"Last weekend, Karl Rove said that I was a clown and the antiwar movement was "non-existent." I wonder if the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up today to protest this war and George's failed policies know that they don't exist. It is also so incredible to me that Karl thinks that he can wish us away by saying we aren't real. Well, Karl and Co., we are real, we do exist and we are not going away until this illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq is over and you are sent back to the depths of whatever slimy, dark, and loathsome place you came from. I may be a clown Karl, but you are about to be indicted. You also preside over one of the biggest three ring, malevolent circuses of all time: the Bush administration.
The rally today was overwhelming and powerful. The reports that I was arrested today were obviously false. The peace rally was mostly very peaceful. Washington, DC was filled with energetic and proud Americans who came from all over to raise their voices in unison against the criminals who run our government and their disastrous policies that our making our nation more vulnerable to all kinds of attacks (natural and "Bush" made disasters).
I led the march for peace along side such venerable activists as the Reverends Al Sharpton, Bob Edgars, and Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Julian Bond. Two of our Congresswomen with cajones from California: Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey also led the march.
Many people told me thank you for coming. I want to tell America "thank you!!" At the Camp Casey reunion this evening, I was so overcome with emotion and gratitude that I wanted to hug every citizen of this country. We in the Camp Casey movement are so proud and thrilled that America showed up in such great numbers.
So much happened today! I am exhausted but very content. I am again filled with a renewed sense of hope that we will get our country back and get our troops home. I was also thrilled at the number of young people who came out today. That is another great sign that the side of good is winning.
With the Reverends, we stopped in front of the White House and said a prayer. After the prayer, I said that we are light and they are darkness. Darkness can NEVER overcome the light, ever. As long as there is one spark, the darkness has lost. We will prevail, we will be victorious. The darkness has lost because our beacons of peace and truth are shining for the entire world to see. And it is a very pretty sight. Take that Karl."-Cindy Sheehan on AfterDowningStreet.org.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Local coverage of yesterday's anti-war protests
"In Seattle, protesters from as far as Montana and Vancouver, B.C., gathered at Westlake Center and then marched to the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building on Second Avenue and back to Westlake. Organizers estimated the crowd at 5,000, though it appeared much smaller during a two-hour rally that featured Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle.
The crowd chanted "No more war" while carrying anti-war and anti-Bush signs through downtown. Among the marchers were members of the Green Party of Seattle, the King County Labor Council and numerous social-service and ethnic minority groups. Police arrested one protester who refused to clear the street, but a police spokesman said there were no other disruptions.
Counterdemonstrators were hard to find. Dave Loebe, 53, of Federal Way walked quietly along the sidewalk during the march, holding a white flag with a red border and blue star in the center that said "Honor those who serve."
With many friends in the military, Loebe wanted to show his support. "I do this all the time," he said, nodding to the marching crowd and adding, "They have a right to demonstrate." -from the Seattle Times story, tagging on a local angle to its more complete national protest coverage.
KING5 went further(with video): "SEATTLE - Throngs of anti-war demonstrators marched along downtown streets Saturday, demanding the Bush administration bring American troops home from Iraq.The event was organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).
The group anticipated 5,000 people would attend the rally and march.
By the time the march started, the sidewalks and Westlake Plaza were packed with people -- from modern hippies to babies in strollers.
At least 50 police officers were clearning the streets of cars and buses to make way for the marchers.
Marcher Jane Cutter said it's important that people demonstrate to show the president that he has no other option but to withdraw from Iraq. She said resources are being wasted in Iraq, while people are dying in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Another noisy demonstration on an overpass to the south of Seattle, near Fort Lewis army base expressed support for the troops. Pro-troop ralliers said the antiwar movement reminds them of how soldiers returning from Viet Nam were mistreated.
It's the two faces of war demonstrations, two sides so far apart and yet both committed to what they feel is best for the troops.
Both sides met on that overpass Friday and had what's described as a fairly civil exchange of ideas. Both sides agreed on two things: they care about the troops and neither side is getting fair coverage from the media."
KOMO News makes it the 'Top Story': "SEATTLE - Throngs of anti-war demonstrators marched along downtown streets on Saturday, demanding the Bush administration bring American troops home from Iraq.
The protest came just days after anti-war groups on Thursday began a $1 million ad campaign on television and in newspapers accusing the Bush administration of lying about the need for an extended U.S. military presence in the Middle East.
More than 1,900 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.
Bush on Thursday said that withdrawing troops right now would make the world more dangerous.
Opponents of the war disagreed.
"It's always been possible to pull troops out," Bethany Malmgren of Los Angeles said in response to the president's comments. "By saying that, he's being very judgmental and not taking into consideration the needs of Iraqi people and their rights," Malmgren said.
Saturday's event was organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), whose members anticipated 5,000 people to attend the rally and march. By the time the march started, the sidewalks and Westlake Plaza were packed with people - from modern hippies to babies in strollers. At least 50 police officers were clearing the streets of cars and buses to make way for the marchers.
Jane Cutter, a member of A.N.S.W.E.R., said it was important that people demonstrate to show Bush that he has no other option but to withdraw from Iraq. Cutter, like other demonstrators Saturday, said resources are being wasted in Iraq.
"People in the gulf have been left to die while millions of dollars are being spent on the war in Iraq," she said, referring to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
John Ferrero, 60, of Seattle, agreed and called for an investigation of the president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and "the whole chain of command for their torture in Iraq." Ferrero said he also was concerned about the way the war in Iraq has divided this country and caused economic devastation.
Holding signs and banners that said "Bring the troops home now," "Wage Peace" and "End colonial occupation: Iraq, Palestine, Haiti," protesters marched peacefully down Pine Street to Second Avenue, north to Marion Street and up Fourth Avenue back to Westlake Plaza.
Meanwhile, counter-demonstrations were hard to find Saturday.
Dave Loebe, 53, of Federal Way, walked quietly along the sidewalk during the march, holding a white flag with a red border and blue star in the center that said, "Honor those who serve."
With many friends in the military, Loebe wanted to show his support for them. "I do this all the time," he said, nodding to the marching crowd and saying, "They have a right to demonstrate."
Carol Isaac, 62, of Seattle, held up a sign showing Bush saying "Shut up and shop," a spoof, she said, on his comments after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Isaac marveled at the spectrum of people who came out Saturday, recalling her participation during the Vietnam protests when she said most protesters were "the people suffering the most, the young people."
Kent and Meredith, a couple from Portland, Ore., who gave only their first names, brought their sons, Griffin, 6, and Kegan, 15, to the rally.
"We thought it would be important for the kids to participate in this," Meredith said. "I just want them to have a wider world view than what we talk about at our dinner table."
Kegan held up a sign that said, "Bring my bro home," with a picture of a soldier dressed in desert camouflage.
The couple's 22-year-old son, who they did not want to name for his protection, is in Iraq as a medic with the California National Guard. He's due home in January.
"I just want them all home. It isn't just my son," Kent said.
He later added, "The only difference between today and the next day or the next year is the amount of dead people ... both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis."
Kegan said the march was "awesome," the president, however, is not. "Bush sucks," he shouted as he walked among baby strollers and people with dogs."
The crowd chanted "No more war" while carrying anti-war and anti-Bush signs through downtown. Among the marchers were members of the Green Party of Seattle, the King County Labor Council and numerous social-service and ethnic minority groups. Police arrested one protester who refused to clear the street, but a police spokesman said there were no other disruptions.
Counterdemonstrators were hard to find. Dave Loebe, 53, of Federal Way walked quietly along the sidewalk during the march, holding a white flag with a red border and blue star in the center that said "Honor those who serve."
With many friends in the military, Loebe wanted to show his support. "I do this all the time," he said, nodding to the marching crowd and adding, "They have a right to demonstrate." -from the Seattle Times story, tagging on a local angle to its more complete national protest coverage.
KING5 went further(with video): "SEATTLE - Throngs of anti-war demonstrators marched along downtown streets Saturday, demanding the Bush administration bring American troops home from Iraq.The event was organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).
The group anticipated 5,000 people would attend the rally and march.
By the time the march started, the sidewalks and Westlake Plaza were packed with people -- from modern hippies to babies in strollers.
At least 50 police officers were clearning the streets of cars and buses to make way for the marchers.
Marcher Jane Cutter said it's important that people demonstrate to show the president that he has no other option but to withdraw from Iraq. She said resources are being wasted in Iraq, while people are dying in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Another noisy demonstration on an overpass to the south of Seattle, near Fort Lewis army base expressed support for the troops. Pro-troop ralliers said the antiwar movement reminds them of how soldiers returning from Viet Nam were mistreated.
It's the two faces of war demonstrations, two sides so far apart and yet both committed to what they feel is best for the troops.
Both sides met on that overpass Friday and had what's described as a fairly civil exchange of ideas. Both sides agreed on two things: they care about the troops and neither side is getting fair coverage from the media."
KOMO News makes it the 'Top Story': "SEATTLE - Throngs of anti-war demonstrators marched along downtown streets on Saturday, demanding the Bush administration bring American troops home from Iraq.
The protest came just days after anti-war groups on Thursday began a $1 million ad campaign on television and in newspapers accusing the Bush administration of lying about the need for an extended U.S. military presence in the Middle East.
More than 1,900 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.
Bush on Thursday said that withdrawing troops right now would make the world more dangerous.
Opponents of the war disagreed.
"It's always been possible to pull troops out," Bethany Malmgren of Los Angeles said in response to the president's comments. "By saying that, he's being very judgmental and not taking into consideration the needs of Iraqi people and their rights," Malmgren said.
Saturday's event was organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), whose members anticipated 5,000 people to attend the rally and march. By the time the march started, the sidewalks and Westlake Plaza were packed with people - from modern hippies to babies in strollers. At least 50 police officers were clearing the streets of cars and buses to make way for the marchers.
Jane Cutter, a member of A.N.S.W.E.R., said it was important that people demonstrate to show Bush that he has no other option but to withdraw from Iraq. Cutter, like other demonstrators Saturday, said resources are being wasted in Iraq.
"People in the gulf have been left to die while millions of dollars are being spent on the war in Iraq," she said, referring to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
John Ferrero, 60, of Seattle, agreed and called for an investigation of the president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and "the whole chain of command for their torture in Iraq." Ferrero said he also was concerned about the way the war in Iraq has divided this country and caused economic devastation.
Holding signs and banners that said "Bring the troops home now," "Wage Peace" and "End colonial occupation: Iraq, Palestine, Haiti," protesters marched peacefully down Pine Street to Second Avenue, north to Marion Street and up Fourth Avenue back to Westlake Plaza.
Meanwhile, counter-demonstrations were hard to find Saturday.
Dave Loebe, 53, of Federal Way, walked quietly along the sidewalk during the march, holding a white flag with a red border and blue star in the center that said, "Honor those who serve."
With many friends in the military, Loebe wanted to show his support for them. "I do this all the time," he said, nodding to the marching crowd and saying, "They have a right to demonstrate."
Carol Isaac, 62, of Seattle, held up a sign showing Bush saying "Shut up and shop," a spoof, she said, on his comments after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Isaac marveled at the spectrum of people who came out Saturday, recalling her participation during the Vietnam protests when she said most protesters were "the people suffering the most, the young people."
Kent and Meredith, a couple from Portland, Ore., who gave only their first names, brought their sons, Griffin, 6, and Kegan, 15, to the rally.
"We thought it would be important for the kids to participate in this," Meredith said. "I just want them to have a wider world view than what we talk about at our dinner table."
Kegan held up a sign that said, "Bring my bro home," with a picture of a soldier dressed in desert camouflage.
The couple's 22-year-old son, who they did not want to name for his protection, is in Iraq as a medic with the California National Guard. He's due home in January.
"I just want them all home. It isn't just my son," Kent said.
He later added, "The only difference between today and the next day or the next year is the amount of dead people ... both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis."
Kegan said the march was "awesome," the president, however, is not. "Bush sucks," he shouted as he walked among baby strollers and people with dogs."
Saturday, September 24, 2005
More Coverage and Photos from Washington, DC Rally Today
From THE BRAD BLOG, including video of Sheehan, Galloway, Rev. Jackson and Rep. McKinney. Susan Hu blogs "March Thread V" on Booman Tribune.
"Turnout Huge in DC"
"Today's march in DC certainly looked from the middle of it like the biggest we've had.
Here are some photos." -more photos, coverage and blogging here, from AfterDowningStreet.org. More photos, coverage and blogging here, from Booman Tribune.
Here are some photos." -more photos, coverage and blogging here, from AfterDowningStreet.org. More photos, coverage and blogging here, from Booman Tribune.
''A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Anti-War Protest, on The Ellipse''
Live coverage on C-SPAN 2 here. Booman Tribune has "March Thread II."
''4 in 5 Americans Want a Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil''
"A new national poll shows that 9 in 10 Americans think the oil companies are engaging in price gouging (they are correct) and four out of five Americans (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support "a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies." Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are both pushing legislation to create a windfall profits tax on Big Oil. Sign the online petition that is urging other Members of Congress to support that legislation."-from Sirotablog.
NYC to DC Amtrak Shut Down Today
BooMan just called. Amtrak from NYC is shut down because of an "electrical shortage." Can you believe the nerve. (There's no question mark there.)-from Booman Tribune. More info and links to coverage of the DC protest rally in the comments there.
Cindy Sheehan's Speech at UFPJ Rally
"Ahhhh, I love the smell of Patriotic Dissent in the afternoon!
As we stand here on the grounds of a monument that is dedicated to the Father of our Country, George Washington, we are reminded that he was well known for the apocryphal stories of never being able to tell a lie. I find it so ironic that there is another man here named George who stays in this town between vacations and he seems to never be able to tell the truth. It is tragic for us that o ur bookend presidents named George have two completely different relationships with honesty.
I also find it ironic and heartbreaking that my son, Casey, who was a brave person, tall and proud, who loved his country and was honest beyond measure, could be sent to his death by someone who is even too cowardly to meet with a broken hearted mom, let alone go and fight in the illegal and immoral war of his generation. We are losing our best and our brightest in a country that we are destroying that was no threat to the United States of America. Iraq was and still is no danger to our safety and security, or to our way of life. The weapons of mass destruction and mass deception reside in this town: they are the neocons who pull the strings and the members of Congress who have loosened the purse strings with reckless abandon and have practically given George and company a blank check to run our country into monetary and moral bankruptcy. We are out here in force today to take our country back and restore true democracy and sanity to our political process. The time is now and we are here because we love our country and we won't let the reckless maniacs destroy her any further.
We as a young colony of Great Britain broke from another tyrant, King George the Third. Well, I wish our George the Third were here today to see us out here in force protesting against his war and against his murderous policies. George is not here, though, because he is out galavanting around the country somewhere pretending that he cares about the people who are in the path of hurricane Rita. We know that he cares nothing for the people of America: Katrina, Iraq, and his idiotic response to 9/11 are evidence of that. He is just out and about play-acting like a President whose country is in crisis just like he pretends to be a Commander in Chief and a Cowboy (I wonder if before he took off to Texas or Colorado or wherever he went, he watched a movie like Independence Day to see how that other fake president acted?). The reason he is out today is that his handlers told him that he got a little flak for playing golf and eating birthday cake with Senator Me Cain while some of his employers were hanging off rooftops and treetops in New Orleans. He swaggers around arrogantly like he is a macho dictatorial tyrant who doesn't have to answer to his employers, the people of the United States of America. Those days are over George, we are here today to tell you that we are a majority and we will never rest until you bring our young people home from the Middle East and until you start putting money into rebuilding OUR communities: the ones natural disasters destroy with your help, and the ones which your callous and racist war economy are decimating. We won't allow you to take anymore money out of social programs to finance Halliburton to rebuild the Gulf States: there is no money. Our bank account is empty. George, this is our rainy day and you have failed us miserably. Stop pouring money into the pockets of the war profiteers and into building permanent bases in Iraq . It is time to bring our billions of dollars home from Iraq too!!!
One thing the Camp Casey movement that hunkered down in Crawford, Texas this past August taught us is that we the people of America have the power and we can and should name our national policy and make sure it is carried out. I constantly get asked if we are making a difference and if we think (like we're naïve boobs) that we will actually stop the war. Well, looking back at how Vietnam was ended and looking back in the history of our country, most notably in the suffragette, union, and civil rights movements, we the people are the only ones who have been able to transform history and affect true and lasting change here in America: so to those people who question if we are making a difference: I tell them to go back to school and read their history books!! And another thing these questioners overlook is that WE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE!!! And we are here to tell the media, Congress, and this criminal and criminally negligent administration: WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY!!!
We in the peace movement need to agree on one thing: yes we need an exit plan, but it is not a strategy, it is a command. The command should be: have all of our military personnel and paid killer mercenaries out of Iraq within 6 months and the generals carry out the command. Simple, it's not brain surgery and I think it is so easy even George Bush can sign the order. We can't give the homicidal maniacs any wiggle room or long term strategy sessions. For one thing, when our leaders strategize, we are put in even more jeopardy, they have proven that they are not too bright or even a little compassionate. But the most important thing is that people die everyday in Iraq for absolutely no reason and for lies. We have to say NOW because the people on the other side are saying NEVER. We can't compromise, we can't say please, and we can't retreat. If we do, our country is doomed. We have to honor the sacrifices of our loved ones by completing the mission of peace and justice. It is time. Bring our troops home, NOW!."-via AfterDowningStreet.org.
As we stand here on the grounds of a monument that is dedicated to the Father of our Country, George Washington, we are reminded that he was well known for the apocryphal stories of never being able to tell a lie. I find it so ironic that there is another man here named George who stays in this town between vacations and he seems to never be able to tell the truth. It is tragic for us that o ur bookend presidents named George have two completely different relationships with honesty.
I also find it ironic and heartbreaking that my son, Casey, who was a brave person, tall and proud, who loved his country and was honest beyond measure, could be sent to his death by someone who is even too cowardly to meet with a broken hearted mom, let alone go and fight in the illegal and immoral war of his generation. We are losing our best and our brightest in a country that we are destroying that was no threat to the United States of America. Iraq was and still is no danger to our safety and security, or to our way of life. The weapons of mass destruction and mass deception reside in this town: they are the neocons who pull the strings and the members of Congress who have loosened the purse strings with reckless abandon and have practically given George and company a blank check to run our country into monetary and moral bankruptcy. We are out here in force today to take our country back and restore true democracy and sanity to our political process. The time is now and we are here because we love our country and we won't let the reckless maniacs destroy her any further.
We as a young colony of Great Britain broke from another tyrant, King George the Third. Well, I wish our George the Third were here today to see us out here in force protesting against his war and against his murderous policies. George is not here, though, because he is out galavanting around the country somewhere pretending that he cares about the people who are in the path of hurricane Rita. We know that he cares nothing for the people of America: Katrina, Iraq, and his idiotic response to 9/11 are evidence of that. He is just out and about play-acting like a President whose country is in crisis just like he pretends to be a Commander in Chief and a Cowboy (I wonder if before he took off to Texas or Colorado or wherever he went, he watched a movie like Independence Day to see how that other fake president acted?). The reason he is out today is that his handlers told him that he got a little flak for playing golf and eating birthday cake with Senator Me Cain while some of his employers were hanging off rooftops and treetops in New Orleans. He swaggers around arrogantly like he is a macho dictatorial tyrant who doesn't have to answer to his employers, the people of the United States of America. Those days are over George, we are here today to tell you that we are a majority and we will never rest until you bring our young people home from the Middle East and until you start putting money into rebuilding OUR communities: the ones natural disasters destroy with your help, and the ones which your callous and racist war economy are decimating. We won't allow you to take anymore money out of social programs to finance Halliburton to rebuild the Gulf States: there is no money. Our bank account is empty. George, this is our rainy day and you have failed us miserably. Stop pouring money into the pockets of the war profiteers and into building permanent bases in Iraq . It is time to bring our billions of dollars home from Iraq too!!!
One thing the Camp Casey movement that hunkered down in Crawford, Texas this past August taught us is that we the people of America have the power and we can and should name our national policy and make sure it is carried out. I constantly get asked if we are making a difference and if we think (like we're naïve boobs) that we will actually stop the war. Well, looking back at how Vietnam was ended and looking back in the history of our country, most notably in the suffragette, union, and civil rights movements, we the people are the only ones who have been able to transform history and affect true and lasting change here in America: so to those people who question if we are making a difference: I tell them to go back to school and read their history books!! And another thing these questioners overlook is that WE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE!!! And we are here to tell the media, Congress, and this criminal and criminally negligent administration: WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY!!!
We in the peace movement need to agree on one thing: yes we need an exit plan, but it is not a strategy, it is a command. The command should be: have all of our military personnel and paid killer mercenaries out of Iraq within 6 months and the generals carry out the command. Simple, it's not brain surgery and I think it is so easy even George Bush can sign the order. We can't give the homicidal maniacs any wiggle room or long term strategy sessions. For one thing, when our leaders strategize, we are put in even more jeopardy, they have proven that they are not too bright or even a little compassionate. But the most important thing is that people die everyday in Iraq for absolutely no reason and for lies. We have to say NOW because the people on the other side are saying NEVER. We can't compromise, we can't say please, and we can't retreat. If we do, our country is doomed. We have to honor the sacrifices of our loved ones by completing the mission of peace and justice. It is time. Bring our troops home, NOW!."-via AfterDowningStreet.org.
''War protest, rally today''
"War protesters have planned a rally and march today in Seattle to coincide with similar actions across the country. The local demonstration is planned to start at noon at Westlake Park, Fourth Avenue and Pine Street. The march begins at 1:30 p.m., heading from Pine to Second Avenue, Second to Marion Street, Marion to Fourth Avenue and back to Westlake at 2:30 p.m. There will be a concluding rally at Westlake after the march. A feeder march was scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. from Seattle Central Community College, joining up with the group downtown. In addition to opposing the war in Iraq, protesters will march for other causes, such as opposition to military recruiters in schools, the U.S. presence in some other countries, and attacks on civil liberties. For more information, see the Web site http://www.answerseattle.org/ -from the P-I story this morning. The Seattle Times, apparently, decided this event was not newsworthy.
Dwight Pelz: ''Campaign Update''
"The Primary was held on Tuesday, and I never dreamed we would do this well! On Primary night, my opponent, the incumbent, received 37.7%, while I received 33%.
An incumbent receiving under 50% is believed to be in trouble. Under 40% is a true sign of the voters seeking change. On Tuesday 62% of the voters voted for change. Primaries favor incumbents, while general elections favor challengers. The turnout was low, and low turnout favors incumbents.
In short, we are in very good position to win this campaign. The General Election will be held in just seven weeks, on November 8. The campaign is surging ahead. We have raised over $172,000 – more than my remaining opponent. Our goal is to raise $50,000 in these last seven weeks. If we do, we will be able to reach the homes of the thousands of additional voters who will vote in November. Please consider making one more donation, and, of course encourage your friends to donate online.
Endorsements
I have been endorsed by almost every progressive organization which has taken a stand in this race! The support of the environmental community for my candidacy is unanimous, with the endorsement by the Sierra Club, and Washington Conservation Voters. The local Democrats have weighed in – I was endorsed by the King County Democrats and by all five of the local Democratic organizations – the 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd, and 46th. I am the highest rated candidate by SEAMEC, which represents the gay community. I have also received almost every labor endorsement, with the endorsement of a dozen local unions, including the Firefighters and all four SEIU locals.
SW Airlines Doesn't Belong at Boeing Field
I continue my opposition to the proposal to allow Southwest Airlines to fly out of Boeing Field. On September 12 over 300 community members packed a County Council hearing at the Museum of Flight to call for SWA to stay at Sea-Tac Airport. Opening up Boeing Field as a commercial airport will bring a new passenger flight path over Seattle – bringing new noise to neighborhoods that currently do not experience hourly flights of commercial jets. Magnolia, Beacon Hill, West Seattle, Queen Anne, Ballard, Fremont, Tukwila, and Skyway will be subject to new levels of noise – a level which will grow over the years with additional passenger flights. Families that bought houses thinking they had avoided the Sea-Tac Flight Path will now be living under the new Boeing Field Flight Path. I will continue to work on this issue in the weeks ahead, as we protect Seattle neighborhoods from unecessary airplane noise.
SEIU Rings Bells for Pelz
In the past 8 weeks, over 100 volunteers have called over 2,700 voters, knocked on over 2,300 doors, and helped mail over 4,000 campaign pieces – and I first want to thank all of you who have helped out! The campaign would not have made it this far without you. In the coming weeks, we will need more help than ever! The Primary night results are promising, but we cannot take anything for granted. We need to bring our message to every neighborhood in Seattle.
We need volunteers who are willing to walk precincts (even your own!), call likely voters, help with mailings, and wave signs on Election Day. If you are able to help us with any of these needed tasks, email my Campaign Manager, Nigel Herbig (nigel@dwightpelz.com), and he will get in touch with you.
