Politics: In Memoriam

Teddy Kennedy, the Lion of the Senate, and youngest of the ill-fated Kennedy brothers who have contributed so much to make America a great nation, is dead.

To leave a message for his mourning family, you can go here.

Now that he is no longer with us, we must work harder than ever to pass the legislation that Senator Kennedy has fought for for so long. He wanted health care reform, and although we have lost his guiding hand, we cannot falter. We should reform health care, as we all know too well. In its own way, the legislation will be a fitting memorial to Senator Kennedy's memory.

Rest in peace, sir. Your lifetime of dedication to the causes of the common people will not be forgotten. Nor will your, and your family's, long tradition of service to the nation.

Stumble It!

Hillary Clinton, you need to stop and take a look around now. Please. Yes, you're tough, tenacious, and a terrific fighter, but you've got to get rid of the weasels and shills in your camp who keep directing you into missteps. First it was the plagiarism charge. What a weak cup of tea that was! Couldn't you find something more pertinent? What about the differences between your health plan and his? Or your plan for tackling the economy? Iraq?

Then your campaign people sent out pictures to Matt Drudge?? Of Obama in traditional Somali garb. That's just low. Attacking him for his political positions is one thing. Trying to stoke the rightwing rumour that he's a Manchurian Muslim candidate is simply pathetic and beyond the pale.

Then your attack dogs &mdash NOW chapter heads, among others &mdash began bashing Senator Kennedy for endorsing Obama, and implying that Obama's position on women's right to choice was deficient even though he earned 100% approval from NOW and NARAL for his position; you had Geraldine Ferraro bringing up charges of reverse racism, to which your campaign had a tepid response.

Now, you're accusing Senator Obama of lying about his position with the conservative University of Chicago School of Law. What the hell is that about? Why? Can't you stick to the substantive stuff? And why raise something about someone else's purported lies when (1) you just got busted for lying &mdash it's all too fresh in the minds of the public, and it's only going to make them remember your lie; and (2) this accusation involves a third party who is going to have to make some sort of public statement, so you'd better be sure you're correct. Well, you weren't. In other words, you got busted for lying again. Because the UC Law School just came out with a public statement that Senator Obama was indeed what he claimed to be, and you were wrong. Except the voting public won't see it as "Hillary Clinton was wrong," they'll see it as "Hillary Clinton lied again."

Please, Senator Clinton. You're better than this. Don't you realize that by engaging in these low tactics, you're throwing away all the political capital that both you and your husband earned during the eight good years of his administration? That all of us who supported you against the Republican attacks, and who believed you when you told us about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" feel like complete chumps now that you're sitting at the same table as that revolting excuse for a human being, Richard Mellon-Scaife who personally funded eight or more years of bloodthirsty attacks on you and your family?

Now you're challenging the Texas delegates. Are you going to try and disenfranchise voters who didn't vote for you? We thought the ruckus about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates was to make sure voters weren't disenfranchised.

La Casa de Los Gatos is so deeply disappointed in you. After 20 years as a loyal supporter of yourself &mdash dating back to the days when you worked with Marion Wright Edelman &mdash we just don't know what to think about you, and your campaign, anymore. Please get rid of that unionbuster, Mark Penn. Clean up your campaign and fight fair. Please. Don't do this to yourself.

Stumble It!

2008 Elections: What Is Feminism

NOW President Kim Gandy

Newsday has a headline which reads "NY feminists accuse Kennedy of betrayal in Obama endorsement" that just makes us want to say: Sod off, you misogynistic gasbags. To both parties, you understand.

Sod off, Newsday, for having the gall to assume that NOW encompasses all feminists in New York. And sod off, NY NOW, for daring to equate support for any candidate but the only female running to betrayal. Bloody misogynistic of you both.

Just because Clinton is female and running for President does not mean that she is the best candidate. We won't deny her feminist credentials. She has long been active on women's rights issues, and her speech to the U.N. Conference on Women deserves to go down in history.

