Thursday, April 17, 2008
I am sensing a trend here. And it crosses both sides of the political "aisle" so I can't complain right? That is what a political pundit or even an "activist" journalist might say. But I am not beholden to partisan co-workers or corporate advertisers while writing. I am appalled at the state of our democracy and how candidates for US Congress can choose to beg for money but not state where they stand on issues.
My initial statement on this issue was Jackie Speier, whose supporters have attacked me for blogging about their most worthy candidate because she begged me for money for months. When you beg for money you should state your issues. Some of what her website now states as her issues were taken from e-mails I sent her, and that is fine with me. ( In example energy is a national security issue. )
Speir fans should take note, she has a photo of soldiers wearing DCUs on your website. Those have been out of commission since 2005, maybe you haven't heard about ACUs, but that is what the ARMY wears now. But her thoughts on Iraq are like Hillary Clinton's: fund the war indefinitely and end the war someday over the rainbow.
Now we have a Republican running against John Kerry in Massachusetts for US Senate. He has no issues page at all. The Speier fans went into a frenzy claiming I couldn't justify saying she was a non-issue candidate because she now has issue statement. Well, she didn't for 3 months while she badgered me for money. Now Mr. Ogonowski is begging and has no issues page at all. Unlike Ms. Speier who had one but each page stated a synonym of "coming soon. " At least she tried.
Mr. Ogonowski makes a cheap flash movie on John Kerry and tests its fund-raising ability. Nice way to run a campaign! So what do you stand for again? Oh, whoever gives you the most money can decide. Very Major-Party-like of you.
So to "prove" that he has no issues, I have taken an image of his website and will post it here. At least we know that West Coast Democrats and East Coast Republicans have something in common: they want money and power and won't let the public truly know how they will use it. And immigrants think America is less corrupt than their homeland!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
It is generally believed that Obama will win the Democrat Party nomination for president. Yet Hillary continues to run while some would like her to drop out. I think it foolish for anyone to drop out if they are to attain the highest office of the Executive Branch. Dennis Kucinich would still be in the race had he not received competition for his seat in the U.S. House. Hillary should also stay in for all the women who want to see her win, and for the sexist men who think no woman can fill the role.
But it is hard to forget that this is not just any woman but Hillary Clinton. And it is not hard to forget what wing of the Democrat Party she represents: the right. She is part of the Democratic Leadership Council or DLC. These are essentially the Neocons who never left the Democrat Party. Few realize it was initially Hillary Clinton who claimed Iraq and 9-11 were somehow connected. Few know that it was Clinton's speech after 9-11 that was plagiarized continually by Bush to calm the American people. And it is with this mentality that the DLC and the Neocons wish to continue the American Empire and its wars further in this century.
Then there is Barack Obama. The strongest organization that he associates with, and few know of, is the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Obama is pushing for a bill in the Senate that Keith Ellison is in the House: a Global Marshall Plan. Rather than funding the Iraq War or any other such waste, the Global Marshall Plan would enable the billions of poor humans opportunities many of us take for granted: free primary education, vaccines for malaria, adequate food, etc. This would prevent not only future resource wars, but allow humanity to recover from impoverishment and be given the tools to make wiser decisions.
The DLC knows that Obama belongs to a wing of the party opposed to its strategies. But the also know that Obama is beholden to party interests and maintaining the "big tent" strategy of the main two parties. They have a quite simple goal if Hillary is not going to win: ensure that his running mate is a member of the DLC. If he were willing to do this already, Hillary would have little reason to continue running. But I suspect he has not given in, just as he did not cave to the money of PACs or Corporations.
There are many positions that I disagree with the Obama campaign on. But if he solidifies the chasm of difference between the DLC and the party in the Executive Branch, then he has made a positive impact on American politics. Let us not forget that the Republican version of the DLC is known as the Project for a New American Century with George W. Bush as their current leader. We need a better vision of the future, rather than a war-mongering corporate Empire.