Regardless of my personal viewpoints, The Letter appears to be a call for a return to reason, balance, diplomacy, and statesmanship in our political system and away from extremism; and I find it timely, appropriate and refreshing. Here some thoughts I posted earlier in comments on another blog.

It’s time to end the potlics of exclusion and extreme partisanship - and for civility to return to the halls of Congress. How many can honestly say that the state of affairs in Washington today suggests that diplomacy and statesmanship are at work in our capital? How many believe that our polticians are hard at work trying to find a workable balance to serious issues that results in the best solutions benefiting the greatest number of people? It might be surprising to find the number of people, who may not be as vocal as the extremists, who are silently awaiting a return of civility and statesmanship to the halls of Congress. 

A blog posted at http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/ discussed, in significant depth, media attention focused on Hillary Clinton’s laugh. Apparently, based on the media attention it has received, it’s an important political issue.

The blog highlights an issue worthy of considreration. The tremendous impact of the media in this democracy. I have never bought into the repeated charges from the far right that the media is liberal. Generally, the proof is just not there.

What is true, however, is that there is entirely too much focus on issues that don’t amount to a hill of beans (like Hillary’s laugh). Here we have an important election near at hand - American’s need the media to act responsibly and not partisanly to be sure that every American knows where each candidate stands on all of the substantive issues. Stories about a candidates dress, or laugh, or what they had for breakfast - are a waste of precious air space and time. The media should make it their collective personal mission to see to it that a vast majority of average Americans know who the candidates are and where they stand on substantive issues. The media really does play a very important role in American politics - it is to educate and to inform - and not to trivialize and diffuse attention from the substantive issues. Let’s hope they do their job during this next election. If they do we will be hearing alot more about important substantive issues that affect average Americans.

Yesterday I posted a comment on a blog written by Peter Abel at Donklephant entitled Can Speech Be an Act of Treason/War? It can be found at:

http://donklephant.com/2007/09/27/can-speech-be-an-act-of-treasonwar/

My comment seems to have struck a chord. It was reposted by the blogs owner on the same website.  Please note that JD did not write this comment and I am not affiliated with JD’s Neoconniseures. He is, however, on my friend list and I visit his web site from time to time. My previous blog below (MoveOn Sparks Controversy) was also a comment on his blog.

I am posting the comment in its entirety here. We must never forget the importance of Freedom of Speech in a civilized and democratic society. Without it - there is no democracy.

Freedom of speech is a hallmark of democratic society. It was important enough that our founding fathers spelled it out fairly succinctly in the FIRST amendment to the Constitution. It is important because freedom of expression is one of the tools that a liberated people can use to prevent oppression and injustice and to assure the survival of democracy. But it comes with a price tag, it means that citizens will sometimes be exposed to opinions and viewpoints with which they do not agree. But it’s a small price to pay for freedom.

I do not agree with the tactic employed by MoveOn in the recent ad. But I do think that a culture as advanced as that of the US has the capacity to recognize that some expression may cross a line of civility and decorum and nevertheless be protected by the Constitution. You have to take the good with the bad - why is that so hard for people to comprehend? The kind of speech that is not protected by the Constitution is that kind of expression that is patently offensive or obscene - like shouting vulgarities in Church - surely noone would recognize such speech as protected by the Constitution. But other speech, unless it is patently offensive and out of place, is protected - as rightly it should be.

So what did MoveOn do wrong? Instead of attacking policies, statistics, and other substantive issues related to the war, they leveled a personal attack at a millitary officer who was acting in an official capacity. The ad in question could have hoped to achieve little other than to attack the personal integrity of the General. While this is undoubtedly out of bounds - it is not unconstitutional and should not be criminalized. (And it shouldn’t have even been discussed!) Unfortunately, neither of our political parties seems to have much problem with “making it personal”. We seem to have a penchant in this country for having no decorum or civility when it comes to politics. If we don’t like the opinions of our political opponents we simply move to attack them personally - its much easier to attack the person - rather than put forth the effort to win the hearts and minds of the American people through evidence, logic, discussion, debate etc. Believe me when I say that MoveOn does not have the market cornered on that tactic.

Whether we like it or not, when we talk about our brave soldiers fighting for freedom, one of the basic and fundamental rights they are fighting either to protect or establish is freedom of speech. It is a precious and sacred right that should be regarded with great reverence and respect. It should not be trivialized or become subject to erosion because it is sometimes inconvenient or uncomfortable. This does not mean that we have to give credence to those who cross the line. The best approach to dealing with this type of expression is to just ignore it - or make a single dignified statement about why the message or tactic employed lends nothing useful to the debate.