That still doesn't make her the best candidate, not even the right candidate. An election - as should be obvious from the success of the Naked Emperor who has been destroying the country for the past seven years - does not depend on merit. Politics has always been about throwing your support (no matter who you may be) to the candidate who you believe will best address your issues. However, nobody is entering the voting booth with a single issue. Not even women. Not even feminist women. Not even feminist women lawyers who might be married to some, like, powerful guy. And have one kid. A daughter. Who graduated college.

The economy is tanking, the housing market sucks ass, New Orleans still lies in ruins, public housing is way down since the Little Chimp came to power, education is a mess, free trade agreements have exported most jobs with decent wages to Outer Transylvania, the credit crunch means that, even though it's a buyer's market, anyone planning to buy a house needs to donate a liver or kidney for the privilege, the military is broken, no one has ever hated Americans more than the rest of the world does after seven years of Chimpito-in-Charge, the health care situation is dire, and al Qaeda and insane terrorists really do exist and want to kill at least some, if not all, of us. Add to that a government that is broken in almost every department, unable to investigate fraudulent practices run wild throughout, no-bid contracts, harrassment of whistleblowers, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

And you're getting your underoos in a bunch because Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama? Guess what, we're all still very divided on who should win. Bill and Hillary Clinton have spent the past few months engaging in some deeply troubling and questionable behaviour, including Mrs. Clinton's campaigning in Florida and Michigan despite having previously agreed that these states, having pushed their primaries up in defiance of the DNC, should not have their delegates seated at the convention.

Mrs. Clinton, if you thought that the delegates should be seated, you should have spoken up at the time. To campaign now in those states after promising not to do so is dishonest and makes you look as if you will stoop to anything to get elected. As for Teddy and Caroline Kennedy throwing their support to Obama, perhaps they feel the same way as the denizens of Casa de Los Gatos.

All these years, we've had the utmost respect for Bill Clinton. But his remarks about the South Carolina primaries changed our feelings for him overnight. We regard him with suspicion now where we used to regard him with admiration. We're sorry, NOW, but Mr. and Mrs. Clinton do not seem to be the people we used to think they were. As such, they might not deserve our support.
For us, such a stand is tempered by remembering the open hostility of the media and the rightwing attack dogs towards the Clintons. We're not going to join the Hillary-bashers, and we do not encourage them. We see that the media is much harsher in its treatment of Hillary, who is a feminist and has always worked hard for issues dear to progressive hearts, than it is to senile warmonger John McCain, whose arse it continually kisses for his "independent" stance.

NY NOW says:

"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal," NOW's New York State chapter said in a scorching rebuke. "Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard."

THIS is the ultimate betrayal? Hey, dumbasses, think about John Roberts and all the arse-fluffing he got from your elected representatives. He's determined to take away women's rights to their own bodies, one at a time. You're calling Teddy Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama, who supports women's right to privacy, a betrayal? As if such overheated rhetoric were not enough, the NY chapter went on to froth about feminists' obligation to elect Hillary.

We are happy to report that saner persons man the staff of NOW's national organization.

"The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy," NOW President Kim Gandy wrote. "For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that."

Gandy said her group respects Kennedy's decision to back Obama.

"We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote," she said.

NOW spokeswoman Mai Shiozaki said Gandy's statement was not a rebuttal and was intended to clarify that local chapters were independent.

There is nothing wrong with radical feminism, even separatist feminism. Where we have a problem with NY NOW is when they mistake their personal feelings for political stances. When you start telling feminists that they are obliged to vote for your candidate of choice because she shares the same plumbing they do, you've lost my vote, and the votes of millions of other feminists, women, people.

Stumble It!

Senator Kennedy's Opposition Speech to the Mukasey Nomination: What part of waterboarding isn't torture?

I have a love-hate relationship with Senator Edward Kennedy and his whole clan. On the one hand, all that privilege which lets some of them get away with ... all kinds of things. On the other, this man often stands up and says the most wonderful things. And I sit there listening and thinking, "I couldn't have said it better meself."

