A Republican with A Conscience—What A Concept!

So Scott McClellan has a conscience. What a concept—a member of the take-no-prisoners-Republican party has a conscience. It would be refreshing if it wasn’t so pathetic.

McClellan is a Texan. He knew George W. Bush. I don’t buy that “out of the loop,” “I was a poor innocent,” pap. That’s as believable as George Bush, Sr.’s claim he was out of the loop on Iran-Contra, or Ronald Reagan playing dumb on the same scandal.

Why do the majority of the American people believe these scoundrels? Or if they don’t, why do they let them get away with it? Why was getting to the “truth” so important to the GOP when the priapic Bill Clinton engaged in an assignation with an intern that resulted in no harm to anyone else, while Bush’s lies which have brought about the deaths of over 4000 American troops, not to mention thousands of Iraqis, have been unquestioned? Where has their pursuit of truth been?

Some have said that McClellan is to be lauded for showing some human conscience, even at this late date; he could have made much more money on the lecture circuit than publishing a book. Obviously, now he can publish a book, clear his reputation especially since, prompted by a petition drive on Moveon.org he is now giving part of the proceeds to the families of those killed in Iraq, AND still grow rich from a tour on the lecture circuit. His former friends are expressing outrage over his betrayal of their administration but none of them are screaming about the betrayal of the American people.

George W. Bush frightened me long before he set foot in the White House; long before, in fact, he ran for the White House. When he cheerily stated he never lost any sleep over the people he sent to be executed, his lack of doubt was alarming. Scarier than his vaunted clean conscience was his plain inhumanity. What if he’d made a mistake? What if one over-zealous prosecutor pushed too far; what if one hanging-judge was too willing to disregard exculpatory evidence? Who cares? So what if Texas has become the charnel house of the United States and of the industrialized world? He looked tough and that was all that mattered.

When 9-11 changed the course of American history, his demeanor set all my alarms ringing. He likes this, I thought to myself; now he has the perfect excuse to impose his agenda on this country. He has surrounded himself with the conniving Cheney and a collection of sycophants while punishing anyone who opposed him. Bush has a mean streak that will not stop at mere denunciation. Given W’s nasty habit of destroying those who cross him—just ask Valerie Plame—McClellan should watch his back.

Who can forget the debate when he was asked to name a mistake he might have made and could not think of a single one? Or his obfuscation of his so-called military service? Or his lies about his drunk-driving arrests, and cocaine use before he became president? Now we’re told that he privately weeps over the Americans killed in Iraq. Give me a break! How stupid do they think we are?

Much has been made of Bush and Cheney’s determination to restore powers to the president that had been lost since Nixon’s failure. But no one party keeps the presidency forever: The GOP must know that eventually a Democratic president will come to power and all those imperial powers will then be at the fingertips of that Democrat, unless there is something off-stage that we do not see. Will they steal yet another election? Will the elderly McCain run with a stealth neo-con; somehow beat the Democrat, and then be disposed of, replaced by his uber-conservative running mate?

Am I paranoid? After almost eight years of lies, theft, graft, subterfuge and chicanery, you would have to be Candide not to look over your shoulder and feel the hot breath of the GOP’s menacing presence on your neck. The American people have reason to be alarmed, alert, and even paranoid but they are so easily distracted by all the garbage floating on the airwaves that we could end up with a so-called maverick who swears never to surrender in Iraq as president.

Why do people consider McCain a maverick? Isn’t “conservative maverick” an oxymoron? The dictionary tells us that the original Maverick was Samuel A. Maverick, an American pioneer who died in 1870 and refused to brand his cattle. In every way that matters, McCain is a true-blue Republican. In most cases where he has broken with the party, including his criticism of Bush’s tax cuts, he has backpedaled: Now he says that he’ll support them. Yet people call him a maverick because he has occasionally crossed party lines. .

In less politically-charged times in our history, senators and representatives routinely crossed the aisle to join with the other party to pass legislation. Ted Kennedy has even joined with George Bush on an educational bill and has worked with many Republicans on any number of issues. Is Kennedy too liberal to be thought a maverick? Or is the Republican range of movement so minuscule that when it occurs, it is thought to be a great aberration: One thing is sure; since George W. Bush came to Washington claiming to be a “uniter,” the functioning of representative democracy has been undermined by his actual “my way or the highway” tactics, for which the prodigal McClellan was a spokesman.

