This past summer, after two conservative operatives revealed potentially damaging (and potentially doctored) videos of ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) members allegedly soliciting tax advice to a faux pimp and prostitute, the political universe was thrown into bedlam. Republicans and right-wing extremists, who had long painted the group as a threat to democracy--because it registers poor and minority voters--salivated at the chance to destroy it once and for all. Democrats, with the exception of a rare courageous few, tripped over their own feet running in fear to distance themselves from ACORN. The result was a rushed Congressional vote to strip ACORN of all federal funding. Turns out however, ACORN has lawyers. Those lawyers took Congress to court, and were met with success.
Last Friday a judge ruled in favor of the community organization, issuing an injunction preventing the implementation of the congressional funding ban. Judge Nina Gershon concluded what numerous rational thinking people had brought up at that the time--that the ban amounted to a "bill of attainder" that unfairly singled out ACORN, which is unconstitutional.
So it turns out the Democrats in their timidity and fear of the GOP right-wing noise machine, ran out and violated the Constitution they're supposed to uphold.
Below, Bill Quigley at Common Dreams discusses why ACORN won its suit, for the dim-witted. Timid Congressional Democrats, I'm looking in your direction.
Why ACORN Won
by Bill Quigley
Published on Sunday, December 13, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
On December 11, 2009, a federal judge ruled that Congress had unconstitutionally cut off all federal funds to ACORN. The judge issued an injunction stopping federal authorities from continuing to cut off past, present and future federal funds to the community organization.
ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and its allies in 75 cities will again have access to millions of federal dollars to counsel people facing foreclosure, seeking IRS tax refunds, and looking for affordable low cost housing. ACORN, which has received about $54 million in government grants since 1994, will be able to apply for new federal programs just like any other organization.
The court ruled that Congress violated the U.S. Constitution by singling out ACORN and its affiliates for severe sweeping restrictions and that such action constitutes illegal punishment or a bill of attainder.
Read full article here.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Why ACORN Won
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Talking Points for Weak & Spineless Dems
So yesterday all but 6 Senate Democrats joined with their Republican cohorts to deny President Obama funding to shut down the Guantánamo Bay detention center (Gitmo), which has been a scene of torture and called a violation of international law. That a Democratic majority in the Senate still can't realize they're in charge and vote to assure progressive measures by a Democratic President, just highlights the weak and spineless behavior we've become accustomed to under Sen. Harry Reid. But the argument put forth by those voting against funding was so asinine and preposterous, it can only be called pathetically stupid.
More after the fold...
The argument was first floated by Republican strategists during the Bush era, who asked where would the Gitmo "detainees" go if the base at Guantanamo Bay was closed? This was picked up most recently by Peter King (R-NY) who claimed something sinister would happen if suspected terrorists were brought close to Ground Zero. The Republican noise machine--led it seems by Dick Cheney who emerged from Mordor to do a recent medial blitz--continued to chime in, warning of the dire results of "releasing" Gitmo "detainees" in the U.S. And for this, Senate Democrats ran and caved, still fearful of being called weak on national security and unable to muster up talking points that a seven-year-old could draft.
Here are a few. Thank the next seve-year-old you see...
(1) Having a fair trial that does not disobey international law does not equal "releasing" Gitmo "detainees." It's not like the handcuffs are going to come off and they'll just be left to run into the American wilderness. No one is talking about setting up a "detainee" in a condo and giving him a government stipend to do research. They'd be in prison, not put under house arrest with an ankle band. And then, hopefully, they'd be able to get a trial to determine if they even belong there in the first place. As it stands, keeping them in limbo is not an answer.
(2) As John Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show, these guys aren't Warlocks. Are we really to believe that U.S. police, military and other security forces can't handle shackled and bound prisoners? They do this every day. Do these detainees have mutant powers or something? What is behind this ridiculous fear that these figures are so toxic, they can't set foot in the U.S. and be brought to trial? Who is going to bust them out, COBRA?
(3) A familiar GOP talking point picked up by some weak Democrats is that they fear the "detainees" will "radicalize" U.S. prisons. I think it's pretty safe to assume that any prisoners from Gitmo wouldn't be roaming about in general population. The U.S. has held everyone from Timothy McVeigh to the blind cleric Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, most often away from the rest of the inmates. Unless they have psychic powers of mind control, this is a red herring.
(4) Have the entire Senate watch MSNBC's Lock Up sometime. Be sure to include the scenes of inmates who talk about eating someone's brain and others who brag they can't wait to "get their knife wet." And these are all 100% American grown criminals. It ain't exactly Disneyland in there. If anything, the "detainees" should be kept out of general population for their *own* safety.
(5) Lastly, look up the term Prison Industrial Complex. Tell these GOP "lock em' all up" supporters suddenly turned "timid" about the effectiveness of maximum security facilities that when it comes to jailing people, the U.S. has the world beat--hands down. Prisons, along with weapons, may be about the last great export we have for the world. If we can't house them here, no one can.
An update-
As expected, spineless Dems caving in to right-wing talking points has only emboldened the GOP noise machine--who are launching a stinging offensive using every tool at their disposal. Senate Democrats meanwhile are in disarray--as tends to happen *every time* they do something weak and gutless. Good. They deserve the heat.
Secondly, President Obama has thankfully come out today and stated forcefully that he intends to shut down Gitmo and won't be deterred. Good for him. Good for him. Two things however, President Obama: (1) When you refuse to let your Justice Dept move forward on investigating torture and other acts that took place at Gitmo, you allow stupid right-wing talking points and Darth Cheney to run amok saying anything--because they know they won't be prosecuted; (2) When you block the release of photos and other evidence related to the abuses done under a previous administration, you deflate your own ethical high ground and then your own party will retreat at any given opportunity. Learn from these mistakes.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Specter's Party Moves
Senator Arlen Specter's decision yesterday to defect from the GOP to the Democratis is causing ripples across the American political spectrum. While Republican leaders tried to brush it off as a tempest in a teapot, they were mostly unsuccessful as Specter's party switch dominated the political news and will likely continue to do so for days to come. But in the end, what's the significance?
For Specter, it may mean survival. His relectuance to support the past Bush adminsitration carte blanche or provide obstinate opposition of Obama's initiatives (Specter voted for the recent stimulus) has made him a target of the more extreme right-wing of the party. And recent polls have shown him being trounced in a head-to-head match up against challenger Pat Toomey, former president of the ultra-conservative Club for Growth. Facing possible defeat, it had been rumored Specter might run as an independent. He seemed however to have decided that a larger camp was the place to be. And as a Democratic challenger easily defeating Toomey has long been expected, Specter decided to become that challenger--keeping both his more moderate GOP constituents disillusioned with their party, and gaining Democratic support.
For the GOP, it is another in a long series of recent train wrecks. Specter, considered by most to be one of the few remaining Republican "moderates," was a voice to temper the more reactionary elements in the party. With his defection, the GOP edges closer to a balkanization of right-wing fringe ideology that is drifting further away from anything resembling mainstream popular American thought. For a party considered by most to be in disarray, this is a crushing embarrassment. More than likely however, there is apt to be more outrage from the GOP and their supporters, than any attempt to engage in a teachable moment.
For the Democrats, it is an inch closer to the magical "60-seat majority" in the Senate, once the inevitably of the Al Franken's torturously slow win in Minnesota is confirmed.
For President Obama it is another notch on the belt and a new shiny pin to place on the 100 Days hat.
And for the rest of us, it's a wonderful bit of schadenfreude.
But Specter's switch comes with it's own set of issues. Arlen Specter, while a moderate voice of sorts in the GOP, is not joinging the progressive wing of the Democratic party. His votes in the Senate during his long career show at most a mixed-bag. He's supported Stem Cell Research and Healthcare reform, but also helped authorize the Iraq War and blocked investigations into defense contracts. More recently, he's withdrawn his support on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and has stated that this party switch does not mean he's revisiting that choice. This may cost him vital union support in Pennsylvania, and set up the possibility for a strong Democratic party challenger. Where Democratic officials, both local and in Washington DC, will weigh in is anybody's guess--but it's certain to cause some party fractures.
