Enough with Political Allegiance

As evidenced by the spectacular failures regarding intelligence, the war in Iraq, Katrina, and energy policy, the Bush administration has pursued a policy of rewarding slavish political allegiance ahead of merit and open, constructive debate. In the latest example, the Justice Department’s own inspector general has found that political affiliation has been used, illegally, as a screening criterion for recruiting programs aimed at attracting highly qualified candidates to the Justice Department. The facts are crystal clear—the report found that applicants with Democratic affiliation were turned away “at a significantly higher rate” than candidates with Republican ties.

The relevance of these facts is that Fairfield County’s representative in Congress, Christopher Shays, has steadfastly stood by Bush throughout his tenure in office. While Shays may have expressed muted disagreement here and there, he has not evidenced the independent, principled thinking that we need to solve the many crises that threaten our country. He has strongly supported Bush on disproportionate tax breaks for the wealthy, violating constitutional protections in the name of national security, and waging a war in Iraq that has done anything but made the U.S. more secure. Like so many other Bush loyalists, Shays is unable or unwilling to break free from President Bush and his ill-conceived policies.

Fortunately, it’s within our power to break free from Christopher Shays. With Jim Himes, running for Congress in the Connecticut 4th District, we have an intelligent, independent and socially conscious candidate who can help set America back on course. I urge voters in the 4th District to learn more about Jim Himes in what Time Magazine is calling one of the top 15 Congressional races to watch.

McCain's Economic Illiteracy

By his own admission (to the Wall Street Journal in 2005 and The Boston Globe in 2007, see John McCain on Meet the Press) John McCain is not an expert on economic policy. If anybody doubts this, he proved it with his remarks about the recent employment report. In response to the loss of 80,000 jobs in March, McCain, in a  press release, called for lower taxes and less regulation as a solution to creating job growth.

Under the current administration, overall federal income tax rates are at historically low levels. Yet the overall growth rate of private sector employment during George W. Bush’s administration is the second worst performance since World War II (his dad gets honors for the worst performance). Contrast this with the Clinton record, where despite tax increases, job growth outpaced Bush’s record by a factor of four. This certainly dispels the Republican mantra that the only way to grow the economy is by cutting taxes.

As for less regulation, the cause of the current financial market distress appears to be completely lost on the Republican nominee for president. More, not less, regulatory oversight of the subprime mortgage market could have reigned in the excesses of the imprudent lending and financing practices that are the very cause of the economic downturn that McCain believes less regulation would alleviate.

Regulation serves the purpose of policing markets where the actions of individual players can harm more than just themselves. Surely the current situation, where the reckless actions of companies like Bear Stearns are driving the economy into recession and seriously threatening the stability of financial markets, is proof positive of the need for regulation.

So when John McCain says “The American people cannot afford the Democrats and their economic leadership”, you might want to think twice. It’s time to put somebody in the White House who will put aside dogma in favor of an informed economic policy. Clearly that person is not John McCain.

A Quick Note to Joe Lieberman

While the Senate is still in the midst of debating how much unchecked power to grant the Bush administration as it continues to trample on our civil liberties, I shot off this note to CT Senator and ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman. I don't have much hope that he'll listen, but that's never stopped me from speaking out...

Dear Senator Lieberman:

As the Senate debates the reauthorization of President Bush's warantless eavesdropping program, I urge you to do everything you can to protect the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. The actions of the Bush administration have been anathema to those of us who believe the President does not have the right to trample on the Constitution in the name of national security. Frankly, I am extremely disappointed in your frequent support of Bush policies. In this case I hope you put the Constitution ahead of Bush's ill-conceived policies to protect the U.S. against the threat of Islamic extremism. And that should include voting against any immunity for telecommunications companies that forked over private records without warrants.

Mukasey: Another Attorney General Like Gonzales?

There is now well-documented evidence that the Bush administration is running roughshod over the rule of law, demonstrated by actions such as its warrantless wiretapping and repeated court rebuffs on military tribunals. It is also clear that President Bush has seriously damaged the United States’ moral authority through use of torture, withholding the right to challenge detention and extraordinary rendition.

I would have therefore expected that the Democratic-led Congress would demand that Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey unambiguously declare his opposition to these policies. But the apparent green light from the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward on the nomination is not reassuring.

As it is clear from Mukasey’s testimony that he cannot be trusted to return integrity to the Department of Justice, he should not be confirmed.

Mukasey has been unable to decide if the practice of waterboarding is torture. Despite the fact that the State Department has criticized other countries for using it. Despite the fact that after World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for engaging in the practice against U.S. soldiers. Despite that fact that U.S. military officials have called it torture. Even administration apologist Senator John McCain has called it “very exquisite torture.” If Mukasey’s powers of inquiry are so feeble that he can’t collect the facts he needs to come to a decision, then surely he isn’t fit to lead the nation’s law enforcement activities.

Mukasey’s view of executive privilege has more far-reaching consequences for the principles which are the cornerstone of our country’s moral clarity—namely the rule of law. In his testimony, Mukasey stated that it is acceptable for the President to violate laws written by Congress, as long as his actions are within the Constitution. That is dangerous thinking for a country founded upon the separation of powers. It is precisely this arrogance on the part of the Bush administration—that believes it can ignore, rather than challenge, the legislative branch—that is seriously eroding the protection of our constitutional and civil rights.

