February 2008


Maybe I expect too little of Congress, but I have to say I’m surprised by their recent move to tax oil companies. Maybe the Democrats have a a backbone after all.

The bill that I am referring too was just passed today in the House of Representatives, by a vote of 236-182. It calls for $18 billion in new taxes for the nations largest oil companies; money that will be collected over a period of ten years and will be used to fund tax breaks for wind power, solar power, and other alternative energy sources.

This bill still needs to be passed by the Senate, where Republicans have threatened to filibuster (no surprises there). However, Democrats have promised to put the bill on a fast track, and it will be particularly interesting to see if Senator Reid remembers what party he belongs to.

If the bill manages to get out of the Senate intact, it will go to the President’s desk, where he can either veto it, or sign it with some ridiculous signing statement that will render the bill useless. But I’m betting on the veto, since the White House has already voiced its opposition. Think about it. A bill that raises taxes on oil companies?!?! The White House staff will be lucky if they can get Bush to sit in the same room with the bill without screaming like a girl and running away.

So, its probably safe to assume that if the bill clears the Senate, it will soon be back in Congress for the override vote, which I’m can’t say I’m confidant in. I think thats a shame. We have a huge oil addiction, and oil companies are making record profits. Wouldn’t it be nice to see some of that money go to a good cause like clean energy?

Go ahead, share your thoughts. Or write your Senator. Or both.

Yes, I have something to say to the ignorant, idiotic people who spew out posts all over the Internet.

Though I doubt many of you will ever read this, because I am proud to say that Upon the Gears has a highly intelligent reader base. But just in case you do happen to stumble across our blog, I would like you to know something:

BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!!

Read that a few times and allow it to sink in.

Okay. It’s true that Barack’s father was a Muslim, but he hardly knew his father. The man left when Barack was two, and he was raised by his mother. Oh, and by the way, Barack is a Christian and regularly goes to church.

Its a funny thing, what 9/11 has done to us. We look at a person with a funny name, a strange accent, or darker skin, and all we see is an evil terrorist trying to bomb us. And I can’t tell you how many times I see people on the Internet posting things like “A win for Obama is a win for Osama”. It’s ridiculous, and more importantly, it’s playing right into the hands of our fearmongering, Republican government.

I voted for Barack Hussein Obama in the primaries, and I will proudly do so again if he wins the nomination. Readers, you can vote for whoever you want, but all that we at Upon the Gears ask is that you let go of your prejudice come election day.

Whether you like Barack Obama or not, there are times when you have to be annoyed by his ravenous fan base.  I read a recent Post article talking about the backlash on the Internet as people get tired of hearing about him.  Among my favorite examples are www.barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com and www.senatorobamas.com.  If you read the article you’ll find that a lot of these sorts of sites are started by Obama supporters.  I personally think it’s the funniest thing to involve the Obama campaign since Donnie McClurkin.

If you’ve been reading Upon the Gears since December, you’ll remember the Senate fight the inclusion of retroactive immunity in the latest FISA update. If not, here’s a quick reminder from my earlier post on the subject:

The battle centered around the latest expansion of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The controversy surrounds whether or not to include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who helped the Bush administration to illegally spy on American citizens. Basically, if such a provision is included, then any unconstitutional invasions of our privacy that the telecom companies are guilty of will go unpunished and, in all likelihood, undiscovered. “But,” you may be thinking, “isn’t the Constitution the ultimate law of the land? Why is this even a controversy?” If so, then where exactly have you been for the past seven years?

The Republicans claim that any unconstitutional activities were ordered by the President to strength our national security after 9/11 and that companies should not be punished for following government orders. There are several problems with this argument. First, evidence suggests that the illegal spying actually began prior to 9/11. Second and most importantly, withholding amnesty does not automatically mean inflicting punishment. It will certainly mean court cases, but if it comes out that the Bush administration illegally coerced the telecoms into lawbreaking, then the telecoms can clear their names and the focus can be shifted into punishing those in the administration guilty of coercion. In reality, it is highly unlikely that big corporations will well-paid lawyers did not know exactly what they were doing and how illegal it was. This brings us to the heart of the problem. There is no logical way to look at telecoms and not strongly suspect that both the Bush administration and the companies are guilty of unconstitutional action. The knee jerk reaction from the Republicans is to defend their corporate interests and their corrupt president over the Constitution.