Thanks again for all your support. Seven Weeks to Go!"-from his email to supporters.
An incumbent receiving under 50% is believed to be in trouble. Under 40% is a true sign of the voters seeking change. On Tuesday 62% of the voters voted for change. Primaries favor incumbents, while general elections favor challengers. The turnout was low, and low turnout favors incumbents.
In short, we are in very good position to win this campaign. The General Election will be held in just seven weeks, on November 8. The campaign is surging ahead. We have raised over $172,000 – more than my remaining opponent. Our goal is to raise $50,000 in these last seven weeks. If we do, we will be able to reach the homes of the thousands of additional voters who will vote in November. Please consider making one more donation, and, of course encourage your friends to donate online.
Endorsements
I have been endorsed by almost every progressive organization which has taken a stand in this race! The support of the environmental community for my candidacy is unanimous, with the endorsement by the Sierra Club, and Washington Conservation Voters. The local Democrats have weighed in – I was endorsed by the King County Democrats and by all five of the local Democratic organizations – the 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd, and 46th. I am the highest rated candidate by SEAMEC, which represents the gay community. I have also received almost every labor endorsement, with the endorsement of a dozen local unions, including the Firefighters and all four SEIU locals.
SW Airlines Doesn't Belong at Boeing Field
I continue my opposition to the proposal to allow Southwest Airlines to fly out of Boeing Field. On September 12 over 300 community members packed a County Council hearing at the Museum of Flight to call for SWA to stay at Sea-Tac Airport. Opening up Boeing Field as a commercial airport will bring a new passenger flight path over Seattle – bringing new noise to neighborhoods that currently do not experience hourly flights of commercial jets. Magnolia, Beacon Hill, West Seattle, Queen Anne, Ballard, Fremont, Tukwila, and Skyway will be subject to new levels of noise – a level which will grow over the years with additional passenger flights. Families that bought houses thinking they had avoided the Sea-Tac Flight Path will now be living under the new Boeing Field Flight Path. I will continue to work on this issue in the weeks ahead, as we protect Seattle neighborhoods from unecessary airplane noise.
SEIU Rings Bells for Pelz
In the past 8 weeks, over 100 volunteers have called over 2,700 voters, knocked on over 2,300 doors, and helped mail over 4,000 campaign pieces – and I first want to thank all of you who have helped out! The campaign would not have made it this far without you. In the coming weeks, we will need more help than ever! The Primary night results are promising, but we cannot take anything for granted. We need to bring our message to every neighborhood in Seattle.
We need volunteers who are willing to walk precincts (even your own!), call likely voters, help with mailings, and wave signs on Election Day. If you are able to help us with any of these needed tasks, email my Campaign Manager, Nigel Herbig (nigel@dwightpelz.com), and he will get in touch with you.
Thanks again for all your support. Seven Weeks to Go!"-from his email to supporters.
Friday, September 23, 2005
''911 IN NEW ORLEANS''
"We’re told the 9/11 attacks changed everything for America--that they ushered us in to a new and more dangerous world, where we could no longer afford old illusions. If we take its full lessons, the disaster of Hurricane Katrina challenges us even more profoundly.
The 9/11 attacks were horrific, wrenching for the global community that witnessed them, devastating for those who lost loved ones and friends. But for most in New York City, life quickly resumed, although with an overlay of loss and fear. Although the deaths in New Orleans were fewer, most of the city is now largely a wasteland. Its residents are exiled from their homes, often losing everything they had. It’s an open question whether most will ever be able to return to resume their work, their lives, and their contributions to a culture that’s given so much to the world. To rebuild New Orleans so it becomes more than just a raunchier Disneyland with better music is an undertaking unlike any our nation has ever undertaken.
9/11, we were told, required Americans to place unprecedented trust in their president and his advisors, and to scrap longstanding rules of international law and domestic liberties. It justified a preemptive war against Iraq and Bush’s reelection, despite all his failures. Of course it might never have occurred if the US hadn’t supported bin Laden to begin with, or if our policies hadn’t so embittered the Islamic world that a small number of men were willing to murder thousands of innocent people. But we’d all agree the attacks had a profound global impact.
So what are the lessons of New Orleans? We may call hurricanes acts of God, but Katrina was a level 1 storm, the lowest, until blistering temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico supercharged it to level 5. The storm’s virulence was likely related to global climate warming, much like the recent forest fires that ravaged Southern California, floods that covered much of Bangladesh, and European heat waves that killed 35,000 people two summers ago. Ironically, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played a key role, as an energy lobbyist, in convincing the Bush administration to break its campaign promise to support limits on the carbon dioxide emissions that fuel global warming.
This disaster was fueled by more than global climate change. Engineers and software writers talk of “common mode failures,” where one mistake magnifies another and the cumulative impact is greater than all the separate parts. The New Orleans levees might never have been breached had the Bush administration not reversed Clinton administration policies prohibiting development of coastal wetlands that once buffered the impact of storms. The levees might have been buttressed and repaired had the administration responded to a 2001 FEMA study warning that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But instead of honoring the Army Corps of Engineers’ request to strengthen and renovate levees and pumping stations, the Bush administration cut the flood control budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers by $71 million, 44 percent of its budget. They needed the money for the Iraq war and to give $130 billion a year of tax cuts to a tiny group of wealthy Americans.
Finally, this catastrophe built on the slow-burn disaster that’s been hitting America’s poorest communities for decades. The wealthy and comfortable could evacuate New Orleans and did, though their lives were severely disrupted. But in one of the nation’s poorest cities, vast numbers of citizens had nowhere to go, no transportation or money with which to leave, and no friends or relatives with extra space to house them. They are the people left desperately trying to get out, while the helicopters and resources of a third of the Louisiana National Guard are deployed in Iraq. And they will be the ones most damaged and most forgotten when the floodwaters eventually recede.
We’re told we had to change in the wake of 9/11 or face future terrorist attacks. I suspect there will still be more attacks on American soil, following London and Madrid, and that our Iraqi invasion makes this far more likely. But it’s also probable that unless we change, New Orleans will not be the last of America’s great cities to collapse in desperation and ruin. Immediate relief efforts are critical, but we also need to address root crises: global warming, runaway development, deterioration of critical infrastructure, and a malign neglect that leaves more and more Americans poor and desperate.
A year ago, the world’s second largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, warned that the economic costs of climate-related disasters threatened to reach $150 billion a year within ten years. We’re already seeing storms of exceptional virulence accompanying the heating of our oceans by a single degree. Given that New Orleans may cost as much as $100 billion, what will be the level of destruction as global temperatures continue to increase?
The development patterns that destroyed Louisiana wetlands are being repeated throughout America, with the support of an administration intent on removing all limits on private economic activity. The aging levees are part of a deteriorating national infrastructure that will take billions of dollars to address. The poverty that leaves people helpless to respond to disasters of whatever kind continues to grow, accelerated by government policies that transfer resources away from the poorest.
9/11 may have indeed changed our world forever, though the brief window of real discussion it fostered quickly closed, and we were left with false myths about how the only way to view the situation was as a war between ultimate good and ultimate evil. We now have a chance to heed the lessons of New Orleans and Katrina, with consequences potentially far worse than 9/11 if we don’t. We can start conversations, in every corner of our country, about the disasters lessons and causes, and how to move forward in a way that honors the exiled and addresses the disaster’s complex roots. We can call for accountability, from our media and political leaders. We can treat this tragedy as a call to commitment in a way that too few of us did after 9/11. It’s up to us how we respond to the power of its warning."-from Seattle writer Paul Rogat Loeb.
The 9/11 attacks were horrific, wrenching for the global community that witnessed them, devastating for those who lost loved ones and friends. But for most in New York City, life quickly resumed, although with an overlay of loss and fear. Although the deaths in New Orleans were fewer, most of the city is now largely a wasteland. Its residents are exiled from their homes, often losing everything they had. It’s an open question whether most will ever be able to return to resume their work, their lives, and their contributions to a culture that’s given so much to the world. To rebuild New Orleans so it becomes more than just a raunchier Disneyland with better music is an undertaking unlike any our nation has ever undertaken.
9/11, we were told, required Americans to place unprecedented trust in their president and his advisors, and to scrap longstanding rules of international law and domestic liberties. It justified a preemptive war against Iraq and Bush’s reelection, despite all his failures. Of course it might never have occurred if the US hadn’t supported bin Laden to begin with, or if our policies hadn’t so embittered the Islamic world that a small number of men were willing to murder thousands of innocent people. But we’d all agree the attacks had a profound global impact.
