Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.
When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive. As noted by NPR, Mukasey "danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is." "If it amounts to torture," Mukasey said carefully, "then it is not constitutional."
Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates? Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?
he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.
President Bush plans to play the part of the hero by visiting California, now ravaged by fire. But on this issue he's the villain -- it's two years after Hurricane Katrina and the only progress he's made is actually acknowledging that global warming exists. If we're going to avoid tragedies like this in the future, we must take the long-term view. On this point, the science is clear: global warming has already led to increased wildfire activity in the U.S., and if we don't dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, the problem is going to get much worse.
More than ever, we need a president committed to making real and deep change in how we treat the planet.
"After 7 years of George Bush - the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history - it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President."
Come around after the fold with me for Part II of my interview with Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action.
Interview by Tom P, and cross-posted from Daily Kos with his permission.
Last week, Friends of the Earth Action ("FOE Action") endorsed John Edwards. This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and of Friends of the Earth Action, about FOE Action's endorsement of John Edwards.
Part I of the interview is in this diary.
Here's a little about FOE Action for those unfamiliar with it:
Founded by David Brower in 1967, Friends of the Earth Action has established a 35-year record of not only fighting the tough battles, but winning them too. FoE Action provides extra political muscle on legislative battles here in the U.S. for to our sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world.
snip
FoE Action looks beyond the symptoms of environmental degredation, to the systemic causes.
Today, Chase Martyn of the Iow Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment. Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting "I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for."
Martyn came away highly impressed. Martyn described Richardson's speech as "bold and informative. . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.
In his speech, Richardson set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war. Richardson stated: "A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism."
Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq. While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq.
At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk. He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war.
Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq. Edwards' judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today. He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.
Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces.
On Iraq, Richardson stated, "If you haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough -- we need to end the war."
Everyone should watch Richardson's speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The video clip follows.
"Organizers of California Draft Gore, a grassroots campaign to put Al Gore's name on the California presidential primary ballot, announced today that the campaign has volunteers located in or assigned to all of the state's 53 congressional districts.
Originally convening on websites like algore.org, meetup.com, and draftgore.com, California Gore supporters quickly built the infrastructure necessary to take advantage of the California Election Code, which allows for a candidate's name to be placed on the ballot if at least 500 registered Democrats' signatures are obtained from each of the state's congressional districts.
"In less than sixty days we have filled almost all of the campaign coordinator positions," said Patrick McGovern, the Los Angeles regional campaign coordinator. "With estimates of over 1,000 volunteers statewide, we are a broad cross-section of Californians."
One of the first of many Gore '08 groups to move beyond petitions and pleas, the California campaign's well-organized grassroots volunteers are optimistic about its chance of success. California Election Code allows signatures to be collected from October 8th through December 4th, and Berkeley campaign coordinator Gabi Baty believes that the campaign will meet that deadline because "we have people ready to hit the ground running."
"There's no doubt we'll succeed. The only question is, how quickly. The sooner it's inevitable that Al Gore will be on the ballot, the sooner he'll take notice," mused San Diego coordinator Ben Cooper. "We want Gore to realize that we've ignited the 'new movement to rekindle the true spirit of America,' he described in The Assault on Reason. We're not trying to pressure him to run. We're planning to inspire him."
Many of the campaign's volunteers view their efforts in this light. "We're doing our part to help him make a decision," said Beverly Flynn, a campaign coordinator from Turlock who had never been involved with politics until she joined California Draft Gore.
Baty agrees. "Our work to get him on the California ballot may encourage Gore. He may find himself at the front of a wave that's pushing him forward."
Campaign organizers are still recruiting volunteers for the signature-gathering campaign. Though California Draft Gore counts many seasoned politicos among its members, it also attracts political newcomers. Linda Morreale, is one such volunteer. Why Gore and why now? "It feels important," she said. "Of all the choices, he's the best."
For more information on the campaign or to contribute to California Draft Gore's campaign, visit www.california4gore.org.
About California Draft Gore:
California Draft Gore, a grassroots organization, is a Federal PAC. The organization and its website are not affiliated with or authorized by Al Gore, any candidate or candidate's committee."
This is something new in American Politics…
Don't discount the efforts of real people doing what, for the longest time only spin machines, special interest money and professional campaign people did, pick their choice for President. We have a right to make this civic action, it's our job as citizens. It is not the outcome that is so significant but the process being done. I think Mr. Gore will agree with that and is quite fascinated by our work. We exemplify what he talked about in the Assault On Reason. Just look at past popular movements in this country such as the Civil Rights Movement. I'm sure people discounted them in the beginning. Don't be so quick to judge, it takes time to test out these things.
If you have a mind, use it, if you have a voice, speak it, if you have political will,
exercise it. I thank God for Al Gore. God bless America and God bless this beautiful earth.
