From Paul Krugman, behind the wall at The New York Times:
When a child is enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.
....
But President Bush says that access to care is no problem — “After all, you just go to an emergency room” — and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he’s declared that he’ll veto any Schip expansion on “philosophical” grounds.
On philosophical grounds?
Strange to say, however, the administration, although determined to prevent any expansion of children’s health care, is also dead set against any cut in Medicare Advantage payments.
So what kind of philosophy says that it’s O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?
I ask you.
Well, here’s what Mr. Bush said after explaining that emergency rooms provide all the health care you need: “They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through Schip; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a — I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy — to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.”
Or as certain Republican congressmen are already saying, it could lead to the dreaded "socialized medicine".
And there you have the core of Mr. Bush’s philosophy. He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it’s hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed.
Isn't Krugman wonderful? He has a way of getting right to the nub of it, doesn't he? This is life in the Bizarro World of Bush.
Krugman's title for this column is well-chosen - "An Immoral Philosophy".
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Ingmar Bergman Died Today
May he rest in peace and rise in glory.
His movies made me think about serious things, life and death, God, when I was still young. "The Seventh Seal" was unforgettable. "The Wild Strawberries" was unforgettably beautiful. Even when I didn't understand fully all the symbolism in his movies, they left a deep impression.
Kris Rasmussen, at Beliefnet has an appreciation, in which he gives us his favorite quote from Bergman:
"It is my opinion that art lost its basic creative drive the moment it was separated from worship. In former days the artist remained unknown and his work was to the glory of God... Today the individual has become the highest form and the greatest bane of artistic creation."
Oh, I like that.
Link from Jim Naughton at the Episcopal Café.
Not Very Smart
On Countdown James Moore, author of Bush's Brain, says:
"You can have an advanced degree from Harvard and not be very smart.". (Perhaps not an exact quote, but close) To whom is he referring? Surely not George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.
One commentator on the show, Jonathan Alter, speculated that Gonzales may be gone within a week. James Moore says it could take a lot longer. I agree with Moore. As I said before, Gonzales is the boy with his finger in the dike. If he goes, the entire edifice could begin to erode.
UPDATE: If Gonzales goes, will Bush be successful in finding another loyal lackey to risk everything to be his Attorney General?
"You can have an advanced degree from Harvard and not be very smart.". (Perhaps not an exact quote, but close) To whom is he referring? Surely not George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.
One commentator on the show, Jonathan Alter, speculated that Gonzales may be gone within a week. James Moore says it could take a lot longer. I agree with Moore. As I said before, Gonzales is the boy with his finger in the dike. If he goes, the entire edifice could begin to erode.
UPDATE: If Gonzales goes, will Bush be successful in finding another loyal lackey to risk everything to be his Attorney General?
Going To Church
For the two Sundays before yesterday, I missed going to church, one Sunday because I had a sleepover for five grandchildren, and the next because I was out of town visiting family, who are not churchgoers. Yesterday, I had only two grandchildren, and I managed to get it together and get myself there. It was good to be back. I miss the Sunday service, especially the Eucharist. I miss the music and the singing.
We have a new songbook of non-traditional hymns called "To The Glory Of God". In the schedule for the service, it is referred to as NSB for New Song Book. Since our organist was on vacation, and we had guitars and a wonderful old banjo for accompaniment, we used the NSB, even though we don't yet have enough of them to go around the congregation. My pew was one of those without the NSB, therefore I could only sing the hymns which I knew, or the choruses as I picked them up.
Our rector has a very soft voice, and I miss some of the words of the sermon each Sunday. Other members of the congregation have told me that they don't hear all of his words either. Once we have our parish web site up and running, I hope to persuade our priest to let me to type up his sermons and post them on the web site.
Our youth Sunday school will kick off in August with "A Cajun Man Swamp Tour". Only in Louisiana.
In the adult class, we will be using Simply Christian; Why Christianity Makes Sense, by N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, UK.
