Bang the Drum

MOMocrat PunditMom put out a challenge awhile back, and now the MOMocrats are throwing it down to the rest of us.

Here it is, in a nutshell:

Several months ago, I read Melinda Henneberger’s book, If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Men to Hear. As she was promoting her book, Henneberger quoted a statistic in one article that if every woman who voted in the 2006 national elections had contributed just $27 to any presidential candidate or party, we would pour $1.3 billion dollars into the political system.

I

I’m asking each of you to think about cutting back on the Starbucks just a little bit and contribute $27 to the candidate or political party of your choice. It doesn’t have to be John McCain or Barack Obama. It doesn’t even have to be a presidential candidate — there are plenty of candidates running for national and local offices who could use a little extra cash to get out their messages. If we pool our money, so much the better. But imagine what our $1.3 billion dollars would do, even as individual contributions, to increase the volume of our political voices. Even John McCain would have to sit up and take notice of the issues we think are important.

If you take the $27 challenge and decide to contribute to Obama, would you also consider doing it via my fundraising page? No obligation here, I’m with PunditMom, in that I’d really just like to see every person who votes scrape together $27 and give it to the campaign of their choice.

Imagine the power of $27, multiplied by every voter in this country. Isn’t that public financing at its finest?

Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Lois Capps held a conference call today to discuss the Bush/McCain response to $140/barrel oil. Before I share the high points of the call, I want to offer some pictorial perspective on why I and most other Californians, Republican and Democrat, are so vehemently against what is clearly an election-year gimmick with no short-term benefits and many long-term consequences. This isn’t political, or economic. It’s personal.

I took this picture in 2006 at Port Hueneme Beach, just before sunset. What you don’t see in this photo is as significant as what you do see. While I obviously chose the photo of the flip-flop to make a statement about McCain, what isn’t in the photo is polluted water, patches of oil in the sand, or washed up sea life that has died as the result of offshore drilling.

I live in Camarillo, California, one of the jewels of California’s central coast. Camarillo is not on the coast; we’re inland about 8 miles but it’s an easy bike ride to get there, and we’re close to some of the most beautiful coastline in California. Here, let me pull back and show you a bigger picture.

This is our California coastline in all its glory. Unmarred by oil derricks, graced by the presence of the now-repopulated brown pelicans (once endangered by DDT poisoning), red-tailed hawks and the seasonal migration of gray whales. Sometimes on an especially hot day, we’ll load everyone in the car, get dinner, and head down to Point Mugu to watch sea lions, dolphins, pelicans and assorted gulls enjoy the sunset and the plentiful fish just off the shoreline.

Bush and McCain want everyone to believe the answer to the high price of oil is opening up the moratorium on offshore drilling. I’m old enough to remember back to 1976 just like Senator Boxer is, and I remember the protracted battle that we fought and won back then. It’s pretty amazing to me that the Bush/McCain contingent is relying on voters not having enough of a memory to go back 30 years to oppose this, but let me give you some facts.

1. In the Bush years, applications for permits to drill on public lands have increased by 361%. In that same eight-year span, oil prices have risen by nearly 1200%. Obviously, there is no correlation between lower gas prices and granting rights for oil exploration and drilling.
2. Despite the issuance of permits for drilling and exploration, only 23% of the existing public lands and waters are being drilled. The oil companies have the leases but aren’t using the ones they already have.
3. If existing leases were drilled and were producing, US oil production would double and imports would be cut by over one third.

Bush and McCain’s position on offshore drilling is nothing more than a gimmick. It doesn’t represent any kind of immediate relief to consumers who are struggling to fill their tanks, pay for groceries and their bills. Does this sound like a campaign ad? Well, maybe it’s because I am one thousand percent in support of those who oppose this wrong-headed destructive proposal and think it’s the worst kind of campaign lie I’ve ever heard.

Representative Lois Capps represents the Santa Barbara area, where the economy depends heavily on tourism. Here’s a photo I took up in her district. Imagine this beautiful great white egret poking its beak into oil residue washed up on the shore by the offshore derricks. The Channel Islands lie just off the Santa Barbara coast, housing one of the few refuges for the Bald Eagle, our national symbol of freedom, strength, and independence.

When Senator Boxer and Representative Capps raise their voices and grow passionate about this, it’s not simply because they’re politicians with an agenda. They live in these areas, they know what drilling costs communities, people, and wildlife.

So why is this such a big deal to Bush and McCain? Well, first of all, it makes it sound like they’re doing something that would actually impact oil prices. It’s all sound and heat, with no light, but it makes for great soundbites if you take the assertion that the problem is all about supply and demand, instead of other issues that make them look like the shysters they are for trying to sell this to voters.

It’s a distraction, just like the ridiculous idea to suspend the gas tax. It’s a way to make people THINK they’re sensitive to their pain while doing nothing other than throwing a gold mine the way of the oil companies. Reality is another thing entirely. Reality is wholesale destruction of our environment without any appreciable gain until 2030, earliest. Reality is that even with increased drilling, refineries aren’t going to increase output unless we build more, which opens another environmental and national security Pandora’s box. Reality is that if we can’t get our elected representatives to let go of oil as the sole answer to energy needs, we are going to have a disaster of global proportions on our hands that will be irreversible. Reality lies the way of alternative sources for energy, not more drilling, especially when drilling has decreased since 2006, despite marked increases in the number of drilling permits issued.

If you’re reading this and you support the Bush/McCain proposals, I have some questions for you:

• Why has John McCain consistently voted against alternative energy and conservation proposals like the Clean Car tax credit?
• Why is he supporting an initiative that will not give us any price relief at all and won’t even show a difference for 22 or so years?
• Why is Phil Gramm, author of the Enron Loophole, a key player on McCain’s team?
• When does Senator McCain expect to introduce or co-sponsor legislation closing the Enron loophole, which would stop the ridiculous price inflation on oil prices and drop them to a much more reasonable level?
• Does Senator McCain support Senator Obama’s 2007 legislation authorizing the FTC to investigate and pursue price manipulation in the oil markets?

If you still think it makes sense to drill in the Arctic Circle or off the magnificent shorelines of California, Florida, and other shoreline states, think again. It’s a gimmicky distraction from the true corruption taking place at the highest levels of our government, and the presumptive nominee of the Republican party.

This is not a partisan issue. Many, many Republicans oppose the Bush/McCain plan as much as I do. Here’s one last photo of our coastline to leave you with a true understanding of why we have a duty to prevent such abuse of our natural resources from happening.

Statistical source: House Committee on Natural Resources Report, June 2008 (PDF)

Click on images for larger sizes. All images are available under a Creative Commons license for non-profit use.

This week’s top fear flavor: Iran. Fear that Iran will attack us if Barack Obama is elected. And fear that if Iran doesn’t attack us, Israel will attack Iran after Obama is elected but before he is inagurated. (Okay, the second one is really not tied to Obama being elected, just saying that between election day and Inaugural Day Iran will attack, but somehow John McCain is strong enough to deal with it. HUH?) And if Iran doesn’t attack us and Israel doesn’t attack Iran, then we’re screwed anyway because…oh NO!…European officials are afraid that if Obama engages Iran via direct diplomacy, he will somehow undercut progress with Iran.

Yes, it’s the newest flavor of FUD, custom designed to make voters be afraid…very afraid. Everyone get your worry beads out and start using them, religiously. Tonight is Uncle John and Mr. Bill’s story hour. Scoot up and let me tell you what they’re talkin’ about.

Uncle John Bolton thinks Israel will attack Iran after November 4th and before January 20th. Uncle John thinks that Big Daddy McCain is stronger than the Bush administration about handling the Iranian nuclear program.

Big Daddy Bill Kristol says that Bush might bomb Iran if he ‘thinks Senator Obama’s Going to win‘.

Waaaaait a minute. You mean Bush THINKS? I thought he just cowered in the corner while Big Dick (Cheney) hands him his latest talking points along with a stiff…something.

Comedy aside, let’s take a walk down memory lane and see what happened in 2002, before we sent our young men and women into Iraq to invade and occupy a country which, it turns out, hadn’t given us reason. Turn the time machine on, folks…moving back in time now…

August 16, 2002, George W. Bush in Crawford, TX

First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen carefully to what they have to say.

There should be no doubt in anybody’s mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run.

We’ll continue to consult. Listen, it’s a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America needs to know, I’ll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies.

October 7, 2002: George Bush, speaking at the Cincinnati Museum Center -

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

September 14, 2002 (coincidentally timed around the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks):

Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and is improving and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical and biological weapons. Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.

And so it goes, on and on. Does any of it SOUND FAMILIAR? It’s a broken record, same song, different verse, substitute a different country this year but the timing and the message is the same.

Only, this time it’s a blatant effort on the part of the neocons to reframe the 2008 election inside everyone’s fear buttons.

If it weren’t so desperate, it might be funny. The sending of three separate surrogates out to writhe and moan over Iran’s clear intent to go on the attack is ridiculous. It doesn’t even pass the smell test.

It also defies logic. To believe what these neo-yoyos are saying, you have to believe that diplomacy is a threat to world peace.

Tragically, it seems that free and fair elections in Zimbabwe are pure fantasy. But reading the insane remarks of the “neo-fights” today makes me wonder whether we can reasonably count on the Bush/Cheney regime to: a) allow free and fair elections in our own country; and b) surrender power peacefully to the rightfully elected President on January 20, 2009. It’s clear to me from reviewing the recycled warmongering with respect to Iran and our election cycle that if the Bush regime could force an outcome to their liking, or manipulate voters into believing the reconstituted bullshit they’re serving, they would gladly do it no matter what price our democracy paid.

Every time I see that clip of Cindy McCain making that snide, self-righteous comment I’m thrown back to the days of snotty little high school girls flipping their hair and being bitches.

h/t Paddy

Someone really needs to tell Congress to get a grip. That someone needs to be us. This is absolutely NOT the time to be saber-rattling in a serious way with Iran, and CERTAINLY not the time to be authorizing any resolution for military action.

Over the last three weeks 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President Bush “initiate an international effort” to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran.

Some facts:

1. Play the memory game. This is how the Iraq disaster started. By shaking our fists at a country that did not attack us, did not in any way play a role in 9/11 and wasn’t responsible for whatever problems we had.
2. Iranian people, for the most part, do not agree with aggressive moves toward other countries. Remember, armies need to have troops. Successful armies need to have troops with a cause.
3. Believe it or not, Israel has the means and motivation to defend themselves.
4. Afghanistan is going to hell in a handbasket.
5. The motives for such a resolution are about oil, not security. Stop kidding yourself.

I’m not interested in fighting anyone else over oil. I’d just as soon quit using it. The political aim of introducing a resolution into Congress to encourage aggression against Iran is simply to force a choice between offshore drilling or aggressive action against a sovereign nation who has not threatened or attacked us.

It isn’t the job of our military or the citizens of this country to ensure that the Bush and Cheney families leave a fat oil inheritance to their families and cronies. Don’t be fooled by the absurdity of the proposal of these ‘elected officials’. Dethrone them instead.

And in the meantime, call your Representative and tell them NO WAR WITH IRAN. In fact, tell them NO MORE WAR FOR OIL.

Update The full text of the resolution is here. In the first paragraph, they mention the IAEA to bolster the claim that there is a threat. In fact, on 6/18/08, the IAEA published a communication from Iran in PDF format that indicates Iran’s willingness to address the issues around their nuclear program. The IAEA note at the end says it should be evaluated in six months. Of course, six months means Bush couldn’t shove us into war with them before the end of his presidency.

“In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.“ - Barack Obama, June 3, 2008

I’m disappointed in Barack Obama’s endorsement of the FISA compromise and I completely disagree with him on it. When I first read his statement over on TPM I was furious.

Over and over again, I’ve said that I believe this compromise erodes a core, fundamental value of this country. Not only because it erodes 4th amendment protections, but also because it will give the telcos the immunity they seek simply by going to court and telling the court that the President told them it was legal to do what they did.

I haven’t changed my mind on that.

What Barack Obama says about his decision is:

1. It re-establishes at least a basic foundation of accountability;
2. It restores FISA and existing criminal statutes as the only way to conduct surveillance;
3. He doesn’t approve of the retroactive immunity but “will work in the Senate to remove [it]; and,
4. It does not go far enough

On points 1,2 and 4 I agree. Point 3 is purely political; I don’t believe for a second that the retroactive immunity will be removed, particularly when this is attached to the much larger GI and War Funding bill. That disappoints me. It disappoints me that it doesn’t go far enough. It disappoints me that even one iota of our Constitution was the subject of a compromise, particularly by elected officials who swear to uphold and protect the Constitution.

It disappoints me because frankly, I want the head of George Bush on a platter for his flagrant abuse of the United States Constitution. (Figuratively, not literally, just in case there are any .gov visitors reading this). Hell yes, I want to impeach them all and put David Addington and John Yoo in jail for a very long time for what he’s done. I’m angry, affronted and offended that these brazen thieves and robbers have hijacked our government for what will surely be their personal gain.

This is why I am not a politician. I’m an opinionated citizen who has a voice, a blog and a vote. I have neither the patience nor the diplomatic skills to expect gray outcomes in a black and white case. And this is why a snippet of Obama’s speeches echoed in my mind. That snippet is at the beginning of this post.

What I lacked was perspective on just how deep the divide is in our country between those who fear and those who hope. By happenstance, I had a conversation with a couple whose daughter dances with mine and was completely taken by surprise when, with no prompting from me, the husband burst forth with a scathing diatribe about Obama and how much he hated the idea of him becoming President, because those damn liberals were going to allow our country to be attacked again and ruin the economy and appoint three liberal Supreme Court justices all in one four-year term.

This is a nice man. We have known each other for several years and he is a salt-of-the-earth GOOD person. He’s not ugly, but his words were.

Then I realized something else about him. He was deeply afraid. This was a true emotion running through everything he said and believed. Being fearful, he then chose news sources that stoked his fear. At some point I interrupted his diatribe and said “You must watch The O’Reilly Factor for your news. You sound just like him. In fact, you could do a screen test and sit in for him.”

To which he replied, “It’s the only show I watch. Me, my daughter and my wife sit down and watch it every day.”

As the conversation went on, I decided to see how he felt about FISA, because some conservative Republicans I know dislike the idea of eroding Constitutional rights as much as some progressives. His response was flat. “Wiretaps make us safer.” This was said in connection with a strong affirmation that torturing the bastards at Guantanamo was the least we should be doing to them.

Fear. Raw, unadulterated fear, with some O’Reilly style hate on the side. The thing is, he’s in the majority on this, which is why it wouldn’t have made sense for Obama to oppose it.

The FISA and torture issues have been framed to prey upon people’s fears, and it’s worked fabulously. Until these issues can be reframed in a way that exposes and resolves those fears, pushing back isn’t an option if one wants to have a political career that actually succeeds and gets them elected.

It comes down to this: Opposing this ‘compromise’ is too nuanced a position to take in a country where people decide who to vote for based upon whether they’d have a drink with them, or gender, or race, or whatever other superficial excuse is made for their surrender to the dark place where fears grow.

Realizing that, I also understand that my deepest disappointment, anger, and contempt is reserved for the corporate-controlled media, the Rupert Murdochs, Sean Hannitys and Bill O’Reillys who intentionally dumb down the issues of the day into 10-word sound bites and feeds them to the American public like hors d’oeurves next to their apple pie.

Yes, I wish that there were a way for Obama to step up and communicate with us in a way that would be persuasive enough for some to reconsider their position. But this is too hot an issue, too close to home for ones who fear to let go. It’s too big of a step.

Sad, but true. So I’m disappointed that Obama walked carefully down the center, but I understand why he did it, and just like Gotta Laff over at the Political Carnival,

Right now I’m angry. I’ll get over it.

That doesn’t mean I won’t keep holding his feet to the fire. I will. Because the antidote to fear IS hope. I’m the perennial optimist, I suppose, but I do believe that progress will be made back to a place where O’Reilly is irrelevant and people think for themselves, and fear is something they had but got over, just like my anger.