It appeared that telecom amnesty was a foregone conclusion in early December, but Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) publicly announced that he would filibuster any such bill in the Senate, and public response was forceful in opposition, filling Congressional e-mails and the US Capital Switchboard. Through procedural wrangling and a coalition of Senators devoted to the Constitution, Dodd was able to convince Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to postpone the final deliberations and vote until 2008. This was an enormous, unexpected victory; however, the battle was still far from won, and the numbers looked like they were on the pro-amnesty side.

The final fight came on Tuesday, and I am truly sorry to report that the FISA bill passed the Senate with retroactive immunity intact. Again, Chris Dodd came out forcefully against rewarding lawbreaking, but all of his procedural techniques were not enough to the vast majority of Senators who proved themselves willing to sell out the American people and our most precious document to protect corporate malfeasance. The key vote came on the Dodd Amendment, which would have stripped the amnesty from the bill and which failed by a vote of 31-67. Not even close. Disgraceful.

Once the Dodd Amendment failed, the passage of the full FISA bill as written was a foregone conclusion. The final vote was 68-29. You can click on that link for a full list of how each Senator voted, but I’d like to call out a few on each side for particular praise or disdain.

Yeas

  • Evan Bayh (D-IN) — I’ve heard Senator Bayh’s name discussed frequently as a possible running mate for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination. However, he showed his true colors today. I hope Clinton doesn’t make the same mistake Al Gore did and pass up a true hero like Wesley Clark in favor of this corporate shill.
  • Norm Coleman (R-MN) — A recent University of Minnesota poll shows that likely Democratic nominee Al Franken is already ahead of Senator Coleman 43%-40% 9 months before Election Day. Let’s hope Coleman and his very tepid 50% approval rating won’t continue to burden the American people come 2009.
  • Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — Forget all the talk of Hagel’s alleged independence. No, he may not be a fervent Iraq War supporter, but he votes party-line on vital issues such as this. Keep this vote in mind next time you hear the Bloomberg-Hagel ‘08 “nonpartisan” rumors.
  • Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) — That “D” next to his name is there only because the Senate clerk insists on it. The proudest moment of my time as a Connecticut Democrat was working to kick this corporate warmonger and his neocon agenda out of my party.
  • John McCain (R-AZ) — Yes folks, here’s your Republican nominee.
  • Bill Nelson (D-FL) — Senator Nelson delivered a very good speech in opposition to amnesty in December, which makes his betrayal now all the harder to swallow.
  • John Sununu (R-NH) — Just like Senator Coleman, Senator Sununu was revealed in a University of New Hampshire poll released earlier this week to be losing to his presumptive 2008 opponent already. Former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen is defeating Sen. Sununu 54-37.
  • Jim Webb (D-VA) — Did Jim Webb forget the progressive movement that made him a senator that easily? Webb’s name has been connected to Obama as a potential VP, but he’ll have to do much better than this.

Neas

  • Chris Dodd (D-CT) — The driving force behind the anti-amnesty movement and one of the greatest senators we have. His statement speaks for itself: “We’ve just sanctioned the single largest invasion of privacy in American history”.
  • Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — A paper tiger in this fight. Yes, she voted against passage of the bill, but she also voted against the critical Dodd Amendment which would have made the bill much less distasteful.
  • Harry Reid (D-NV) — Another empty “hero”. As Majority Leader, he could have scheduled a vote on a bill without amnesty built in before the vote on the eventual FISA bill. The onus would have been on the pro-amnesty senators to insert an amnesty provision rather than the other way around.

Not Voting

  • Hillary Clinton (D-NY) — Though she issued a statement opposing amnesty, Senator Clinton spent the entire day campaigning instead of doing her job. Remember this when she claims strong leadership on the campaign trail.
  • Barack Obama (D-IL) — Despite missing the final vote (largely academic after the failure of the Dodd Amendment), Senator Obama took time off the campaign trail for the earlier votes and added his voice and vote in support of Chris Dodd. I’m still not completely sold on Sen. Obama as the Democratic nominee, but he definitely earned his three primary victories today.

