No More Incumbents Presidential Race

 A great many of fellow democrats have expressed a lot of dismay over the Democrat’s decision to support a bill allocating $100bn (£50bn) of new funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of September. The bill is a compromise measure between Republicans and Democrats, after the Democrats dropped demands for a timetable for a US troop withdrawal. Now I would wholeheartedly agree with my fellow Dems if they had enough bipartisan support to overturn a presidential veto, but alas that simply wasn’t the case. If this were indeed true then I would be the first one to criticize them for ignoring Americans demands of ending this war at the polls back in November. As far as the classic Republican platitude of “not supporting the troops,” I would argue that by continuing to support a hopeless quagmire we are endangering the lives of every one of our fighting men and women, serving in a country in the midst of a full-blown civil war.

A total of 14 senators voted against the bill , including Senators Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Chris Dodd (if anyone even cares). Senator Joe Biden, the democratic candidate whom I have supported in previous columns, voted in favor of the bill for the same reasons I described in the previous paragraph.

While I agree with the assertion that the Democrats have failed miserably at showing gumption in the face of Republican bullying, I believe that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was off to a good start when he declared the war ‘lost’. What troubled me, however, was the total lack of debate that followed. The Democrats should’ve followed up with a heavy-handed explanation as to why the war was never winnable to begin with; thus, reframing the debate. Yet although the Saddam/Bin Laden theory has long been debunked, President Bush continues to justify his bloody quagmire as necessary in the war on terror-a phrase so vague as to be incomprehensible. Now, let’s pretend that we all have the memory of Alberto Gonzalez and forget that our invasion precipitated an al-queada presence in Iraq. Moreover, lets take it up a notch and forget that we have brainstems and pretend that Iraq poised a immanent danger to us and that it didn’t rank second in oil production…you follow? So Iraq is a cauldron of arab frustration, a supporter and breeder of terrorism with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden pulling the strings. Now do we assume that by invading Iraq and deposing its autocratic leader we are winning or have won the War on terror? Morever, do we think that the war on terror can be won in the first place?

What I’ve learned from reading experts and scholars on terrorism is that it isn’t a war at all, but rather a conflict with no decided outcome. Terrorism, in their view, can only be attenuated and lessened. Though if the primary objection of countering terrorism is the protection of democratic institutions, the rule of law, and uprooting undemocratic regimes, then it’s utter hypocrisy that we haven’t taken any action against Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and to a lesser a degree, Lukashenko of Belarus.

As someone who only worked as a field manager on a few national and senatorial campaigns, I obviously lack the power to influence the debate in Washington. It’s up to Democrats in control of capitol hill to start flexing a little muscle instead of always cowering in the heat of the moment.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

This Republican administration has conceived a scheme so wily and Machiavellian, it’s a pity Bush is ineligible to run again. These villainous thugs have discovered they can plunder the country blind, violate the nation’s laws, and lie their asses off-all while governing incompetently-and get away unscathed as long as they invoke the unfailing, almighty words of “national security.” And I’m not talking about Guiliani’s lovely campaign pitch, “Vote for me or become obliterated radioactive dust” either. I’m talking about the classic tool of right-wing propaganda of attacking peoples emotions, only to play the dastardly juvenile game of the bratty, disobedient kid who denied taking the cookie from the cookie jar by blaming a bratty but innocent kid.

The formula is simplicity itself: If someone asks why you did something, you candidly reply, “It was necessary to keep America safe.” Similarly, if you are asked why you want to do something, then you can’t go wrong with “It is necessary to keep America safe” or some Fox-tested alternative, such as “It is necessary to fight America’s enemies.” So we praise Sudan despite current credible news of them surreptitiously doing arms deals in the war-ravaged conflict zone of Darfur because Terrorists are mean and that makes the President sad.

After all, quasi-patriotism is the best thing to happen to the GOP since the bow-tie.