I hope you all don't mind a New Yorker posting here, but I was asked to do some Internet outreach by the California for Gore people, and this is the obvious place to start. If you don't know, California for Gore was launched not too long ago with the sole purpose of organizing people, collecting signatures, and eventually getting Al Gore's name on the primary ballot early next year. To do so, 500 Democratic signatures are needed from every congressional district, and from what I understand, an affidavit by Gore is not necessary. In other words, if the signatures are gotten, his name will be appearing on the ballot, and he will have delegates at the convention whether he announces a run or not.
At the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.
Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq. Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming "it's impossible to say." Clinton echoed Biden's view, vaguely offering "a reasonable and prudent plan" to get our troops out. Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.
Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:
Zero troops! . . . Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out. We need to end this war now.
(Note: I posted this at Daily Kos recently, and based on a pretty good response I'm trying to give it a little more exposure. Hope you don't mind the crosspost)
John Edwards is pretty good when it comes to the credit card industry. To be sure, he has made an issue out of it, while I can't find much anything about the issue on either Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's websites. I'll give credit where it's due: He's willing to take on issues that matter to real Americans.
But then the flip-side of that is that I'm addressing this diary to him, and not to the others. They should listen too. But I think Edwards is the only one who might, and maybe is the one who can make the best political use as well.
I want to add to the analysis of the proposed California Republican power grab initiative. Should it pass, we could lose about 19 of California's 55 electoral college votes to the Rep candidate.
If the initiative qualifies for the June 2008 California primary election, we will of course fight it tooth and nail. But all is not lost if it passes. We can still win in 2008 in a landslide. We don't have to have Rep Presidents forever. However, we must nominate a candidate that can win in solid Red states - and the best candidate for that task is Bill Richardson.
August 27-28, 2007 - Cancer Forum, Cedar Rapids, IA (MSNBC & Live Streaming)
September 9, 2007 - Univision Forum (Spanish)
September 26, 2007 - Hanover, New Hampshire
October 30, 2007 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
November 15, 2007 - Las Vegas, Nevada
December 10, 2007 - Los Angeles, California
January 6, 2008 - Johnson County, Iowa
January 15, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 - California
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly....
he's only human, guys....let's go....
missed the debate, Sunday, August 19th in Iowa? replay on C-Span, 6:30 & 9:30 PM ET/PT
August 19, 2007 - Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa (ABC) 8PM
August 27-28, 2007 - Cancer Forum, Cedar Rapids, IA (MSNBC & Live Streaming)
September 26, 2007 - Hanover, New Hampshire
October 30, 2007 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
November 15, 2007 - Las Vegas, Nevada
December 10, 2007 - Los Angeles, California
January 6, 2008 - Johnson County, Iowa
January 15, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 - California
I have to be blunt about one part of life in California since moving here. Election year 2006 was not a pleasant experience for me in the state. Before the June Gubernatorial Primary, I watch Dianne Feinstein among others campaign up and down the state for Phil Angelides. I voted for Steve Westley, but when the ticket was set for the November election, I was a good soldier and line up fore-square behind Phil. So where was Dianne?
Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with "incendiary rhetoric," and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically.
Richardson's week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida. Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked:
Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?
Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, "For other Democratic candidates, we've not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment."
For a full review of Richardson's week, continue reading.
.First of all, I'd like to thank the Edwards campaign folks for setting up the meeting for us. It was really nice to get a chance to talk with somebody who is obviously an incredible woman. No matter what political bent or who you support, she is clearly a courageous and intelligent woman. In this picture, you see (L to R) Elaine Santore , Beth Spotswood, Sasha, Paul Hogarth, Mrs. Edwards, Julia Rosen, and myself
Sasha at Left in SF has a really good recap post of the entire day, including a really cool shooting-down of Bob Shrum's book by telling the reporters to go to youtube. Here's the video. But, I've got the video of the meeting, so you can see it in its entirety (um, hopefully soon, stupid computer...).
She addressed a litany of issues, including her husband's Senate record, the Iraq war, and economic/poverty issues. She had a very long speaking engagement, and she seems to be holding up remarkably well. I'm quite amazed that anybody, let alone a woman battling cancer, has the stamina to keep the kind of schedule that she's keeping.
This was a significant week in Bill Richardson's campaign for President, with a major address on climate change and how to end the bloodshed in Iraq.
It was also a significant week for peace and stability in Korea and Asia - which highlights Richardson's expertise in foreign affairs and his diplomatic skills. With Richardson as President we get two for the price of one - a can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat that knows how to bring people and nations together.
Running for president this cycle is not a very straight forward proposition, not that ever has been particularly easy. The condensed primary calendar means that candidates no longer can spend just about all of their campaign time in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, that does not mean that they will not spend the lion share there. Candidate performance in those two states will deeply effect the media narrative and public perception leading into the other early primary states like California on February 5th.
Part of the reason why there is such a big push for massive amounts of money is that candidates will need to spend the traditional amounts in the early caucuses and compete in the other states just days later. WaPo:
I've been to many a convention, but this one was the most interesting. You've read about most of it by now. This is my Blog post from www.sfgate/community/blogs
