This site is best viewed using Firefox.
Why can't an American political leader articulate to the world that the best way to defeat Islamic terrorism is by sticking religiously to the tenets of what has made American great, rather than acting more barbaric than the people we are trying to defeat. Just labeling what they do as terrorism holds little credibility when helicopter gun ships sending rockets into people's houses or "Shock and Awe" are just as terrorizing as a suicide bomber, if not more so.
Despite the overall successes by the Democrats in the mid-term elections, there were several races around the country where Republican voters stayed loyal to their party, even when presented with good Democratic choices.
Possibly having their Congresswoman constantly remind them of the error in their ways was more than these Republican voters could handle. Or it could have been Tammy’s Thai blood. After all, they did decide to send one of the most anti-immigration candidates to Washington in her stead.
Dogged supporters of the war in Iraq claim that if the U.S. pulls out now, America will be less safe because our enemies will perceive that we are weak and quit when resisted. This is a false argument.
If this war had been just, American support for the mission would have been adequate and America would have won. No country or band of terrorists can defeat the United States if America is united. But this was a failed mission from the start because it was wrong to invade Iraq . It was a breach of international law on the order of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan and it was sold to the people with obvious lies.
September 11, 2006 Re “A Sudden Sense of Urgency” (editorial, Sept. 7):
Besides the damage that illegally detaining terror suspects in secret prisons and Guantánamo Bay has done to America’s standing in the world and the history books, there are two more important reasons to bring these 14 suspects and other detainees to trial as soon as possible.
One is the closure a trial could bring for the American people. Although public trials should have happened years ago, greater satisfaction is gained for the victims if the perpetrators are found guilty according to our legal justice system, rather than being secretly detained or killed in the mountains of some far-off country.
Second, prosecuting the fight against terrorists in a modern and civilized way — via the rules of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of our great democracy — rather than employing the same barbaric tools of warfare that the enemy is using will do more to draw others to our side of the fight, vastly improving our intelligence capabilities and making our country safer.
August 26, 2006. In the upcoming election cycle, Republicans once again intend to paint Democrats as soft on terror. This time, Democrats shouldn’t run from this label, because it is essential correct, and very possibly more likely to make the world safer.
The Bush doctrine of fighting terror is to essentially bomb the other side into submission. We see this in Iraq and Afghanistan with failing results and we see Israel failing with this method in Palestine and Lebanon. So why not try a softer method?
In Iraq, where internal differences threaten success, U.S. military occupation adds to the humiliation and anger. In the West Bank and Gaza, only self-respect will curb Arab hatred of their Israeli occupiers.
The conflict between the West and the Islamic world should not be about whose right or wrong, since no amount of force will change the other’s opinion. It should be about what will bring lasting peace. For Israel it may mean being the best neighbor a country could be, for the U.S. the most benevolent world power ever.
So far, the shock and awe, “Give War a Chance” approach is not working. A softer more respectful approach could be just the ticket.
August 11, 2006 (printed). Since Democrats Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Haim Saban signed a statement verifying their support of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, I wonder if they got a similar statement from the governor that he won’t revert to his true right-wing self if he is re-elected. I mean, really. The guy is an actor. How can they trust him after he promised to be moderate during the recall election that brought him to power and immediately upon taking office campaigned for George Bush, stonewalled the Democratic state legislature and went after every Democratic source of power with the special election? Can’t they also see that the Republican Party as a whole is corrupt and controlled by religious, corporate and war mongering extremists and therefore cannot be trusted? Doing anything to bolster the Republican Party at this time in history seems like not only a betrayal to Democrats, but to the state of California and the country as well.
In addition, their reasons for supporting Schwarzenegger—that he’s fighting global warming and funding schools—can all be found in Phil Angelides, plus a whole lot more. Get real, guys.
June 3, 2006. In the best article yet on how the 2004 election was stolen, this Rolling Stone's Article is a must read. The people must understand that it is not the left being sore losers, it was the right breaking the law and shattering people's confidence in our electoral system, almost as if that was the right's aim. Unlike Rep Bernie Sanders belief that it is best to keep this quiet so people aren't scared off from voting, I think we need to put this in on the front page of every newspaper until this tricks are ended.
May 20, 2006 In a recent poll conducted by Lake Research Partners, Democratic Candidate Francine Busby has pulled ahead of Republican rival Brian Billbray by 7%.
May 9, 2006. Tomasky, editor of The American Prospect gives a detailed outline of the philiosphy that Democrats lack, and need.
May 2, 2006. If you did not watch the most brilliant, comic, furious and warranted attack on our President by Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, you must see it. The clips have been removed from the blogs, but the complete show can still be found on the C-span website under Recent Programs. Move the Media clip to 1:05.
May 1, 2006. Retired Lt. General William Odom makes an irrefutable argument as to why the United States should withdraw from Iraq. Find it in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy.
