Hilary won't be able to hide from this one...

Ok, it takes alot to really tick me off, and even more to actually question whether or not I will support the Democratic nominee for President should it be Hilary Clinton. Up to now, I would be likely to say yes to that. Now, I'm not so sure. Whether I should have been or not, I was completely taken aback by Clinton's yes vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. For those not familiar with this scary piece of legislation, here's a little breakdown of it. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment states that:

It is the sense of the Senate...

that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph

3 with respect to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization...


Does this amendment say "let's go attack Iran?" No, but it opens the door to a president who has repeatedly demonstrated that he will run a mile if allowed an inch. Cheney has been chomping at the bit for YEARS for an excuse to go after Iran. He now has his opening. In addition, take a look at the last sentence of the resolution. We have now designated a large portion of the military of another nation as "terrorists". Aside from what your personal feelings about Iran may be, there are tremendous implications for this kind of statement. First of all, in modern times, I don't think there is a precedent for this. We have labeled a large segment of a sovereign nation's defense as a terroist organization, and as we have repeatedly demonstrated, that means we, as a nation, claim cart blanche in actions available to us in this "war" on terror. This move opens up a hornet's nest of future possibilities for other nations, as well. What's to stop some despotic government from declaring the military of a foe as terrorists and circumventing international law? Or even more "respectable" nations? How much of a reach would it now be for Israel to declare the Lebanese army a terrorist organization, or visa versa? The specific linking of Hezbollah to Iran is especially troubling. It is insane.

Now, back to my initial point! Hilary Clinton, after declaring no more money with a timeline, and talking up a good game about the rule of law, etc., voted in favor of the amendment. Just who's rule of law is she referring to? Obviously not that of a sovereign nation. For me, Clinton has definitively shown her hawkish similarities to the Bush White House. I cannot support that in the president that I want to lead me. I've had reservations. Now I don't.

Whether Iran is an "evil" country, or not (please...), an incredibly dangerous precedent has now been set, and I can guarantee that this administration will find a way to run with it. Five or six years from now, Clinton won't be able to claim faulty information, or lack of facts. She knows exactly what she voted for today.

Patience is a virtue...right?

Through studying at least part of what goes on at the federal level, how Congress works, etc., I've gained at least some patience with the speed, or lack thereof, with which things move, and the minutia involved in every step of the legislative process. I mean, on average there are over 10,000 bills introduced in Congress EACH year. That is alot to deal with, nevermind oversight and budgetary responsibilities. While I may understand the volume of work that Congress has to contend with everyday (try looking at a senator's daily schedule sometime), I have to question some of their priorities. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic Majority Leader in the House of Representative has a really useful email service where a daily list of what bills, debates and votes are scheduled for a particular day. It includes resolution numbers, which comes in handy when contacting Congressional representatives.For example, some of the "pressing" issues that the House will be dealing with tomorrow include

• 
  Encouraging participation in hunting and fishing, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Hunting and Fishing Day and the efforts of hunters and fishermen toward the scientific management of wildlife and conservation of the natural environment (Rep. Gillibrand – Natural Resources)
• 
  The 75th anniversary of Brookgreen Gardens in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina (Rep. Henry Brown – Natural Resources)
• 
  Supporting the goals and ideals of "National Life Insurance Awareness Month" (Rep. Biggert – Oversight and Government Reform)
• 
  Recognizing the establishment of Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States and the contributions of those programs efforts to decrease hunger and help feed those in need (Rep. Gingrey – Agriculture)
  
  to name a few. Admittedly, there are a couple that need to be taken care of, like The Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2007 (Rep. Rangel – Ways and Means)and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (Sen. Harkin – Agriculture). I realize that the daily business of the country still needs to be attended to in between hearings and investigations but come on. An anniversary for a garden and life insurance? There has GOT to be a better way to prioritize the time spent for our elected officials, beyond earning brownie points with local constituencies. If we want Congress to reflect our priorities, and act on them, than we need to stop wasting their time with small, localized issues that are better handled at the state level. No wonder people have the impression that nothing ever gets done.
  
  
  
  

The Oregon Food Bank Needs Our Help

The Oregonian (OregonLive.com) ran a piece a couple of days ago, that Andrew over at BlueOregon brought to our attention. According to Rachel Bristol, chief executive officer,

"The entire statewide Oregon Food Bank network of regional food

banks and the 900 local agencies we serve throughout Oregon

and Southwest Washington are feeling the impact."

According to the article, the OFB has less than half its normal weekly supply of food stuffs, and their freezers, which normally hold back up foods, are empty. Going into the holiday season, when there is normally a sharp spike in the need for food, this is frightening. A substantial drop in product from the USDA combined with consistent increases in demand from struggling families is resulting in an emergency situation. Even with its fund-raising and normal outreach, for the OFB to put out a specific call for help to the public says something, because it is a rare occurrence. They are asking for help from us. Show your gratitude for what you have and do what you can.

Constitutional Crisis?

I know the "Constitutional crisis" alarm has almost been overplayed, but the developing ballot measure issue in California does have potential for spurring a real issue here. The "Presidential Election Reform Act", as it is called is expected to make it on the ballot in California, proposes to change California's electoral vote distribution from its current form (all electoral votes go to the Presidential candidate who wins the popular vote state-wide) to a distribution based on who wins in particular districts. Bob Herbert has a great article in today's New York Times about the entire situation and motives of the measure's backers, not to mention repercussions. Because it is still in the signature-gathering phase, it has not been given a measure number.

