Democrats can vote to impeach Donald Trump, but adoring Republicans will not prosecute him

Before Barack Obama was inaugurated as president of the United States, January 20, 2009, Tea Party patriots and Republicans were ready to impeach him. They wanted to impeach him for not proving that he was born in America. They wanted Obama to admit that he is Kenyan, not American, as pushed by birthers and wannabe politician Donald Trump. 

A Texas Republican wanted to impeach Obama to stop his agenda that had not been proposed, therefore, impossible to make public. However, they wanted to impeach him over his immigration policies, and the attack of the American compound in Benghazi, Libya.  

At a 2014 campaign town hall meeting, Republican candidate Joni Ernst told the crowd she believed President Obama had become a dictator. She said he needed to face the consequences for his actions, which she did not name. Ernst said President Obama should be impeached and removed from office. Again, she cited no reason. But the same Joni Ernst is defending Donald Trump. Maybe her fondness of him runs deep because Trump wanted her to be his VP. Family issues forced her to turn down the offer. 

Reasons to impeach President Obama were endless. The rise of the Tea Party quickly took hold, immediately co-opting Republicans, none of whom wanted the wrath of the Tea Party raining down on them. Despite all the complaints and threats to oust the President, not one of the wish-he-was-gone politicians was brave enough to begin the impeachment process. Not even the Tea Party could back Republicans into that corner.

Wandering into valley of impeachment, Democrats and Republicans cannot be willy-nilly. They have to weigh the good vs the bad; the benefits vs alienation of voters who may not agree with their decision. The party that’s in control of the Senate may not be willing to prosecute. But there is another choice: Censure. This is a formal statement of disapproval or public reprimand. 

There was no hesitation to impeach President Bill Clinton, December 19, 1998. Ken Starr, a Republican, was appointed special counselor in the Clinton sex scandal. He was thorough in his documentation regarding what he learned about the affair.

Fifty Republicans voted to remove Clinton from office on obstruction of justice; 45 voted to remove him for perjury. No Democrats voted to remove him from office, but 31 of them supported the proposal to investigate him. Republicans voted for the resolution to impeach Clinton. The resolution was presented to Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Harley Hyde of Illinois.

“Barely six weeks after the American people had plainly sent them a message against impeachment, the House passed two of the four articles of impeachment approved by the Hyde Committee. The first, accusing me of lying to the grand jury, passed 228-206, with five Republicans voting against it. The second, alleging that I had obstructed justice by suborning perjury and hiding gifts, passed 221-212, twelve Republicans voting no. The two charges were inconsistent.  . . . Five Democrats voted for impeachment. Four of them came from conservative districts. The fifth said he wanted to vote for censure then brought the argument that he was doing the next best thing.

“Peter King, with whom I had worked on Northern Island, withstood weeks of enormous pressure, including threats to destroy him politically if he did not vote for impeachment. In several television interviews, King made a simple argument to his fellow Republicans: ‘I’m against impeachment because if President Clinton were a Republican, you’d be against it, too. The pro-impeachment Republicans who appeared on the programs with him never had a good response to that’”. My Life Bill Clinton.

Andrew Johnson was selected by Abraham Lincoln to be his VP in 1864. He stepped into the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865. Johnson was impeached in 1868 for dismissing Edwin M. Staton, Secretary of War. Johnson ignored the Tenure of Office Act, passed in 1867, which curtailed his presidential power. He was not authorized to remove Staton on his own. The House voted to impeach Johnson, making him the first U. S. president to be impeached. The vote was 35 for, 19 against. Senator Edmund G. Ross’s no vote kept Johnson in office to complete his term. He dodged a Senate trial.

In 1974 Richard Nixon avoided impeachment by resigning after the Watergate burglary scandal was exposed. On February 6, 1974 the House of Representatives approved H. Res. 803, giving the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate Nixon. Weeks later, July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 to recommend the first article of impeachment. A couple of days later two more articles were added: obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress.

A number of Democrats got angry at Speaker Nancy Pelosi because she would not agree to impeach President George Bush and VP Dick Cheney for initiating the war with Iraq. Democrats wanted to charge them with war crimes for the bombing innocent Iraqis. In 2008, Joy Behar of The View, scolded Pelosi on national TV. The talk show host wanted her to launch impeachment against the pair.

Behar said to Pelosi, “You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. And now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you . . . why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can see the crimes that they’ve committed”?

In 2014 the Tea Party balked at impeaching President Obama because the 2016 presidential election was too close. They hated Obama with a purple passion, but they did not want to help candidate Hillary Clinton realize a victory.

“But while there are a plethora of reasons to impeach Obama, is the Republican leadership—are the RINOs—really likely to get behind it? Not in a million years. Why? Because it would hugely increase Hillary Clinton’s chances of victory in the 2016 presidential election. While impeaching Obama would undoubtedly be bad for the Republican Party going into 2016, it could be one of the only actions that will save America from collapse in the long term”. The Tea Party

The print media and TV talking heads have gone batshit crazy because Pelosi is refusing to jump headfirst into the impeachment pool before seeing how deep the water is.  With the release of the Robert Mueller report on Donald Trump and his connection to Russia, more and more Democrats are now demanding that he be impeached. Pelosi and committee chairs are not nibbling at the bait. They are conducting their own investigations, putting together separate cases. Democratic chairmen are subpoenaing current and former employees of the Trump Administration. Not surprisingly, he warned Congress that he will not allow anyone in his administration to cooperate with them or submit requested documents.

Despite sitting in the hot seat, Trump is acting as if the heat is not bothering him. For three years he has been screaming about a “witch hunt” specifically created to bring down his presidency. He has been telling the world that he is innocent of “collusion and obstruction of justice.” He has refused to show his tax returns, saying he is under audit. He has refused to produce an IRS letter to back his excuse. The Constitution does not require that presidential candidates or presidents show their income tax returns. 

Trump refused to participate in a live interview with Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor hired to investigate the firing of James Comey, former FBI director. Trump had previously declared that he would be glad to talk to Mueller when asked by the media. His attorneys were way past too scared to let Trump be questioned by Mueller and his team of investigators. Trump has a problem telling the truth.  