April 22, 2006. Historian Sean Willet assesses George Bush in this Rolling Stones' article. Objective and stunning.
April 22, 2006. According to a former CIA operative, Bush and Cheney were told by the Iraqi foreign minister, who was acting as a CIA spy six months before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam had no WMD programs. CIA director George Tenet personally delivered the message in September 2002 but was rebuffed three days later. Read more.
April 18, 2006. On April 11, 2006 voters in San Diego country gave a Democrat, Francine Busby the most votes, 44% to 15% for the leading Republican candidate, in a special election to pick a new representative for the 50th Congressional seat vacate by the imprisoned Randall "Duke" Cunningham. But it should have been better It should have been at least 50%. But apparently hold habits are hard to break. Even with a Republican Party riddled with corruption, and their former congressman the poster child for that corruption, this Californians are sticking to their party.
Part of the reason appears to be immigration. I worked four days down there campaigning and even though I cam in contact primarily with friendly Democrats, doing something to curb the perceived burdens caused by immigration was first and foremost on people's minds. Busby has in my view picked a firm but workable position by endorsing the McCain-Kennedy proposal offered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, b ut for many this just isn't strong enough.
The run-off for the seat is June 6, the same day as the primaries.
April 6, 2006 Most of us figured that Vice President Cheney had authorized the outing of CIA secret agent Valerie Plame, a dirty task apparently handled by Cheney's aide Scooty Libby. But recent documents filed with the court by Libby's lawyers reveal that the President also authorized the leaking of classified information in an attempt to undermine the credibility of critics of the war. Read more.
Feburary 3, 2006. The U.K.Guardian has again uncovered a gun with so much smoke coming out of it that the call for impeachment should be deafening. In this newly disclosed memo, President Bush told Prime Minister Tony Blair in a January 31, 2003 meeting that he planned to invade Iraq regardless of what the U.N. did and regardless of whether or not they found any weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair said he was solidly behind him.
Isn't this a complete contradiction to what the president was telling the public before and after January 2003? Aren't these lies that rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? Where is the outrage? Why aren't we impeaching this guy?
December 19, 2005 According to this Washington Post Article , from 1997 to 2002, the Republican controlled congress issued 1,052 subpoenas to the Clinton Administration or the Democratic Party. Since 2002, they have issued three to the Bush Administration. After getting blind sided by a growing list of embarrassments including the secret prisons in Europe and the latest NSA spying, the House has promised to take a more aggressive stance against the White House. We shall see.
November 18, 2005. Democrat Congressman John Murtha, a 37 year military veteran and highly respected leader, calls for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq within six months if possible. Despite many in his party in descent, including John Kerry and Harry Reid, Murtha predicts on the Meet the Press that American forces will be out of Iraq by mid term elections 2006.
November 15, 2005. John Edwards admited he was wrong to have voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq. In this Washington Post editorial, he becomes the first of hopefully a long line of Democratic Senators who have the courage to admit that their vote was a mistake.
October 25, 2005. Senator Leahy, one of only 23 senators to vote no on the authorization to use force in Iraq, appears to have enough of the deaths, lies and incompetence of the Bush Administration. On this anniversary of the 2,000th dead American soldier there, his speech hits home. Read it here.
October 2005 William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamrick, authors of "The Politics of Evasion", which helped Clinton to victory, have written the The P olitics of Polarization. Among many other things, the writers argue that the Democratic Party must move to the center. A lot of progressives, including Congresswoman Pelosi and not sure what to make of it, to say the least but it is the talk of the town.
September 17, 2005. The conservative Heritage Foundation has the answers for rebuilding New Orleans: Tax cuts, school vouchers and drilling for oil in Alaska, along with wiping out the death tax, environmental regulations and the miniumum wage. Huh?
September 11, 2005. Hurricane Katrina tells us what many have been saying for years: That federal cutbacks to state and local governments were going to costs the feds more in the end. Read this article in Outreach by William Rivers Pitt: Washing Away the Conservative Movement.
September 11, 2005. Not everyone is willing to let the 2004 voting fraud in Ohio rest. Thank god. Read this Harper Magazine article by Mark Crispin Millier, None Dare Call It Stolen.
For the 4th year in a row, poverty rose, this time by 1.1 million Americans and is now at 12.7%, it's highest level since 1998. for the first time in five years, household incomes dropped. The uninsured also went up. Read this article in this L.A. Times for more.
L.A. Times does a nice job of summarizing what most of us already know about the Plame Investigation, but also drops this bombshell: That Time Magazine withheld reporting what it knew to be true until after the election for fear of influencing the outcome.
Sent to International Herald Tribune
June 15, 2005
No matter which side of the Iraq debate one is on, hopefully all Americans can agree that the United States is governed by laws, not men.