The FISA fight is not yet over, however; the Senate bill still has yet to pass the House of Representatives. In November, the House passed the RESTORE Act, a much stronger FISA bill without retroactive amnesty, and President Bush doesn’t get a bill to sign until the Senate and the House agree on one. Therefore, take some solace in the fact that only half of our legislative branch has sold out the American people and the Constitution so far. Finally, I urge everyone to fax, telephone, e-mail, or otherwise contact your Representative and demand that he or she withhold support from any bill that frees law-breaking corporations from their due culpability. I have the pleasure of being represented by the excellent Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), but I can assure you that I will make she knows how strongly this particular constituent feels about this particular issue. Remember, in a democracy, the people ultimately hold the power; I encourage each of you to stand up and seize it. Let every member of Congress know that he or she is being watched, and that failure to serve the public good over the corporate good will have electoral consequences come November.

I’ll admit it straight off: I voted for Hilary Clinton yesterday.  Barack Obama’s message does not appeal to me, I am perhaps too cynical a person to take him at face value.  There are a lot of things I don’t like about Clinton either, but she seemed to me to be the best choice at the time.  This is not what I want to talk about.  I want to talk about the biggest secret in America right now.  The one thing no one in the media wants to tell you about the February 5 elections.  A fact that is staring you in the face but nobody seems to have noticed.

Barack Obama lost.

Here is what the media points to as signs of his victory

  1. He had more states.
  2. He had lower expectations.
  3. He had momentum.

The first one is true.  Obama won 14 states to Clinton’s 8.  But which states?  He won Southern states with high black populations, as expected.  He won caucus states, which his organization is apparently better at.  He won his home state (Illinois).  Then there’s Connecticut and Missouri.  Connecticut?  Small state that voted for Joe Lieberman.  Don’t care (Sorry Adam).  Ah then Missouri.  This is the one that the media loves to trumpet as a “bell-weather” state.  First of all, this is a national election phenomenon being applied to a primary.  Second, he won by 10,000 votes.  He split the delegates down the middle.  So while Obama was winning the small states, Hillary won the large ones convincingly.  She won California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts by margins of more than 10%.  These aren’t the only states, but they’re important.  Especially considering some of the endorsements Obama received.  In California, Maria Shriver endorsed him.  In Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick all endorsed him.  The nomination is about more than just the number of states.

Then expectations.  There has been in the media and the Obama campaign what I can only call a retrospective lowering of expectations.  As far as what we are hearing right now, Barack Obama was not expected to remain standing after February 5th (his words, not mine).  It isn’t true.  This is what the press was saying before the election.  Obama was surging ahead in those darn polls again and he and Clinton were neck and neck.  What people were expecting (and what I was expecting) was an Obama blowout.  We didn’t get that.  We got a slight Clinton win in delegates and popular vote.  Why was Barack expected to do so well?  Let’s ask him:

Obama, on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” predicted that he would draw votes “that Senator Clinton cannot get.”

He did not.  Democrats turned out in record numbers to vote for both candidates, but a new demographic completely failed to rise up.  Obama did not win on the strength of his new voters, and as such proved that his popular appeal among the youth does not translate into wins.

Then there is momentum.  Such a tricky term.  It is completely subjective and almost entirely worthless as a measure of a campaign.  Part of the reason for this is, according to the media, Barack Obama gets momentum from winning and from losing closely.  He is the only candidate who can manipulate momentum in this way.  He apparently rode the momentum from South Carolina into February 5 and then rode the stalemate momentum out.  This momentum will carry him throughout February.  What can I say?  Momentum does not seem to need any proof or have any worth, but I can only hope that it will continue to fail to impress the public with the importance of momentum.

To tell the truth, I would not mind a bit if Senator Obama fairly took the nomination.  He is a good man and I believe he would make a good president.  What I cannot tolerate is being dictated to by the media which candidate is the winner.  The media outlets have chosen him as their front runner (or underdog, depending on the situation) and supported him throughout this race because they think he is more interesting.  If we as Americans listen to them, we are allowing the few to dictate the will of the many.