Hopefully the Democratic controlled Congress will stand up to Bush’s attacks on our country’s principles—as the electorate signaled they wanted last November—by refusing to support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.

Threatening American values: flag burning and torture

Which do you think is the greater threat to American values: the protester who burns an American flag, or a President who, by all indications, has consistently and flagrantly violated U.S. laws and international treaties? From the righteous speeches by Republican Senators in support of a constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag, you would think it was the former.

Would that these same “defenders” of our constitution were equally vigorous in protecting us from the excesses of the Bush administration’s grab for unchecked executive power. Whether it involves warrantless domestic spying, secret investigation of Americans’ phone and banking records, claiming (and exercising) the right to imprison anybody, indefinitely, with no right to due process, or condoning torture, the Republican Congress has acquiesced, even defended, President Bush’s desire to do virtually anything he wants in the war on terror, unchecked by Congressional oversight or judicial review.

To me, that is far more sinister than the individual who chooses to burn the American flag, as unseemly as that is. But the Republican Congress is more intent on finding ways to call its opponents unpatriotic – for anybody who dares to disagree with it – than it is on taking President Bush to task for the enormous damage he has done to our country’s values and reputation.

Katrina getting in the way of tax cuts, no way!

President Bush stated that the federal government will do its share to help the victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But, he also spoke of the importance of having the American people do their share by contributing privately.

While I support charitable contributions, and have myself contributed to the relief effort, perhaps the need for private support would not be so great if President Bush had not given billions of dollars of tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans, gutting federal resources. As if a deficit exceeding $400 billion (one of the highest on record) is not enough of a wake up call for more prudent fiscal management, the administration and Republican leadership is still pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, an additional $745 billion gift over ten years to the richest Americans.

The next time Bush calls for private support, perhaps he should address just the recipients of his largess, since for the vast majority of Americans, household incomes have failed to increase over the past five years, as reported by the Census Bureau. That’s a new record, neatly coinciding with the term of the Bush presidency.

Bush report on human rights. Look in the mirror.

Dear President Bush:

I read with astonishment the findings of the State Department's report on human rights, which calls attention to abuses by the Iraqi Government. Your policies and actions in regard to human rights, juxtaposed against
this report, represent the height of hypocrisy. While you point the finger at other countries' human rights violations, you are engaged in similar, if not as egregious, activities.

You send individuals to the very countries cited for torture (Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) in secrecy, with no due process. You have held a US citizen in detention for almost three years without bringing any charges. You are holding hundreds of foreigners at Guantanamo as virtual prisoners of war with little to no evidence that they were in fact involved in terrorist activities.

I want the United States to take an extremely aggressive stand on the war on terror. Yet your arrogant disregard for the values of our country are doing irreparable harm to my country's ability to push for human rights around the world, and are bringing into question the very meaning of being an American. Meanwhile, your obsession with Iraq has left our homeland dangerously unprotected, as evidenced by the recent report on port security.

Court after court have repudiated your belief that the United States can flout the Constitution as you prosecute the war on terror. Yet, oblivious to why your actions are so repugnant, you continue on.

I urge you to reflect on what it means to protect the values of the United States that you insist you are fighting for. You should call for an immediate end to extraordinary rendition, lack of due process and
interrogation techniques that rely on torture. And, you should hold those who have propagated these practices to account, including your Secretary of Defense and newly appointed Attorney General. It is a disgrace to the
reputation of the United States that you would even consider including these two men in your administration, let alone cite them for their service to the nation.

Questioning Bush isn't unpatriotic

There has been a consistent theme running through the Bush campaign that is very disturbing, and should give pause to any voter who is still undecided. Which is: if you disagree with how the Bush administration is prosecuting the war on terror, you are unpatriotic and not supportive of our troops. A cornerstone of American values is the right to challenge our government, enshrined in the first amendment’s right of free speech. While we fight the war on terror to preserve our liberties, Bush is subverting these very values here at home.

I do not question President Bush’s determination to fight the war on terror. But I support John Kerry for president because I believe he has a more sound approach for winning this war – based on the realization that the United States is stronger when it has strong alliances, that we are more likely to succeed when we consider the implications of our actions (planning for the peace, not just the battle), and holding ourselves to the very highest standards of proof and imminent threat when we commit our country to war – which puts our troops in harm’s way and kills innocent civilians.

President Bush has fallen short on all these accounts. There are no weapons of mass destruction – so there was no imminent threat to American security, or the ability to arm terrorists. There is convincing evidence that intelligence was manipulated to make the case for war. Now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity – and over 1,000 Americans have died as a result. Meanwhile, there is a resurgent and very real threat of Taliban and Al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan, where we have only 10 percent of the number of troops that are tied down in Iraq. No progress has been made on disarming North Korea, a real nuclear threat. Insufficient efforts are being taken to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. These facts do not attest to strong leadership in the war on terror.

We are blessed that we have the right to challenge our leaders in order to make the United States a better, safer country – and I will exercise that right by voting for John Kerry for president.