For more opinions on the Senator's big switch, see below:
What Kind of Democrat Will Specter Be?- NY Times
Specter's Switch- Chris Hayes, The Nation
Saturday, June 7, 2008
White Women's Barack Bitterness
So the Democratic presidential primaries are finally over. Sen. Barack Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee and will face the GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain this Fall in a battle for the White House. Given the tragedy of the Bush years--from illegal wars to a faltering economy to the erosion of civil liberties--there's alot at stake in this election, perhaps more so than in any previous time in US history. To this end the Democratic primaries saw record turn-outs, with many first-time voters becoming engaged in the political process. Whoever wins in November may well determine what course the country will take. So with so much in the balance, how can there be groups of Democrats claiming they will either sit out the presidential election, or--worse still--vote for the Republican candidate? And how are many of these people women (mostly white women)--claimed feminists at that? Other than on certain aspects of foreign policy after all, Sens. Clinton and Obama are quite similar. With regards to issues of gender--from reproductive rights to wage equality--they are identical. This is a far cry from Sen. McCain, who has taken a recent pro-life stance, and would most certainly stack the Supreme Court with justices hostile to womens' issues. So what gives?
Well, I know if I told these self-described feminists "their whiteness is showing," I'd get in trouble. So I'm glad Tim Wise said it for me: An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who Are Threatening to Withhold Support from Obama in November--Your Whiteness is Showing
First things first, I have nothing against feminism. I actually support the radical notion that women are equal human beings who should be treated as such. And I think gender, like race and class, is a useful tool of analysis with regards to history, social culture, politics, etc.
However, the sad truth is that feminism, like any other social movement, has its fault lines. One of these has been about race. Feminism from its inception to present day is hardly the sole domain of white women. Yet feminism has had a hard time dodging its perception as a "white woman's movement," by both supporters and detractors alike. For many women of color, it has been the perception--and some would argue the movement's self-perception--of itself as "white-led" that is most problematic. The feminist coalition has thus long had its issues with women of color--hence leading Alice Walker to coin the term "womanism," hoping to move beyond what was seen as feminism's inability to detatch itself from whiteness. This historic Democratic primary has exposed that rift rawly, as we saw early on in the battles between Gloria Steinem, a white feminist icon and Clinton supporter, and Dr. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a black college professor of race and gender and an Obama supporter. After Steinem in a New York Times op-ed challenged the legitimacy of the Obama campaign in terms of gender-bias, Lacewell responded with a stinging rebuke that played out on a January episode of Democracy Now!. As Lacewell saw it, white feminists expected black women to rally around Clinton based on gender-solidarity, but paid scant attention to issues directly facing black women in terms of both race and gender. By Super Tuesday Lacewell was continuing to challenge the idea that Hillary Clinton represented "all" women in her blog piece Mammy Goes to Washington. The issue would rear its head again when Clinton campaign aide and former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro made repeated assertions that Sen. Obama's success was due to his being black and male. Now that the primaries have ended, some die-hard supporters of Sen. Clinton are claiming much the same, asserting that Sen. Obama's victory was the product of sexism, going as far as to accuse the Democratic Party itself of being unfair to their candidate.
Yet, though there is some truth to these assertions, much of it bears scrutiny.
For one thing, when it comes to fairness, Sen. Obama won the primaries by following the given rules. Had he been "given" the nomination, the bitterness of his detractors might be warranted. If this were reversed, and Obama had somehow won by a sleight of hand or the like, they'd have a point. Had he run a campaign in which he played to issues of sexism and fanned the flames of gender bias, their anger could be justified. And might I add if he had run such a campaign, Sen. Obama would have had alot less supporters--including most likely myself. The truth was that Obama was never afforded the luxury of the option to play on gender bias. While Clinton's campaign threw the kitchen sink at Obama, he had to play defense, because had he ever gone on offense, he would have ruined his own campaign theme of "change."