As someone who lives in a state with the ballot measure system, I've seen first-hand the tremendous abuse that occurs around ballot measures. Intended to give citizens a real voice in the laws of their state, the system has fallen prey to outside and narrow-minded interests. Many of these measures are written purposely in language that confuses and misleads voters. It is not uncommon for voters to read short summaries, or even the title of a measure and base their decision on that, without any real awareness of what the measure actually does. Many initiative sponsors bank on voters not having the time or the inclination to know what it is that they are really voting for. The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive “think-and-do tank” for ballot measure research and strategic campaign support, is an excellent resource for keeping up on measures around the country, who is sponsoring them, background information and specifics about the measures. BISC does not claim to be non-partisan, but I've never seen any indication of support for any particular party.

I am a supporter of the spirit of the ballot measure system, but major work needs to be done to establish stronger safeguards against abuse, and to educate voters on how to read and understand the measures when presented with them.

Constitution Day

I know I'm a bit late posting but everyday is Constitution Day for me so it works.

Constitution Day (formerly known as Citizen's Day) was created by Congress in 2004. It was the brainchild of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket. The law requires any school and college receiving federal money to teach about the Constitution on or about Sept. 17.

This day is set aside to celebrate the following (from about.com):

On September 17, 1787, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention held their final meeting. Only one item of business occupied the agenda that day, to sign the Constitution of the United States of America.

After being signed in September of 1787, Congress sent printed copies of the Constitution to the state legislatures for ratification. In the months that followed, James Madison (my personal fave Founder), Alexander Hamilton and John Jay would write the Federalist Papers in support, while Patrick Henry, Elbridge Gerry, and George Mason would organize the opposition to the new Constitution. By June 21, 1788, nine states had approved the Constitution, finally forming "a more perfect Union."

No matter how much we argue about the details of its meaning today, in the opinion of many, the Constitution signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787 represents the greatest expression of statesmanship and compromise ever written. In just four hand-written pages, the Constitution gives us no less than the owners' manual to the greatest form of government the world has ever known. We have no tribal council, nor can we vote anybody off the island. But, we do live in the land of the free, and as long as the Constitution stands, we always will.


Although I am a solid John Edwards supporter, I have alot of respect and admiration for Chris Dodd both as a senator and as a candidate. Along with Patrick Leahy, Dodd has introduced a resolution restoring Habeas Corpus. He has this to say about it:

... I've said it before but the issue is too important to not repeat here: I pledge that if elected I will restore the Constitution of the United States in my first hour in office. I won't wait until then to take action and I'm committed to leading to restore the Constitution from my place in the Senate. This week I am working with my colleague Patrick Leahy to restore habeas corpus and I'll need your help.

But first I want to tell you why the Constitution is something that I value so dearly and why I'm making restoring it a central part of my campaign for the presidency.

I was raised in a household were the rule of law was treated as the most important issue facing a government (my father, Thomas Dodd, was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials). Every day, I carry with me a copy of the Constitution of United States, given to me twenty-six years ago by my colleague Robert Byrd. And yet today, I am running for President on a platform of restoring the Constitution. I had never dreamed that the day would come when a candidate for our nation's highest office would have to campaign on restoring the balance of powers, the rule of law set forth in our most cherished document. ... .. ... ..

We have an opportunity to pass legislation this week which will reverse one of the most damaging parts of the Military Commissions Act and put us on a path towards restoring the Constitution.

We'll start at the top: restoring habeas corpus. This week's debate on the Defense Authorization bill will include a vote on the Leahy-Specter-Dodd Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment.

Congress will need to hear your voices as this debate takes place. I'll keep fighting, but Senator Leahy and I need you by our side. Sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.

Go to http://restore-habeas.org, add your name to the list of Americans who want their Constitution back, and tell your family, friends, and neighbors to do the same. You can also call my colleagues in the Senate and tell your Senators that you want them to vote to restore habeas. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. ... ..

If you haven't signed on as a citizen co-sponsor, please do. if you haven't contacted your senators, please do. The Senate is expected to debate and vote on Habeas Corpus this week. It is a much needed restoration of one of the most basic principles placed in the Constitution by its authors

.

Give 'em hell Murtha

Representative John Murtha gave a speech at the National Press Club (ironic seeing as how the press isn't sharing much of it). Here is what he had to say:

If you look back at what Napoleon learned in Spain, what the French learned

in Indo-China and Algeria, what the Soviets learned in Afghanistan,

and what the U.S. learned in Vietnam, the lessons of history are clear:

there is a limitation to military power.

Economic, political and diplomatic challenges must be solved.

They can’t be solved by military means and they shouldn’t be distorted by rhetoric.

Rhetoric, spin and slogans do not win wars.

Likewise, the war in Iraq will not be won with charts,

projections or sound bytes saying, "we will return on success."

The Administration claims we are witnessing another turning point in Iraq.

They claim progress is being made and now

depending upon the "conditions on the ground," more troops will come home.

But we have heard this before.

The same predictions were made with Saddam’s capture,

the adoption of the constitution, with national elections,

and with the capture and killing of several terrorists in Iraq.

A week ago on a Sunday talk show,

a reporter expounded on a personal moment

with the President in the White House when she

asked him, "Mr. President, how do you continue to

press forward when the war is so unpopular and

things seem to be going so wrong in Iraq?"

The President responded, "Because I am right."

Right about what Mr. President?
Right about weapons of mass destruction?
Right about Saddam’s involvement in 9-11?
Right about mission accomplished?
Right about thinking he could fight this war on the cheap?
Right at the ease at which Iraq could be transformed into a pillar of democracy?

How hard is it to learn from history? And how much longer can people in this country stand to be lied to, and insulted? I mean, really...
And here is the rest of it.