Barack Obama is the presidential Democratic Party nominee. It doesn’t matter at this point if some do not agree.
Most importantly, this candidate must be supported so that the Republican Party ideologies can be aborted. The White House must go through a thorough cleansing as the political stench that has been caused is unending.
This country is in dire need of restoration, which can only be accomplished under a new administration. Hillary Clinton I believe could be a positive influence as a vice presidential nominee defense against John McCain’s unholy alliance.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, who were once opponents, hopefully will align and form the strongest ticket to undermine this powerful Republican machine and put an end to this destructive regime. Our country could have renewed hope. In a given time the new administration would be able to revoke some of the drastic presidential vetoes benefiting the masses and put an end to the catering of the wealthier classes.
Congressional attitudes require revamping. Some of these legislators are hampering bills drawn up for the greater good of this country’s stability by inserting pork barrel activity.
The November elections are merely five months away. The Bush-Chaney era has overstayed. Mr. McCain and his entourage will only further the catastrophe representing the very same hypocrisy. Issue differences between the two parties are stark. It’s time for change and liberal ideologies to embark.
It is imperative we have a White House Democratic victory with Mr. Obama the first black president recorded into history. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton will be the first woman vice president. A positive future for all mankind is what we seek. Independents and Mrs. Clinton supporters rally around. Mr. Obama is White House bound.
I am delighted that Mr. Chiu has decided to debate on your pages. Your readers will be well served by such a debate. I love his way of debating. He uses all the standard Republican canards.
Roe v. Wade is not about abortion he says. It is about: "Legislators making laws and courts and judges interpreting the law." Of course we can all agree that legislators make laws and courts and judges interpret the law. But what happens when the court strikes down laws passed by legislators. Aren’t they overruling the will of the elected representatives? Aren’t they activists? Well not if I agree with the decision Mr. Chiu might say, "The court is interpreting the Constitution." Well isn’t that what the court was doing in Roe v. Wade?
is not about abortion he says. It is about: "Legislators making laws and courts and judges interpreting the law." Of course we can all agree that legislators make laws and courts and judges interpret the law. But what happens when the court strikes down laws passed by legislators. Aren’t they overruling the will of the elected representatives? Aren’t they activists? Well not if I agree with the decision Mr. Chiu might say, "The court is interpreting the Constitution." Well isn’t that what the court was doing in ?
Well, Mr. Chiu might say there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion or not. But Mr. Chiu, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically authorizes the Supreme Court to strike down any laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically provides for the Federal Reserve, or the Food and Drug Administration. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says corporations shall have the same rights as real people. But the court interprets a document, which is short and vague, and we all, at different times, are upset by what they say it means.
So we need a better measure of what an activist judge is. How about one that looks at it from the standpoint of which judges vote to strike down laws passed by the people’s representatives, most often. The latest statistics I can find on this cover the period from 1994 to 2005, before justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined the Court, but after all the other judges now there had been appointed. At that time the liberal judges were the same as now. David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, but the right-wing judges were Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, William Renquist, and Sandra Day O’Connor.
How did they stack up on overruling the will of elected representatives? Here are the figures: Thomas 66 percent, Kennedy 64 percent, Scalia 56 percent, Rehnquist and O’Connor 47 percent, Souter 42 percent, Stevens 39 percent, Ginsburg 39 percent, and Breyer 28 percent. The liberal judges go against the will of the elected representatives much less often than the right-wing ones. By the way, Republican presidents appointed Souter and Stevens. Gerald Ford appointed Stephens, George Herbert Walker Bush appointed Souter.
The Court just handed down a decision that says the Constitution means what it says. Habeas Corpus, the right of people not to be incarcerated without being charged on the basis of evidence, cannot be suspended, or in the language of that august document: "The Privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." I don’t believe we have been invaded and I am not aware of any rebellion and President George Bush said he disagreed with it. But Republican presidential nominee John McCain called it "a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." I would ask, worse than locking thousands of Americans in internment camps because they had Japanese ancestry? Worse than forcing African Americans to sit at the back of the bus? Worse than slavery?
But McCain makes it clear on his Web site that he would not be satisfied with Roe v. Wade being overturned. He would press on and work to make abortions illegal wherever he could. So it is all about the right to choose As I quoted in my previous letter, McCain says, "However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion."
I find it amusing that Chiu turns facts on their head. "Democrats excel in the politics of fear," he claims. It is not Democrats who invoke 9/11 over and over to instill fear. It is not Democrats who run Willie Horton ads. It is not Democrats who run Swift Boat lies.
As for Social Security, Mr. Bush has been pushing to end it and substitute it with private savings accounts and Mr. McCain has been a cheerleader of the plan. Democrats don’t scare anyone.
Mr. Chiu says Mr. McCain has made many trips to Iraq and has participated in many briefings. That is what makes it so scary. When he confused al-Qaeda with Shiites on his last visit to Iraq, was it a senior moment as Fox News suggested, or was he showing that he can’t grasp the differences, or was he obfuscating to confuse the public? Can Mr. Chiu offer any other plausible explanation?
On the veterans bill Mr. Chiu claims that Mr. McCain wants to give veterans with more service more benefits. That is simply not true. Mr. McCain has not introduced any bill giving any veterans more benefits.
Mr. Chiu charges me with claiming that Mr. McCain agrees with Mr. Bush on every issue. That is simply not true. I have said he agrees with Mr. Bush on most issues and I gave his voting record. I even gave examples of where Mr. McCain disagrees with Mr. Bush. I mentioned North Korea, where Mr. McCain opposes Mr. Bush’s successful use of diplomacy, and I would be the first to admit that on the environment Mr. McCain positions are more environmentally friendly than Bush’s.
We are indeed fortunate to have a breath of fresh air in the candidacy of Barack Obama, who, more than anyone, arouses memories of former President John F. Kennedy. Let us march with him into a world that breaks cleanly with the past, with wars of choice, obfuscation, attacks on our safety net, and deficits as far as the eye can see. President Bill Clinton handed this country to Republicans with projected surpluses for years to come, and Republicans turned it into deficits of endless duration. Mr. Clinton ran on a platform, "It’s the economy stupid" and brought this country into some of the best eight years it has had in a very long time.
Finally, I find it amusing how Republicans always try to attach the label of "elitist" to Democrats. Let me see. Mr. McCain was born to a well to do family. He married an heiress and her father put him into politics.
Mr. Obama was raised by a struggling single mother and achieved the American dream through his own talents and struggles.
Mr. McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class but was advanced because of his pedigree. Mr. Obama was chosen to be editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review.
Which of them has more in common with most hard working and struggling Americans, and who comes from an elite background?