Was there sexism towards Clinton? Certainly. I saw it by the boatloads from media pundits and from some Obama supporters on numerous blogs, where dislike of Clinton's campaign tactics would unfortunately turn into sexist vitrol. Yet none of this came out of the Obama campaign or from Sen. Obama himself. In fact, Obama endured heavy amounts of racism from those same media pundits and Clinton supporters. Though downplayed by his campaign, there have been death threats, verbal assault on his supporters and vandalism filled with racial epithets on some of his headquarters. A recent Project for Excellence in Journalism report in fact shows that contrary to Clinton supporters claims, Barack Obama actually received more negative press overall (much of it charged with race) throughout the campaign than did Hillary Clinton.
But what was worse, the Clintons and their campaign also engaged in petty acts of race-baiting, both blatant and subtle--a key reason they so dramatically lost the black vote, which they were leading in right up until mid January. These Rovian tactis were also a key reason so many long-time Clinton supporters of varied races crossed over to Obama. (In full disclosure, I crossed over from Edwards) Sure there were black people who were saying they would equally not vote for Sen. Clinton if she got the nomination, but that was only if the rules were suddenly changed to favor Clinton. It is ironic that her supporters are now claiming this same charge--but with absolutely no evidence. In fact, they ironically seem spiteful that the rules were *not* changed to favor Clinton!
People are free to vote for who they will, and for whatever reasons. But if there are groups of white feminists who will vote for Sen. McCain or sit this out over spite, knowing what is at stake, they don't deserve the title "feminist." And they should state plainly the real reasons behind their objection to Obama, rather than hiding behind easily dismantled claims. I think history will show in the end that whatever role gender played, the Clinton campaign mostly did itself in. And whatever legitimate issues of sexism her supporters have, these charges should be directed at the white male dominated media establishment not Barack Obama. Black people--men and women--have pulled levers for the white male presidential candidate for decades, even if he was not at all our ideal pick. White women have no monopoly on that harsh reality.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Democrats Lose Spine (Again)- Cave on Iraq Bill
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS U.S. TOUR- SOLD OUT A few words on benchmarks. This has become the darling term of both Democrats and Republicans—certain achievements placed on the Iraqi government threatening them with an American withdrawal if these goals are not met. Now the Iraqis are the ones who are blamed for the mess in Iraq. They are told to reconcile their differences peacefully, while the U.S. and its so-called “coalition” drop laser-guided bombs and “whiskey pete” to solve their differences. The Iraqis are told to get their government in order and include the Sunnis—when it was the U.S., under its gubernator overlord Paul Bremer, who instituted the inane Baathist purge. The Iraqis have to take back their country from insurgents, when it was the U.S. President who bravely declared from several thousand miles away "bring 'em on," and decided to use their country as a battle ground--"fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." The Iraqis have to train their new army, when it was the U.S. that disbanded the old one—allowing them to take their guns with them. The Iraqis now have to sign away their oil in imbalanced policies to pay for the rebuilding of their country—the one the U.S. destroyed. The emerging “civil war” that now flares up around the country is the fault of the “ungrateful” Iraqis, and somehow those that unleashed those horrendous forces get to escape responsibility and point out that at least they got rid of their one-time ally Saddam Hussein. Near 3000 Iraqis die a month. Perhaps over 600,000 have died since the war began. Their country is shattered. Their various ethnic groups have been set against each other. Car-bombings—non-existent before—are now everyday occurrences there. And they remain an occupied state in the midst of an endless war zone. Yet they, who are bearing the brunt of the U.S.’s misguided necon policies, are the ones who are being told to "take some responsibility." There’s something inherently wrongheaded about that entire line of thinking. Basically, after an illegal invasion that broke their country and set it into chaos, the United States is now saying—“hey get your act together or we won’t do you any MORE favors!” Sorry Iraqis, take it from those of us in the know, America ain't big on owning up to its responsibilities much less implementing "reparations." Expect to be left holding the bag while we engage in bouts of selective amnesia into the role we played in bringing the present into being. Presidential candidate John Edwards put it bluntly enough: 
So now, after weeks of telling us to patiently wait…that they had some grand scheme in place to end the Iraq War, that they were going to stand up for the American public, 70% of whom want out of Iraq, the new Democratic Congress—elected on the backs of the Anti-War Movement—has collapsed, folded and conceded to the Bush administrations’ illegal Iraqi colonial adventure.