It’s high time that mainstream American’s impose some contraint on the tone and tenor of political debate. We should not tolerate attacks that are purely personal in nature. Nor should we tolerate attempts to silence debate about a war by allowing those one one side of the debate to claim that those who do not support it are unpatriotic or unsupportive of our troops. Regardless of one’s position on the issues, one should recognize bunk when it surfaces.

This last week MoveOn.Org generated a firestorm of controversy by taking out a full page ad questioning the veracity of reports by General Patraeus to Congress regarding the war in Iraq. Although I have not personally seen the ad in question, from all that I have read, I too find the ad disparaging General Patraeus to be indefensible. General Petraeus is acting honorably in the service of his country to do that which he has been asked to do. There is no good that can come from attacking our millitary officials for attempting to do their job.

However, I do take issue with the tone of political arguments related to criticism of the administration or the war - or any administration or any war. What makes the United States of America great is the right of its citizens to participate in its governance. As far as I am concerned this is a God given right that comes with the absolute freedom to exercise it at (almost) any time and for (almost) any reason. Today we are at war - in a war that many believe is necessary to protect our country from terror - but there are many who do not believe that is what we are doing. As citizens of this country, they are entitled to their opinion and they are entitled to express it. I take issue with anyone who claims that a citizen is any less of a patriot for questioning his country’s involvement in a war. This is NOT aiding and abetting the enemy. The war today may be justifiable - but one day we may be involved in a war that is not - and when that day comes, I sure hope there are citizens who will stand up and express their opinions instead of being afraid they are going to be denounced as weak, or unpatriotic, or as traitors. I do not believe anyone wants to live in a repressive society where people lose their jobs or are branded, hated, or discriminated against for their political opinions. I honestly pray, at times, that we in this country are beyond that. The tactic of demonizing people for their opinions is despicable and is a tactic that is trotted out when the proposition one supports cannot be defended on its own grounds. Our government leaders are not infallible - sometimes they make mistakes - and they are subject to the will of the people. The will of the people cannot be known unless it is expressed.

Good citizens can appreciate that in a pluralistic society - people will have differing viewpoints - the right to have differences is not terminated when we declare war. Being against the war - does not equate to being critical or unappreciative of our troops - the two concepts are utterly unrelated. We should appreciate the fact that there is still debate in our country about the decisions our leaders make. When the debate stops - oppression begins. Here the criticism was directed toward a millitary officer acting in an official capacity, and should not have been. However, questioning the ideas of our politicians, candidates, and prevailing policies is always fair game, regardless of the subject.

According to an artilce appearing on CNN’s web site, the American Cancer Society considers access to healthcare an important issue; important enough that the organization will devote its entire advertising budget for 2007 to highlighting the problems faced by Americans who do not have enough or any health insurance. See full story at http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/09/17/cancer.ads/index.html.

With the Presidential campaign gaining momentum, candidates who expect to have a realistic hope of election will be forced to grapple with many of the tough domestic issues that appear to have eluded attention during the last many years. One of those issues is the continuing problem of a lack of meaningful access to healthcare faced by a significant number of Americans. According to the article, an estimated 47 million Americans are without health insurance while another 16 million are effectively underinsured. This problem is compounded by a continued trend of escalating costs, especially for major medical or treatment requiring hospitalization.

Although the American Cancer Society has focused its attention on the impact of being uninsured or underinsured on those with cancer, the effects are no different for those similarly impacted by other diseases. Being without health insurance or being underinsured causes many Americans’ to forego diagnostics and preventive care that could prolong or save lives. When catastrophe does strike, many American’s, even those with health insurance, are left financially devastated.

The questions that must be answered by American’s is whether it is acceptable for some American’s to go without adequate healthcare because they are too well off to be eligible for government assistance but too poor to afford their own insurance. And whether or not it is OK in this country for hard working American’s with inadequate coverage (or even sometimes with average coverage) to be financially devastated by the occurence of a major illness. The answer on both counts should be a resounding NO. Every American citizen should feel safe knowing that quality and affordable healtchare is available regardless of one’s socioeconomic status.

America is the greatest and wealthiest country in the world today. I am convinced that we have the capacity to roll up our sleeves and find ways to resolve and address these problems. Hopefully, our Presidential candidates from all parties will present, discuss, and explore a variety of meaningful options for addressing healthcare issues. Finding a solution will be difficult. It will take 1) attention 2) creativity and 3) compromise. But I am convinced we can succeed. Hats off to the American Cancer Society for helping to focus and shape the dicussion on these important issues. It’s about time. 

