,
As you well know, any citizen of this country who is not a white male is a member of a group of citizens who have historically had to fight for their right to vote in America. As members of one of these groups, and furthermore as leaders in our progressive state – which has seen fit to make history by being represented by three women at our highest elected offices – I would expect that a fair, honest, safe, and secure voting system would be of the highest priority to you personally.
Senators, in a near repeat of the 2000 debacle in Florida, we are witnessing a voting travesty from the state of Ohio. You are aware, I am sure, that Rep. John Conyers from Michigan will be contesting the counting of the Ohio votes. This protest will occur at 1:00p.m. tomorrow. Tomorrow. Rep. Conyers, like members of the Congressional Black Caucus in 2000, needs but a single Senator to support his voice. I expect that he will have at least two.
I voted Democrat in 2004 for the first time since 1992, when I gave President Clinton my vote for his first term. Sometime between 1992 and 1996, the Democrats lost me. I felt that represented little different than the Republicans, that they were in the pocket of corporations and “big money” as much as the Republicans. I looked for representation in other parties that I felt represented the progressive values that I hold dear. The stolen election in 2000 was enough to bring me back to the Democrats in 2004, along with the passion and boldness of a true progressive, Howard Dean. Do not take that for granted. I sense a general feeling in the Democrat party that Democrats are so scared of Republicans that their votes for the reelection of Democrat candidates are all but locked up already. They are not. There are millions of progressives who will turn elsewhere for a voice and for representation if their concerns are not met right here and now.
Tomorrow.
I have met both of you, and I have corresponded with both of you in the past. I know you are strong, and I know that you know right from wrong. Show the Democrats – better yet, show the Republicans – that we will no longer tolerate voter fraud, intimidation, and violations of the Voting Rights Act. If we do not, we no longer live in a free country.
Respectfully,
Jason J. Call
As you well know, any citizen of this country who is not a white male is a member of a group of citizens who have historically had to fight for their right to vote in America. As members of one of these groups, and furthermore as leaders in our progressive state – which has seen fit to make history by being represented by three women at our highest elected offices – I would expect that a fair, honest, safe, and secure voting system would be of the highest priority to you personally.
Senators, in a near repeat of the 2000 debacle in Florida, we are witnessing a voting travesty from the state of Ohio. You are aware, I am sure, that Rep. John Conyers from Michigan will be contesting the counting of the Ohio votes. This protest will occur at 1:00p.m. tomorrow. Tomorrow. Rep. Conyers, like members of the Congressional Black Caucus in 2000, needs but a single Senator to support his voice. I expect that he will have at least two.
I voted Democrat in 2004 for the first time since 1992, when I gave President Clinton my vote for his first term. Sometime between 1992 and 1996, the Democrats lost me. I felt that represented little different than the Republicans, that they were in the pocket of corporations and “big money” as much as the Republicans. I looked for representation in other parties that I felt represented the progressive values that I hold dear. The stolen election in 2000 was enough to bring me back to the Democrats in 2004, along with the passion and boldness of a true progressive, Howard Dean. Do not take that for granted. I sense a general feeling in the Democrat party that Democrats are so scared of Republicans that their votes for the reelection of Democrat candidates are all but locked up already. They are not. There are millions of progressives who will turn elsewhere for a voice and for representation if their concerns are not met right here and now.
Tomorrow.
I have met both of you, and I have corresponded with both of you in the past. I know you are strong, and I know that you know right from wrong. Show the Democrats – better yet, show the Republicans – that we will no longer tolerate voter fraud, intimidation, and violations of the Voting Rights Act. If we do not, we no longer live in a free country.
Respectfully,
Jason J. Call
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Maybe Someday...
In response to a message from Paul Berendt which quoted an article from the Nation dated 12/28/04, I wrote the following email. I was offended by the article the first time I saw it, and still more so when it was forwarded by my Party Chair. I guess you could say it got my dander up.
Subject: Fwd: Maybe someday, if the Democrats really want to win the presidency, they will nominate someone like Christine Gregoire.
I read this article and disagree with it rather strongly! If the point is that, in a state which hasn't elected a Republican Governor in 20 years - a state which is generally more inclined to vote Democrat than Republican, Christine Gregoire squandered a compelling lead and required two recounts to squeak by, then I fail to see how such a candidate could possibly win the presidency. In fact, I would further submit that John Kerry was almost exactly that kind of candidate.
John Kerry was the clear choice of the Democratic leadership, the mainstream (mostly Republican owned and operated) media and, in my humble opinion, the Republican leadership as well. At the Feb. 7 caucus, his "electability" was the main reason I heard put forward for supporting him rather than other, more passionate, hard-charging candidates. That he was ultimately unable to unseat the worst President in many years, if not ever, clearly reflects his inadequacies as a candidate.
John Nichols said, "...Gregoire had one thing going for her, and that was her determination to win." I would submit that she had at least two other things working in her favor. One is that the law was on her side, and the other is that Washington is, for the most part, a blue state. I would add to that the large number of grassroots workers brought into the fray by the above-mentioned passionate, hard-charging candidates.
I appreciate that Chris stayed in to the end and did not concede precipitously as Kerry did. But, given the closeness of the race here in Washington, she would have had to be even more spineless than Kerry not to have done so.
To give John Kerry his due, he did provide a significant chunk of money (from his left-over multi-million dollar campaign fund) in support of Washington's recount. Also, he has made some gestures of support to the Ohio recount effort, if somewhat weak in my opinion.
I am glad Christine Gregoire will be our next Governor, if only because it means Dino Rossi won't. But I don't have high hopes for any kind of real progressive leadership from her. Unfortunately, I fear Rossi will now set his sights on a Senate seat and the party faithful will once again find themselves in the uncomfortable position of supporting a candidate who voted for the war resolution, among other bad Republican bills.
In case it isn't clear from my comments above, I believe it is time for the Democratic Party to stop playing patty-cake with Republicans. It is time to stop trying to "be like Mike" and start standing up for the progressive values that are at the core of what most of us want to work for. Staying with the recount process all the way through is a step in the right direction. But let's not get too excited. There is still a long, steep road to recovery ahead of us, with many unpleasant bumps along the way.
(Though I copied my email directly to Mr. Berendt's email address, I have, as yet, received no reply.)
Subject: Fwd: Maybe someday, if the Democrats really want to win the presidency, they will nominate someone like Christine Gregoire.
I read this article and disagree with it rather strongly! If the point is that, in a state which hasn't elected a Republican Governor in 20 years - a state which is generally more inclined to vote Democrat than Republican, Christine Gregoire squandered a compelling lead and required two recounts to squeak by, then I fail to see how such a candidate could possibly win the presidency. In fact, I would further submit that John Kerry was almost exactly that kind of candidate.
John Kerry was the clear choice of the Democratic leadership, the mainstream (mostly Republican owned and operated) media and, in my humble opinion, the Republican leadership as well. At the Feb. 7 caucus, his "electability" was the main reason I heard put forward for supporting him rather than other, more passionate, hard-charging candidates. That he was ultimately unable to unseat the worst President in many years, if not ever, clearly reflects his inadequacies as a candidate.
John Nichols said, "...Gregoire had one thing going for her, and that was her determination to win." I would submit that she had at least two other things working in her favor. One is that the law was on her side, and the other is that Washington is, for the most part, a blue state. I would add to that the large number of grassroots workers brought into the fray by the above-mentioned passionate, hard-charging candidates.
I appreciate that Chris stayed in to the end and did not concede precipitously as Kerry did. But, given the closeness of the race here in Washington, she would have had to be even more spineless than Kerry not to have done so.
To give John Kerry his due, he did provide a significant chunk of money (from his left-over multi-million dollar campaign fund) in support of Washington's recount. Also, he has made some gestures of support to the Ohio recount effort, if somewhat weak in my opinion.
I am glad Christine Gregoire will be our next Governor, if only because it means Dino Rossi won't. But I don't have high hopes for any kind of real progressive leadership from her. Unfortunately, I fear Rossi will now set his sights on a Senate seat and the party faithful will once again find themselves in the uncomfortable position of supporting a candidate who voted for the war resolution, among other bad Republican bills.
In case it isn't clear from my comments above, I believe it is time for the Democratic Party to stop playing patty-cake with Republicans. It is time to stop trying to "be like Mike" and start standing up for the progressive values that are at the core of what most of us want to work for. Staying with the recount process all the way through is a step in the right direction. But let's not get too excited. There is still a long, steep road to recovery ahead of us, with many unpleasant bumps along the way.
(Though I copied my email directly to Mr. Berendt's email address, I have, as yet, received no reply.)
Saturday, January 01, 2005
A Progressive Opportunity
The speculation has begun about Dino Rossi possibly challenging Maria Cantwell for U.S. Senate in 2006. Considering the outcome of the recent race for governor, Rossi would prove a tough opponent. I think it is a fair question to ask how well Maria will do in her next race. Recent reports say that Cantwell is starting with an empty campaign chest and, following big losses in her stock holdings, not much in personal wealth with which to jump start a senatorial campaign. In addition, Senator Cantwell did not do her (Progressive) standing much good with her votes in favor of the use of force in Iraq and the Patriot Act. While she has recently won praise for her fight against Enron, there is a big difference between saving a couple of bucks on your light bill and "selling out" on the issues of war and peace and civil liberties. Already, Mark Wilson (recently the Green Party and Veteran for Peace candidate opposing Patty Murray) has announced that he will be challenging Cantwell in the Democratic primary in 2006. There will be much to watch over the next two years.
Someone who should be watching with a genuine interest is former State Senator and State Supreme Court Justice, Phil Talmadge. Talmadge became the choice of many Progressives in the race for governor before illness forced his (premature) withdrawal from the primary. Given Talmadge's credentials and his standing in the activist Progressive community, he seems a good choice to run an effective challenge to Cantwell in the 2006 primary. Perhaps the more hopeful note here is, if Talmadge were to succeed in that effort, he would provide a more consistent voting partner for Patty Murray in the Senate and would add another strong Progressive voice to the Washington delegation.
While allot can happen in 2 years, it is a mere minute in political time. For Progressives, the time to become involved is now.
Someone who should be watching with a genuine interest is former State Senator and State Supreme Court Justice, Phil Talmadge. Talmadge became the choice of many Progressives in the race for governor before illness forced his (premature) withdrawal from the primary. Given Talmadge's credentials and his standing in the activist Progressive community, he seems a good choice to run an effective challenge to Cantwell in the 2006 primary. Perhaps the more hopeful note here is, if Talmadge were to succeed in that effort, he would provide a more consistent voting partner for Patty Murray in the Senate and would add another strong Progressive voice to the Washington delegation.
While allot can happen in 2 years, it is a mere minute in political time. For Progressives, the time to become involved is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)