Subsequently, Trump filled out a questionnaire sent to him by Mueller. Reponses to the questions were sketchy and incomplete. Despite saying he has the best memory in the world, Trump appeared to have lost all memories. His attorneys answered the questions for him. Robert Mueller’s report, after a two years investigation, concluded that Trump had committed 10 acts of obstruction. Unable to prosecute a sitting president, Mueller left it to Congress to make a decision about Trump.

Using his usual mode of communication, Twitter, Trump attempted to intimidate Michael Cohen, his “fixer” and his attorney for 10 years. When he talked to Mueller, Trump called him a “rat”. He promised a pardon to those who did not/would not cooperate with Mueller. Cohen not only cooperated, but he also offered Mueller audio tapes and documents. Despite cooperating with Mueller, Cohen is going to prison for the three years.

Trump was incensed when Cohen testified in front of Congress, basically retelling his story to the public. Trump hosted a Twitter bitchfest, in which he threw all kinds of shade and accusations at Cohen. He tweeted that Mueller should look into the finances of Cohen’s father. This caused Cohen to fear for the safety of his family and himself. Congress had to assure him that his family would not face any danger if he testified publicly.

Donald Trump said if Congress tries to impeach him, he will go straight to the Supreme Court. Given that he does not believe rules or the Constitution applies to him, Trump intends to push aside steps that may lead to his impeachment. He thinks the majority of conservative judges on the court will save him. He is assuming that the Supreme Court justices will admonish Congress for daring to impeach him.

“Impeachment, in law, is a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body. In the federal government of the U.S. the House of Representatives initiates the impeachment proceedings, and the Senate as judge. The impeachment process has rarely been employed, largely because it is cumbersome. It can occupy Congress for a lengthy period of time, fill thousands of pages of testimony, and involve conflicting and troublesome political pressures. Repeated attempts in the U.S. Congress to amend the procedure, however, have been unsuccessful, partly because impeachment is regarded as an integral part of the system of checks and balances”. Encyclopedia Britannia

The United States Constitution says that a sitting president can be impeached with due cause. That being: 1.) Treason, 2.) Bribery, 3.) High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Impeachment of a president was initially suggested by Benjamin Franklin in 1787 at the Constitution Convention. It was a good idea and common sense to suggest impeachment instead of the alternative, which was assassination. Franklin reasoned that a president  could not clear his name if he was shot dead.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unleashed a stern warning to Democrats after their 2018 blowout mid-term victories. He told them to go light on thoughts of impeaching Donald Trump. “ . . . the business of presidential harassment might not work out for you too well”.  

McConnell reminded Democrats that when Republicans impeached Bill Clinton it did not work out well. Clinton’s approval ratings went up; Republicans went down. Speaker Pelosi is now weighing the best route to take regarding Donald Trump. Impeachment is not an emotional strategy. It is pure politics spurred by revenge and power. Republicans are better at the game than Democrats, who endeavor to steer clear of knee jerk reactions.

Some framers of the Constitution opposed the impeachment clause. They did not want to endow a legislative body with the power to stand in judgement against the executive branch. They were of the notion that such a clause might compromise the separation of powers.

Not until Trump was elected president did the three branches of the U. S. government get fused into one. A crew of old White Congressmen and Senators have been feigning ignorance for almost three years, blindly allowing Trump to run over the Constitution. They have allowed him to think that all government employees are his personal hires; their salaries paid by taxpayers. 

Massachusetts’s Elbridge Gerry, who served in the House of Representatives, and was VP under James Madison, said: “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachment]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them”. History.com

“Individual members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The committee on the judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judicial Committee was created in 1813. 

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints members of resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials  . . . The partisan composition of managers have also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment. The managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action”. History, Art and Archives

House members act as the managers during the course of the trial. Just as any case where guilt or innocence must be proven, the president has the right to have an attorney or attorneys to litigate his defense. In the event the Senate concurs with impeachment, the Supreme Court Justice presides over the trial in the Senate chamber. At its conclusion of Senators deliberates in private. After a decision is render a copy of the judgement is filed with the Secretary of State. If guilty, the impeached president is removed from office, and barred from holding office in the future. Bill Clinton was disbarred.

Fifteen Republicans were designated managers during Clinton's impeachment. One of them is a Trump spokesman: Lindsey Graham. He has changed his stance on impeachment now that a Republican president might get impeached. In a January 23, 1999 video, then Congressman Graham said a president can be removed “if this body [Congress] determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role  . . . because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office”.

Speaker of the House designate Bob Livingston, asked President Clinton to resign.  Some of the more vociferous complainers against Clinton were later run out of Congress for making the same mistake as Clinton: committing adultery. Livingston, Newt Gingrich, Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde. Gingrich is perhaps the worst of all the adulterers. 

Charles Ruff, White House counsel Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial, said, “Impeachment is not a remedy for private wrongs. It’s a method of removing someone whose continued presence in office would cause grave danger to the nation”.

Media, Republicans declare that the Affordable Care Act aka 'Obamacare' will be a disaster that Americans do not need or want

The U.S. Supreme Court Justices from left to right on front row: Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts (center), Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Gingsburg; standing in rear from left to right: Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan.

***Update: In 2010 Republicans vowed to repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act because, as of today they say, it is a total disaster despite of millions formerly uninsured American now have health care insurance and access to preventive care. These people won't have to run to emergency rooms for their primary health care. When Donald Trump ran for president he promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, replacing it with health care insurance that everyone can afford. He promised that uninsured Americans will longer be "dying in the street". He also promised that people will "be beautifully covered".

"We're going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future," Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, said March 24, 2017. He could not garner the votes from a Republican controlled Congress to bring the repeal to the floor for a vote. Ryan informed now President Donald Trump of the bad news. Trump told Ryan to cease all action and move on to the tax bill, another of pet projects. The president said they will visit Obamacare another time.  