UPDATE: I'd say this is one of the most boring posts I've ever done. It looks as though the well has run dry.
We have a new songbook of non-traditional hymns called "To The Glory Of God". In the schedule for the service, it is referred to as NSB for New Song Book. Since our organist was on vacation, and we had guitars and a wonderful old banjo for accompaniment, we used the NSB, even though we don't yet have enough of them to go around the congregation. My pew was one of those without the NSB, therefore I could only sing the hymns which I knew, or the choruses as I picked them up.
Our rector has a very soft voice, and I miss some of the words of the sermon each Sunday. Other members of the congregation have told me that they don't hear all of his words either. Once we have our parish web site up and running, I hope to persuade our priest to let me to type up his sermons and post them on the web site.
Our youth Sunday school will kick off in August with "A Cajun Man Swamp Tour". Only in Louisiana.
In the adult class, we will be using Simply Christian; Why Christianity Makes Sense, by N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, UK.
UPDATE: I'd say this is one of the most boring posts I've ever done. It looks as though the well has run dry.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
This Is Rich, From Frank Rich
From Frank Rich, at the New York Times, behind the wall (sorry about that - but the NYT should be sorry, not me):
THERE was, of course, gallows humor galore when Dick Cheney briefly grabbed the wheel of our listing ship of state during the presidential colonoscopy last weekend. Enjoy it while it lasts. A once-durable staple of 21st-century American humor is in its last throes. We have a new surrogate president now. Sic transit Cheney. Long live David Petraeus!
....
And so another constitutional principle can be added to the long list of those junked by this administration: the quaint notion that our uniformed officers are supposed to report to civilian leadership. In a de facto military coup, the commander in chief is now reporting to the commander in Iraq. We must “wait to see what David has to say,” Mr. Bush says.
....
Though General Petraeus wrote his 1987 Princeton doctoral dissertation on “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam,” he has an unshakable penchant for seeing light at the end of tunnels. It has been three Julys since he posed for the cover of Newsweek under the headline “Can This Man Save Iraq?” The magazine noted that the general’s pacification of Mosul was “a textbook case of doing counterinsurgency the right way.” Four months later, the police chief installed by General Petraeus defected to the insurgents, along with most of the Sunni members of the police force. Mosul, population 1.7 million, is now an insurgent stronghold, according to the Pentagon’s own June report.
....
Well, anyone can make a mistake. And when General Petraeus cited soccer games as an example of “the astonishing signs of normalcy” in Baghdad last month, he could not have anticipated that car bombs would kill at least 50 Iraqis after the Iraqi team’s poignant victory in the Asian Cup semifinals last week. This general may well be, as many say, the brightest and bravest we have. But that doesn’t account for why he has been invested by the White House and its last-ditch apologists with such singular power over the war.
I hope that I have not gone beyond "fair use" in my quotes. If I have, I'll hear about it, if anyone takes note of my wee blog. If anyone finds a link to the whole article that is not behind the wall, let me know, and I will post it.
Just yesterday, I read this from the Associated Press:
BAGHDAD - A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.
But then we will lose our "surrogate president".
Iraq's foreign minister calls the relationship "difficult." Petraeus, who says their ties are "very good," acknowledges expressing his "full range of emotions" at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes "sometimes there are sporty exchanges."
It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general's tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.
An associate said al-Maliki once, in discussion with President Bush, even threatened to counter this by arming Shiite militias.
So. According to Maliki the relationship is "difficult", Petraeus says it's "very good", and Ambassador Crocker says they're only having "sporty exchanges". What are we to make of this?
I'm struck nearly dumb, but I'm glad Frank Rich can still speak.
THERE was, of course, gallows humor galore when Dick Cheney briefly grabbed the wheel of our listing ship of state during the presidential colonoscopy last weekend. Enjoy it while it lasts. A once-durable staple of 21st-century American humor is in its last throes. We have a new surrogate president now. Sic transit Cheney. Long live David Petraeus!
....
And so another constitutional principle can be added to the long list of those junked by this administration: the quaint notion that our uniformed officers are supposed to report to civilian leadership. In a de facto military coup, the commander in chief is now reporting to the commander in Iraq. We must “wait to see what David has to say,” Mr. Bush says.
....
Though General Petraeus wrote his 1987 Princeton doctoral dissertation on “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam,” he has an unshakable penchant for seeing light at the end of tunnels. It has been three Julys since he posed for the cover of Newsweek under the headline “Can This Man Save Iraq?” The magazine noted that the general’s pacification of Mosul was “a textbook case of doing counterinsurgency the right way.” Four months later, the police chief installed by General Petraeus defected to the insurgents, along with most of the Sunni members of the police force. Mosul, population 1.7 million, is now an insurgent stronghold, according to the Pentagon’s own June report.
....
Well, anyone can make a mistake. And when General Petraeus cited soccer games as an example of “the astonishing signs of normalcy” in Baghdad last month, he could not have anticipated that car bombs would kill at least 50 Iraqis after the Iraqi team’s poignant victory in the Asian Cup semifinals last week. This general may well be, as many say, the brightest and bravest we have. But that doesn’t account for why he has been invested by the White House and its last-ditch apologists with such singular power over the war.
I hope that I have not gone beyond "fair use" in my quotes. If I have, I'll hear about it, if anyone takes note of my wee blog. If anyone finds a link to the whole article that is not behind the wall, let me know, and I will post it.
Just yesterday, I read this from the Associated Press:
BAGHDAD - A key aide says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's relations with Gen. David Petraeus are so poor the Iraqi leader may ask Washington to withdraw the overall U.S. commander from his Baghdad post.
But then we will lose our "surrogate president".
Iraq's foreign minister calls the relationship "difficult." Petraeus, who says their ties are "very good," acknowledges expressing his "full range of emotions" at times with al-Maliki. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets with both at least weekly, concedes "sometimes there are sporty exchanges."
It seems less a clash of personality than of policy. The Shiite Muslim prime minister has reacted most sharply to the American general's tactic of enlisting Sunni militants, presumably including past killers of Iraqi Shiites, as allies in the fight against al-Qaida here.
An associate said al-Maliki once, in discussion with President Bush, even threatened to counter this by arming Shiite militias.
So. According to Maliki the relationship is "difficult", Petraeus says it's "very good", and Ambassador Crocker says they're only having "sporty exchanges". What are we to make of this?
I'm struck nearly dumb, but I'm glad Frank Rich can still speak.
Friday, July 27, 2007
I Know Not
As I was walking the other night, after saying my prayers (I find that my solitary walk is a wonderful time to pray), I thought about whether I would be with my grandchildren to see them grow up, and whether I would ever cross the ocean again to visit places I love, and which of us (Grandpère or me) would leave the other behind, and I realized that I didn't have the answer to any of the questions, and these few little words came to me:
I hope this post does not seem morbid, because neither my thoughts nor the poem saddened me. It's the reality of human life. We are born. We die. The time between the two is what differs for each of us.
At least Oscar, the cat, hasn't curled up beside either Grandpère or me - yet.
I Know NotThe nightly walk seems to be the place where my muse (if I can call her that) and I meet up.
What is my life to be?
I know not. I know not.
And will I cross the sea?
I know not. I know not.
And will you stay with me?
I know not. I know not.
Alas, I see! I see!
I know not what my life shall be.
June Butler - 7-27-07
I hope this post does not seem morbid, because neither my thoughts nor the poem saddened me. It's the reality of human life. We are born. We die. The time between the two is what differs for each of us.
At least Oscar, the cat, hasn't curled up beside either Grandpère or me - yet.
Red Hat and Purple Dress
Image from Red Hat Shopping.
Here's a little something for your Saturday morning pleasure.
Sometimes when I'd think (with no small regret) about getting old, T. S. Eliot's words from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" would come to mind:
I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
But those words never really satisfied me, because I wanted something more appropriate to an aging woman. I've been searching, and I've found it!
From "Warning" by Jenny Joseph:
When I am an old woman I shall wear purple
With a red hat which doesn't go, and doesn't suit me.
And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves
And satin sandals, and say we've no money for butter.
Suits me better than Eliot, don't you think?
Interview With Gene Robinson
From Ruth Gledhill via the Episcopal Café"
CofE 'would shut down' without its gay clergy, says +Gene.
Andrew Collier, a freelance journalist based in Scotland, has just interviewed Bishop Gene Robinson in London. We have reported in online. This is the bit I liked best: 'I think the thing that is the most mystifying to me and the most troubling about the Church of England is its refusal to be honest about just how many gay clergy it has – many of them partnered and many of them living in rectories. I have met so many gay partnered clergy here and it is so troubling to hear them tell me that their bishop comes to their house for dinner, knows fully about their relationship, is wonderfully supportive but has also said if this ever becomes public then I’m your worst enemy. It’s a terrible way to live your life and I think it’s a terrible way to be a church. I think integrity is so important. What does it mean for a clergy person to be in a pulpit calling the parishioners to a life of integrity when they can’t even live a life of integrity with their own bishop and their own church? So I would feel better about the Church of England’s stance, its reluctance to support the Episcopal Church in what it has done if it would at least admit that this not an American problem and just an American challenge. If all the gay people stayed away from church on a given Sunday the Church of England would be close to shut down between its organists, its clergy, its wardens.....it just seems less than humble not to admit that.'
The hypocrisy is bad enough, but pointing fingers at another church within the Anglican Communion, while at the same time covering up similar behavior in your own church, makes it all the worse.
The greater part of Gledhill's post is devoted to the interview by Andrew Collier with Gene Robinson. I was intrigued by Bishop Robinson's personal story, especially in light of my informal "survey" here.
Robinson: 'I think most gay people sense early on that they are different even if they are not exactly sure how they are different. That was certainly true for me by age 11 or 12. You have to remember that when I was that age, gay was not a word that was being used to describe homosexual people. There was very little discussion of it. There were certainly no role models like we have today of successful and productive people who were gay, so it was not something easily admitted to oneself, never mind the world.
The personal story continues at length, too long for me to quote, but it's quite good. I urge you to read the rest at Ruth Gledhill's site.
CofE 'would shut down' without its gay clergy, says +Gene.
Andrew Collier, a freelance journalist based in Scotland, has just interviewed Bishop Gene Robinson in London. We have reported in online. This is the bit I liked best: 'I think the thing that is the most mystifying to me and the most troubling about the Church of England is its refusal to be honest about just how many gay clergy it has – many of them partnered and many of them living in rectories. I have met so many gay partnered clergy here and it is so troubling to hear them tell me that their bishop comes to their house for dinner, knows fully about their relationship, is wonderfully supportive but has also said if this ever becomes public then I’m your worst enemy. It’s a terrible way to live your life and I think it’s a terrible way to be a church. I think integrity is so important. What does it mean for a clergy person to be in a pulpit calling the parishioners to a life of integrity when they can’t even live a life of integrity with their own bishop and their own church? So I would feel better about the Church of England’s stance, its reluctance to support the Episcopal Church in what it has done if it would at least admit that this not an American problem and just an American challenge. If all the gay people stayed away from church on a given Sunday the Church of England would be close to shut down between its organists, its clergy, its wardens.....it just seems less than humble not to admit that.'
The hypocrisy is bad enough, but pointing fingers at another church within the Anglican Communion, while at the same time covering up similar behavior in your own church, makes it all the worse.
The greater part of Gledhill's post is devoted to the interview by Andrew Collier with Gene Robinson. I was intrigued by Bishop Robinson's personal story, especially in light of my informal "survey" here.
Robinson: 'I think most gay people sense early on that they are different even if they are not exactly sure how they are different. That was certainly true for me by age 11 or 12. You have to remember that when I was that age, gay was not a word that was being used to describe homosexual people. There was very little discussion of it. There were certainly no role models like we have today of successful and productive people who were gay, so it was not something easily admitted to oneself, never mind the world.