So what are the lessons of New Orleans? We may call hurricanes acts of God, but Katrina was a level 1 storm, the lowest, until blistering temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico supercharged it to level 5. The storm’s virulence was likely related to global climate warming, much like the recent forest fires that ravaged Southern California, floods that covered much of Bangladesh, and European heat waves that killed 35,000 people two summers ago. Ironically, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played a key role, as an energy lobbyist, in convincing the Bush administration to break its campaign promise to support limits on the carbon dioxide emissions that fuel global warming.
This disaster was fueled by more than global climate change. Engineers and software writers talk of “common mode failures,” where one mistake magnifies another and the cumulative impact is greater than all the separate parts. The New Orleans levees might never have been breached had the Bush administration not reversed Clinton administration policies prohibiting development of coastal wetlands that once buffered the impact of storms. The levees might have been buttressed and repaired had the administration responded to a 2001 FEMA study warning that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But instead of honoring the Army Corps of Engineers’ request to strengthen and renovate levees and pumping stations, the Bush administration cut the flood control budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers by $71 million, 44 percent of its budget. They needed the money for the Iraq war and to give $130 billion a year of tax cuts to a tiny group of wealthy Americans.
Finally, this catastrophe built on the slow-burn disaster that’s been hitting America’s poorest communities for decades. The wealthy and comfortable could evacuate New Orleans and did, though their lives were severely disrupted. But in one of the nation’s poorest cities, vast numbers of citizens had nowhere to go, no transportation or money with which to leave, and no friends or relatives with extra space to house them. They are the people left desperately trying to get out, while the helicopters and resources of a third of the Louisiana National Guard are deployed in Iraq. And they will be the ones most damaged and most forgotten when the floodwaters eventually recede.
We’re told we had to change in the wake of 9/11 or face future terrorist attacks. I suspect there will still be more attacks on American soil, following London and Madrid, and that our Iraqi invasion makes this far more likely. But it’s also probable that unless we change, New Orleans will not be the last of America’s great cities to collapse in desperation and ruin. Immediate relief efforts are critical, but we also need to address root crises: global warming, runaway development, deterioration of critical infrastructure, and a malign neglect that leaves more and more Americans poor and desperate.
A year ago, the world’s second largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, warned that the economic costs of climate-related disasters threatened to reach $150 billion a year within ten years. We’re already seeing storms of exceptional virulence accompanying the heating of our oceans by a single degree. Given that New Orleans may cost as much as $100 billion, what will be the level of destruction as global temperatures continue to increase?
The development patterns that destroyed Louisiana wetlands are being repeated throughout America, with the support of an administration intent on removing all limits on private economic activity. The aging levees are part of a deteriorating national infrastructure that will take billions of dollars to address. The poverty that leaves people helpless to respond to disasters of whatever kind continues to grow, accelerated by government policies that transfer resources away from the poorest.
9/11 may have indeed changed our world forever, though the brief window of real discussion it fostered quickly closed, and we were left with false myths about how the only way to view the situation was as a war between ultimate good and ultimate evil. We now have a chance to heed the lessons of New Orleans and Katrina, with consequences potentially far worse than 9/11 if we don’t. We can start conversations, in every corner of our country, about the disasters lessons and causes, and how to move forward in a way that honors the exiled and addresses the disaster’s complex roots. We can call for accountability, from our media and political leaders. We can treat this tragedy as a call to commitment in a way that too few of us did after 9/11. It’s up to us how we respond to the power of its warning."-from Seattle writer Paul Rogat Loeb.
''Why Bother to Fight Roberts''
"A few weeks ago more than 100,000 of us filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for key documents on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. This week, just before the legal deadline for a response, the Justice Department formally brushed aside the public interest and refused to release the documents.
Senate Democrats waited for the Bush Administration to come clean about Roberts's record -- the administration chose not to. During the hearings, they asked Roberts serious, precise questions about his record and his views -- but Roberts dodged question after question.
Our Senate Leader, Harry Reid, is right: there are simply too many questions left unanswered. John Roberts, and the sham process that has accompanied his nomination, does not deserve our support.
But it is obvious that the Republican-controlled Senate will confirm John Roberts. Some people even say that it's useless for us to speak out against him. They say we're wasting our time.
But how will we win any battle if we don't stand up for what we believe and speak the truth? More importantly, how will Americans know what to expect from a Democratic Congress and Democratic president if we don't fight for our values at every opportunity?
Democrats can disagree with Democrats in good faith -- and many do on this issue. But when political calculations silence our conscience, we have abandoned our true values. We cannot let that happen.
Our party must speak plainly and fight for the values of equality, opportunity and security that bring our party -- and the vast majority of Americans -- together.
And that's exactly what we're going to do.
If you want to take a stand in your community, you can start by writing a letter to the editor of your local paper about why John Roberts is the wrong man at the wrong time. Nearly 75,000 letters have already gone to newspapers.
Don't be afraid to fight--click here."-from Howard Dean's email today.
Senate Democrats waited for the Bush Administration to come clean about Roberts's record -- the administration chose not to. During the hearings, they asked Roberts serious, precise questions about his record and his views -- but Roberts dodged question after question.
Our Senate Leader, Harry Reid, is right: there are simply too many questions left unanswered. John Roberts, and the sham process that has accompanied his nomination, does not deserve our support.
But it is obvious that the Republican-controlled Senate will confirm John Roberts. Some people even say that it's useless for us to speak out against him. They say we're wasting our time.
But how will we win any battle if we don't stand up for what we believe and speak the truth? More importantly, how will Americans know what to expect from a Democratic Congress and Democratic president if we don't fight for our values at every opportunity?
Democrats can disagree with Democrats in good faith -- and many do on this issue. But when political calculations silence our conscience, we have abandoned our true values. We cannot let that happen.
Our party must speak plainly and fight for the values of equality, opportunity and security that bring our party -- and the vast majority of Americans -- together.
And that's exactly what we're going to do.
If you want to take a stand in your community, you can start by writing a letter to the editor of your local paper about why John Roberts is the wrong man at the wrong time. Nearly 75,000 letters have already gone to newspapers.
Don't be afraid to fight--click here."-from Howard Dean's email today.
''Bad Numbers--Voters Roughed Up Mayor and Incumbent City Council Members"
"Early in the evening—before the first numbers even came in—The Stranger Election Control Board ran into Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis, Nickels's outreach director Marco Lowe, and Nickels's campaign manager Viet Shelton, who did double duty running Casey Corr's campaign. They were drinking at a back table at Lola's and they looked confident. But as the night wore on it became clear that Nickels's guys should have focused more on the mayor's race and less on doorbelling for the mayor's pet Corr. Nickels, who's basically running unopposed, should have been scoring in the 70s, but as the numbers came in the mayor was dinking around in around the low 50s.
It was the story of the night. All the incumbents—Nickels, City Council Members Richard Conlin, Jan Drago, and particularly Richard McIver—weren't as secure as everyone had imagined. Nickels obviously isn't in any danger of losing his office, but his 54 percent showing after the second batch of numbers came through didn't inspire much more than a robotic and tepid sound bite from his campaign manager. "A clear majority of the voters have expressed their preference for the mayor and we're happy," said Shelton. Sensing he wasn't being terribly convincing, Shelton, who we caught up with at a party at Ocean City in the International District where supporters were trying hard not to look shocked at how well Al Runte was doing, adds for, um, emphasis, "Hey, we gained a half a percent in the second drop."
Congrats Greg. You managed to pick up a half a percent on Professor Al Runte, the mystery candidate we can't locate. He's not answering his phone. The Stranger's Party Crasher tried to track down Runte's party, which was supposed to be at the Municipal League. The bouncer at the door told him the party was there but had gone. However, there was not much evidence that the party was there to begin with. Four people were standing in a fluorescent-lit room, and one of them, a chirpy intern, was shaking a vase in which a quarter could be heard rattling around.
As for McIver, The Stranger Election Control Board found a grim scene at the offices of anti-monorail consultants Gogerty Stark Marriott, where folks like Henry Aronson showed up to cheer the longtime monorail foe. But McIver fared the worst of all the incumbent council members. After the second batch of numbers were released (around 9:25 p.m.), we totaled up the votes: 57 percent of primary voters were against Drago, 55 percent were against Conlin, and a staggering 63 percent were against McIver.