Trump and  Republicans nationwide are predicting that The Affordable Care Act or Obamacare will fall flat on its face. They say it is already "exploding". Trump expects Democrats will then come crawling to him, begging for his cooperation. He is depending on Democrats, who have no control in the Senate and Congress, having no choice but to accept whatever he and Republicans put in front of them as a replacement for Obamacare.

Since 2010 Republicans have  preached and promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. In seven years Paul Ryan and his company of  elected do-nothings have been unable to produce a workable health care plan. President Obama admitted in 2010 that The Affordable Care Act was not perfect, and he was willing to work with Republicans to improve it. Republicans folded their arms, held their breath and said no thank you. They refused to cooperate. They expected him to accept their nonexistent plan.

Republicans have repealed Obamacare 50 times, billing taxpayers $75 million or more to satisfy their collective ego. 

The Supreme Court's Decision Angers Republicans

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act came down to a vote of  5 to 4, with Justice John Roberts breaking from conservative justices. The media, Republicans and pundits seemed to forget that the justices--all of whom were called “activist justices” by the Bush administration--are sitting on the bench to adhere to the rule of law. The Justices  job is not to make popular or political decisions, but to base their rulings strictly on the lawfulness of the U.S. Constitution. They are not elected to office, therefore, they do not have to worry about being popular with a critical populace.

And yet, that hasn't stopped conservatives from calling Justice Roberts a "traitor" who  committed  "treason" against the United States for ruling in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Angry conservatives, media and pundits accused him of ignoring the Constitution to give President Obama a victory. Never mind that uninsured Americans are the true winners.

Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said the uninsured "is not the issue." This is the same political miscreant who vowed to make President Obama a one term president.

Know-it-alls got it wrong from day one when newspapers began speculating which direction the Justices would go. They all said conservative Justices would break the legs of the bill, making sure it cannot stand on its own power. But the bill wound up standing tall. The media and pundits cannot let go, neither can critics, who are questioning the mental health of Chief Justice John Roberts for not siding with his colleagues. 

The media and pundits, all of whom are against "The Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act", refuse to report the benefits the Act will offer, which will kick into full effect in 2014.  They insist that the majority of “American people” do not want affordable health care! They push slanted polls that suggest the majority of "American people" do not want the health insurance "forced on them" by the government. The media and pundits refuse to clearly explain that health care reform levels the playing field for millions of uninsured men, women, children and disabled citizens who have been discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions.  As it stands, pregnancy and being female are pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies can deny women, or charge then a higher rate than men. Women have no way to protect themselves from insurers that discriminate against them.

As expected, Republican governors have geared up to deny their constituents affordable health care insurance, despite of it being paid for by the government the first three years. Thereafter, the government will pay a small percentage of the bill. The most vocal Republican governors--Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana,  and Scott Walker of Wisconsin-- have declared that they absolutely will not cooperate. In Texas, my home state, where 25 percent (or 6.2 million) of its citizens are uninsured, Gov. Rick Perry said he will not allow the plan to take root in Texas. Brushing aside the big boy boasting, I am sure these governors will find a way to scam “big government” out of a share of the millions of dollars cooperating states will receive.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act ensures hard-working, middle class families will get the security they deserve and protects every American from the worst insurance company abuses.  This law was also specifically designed to give States the resources and flexibility they need to tailor their approach to their unique needs.  With the uncertainty about the Court’s decision behind us, it’s now time to focus on implementing this law in a smart and non-bureaucratic way that works for the middle class.

Benefits and Protections for the Middle Class: The Affordable Care Act includes numerous provisions to keep health care costs low, promote prevention, and hold insurance companies accountable.  If you’re one of the 250 million Americans who already have health care--whether through private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid --the Affordable Care Act is already making your coverage more secure.

Insurance companies no longer have unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your child coverage due to a pre-existing condition, or charge women more than men. Over 86 million Americans have gained from coverage of preventive care free of charge, like mammograms for women and wellness visits for seniors.

    

Nearly 13 million Americans will receive a rebate this summer because their insurance company spent too much of their premium dollars on administrative costs or CEO bonuses. The law has already helped 5.3 million seniors and people with disabilities save an average of over $600 on prescription drugs in the “donut hole” in Medicare coverage.

The law’s provisions to strengthen and protect Medicare by fighting fraud will continue. The law has helped 6.6 million young adults who have been able to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26, including 3.1 million young people who are newly insured.

If you are one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from.  If you need care, you will finally have the same opportunity to get quality, affordable coverage as everyone else.

Coverage for Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions: A major impact of the Court's decision is that 129 million people with pre-existing conditions will have the security of affordable health coverage.  Starting in 2014, insurance companies can no longer charge you more, carve out benefits, or deny you coverage altogether because you have cancer or diabetes or simply because you are a woman.  To make these protections affordable, people with and without pre-existing conditions should be insured, since everyone at some time needs health care.

Tax Credits for Middle Class Families and Small Businesses: Millions of Americans will soon be eligible for tax credits to ensure that their health insurance is affordable. Under today’s ruling, having health insurance is and will continue to be a choice.  If you can’t afford insurance or you’re a small business that wants to provide affordable insurance to your employees, you’ll get tax credits that make coverage affordable.  

But starting in 2014, if you can afford insurance and you choose not to purchase it, the taxpayers will no longer subsidize your care for free.  The Court’s ruling today allows Congress to hold the projected 1% of Americans who will be able to afford health insurance but will choose not to buy it responsible for that choice.  Many small businesses are already receiving tax credits so they can afford to offer quality health care to their employees.  To date, 360,000 businesses that employ 2 million workers have already benefited from the small business tax cuts in the law.  And once the Affordable Care Act takes full effect, about 18 million individuals and families will get tax credits for health insurance coverage averaging about $4,000 apiece.

Support for State Implementation of Affordable Insurance Exchanges: With the uncertainty of the Court decision behind us, we will step up our work with States to implement Affordable Insurance Exchanges. Exchanges are new marketplaces, starting in 2014, that will allow individuals and small businesses to compare and choose private health plans.  Each State will take the lead in designing its own menu of options.  Already, 34 States including the District of Columbia have received 100 percent Federally funded grants to build Exchanges. The use of Exchange grants includes support for activities related to running Exchanges in their start-up year.