Reports today suggest that Senator Craig may reconsider his decision to resign following his conviction on a disorderly conduct charge for allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover cop in a men’s restroom. See full story on CNN at  http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/05/craig/index.html. The real story behind the story is the fact that Craig is  the last on a growing list of GOP politicians whose personal lives have become subject to public scrutiny for failure to live up to the party’s standards on morality and personal values.

The frantic reaction of the party in trying to get Craig to resign quickly is undoubtedly a result of fear of the monster of hypocrisy that keeps raising its ugly head. In the last several election cycles the party has focused much attention of moral issues, and that is what has created the monster. (No indictment of morality here - but politicians are unusually human). Instead of recognizing the folly of a strategy that has depicted a party’s candidates as being more upright and moral, and thinking rationally about Craig’s situation, the party rushed to judgment. Even if the accusations that Craig is gay are not true, the party simply cannot abide the appearance of impropriety. As a result Craig, has received little support from his own party.

From a purely legal perspective, Craig should not have pleaded guilty and should probably fight the charge based on generally poor evidence of any real crime. Peeping through a stall door is no evidence of a crime. In fact, don’t we all do that to see if one is empty? Neither is touching someone’s shoe. We’re all going to be self-conscious the next time we go in an airport bathroom. It would have been much better evidence for the officer to have let the whole thing play out to assure that Craig’s overtures were truly sexual advances and were not misinterpreted. If Craig had offered to meet the officer in a hotel (or worse), it would be different evidence. Not having read the statute, it sounds like Craig’s word against the officer’s on interpretation of guestures. And Craig has not pleaded guilty to solicitation of gay sex in a public restroom. Craig pleaded guility to a misdemeanor in hopes that the incident would never become public, and he would never have to face down accusations that he was gay. Knowing the political environment he operated in, he chose to plead rather than stand and fight a charge for which there was weak evidence.

This is one time the party should have just remained silent and let the situation play itself out. The ugly headed monster was already out (due to the indiscretions of others), so there was really no reason to worry of further damage from Craig’s debacle. The appearance now is that the party will tolerate heterosexual indiscretions, but absolutely will not tolerate any appearance of homosexuality, even if it is not fully substantiated.

But it is also problematic if Craig doesn’t resign because the standard party mantra to enable the party maintain some semblance of moral distinction from other parties is for the fallen to admit rather than deny wrongdoing and to take responsibility. Craig has already said he is not gay and has never been. If he doesn’t resign, it could be viewed by voters as typical denial by politicians who give lip service to standards they themselves never adhere to. And here it would be tantamount to party acceptance of such behavior.

What a mess! The primary problem here is the failure of the political system and people to recognize a legitimate line drawn between issues that are appropriate for political and public concern and those that are not. The Courts have recognized Zones of Privacy around certain issues. So should our political parties and our government. Craig should not resign on such thin charges. And the party should exercise restraint (read less party manipulation) and just let the voters (not politicians) back home decide when Craig comes up for reelection.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/08/plea-to-feds-do.html

Illegal Mexican immigrant Elvira Arellano, who has been in refuge in a church for nearly a year to avoid deportation, plans to leave her sanctuary next month to go to Washington to go advocate for immigration reform. See link to Chicago Tribune story above.

Immigration is an area where the opinions of average middle class American’s seem to be unheard. Ironically, it is a topic where the fringe (or extreme) interests of the two major parties converge. The Democratic party has historically supported the interests of immigrants in pursuing a better life in America and some conservatives recognize a need for a ready labor supply. (Although some argue that there is no job that an American citizen will not perform if it pays well enough. Thus, illegal immigration simply drives down wages for working citizens.)

While both positions are legitimate, both sides tend to sidestep the fact that the US has laws and procedures in place to facilitate legitimate immigration. Noone seems to be advocating for an end to legal immigration. And everyone recognizes the historical signifigance of immigration in America and the contributions of immigrants. While I cannot presently report relevant statistics, my sense is that most Americans simply want the prodecures for enacting and implementing formal immigration policy to have meaning. When persons immigrate illegally, they effectively ignore the quotas and limits established through the legislative process and force American taxpayers to assume responsibility for more and more dependent citizens further burdening our healthcare and welfare systems. The US cannot focus on improving the plight of all to citizens, including those who have immigrated legally, while also continually addressing the needs of the masses of people who disregard our boders and enter the country illegally. Both parties should move to the center on this issue - ignore the extreme or fringe interests - and establish a policy that reflects the opinions of average Americans.

