OpEd in NYTimes today.


Subject: RE: The Difference Two Years Made
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:58:16 -0500

The editorial below makes me feel a tiny bit vindicated after years of
concern and comments about the current US administration. When a
centrist, establishment newspaper, that many mistakenly label "liberal"
reaches this point, if I were not sad because of the waste of
resources-people and programs---during the past six years, I would
smile.

I watched C-Spajn last night, Gary Hart on his new book, The Courage of
Our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats., His position and statement
of the need for principles and conviction seem to be well stated. He
observes that the Democrats have no principles around which to coalesce.
Remember the "old days" of "platforms?" At least these platforms tried
to stand for something substantial. Hart said that people should look up
the word "liberal." It means open/broad-minded, generous, free,
committed to civic virtue ( not bedroom politics) among other things,
such as LIBERTY, and other progressive thoughts. The dysfunctional,
delusional paranoids in power could use a lot of "shock therapy." I
hope tomorrow applies the needed wattage.

Actually, I do not think either entrenched party has the guts and
grit to pull out of its self-destructive mind-set. Understanding the
reluctance of Americans to move beyond its adolescent concerns, I would
like to hope for the incorporation of less self-serving and more
communally productive ideas to begin to emerge, as in global without
the military-corporate control. After all, Thomas Jefferson named the
first US political party "Democrat-Republican."
g

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: 11/5/2006 3:19:06 PM
Subject: The Difference Two Years Made


Editorial
NY Times
The Difference Two Years Made

Published: November 5, 2006

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has
endorsed for election, we will include no Republican
Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory.
Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on
national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a
long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House.
Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as
vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House
and for the most part, the Senate during President Bushs tenure
has done a terrible job on the basics. Its
tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the
middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has
refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically
little about the countrys dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed
toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too
long in power. They methodically shut the opposition and even
the more moderate members of their own party out of any role in
the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be
self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that
burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a
shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It
was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal
austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse
that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even
directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed
their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page
endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics
reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues
like the environment, civil liberties and womens rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans attempt to
undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have
safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact
that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one
party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as
everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the
Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has
made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond
any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb
these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated
themselves to removing restraints on the presidents ability to
do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans
feel you dont need to have oversight hearings if your party is
in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a
partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the
chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing
questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president
accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It
also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about
whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of
mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one
agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American
contractors who have botched everything from construction work
to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal
detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantnamo Bay,
Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the
atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the
election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House,
Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of
noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though
many of them were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful
of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation
for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the
Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the
presidents campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers
used this bill to further Mr. Bushs goal of stripping the powers
of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush and the
Congressional majoritys insistence on protecting him from the
consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the
popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an
enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004,
he announced he now had real political capital and intended to
spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to
contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next
Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on
the House and Senate.