The Democratic Party Can Stop Asking For My Money Now!

Every year I get about a dozen calls from the Democratic Party, along with numerous mail requests for donations. In the past, I have occasionally broken out my checkbook and provided funds as conditions permitted. But they can quit calling me now. They can save the cost of the stamps they use to mail their requests to me.

Why? 34 to 10 is why! That’s the final tally on the Democrats’ response in favor of renewing the Patriot Act. Only 10 of 44 Democrats were willing to stand up to this administration and represent my views. The complete details of the vote are listed here, and both of my representatives from California, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, seemed to cave and ignore the principled position on the Patriot Act, spearheaded by Russ Feingold and spelled out in his words here and here.

The Democrats have let me down, and Feinstein and Boxer owe me and other Californians an explanation for why their “YES” vote on the Patriot Act is in our best interest!  I looked on Feinstein’s website, hoping for an explanation. Nothing! Boxer has a brief statement where she acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, but includes very little to make me feel better about her vote on my behalf. Certainly, her closing doesn’t help:

I also wanted to show my support for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s anti-methamphetamine bill, which was included in the conference report. Meth has become a terrible scourge across our country and Sen. Feinstein’s bill will go a long way to combat the spread of the drug by restricting access to the ingredients used to make meth.

First of all, while I don’t exactly consider myself to be “pro-meth,” isn’t methamphetamine already illegal? So what, exactly, is this bill doing for me that offsets the harm of the Patriot Act? And second, what the hell does methamphetamine have to do with the Patriot Act anyway?

If they are going to stick two seemingly unrelated items in the same bill, at least weigh the harm of one against the benefit of the other before voting for it on my behalf! Don’t just stick in something that nearly everyone supports in order to justify a “YES” vote in stark opposition to my views on the underlying issue – and then expect me to keep donating money to keep you in office!

To put it more bluntly, I don’t want my representative to vote for a bill that would allow the government to plant an electronic tracking device in the skull of every American, just because it also happens to contain a prohibition on putting puppies in a wood chipper!  

So from now on, when I get a call from the Democratic Party asking for money, I will tell them that I only donate directly to the individual candidates I support, as I no longer trust the Democratic Party to represent my views. When they ask me why, I will tell them:

34 to 10!

Torture is the Best We Can Hope For!

In defending their votes for Michael Mukasey - an otherwise seemingly respectable man who somehow deliberately refuses to label waterboarding as illegal torture - Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have made a clear statement about the standards to which they hold our country:

From Feinstein:

First and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales.

From Schumer:

Under this administration, (the) nominee will certainly never share our views on issues like torture and wiretapping.

When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration.

In other words:

We should give President Bush everything he wants, because he could want something worse!

So tell me, Senators Feinstein and Schumer:

What could be worse than losing your rights of habeas corpus with a President who can declare you an enemy combatant and waterboard torture you without fear of prosecution, and who would like to give legal immunity from murder to the private mercenary army on his payroll?

Yeah, I suppose Feinstein and Schumer could be commended for providing enough oversight to protect the country from the equivalent of a President Jeffrey Dahmer, or a President John Wayne Gacy. So far, George Bush hasn’t been allowed to cook and eat his enemies and store their bones under the White House!

Nice job, Senators!

Panetta for CIA Chief a Victory for Intelligence Over Experience (in Intelligence)

Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!

With a bold stroke, Barack Obama validated much of the confidence I placed in him throughout the Democratic primary, as I became convinced that he was the candidate who could bring intelligence and basic human decency back to our government.

How do I know this? Two reasons: one personal, and the other, simply obvious. Let me start with the latter:

If the choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA drew such a harsh, defensive, and petty initial reaction from my bad senator, Diane Feinstein (D-War Profiteering), then it has to be a good choice! Although she quickly changed her public tune after intense criticism and outright mockery of her response to the news, first impressions usually tell the real story much better than the political damage control that follows. Al Giordano provides the details as only he can, including a link to this article Panetta wrote for Washington Monthly that sets forth the values of the man that have been so lacking at CIA for as long as I can remember.

The personal reason comes from an experience I had with Panetta when he was a State Senator representing the Monterey area on the Central California Coast. Through my work, I had the misfortune of becoming embroiled in a dispute with one of Panetta’s constituents who was, quite literally, insane. She apparently was determined to air her complaints demands whatever the voices in her head told her to say through a series of letters to Panetta’s office.

Instead of throwing his weight around and demanding that I comply in order to get this constituent off of his back, Panetta wrote me a thoughtful letter asking me to provide my side of the story. Without going into the details, I’ll just say that Panetta not only considered my response carefully, he wrote back (or at least had a staffer write) to express appreciation for my handling of the situation. It was a small gesture, but one that seemed to me at the time to be coming from someone who cared about doing the right thing, in the right way.

More of this in government, please!