The Democrats Gloat Thread

The following should be of interest to dems:

WILD CARDS

Austin Chronicle - April 28, 2006

*Wild Card #1: The Joker.*

In an Op-Ed piece for USA TODAY (Dec. 21, 2004, p.13), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote that "when he assumed office President Bush announced that he wanted the Defense Department to transform… We are in a new century, and we have to make sure that we are organized and equipped for this new century." A year later an element of this transformation was revealed in one of the most important yet least reported changes in U.S. military protocol. Dec. 29, 2005, the Associated Press (on AOL News): "In a Bush administration revision of plans for Pentagon succession in a doomsday scenario, three of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's most loyal advisers moved ahead of the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force." This was accomplished by "a little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush… [moving] to near the top three under-secretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney."


Doomsday scenario, indeed. Should worse come to worse, the shots will be called not by experienced strategists but by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld "loyalists," specialists in ignoring reality -- the same breed of ideological fanatics who've blundered into the tragic quagmire that is today's Iraq. Of course, the authority to give orders does not translate into power unless those orders are obeyed. In a doomsday situation, pragmatic officers might refuse crazy orders. This is perhaps the reason that the Air Force -- the armed service that can do the most damage with the fewest personnel -- is being systematically staffed with evangelical Christians.


The Week, May 6, 2005, p. 18: "Born again Christians have become so aggressive in proselytizing at the U.S. Air Force Academy that 55 cadets have filed formal harassment complaints. In response, the academy has begun a course called ?'Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People,' though some evangelical cadets are questioning the need to take it… [saying] ?'We are in the majority, why do we have to do this?'" On June 3, 2005, The Week [p. 16] summarized a Los Angeles Times report that the academy "has essentially established evangelical Christianity as its official religion." The academy's head chaplain preaches that "those not ?'born again' will burn in the fires of hell… Younger cadets who skip the prayer services have been hunted down by seniors, who call them ?'heathens.' Even the football coach has joined in, putting up a banner in the locker room urging his players to join ?'Team Jesus Christ'… A team of visiting chaplains from YaleDivinitySchool found a shocking level of religious intolerance on campus…"


USA Today, June 22, 2005, p. 3: "An Air Force Academy chaplain who criticized a ?'pervasive evangelical bias' on campus among born-again Christian commanders, chaplains, and cadets submitted her resignation from the Air Force… Capt. Melinda Morton, a Lutheran minister… [said] she has had ?'no indication that either the academy or the Air Force is going to take the very difficult and necessary steps to bring the academy back' from unconstitutional mixing of religion and state."


This caused a stir. Academy commander Lt. Gen. John Rosa said, "I know I have problems in my cadet wing. I have issues in my staff, I have issues in my faculty." [The Week, July 1, 2005, p.7] A "task force" proposed reforms, emphasizing the necessity to respect all religious beliefs. The stir died down. But recently a one-paragraph item appeared in the New York Times [Feb. 10, 2006, p.17]: "AIR FORCE REVISES RELIGION RULES - The Air Force released new guidelines for religious _expression, dropping a requirement for chaplains to respect others' rights to their own beliefs and no longer cautioning top officers about promoting their personal religious views." (I had to read that twice. It was difficult to believe the first time.) On March 10, 2006, USA Today reported (sorry, I forgot to note the page number) that Air Force recruiters "use religion as [a] tool." Several Air Force personnel filed suit alleging "illegal proselytizing by evangelical Christian chaplains, officers and cadets at the Air Force Academy and *throughout the service.*" [My italics.] Master Sgt. Phillip Burleigh, an Air Force Reserve recruiter and 24-year veteran, said he "has been subjected to regular and persistent proselytizing by his superior officers against his will." Burleigh says recruiters are told "they need to accept Jesus Christ in order to perform their job duties" and "to use faith in Jesus Christ while recruiting."