This was one of those speeches. They played it on Democracy Now! this morning. I applauded the man.

I think it's such an important speech that I'm posting it in its entirety right here.

KENNEDY IN OPPOSITION TO THE MUKASEY NOMINATION
United States Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Session
November 6, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(As Prepared for Delivery)

The Department of Justice is in dire need of new leadership to guide our nation back to its constitutional moorings. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Department lost its way as a genuine force for justice. It too often served as a rubber stamp for the White House and as a facilitator and enforcer of political objectives rather than the rule of law. After a period of such tarnished leadership in the Department, we need a clear, decisive and straightforward Attorney General who is not afraid to stand up for the constitution and the rule of law – even if it means disagreeing with the President of the United States.

I had hoped that Judge Mukasey could be that person. He is certainly intelligent and has demonstrated admirable dedication to public service. As a federal judge for almost 19 years, he was by all accounts fair and conscientious in the courtroom and even showed admirable independence at times. But, after reviewing and re-reviewing Judge Mukasey’s answers to questions from members of this Committee, I have concluded that he is not the right person to lead the Justice Department at this crucial time in our history.

We need a leader who will inspire confidence in the rule of law. We need a leader who is unafraid to speak truth to power. We need a leader who is worthy of the trust we place in our Attorney General to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Michael Mukasey regrettably is not that leader.

Like many of my colleagues and many American citizens, I am deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s evasive answers about the legality of certain techniques of torture. While the nominee acknowledges that torture is unconstitutional, he has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the controlled drowning of a prisoner – waterboarding -- rises to the level of torture. What is the big mystery here? Over and over again, civilian and military tribunals have found waterboarding to be an unacceptable act of torture.

Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School, says that, as part of SEAL training, he personally led, witnessed and supervised training to resist waterboarding for hundreds of people. He describes the procedure this way:

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning. . . It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. . . .

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration – usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death.

According to ABC News, former intelligence officers and supervisors admitted in 2005 that the CIA used waterboarding – in fact the Vice President confirmed its use – and the intelligence officers and supervisors described waterboarding this way:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

But Judge Mukasey cannot say to this Committee that waterboarding is torture? He calls it repugnant, and indeed it is. But he refuses to condemn it as unlawful. And then, in perhaps the most stunning and hollow promise reportedly made by a nominee for Attorney General in my 45 years in the Senate, we are told that Judge Mukasey agreed to enforce a ban against waterboarding if Congress specifically passes one. We are supposed to find comfort in the representations by a nominee to be the highest law enforcement officer in the country that he will in fact enforce the laws that we pass in the future? Can our standards really have sunk so low? Enforcing the law is the job of the Attorney General. It’s a prerequisite – not a virtue that enhances a nominee’s qualifications.

Make no mistake about it. Waterboarding is already illegal under United States law. It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” including cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment. It is illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” It is illegal under the Detainee Treatment act, which prohibits “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” And it violates the Constitution.

The nation’s top military lawyers and legal experts across the political spectrum have condemned waterboarding as torture. After World War II, the United States even prosecuted Japanese officers for engaging in waterboarding. What more does this nominee need to enforce existing laws?

It is the job of the Attorney General to enforce our Constitution and laws. The Attorney General must have the legal and moral judgment to know when an activity rises to the level of a violation of our Constitution, treaties or statutes. But this nominee wants to outsource his job to Congress. That passing of the buck is completely unacceptable by a nominee who wants to be the highest justice official in our great country. This nominee has failed to demonstrate that he will be the clear, decisive and straightforward leader that the Department of Justice so desperately needs.

For all these reasons, I oppose this nomination. `After six long years of reckless disregard for the rule of law by this Administration, we cannot afford to take our chances on the judgment of an Attorney General who either does not know torture when he sees it, or is willing to look the other way to suit the President.

Stumble It!