This is why it is imperative that a full independent investigation be made into the evidence contained in the Downing Street Memo that President Bush had already made the decision to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002, and therefore his subsequent representations to the American people that war was avoidable were lies.
Taking a country to war is the most serious decision a president can make. If the bar for impeachment was set by President Clinton when he lied under oath about a personal matter, then Congress must, to avoid the appearance of a Republican dictatorship determine definitely if President Bush lied about something far more egregious. Everyone knows the reasons he gave for war were unfounded; we need to know if the falsehoods were deliberate. If they were, he must be punished, and hopefully, between the consequences of his actions and President Clinton’s, the next U.S. president will not be so cavalier with the law.
David Brooks claims that recent events in Western Europe discredit “large swaths of American liberalism". He thinks this is obvious. (Fear and Rejection, June 2, 2005)
What is obvious to me, is Mr. Brooks actually thinks that American’s economic system is anywhere close to Europe’s in terms of social program underpinnings. It is not.
On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being laissez-faire capitalism and 10 complete socialism, most of Western Europe is around 7-8, and the United States, thanks to Social Security and Medicare, is probably around 3, with the Bush Administration pushing for 2 or less for its favorite industries.
American liberals, by advocating a more secure America via moderate government programs such as social security, Medicare, public education and universal health care, and reasonable regulations on business such as a living minimum wage, are aiming at most for 5 on the economic scale. There is no comparison between what is happening in Europe and what could happen in America and no chance that America will ever get close to where Europe is now.
Startribune's Memorial Day editorial ask for forgiveness for sending our young to another war, like Vietnam that never should have happened.
Sent to L.A. Times, May 25, 2005
It appears Andres Martinez, (“the Berlin-Baghdad Connection”, May 25, 2005) is trying to pin the whole invasion of Iraq on German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, because Schroeder opposed German involvement in the war from day one. Hasn’t Mr. Martinez heard of the Downing Street Memo? This recently disclosed top secret memo from a British foreign policy aid proves that even as early as the summer of 2002 the Bush Administration had decided to use force against Iraq whether or not there was solid evidence of Iraq’s threat to the U.S. and whether or not other countries would help.
The more significant relationship to cause the war was the Blair-Baghdad connection. Without Blair’s support, Bush would not have had sufficient cover domestically to convince the country that war was a necessity. If Schroeder also had backed Bush's war plan, it only would have obscurred the fact that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law. Whether it was Schroeder by his side or Blair, Bush should be impeached for lying to his country and he and his cabal should be tried for war crimes.
There is a simple solution to the Social Security reform standoff: Create two funds, one which will remain invested in Treasury Bills and continue as a defined benefit or insurance plan, the other which will be permitted to diversify into other assets, and will be converted into a form of defined contribution plan. The later would be managed by an independent board of governors similar to the Federal Reserve Board. Give taxpayers the choice of which fund to direct their contributions, or a combination of the two, defaulting those who don’t choose to the traditional fund.
The benefits of such a change are numerous. If returns are higher as President Bush claims they should be, there will be no need for tax hikes or benefit cuts. Further, it aligns the interest of the workers with their employers and Wall Street, something that should be of interest to Republicans. It also let’s some of the record profits corporations are earning trickle down to the workers, whose wages have continued to fall behind.
This plan has no losers.
David Brooks is wrong about Social Security and the Democrat’s unwillingness to support the President’s new plan just because it is progressive (Calling Democrats Bluff, May 8, 2005).
Under Bush’s plan (a version of self-interested Mutual Fund manger Robert Pozen’s), anyone making more than $25,000 per year would see benefit cuts. People making an average of $36,500 per year would see a 28% cut. These are real numbers for real people. People the Democratic Party represent.
The Republican Party and people like Pozen represent Wall Street. And what they are interested in is the vast wealth that Social Security currently holds (some $1.7 trillion) and the even more wealth it’s going to accumulate ($5.3 trillion by 2018).
Let’s not get confused here. Social Security is loaded and Bush and his corporate buddies want a piece of it, just like they want a piece of Iraq’s oil (also worth about $5 trillion at today's prices).
April 14, 2005-Eighteen Senate and 73 House Democrats missed golden opportunities to show the country that the Democratic Party, not just a few champions like Barbara Boxer and John Kerry are fighting for the common man against corporate interests.
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 , besides being deceptively named is one of the grossest examples yet of Wall Street transferring its risk and responsibility onto the backs of the unfortunate. By framing their propaganda in such a way that average consumers think they are paying more in interest because of a few incidents of bankruptcy abuse, the credit card companies will soon have an opportunity to permanently pin down in financial servitude the other 95% of legitimate bankruptcy cases where the root cause is uninsured medical bills or job loss. Having just had their best year ever in 2004, with profits in excess of $30 billion, suddenly the few dollars this bill will save them will passed down to their customers in the form of reduced interest and fees? I don’t think so.
