A Desperation Follow Up Letter to Barbara Boxer

[Michael]

Dear Senator Boxer,

I’ve just read your email message concerning the recently stated US agreement with India’s atomic energy program.

As usual, your position is clear and leaves no room for doubt.

Not only does the US “look the other way” in the case of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, but now clearly wants India to continue its development of nuclear weapons. It would be naïve to think that India, who already possesses a nuclear weapon, would not use more technology to enhance its nuclear weapons program.

I want to thank you for speaking truth to power albeit that the power now in existence doesn’t seem to listen to opposition positions and is careless in its foreign policy.

Senator Boxer, there are many of us who see you as an independent legislator, a legislator who doesn’t act upon issues in lock step with any political party. I admit that you said you were “proud to be a Democrat” on the Jon Stewart program when Harry Reid called the closed session of congress. That was an extreme move and I’d be proud to be part of it as well.

There is also a move afoot to “fix” the Democratic Party so that it wins more elections. However, who is winning in this effort to “fix” the Democratic Party?

People like you, Senator Feingold, Representatives Franks, Kucinich, Lee and others want to bring the party back to its base. I submit to you that Senators Lieberman, Clinton, Biden, Feinstein, Kerry, just to name a few, also wish to “fix” the Democratic Party. Their fix is to become more like the Republicans. So what is the Democratic Party?

My suggestion is that there is, as stands, one party in this nation. I call it “The Corporacracy”, although others have used similar designations. I have heard several statements used in regard to our “two party” political system.

One statement is that the Republicans and the Democrats are two legs of the same pair of pants.

Another is that the Democrats and Republicans drink from the same trough.

I’ve heard Bill Clinton referred to as the “best Republican president” that we’ve ever had.

In the Indian/US agreement, you, once again, break ranks with many Democrats whose idea of governing is synonymous with their idea of waging political campaigns. Far too many legislators help govern based upon how they feel their constituencies view their support for certain legislation. I guess that’s what legislators are supposed to do. They’re supposed to listen to their constituents and carry out their constituents’ wishes. The wishes of their constituents, however, may change or new wishes may arise when new issues are raised. It is then that the legislator should not vote against his or her conscience and accept the subsequent consequences at the polls.

We in California are well aware of who we got when we voted for Barbara Boxer. I dare say that many of us who voted for you didn’t vote for you because of your party affiliation. We voted for Barbara Boxer in light of your stated positions, even if they don’t sit well with the “official Democratic Party position”.

I’ve written this to you before, Senator Boxer, and I’ve not changed my mind. I know that I’m not alone in feeling that there is no “fixing” the Democratic Party. One group of members of that party holds views that are so diametrically opposed to the views of the other group that the Democratic Party can, indeed, be considered two parties.

Therefore, I ask you, along with so many who’ve written to you, to first seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for president for the 2008 election. You may think that this flies in the face of what I’ve written above about the Democratic Party. However, you must, as Kucinich and Dean did in 2004, allow the Democrats to show their true colors. It’s only fair. I do think, nonetheless, that their true colors exist within a spectrum that does not include you or some of the other courageous legislators I’ve mentioned.

I would be pleasantly surprised if the party did accept your candidacy seriously. I would offer my mea culpa and support you. This, of course, would depend upon the reason you won the nomination. If you suddenly became a “right lite” in the manner of John Kerry in 2004, and that move won you the nomination, you will have mislead many of us. I just don’t see that happening.

I was disappointed to see Kucinich’s support for Kerry in 2004. After waging a campaign that disagreed with much of what Kerry espoused, Kucinich suddenly became a strong Kerry supporter. This showed me a weakness that compelled Kucinich to be a Democrat and not a progressive.

I suggest that, if it becomes clear that you will not obtain the Democratic Party’s nomination, you make your campaign independent of either corporate owned party. I suggest that you don’t drop out of the race and support Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman or Joe Biden just because a “D” follows their names.

Senator Boxer, think of those people who pursued the presidency and either ran an independent campaign or created a political party whose platform was more in line with their thinking.

In 1992, Ross Perot, in opposition to NAFTA, spoke, as a Reform Party candidate of the “great sucking sound” of American jobs going to Mexico. He was right.

In 1968 and 1972, a great and courageous progressive, Eugene McCarthy, after attempting to win the nomination of the corporate owned Democratic Party, broke with the party and ran independent campaigns.

Both Perot and McCarthy garnered a respectable number of votes.

Ralph Nader has run as a member of The Green Party and also as an independent.

In his bid as a Green Party member, he received a fairly sizeable number of votes.

Democrats thought that those votes would have gone to Al Gore if Nader hadn’t run.