States can also implement their own brand of reform through Innovation Waivers starting in 2017.  If States can come up with even better ways of covering people at the same quality and low cost, this law allows them to do so.  The Administration supports bipartisan legislation to allow States to start such Waivers in 2014.

***This article was first published on my blog in 2012.

The more Republicans pretend to change, the more they stay the same for their own benefit

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)

The more things change the more they stay the same, so goes the old adage. This 1994 interview with Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), confirms the adage is true. Doggett began his political career in 1973 when he was elected to the Texas State Senate. He served until 1985. In 1989 he became a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and an adjutant professor at the University of Texas School of Law. He served both positions until he was elected to Congress.
 

Doggett gained national attention in 1979 when he and 12 Texas Democrats, dubbed the “Killer Bees” walked out of Chamber, leaving the Senate two members short of a quorum to pass legislation that would have changed the date of the Texas primary to March 11.

To make a long story short, the "Killer Bees" skipped town and hid out until the proposed legislation failed to pass after five days. The GOP’s goal was to help former governor of Texas John Connally get the nomination for president in 1980. The "Killer Bees" wanted a closed primary. Their suggestion was rejected by Republicans.

The following interview is just as relevant today as was it was 17 years ago. Although there was no Tea Party Republicans, those who were newly elected or won re-election took plenty of attitude to Washington. They immediately began playing dirty politics in the name of the "American people."

Dorothy Banks: Returning to Austin to keep contact with your constituents. Is this going to be a regular thing with you?

Doggett: Well, I’m sure gonna try. What brought me to Austin this time was the Martin Luther King celebration. So I think being actively involved in that, and in addition, to use time to meet with Police Chief Elizabeth Watson, and her staff to talk about some crime problems. I met last night with the Hispanic Contractors Association. I’ll be going to Wesley United Methodist and to David Chapel on Sunday. The key of what Jake Pickle (his predecessor) did was to be assessable and available to people. And I want to let people know that I am there for them, not for me.

Dorothy: Do you think you will be politically strong in Washington as you have been here in Austin? What is the political climate there right now?

Doggett: Well, it’s very unsettled. You got a lot of guys up there that’s been in power so long they don’t quite know how to adjust to being in the minority. It’s not a big adjustment for me because, even though I’ve been able to have some influence in Austin, usually I’ve been in the minority. By the time I was in the kind of Democrats who run it were not people that necessarily agreed with me on things. On the Supreme Court I did more descending that I did being in the majority.

I’m already equipped to take on Newt Gingrich if that’s what we have to do. Some of the things Republicans have done to shake up Congress are not bad. I think it needed shaking up. There were some things that might never have gotten changed had we not had this shake up. It created some opportunities for newcomers. That’s why I got a chance to get up on the floor, and join in the debate within an hour of being sworn in.

While I expect to be in Washington again this next week on some matters that will be coming up in Congress, I feel the leadership in the Democratic party is much more receptive to me as a newcomer, letting me come in and have a role. I was also real fortunate in getting the committee assignment of my choice-- the House Budget Committee. It was really one of the committees I campaigned to get on. I think that is where a lot of the action is gonna be if they start talking about balancing the budget. I think we have to give high priority to these federal deficits. I don’t want to see all the burden placed on the backs of the people who didn’t get the budget out of balance in the first place. They don’t have a lobbyist up there in Washington. I’m afraid that’s where some of the Republicans are headed. I don’t want to see huge cutbacks in Medicare. There are enough people out there who don’t have health care coverage, much less getting cut back some more.

The second committee I sought and was able to get on was the Science Committee. It used to be Science and Technology. I think with the University of Texas and the Pickle Research Center which we need to defend, as well as Motorola putting this lab up on Ed Bluestein. That’s kind of where our economic future lies, and I want to be there shaping that policy.

Dorothy: I’ve been looking at C-Span to see how they are going to fix the budget, but no one has come up with anything. Is this just a lot of Republican posturing, giving all kinds of excuses? I say okay, put it on the table and tell us what you’re going to do. They just keep going around and around.

Doggett: I think we have to hold them accountable for that. It was within the week that Dick Armey, the congressman from up in Arlington, Texas, the Majority Leader there, said 'Well, you know, if we go on and spell out where all these cuts are gonna be, some of these members of Congress . . . their knees are gonna buckle.' If their program is not good enough to put on the table and let everybody know who is gonna get hit by this, maybe they ought to rethink it. I think Republicans are trying to keep us in the dark about this, because if everybody knows what the changes are they may not want to make some of them.

The other side is the budget balance amendment I don’t support. As much as I would like to see our budget more balanced, it is really a way of deferring the problem to the future. Instead of doing something right now, they said, 'Well, you know let Joe do it in the year 2002, maybe we won’t be here. He’ll have to make the painful choices.' That’s why we keep saying, lay out the plan; show us over the next several years what the cuts are gonna be, and they keep saying, 'Oh, no. We don’t want to do that.'

Dorothy: Do you think when they authored the Contract with America, Republicans actually had no idea they would be in power?

Doggett: Well, there is a little bit of that. You know the way they did that Contract with America is, they first got some campaign consultants to sit around with people and focus groups and tried out different phrases, and different promises to see which ones sounded the best. Then they put it all together, announced it on the Capital steps, and printed it in TV Guide. Now they’re kind of stuck with that. Some of the things in there are not very practical. Some of them are more talk than anything else. I just don’t think you can govern the country strictly based on campaign gimmicks.

***The Contract with America was written by Larry Hunter and passed with the help of Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Mussle. The Contract was introduced six weeks before the 1994 congressional election. It was the first mid-term election of President Bill Clinton, in which Republicans scored a victory similar to the 2010 mid-terms election.

Dorothy: I see Newt Gingrich is backing down on some of the things in the Contract. I personally think he wants to be president. Is he a lot of fluff or is there substance to him? Where does he want to take the United States?

