In the Most Difficult of Times we Need a Presidential Candidate Who Is Willing to Fight for us

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-21-08 11:21 PM
Original message

In the Most Difficult of Times we Need a Presidential Candidate Who Is Willing to Fight for us

Our country is currently facing some of the most difficult times it has ever faced. Seven years of George W. Bush have given us a disastrous war, exploded our national debt, pushed millions into poverty, and raised the specter of a pending national recession or depression.

None of this has occurred by accident. It is the result of tax policies and corporate deregulation that favor the wealthy over average Americans. Those policies in turn are the result of a system of legalized bribery in American politics that tempts most of our political candidates to cater to wealthy corporate interests to the detriment of the vast majority of American citizens. Private corporations have thus taken control of our news media to the extent that the news received by the Average American citizen is greatly tilted in favor of corporate interests. And they have even taken control of our elections so that most of our votes are now counted with electronic machines that provide little confidence that our vote counts will be accurate.

What can we expect from the most lawless presidential administration in the history of our nation?

Worst of all, we are faced with the most lawless presidential administration in our history. This fact led me to a recent conversation with my uncle in which I expressed my fear of a coup d�etat by George Bush and Dick Cheney should they be faced with the possibility of a Republican defeat in 2008. His response, as would be expected of most Americans long conditioned by a corporate news media to have us accept preposterous government excesses, was to act like I was some sort of lunatic. As Naomi Wolf says in �The End of America�, �We assume, with our habits of democracy, that we can simply �throw the bums out� in 2008�. But I�m much more inclined to look at the situation as Wolf does:

Think again about 2008. Now think about human nature�.

Do people change direction so dramatically? Is it reasonable � is it really a matter of common sense � to assume that leaders who are willing to abuse signing statements (which, as Wolf points out, gives the president an effective unilateral veto over all laws passed by Congress that he doesn�t like); withhold information from Congress; make secret decisions; lie to the American people; use fake evidence to justify pre-emptive war; torture prisoners; tap people�s phones� and now simply ignore Congress altogether � leaders with, currently, a 29% approval rating � will surely say, come 2008 � �The decision rests in the hands of the people. May the votes be fairly counted�?

In trusting that the pendulum will swing when it comes time for the votes to be counted we are like a codependent woman with an abusive boyfriend; surely next time he will do what is right. It�s a truism that the definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. If for eight years this group has flouted equally precious rules of the democratic game, aren�t we rash to assume that the same group will see a transparent, fair election as sacrosanct?

The correct answer of course is YES!!! Wolf continues:

We in America are used to a democratic social contract in which there is agreement about the rules of the game: When Congress demands an answer, for example, the president doesn�t just refuse to pick up the phone� It�s time to notice that they are playing a different game altogether.

I would add to this list of Wolf�s the long practice of the Bush administration to indefinitely imprison people without charges or trial, its world-wide system of secret prisons, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which gives George Bush dictatorial power to throw people into prison indefinitely as �enemy combatants� upon his unilateral decision that they are �engaged in hostilities against the United States�.

Is the groundwork already prepared for a coupe d�etat?

Wolf goes on to discuss the groundwork already in place, with emphasis on the Defense Authorization Bill of 2007. This bill is described by journalist Major Danby as:

a sizeable step towards weakening states� authority over their National Guard units� The provision makes it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies.

Wolf explains:

The President� may expand his power to declare martial law and take charge of National Guard units without the permission of a governor when �public order� has been lost�

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy warned, though few paid much attention, that the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill would serve to encourage a president to declare martial law�

The President may now use military troops as a domestic police force, in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or an �other condition��

The Revolutionaries were convinced that an American President, if he was not checked, might raise a standing army of Americans and unleash it against American citizens� The Founders believed that this kind of military aggression was not possible so long as the Constitution functioned; they could not foresee the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill; nor could they have foreseen the development of private armies such as Blackwater�

I would add that they could not predict what would happen once our Constitution was torn to shreds. Or rather, they did predict that, which is exactly why they put safeguards into our Constitution to guard against presidential abuse � especially the impeachment clause. But safeguards such as impeachment can do no good so long as Congress fails to act as a check on presidential power, as they have consistently failed to do.

What can be done to prevent a Bush administration coup d�etat?

Probably no one can answer this question with any certainty. I certainly can�t. All I can say is that the American people must be vigilant in resisting any suggestion of a coupe. People might recall that the Bush administration floated the idea of cancelling the 2004 elections in the advent of a terrorist attack. The reaction to that idea was strongly negative, which was perhaps instrumental in causing them to decide to go ahead with the election. Perhaps my uncle is right that the American people will not stand for a coupe. Or perhaps he is wrong � after all, the American people have quietly accepted numerous outrages against their Constitution in the past seven years.