The personal story continues at length, too long for me to quote, but it's quite good. I urge you to read the rest at Ruth Gledhill's site.
Feast Day Of William Reed Huntington
I was going to take a pass on doing the feast day today, since we've had a rather full week of feast days, but when I saw which saint was being honored, I changed my mind, because Huntington's legacy is pertinent to the times.
From James Kiefer at the The Lectionary:
From the Vauxhall Society:
Why is this document no longer sufficient as the basis of unity for the Anglican Communion? Why do we need Windsor Reports and covenants beyond what's covered in the the Creeds and the Lambeth Quadrilateral?
PRAYER
READINGS:
Psalm 133
Job 22:21-28
Ephesians 1:3-10
John 17:20-26
From James Kiefer at the The Lectionary:
W R Huntington, although never a bishop, had more influence on the Episcopal Church than most bishops....In each of the thirteen General Conventions...of the Episcopal Church that met between 1870 and his death,he was a member, and indeed the most prominent member, of the House of Deputies. In 1871 he moved for the restoration of the ancient Order of Deaconesses, which was finally officially authorized in 1889. His parish became a center for the training of deaconesses.
....
In his book "The Church Idea" (1870), Huntington undertook to discuss the basis of Christian unity, and he formulated the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, a statement adopted first by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in 1886 and then, with slight modifications, by the Bishops of the world-wide Anglican Communion assembled at Lambeth in 1888. The statement set forth four principles which Anglicans regard as essential, and offer as a basis for discussion of union with other Christian bodies.
From the Vauxhall Society:
Lambeth Quadrilateral
The Lambeth Quadrilateral is the name given to the four key principles that form the basis for the union of various churches that make up the Anglican faith:
* acceptance of the Holy Scripture as the rule of faith;
* the Apostles' and the Nicene creeds;
* the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper;
* and the principle of church government based on bishops.
The quadrilateral was first declared by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Chicago in 1886 and were amended and adopted at the 1888 Lambeth Conference.
Why is this document no longer sufficient as the basis of unity for the Anglican Communion? Why do we need Windsor Reports and covenants beyond what's covered in the the Creeds and the Lambeth Quadrilateral?
PRAYER
O Lord our God, we thank you for instilling in the heart of your servant William Reed Huntington a fervent love for your Church and its mission in the world; and we pray that, with unflagging faith in your promises, we may make known to all peoples your blessed gift of eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
READINGS:
Psalm 133
Job 22:21-28
Ephesians 1:3-10
John 17:20-26
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Bush/Cheney - Impeachment?
I have been struggling with the idea as to whether I want to see Bush/Cheney impeached. Impeaching Bush would be useless, because Cheney is the power behind the throne. Bush is a pawn in the game. The reason I struggled with the idea is not that think Bush/Cheney don't deserve impeachment, because I think they do. There is no doubt in my mind that the House has ample grounds to vote for impeachment hearings, but I want to get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. They've done what we asked them to do, and we are now an occupying force in Iraq. I want our part in the killing to stop. I hesitated on impeachment, because I have no faith that the US Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time.
But now I think it's time for impeachment hearings.
Those of you who did not get to see Bill Moyers' Journal on July 13, might want to have a look at Moyer's discussion with two constitutional scholars on whether George Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached.
From the transcript:
Bruce Fein has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and now writes a weekly column for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Politico.com.
He's joined by John Nichols, the Washington correspondent for THE NATION and an associate editor of the CAPITOL TIMES. Among his many books is this most recent one, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: THE FOUNDERS' CURE FOR ROYALISM.
Note that Fein's associations are with conservative institutions.
...BILL MOYERS: You're saying you want the judiciary committee to call formal hearings on the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney?