If anyone has statistics or data from polls or surveys on this topic. I’d be interested in where to find them.

Whether progress toward peace and stability in Iraq is occuring is apparently a hot topic among the political pundits. Mary Matalin was so perturbed at Bob Shrum this morning that she tossed her pen across the table at the end of a Meet the Press segment. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/02/meet-the-press-a-pissy-mary-matalin-throws-her-pen-when-punked-by-shrum/

At the heart of the debate, of course, is whether real progress is being made in Iraq and when and if the US should withdraw.  Shrum suggests the American people will not support a long and continued involvement in Iraq. Matalin suggests real progress is being made, despite questionable progress measures, and that US should remain long enough to be successful. 

Most American’s probably agree we have some responsibility for not leaving Iraq in a mess. And if success is truly imminent, most probably support continued engagement (at least temporarily). But American’s may be weary of hearing that success is imminent. At some point average people start to wonder whether success is something that is always within grasp but never attainable (the perpetually dangling carrot). The psychology is that people start feeling that they are being led-on.

Shrum is probably right that the voters will not go along with prolonged occupation. It is not enough just to make an argument that success is close or progress is being made. This may come across as a last ditch strategy to stretch it out for just as long as it is utterly possible. What is needed is a specific explanation to the voters as to how and why the adminsitration thinks the socio-political environment can be changed in Iraq; along with specific objective measures that will indicate success or failure one way or the other.

In any case, the debate continues.

If you have an opinion on this subject, please leave a comment. 

The recent alleged indiscretions of Senator Craig from Idaho, now being referred to as “toiletgate”, brings into sharp focus one of the political strategies that has been employed by the extreme conservative camp over the course of the last several election cycles. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is a big deal for the GOP because they have campaigned on family values and marketed themselves as the party of superior morality whose candidates not only talk the talk but walk the walk.

The reality is that during the last year we have seen, time and time again, that all polticians are human, regardless of their party affiliation. The republicans have provided multiple examples of their humanity lately. I will forego a recital of the examples. The difference in the two major parties is that the democrats don’t hang their hats on morality. The problem with claiming the moral high ground and then failing to deliver is that it comes across as hypocrisy - which is shaping up to present a PR nightmare for the GOP during the next election cycle. Now it should come as no surprise that some folks will say anything to get elected. Extremists are those people who are so convinced of the correctness of their social and poltical ideals that they will employ any tactic to secure their position because they believe the ends justify the means. But claiming moral superiority is a difficult position to defend because some view hypocrisy as a greater sin than the sin itself. (Each American must reach her own conclusion on that issue).

Expect the GOP to take swift and decisive action in regards to Craig because the scandal, regardless of whether Craig is really guilty, severely damages credibility on the morality issues. Perhaps the fear is that American voters will realize that politicians are humans and that all humans “sin” from time to time. This doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean the American voters shouldn’t hope for more. But the reality is that we need to realize that we cannot always expect it. This should come as NO BIG SUPRISE! The problem is that, if and when American voters figure this out, campaigning on morality is likely to be a much less effective strategy. Hence, the heightened sense of urgency.

Now do not take this to mean that morality does not matter. But here we are talking about what goes on in the private lives of polticians. We would probably all be aghast if we ever really knew everything about polticians’ personal lives. (Which, by the way, I am not condoning). We are obsessed with sexuality to such an extent that we could care less if the poverty level increases 10 fold as long as none of our politicians are behaving illicitly. This is somewhat like squabbling over who was smoking the cigarette that caused the house to catch fire while the house burns to the ground. Of course, if you don’t live in the house and it might cost you something to put out the fire, you might prefer to ignore the house and let it burn. The sad thing is that focus on these embarassing and ridiculous issues diverts media and voter attention from important issues that really impact average Americans. I cannot see how Craig’s bathroom antics affect me personally, but I am guessing from all the hoopla that it is an important poltical issue. And of course, how he behaves in his work life, how his work affects his constituents and how ethically he behaves in carrying out his public duties, is of no consequence, as long as he makes no lewd guestures in public restrooms.

I, for one, would like to hear much less about politicians’ personal lives and ALOT more about the issues that affect average working Americans. I am much more concerned with whether polticians behave ethically and honorably in fulfilling their public duties than I am with what they do in private. (though I’d prefer to get the whole enchilada). In any case, it is high time that there be a meaningful public debate about issues such as cost of education, healthcare, social security, trade policies, etc. I hope that both parties get their acts together before the presidential election, and talk much less about the piddly stuff and much more about substantive issues.