In 2004, Nader waged an independent campaign. He didn’t win nearly as many votes as he did in 2000. One of the very clear reasons for this is that The Democratic Party took a page from the Republicans’ book of fear and tried to keep Nader off the ballot in many states. They thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

That misdirected philosophy, the “ABB” philosophy (anybody but Bush), failed. In spite of the Democratic Party’s attempts to marginalize Nader’s campaign, the outcome of the election was not affected.

Senator Boxer, you and I know that Pat Buchanan is anything but a progressive. In fact, he’s a Libertarian. As such, his domestic policies would include cutting social programs, just as the Republicans are doing now.

Buchanan did imply, however, in an interview with Bill Maher, that he may have very well voted for Kerry if Kerry’s position on Iraq included a definitive timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq or even an immediate removal of those troops. This is Pat Buchanan, Senator Boxer!

I have no doubt that people in the so called “red states” really wanted a different policy for Iraq, a policy which shone a light at the end of the tunnel. I suggest to you, Senator, that “red state” voters may have voted against Bush if Kerry offered a truly marked difference in his position toward Iraq. Indeed, he did not and, in my humble opinion, people saw very little difference between Kerry and Bush. They noted this lack of a loyal opposition and decided to vote for the Bush who was already in the White House in lieu of the Bush-lite who was doing a miserable job of presenting significantly different views.

If the Democratic Party doesn’t accept you as their candidate in 2008, many of us are asking you to continue to run, either under the banner of another party or as an independent. We need a known quantity, someone with years in Washington, to offer a truly progressive platform.

I hope that this doesn’t insult you, Senator Boxer, but one of the few “criticisms”, if it can be described that way, from supporters or potential supporters is that you would probably be the oldest candidate in the race. I’m not just blowing smoke, Senator Boxer, but you certainly wouldn’t look like the oldest candidate and your energy and initiative would more than balance out that irrelevant fact.

Age didn’t seem to hurt Ronald Reagan and, although some may say that it did, indeed, hurt Robert Dole in 1996, I believe what hurt Dole was Clinton’s candidacy.

I am asking you, Senator Boxer, and I know many others are asking you to please run for president in 2008. Run to the finish. Don’t give up just because you’re too logical for either of the two corporate run parties to gain their nomination. Don’t worry about taking votes from the Democratic nominee if you are not that nominee. I voted for Kerry in 2004 because of pressure from so called progressives, including CommonCause and MoveOn and Bush still won. I’ll never make that mistake again. I’ll vote my conscience and my conscience is telling me to vote for Senator Barbara Boxer if she chooses to follow in the courageous footsteps of people such as Eugene McCarthy.

I realize that you receive millions of messages and letters and I fully understand your need for a staff to read and filter those communications. I guess I’m hoping against hope that your eyes will see this message and that you take my request, indeed the request of many people, seriously. We need a true loyal opposition in 2008.

Is it too early to talk about running in 2008? Joe Biden confirmed his candidacy on April 7, 2006 on Bill Maher’s “Real Time With Bill Maher” which airs on HBO. You must realize as you’ve been in the political arena for quite some time that, unfortunately, professional politicians spend most of their time in office running for office. This could be something that you can help change as President of the United States of America.

If you didn’t win, your campaign would back the corporate candidates into corners out of which they would find it very difficult to escape. Truth drives a hard bargain.

Either way, a Barbara Boxer presidential bid in 2008 would impact the promises made by other candidates in a positive manner and they may even find it necessary to follow through on those promises.

First and foremost, Senator Boxer, I ask once again that you become a candidate for president in 2008 and that you make that announcement in a timely manner. The time involved in that manner is now upon us.

Thank you, Senator Boxer, for showing courage as a senator. We hope that you carry that courage into a presidential race and an ultimate presidential victory.

Sincerely,
Michael Bonanno

To friendship,
Michael

"Truth exists, only falsehood has to be invented." - Georges Braque

The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mine

[stilltrucking]

Even if she does not see it Michael, I bet you someone will. She has a strong team around her. You made a lot of strong points. Even if only someone on her staff reads it, they may filter up to her in some fashion.

The first time I remember hearing someone say, "There ain't a dime's worth a dfference between a Democrat and a Republican" was George Wallace in 1968 when he was running. He turned his life around after he got shot by that Nazi in Maryland. Many black mourners at his funeral.

woops

dam rambles

good work Michael, Keeping on fighting the good fight.

[Michael]

truckman, I can’t help thinking that she knows that there are people that want her to run.

I would really like to see an apolitical, unicameral set up evolve. We’re always going to have to live within a republic. This doesn’t mean we have to have party politics and a two tiered legislature. Let’s face it, the reason we nominally have two political parties is to give the impression that there’s oversight for all of the branches of government.

There isn’t any oversight and it’s not necessarily because the Republicans control all of the branches of government. It’s because The Corporacracy controls all of the branches of government. We’ve allowed corporations to become like spoiled children who have yet to grow out of the stage in which they think everyone and everything exists for their benefit.

It’s not capitalism, although capitalism is greed based. This is more than capitalism and free enterprise. It’s outright boredom. People obtain a certain degree of financial independence and they still want more. I believe that there are people in this mockery of a nation who are so wealthy that, for them, it’s comparative, cosmetic numerics. It’s a matter of how my wealth compares to your wealth and if the number representing your value becomes higher than the number representing my value, then I make a move that will add enough of the right characters to my number to make it higher than your number.

I don’t believe that people really care what that number is because they reached a state of wealth a long time ago that will guarantee them and their descendents so much wealth that they’ll never be able to spend it fast enough.

This is true with politicians. I’d be surprised if there are five senators and 50 representatives whose time is consumed with representing the good of their constituents. I think I’m being a little generous with the house.

Kucinich showed how passionate he was when he wouldn’t step into the vacuum of nonpartisan politics after Bush-lite won the Democratic Party nomination in 2004. Suddenly, he was shoulder to shoulder with Mr. “Win The Peace”. He was right there with the amnesiacs who had forgotten what we did in Iraq, the fact that we felt we had the right to remove the leader of a sovereign nation because we are who we are and because we need to control the oil before the Chinese some how sneek in ahead of us.

Right now Boxer, as did Kucinich at one point and Dean at one point, looks like a rebel. She may be rebellious, but that doesn’t mean that what she’s rebelling against is right. They didn’t come up with the phrase “out of the box” for nothing. The box is the comfort zone for those who feel we should shut the hell up, keep our noses clean and let the people who’s job it is to govern do the governing. I think people actually believe we have no right to talk about our opinions concerning the death and killing in Iraq.

In fact, there was a letter to the editor that was entitled something like “Now Is Not The Time To Politicize Iraq”. Naturally, the guy who wrote the letter said that the enemy gains comfort and boldness when they see us disagreeing. Also, naturally, his ultimate argument is that we need to “win” in Iraq. He went on to say that the world isn’t the same after 9/11. We need to win in Iraq. Of course, he never did answer the question What Does Winning the War in Iraq Look Like? They talk about winning, finishing the job and use all kinds of euphemisms, but no one’s explained what it looks like when we’ve won the war in Iraq. In fact, I’m not sure that we even know who the victors would be if we won the war, I mean besides The Regime and Halliburton.

I use the Wallace phrase quite often. It’s one of the best political phrases I’ve ever heard.

To friendship,
Michael

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” – Thomas Jefferson

The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mine

[stilltrucking]

I may be wrong but I think Perot was the most successful third party candidate we have had- almost twenty percent of the vote. Too bad he was a flake. Or at least that is how he came off in the press. I read an article on Wikipedia that said our "winner take all system" is not constitutionally mandated. Not sure what that means. The election of 1876 or 1872 the one that was decided in the House of Representatives? And these electronic voting machines with no paper trail scare the bejeezus out of me.

You have thought this out more than I have Michael. 1960 was the first election that I followed closely. All I can say about that one is "Johnny I hardly knew ya” That whole dog and pony show at the 2004 Demo convention was a PT-109 farce. I like the way you said it "Kerry can kill them better." I think Kerry sleepwalked through the campaign until the last month, and by then it was too late.

Strange poll I saw, more men than women would vote for a woman president. 51% to 60%. I find that very strange.

I hope Boxer goes for it. I don't why I am so Nervous about Rice. I think she has a real good shot at it.. How can she miss, a black Christian woman who sings like an angel in her church choir, a classically trained pianist with a PHD from Sanford.

I pretty much see the Republican Party as the party of God these days. There are letters to the editors down here comparing Delay to Jesus, the poor guy was crucified.

.

I do not understand China at all. What does their system have to do with Marxism? Some weird kind of corporate oligarchy. This moral clarity of Bushco drives me nuts. A corporate theocratic oligarchy.

I was a big fan of Debs and Thomas in high school and college. I did not want to rise from the masses I wanted to rise with them. I have got my wish. I expect the rising to start any day now.



I talked to someone in one of Boxer’s offices a few months ago about office furniture. They were looking for a bunch of it. A good sign I think.

And who knows? Somewhere out there in this audience may even be someone who will one day follow my footsteps, and preside over the White House as the president's spouse. I wish him well!

...Barbara Bush, commencement address

[Michael]

st, you’ve got a lot of humor in your response, not the least of which is your signature, the Frost quote.

You know that if Rice was ever elected, it would be a smooth segue for The Regime. It’d be like giving Bush a third term. This is not to say that Bush could ever serve a third term as president of the United States. He hasn’t served one term yet.

Some presidents have garnered more power within the government than others. I think this might be the first time that we’ve had a government in this country that did not include a president. What we have now reminds me of the Soviet Union’s “politburo”.

The phrase “giving Bush a third term” would be code for giving The Regime more time to do its global damage. If it doesn’t complete it hegemonic mission before ’08, it would need a third term.

The Project For A New American Century (PNAC), a group, think tank, club, cult, whatever, which included Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and many members of the cabal, The Regime that runs the Former United States of America (FUSA), bemoaned the fact that the Clinton administration was taking so much money away from “defense” spending, more accurately, military spending. This group thought that, if America was to remain preeminent in molding “peace” in the world, it needed to have the military might to do it.

The problem was that a significant jump in the military budget would look suspicious and increasing the military budget, should they ever get the chance to control that, would be slow, “absent a new Pearl Harbor”. And so, there was a “new Pearl Harbor” on September 11, 2001 and defense spending has been through the roof since then. What luck for them, hey?

There never has been, is not now nor ever will be a “communist country”. Russia and its satellites didn’t make up a “communist” union, China, as you say, has nothing to do with communism and even Castro doesn’t head a communist state. The US threw the word “communist” around to scare the citizens. It made the words “communist” and “socialist” unsavory words. Most Americans have no idea what true communism is supposed to look like. Marxist communism can never happen in a group of more than, say, 100.

Louis Blanc summed up communism in the phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Capitalism is a greed based economic system, but the only one that humanity, especially American humanity, understands. I think capitalists would turn the phrase around to say, “From each in spite of his abilities, to each according to his wealth.”

Barbara Boxer is a Democrat. We mustn’t fool ourselves into thinking that she’s not a professional politician. She is one of many senators who is not talking about abandoning The Electoral College, a broken system of winner take all politics and sometimes even “loser take all”. The only people who can do anything about fixing or, better yet, eighty sixing The Electoral College are the people who, at least indirectly, benefit from it. It’s tough to have more than a two party system and The Electoral College at the same time. However, the field may increase and become more level if wealth didn’t play into who can play and who can’t and if people could actually vote for the candidate of their choice knowing that the lesser of two evils could still be elected. Run off voting would ensure that.

Who knows? Boxer may be open minded enough to try to push direct democracy through if she ever beat the odds and became our president.

To friendship,
Michael

“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” – Albert Einstein

The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mine

[stilltrucking]

I am not very well read, the only book on that list of required reading that I read was

Polybius, The Histories

I do not think you could name one Roman or Greek historian that I have not read. And of course Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

"Trajan was ambitious of fame; and as long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters."

The Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Institute, a real poliferation of neocon think tanks. The Cato Institute, there was an interestin article in Harper's last year about the millions of dollars being pumped into the groups that pump out public policy agendas.

This guy Strauss who I had never heard of is supposed to be the grand daddy of the Neocons.

Ignoble liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception
Harper's Magazine, June, 2004 by Earl Shorris

THE GREATEST CLARITY IS A CONTRADICTION

For the uninitiated, "contradiction" is the key to the Straussian approach, and more than anything else it defines the Bush regime and its circle of influentials. The contradictory and absurd statements of George W. Bush need not be listed here. His collected solecisms have been published in multiple volumes and are scattered throughout the Internet. Donald Rumsfeld's most inscrutable utterances have even been set in verse. Such deformations of the English language are no accident: they reflect the administration's general pattern of communication.
Contradictions are not lies: they are nonsense, unreason. An axis of evil made up of countries that cannot be connected along any imaginable axis is a nonsense statement. A constitutional amendment banning marriage between people of the same gender would pit one part of the Constitution against several others--more nonsense. And when a State of the Union speech has for its peroration the problem of athletes using steroids, nonsense appears to be the preoccupation of the state.

A government would collapse if it spoke nothing but nonsense. Under George W. Bush the government has learned to speak on two levels at the same time. What appears to be nonsense to most people makes perfect sense to those who are initiated into a way of thinking and a certain set of references, many of them biblical. From the constant use of the word "evil" to subtle references to the Book of Revelation, the favorite text of end-time thinkers on the Christian right, Bush's remarks and speeches have carried an esoteric message.

Earl Shorris is a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine. His new book, The Life and Times of Mexico, will be published by W. W. Norton in August

http://www.lacosapizza.com/shorris.html