BRUCE FEIN: Yes. Because there are political crimes that have been perpetrated in combination. It hasn't been one, the other being in isolation. And the hearings have to be not into this is a Republican or Democrat. This is something that needs to set a precedent, whoever occupies the White House in 2009. You do not want to have that occupant, whether it's John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or John Edwards to have this authority to go outside the law and say, "I am the law. I do what I want. No one else's view matters."
JOHN NICHOLS: The hearings are important. There's no question at that. And we should be at that stage. Remember, Thomas Jefferson and others, the founders, suggested that impeachment was an organic process. That information would come out. The people would be horrified. They would tell their representatives in Congress, "You must act upon this." Well, the interesting thing is we are well down the track in the organic process. The people are saying it's time. We need some accountability.
BILL MOYERS: But Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree.
JOHN NICHOLS: Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is disregarding her oath of office. She should change course now. And more importantly, members of her caucus and responsible Republicans should step up.
....
BILL MOYERS: I have to interrupt you and say, look, you guys don't live in la-la land. Both of you are in-- in and around power all the time. Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi see it her duty to take on at least the impeachment hearings that you say would educate the public about the states that you think--
BRUCE FEIN: Because I think that politics has become debased so that it's a matter of one party against another and jockeying and maneuvering. There is no longer any statesmanship.
BRUCE FEIN: I go back to the real vulnerability and weakness of Congress, that they don't have anybody who can, as a chairman or even asking a question like John or me say, "Mr. Attorney General, you answer that question. This is the United States of America. Transparency is the rule here. We don't have secret government. That's what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about in the Gulag. That's not the United States of America. We pay your salary. We have a right to know 'cause it's our duty to decide whether what you're doing is legal and wise, not yours. Answer that question or you're held in contempt right now." And that's-- and all you need is that tone of voice. But what happens up there? "Well, would you please answer?" Well, are you sure? When-- could you get John Ashcroft? I mean, it's just staggering.\
....
BILL MOYERS: You just said in one sentence there "impeach Bush and Cheney." You're talking about taking that ax against the head of government, both of them.
JOHN NICHOLS: No. No, no, no.
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an ax, Bill.
JOHN NICHOLS: We're talking--
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an ax-- it's not--Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are being--
BRUCE FEIN: --we cannot entrust the reins of power, unchecked power, with these people. They're untrustworthy. They're asserting theories of governments that are monarchical. We don't want them to exercise it. We don't want Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or anyone in the future to exercise that.
JOHN NICHOLS: Bill Moyers, you are making a mistake. You are making a mistake that too many people make.
BILL MOYERS: Yes.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don't have to have a war. We don't have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic. So we're not talking here about taking an ax to government. Quite the opposite. We are talking about applying some necessary strong medicine that may cure not merely the crisis of the moment but, done right-
BRUCE FEIN: Moreover, it's--
JOHN NICHOLS: --might actually cure--
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an attack on Bush and Cheney in the sense of their personal-- attacks. Listen, if you impeach them, they can live happily ever after into their-
JOHN NICHOLS: And go to San Clemente.
BRUCE FEIN: Yes, go to San Clemente or go back to the ranch or whatever. But it's saying no, it's the Constitution that's more important than your aggrandizing of power. And not just for you because the precedent that would be set would bind every successor in the presidency as well, no matter Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise.
I had a really hard time picking out quotes to use, because the two men said so much that is right and true. If you have the time to watch the video or read the whole transcript, it's well worth it. They indict not only Bush/Cheney, but the supine Congress for not doing its job and not exercising the power of the purse to put a stop to the abuses of the Constitution.
Fein was on Countdown last night. I hope he'll be all over TV, because he is articulate and knows his stuff and makes an excellent case.
It's time for impeachment. It's past time.
But now I think it's time for impeachment hearings.
Those of you who did not get to see Bill Moyers' Journal on July 13, might want to have a look at Moyer's discussion with two constitutional scholars on whether George Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached.
From the transcript:
Bruce Fein has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and now writes a weekly column for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Politico.com.
He's joined by John Nichols, the Washington correspondent for THE NATION and an associate editor of the CAPITOL TIMES. Among his many books is this most recent one, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: THE FOUNDERS' CURE FOR ROYALISM.