An Air Force Academy graduate called this state of affairs "absolutely horrifying," which sounds to me like no exaggeration. An individual's personal faith is his right, and is usually no more or less harmful than other aspects of his individuality. But to instill extreme, intolerant, and (often) apocalyptic beliefs into an entire branch of the military -- especially the Air Force, with all its bombs, nuclear and otherwise -- is definitely, in Rumsfeld's words, a "transformation." What could be more dangerous than fanatics in command of fanatics? What will be their feeling toward Muslims, these pilots indoctrinated by the Air Force Academy's head chaplain to believe that "those not ?'born again' will burn in the fires of hell"? (For that matter, how will those pilots feel about San Francisco or New York? About Catholics? Jews?) With just a few carefully selected squadrons, it would be easy to unleash hellfire. "Absolutely horrifying" fits the case.


We can be certain that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have indoctrinated the Air Force and restructured the "doomsday" chain of command for a purpose. What that purpose might be, we can only imagine -- since neither Congress nor the national press are asking.


*Wild Card #2: Jack of Spades.*


"The Army just awarded Halliburton a $385 million contract to build detention centers for the Department of Homeland Security." [NY Times, 2/4/06, p.13] Who is to be detained and why, under what laws, and why does Homeland Security need its own prisons? Homeland Security isn't part of the military, so why is the money coming from the Army -- that is, from Rumsfeld's Pentagon to Cheney?'s Halliburton? Perhaps because an Army purchase needn't be specifically approved by Congress, thus there?'s no public debate? Depend upon it: folks who are now not "detained" are about to be. Yet this is another non-issue for our elected representatives and the national press.


*Wild Card #3: Ace of Hearts.*


Latinos are on the march -- hypocritically criticized for taking pride in their heritage by fourth-generation Americans who still brag of Irish or Italian roots. Be that as it may, history teaches one truth over and over: if enough people take to the streets for a cause, and if they stay in the streets and see it through, sooner or later they get what they want. Especially (in the West) if they are well-organized and peaceful. No one on any side of the immigration question anticipated the massive, energetic, well-organized Latino demonstrations all across this country. Now Latino-American citizens finally have an issue -- and apparently an organization -- that can draw them to the polls in numbers representing their actual presence in our society. And if that happens, everything may change.


The facts. "Nearly 23% of all people born in the U.S. in 2002 had a foreign-born mother." [The Week, July 22, 2005, p.18] That's a quarter of the newborn population -- which signals enormous change not far down the road, no matter what happens now. But for the present: California, New Mexico, and Texas have non-Anglo (mostly Latino) majorities, while Maryland, Mississippi, Georgia, New York, and Arizona are 40% non-Anglo [The Week, August 26, 2005, p.16]. If the immigration issue galvanizes Latino citizens to register and vote, they won?'t vote Republican; in that case, previous mid-term election calculations in states like Florida and Texas will be obsolete. If (a big if) Latino organizers can find common ground with other non-Anglos, Democratic prospects across the country get even better. And if (a wild if) this movement sticks to its ideals, it just might force key Democratic politicians to remember their constituents' ideals. I'm no optimist -- and no pessimist. But it's clear that this Latino-organized movement has the potential to be the most transformative change in American politics since 9/11.


In an irony typical of our era, immigrants may supply the galvanizing issue that wrests our government from the fanatical Right and returns America to the charge and care of common Americans.

re: Wild Cards"

Evangelistic christianity compulsory in the Air Force? Isn't that just about the most chilling thing you've read? Creepy.

Yeah. Americanism going downhill very fast, and most don't give a shet or are ignorant of what Bushco has done to this country.

... and anybody else who hysterically fears Christianity.

hysterically?

Evangelists of any religion are the most dangerous sects; why is it odd to keep an eye on their antics, and to ensure that their stated goals of a theocracy here in America don't come about?

Cycloptichorn

Most don't fear christianity or christians, just some fundamentalist christians that wants to change our laws to reflect their religious' beliefs. Now, that's dangerous!

Late in coming, but...

Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:33 p.m. EDT

Robert Byrd to President Bush: We Can Impeach You

In a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, former Ku Klux Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd, pledged to put President Bush on trial in the Senate if the House impeaches him.