Democratic members of the Congress had no reason whatsoever to vote for this bill, unless they are also on the take from these corporate behemoths. If the Democrats ever want to be the majority party again, they must in unity support the people their party once gallantly protected. Biden, Inouye, Harry Reid et al: Shame on you.
April 5, 2005- Senator Bill Bradley provided a simple blueprint for the Democratic Party in his New York Times op-ed piece, "Party Inverted." He calls for a pyramid shaped structure where the Party is strong and stable at the bottom, so that it is not dependent on a charismatic leader at the top to save it. As he puts it, "A party based on charisma has no long-term impact."
According to political consultant Donnie Fowler, everything the Democratic Party needs to win is in Bradley's blueprint, except building the institutions, namely the DNC and state organizations. This is not completely surprising as Bradley always was the maverick, bucking the party machines. But if we assemble a pyramid of political, media and idea people with party institutions and the grassroots (my addition), the Democratic Party can once again be the majority party.
March 30, 2005 - No special election in November. No $70 million wasted so he can undermine teachers, state employees, nurses and anyone else he thinks he can bully. Visit California for Democracy or join the DemocracyAction's effort in Northern California to help us convince Californians not to sign the petitions.
Why
the Geneva Conventions Should Apply
Jim's Letter to San Francisco Chronicle Printed February 3, 2005
Robert J. Delahunty and John C. Yoo (Open Forum, “Geneva Convention isn’t the Last Word, Feb 2”) introduce new terms to the international lexicon that clears the way not only for future torture by the United States, which they unapologetically support, but future invasions by the U.S. as well.
From an apparently hyper nationalistic viewpoint, they have created a new classification of nations that they call pseudo-states: areas and populations that are controlled by “personal, clan or tribal rule”. They argue that, “the Geneva Convention makes little sense when applied to a terrorist group or pseudo state” and “will become increasingly obsolete.” They cite Hussein’s Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Saudi Arabia as examples of pseudo-states.
For those who oppose the United States’ move towards empire, their arguments are incredibly dangerous. They fail to see how abidance to the Geneva Convention is morally beyond dispute, and the benefits of adhering to international law, even against terrorist groups brings the U.S. respect and assistance from those who can help makes us secure. Acting on their theories could also be fatal to our democracy, as our government's disregard for the rule of law internationally will only lead to similar behavior at home, and eventually authoritarian rule.
POLICY PAPERS
A Pro-Life, Pro-choice Plan - Jim's plan to advance Democratic values, reduce abortions and win over voters.
Social Security as A Pension Plan--Jim's plan to let Social Security diversify, but not in the way the President wants.
An Argument for A New (or Revisited) Kind of Liberalism. Jim's comments on Peter Beinart's Article
RECENT
ARTICLES OF IMMEDIATE IMPORTANCE
LETTERS
Jim's Letters.
Letters to the Editor on a variety of political issues. Jim's
Letter to Simon Rosenberg re direction of the DNC. Jim's
Letter Regarding Democrats and Abortion. December 29, 2004> ECONOMICS
Historical
U.S. Budget Growth-Social Security, Medicare and Defense JOHN KERRY (I know it's over,
but the truth is still important.)
John
Kerry's Speech to the Senate on the Iraq Resolution. COMMENT
Predictions.
Jim's prediction of what four more years of Bush will bring. Three
things Kerry could have said to win the election. January 1, 2005 Jim's
comments About Simon Rosenberg-After meeting him. WMD
to Soft Imperialism. Jim's take on the American invasion of Iraq.<
Social Security May Be Too Rich
According to the Social Security Administration's latest financial statements and short term projections, by 2013, the funds held by the trust will be $3.9 trillion, a $2.3 trillion increase from its current $1.6 trillion. It seems very possible that the real objection by the Bush Adminstration is not that the fund will be broke, but that the federal government will have to pay back what it borrows. Either that, or they just cringe at the idea of that much money leaving the economy without private for-profit corporations getting a piece of it, much like they have taken billions from the war appropriations.
How Kerry could have won.
Proved his anti-abortion beliefs by framing a Pro Life Policy based upon economic prosperity and universal health care. In other words, turning poor girls into middle class mothers. Jim's Pro-Life Plan.
Heavily marketed his hawkish fiscal credentials--one of the best in the senate--to fiscal conservatives in both parties.
Said "No, I would have voted no on the war resolution knowing what I know now." This was a huge missed opportunity.
To read more click here.
The Right's Secret Weapon: Bigotry.
On election night in Kentucky after a day phone dispatching in Cincinnati for Kerry the Avis clerk who took my rental car said to me, "Did you vote?" "Yes," I said. "Well," he said, preparing me with his eyes for a shocker. "I couldn't believe how complicated the ballot was. There was this one initiative on the ballot that wanted me to give all my rights to gays!"
That was when I knew Kerry was in trouble.