Category: Accountability

Fair Share Unpaid

The CNN onscreen contributor who snuck debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign in advance of the 2016 presidential debates is now a talking head on Fox News.

“I am excited by the opportunity to share my perspective and views with the Fox News audience and to help shape the dialogue at this important juncture in our history,” wrote Donna Brazile last month. “More importantly, I’m eager to learn from the experience.”

Not a big Fox News fan, me; I don’t keep up with personnel changes. Her head just appeared — as a surprise! — onscreen in a Fox News video in my YouTube feed, covering a Bernie Sanders event. She was apparently hired for her campaign expertise — not for her journalism or ethics.

“Everything we believe in as Americans will be examined and, in essence, ratified by our votes,” she explained. “But it concerns me, as it does the majority of good Americans, that our national debate has become hostile and disrespectful. We no longer simply agree to disagree. Too often we demonize the intentions of others. Our lines of communication are frayed, if not broken.”

Well, one reason for these frayed lines of communication has been all the political and media corruption.

As Brazile demonstrated at CNN in 2016.

She cops, obliquely, to her “fair share of mistakes” in her past career as an activist. “Some would argue I’ve made more than my fair share,” she confessed.

Interesting how insiders in Washington never pay for their mistakes.

Their unfair share.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Donna Brazile, Fox, media

Accountability government transparency national politics & policies too much government

Long Gone Rogue

Chuck Schumer, Rachel Maddow, deep state, Donald Trump

Back in the 1990s, we used to talk about “rogue agencies” of the U.S. Government. And for good reason: the Branch Davidian massacre and the Ruby Ridge fiasco were hard to forget.

After 9/11/2001, however, we cut the agencies some slack. Why? Their incompetence and our hope.

But it became obvious from the NSA’s illegal metadata collection program, as revealed by Edward Snowden, the core agencies of the military-industrial complex do not like playing by rules that the American people have a say in.

How bad is it?

On New Year’s Day this year, Sen. Chuck Schumer was talking to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow about their favorite conspiracy theory. Maddow, as we all know, had gone Full Nutter on this “collusion”/“corruption” story, and Democratic politicians (along with nearly the whole of the mainstream news media) ran with the story for two years. Then, the Mueller report is “no collusion.”

But on that first Tuesday of 2019, Ms. Maddow was talking about Trump’s tweets which she characterized as “taunting” the CIA and other agencies obsessed with the “Russian hacking” angle of the brouhaha. And Schumer’s response?

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

We should take this as a signal. It is like making prison rape jokes. It says something about the situation: prison rape or Deep State machinations. And about the speaker: leveraging a rogue element as a threat.

No wonder many now think the Russiagate/Mueller investigation was a “Deep State Coup” attempt.

A republic with rogue agencies is hardly a republic at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Chuck Schumer, deep state, Donald Trump, Rachel Maddow, Trump

Accountability meme national politics & policies Popular

Awful Aspirations

Nancy Pelosi, New Green Deal, aspirations,

A funny thing happened on the way to voting on the Democrats’ Green New Deal (GND). With ‘earth in the balance,’ the proposal for fixing climate change — and so much more! — was granted its first procedural vote in the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate.

It failed, 0 – 57.

Sen. Edward Markey (D‑Mass.), the Senate sponsor, along with 41 other Democrats* and independent Bernie Sanders, voted “present” to protest what he called “sabotage,” claiming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R‑Ky.) “wants to silence your voice.”

Au contraire! McConnell longed to hear Democrats sing the bill’s praises — loud, proud, and on the record.

After the vote, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D‑N.Y.) absurdly made the opposite accusation: Republicans were “climate delaying … costing us lives + destroying communities.”

Meanwhile, “If the Green New Deal came up for a vote in the Democrat-controlled House,” USA Today reports, “it would have trouble passing.”

“It’s a list of aspirations,” says Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who does not plan to bring it to a vote. Though Democrats want to address climate change, the speaker points out that the “bill has many things that have nothing to do with climate.”

Rep. Elaine Luria, (D‑Va.) echoes Pelosi: “[T]he Green New Deal is aspirational.” Rep. Sean Casten, (D‑Ill.) adds, “The aspirations of the Green New Deal are great.”**

But is the GND something “great” to which Americans should aspire?

Only if they yearn for government-monopolized healthcare, free college tuition, micro-management of the economy, and government providing everyone a job, except those who don’t want one … who would get a guaranteed income, regardless.

I aspire to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* In the Senate, three Democrats — Sens. Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) — and independent Sen. Angus King (Maine) joined all 53 Republicans in voting No.

** All four House co-chairs of the New Democrat Coalition’s Climate Change Task Force — Casten and Luria as well as Don Beyer, (D‑Va.) and Susan Wild, (D‑Pa.) — have come out in opposition to the GND.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, New Green Deal, socialism

Accountability ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall

March Sanity

North Dakota, initiative, citizen initiative, ballot initiative, democracy, suppression

“A public debate on the merits of a measure can reveal its flaws,” the Bismarck Tribune calmly and reasonably editorialized yesterday, “and then we have to trust voters to do the right thing.”

