Sunday, April 09, 2006

A Desperation Follow Up Letter to Senator Barbara Boxer

Dear Senator Boxer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both Perot and McCarthy garnered a respectable number of votes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Michael

To friendship,
Michael

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell

No comments: