Progressive Minds

Well, I just finished watching one of my favorite political movies: The American President.  It's a great movie filled with funny moments about life in the fishbowl of the White House. But the message of the movie is undeniable.

My favorite line in the movie comes from a Presidential aide, Lewis Rothchild (played by Michael J. Fox).  During a heated discussion about President Andrew Shepherd's declining poll numbers, Rotchild says to the President: "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

I couldn't help but think how timely this lesson in leadership is, particularly when it comes to the Democratic Party.

The American people clearly aren't behind the policies if George W. Bush.  So why is it that the Democrats remain in the minority?  Well, I think part of the answer can be found in the lack of leadership displayed by too many Democrats today.

They never learned a lesson that the Republicans learned well during the 1990's: how to get your message out at a time when you don't have the Rose Garden as your backdrop.

It's not enough to tell people what you are against.  The question becomes: what do you stand for?  The Democrats would do well to learn this lesson, going into the 2006 midterm elections.

 

CNN is reporting that senior administation officials say Bush will use a recess appointment to get John Bolton installed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Adding fuel to the speculations, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said "If the Senate fails to act and move forward on those nominees," McClellan said, "then sometimes there comes a point where the president has needed to fill that in a timely manner by recessing those nominees." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/28/bolton.appointment/index.html

As a friend of mine is fond of saying "These are dark days for our republic."

If you want to know why, just check out this amazing quote from Bolton, at a Federalist Society meeting in 1994:

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

The African country of Niger is facing a severe food shortage.

After experiencing an infestation of locusts, and a drought, 1.2 million people in Niger, including 800,000 children, face an immediate risk of starvation, according to the United Nations. Approximately 3.5 million people could face a food shortage.

Doctors Without Borders is currently on the ground in Niger, providing emergency services.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/28/niger/index.html

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/


I wonder why the culture-of-life folks on the right are so eerily silent on the crisis in Niger? Millions of starving children in Niger? No problem! The real question for the right is: did Niger walk down the yellowcake road with Iraq?

When John Bolton, Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador, was filling out a Senate questionnaire, he said he had NOT either testified before a grand jury, or been interviewed as part of an investigation, within the last five years.

Turns out (surprise) he lied! In fact, John Bolton was interviewed in 2003 by the State Department's Inspector General, as part of a joint investigation (with the CIA) into whether Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Noel Clay, State Department spokesperson, says Bolton didn't remember being interviewed, and will correct his information!

This has to be the understatement of the year, but I find it curious that John Bolton would not remember being interviewed in such a critical investigation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_bolton

Recently released documents shed light on Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts' views on affirmative action.

During the 1980's, Roberts argued against affirmative action as a member of the Reagan administration.

He was highly critical of a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' report that made the case for broader use of racial preferences.

Specifically, John G. Roberts cited a city police department that recruited minority cadets as part of its affirmative action program. Some of those minority cadets either failed or dropped out. Roberts wrote "There is no recognition of the obvious reason for failure: The affirmative action program required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates."

Well, correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Roberts, but affirmative action isn't about giving a position to an unqualified minority candidate. It's about giving preference to equally qualified minority candidates, when they have been under-represented in certain positions. It's a corrective program meant to right past wrongs.

An Open Letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, re: Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court

Dear Senator Leahy:

As Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you have a tremendous responsibility at hand: to consider whether the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to be the next Supreme Court Justice will be reported out to the full Senate for consideration.

Unfortunately, many Democrats are already declaring support for Roberts, saying it will be hard to view him as an extremist, or label him as outside the mainstream.

Senator, I do not see how such assessments can be made so early after his nomination, because Roberts has such a short paper trail.

I'm also worried that too many Senators will except Judge Roberts' explanation that he views Roe v. Wade as "settled law." Senator Leahy, I do not think the issue is whether Judge Roberts views Roe v. Wade as settled law.

Rather, I think the question should be: does Judge Roberts think Roe v. Wade should be re-settled, either because of his personal ideology, or a belief that the original case was decided incorrectly.

In his current position as an appellate judge, John Roberts is required to follow settled law. As a Supreme Court Justice, however, he will have the opportunity to re-settle law, which makes his position on issues like abortion, affirmative action, civil rights, etc all the more important.

This is not a time for Senators to forget their role in the advise and consent process.

This January, I watched with pride as Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) helped lead a challenge to the Congressional certification of Ohio's electors. Because of Rep. Tubbs Jones' conviction, the House and the Senate were forced to debate the problems that Ohio voters (many of them African-American) experienced in last November's election.

Recently, I've watched as Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has held hearings on everything from the Downing Street Memo to media bias. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) has continued to fight for congressional representation for the citizens of D.C. And Representative Cnythia McKinney (D-GA) is holding hearings on September 11, and specifically what the Bush administration knew leading up to the attacks.

So what do these outstanding patriots all have in common? They are members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). And it has occured to me that not only are they the conscience of the Democratic Party. They are the conscience of this entire country as well.

The CBC has proven time and again that they have what it takes to speak truth to power; to speak truth to an administration that doesn't believe it is accountable to the American people.

During a Presidential debate last year, George Bush was asked about affirmative action. In his response, he talked of having met with members of the CBC. And the CBC was quick to set the record straight!

They had been fustrated by Bush's refusal to meet with them. So they called White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card to tell him they were on their way. They boarded a van and went to the White House. They were greeted by Colin Powell and Condi Rice, and were told Bush was not at the White House. After members of the CBC warned they would not leave until they met with Bush, he miraculously appeared 15 minutes later!

The conviction and leadership of the CBC is a true profile in country that the national Democratic Party would do well to emulate.

President Clinton visited Africa this week, as part of his foundation's work to bring affordable AIDS drugs to the continent.

The Bush Administration has senselessly tied it's funding to AIDS in Africa to abstinence programs. But the Clinton Foundation has been doing the work necessary to get vital medicine to the people who need it.

Visit the Clinton Foundation online to learn more about President Clinton's trip to Africa, and read his online diary entries about his trip!

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/071505-fe-cf-hs-ai-lso-moz-rwa-zaf-tza-ken-fe-wjc-on-six-nation-tour-of-africa.htm

Senator John Kerry is fighting to get Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts' records on civil rights released. He says "The Senate, and the American people, need to know the truth about Judge Roberts' record to make a proper judgment."

According to Senator Kerry's press release "news reports today indicate that materials on the Roberts' civil rights record may be withheld from Congress." To read the entire statement, go to Senator Kerry's site: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=241368. Yahoo News is also covering the story: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050723/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush.

Former intelligence officials testified during a hearing co-chaired by Representatives Henry Waxman and Robert Wexler regarding the Valerie Plame case.

Specificially, the witnesses testified about the damage to national security when the identity of covert CIA operatives are leaked.

One of the witnesses, Larry Johnson, also appeared on the Al Franken show for a truly amazing and eye-opening interview. I was astounded as I listened to him explain that even as Valerie Plame's colleague, he didn't know her last name! He only knew her as "Valerie P." That's just how seriously they took their roles as covert operatives!

Here's the link to the testimony from the former intelligence officials: http://democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=898

And go here for Al Franken's page on Air America Radio's site: http://shows.airamericaradio.com/alfrankenshow/

One of the true patriots of our time, Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has published a book entitled "What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election."

In the face of extraordinary opposition from the House majority, Rep. Conyers has done an outstanding job of holding hearings on election reform, the Downing Street Memo, and media bias.

Click here to purchase Rep. Conyer's book online: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089733535X/qid=1122007846/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-9687788-6040009

And here to go to his official blog: http://www.conyersblog.us/

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that George Bush moved up the timing of his announcement of a nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

The Bush White House has been in full damage control mode, thanks to the Valerie Plame case. And according to a Reuteres news story in the Boston Globe: "The quicker-than-expected decision on a replacement for retiring O'Connor could help the White House deflect attention from a growing controversy over the role of Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, in leaking a covert CIA operative's identity, Republican strategists said."

(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/19/bush_to_announce_supreme_court_pick_at_900_pm_edt/)

The Bush White House may not realize it, but most Americans are smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time! We can focus on more than one thing!

It's important to note that during the Nixon's era, the Watergate story had "legs," and eventually led to Nixon's resignation, because the Washington Post kept the story alive, and by doing so, uncovered high crimes in the Nixon administration.

That's a lesson for all of us to keep in mind when thinking of the Valerie Plame case!

I remember being a freshman in college when the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas began, after he was nominated by Bush 41 to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court.

And although I had always paid attention to world events, I wasn't as politically minded then as I am today. Admittedly, I didn't study Clarence Thomas' record. All I saw was an African-American man being elevated to the highest court in the land, and I was proud.

Then Thomas' confirmation hearings began, and I was glued to the t.v. when he confronted the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and declared himself the victim of a "high-tech lynching."

I learned a very valuable lesson from the Clarence Thomas debacle: just because someone looks like me, or shares my skin color, doesn't necessarily mean they represent my values or my interests.