Doggett: Well, I think he is very smart, just in terms of intelligence. I think he is very committed; very hard working, bordering on ruthless in his approach. He made some conciliatory comments on the opening day. I would like to work with him if he wants to work together. And then he turns around appoints a woman as House Historian, who said Congress didn’t give enough attention to the views of the KKK and Nazis. One of her associates said Newt knew all about that before he appointed her. I’m glad he unappointed her.

It’s like the book deal. He backed down on that too, getting this $4 million from this guy from Australia, but only after it was brought to light. I think you can see on both the House Historian and on the book deal, that unless we’re up there being very vocal and holding him accountable for some of this stuff, he’s gonna go off to benefit himself personally, and on a really far right tangent. Even on these orphanage comments, which I think is outrageous. He said we would pull children away from their mothers and put them in an orphanage. I think he is committed to a far-right agenda that is out of the mainstream. And in fact, they keep trying to move the mainstream farther to the right. People like Bob Dole, who is kind of an old fashioned conservative, was being viewed as a moderate, because Republican take it so far to one side. You can’t get to the right side of them.

Dorothy: What kind of changes would you like to see take place?

Doggett: I believe changes to our welfare system, for example. It’s not inappropriate to focus on the need for change. I don’t believe that system is serving the taxpayer, or the people it’s designed to help. It is, perhaps, cheaper to keep them on a subsistence level, where they just barely get by, than it is to go in and spend the money to provide quality child care, training and the skills they need to get ahead. 

I am all for reforming welfare, for putting some incentives against welfare usage, but only if we go the first half of the way. And that’s to get people the assistance they need to get a job. I can see that as a real battle with the Republicans, who don’t believe their own campaign speeches. Sometimes they are caught up in their own speeches--the welfare stuff--they can’t quite translate it back into the real world.

Dorothy: The problem with people on welfare is jobs. It’s up to the people to educate themselves and not depend on the government to educate them. Where will the jobs come from?

Doggett: I think individual responsibility is very important, and the government can’t take the place of that. But if we really want to solve the problem now, we’ve got to go back and do something. I think the first step to jobs is people having the skills that are needed.

Dorothy: What about some kind of discount for people wanting to go to college but can’t afford it because it’s so expensive.

Doggett: My battle this time is to prevent them from eliminating what we’ve already got. No cuts in the Pell grants program to give people the opportunity to go to Houston Tillotson College or Austin Community College or University of Texas. Those programs are very much in jeopardy under the Contract with America. I am very determined to see that those opportunities are not denied. How can you talk about people having personal initiative, taking personal responsibility for themselves, and then cut out the key to them being able to exercise that responsibility.

Dorothy: What about the brouhaha about raising the minimum up another dollar?

Doggett: I think Congress will look at that later on in the year. The question is whether it has any real chance for approval. The Republican leadership have already come out with a over my dead body position. I will say now as I did back during the campaign, I would have rather see if there are going to be some additional employer participation; that it first be on health care. The problems with getting off of welfare is, if you take a minimum wage job, and then you lose all your health care benefits, that doesn’t get you anywhere. You’re working harder and getting less. I am concerned about many of the minimum wage jobs. Whether it’s a dollar more than we get right now--is there going to be any health care benefits for many of those jobs? That would be my first preference. If we can’t make any headway there, then I think we should look at the minimum wage as a sub-minimum wage.

Dorothy: I saw some Republicans on C-Span talking about a meeting that was taking place, but they shut out the Democrats. Are you beginning to feel ostracized?

Doggett: There is no doubt that Republicans are enjoying their victory. They are trying to run the show. I think when these 100 days are over, there is going to be a recognition that it takes two parties to govern the country. There has to be some shared participation here. In some of the meetings with Republicans I have been encouraged, particularly with some of those from the mid-west and northeast, that there are some people with open minds. On the other hand, I have met some from California and from the south that I think are lost causes. It’s like talking to the wall. They are not going to be willing to change.  They have a whole different view of the world. So I have to offer them respect but vigorous disagreement.


***This article was initially posted July 19, 2011

Where is the birth certificate, Obama? Or who let the birthers out of the insane asylum?

Yesterday I called the Texas Department of Health Bureau of Vital Statistics in Austin, Texas to ask if an individual is given his/her original birth certificate upon request. My curiosity was peeked when I read that Republican Rep. Judy Burges of Arizona is trying to get a birthers bill passed. The preliminary vote was 31-22. The bill will have to undergo a formal vote before it goes to the Senate. Florida and Oklahoma pulled this prank and met with complete failure.

Arizona legislatures want all future presidential candidates to produce birth certificates if they want to be on the ballot. You do not have to be a political mastermind to know this is about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and his right to be president. Tea Party nitwits, fruitcake politicians and copycat pundits are encouraging these legislators to conduct themselves like ill-informed yokels. They refuse to accept the President's birth certificate that's posted online.

I never saw or read about this kind of brouhaha regarding the birth places of other presidents. No White man running for president has ever showed his birth certificate or proof of his citizenship. If it happened I must have been in a Rip Van Winkle type sleep.

If presidential candidate Hillary Clinton did not uncover evidence that Barack Obama is not an American born citizens–then there is no campaign scandal waiting to be discovered. Clinton and her campaign looked under every rock, every bed, opened every closet. They did a more than thorough job. I am sure John McCain conducted the same kind of search.

I think this pending Arizona Birthers Bill is silly. It is a waste of valuable time. But then, Republicans are good at wasting time. I have to look at my calendar to remind myself that this is 2010, not 1810. In 1946 the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics designed a form for all states to utilize when recording a birth; however, states were not obligated to use it. Each state was free to design its own form.

Birth certificates are titled (a) Certificate of Birth; (b) Certificate of Live Birth or (c) Certificate of Birth Registration. I have my Certificate of Birth. Not the original, a copy. I could not get the original even if I went to court, demanding that Texas not deny me the original certificate. Is it not my right to have the original certificate if I want it? Allow me to answer my own question: A resounding No! I do not have a right to the original. If I lose my photocopied copy, I can always get another copy. If I had the original, and misplaced it, how would I make a copy? Life as I know it would complicated. When a state agency asks to see proof of my age, place of birth, if I am a citizen of the U.S., where is my proof? Word of mouth from friends and relatives won't cut it. I couldn't say: "Trust me. I am an American born citizen. I was born  . . ."