Note that Fein's associations are with conservative institutions.
...BILL MOYERS: You're saying you want the judiciary committee to call formal hearings on the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney?
BRUCE FEIN: Yes. Because there are political crimes that have been perpetrated in combination. It hasn't been one, the other being in isolation. And the hearings have to be not into this is a Republican or Democrat. This is something that needs to set a precedent, whoever occupies the White House in 2009. You do not want to have that occupant, whether it's John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or John Edwards to have this authority to go outside the law and say, "I am the law. I do what I want. No one else's view matters."
JOHN NICHOLS: The hearings are important. There's no question at that. And we should be at that stage. Remember, Thomas Jefferson and others, the founders, suggested that impeachment was an organic process. That information would come out. The people would be horrified. They would tell their representatives in Congress, "You must act upon this." Well, the interesting thing is we are well down the track in the organic process. The people are saying it's time. We need some accountability.
BILL MOYERS: But Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree.
JOHN NICHOLS: Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is disregarding her oath of office. She should change course now. And more importantly, members of her caucus and responsible Republicans should step up.
....
BILL MOYERS: I have to interrupt you and say, look, you guys don't live in la-la land. Both of you are in-- in and around power all the time. Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi see it her duty to take on at least the impeachment hearings that you say would educate the public about the states that you think--
BRUCE FEIN: Because I think that politics has become debased so that it's a matter of one party against another and jockeying and maneuvering. There is no longer any statesmanship.
BRUCE FEIN: I go back to the real vulnerability and weakness of Congress, that they don't have anybody who can, as a chairman or even asking a question like John or me say, "Mr. Attorney General, you answer that question. This is the United States of America. Transparency is the rule here. We don't have secret government. That's what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about in the Gulag. That's not the United States of America. We pay your salary. We have a right to know 'cause it's our duty to decide whether what you're doing is legal and wise, not yours. Answer that question or you're held in contempt right now." And that's-- and all you need is that tone of voice. But what happens up there? "Well, would you please answer?" Well, are you sure? When-- could you get John Ashcroft? I mean, it's just staggering.\
....
BILL MOYERS: You just said in one sentence there "impeach Bush and Cheney." You're talking about taking that ax against the head of government, both of them.
JOHN NICHOLS: No. No, no, no.
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an ax, Bill.
JOHN NICHOLS: We're talking--
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an ax-- it's not--Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are being--
BRUCE FEIN: --we cannot entrust the reins of power, unchecked power, with these people. They're untrustworthy. They're asserting theories of governments that are monarchical. We don't want them to exercise it. We don't want Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or anyone in the future to exercise that.
JOHN NICHOLS: Bill Moyers, you are making a mistake. You are making a mistake that too many people make.
BILL MOYERS: Yes.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don't have to have a war. We don't have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic. So we're not talking here about taking an ax to government. Quite the opposite. We are talking about applying some necessary strong medicine that may cure not merely the crisis of the moment but, done right-
BRUCE FEIN: Moreover, it's--
JOHN NICHOLS: --might actually cure--
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an attack on Bush and Cheney in the sense of their personal-- attacks. Listen, if you impeach them, they can live happily ever after into their-
JOHN NICHOLS: And go to San Clemente.
BRUCE FEIN: Yes, go to San Clemente or go back to the ranch or whatever. But it's saying no, it's the Constitution that's more important than your aggrandizing of power. And not just for you because the precedent that would be set would bind every successor in the presidency as well, no matter Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise.
I had a really hard time picking out quotes to use, because the two men said so much that is right and true. If you have the time to watch the video or read the whole transcript, it's well worth it. They indict not only Bush/Cheney, but the supine Congress for not doing its job and not exercising the power of the purse to put a stop to the abuses of the Constitution.
Fein was on Countdown last night. I hope he'll be all over TV, because he is articulate and knows his stuff and makes an excellent case.
It's time for impeachment. It's past time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)