The Supreme Court is often the last stop a person makes when they are seeking legal recourse; when they feel justice has not been served elsewhere. Which makes it all the more important that we have Supreme Court justicies inside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

I hope the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will step up and ask the tough questions of Judge John G. Roberts when his confirmation hearings begin. If they believe he is outside the mainstream, or that his personal views will preclude him from rendering justice, then they have the obligation to stop his confirmation.

On behalf of the first Bush administration, Roberts advocated for overturning Roe V. Wade, saying he thought the case had been decided incorrectly. In 2003, however, during his confirmation hearing for his current position as an appellate judge, he said he thought Roe v. Wade was "settled law."

But Roberts shouldn't be allowed to get away with the "settled law" explanation now that he is nominee for the Supreme Court. Why? Lower courts are mandated to follow settled law. If they don't, they risk having their decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

But the ball-game is different on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices can "re-settle" law (as they did in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson).

So the question for Roberts is: will his personal views on abortion lead him to try to "re-settle" Roe v. Wade? Where does he stand on issues like affirmative action?

Before they move hastily to confirm Roberts, the Senate Judiciary Committee must get the answers to these questions!

Time For Bush's True "Accountability Moment"
July 13, 2005

In January 2005, on the heels of his second inauguration, George W. Bush was asked by the Washington Post about the declining situation in Iraq, and if anyone in his administration should be held accountable. Specifically, a reporter from The Washington Post stated: "In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?" Bush responded "Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election." Bush's message was clear: The only time he thinks he is accountable to the American people is on election day. He doesnt' believe he's accountable any other time. I would argue that the President of the United States, whether he knows it or not, is accountable to the American people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year.

There's been a lot of talk about White House accountability recently, in the wake of revelations that Bush's "brain" (and Deputy Chief of Staff) Karl Rove, held conversations with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about a covert CIA operative, who we now know is Valerie Plame. Rove has contended that he did not know Plame's name, and did not know her status as a covert CIA operative. Cooper is currently testifying before a grand jury about his conversations with Rove, and Time magazine has turned over Cooper's emails related to those conversations. Another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, is currently in jail for refusing to identify her sources in the Plame case.

At issue is who in the administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity, assumedly as retaliation against her husband. Valerie Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, traveled to Africa in 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to acquire yellow cake uranium from Africa. Ambassador Wilson found no evidence that Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from Africa, and upon his return to the United States, briefed the C.I.A. and the State Department African Affairs Bureau on his findings. He also contributed an opinion/editorial to the New York Times, entitled "What I Did Not Find in Africa." Yet dispite this, and the doubts that others in the intelligence community had, George W. Bush repeated the Iraq/Africa uranium claim in his 2003 State of the Union Speech. Since that time, some officials in the administration have had to admit that it should have been deleted from Bush's speech. The Bush administration's rush to war in Iraq appears to be at the very heart of the Valerie Plame debacle. If indeed her identity was purposefully leaked, as retaliation against her husband debunking the Iraq/Africa uranium claim, then someone within the Bush administration appears to be guilty of treason. Currently, an indepedent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, is investigating the outing of Valerie Plame. At the end of the day, it comes down to one word: accountability.

The Bush administration's accountability to the American people is at issue here. In September 2003, Bush promised to "take appropriate action" against "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." In 2004, he promised to fire anyone in his administration found leaking Valerie Plame's name. So, will Bush be a man of his word? Will he fire Karl Rove or anyone else in his administration who might be found guilty of disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative? Everything he has done during his presidency, indicates that George W. Bush will not demand accountability. He has a history of rewarding the incompetence of those around him (I offer Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales as examples).

Bush has given a lot of lip service to responsibility and accountability. Often during the 2000 campaign, and since then, he has talked of ushering in a new era of responsiblity. In 2002, he said "And here at home I think we have an opportunity to help change a culture -- one that has said, if it feels good, go ahead and do it. And if you've got a problem, blame somebody else." By his statement to the Washington Post earlier this year, Bush clearly thinks that his moment of accountability has passed (and by default, that of those around him).

Au contraire, W! It is high noon for your administration, and time for your true "accountability moment."

Welcome to Progressive Minds!

Are you, like me, a proud member of the reality-based community?

Do you, like me, believe that we deserve a government that lets the facts dictate its policy, and not the other way around?

Do you like to speak truth to conservative power?

If you answered yes to these questions, then you've found a home here, at Progressive Minds!

So enjoy, register, and sign in to get blogging today!