Early in the night McIver's two opponents—Dwight Pelz and Robert Rosencrantz—were neck in neck in the low 30s. When he fell behind Pelz after the second drop, the Rosencrantz party at the Miller Community Center was starting to clear out. "Oh, man I'm getting killed," Rosencrantz said, as about half a dozen supporters hovered around a computer in the foyer of the community center. Shortly afterward, they all went home, including Rosencrantz.
As for Pelz, he was shocked by Rosencrantz's early lead. When asked about Jan Drago's campaign, Pelz's campaign consultant—who is also working on Drago's campaign—said, "Well, my problem is Dwight right now." But Pelz was buoyant after the second drop. And even more so after the third drop. Standing in the crowd at Doc Maynard's in Pioneer Square with his union supporters (the Fire Fighters and SEIU), Pelz said, "This is really fantastic. We're five points behind an incumbent, who's only got 37 percent."
Another incumbent who was supposed to be doing well, Richard Conlin, was hovering just under 50 percent at the end of the night. "I'm not really surprised at how well she's doing," Conlin said of his opponent, Port Commissioner Paige Miller. "She's run for public office six times before and has plenty of name recognition."
When The Stranger Election Control Board showed up at Paige Miller's party, held in her giant house (beautiful hardwood floors) on high northern slope of Queen Anne Hill, she offered us two shots of Jack Daniels.
Another bleeding incumbent, City Council President Jan Drago, was holding steady at around 43 percent most of the night. Drago says she's pleased with the numbers and pointed out that early absentee ballots should have helped her more conservative opponent, former mayoral staffer Casey Corr, "and they're not."
Corr's party looked like a teen pizza party with young blond kids huddled in booths. He maintained that the numbers show "the voters want change." But they don't seem to want Corr all that much, who clocked in at 24.6 percent. Corr implored us as we headed out of his party: "I know it's an uphill battle, but what can I do to get your endorsement?"
At the end of the night we caught up with Christian Sinderman, a campaign consultant working with incumbent Jan Drago, and Richard McIver challenger Dwight Pelz. "I think some incumbents are doing better than others," said Sinderman, "Jan Drago and Richard Conlin can set out a tack where they can win. I think Richard McIver, with 37 percent, is in a world of hurt. Any time there's anxiety about the direction the city is going, incumbents need to work extra hard to keep their jobs."-from The Stranger.
It was the story of the night. All the incumbents—Nickels, City Council Members Richard Conlin, Jan Drago, and particularly Richard McIver—weren't as secure as everyone had imagined. Nickels obviously isn't in any danger of losing his office, but his 54 percent showing after the second batch of numbers came through didn't inspire much more than a robotic and tepid sound bite from his campaign manager. "A clear majority of the voters have expressed their preference for the mayor and we're happy," said Shelton. Sensing he wasn't being terribly convincing, Shelton, who we caught up with at a party at Ocean City in the International District where supporters were trying hard not to look shocked at how well Al Runte was doing, adds for, um, emphasis, "Hey, we gained a half a percent in the second drop."
Congrats Greg. You managed to pick up a half a percent on Professor Al Runte, the mystery candidate we can't locate. He's not answering his phone. The Stranger's Party Crasher tried to track down Runte's party, which was supposed to be at the Municipal League. The bouncer at the door told him the party was there but had gone. However, there was not much evidence that the party was there to begin with. Four people were standing in a fluorescent-lit room, and one of them, a chirpy intern, was shaking a vase in which a quarter could be heard rattling around.
As for McIver, The Stranger Election Control Board found a grim scene at the offices of anti-monorail consultants Gogerty Stark Marriott, where folks like Henry Aronson showed up to cheer the longtime monorail foe. But McIver fared the worst of all the incumbent council members. After the second batch of numbers were released (around 9:25 p.m.), we totaled up the votes: 57 percent of primary voters were against Drago, 55 percent were against Conlin, and a staggering 63 percent were against McIver.
Early in the night McIver's two opponents—Dwight Pelz and Robert Rosencrantz—were neck in neck in the low 30s. When he fell behind Pelz after the second drop, the Rosencrantz party at the Miller Community Center was starting to clear out. "Oh, man I'm getting killed," Rosencrantz said, as about half a dozen supporters hovered around a computer in the foyer of the community center. Shortly afterward, they all went home, including Rosencrantz.
As for Pelz, he was shocked by Rosencrantz's early lead. When asked about Jan Drago's campaign, Pelz's campaign consultant—who is also working on Drago's campaign—said, "Well, my problem is Dwight right now." But Pelz was buoyant after the second drop. And even more so after the third drop. Standing in the crowd at Doc Maynard's in Pioneer Square with his union supporters (the Fire Fighters and SEIU), Pelz said, "This is really fantastic. We're five points behind an incumbent, who's only got 37 percent."
Another incumbent who was supposed to be doing well, Richard Conlin, was hovering just under 50 percent at the end of the night. "I'm not really surprised at how well she's doing," Conlin said of his opponent, Port Commissioner Paige Miller. "She's run for public office six times before and has plenty of name recognition."
When The Stranger Election Control Board showed up at Paige Miller's party, held in her giant house (beautiful hardwood floors) on high northern slope of Queen Anne Hill, she offered us two shots of Jack Daniels.
Another bleeding incumbent, City Council President Jan Drago, was holding steady at around 43 percent most of the night. Drago says she's pleased with the numbers and pointed out that early absentee ballots should have helped her more conservative opponent, former mayoral staffer Casey Corr, "and they're not."
Corr's party looked like a teen pizza party with young blond kids huddled in booths. He maintained that the numbers show "the voters want change." But they don't seem to want Corr all that much, who clocked in at 24.6 percent. Corr implored us as we headed out of his party: "I know it's an uphill battle, but what can I do to get your endorsement?"
At the end of the night we caught up with Christian Sinderman, a campaign consultant working with incumbent Jan Drago, and Richard McIver challenger Dwight Pelz. "I think some incumbents are doing better than others," said Sinderman, "Jan Drago and Richard Conlin can set out a tack where they can win. I think Richard McIver, with 37 percent, is in a world of hurt. Any time there's anxiety about the direction the city is going, incumbents need to work extra hard to keep their jobs."-from The Stranger.
''Sheehan, Supporters Descend on The Capital''
"They were cheered and jeered in blue states and red states. Gas station clerks gave them quiet thumbs up and truck stop waitresses gave them snarls. And when the three busloads of military families arrived in Washington yesterday, the reception was just as divided. Three weeks after leaving their dusty outpost in Crawford, Tex., and touring the country, several dozen families brought their antiwar message to the U.S. Capitol and the White House. They plan to join thousands of protesters Saturday at a march and rally on the Mall. Not one more!" they chanted as they walked up the West Lawn of the Capitol, referring to the number of U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq. The "Bring Them Home Now" bus tour was born at Camp Casey, the makeshift encampment that blossomed around Cindy Sheehan when she decided to plant herself outside President Bush's ranch and demand that he talk with her about why her son, Army Spec. Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed. He died April 4, 2004, in Baghdad.
One of the buses stopped in Baltimore yesterday morning so the families could address a crowd of supporters gathered at Timothy Dean's Bistro on Eastern Avenue. People wiped away tears as they listened to soldiers' parents rail against the war that had claimed their children's lives -- or threatened to do so. When Sheehan stepped to the microphone, the crowd pushed away from the table and stood, applauding the woman who camped in the Texas heat for 25 days.
"When I fell on the floor screaming on April 4, screaming for my son, screaming for my loss, it was too much for a mother to bear. I had skin in the game," Sheehan said. "We love our country," she continued. "If we didn't love our country, we could pool our resources and buy an island and get away from our country." When the group arrived on Capitol Hill in the early afternoon, dozens of reporters encircled Sheehan. Iraq war veteran Cody Camacho, a former Army specialist, took the microphone after Sheehan and joked that the news media would leave his speech "on the cutting-room floor."
But he kept speaking, insisting that there is more to the movement than the quasi-celebrity status Sheehan has attained and the political debates she has incited. "This is not about right or left. It's about right or wrong," Camacho said. After the group converged at the Capitol, their buses fought Washington traffic toward the White House, where they delivered a letter to Bush asking him to withdraw troops. Tourists were stunned by the media crush and the entourage that flooded Lafayette Park, and some were incensed.
"My son's a Marine! Go home, Cindy!" yelled Kathy Woods of Simi Valley, Calif., who said she has spent weeks quietly simmering over Sheehan's mission. Woods's son is stationed in Hawaii and has not served in Iraq. "She doesn't speak for me," said Woods, a tourist, who added that she thought Sheehan was a publicity seeker.