Before states were required to record births no official records were kept prior to 1914. If you have researched your family genealogy, you will likely discover that many of your ancestors' birth dates were not officially recorded. Where your ancestors were born, dates of their births and their ages becomes a guessing game. Not having this vital information complicates your search. So it makes sense that original birth certificates are not issued to individuals but remain in the files of state registrars.

To state it simply--the original birth certificate is the only tangible proof of where you were born, the hospital, the doctor, your parents, the time, family address, occupation of parents, their ages, mother’s maiden name (if married) and the state seal affixed on the certificate. Years ago in Austin a baby's birth was announced in the daily newspaper if the couple was married; the same as President Obama’s birth announcement. Parents cannot stage these announcements decades in advance, foreseeing their adult son or daughter might run president of the U.S.

An employee at Vital Statics told me that no one gets original records of any kind. The State of Texas is in charge of those records, but upon request the individual, or an authorized individual can obtain a copy of a birth certificate, marriage license, etc. She explained the kinds of paper the copy is printed on, which has the Texas seal. She said she could not speak for other states, but she was sure no one has ever been given an original birth certificate.

All this birthers trash talking is about an African American holding the highest office in the  United States. His victory was not supposed to happen. Only White males win the presidency in America. That is this country’s history, the reason Southern birthers are going insane. Needless to say, their propagandizing, hate talk and shrill punditry began long before the 2008 election. Baseless accusations against candidate Obama has always been wildly out of control. As of 2010, the lies have gotten bigger.

But, and that is a big hypothetical but, if muckrakers can prove Obama’s presidency is illegitimate due the birth question, that will assure the ankle kickers that their suspicions are justified. The next step will be to erase everything President Obama has done since he has been in office. That proof will be reason to dismantle all legislation with his signature on it. No repeal. Just nullify.

Obama antagonist want an excuse to delete the election and his presidency. That is what they are aiming for with blessings from the media. If this were to occur--the deletion of Obama's presidency--the unfolding event would be a hallelujah moment for the Kool-Aid drinkers. Alas, they will find their lost freedom (that was never left). A battered, disregarded Constitution will find new life.

Citizens who are not getting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or VA checks can hang onto their right not to purchase big government medical insurance. No more socialistic "Obamacare" and apologizing for America’s sins. Older citizens will be safe from government death panels and fatal pills. Health care law suits will vanish like a Houdini illusion. White presidential candidates won’t have to produce birth certificates. America will be true America again with the socialist black guy run out of office. Everything will return to "normal" when the next white guy is elected president. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be in America? You betcha!

President announces withdrawal of soldiers from Iraq at end of year

President Barack Obama

Today President Obama announced the withdrawal of soldiers deployed in Iraq. Conservatives like John McCain are not pleased. Republicans want troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. The majority of Americans want the soldier home and an end to the conflict.

 “As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end, for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world,” Obama began. “After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by 2011. As Commander-in-Chief, ensuring the success of this strategy one of my highest national security priorities.

“Last year, I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq, and to date we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops. Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security.

A few hours ago I spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. I reaffirmed that the United States keeps its commitments. He spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We are in full agreement about how to move forward.”

Some stats on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

• 8 years, 260 days since Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program 
• 8 years, 215 days since the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq 
•  8 years, 175 days since President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln 
• 4,479 U.S. military fatalities 
• 30,182 U.S. military injuries 
• 468 contractor fatalities 
• 103,142 – 112,708 documented civilian deaths 
• 2.8 million internally displaced Iraqi
•  $806 billion in federal funding for the Iraq War through FY2011 
• $3 – $5 trillion in total economic cost to the United States of the Iraq war according to economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Blimes 
• $60 billion in U.S. expenditures lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2000
•  0 weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

Stats from ThinkProgress, October 21

Another absurd threat to impeach the president if he doesn't dance to Republican's music

Texas Republican Rep. Pete Olson said a number of Republicans have been seriously contemplating impeaching President Obama if he uses the  Constitution to raise the debt ceiling. Huffington Post blogger Amanda Terkel wrote on Wednesday that Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina, said that move would be “an impeachable act.”

This is not surprising. There is not a Republican in Washington who does not claim to be a constitutional scholar. President Obama does not have to make such a claim. As professor he taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. These Republican eager beavers should get out their copies of the Constitution and read it. Again and again and again.

The Constitution gives President Obama the right to raise the debt ceiling if Republicans continue nursing their shenanigans to protect millionaires and billionaires. They are also protecting their own financial interests. Many of them have become millionaires since holding office, especially seat warmers like John McCain, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Orrin Hatch. Mitch McConnell. The list is long.

The 14th Amendment, Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing o insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall held illegal and void.

A sitting president can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach a president.  Removal of an impeached official is automatic upon criminal conviction as voted on by the Senate.

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached–Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, both of whom had a trial; both were acquitted. Richard Nixon most likely would have been impeached for the Watergate burglary had he not resigned. His impeachment had already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

President Obama is not guilty of committing a crime of any kind. Republicans are ready to get the Supreme Court involved in a debt ceiling lawsuit that would take years to resolve. President Obama has the 14th Amendment on his side. That’s what scares whining Republicans.

There have been other impeachment threats from Republicans: Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona was hell bent on impeaching President Obama if he did not backtrack on his stance regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Franks is against gay marriage.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas threaten impeachment if President Obama did not do more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.

Rep. Tim Wallberg of Minnesota decided he was going to start impeachment proceedings if President Obama did not show his long form birth certificate. He said the president was not a U. S. citizen.

These low brow charlatans have lost sight of the reason they are in Washington. There is an old southern that says: "He's so bad he whips his own ass twice a week." These impeachment minded Republicans should take terms whipping each other's ass twice a day instead of twice a  week. Maybe it will awaken their single brain long enough to think instead of sitting on it.