Addressing the president in absentia, Sen. Byrd began by warning that Congress retains all its original powers under the Constitution.

"You better read that again in the Constitution," Byrd said, declaring that the Senate's powers include "serving as a court of impeachment.

"You better believe it, Mr. President," Byrd continued. "The Senate can send you home. You better believe that."

The ex-Klansman then added: "If the House impeaches you, the Senate will try you. The Senate, don't forget it, serves as a court of impeachment and has an equal say with the House on legislation."

Over at Democrats.com, where a transcript of Byrd's remarks turned up, the outburst was greeted enthusiastically.

Reacting to the West Virginia Democrat's impeachment threat, one poster declared, "Man, I like the sound of that . . . you've got to like whatever gumption some of these guys found while they were on their congressional break."

George Will just said on TV (the roundtable discussion on Stefanopolis's show) something about the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Sometimes he's right.

JLN, So true. Some of us have been saying that Bush is incompetent; we must also say that democrats have nothing over Bush.

Yes, C.I., second only to Republican maliciousness is my fear of the Democrats' political incompetence.

Even Kerry would beat Bush Jr now, if there'd be a re-run - by a seven-point margin:


Democrats should heed an implicit word of warning in these numbers though: note that, although Bush would get 10% less now, Kerry would not get a single percent more.

nimh, I'm afraid those kind of "what if's" don't hold much water. Kerry lost the election all by himself by his inability to debate Bush one-on-one.

I also used to think Kerry was much smarter than Bush as far as college education was concerned, but it seems they both had similar grades at Yale.

I prefer another candidate over Kerry; Obama seems like a good one for 2008.

To view this email as a web page, go here.

Dick Morris: Only Gore Can Stop Hillary

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Special to NewsMax.com

As we look toward 2008, it is obvious Republicans would like to see their GOP nominee triumph. Democrats clearly want one of their own in the White House. But there are many who want to see ABH -- "anybody but Hillary" -- get elected.

The former first lady's unique brand of transparently phony moderation, heartfelt inner socialism, Nixonian disregard for the norms of civilized politics and governance, and her well-documented tin ear on ethical issues make her the most dangerous aspirant for president since George Wallace (and he never had a chance of winning). (Story continues below...)

The more John McCain runs and Rudy Giuliani tests the waters, the clearer it gets that neither of these good men can command the Republican nomination.

McCain is too independent and Rudy too liberal. Republicans will not forgive the Arizona senator for his anti-torture bill, his backing for campaign finance reform, his support of major reforms in corporate governance, his opposition to big tobacco, his antipathy toward making the tax cuts permanent and his backing for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Nor will they overlook Rudy's support for abortion choice, gun control, affirmative action or gay rights.

But Hillary Rodham Clinton will campaign and she will run. Why not? She is the smartest woman in the world.

The point about Kerry being able to defeat Bush now reminds me of the quip that after "Stagflation" had hit the country and Carter had shown his "cowardice" against the Iranians who held our people hostages, Gerry Ford would have been able to beat Carter handily.

That was science-fiction.

Carter served for four years.

George W. Bush will serve for eight years.

One thing is certain-G. W. Bush will not become President in 2009. He can't run again.

George W Bush can't run again, but he will be known in history as the Worst President in American History; that's saying a whole lot that people like you miss. Bush is a disgrace not only to Americans, but to the world at large.

With three more years remaining in his term, we can almost be assured his rating will be the lowest of the low; like in the teens when he's forced to leave office. Be patient; he'll not disappoint you.

Democrats may consider him the "worst president," but this Republican reserves that title for James Earl Carter.

Carter's history is past; Bush still can prove his incompetence - over and over and over and over and over...... His rating will be much lower "after" Bush finishes his term. Carter's rating is "fixed."

So you're saying Bush's history is present?

Presents as of the latest polls showing Bush at 29 percent approval rating. That'll move up or down, but more than likely, following trends, it's headed much lower. He hasn't shown any competence in anything he does; doubt very much he's going to be changing any time soon or later.