The group of families is staying at hotels and youth hostels but plans to set up another Camp Casey -- including tents, banners and 1,800 crosses to commemorate the soldiers killed in Iraq -- on the Mall between 14th and 15th streets, where they have a permit to stay through the weekend."-from the Washington Post.
One of the buses stopped in Baltimore yesterday morning so the families could address a crowd of supporters gathered at Timothy Dean's Bistro on Eastern Avenue. People wiped away tears as they listened to soldiers' parents rail against the war that had claimed their children's lives -- or threatened to do so. When Sheehan stepped to the microphone, the crowd pushed away from the table and stood, applauding the woman who camped in the Texas heat for 25 days.
"When I fell on the floor screaming on April 4, screaming for my son, screaming for my loss, it was too much for a mother to bear. I had skin in the game," Sheehan said. "We love our country," she continued. "If we didn't love our country, we could pool our resources and buy an island and get away from our country." When the group arrived on Capitol Hill in the early afternoon, dozens of reporters encircled Sheehan. Iraq war veteran Cody Camacho, a former Army specialist, took the microphone after Sheehan and joked that the news media would leave his speech "on the cutting-room floor."
But he kept speaking, insisting that there is more to the movement than the quasi-celebrity status Sheehan has attained and the political debates she has incited. "This is not about right or left. It's about right or wrong," Camacho said. After the group converged at the Capitol, their buses fought Washington traffic toward the White House, where they delivered a letter to Bush asking him to withdraw troops. Tourists were stunned by the media crush and the entourage that flooded Lafayette Park, and some were incensed.
"My son's a Marine! Go home, Cindy!" yelled Kathy Woods of Simi Valley, Calif., who said she has spent weeks quietly simmering over Sheehan's mission. Woods's son is stationed in Hawaii and has not served in Iraq. "She doesn't speak for me," said Woods, a tourist, who added that she thought Sheehan was a publicity seeker.
The group of families is staying at hotels and youth hostels but plans to set up another Camp Casey -- including tents, banners and 1,800 crosses to commemorate the soldiers killed in Iraq -- on the Mall between 14th and 15th streets, where they have a permit to stay through the weekend."-from the Washington Post.
"Most Disappointing Vote for John Roberts"
"Of all the votes by Democratic senators in favor of the nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, none is likely to be more disappointing to progressives than that of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.
Feingold, a maverick Democrat whose increasingly outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq has earned him frequent mentions as a potential candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, was one of three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support the Roberts nomination on Thursday.
Along with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and fellow Wisconsinite Herb Kohl, Feingold joined all of the committee's Republicans in backing the Bush administration nominee. The three Democratic votes on the committee are likely to ease the way for as many as two dozen Senate Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts when the nomination goes to the full Senate.
Feingold's stance is especially significant, as his lonely opposition to the Patriot Act in 2001 and other bold challenges to the administration have marked him as one of the chamber's more courageous defenders of civil rights and civil liberties. As such, his support of Roberts provides other Democrats and moderate Republicans who choose to back the nominee with a measure of cover.
But why would Feingold want to provide that cover?
The senator, who has a record of showing great deference to presidents when it comes to confirming nominees (including that of former Attorney General John Ashcroft), had his excuses. He told the committee, "Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed."
But, then, in the same statement to the committee, Feingold admitted, "I do not want to minimize the concerns that have been expressed by those who oppose the nomination. I share some of them. Many of my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts's refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he took as a member of the Reagan Administration team were misguided or in some cases even flat-out wrong."
The fact is that Feingold asked some of the best questions of Roberts on those very issues, and he got some of the worst answers. Unfortunately, Feingold does not appear to have taken those exchanges seriously enough to decide that Roberts failed the test. One senator who did listen to Feingold's exchanges with the nominee was Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy. In explaining his decision to vote against Roberts, Kennedy specifically mentioned Feingold's pointed questioning of Roberts.
Recalling the discussion of the Roberts's efforts to block the strengthening of the Voting Rights Act when the nominee served in Ronald Reagan's administration, the Massachusetts senator noted that, "Both Senator Feingold and I tried to find out whether he came to agree with the strengthened Voting Rights Act after President Reagan signed it into law. Even when Senator Feingold asked whether Judge Roberts would acknowledge today that he had been wrong to oppose (limits on the ability of minorities to seek protection under the Voting Rights Act), he refused to give a yes-or-no answer."
Kennedy went on to point out that: "Senator Feingold asked: 'What I'm trying to figure out is, given the fact that you've followed this issue for such a long time, I would think you would have a view at this point about… whether the department was right in seeking to keep the (narrow) intent test (that Roberts lobbied for) or whether time has shown that the (broader) effects test (that was supported by civil rights groups and much of Congress) is really the more appropriate test.'
"Judge Roberts responded, 'I'm certainly not an expert in the area and haven't followed and have no way of evaluating the relative effectiveness of the law as amended or the law as it was prior to 1982.
"So we still don't know whether he supports the basic law against voting practices that result in denying voting rights because of race, national origin, or language minority status."
Feingold's questioning helped Kennedy form his conclusion that, "Based on the record available, there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Roberts' view of the rule of law would narrow the protection of basic voting rights. The values and perspectives displayed over and over again in his record cast large doubts on his view of the validity of laws that remove barriers to equal opportunity for women, minorities, and the disabled. His record raises serious questions about the power of Congress to pass laws to protect citizens in matters they care about."
Kennedy concluded, appropriately, that it would be irresponsible on any senator -- particularly any progressive senator -- to vote for the Roberts nomination.
Feingold did not choose to embrace the responsibility that Kennedy recognized. Though he asked the right questions, Feingold cast the wrong vote."-John Nichols in The Nation.
Feingold, a maverick Democrat whose increasingly outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq has earned him frequent mentions as a potential candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, was one of three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support the Roberts nomination on Thursday.
Along with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and fellow Wisconsinite Herb Kohl, Feingold joined all of the committee's Republicans in backing the Bush administration nominee. The three Democratic votes on the committee are likely to ease the way for as many as two dozen Senate Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts when the nomination goes to the full Senate.
Feingold's stance is especially significant, as his lonely opposition to the Patriot Act in 2001 and other bold challenges to the administration have marked him as one of the chamber's more courageous defenders of civil rights and civil liberties. As such, his support of Roberts provides other Democrats and moderate Republicans who choose to back the nominee with a measure of cover.
But why would Feingold want to provide that cover?
The senator, who has a record of showing great deference to presidents when it comes to confirming nominees (including that of former Attorney General John Ashcroft), had his excuses. He told the committee, "Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed."
But, then, in the same statement to the committee, Feingold admitted, "I do not want to minimize the concerns that have been expressed by those who oppose the nomination. I share some of them. Many of my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts's refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he took as a member of the Reagan Administration team were misguided or in some cases even flat-out wrong."
The fact is that Feingold asked some of the best questions of Roberts on those very issues, and he got some of the worst answers. Unfortunately, Feingold does not appear to have taken those exchanges seriously enough to decide that Roberts failed the test. One senator who did listen to Feingold's exchanges with the nominee was Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy. In explaining his decision to vote against Roberts, Kennedy specifically mentioned Feingold's pointed questioning of Roberts.
Recalling the discussion of the Roberts's efforts to block the strengthening of the Voting Rights Act when the nominee served in Ronald Reagan's administration, the Massachusetts senator noted that, "Both Senator Feingold and I tried to find out whether he came to agree with the strengthened Voting Rights Act after President Reagan signed it into law. Even when Senator Feingold asked whether Judge Roberts would acknowledge today that he had been wrong to oppose (limits on the ability of minorities to seek protection under the Voting Rights Act), he refused to give a yes-or-no answer."
Kennedy went on to point out that: "Senator Feingold asked: 'What I'm trying to figure out is, given the fact that you've followed this issue for such a long time, I would think you would have a view at this point about… whether the department was right in seeking to keep the (narrow) intent test (that Roberts lobbied for) or whether time has shown that the (broader) effects test (that was supported by civil rights groups and much of Congress) is really the more appropriate test.'
"Judge Roberts responded, 'I'm certainly not an expert in the area and haven't followed and have no way of evaluating the relative effectiveness of the law as amended or the law as it was prior to 1982.
"So we still don't know whether he supports the basic law against voting practices that result in denying voting rights because of race, national origin, or language minority status."