“Why are some legislators so afraid to allow North Dakota voters to decide what is in their constitution?” an earlier Fargo Forum editorial asked. The Forum dubbed one bill — giving the legislature a partial veto on voter-enacted constitutional amendments — “The Voter Nullification Act.”

On the voter initiative, North Dakota’s elected representatives are of a much different mind than these newspapers or the people of North Dakota.

The Flickertail State is hardly alone on this.

Michigan’s legislature made their ballot initiative process more difficult in last December’s lame-duck session. Arkansas politicians have been stabbing at the initiative with rules and regulations for years, and they’re back at it this session. On a recent trip to the Missouri capitol, I heard elected officials privately argue that voters deciding issues directly — without going through the legislature — was a “bastardization” of our republic.

Take Idaho’s Senate Bill 1159, which would hike up the signature requirement from 6 to 10 percent of voters, a 67 percent increase, while also reducing by two-thirds the time allowed for petitioning. The legislation’s stated purpose? “[T]o increase voter involvement.”

“It is odd,” wrote former state Supreme Court Justice Jim Jones in the Idaho State Journal, “that some in the Legislature now wish to drive a stake into the heart of that people-driven legislative process.”

It’s not really very odd. Legislators routinely put their political self-interest before the people — especially when it comes to voters having a democratic check on their power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags ballot initiative, citizen initiative, democracy, initiative, North Dakota

Accountability folly ideological culture partisanship

#YouToo?

Bill Clinton, impeachment, sexual, #metoo, sex, scandal

“Will Democrats regret if they don’t open an impeachment investigation?” NBC Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked Heather McGhee, a distinguished senior fellow at Demos.

“It’s important, right?” Ms. McGhee responded. “And we can have, you know, Bill Clinton impeached for obstruction of justice about a sexual affair,” she added dismissively, comparing that to Trump’s possible crimes, which “are things that could amount to treason against the United States.”

“Treason” does seem more ominous than the affair President Bill Clinton had two-plus decades ago with 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

But aren’t we missing a “teachable moment” for the #MeToo Movement?

President Clinton perjured himself about his sordid fling during a deposition in a lawsuit brought by Arkansas state employee Paula Jones. She alleged that he, while serving as governor, had exposed himself and sexually harassed her. An awfully serious charge, for which Clinton paid $850,000 to settle.

“Paula Jones spoke out against the most powerful man in the world, and when his lawyers argued that a sitting president couldn’t be subject to a civil suit, she took them all the way to the Supreme Court and won,” Amanda Hess wrote late last year in The New York Times, two decades after the fact. “In another world, she would be hailed as a feminist icon. But not in this world — not yet.”

Democrats, progressives and much of the popular media ridiculed and attacked Ms. Jones back then — and are still sweeping her story under the rug.

Treating sexual harassment, abuse and assault in a partisan manner, ignoring the sins of your side, is a slap in the face to the #MeToo Movement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags #metoo, Bill Clinton, impeachment, sex, sexual

Accountability general freedom national politics & policies term limits

The Soul of Citizen Government

Post author By Redactor
Post date February 18, 2019
2 Comments on The Soul of Citizen Government

President's Day, George Wahington, term limits, power

Today’s federal holiday represents a truly spectacular feat of modern public administration: actual downsizing.

By our federal government, no less.

Where once there were two federal holidays, Washington’s Birthday and Lincoln’s Birthday, now there is just one: Presidents’ Day.

There is no equal in public sector simplicity, frugality, efficiency. Stand in awe, fair citizens.*

In that spirit of brevity (the soul of citizen government?) I’ll cut out the middle-man, moi, and let presidents speak to a classic example of less being more, term limits.

“If our American society or the United States Government are overthrown,” Abraham Lincoln wrote, “it will come from the voracious desire for office, this wriggle to live without toil, work, or labor — from which I am not free myself.”

“We want to see new voices and new ideas emerge,” explained President Barack Obama. “That’s part of the reason why I think that term limits are a really useful thing,”

‘Actions speak louder than words’ could have been George Washington’s motto. His greatness may spring more from giving up power than from wielding it. He could have been president for life, but he stepped down after two terms, eight years.

In his second term, President Thomas Jefferson expressed hope that his retirement would help establish that two-term tradition for presidents, ultimately leading to a constitutional requirement.**

Success! This February 27th marks the 68th anniversary of the 1951 ratification of the 22nd Amendment: presidential term limits.

And having declared the 27th to be Term Limits Day, U.S. Term Limits and supporters are rallying all around the country next Wednesday.

Join in celebrating term limits and help push for limits on Congress.

It’s Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* That’s what it seems like, anyway. The true story? Much more complicated. Officially, the U.S. Government still considers Presidents’ Day to be Washington’s Birthday, believe it or not.

** Jefferson had harshly critiqued the new Constitution for its “abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President.”

Contact U.S. Term Limits:
termlimitsday@termlimits.com

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts