Something to think about, pass it on and BaROCK the Vote!
For at least six years, as I've become increasingly frustrated by the Bush administration's repeated betrayal of constitutional -- and conservative -- principles, I have defended Vice President Cheney, a man I've known for decades and with whom I served and made common cause in Congress. No longer.
I do not blame Dick Cheney for George W. Bush's transgressions; the president needs no prompting to wrap himself in the cloak of a modern-day king. Nor do I believe that the vice president so enthusiastically supports the Iraq war out of a loyalty to the oil industry that his former employer serves. By all accounts, Cheney's belief in "the military option" and the principle of president-as-decider predates his affiliation with Halliburton.
What, then, is the straw that causes me to finally consign a man I served with in the House Republican leadership to the category of "those about whom we should be greatly concerned"?
It is Cheney's all-too-revealing conversation this week with ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz. On Wednesday, reminded of the public's disapproval of the war in Iraq, now five years old, the vice president shrugged off that fact (and thus, the people themselves) with a one-word answer: "So?"
"So," Mr. Vice President?
Policy, Cheney went on to say, should not be tailored to fit fluctuations in the public attitudes. If there is one thing public attitudes have not been doing, however, it is fluctuating: Resistance to the Bush administration's Iraq policy has been widespread, entrenched and consistent. Whether public opinion is right or wrong, it is not to be cavalierly dismissed.
I recently had the opportunity to address a group of high school students visiting Washington with Presidential Classroom, an organization that teaches citizenship and encourages participation in the public sphere. One of those students asked me what, in my 16 years in Congress, had been my most difficult decision.
It was not a question that required much reflection -- in 1990, as chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on foreign operations, I played a leading role in gaining congressional authorization for the Persian Gulf War.
The decision to go to war, I told the students -- to send young Americans off to battle, knowing that some will die -- is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation's Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress.
Cheney told Raddatz that American war policy should not be affected by the views of the people. But that is precisely whose views should matter: It is the people who should decide whether the nation shall go to war. That is not a radical, or liberal, or unpatriotic idea. It is the very heart of America's constitutional system.
In Europe, before America's founding, there were rulers and their subjects. The Founders decided that in the United States there would be not subjects but citizens. Rulers tell their subjects what to do, but citizens tell their government what to do.
If Dick Cheney believes, as he obviously does, that the war in Iraq is vital to American interests, it is his job, and that of President Bush, to make the case with sufficient proof to win the necessary public support.
That is the difference between a strong president (one who leads) and a strong presidency (one in which ultimate power resides in the hands of a single person). Bush is officially America's "head of state," but he is not the head of government; he is the head of one branch of our government, and it's not the branch that decides on war and peace.
When the vice president dismisses public opposition to war with a simple "So?" he violates the single most important element in the American system of government: Here, the people rule.
Mickey Edwards, a lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, served in the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993. He is the author of "Reclaiming Conservatism."
How many times have you heard in conversation someone telling you about something that happened and in that discussion they state the color or race of the person involved? You know, it goes something like this; "Did you hear about the (black guy, Mexican) that ....." as if stateing the race of the person makes the story more interesting? I'll call it unintended racial slur. It's unintended because the person telling the story more than likely doesn't think they're a racist, but without thinking about it they are making a racial comment simply by feeling the need to specify the race of the subject involved. I am a 47 year old white person and I can tell you I've made it a challenge to myself to not only NOT include a racial discription in my conversation but to call out those that do. It's been an interesting experiment. Just yesterday I was going to the bank with a co-worker and she told a story about something that had happened In her story she mentioned the race of the individual as part of the story, not the focus of the story, but part of it. I listened to her story and rather than continue with my own experience of something simular, I asked her why she mentioned it was a "black guy" in her story. This young lady is white and 25 years old. She sort of looked funny at me and became defensive. "It wasn't a racial thing." I relieved her guilt by understanding she didn't mean it that way. I think it's the first time anyone had mentioned her use of racial discriptors in her conversations with others. We got into a discussion about how her parents brought her up and she acknowleged that her parents might have been a little racial. She also noted that she didn't live in the best of area's and that the crime in her neighborhood was coming from the black people so it was natural for her to assume people of color were usually doing bad things. I can't fault her for this feeling but I did ask her to think about how the black person might feel when the white person "naturally" deep down fears the black person just because of envirornmental circumstances and in simple discussions she mentions race as a discriptor, thereby continueing the stereotype. My goal in pointing this simple idea to her was that not only will she THINK about what she is saying, but she will see it in others as well and maybe, just maybe, she'll see the light. It's "WE THE PEOPLE." We are Americans. We are not Black, we are not Latino, we are not Gay, we are not Asian. WE ARE AMERICANS!
I think Barack is trying to address exactly this kind of thing. When he mentioned the "typical white person" it's true! They just don't realize it. So here is my challenge. When you hear someone casually use a racial discriptor CALL THEM OUT! One person CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE, oh YES WE CAN!
This is a great article that everyone should read!
BaROCK the Vote!
David
Tonight on MSMBC Congressman Kingston (R)GA confirmed for me one of the reasons I know Barack Obama is the right man for our future. The Republican strategy (very much like the Clinton strategy) of throwing cheap shots rather than talking issues needs to be addressed as best as we can. I wrote the following to the Congressman to let him know how I felt. I would recommend as many as possible do the same!
Barack the Vote
Congressman Kingston,I find your display of partisan "banter" as stated on MSNBC last night to be the most "high school" of behavior imaginable and a disgrace to the office you were elected to. Sir, it is this very kind of offensive behavior on the part of elected officials that a majority of Americans are so sick and tired of. Would you all PLEASE GROW UP! The patriotic thing for you to do sir is your job. Your questioning another on patriotism because they don't have a lapel button on is NOT even a remote definition of what a patriot is. The fact that you did not have a lapel pin of the flag on while questioning another's patriotism only confirms the hypocrite you are. I am leaving the Republican Party because of Republicans like you sir. My family has been Republican since the party was founded and can't understand why the Republican Party and all the "patriots" within that party don't seem to understand why they are loosing ground. I can tell you your behavior, or as you liked to call it, "banter", is one of the TOP TEN REASONS! I am now an Independent and will only vote for people that talk about issues, not "banter".
Below is an excerp from a Time article about Valli, an organizer at the Columbus Obama Headquarters that I thought everyone would love! Valli, like so many, has dedicated herself to our moment in history and it's nice to see recognition. It is because of people like Valli that Barack has a chance in Ohio and I'd like to thank her for being such a great example of what one person can do, the extrodinary! I do the best I can and thank God for people like Valli!
"But it could be getting a bit late for that. All winter, the heart of Hillary Clinton's campaign in central Ohio was Jamie Dixey's apartment in the affluent Columbus suburb of New Albany. She started by inviting nine friends over to listen in on a national conference call with Clinton. She organized two monthly meetings, both of which attracted about 10 people. "It was very hard to get people interested because it was so early," Dixey says. In the world of traditional Democratic Party campaigns, this was enough to qualify Dixey as a star volunteer. She won an invitation to Governor Ted Strickland's rally on Jan. 19 formally kicking off Clinton's grassroots campaign in Ohio.
Dixey's counterpart on the Obama campaign, Valli Frausto, signed up to volunteer for Obama on Feb. 11, 2007, the day after he announced his candidacy. Immediately she found the social networking section of Obama's website, my.barackobama.com, which campaign insiders affectionately call "MyBO." Frausto posted a personal profile, just as she would on MySpace, and met other supporters online. Within six months, her group of three women had grown to over 200 members. Together they used the website's event planning tools to organize Obama for President picnics, neighborhood cleanups, phone banks and a 5K fundraiser run"
David.
Thought everyone would love this, a great way for Hillary to start changing the world!
February 15, 2008 Read More: Hillary Clinton
Putin vs. Clinton
When Hillary Clinton said, way back in New Hampshire, that Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a soul," I figured that would be the sort of thing the Russian wouldn't be pleased about. But when I called the foreign ministry the next day for comment, it was Orthodox Christmas, and I let it slide.
He was asked about the remark at his press conference yesterday, however, and indeed wasn't pleased.
The former KGB lieutenant colonel appeared to lash out at U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton — a leading Democratic candidate for president — when one reporter quoted her as saying that former KGB officers have no soul:
"At a minimum, a head of state should have a head," Putin said.
Great start at leading!
Wow, our guy continues to win and eat away at the percieved Clinton area's of strengh. With the Potomic primaries going to Barack, we more than likely will get a small lead in delegates. A small lead will not get the nomination and OHIO is going to be the state that puts Barack in the White House. Lets do EVERYTHING we can to make sure that happens!
Ba ROCK the VOTE!
Hi all, I think you will find this article fitting about our guy!
Every time I watch Barack in action I get chills! lol, sounds silly I know, but wow! I especially loved the way Edwards and Hucky were so supportive of our guy. Hope to see you on Tuesday, January 8 at 6:00 PM - 3 hours Location: Byrne's Pub 1248 W. Third Columbus, OH 43212 to watch the NH primary results come in!
In my lifetime I have seen our country continue to learn from the wonder our Constitution is. Who would have thought a short 20 years ago that a woman or a black man could be viable canidates for the highest office in our land! Yet here we are in 2008 with just that happening! It is our ability to change and grow with the ever-changing world that our founding fathers planned so well for when they wrote the Constitution. As much as I admire Hillary Clinton for where she as gotten and any thinking person would have to give her at least that much credit, what she lacks is the INSPERATION AND HOPE that Barack offers! What a great speech in Iowa! I've never gotten involved directly in politics, but this man has GOT ME GETTING INVOLVED! I was 3 years old when Kennedy was President and couldn't understand what INSPERATION AND HOPE were all about. I don't think we have had this kind of energy out there since Kennedy's time! NOW I GET IT! Anyone else thinking this way?
DAG