Americans have to take responsibility for the future of our country and the planet. That means reading and thinking, and acting, not just swallowing whole the rhetoric of the presidential campaigns. Words have meanings; politicians have histories. Change, real change, is uncomfortable. America is no longer young but neither is it mature politically. It is too late for feckless youth. This time, we must make real change and that means recognizing the consequences of our history, of our irresponsibility, and of our lazy acceptance of the lies fed to us by politicians.

Let's Tar and Feather Bush

--Let’s Tar and Feather Bush

Impeachment? How about tar and feathering? Or better yet, let’s draw and quarter Bush like Mel Gibson at the end of “Braveheart.” Oh well, since those solutions are not possible (sigh!), let’s look at impeachment.

The anger against George W. Bush and his henchman runs very deep; why else would 60% of the electorate repudiate them so completely. No one is angrier than I am with Bush. I am furious at the Iraq war and the bucket of lies he fed us so he could conduct it. I believe that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and would like nothing better than seeing him taken to prison with ankle cuffs and handcuffs. I am sick to death at his self-satisfied smirk, his hubris, and his patronizing tone, his verbal gaffes and even his Texan accent. (Have you ever wondered why his younger brother, the Governor of Florida, does not have a Texas accent?) I turn off the radio and TV when I see his face, and my partner even tears out his picture from the newspaper because the mere sight of him can touch off a diatribe. But even so, I do not think we should waste our resources and the time we have before the presidential election of 2008.

Revenge is sweet, and the Democratic party is dancing in the streets today. It takes a lot to get the electorate angry enough to stop political abuse. But once the elation settles down, we have to consider what we want to do and what is possible.

51% of the Senate is Democratic but that means that 49% are Republicans. Getting any liberal legislation through will be difficult because the votes tend to go down the party line. Even if legislation goes through the House easily, it can be tied up in the Senate or vetoed by the president. We will not have the votes for an override. In practical terms, it means that the Democrats have their hands tied. The president can tie us up.

The question of impeachment is more complicated. Articles of impeachment are brought by the House, which now is firmly in the Democrats column, 226 to 196 for the GOP.

Even though we CAN impeach him, the question is, SHOULD we? During the Clinton impeachment, the country was tied up in knots. The country virtually came to a standstill. If it did nothing else, it prevented Clinton from accomplishing many of the goals he had set for his administration.

If we impeach Bush, what will happen to the important legislation we want to pass? In a word, would it be worth it to impeach him? Will revenge be as sweet as actually giving people working at the bottom of the scale an increase in the minimum wage or bringing the drug prices down for the elderly?

The minority leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is likely to be named speaker of the House. She has already state unequivocally that impeachment is off the table. This is likely to set off a firestorm from the Left but I believe that it is more important for us to do the right thing than to BE right.

The American people have spoken through this election; they are tired of the corruption, graft, and hijacking of the economy to finance this ill-conceived war. To lead the country and to convince the voters that we are more capable, honest, and efficacious than the GOP, we must ACT rather than react.

Bush is not scared of impeachment; it is a long and nasty process and at the end, the worse than can come of it for him is to make a circus of his administration and cost him some lawyer bills. To someone who is as wealthy as he is, it will be like swatting away mosquitoes. In fact, I wonder if he isn’t expecting to be impeached and rather looking forward to it since if the Democrats impeach him, it will immobilize them while he focuses on foreign policy, that is, his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consider the civil liberties, like habeas corpus that we must win back. Think of the homeless; of the hungry, of our impoverished people in the poorest parts of this country. Think of the funding that is going to finance wars that could be invested in college, universities, training programs, high schools and after-school programs.

I hate to let him off the hook but I think of him as the political equivalent of OJ: He will be out there playing golf or fishing, in his retirement. Heaven knows he won’t be a highly desirable speaker the way Bill Clinton is, but we have too many priorities that outweigh the desire to slap him on the wrist.