Sen Mitch McConnell got comfortable and loose

Sen. Mitch McConnell at CSM breakfast

I guess it’s human nature to feel comfortable when you are in the company of people who look and think like you.

For the last two-and-a-half years Republicans have been feeling extremely comfortable and loose lipped. When they make jokes and unflattering statements about President Obama, they get resounding approval and applause. 

Not only is that kind of reception a “hugging welcome” for a guest speaker, it opens the door to say whatever he or she wants without fear of rejection, ridicule or an audience boo-down.

That’s how comfortable Kentucky's Republican  Senator Mitch McConnell was when he was a  guest panelists at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, June 22.
   
McConnell said, “The only thing I can tell you at this point is that there are differences. I’m not sure that these kind of differences might not have been there in a more latent form when you had a Republican president. But I do think there is more of a tendency to pull together when the guy in the White House is on your side.

“So I think some of these views were probably held by some of my members even in the previous administration, but party loyalty tended to mute them. So yeah, I think there are clearly differences, and I think a lot of our members, not having a Republican in the White House, feels more free to express their reservations, which might have been somewhat muted during the previous administration.”

McConnell was talking about President Obama committing America’s help to stave off a potential genocide after dictator Mummar Gaddafi unequivocally stated that he “would have no mercy” against Libyans rising up against him. He said his army would go on a house to house killing spree.

Regardless of the warning, some Democrats and the majority of Republicans are not happy. They said President Obama did not get permission from Congress to participate in the Libyan scrimmage.  They had no intentions of agreeing with him. They just wanted to see him grovel and plead for their cooperation.

The 1973 War Powers Act states that the president is supposed to halt military involvement if Congress has not formally approved it within 60 days. Republicans say President Obama has not explained America’s purpose for teaming with NATO and going into Libya. The President sent Congress a letter of explanation.

On April 10, 1999, members of Congress filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, citing he violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act, when he sanctioned America’s leading role in NATO’s intervention in Kosovo. Seventeen members of Congress participated in the lawsuit. A number of Democrats and Republicans, led by Dennis Kucinich, have filed a similar lawsuit against President Obama. They said he violated the War Powers Act. Kucinich did not participate in the lawsuit against Clinton.

According to a May 6, 1999 article in Salon, the White House continues to insist it doesn't need the permission of Congress to mount military action against Yugoslavia. "We believe the president does have the authority to conduct this campaign," says NSC spokesman Leavy. "There's constitutional precedent. In 1995, we engaged in military action in Bosnia in order to bring the Serbs to the negotiating table. President Bush sent 20,000 troops to Somalia. What we've done is consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”

"The whole War Powers Act is a very vague and hazy area," adds a senior White House official. It's never been tested to the Supreme Court level."

 “To add to the mixed messages, on Thursday the House is expected to vote in support of $12.9 billion to fund the military operations it won't support -- even though President Clinton requested less than half that. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, has explained this as a way to support our troops, while not necessarily supporting the policy that put them there.” (Salon)

John Kerry said last week no president has ever come before Congress under the 1973 War Powers Act, but now is a good time "to start with President Obama." The media are aware of this little overlooked fact, but refused to write about it, leaving the impression that Obama is the only president in history to "violate" the War Powers Act.

Today House Republicans and Democrats delivered a confusing solution to their opposition to  President Obama. First they voted against authorizing the use of American forces in Libya,  an hour later they voted not to limit funding. That sounds an awful lot like Dick Armey's statement.

McConnell said their slogan for the 2012 presidential election will be "Obama made it worse."

Tea party's kryptonite is their demand for political virginity and 'us verses them'

Success is only lasting if it has the potential for a long shelf life. The 2010 midterm elections were unquestionably successful and long for Republicans. They campaigned against President Obama's policies and putting the unemployed back to work.

Something happened in between November and day after President Obama sworn into office. Jobs, the economy and the unemployed were the least of their concerns. The newly elected and re-elected Republicans and tea partiers did not live up to their marriage vows. They promised voters to honor and obey their demands when they joined the prostituted power brokers in Washington. Their two-party prenuptial agreement hinged on the candidate’s word not to fall in lockstep with the “Washington establishment.”

Bullshit! Big money donors began courting and buying Tea Party Republicans before the swearing in ceremony got out of bed for breakfast. They joined the stable of "kept" politicians, all the while tooting their disdain for Washington.

Tea Party politicians and Republicans were as happy as a platoon of ticks feeding on a fat dog. They held pointless conferences. They pranced and paraded in front of media cameras like beauty queens. They rubbed their victory in the faces of Democrats. Republican loving pundits held their own happy press conferences on talk shows.

In this age of quickie annulments and nasty divorces, bamboozled voters thought they were getting gold plated, family values politicians. This was going to be a lasting marriage between the Tea Party and Republicans. To their dismay, events happened that forced supporters to scratch the surface a little deeper. They discovered aluminum underneath the imitation gold. They had voted for phony promise makers.

No one could tell the Tea Party and their supporters that they did not know shit from shinola. They are learning a political lesson the hard way. Now they want to remake the honeymoon bed and rewrite the marriage vows. They have found that nothing is pure in spirit about their allegiance to the GOP or its allegiance to them. Unfortunately they were brainwashed by Republicans and a media hyped agenda.

Sarah Palin

From the onset the Tea Party have been bewitched by Sarah Palin, their Alaskan Knightress in Shiny Armor. With the help of a Palin-struck media, she was empowered to tell lie after lie with impunity. If she said President Obama “palled around with terrorists,” the media complex attached itself to the lie like leeches.

When Palin spread the rumor that the Affordable Care Act had a clause that said doctors would make the lone decision as to who will die and who will live, there was no media backfire. Democrats were late and weak in their responses to the rumor. They left summation of the bill to President Obama. He was up against his own party, an army of orchestrated Republicans, Sarah Palin, the media, and disgruntled voters. Republicans won the war of words about health care reform.

Palin has been credited with being the first to use the term “death panels”. The media knew that death panels were nonexistent, but it refused to explain the truth about the Affordable Care Act. Sarah was allowed to take control of the narrative. Talking- point-pundits said,  “Obamacare is gonna kill grandma.” What the hell!

Tea Party politicians and Republicans jumped in line to dance the bunny hop with Palin. She was allowed to make herself a force within the GOP.  They were, and still are, afraid to speak out against her. They dare not talk about the issues plaguing America, that Palin’s knowledge and political IQ is a blank canvas.

Faster than beer can turn to piss, Republicans, Palin and tea partiers rode the wave of manufactured discontentment all the way to victory November 2010. Republicans behaved badly in every state they won governorships and control of the legislatures.

In Wisconsin with the tearing down of unions, employment terminations and demotions, citizens jumped into action to stop the damage caused by Wisconsin Republicans. Determined citizens have collected enough voter signatures to start the recall of three Republicans, an act that’s been approved by the courts in Wisconsin.

The reelections will take place in July. Unhappy voters are also planning to recall Gov. Scott Walker in January 2012. It will be a game of wait-and-see who will vote against their own best interests by repainting gold over aluminum.

It only matters who said the words: wife Michelle Obama or candidate John McCain

Michelle Obama on the campaign trail in 2008

The media tend to interpret words and news the way it wants to. In this presidential campaign statements made by Michelle Obama and John McCain are either stated in full or heavily edited to fit into sound bites. Noticeably, if the candidate is someone the media likes the news is favorable. If the media are unhappy with a candidate, and rooting for his or her opponent, every word uttered on the campaign trail is taken out of context.

    

Not to my surprise I watched the media preoccupation with Michelle Obama. It inhaled her every word and gesture. Cindy McCain, also campaigning for her husband, got a free ride. She is rich, a mother, expensively dressed and White. Michelle is educated, a lawyer, a working wife and mother and Black.

      
I went on the Internet to read about other political wives that campaigned for and with their husbands. Hillary Clinton made it known early on that she was not going to bake cookies and serve tea in the White House. That statement started angry tongues wagging in Washington. How dare she does not act like a cookie baking homemaker and tea server! The media went into a frenzy. 

When she refused leave President Bill Clinton after his adultery was exposed, Hillary locked the door and threw away the key! White women were ballistic and condemning. Hillary should have walked out on Clinton! Hillary stood her ground. This was her cheating husband; her game and she knew how to play it.

Women were angry that Hillary stood by her man, Bill.  A few of the political wives who readily jumped on Hillary Clinton’s back later found themselves in the same situation. What did they do? They stood by their cheating husbands, all elected politicians! They even stood by them when they confessed their sins and apologized at press conferences. Muddy snow is not clean! 

    

On Friday while looking at MSNBC I watched Dan Abrahams and a panel of four discuss a statement made by McCain on Sean Hannity's, March 13, 2008, Fox news. 

    

I did not see the statement hawked on TV, in newspapers, or conservative talk radio. I found that odd  because these outlets repeated Michelle Obama’s words at nauseam, painting her as an angry Black woman, who has a deep-seated grudge and hatred for America. The same media are blaming her in advance, in the event Barack Obama is defeated by McCain in November. The media and pundits are jaw jacking overtime, desperate to assure voters that Obama's loss to McCain is inevitable. After all, McCain is a Vietnam hero. He should automatically receive more votes than Obama, who has never served in the armed forces.

    

Michelle Obama said in February 2008: “What we’ve seen over this past year is that hope is making a comeback, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for a change, and I’ve been desperate to see our country moving in that direction, and not just feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country".

    

Discussing McCain's capture as a POW, Sean Hannity, asked McCain, “What does that do to a person to spend that much time in solitary confinement?”

Hannity had actually written off McCain's candidacy. Frankly, they did not like him. They talked more against him than for him. When McCain left the other Republican candidates in the dust, the GOP had no choice but the accept that he would get the nomination. Some Republicans publicly admitted that they would have to "hold my nose" to vote for McCain. 

Conservative talkers on radio had nothing good to say about McCain. On the other hand, they had wet dreams about Sarah Palin. They wanted her without McCain.

    

Here is McCain's statement, compared to Michelle Obama's statement: “I think it makes you a better person. Obviously it makes you love America. I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company. But probably the most important thing about it, Sean, is that I was privileged to have the opportunity to be in the company of heroes.” 

The media and pundits praised McCain statement. Attacks on Michelle Obama rolled on.

    

Abraham said: “He used a similar phrase about not loving America until he was deprived repeatedly on the trail in his 1999 campaign. I said it last night and I’ll say it again, I think McCain’s comments are eloquent, but why is the right wing and the media in particular, obsessed over Michelle Obama’s comments and basically ignoring McCain? Fox news does not have that video clip online, and get this, any reference to it is now gone from the transcript on foxnews.com.”

    

Two of the panelists agreed with Abraham’s assessment. The other two said what McCain stated was not comparable to Michelle Obama. One of the four, a female, said she is a conservative who does not want to see Barack Obama win the presidency. She is in absolute agreement with Hannity’s constant attacks on Michelle and Barack Obama and everyone connected to them.

    

 “Listen, we are talk show hosts. We are not reporters. So as talk show hosts we are paid for our opinions,” the conservative said, responding to the question of fairness.

    

She added, “Nobody can question McCain’s patriotism when it comes to this country. And the idea that he certainly appreciates America more, when he lost all the wonderful things about America, all the years he was in captivity--who can argue with that.”

    

The second female  said, “John McCain, because of his singular sacrifice, unlike any other we’ve known with our public servants today, is always seen through the prism of this experience, and so it doesn’t matter if he sat on a bar stool and threw back a six pack and said, ‘I’ve never loved my country', we still probably wouldn’t believe him because he has served his country.’”

    

I guess that means Michelle Obama had better watch her words. McCain can freely urinate in America’s face and tell her it’s raining just because he was shot down by the enemy in Vietnam, a country in which he was attempting to bomb.