It’s quite unfortunate that it’s socially unacceptable to just come out and publicly say, for instance, that Messrs. Dick Cheney and Rudy Guiliani are only acting when they wax patriotic and claim to be fighting our enemies and working to make America stronger. It’s about as socially unacceptable as coming out of the closet, and let’s face it-the rate at which Republicans are becoming gay is so prodigious that Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract to build the GOP a bigger closet. If only America could declare that the bloated plutocrats in the White House are not even politicians, definitely are not leaders, and certainly do not have the interest of America at heart.

Let’s face it-they owe their allegiance to the people and companies with whom they do business. Bush owes his so called “mandate” in 2004 to the Pharmaceutical Industry, the Defense Industry, and daddy’s friends in the oil industry.

But it’s virtually impossible (sorry Dennis Kucinich) for all of America to collectively, universally rebuke this administration for all of its misdeeds and public malfeasance. Well, maybe during a commercial break. What we should expect, though, is for the newly empowered opposition party to toss around subpoenas like crisp dollar bills at a D.C. Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey soiree. Henry Waxman, I’m looking at you. Are the democrats so timorous and punctilious to throw a few brickbats every once in a millennium? Hey, Democratic Chairman Howard Dean did a great deal of that in 2005 and I have yet to see a public revolt. Is our best taught mechanism for dealing with said Republican egregiousness making stentorian speeches full of righteous indignation?

America articulated its anger in the voting booth back in November; it’s time that you guys start articulating yours.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

Earlier tonite, the first installment of the Republican debates took place. How befitting that the candidates debated in the shadow of Reagan’s Air Force One, the aircraft hanging suspended in the library’s pavilion. After all, it’s every Republicans’ wet dream to be near the cockpit of something named after Ronald Reagan.

From the very begining the candidates appeared to have their heads so far up the GOPs ass that they were finding Mark Foley’s Blackberry. With transparent bravado the group of painfully sexually frustrated men trumpeted their bellicosity, desperately compensating for the utter lack of vision and war credentials–excepting McCain. From the major contenders to virtual unknowns, each and every one of them nebulously spoke of the “City on the Hill” passage–one of the most exploited speeches among campianging conservatives–in their description of America. The phrase was first invoked by Puritan leader John Winthrop who used it in a sermon to Massachusetts Bay Colonists. Its merits can be found in American Exceptionalism: the idea that Americans are extordinary people born of exceptional circumstances, unless, of course, they happen to be a Native American. As you can imagine this idea had virtually no effect on future american presidents, especially Ronald Reagan. While seemingly innocous in theory, it is minatory in application. For this theory to prevail in foreign policy it must be executed with the upmost caution, so as to avoid such disasters as Manacheaism which then leads to “clash of civilizations.” The biggest misuse of this theory, without question, was the invasion of Iraq.

When it came to proverbial “hot button” issues such as abortion the responses were virtually unanimous, with Guiliani obfucasting just enough to appease civil libertarians while not alienating conservatives.  

“It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent,” said the former New York city mayor, who has a record of supporting abortion rights.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, the xenophobic blowhard and right wingiest of the right-wingers, went so far as to cite dead fetuses. He’s certainly not fishing for Planned Parenthood endorsements. Happy Cinco De Mayo! Oops, I mean May 5th. He’s about as popular in Miami as Janet Reno.

When asked if whether they didn’t believe in evolution, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands like good brainwashed catholic schoolchildren. Not a good night to be enlightened.

Not surprisingly, when it came to Iraq there wasn’t an iota of dissent. One by one each of the ductile sycophants continues paying lipservice to the Bush Adminsitartion. It should be noted, however, that potential Republican candidate Sen. Chuck Hagel has vehemently opposed the troop surge and in fact voted in support of withdrawl in the now vetoed war legislation. Naturally, he was missing. On a lighter note, you’re probably to sloshed to do the math but Ronald Reagan was invoked a total of 19 times, which is slightly less the amount of times he’s invoked by Mitt Romney during sexual intercourse.

In summation, with the exception of a few protests regarding pork barrel legislation the Republican Presidential Candidates proved that they are nothing more than “politics as usual,” eternally married to the staus quo.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org