The economy consistently thrives under Democratic presidents and dies under Republican ones.
This is explained in the second article in my economic series, which has been published as a featured article on LA Progressive. Check it out at http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/19/who-builds-the-economy-democratic-presidents-do/
Also see the first article, "Who Creates Jobs? Democratic Presidents Do!", at http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/08/who-creates-jobs-democratic-presidents-do/
I pointed out that unity does not mean that one side just gives up. It does not mean that both sides don't do what they can to fight for their candidate in a respectful manner.
Party unity means that we remember that we are all Democrats. We respect differing opinions, and in the end we come together to defeat the Republicans, to protect those who cannot protect themselves, to preserve the Constitution, and to restore our country to its full greatness.
To remain civil and respectful, I suggest the following two points are good places to start:
Do not mischaracterize your opponent's position. It is fair to compare and contrast positions, but if you must describe your opponent's position, do it in a manner with which your opponent would agree. If your position really is better, you can show the contrast without mischaracterization.
Do not sink to name calling. If you must use a label, be sure you thoroughly defend that the label accurately fits. Your real argument should be that defense, not the lazy shortcut of using the label.
I don't even have unity within my own house. My wife and I are supporting different Democratic candidates for President. That does not mean we love each other any less. I expect her to fight for her candidate while I fight for mine. In the end we will come together.
That is what I expect of all Democrats.
This news story is absolutely chilling. I suppose the Secret Service thinks that a Democrat would never be shot in Dallas.
Richard M. Mathews
Police concerned about order to stop screening
By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.
The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.
Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.
...
Read More »
Rep. Robert Wexler writes:
"The tremendous response to my call for impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney confirms that the Bush Administration and Vice President Cheney must be held accountable. I have been overwhelmed by the netroots support for my call for impeachment hearings and for my website - WexlerWantsHearings.com."
In just five days, Rep. Wexler's site has already doubled its orginal goal of 50,000 signatures in support of impeachment. Having passed 100,000, now Wexler's goal is 250,000.
Sign on and pass the word for others to do the same.
Read on in the extended post for more from Rep. Wexler including information on hearing him discuss this on Blog Radio.
Read More »In the extended post, I discuss what the Fairness Doctrine really is, what it would really mean for existing programs, its constitutional basis, and why we need it. Read More »
State law says so, but it may violate the U.S. Constitution. So says University of California law professor Vikram Amar writing for findlaw.com. Professor Amar is also a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun.
See the arguments, vote in a poll, and participate in the discussion at
Link
You will also find a sample letter there to send to Governor Freudenthal to ask him to consider all of his options.
It is so good to know that the new Congress is completely different than the old one.
The old Congress would have just accepted whatever Bush asked for and rubber stamped it.
The new Congress ...
Read More »We could cave in and pass an amended bill without the withdrawal requirement. This would be a bad answer for several reasons. First, we don't have time to debate a new bill. Second, it would send an incorrect message that Democrats were merely posturing when debating the original bill, wasting time while playing chicken with our soldiers lives, holding out for a provision that they were always willing to drop. Third, and worst of all, it would send a message that Congress is powerless and irrelevant in comparison to the Unitary Executive.
Alternately, we can do the right thing. Within 48 hours of the veto, we can pass the exact same supplemental funding bill. If necessary, Members must return to Washington from their district work periods to cast this time-critical vote. The message is that there is no time to spare in supporting our troops. We also send the message that Congress has already given in as much as it can by weakening the withdrawal provisions and is now standing on principle. We assert that Congress does have the power of the purse and is an equal to the executive branch. We force Mr. Bush to recognize that his only choices are to let the troops run out of money in a short time or to accept the will of Congress and of the People.
Ask Congress to keep the withdrawal provisions in the spending bill no matter what.
The government has a constitutional and moral duty to run fair elections, thus it has a duty to spend money necessary to make elections fair. This has historically included, for example, spending to produce and distribute sample ballots and candidate statements.
An election cannot be fair if candidates cannot get their messages to the voters. Historically, the cost of getting the messages out has been borne by the candidates and by the special interests that contribute to them. This is wrong. This has not given us fair elections.
The government has a duty to provide the funds necessary to get candidate messages to voters. The Clean Money mechanism has worked well in state and local government, such as in Maine, Arizona, and North Carolina. Congress should follow their good example.
Congress has promised us reform to eliminate abuses by lobbyists. The best possible reform would be to eliminate bribes disguised as campaign contributions. Since private funding has repeatedly proved to be corrupt, we must turn to public financing of campaigns.
The law says only the President can fire a U.S. Attorney. How can both he and his Attorney General be backing out and claiming they were out of the loop? Either they were involved and should be removed for obstruction of justice, or they were not involved and should be removed for having their underlings break the law.
There are two past precedents for starting impeachment upon request of a state legislature, and there is no precedent for ignoring such a request. The rules of the House of Representatives explicitly allow for a legislature to request impeachment. We currently have resolutions before four legislatures: TX(!), MO, VT, and WA.
Go to ImpeachBush.tv for information on how to Impeach Bush.
Posts