As the 2008 general election looms ever closer, most Democrats have been taking comfort in the fact that their candidate will never have to run against George W. Bush. Not that anyone would ever want to run against that man again.

We all remember the results of the election of 2000, but I have a feeling that many of us have forgotten the campaign promises that Bush made when he was first running. He pledged to bring about an age of responsible government and to end the politics of fear, among many other things. Of course, once elected, Bush showed the country that he really didn’t have the potential to become anything better than a mediocre president, and he fell far short of fulfilling any of his promises that did not involve tax cuts. Then, on September 11th, 2001, all of George Bush’s Christmases came at once.

Yes, I know that is a very insensitive thing to say, and it probably isn’t fully accurate either. See, there’s a very good chance that the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped if President Bush had actually reacted to a daily briefing that specifically warned of the plot. However, he didn’t react at all, and as a result he was given the perfect excuse to become yet another member of the “war president” club.

Why was this so good for him?

Well, historically, Americans tend to stick behind our leaders when we are attacked, and 9/11 was no exception. In fact, just after the attack Bush had an approval rating of almost 90%, which was the kind of support he needed to launch the “War on Terror” in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. Unfortunately for Bush, Americans have also traditionally had little taste for expensive, bloody wars without end. As his first term came to a close, many Americans were tired of their “war president” and everything he had shoved down the nation’s throat.

The election of 2004 should have put smiles on the faces of Democrats. They had so much ammunition to use against Bush, like the war, the sinking economy, the failed No Child Left Behind Act, and the controversial Patriot Act. They had also nominated John Kerry, the junior Senator from Massachusetts and Vietnam War veteran, to be their presidential candidate. However, Bush & Co. had an important weapon as well, which had been handed to him by the terrorists that attacked America. This weapon was fear. It did not matter what John Kerry said about the Bush administration and all the mistakes it had made. It did not matter that he laid out a comprehensive plan for economic growth and a more responsible foreign policy. It did not even matter that he was a decorated war hero. The Bush campaign used smear tactics and, in many cases, downright lies in order to label Kerry as a weak, liberal flip-flopper who would open the door for numerous terrorist attacks on American soil. At the same time, Bush was labeled as the only leader strong enough to fight terror at home and abroad (regardless of the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch). So, in the end, when voters went to the polls on election day, all of Kerry’s long, intelligent speeches were pushed out of their heads by Bush’s simple, tough rhetoric that promised safety. We all remember who won.

For the sake of all Democrats, the party must remember November 2nd, 2004. The Republican Party may be down, but it is far from out of this coming election. It is rare to hear a Republican candidate speak without saying something about the threat of terrorism and how his party is the only party that can deal with it. They know that fear attracts votes, and they are quite good at spreading the message. I know this too, because for a time, I fell for this message.

Yes readers, I’ll admit it. I once held the view that the Iraq War was just, because I believed the Bush administration when it told America that Saddam Hussein was our greatest threat. I believed this for the same reason that nearly everyone else did, because I wanted to trust my president, and because I feared another terrorist attack. I’ll also admit that I held the same view for longer than most Americans, because I could not stand to see America retreat in the face of those that attacked us.

Call me a flip-flopper, call me whatever you want, but I can no longer hold this view. Although I have come to this conclusion much later than many of my fellow Americans, I understand that we cannot allow ourselves to live in fear any longer. While we live in fear, our government pours billions of dollars into a war that has no justification whatsoever, while simultaneously ignoring the real war on terror in Afghanistan and draining our economy to unprecedented depths. While we live in fear, we put politicians in power who promise to protect us, but betray us by removing our civil liberties and defiling the Constitution. I cannot stand it anymore.

Democrats, its time you showed America that we have nothing to fear. Its time you showed the people that your party can keep our people safe while respecting the rule of law. Most importantly, its time you exposed the Republicans in power as the liars and criminals that they are. I know you can do this, because throughout these past years you have proven yourselves as members of a party of honesty and sense. Be prepared to attack the Republican candidates, but be prepared to defend yourselves. They can be the party of fear, but you must be the party of hope.

Democrats, you must do this, because you are the last chance, the last hope for America.