Feingold's questioning helped Kennedy form his conclusion that, "Based on the record available, there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Roberts' view of the rule of law would narrow the protection of basic voting rights. The values and perspectives displayed over and over again in his record cast large doubts on his view of the validity of laws that remove barriers to equal opportunity for women, minorities, and the disabled. His record raises serious questions about the power of Congress to pass laws to protect citizens in matters they care about."
Kennedy concluded, appropriately, that it would be irresponsible on any senator -- particularly any progressive senator -- to vote for the Roberts nomination.
Feingold did not choose to embrace the responsibility that Kennedy recognized. Though he asked the right questions, Feingold cast the wrong vote."-John Nichols in The Nation.
Rally: ''Stop the War in Iraq, Saturday September 24''
Westlake Plaza, Seatttle, noon. Details here.
''Cantwell Holds Solid Lead in Re-Election Bid''
"A new Strategic Vision (R) poll shows Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) with a healthy lead over challenger Mike McGavick, 49% to 39%."-from Political Wire.
''How Roberts' Confirmation Process Shows What We Should Really Fear''
"There's been a lot of talk recently about how since Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is replacing fellow conservative William Rehnquist, Democratic votes to confirm him is less momentous. This line of thinking says that Roberts won't change the balance of the court one way or the other, so its really not a big deal. That argument might actually have a shred of credence for those who support preserving the status quo on the court... except for one thing that Senate Democrats desperately want everyone to forget: namely, that when the archconservative Roberts was originally the assigned successor of swing vote Sandra Day O'Connor (and thus would have changed the balance of the court), Democrats still appeared perfectly willing to support him as well.
That's right, as mentioned in a previous post, there was a period of about a month and a half where Roberts was the nominee to replace O'Connor, and Chief Justice Rehnquist was publicly saying he had no intention to leave the court. O'Connor, as everyone knows, has provided the critical swing/moderate vote on many hugely important issues. That means that during that time, the consideration of Roberts -- a well-known archconservative -- was a consideration of whether to seriously alter the Supreme Court, and thus potentially overturn years of precedent on issues like abortion, civil rights, etc.
And that brings us to what progressives -- indeed, all moderate, mainstream Americans -- should fear coming out of the upcoming votes on Roberts' confirmation. We should fear that Democrats early on showed a willingness to capitulate even when they knew it would dramatically shift the court to the hard right. Don't believe me that they were capitulating early on? Trying to forget those days to comfort yourself into thinking things will be different when the next right-wing extremist is nominated, this time to really replace O'Connor and really shift the court? Here is just some proof to refresh your memory, and remind you of what top Democrats were saying knowing that the archconservative Roberts was going to replace the moderate critical-swing-vote of O'Connor:
- "Democrats Say Nominee Will Be Hard to Defeat...Democrats seemed increasingly resigned to the notion that they cannot stop [Roberts'] appointment." - Washington Post, 7/21/05, two days after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "It's hard to imagine he can be filibustered. I have to think at least five or six Democrats would be inclined to vote for him. The Republicans start with 55 votes in the Senate and Democrats need to remind themselves of that. Plus, he sounds at least from what we know right now like a decent, thoughtful, reflective guy." - Democratic political consultant and "strategist" Mike McCurry, Reuters, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts' was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "I'm optimistic and hopeful that he is going to be able to build a broad consensus." - Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, Knight-Ridder, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "One influential Democrat said Roberts was 'in the ballpark' of being a nonconfrontational selection. A Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on Roberts' nomination, said she did not think the appeals court judge was 'filibuster-able.'" - Associated Press, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "Senate Democrats admit privately that, barring some sort of political cataclysm, John Roberts is going to be confirmed easily...the conventional assessment here in Washington that he'll have pretty much smooth sailing up on Capitol Hill." - CNN, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
Remember, the critical point here is that Democrats were immediately capitulating when Roberts -- a well-known archconservative -- was going to be replacing the moderate O'Connor, not Rehnquist, and therefore was going to radically change the court. I know, I know -- we would all like to comfort ourselves by thinking that Democrats are supporting Roberts now because he switched to replace Rehnquist and thus won't change the court, and that if President Bush nominates another archconservative to replace O'Connor, then Democrats will really put up a fight. But very recent history shows us that even then, they likely will not.
That should be the real fear: that Democrats have been so emasculated that they come up with all sorts of complex sounding political reasons to weasel out of opposing one archconservative (Roberts) in order to supposedly fight another day...but that having gotten so used to capitulating, that other day never comes, no matter what kind of extremist affront comes down the pike."-from David Sirota on The Huffington Post.
That's right, as mentioned in a previous post, there was a period of about a month and a half where Roberts was the nominee to replace O'Connor, and Chief Justice Rehnquist was publicly saying he had no intention to leave the court. O'Connor, as everyone knows, has provided the critical swing/moderate vote on many hugely important issues. That means that during that time, the consideration of Roberts -- a well-known archconservative -- was a consideration of whether to seriously alter the Supreme Court, and thus potentially overturn years of precedent on issues like abortion, civil rights, etc.
And that brings us to what progressives -- indeed, all moderate, mainstream Americans -- should fear coming out of the upcoming votes on Roberts' confirmation. We should fear that Democrats early on showed a willingness to capitulate even when they knew it would dramatically shift the court to the hard right. Don't believe me that they were capitulating early on? Trying to forget those days to comfort yourself into thinking things will be different when the next right-wing extremist is nominated, this time to really replace O'Connor and really shift the court? Here is just some proof to refresh your memory, and remind you of what top Democrats were saying knowing that the archconservative Roberts was going to replace the moderate critical-swing-vote of O'Connor:
- "Democrats Say Nominee Will Be Hard to Defeat...Democrats seemed increasingly resigned to the notion that they cannot stop [Roberts'] appointment." - Washington Post, 7/21/05, two days after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "It's hard to imagine he can be filibustered. I have to think at least five or six Democrats would be inclined to vote for him. The Republicans start with 55 votes in the Senate and Democrats need to remind themselves of that. Plus, he sounds at least from what we know right now like a decent, thoughtful, reflective guy." - Democratic political consultant and "strategist" Mike McCurry, Reuters, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts' was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "I'm optimistic and hopeful that he is going to be able to build a broad consensus." - Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, Knight-Ridder, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "One influential Democrat said Roberts was 'in the ballpark' of being a nonconfrontational selection. A Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on Roberts' nomination, said she did not think the appeals court judge was 'filibuster-able.'" - Associated Press, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
- "Senate Democrats admit privately that, barring some sort of political cataclysm, John Roberts is going to be confirmed easily...the conventional assessment here in Washington that he'll have pretty much smooth sailing up on Capitol Hill." - CNN, 7/20/05, the day after Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor.
Remember, the critical point here is that Democrats were immediately capitulating when Roberts -- a well-known archconservative -- was going to be replacing the moderate O'Connor, not Rehnquist, and therefore was going to radically change the court. I know, I know -- we would all like to comfort ourselves by thinking that Democrats are supporting Roberts now because he switched to replace Rehnquist and thus won't change the court, and that if President Bush nominates another archconservative to replace O'Connor, then Democrats will really put up a fight. But very recent history shows us that even then, they likely will not.
That should be the real fear: that Democrats have been so emasculated that they come up with all sorts of complex sounding political reasons to weasel out of opposing one archconservative (Roberts) in order to supposedly fight another day...but that having gotten so used to capitulating, that other day never comes, no matter what kind of extremist affront comes down the pike."-from David Sirota on The Huffington Post.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
"Sen. Clinton to vote 'no' on Roberts"
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 (UPI) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., announced Thursday she will vote no on the nomination of Judge John Roberts as chief justice of the United States. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 Thursday in favor of President Bush's nomination of Roberts to replace the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. All 10 of the Republicans on the 18-member committee voted in favor -- joined by Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Russell Feingold and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.
Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del.; Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, all voted no.
In a statement posted on her Web site, Clinton said she would vote no when the nomination comes before the full Senate.
Clinton said she had an obligation to cast her vote for "someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches."
She said Roberts' responses during confirmation hearings left his position on those issues unclear.
"That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience," she said, "I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service."-from the story tonight.
Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del.; Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, all voted no.
In a statement posted on her Web site, Clinton said she would vote no when the nomination comes before the full Senate.
Clinton said she had an obligation to cast her vote for "someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches."
She said Roberts' responses during confirmation hearings left his position on those issues unclear.
"That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience," she said, "I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service."-from the story tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)