It would help immensely to have a leader in place who is vigilant and willing to stand up for the American people. If a coupe is attempted to prevent a Democrat from becoming president in 2009, the leader in the best position to resist that coupe will be the Democratic nominee for President or the President-elect. It will not help at that time to have a leader whose idea of being a leader is to infuse us with optimism during bad times or to accept tons of money from wealthy corporations. Nor will it help to have a leader who is enamored with past �leaders� such as Ronald Reagan. Rather, we will need a leader who is acutely aware of the imbalance of power in our country and who has pledged to take action to fight against that imbalance.

Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis discuss this issue:

It�s well established that Richard Nixon � mentor to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney � commissioned the Huston Plan, which detailed how to cancel the 1972 election.
Today we must ask: who would stop this administration from taking dictatorial power in the instance of a �national emergency�� Nothing in the behavior of this Congress indicates that it is capable of significant resistance. Impeachment seems beyond it�.

Short of that, Bush clearly does not view anything Congress might do as a meaningful impediment. After all, how many divisions does the Congress command? The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would almost certainly rubber stamp a Bush coup� If not, he could ignore it as easily as he would ignore Congress.

What does that leave? �. We can certainly assume the mainstream media will give lock-step support to whatever the regime says and does.� So how do we cope with the harsh realities of such a Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup? We may have about a year to prepare. Every possible scenario needs to be discussed in excruciating detail. For only one thing is certain: denial will do nothing.

Of the top 3 Democratic candidates, Edwards has led on all significant issues

Of the three top Democratic candidates, Edwards has consistently been the one who emphasizes the need to stand up against corporate interests in favor of the interests of the American people (and also the one to express the greatest commitment to ending the Iraq War.) A recent article in The Nation by Christopher Hayes makes that point:

No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, the fact remains that the Edwards campaign has set the domestic policy agenda for the entire field. He was the first with a bold universal health care plan, the first with an ambitious climate change proposal that called for cap-and-trade, and the leader on reforming predatory lending practices and raising the minimum wage to a level where it regains its lost purchasing power. Edwards� rhetoric has started to bleed into his rivals� speeches as well�.

Edwards maintains that he�s not going anywhere, saying that fighting corporate power on behalf of working people is �the cause of my life��. Ultimately the Edwards campaign has been both a campaign and a cause, with the latter outperforming the former� If the next Democratic President manages to pass universal healthcare or a carbon cap-and-trade, we�ll owe the Edwards campaign a significant debt.

Similarly, economist Paul Krugman has praised Edwards as the leader on health care. And he also stresses Edwards� leadership on domestic issues in general:

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party�s policy agenda. He�s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures� The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

The Obama campaign�s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I�m sorry to say, disreputable�. Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right� For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama�s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

Roadmap to a possible Edwards victory?

Admittedly things are not looking good for the Edwards campaign. But he continues to fight on, and he is by far the best remaining chance we have for effectively challenging the status quo. Eric Lee lays out a roadmap for a possible Edwards victory.

Only if one of the two front-runners withdraws from the race will Edwards now have a shot at the nomination. Is this possible? It is, and it is even likely� This is what it is likely Obama will do -- or Clinton, should their fortunes be reversed. Expect one of them to pull out shortly after Super Tuesday, 5 February.

And this is where an opportunity arises for John Edwards. By the morning of 6 February, the race will probably be all over according to the pundits. Senator Clinton is likely to be the front-runner, and Obama -- if he follows the pattern of all recent elections -- will withdraw. If John Edwards decides to stay in the race, even with a relatively small number of delegates, and challenges Clinton in the remaining states -- of which there are dozens -- he may pick up many of the former Obama supporters. And the race will get interesting again.

There is a clear opening for an insurgent candidate challenging the establishment. John Edwards is perfectly suited to play that role� According to reports last night, Edwards is staying in the race. I'm glad he's doing so. Whether he wins or loses, this is a fight worth fighting. And based on the experience of previous primary campaigns, in which all the candidates except the front-runner withdraw early on, it is a fight he can still win.

What about the chances of Obama dropping out? I believe that the major reason why he is doing so much better in Democratic polls than Edwards is that many Democrats see him as being substantially more progressive than he really is. Perhaps some more debates will shed more light on this. Ian Welsh elaborates on this issue:

I would add that he (Obama) also uses right wing frames far more often that the other two, his senior economic advisers are virtually reactionaries and talk of "hope" doesn't make you a progressive. (Remember Mr. "Morning in America" Reagan if you are inclined to disagree.)�

There is no reason for Edwards to drop out. He's still in the running, and if he wants to choose which of the other candidates wins if he doesn't, walking into the convention with a block of delegates large enough to do it is the best way.

Obama isn't Edwards � he is significantly to the right of Edwards and on the fight/compromise spectrum he is actually the most conciliatory of the three candidates. Edwards supporters want a fighter; that isn't Obama.

Edwards is alive and kicking, and a force to be reckoned with. There's no good reason for him to ever drop out of the nomination contest.