The Daily Kos sums it up well with a few choice links:
Democrats Concede on Iraq
Democrats Retreat in Funding Showdown
Bush Wins Congressional Battle Over Iraq
From the LA Times:Scrambling to send President Bush an emergency war spending bill he will sign, Democratic leaders have decided to drop their insistence on a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. The move - which comes just days after senior Democrats insisted that White House officials should support nonbinding timelines - is a significant concession to the president and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, who steadfastly have rejected any dates for bringing U.S. troops home.
No timeline. Yet Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nevada) insists the President “hasn’t been given a blank check.” Really? Because when a war that was supposed to cost $50 billion dollars, is now well over $400 billion and may reach a trillion whenever it’s done (with no timeline, who knows when that is), sure sounds like the administration is holding the checkbook to me and writing off the treasury that could be used to fight hunger, cure disease, build schools and more to war profiteers and the sucking black hole of despair that is now Iraq. If a war that has gone on longer than it took to defeat Nazi Germany doesn’t require a timeline, what does?
The occupation has gotten worse—if that was possible—since the Democrats took office. The so-called “surge” has done little to control or end the violence in the country. Over 100 U.S. troops were killed this past April alone, the highest of the year. An average of 100 Iraqis are now dying nearly each day! While there has allegedly been a 20% drop of violence in Baghdad, there's been a sharp rise nearly everywhere else in the country. What more exactly does the Congress need to make the case that this debacle needs a definitive time-line mandated end?
MSNBC notes:Benchmarks, sort of
Reid and other Democrats pointed to a provision that would set standards for the Iraqi government in developing a more democratic society. U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward meeting the goals, but Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed.
Oh that’s great. So they set benchmarks—but toothless weak benchmarks that the President can just waive when he feels like. So basically they gave him a bill with a built in signing statement, so he wouldn’t have to write one himself.
Back to the funding bill. Oh but wait, it gets better! According to The Hill:Liberal Democrats who have reluctantly backed House leaders on the Iraq war spending bill may defect due to the leadership's decision to eliminate any timeline for withdrawal from the legislation. That could force the leadership to rely on Republican votes to pass the bill, which is expected to come to the floor as early as Thursday.
So a Democratic majority Congress may pass a bill supported greatly by Republicans to support a Republican administration's war that most of their (the Democrats) party base opposes. Oh yeah, that's great. That's exactly why we all marched out to the voting booths in November.
The problem is that the Congress is scared--still scared of the Bush administration, still scared of being painted as "weak on defense" (though what exactly one is "defending" in an aggressive occupation seems unclear) and still so scared of being accused of "not supporting the troops," they're willing to let more troops--and even more Iraqis--die to achieve a political endgame. I understand the strategy. But what the Democratic leadership always fail to take into account, is that the more progressive and liberal base of their party--the ones who helped sweep them into power--are just about tired of being ignored or shafted in order to appease the Joe Lieberman wing of the party.
Kudos to those progressive Democrats (even those who voted to allow for the Iraq War to begin) who at least realize that tucking tail in the face of a bully like the Bush White House is a bad move. Give them an inch, and they'll make you pay in spades for it later. Conceding to the president on full funding for the Iraq war is a serious mistake. It is time to force an end to this war, and the only way for Congress to do that is to use its funding power. Any compromise that funds the war through the end of the fiscal year isn't a compromise at all, it's a capitulation. As I have said repeatedly, Congress should send the president the same bill he vetoed again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home.
Fact is, the Congress is not going to grow a spine until they are forced into doing so. And it won't come from a corporate news media that is too lazy or too complicit to actually do its job. Listen to the pundit class for the past few months, and they've spent more time nit-picking at the Democrats stance on the Iraq War than they have ever spent in criticizing the administration or the war itself. That means it's up to the American people. That 70% who say they want out of Iraq are going to have to do more than answer a poll inbetween sipping their Starbucks and catching up on American Idol. Going to have to be vocal and act up. And if you can't do that, then at the least support those who do.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will-- Frederick Douglass
