Impeachment to Save the Constitution
Posted August 9th, 2007 by jimkahanTo impeach or not to impeach, that is the question. There is ample evidence that Bush and Cheney committed what the Constitution terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” as they capitalized on the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 to expand the power of the executive, violate civil liberties, promote a culture of fear, and instigate an unjust war. From 2001 to 2006, they had the acquiescence of a compliant Republican Congress, but since the election of November, 2006, there can be no legal justification for Bush and Cheney continuing to expand their power beyond what the Constitution mandates.
This places us in a Constitutional crisis which is the most important issue of the day—more important than the war in Iraq, civil liberties, global warming, access to health care and the other burning problems facing us. Impeachment is an appropriate solution to such a crisis. However, while impeachment (that is, indictment) in the House of Representatives, requiring only a majority vote, is well within the realm of the possible, conviction by the Senate requires a two-thirds vote, and is less likely. The question then becomes whether the impeachment process is worth going through?
Gordon Smith and the 2002 Klamath Fish-Kill
Gordon Smith played politics during the 2001 drought by subverting conservation laws and destroying endangered salmon, simply to win re-election. In order to secure rural southern-Oregon votes in the last election cycle, Smith and the Bush administration over-rode water level policies and violated the law, specifically the Endangered Species Act, in order to appease agricultural interests in southern-Oregon.
Forgoing proposed solutions which could have avoided the crisis by adopting plans which buy up land from farmers willing to sell and subsidizing area farms impacted by the drought. This would have protected farms, salmon runs and the fishing industry. Instead Karl Rove and Gordon Smith looked at opinion polls and overturned the science. The result...?
The largest fish-kill in the region's history!
"Brown" is the new "pink"
Posted July 26th, 2007 by LestatdelcOver at BlueOregon in the comments to a piece that DPO Chairwoman Meredith Wood Smith posted about Democrats "Living Our Values", a Fright-Wing™ nutter using the handle "county" posted within a torrent of misguided B.S. this little gem:
Oregon voters voted one man one woman, and again, the values of the legislature was to overturn the will of the peoples vote.
Which is utter crap. The overwhelming majority of Oregonians in poll after poll (even conservative skewed polls like Riley Reasearch's one from two years) favor civil unions (CUs) which extend equal rights for same-gender couples (and not just Oregon either, but nationally as well I might add). That ignorant folks like "county" buy into scare tactic B.S. about the word "marriage" is why bigoted measures like 36 passed. And while CUs are still separate and unequal (because they do nothing on the Federal level) the overwhelming majority of voters support them. So his/hers conflation of measure 36 and the passage of CU legislation is sophistry writ large.
All that aside, majority rules is not an expression of values. If we used that as the basis alone for what constitutes "values" then we would still "value" and have Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws on the books and being enforced. Just because people like "county" hold values which are predicated on discrimination and bigotry does not make it values that Democrats, nor the majority of Oregonians as a whole ascribe too.
Deflecting Gordon Smith's BS
Whether it is selling out fishermen, the environment and native American tribes in order to buy up the Klamath basin farmer vote in 2002, to his flip-flopping all over every side of the Iraq invasion, like when he declared it possibly criminal yet still voted to full fund it, to claiming to be for equal rights for non-heterosexuals yet lending his name in support of the anti-gay Measure 36, you simply never know what Smith stands for, other than getting elected.
So in order to protect yourself from Senator Smith's bullshit, we at wiseass.org have added a special “Gordon Smith Bullshit Deflector” to our line of Bullshit deflectors and protectors.
Our deflectors and protectors were inspired by Bill Moyer, a 73 year old vet, who was seen wearing "Bullshit Protector" flaps over his ears while Bush addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Will Gordon Smith hit the mattresses or pull a Packwood?
Posted July 17th, 2007 by Lestatdelc
Tonight there are fireworks scheduled on the floor of the United States Senate as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid-D (NV) is calling the Republicans bluff on their threats of a filibuster. CNN even showed video of some service employee rolling mattresses into an side-room for Senators to nap on for the marathon debate session which is expected.
Wiseass getting wiser
Posted July 17th, 2007 by wiseass.orgAs you may notice, this site is going through a major overhaul/facelift. We are moving to an open-source content management system called Drupal, which will allow a more robust capability for this site. This will include bloging with comments, wiki's and a much more suitable vehicle for generating and publishing a lot of new content.
So bear with us as we move the site into its new form and continue to work to smooth off the rough spots of the new site's architecture.
AUMF-er ...what animates the arrogance of Bush
Posted July 16th, 2007 by Lestatdelc
Back at the beginning of April, I put up a piece which laid out the political/legal basis for why we have witnessed unprecedented arrogance on the part of George W. Bush, and the general feckless response of the then relatively new Democratic majority in Congress.
It argued that the Congress had basically given away its war-powers, and any vestige of leverage over the Bush administration when it voted to authorize the use of force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 with the 2001 AUMF, and how the AUMF in Oct 2002 (more commonly known as the "Iraq War Vote") was basically political kabuki.
We have a candidate to take on Gordon Smith
Posted April 18th, 2007 by wiseass.org
In less than an hour, we will have an official announcement of a strong candidate who will take the fight to the single, statewide elected GOP office-holder here in the state of Oregon. Senator Gordon Smith. A candidate who has the intellect, the fire in the belly, and the proven resumé to stand up for the interests of ordinary citizens. To hold accountable the monied interests and the powerful, that they too must operate on a level playing field with you and I. Read more about this candidate in his announcement speech:
Dear Friends:
I'm running for the United States Senate because Oregon's working families need someone to fight for them - and a fighter needs a hard left hook.
I'm running because while George Bush has been taking our country to hell, Senator Gordon Smith had his hand on the handbasket every step of the way.
I'm running because Gordon Smith represents government of the rich, by the powerful, and for the special interests, and I believe in government of the people, by the people and for the people
Why Bush is so arrogant about Iraq
Posted April 6th, 2007 by wiseass.orgThe reason why we will never leave Iraq and why Bush is so arrogant about it is because of the willingness of our elected Representatives in Congess to not address the real problem. Or more plainly, it is a lack of willingess to reclaim it's inherent constitutional powers. There is still too much concern about electoral fears and PR damage done held by too many in Congress to be "willing" to reclaim Congressional War powers, which were ceded actually in 2001 with the AUMF authorizing what was first exploited by Bush to invade Afghanistan which it only did because it had to POLITICALLY.
Iran, Bigotry and the Bomb (Part II)
Posted December 25th, 2006 by wiseass.orgThis is the second part in exploring the history of our involvement the region, which serves as backdrop of our historical and current posture within the middle and near east, and one of the larger metaphorical elephants in the room...Iran.
The first part's historical coverage began with the era when the British involvement in Iran started, which was roughly 1872. It details the corrupt Shahs of the Qajar dynasty who sold off concessions to foreign interests, mainly the British and Tsarist Russia, in order to feed their lavish personal lifestyles.
