I jumped the shark since my Member of Congress is a Progressive here in Arizona. His name is Ed Pastor, is a Member of the Progressive Caucus, and he has been correct 95% of the time on the issues. And yet, I too am bedeviled on how to keep Elected AND Appointed Officials on ‘toeing the line’ and fair criticism is of paramount importance. And given my political history, it comes down to the bookends of two notions, first for “spotting talent”–regardless of the business or political endeavors, and second, for “mainting the Moral High Ground”. So permit to further explain.

For ease of understanding, I am a Chicano and my history goes back with Ed Pastor and long before he had the germ of an idea for seeking elective office. Consequently, the political battles have been many and of long duration. Thus, I have the “luxury” of not being overly concerned with making my member of Congress ‘toe the line’. Perhaps, one’s political interest should commence with a political engagement within a respective district where meetings of like-minded acolytes take place and with an eye to the long term.

As to “maintaining the Moral High Ground”, I am using mililtary parlance since I am a Vietnam War vet and somewhat long in the tooth. Take, for example, the Vietnam War was premised on a bogus artifice known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In similar vein, the AUMF was a bogus artifice since the Constitution explicitly calls for a Declaration of War. Now, if I were pre-disposed in my opposition, and I am not, to Hillary Clinton, my political platform would be on her cavalier dismissal of the “unassailable” facts at the time and of the context. Of course, there were no ‘facts’ to support such a bogus artifice. To wit, “If ya’ got it wrong on the war, what else will ya’ get wrong?”

To date, I am currently engaged in a discussion with a raft of Confused Conservatives on “citizenship”. I am arguing that children born here in the USA and whose parents are undocumented immigrants, and who have as a family unit, returned to the parents’ nation of origin, are being “disowned”. As such, these kids have not reached their age of majority, and we know nothing of these kids as to whether they live in hovels, have three squares-a-day of good nutrition, have decent clothes and books to experience a qualitative education experience, or even have access to decent health care.

The Confused Conservative argument rests solely on “what is it about illegal that you don’t understand?” Thusly, their personal animosity coalesces to either my presumptive Attention Deficit Disorder or to my perceived transgendered behavior for becoming Miss Teen Age South Carolina. Consequently, attacking the messenger underscores their behavior for the the message and which is to Deny, Divert, and Deflect. So, my admonition is to recognize that soap and water is relatively inexpensive when it comes to washing off the filth and stink for waging combat in the political gutter.

At present, I am the Chief Jefe of the Chicano Veterans Organization here in Phoenix, Arizona, and I also write for the “Cactus Juice Commentaries” at our web site. In this regard, I compiled the approximate best of 75 commentaries for Calendar Year 2007, and titled,”Chicano Politics and a Commitment to Courage”. I also added or included a couple of commentaries on John McCain. I submitted this manuscript to three publishing houses and they have responded with their rejection slips. In any event, last week I went down to Staples and found the cost to be the equivalent of $17.00 a copy to self-publish. So I am contemplating the notion of making 100 copies and sending a copy to each chapter of MECHA located at the colleges and universities out here in the West, in order to help perpetuate their mission and organization via fundraising activities. Thus, expanding the scope of messaging and ideas, take time.

And finally, in closing permit me to make two observations. I expect McCain to select Senator Mel Martinez of Florida as his VP since he needs Florida to win in the general election, and Martinez will help him undercut the Latino support for the Democratic Party. And of course, I would be remiss in not mentioning that Senator Jim Webb is one of the stars in our political party and who obviously wears combat boots and not cowboy boots.

And, slightly OT: the tabloids (National Enquirer and Globe) have started attacking Obama. It’s going to get far worse before the election.

Of course it’s going to get worse. This isn’t a surprise. I and others pointed this out last spring & summer.

The question is not whether Democrats might nominate a tall skinny black man with big ears. The question is whether that kind of candidate can get elected in America today. I worry.

Obama is a great campaigner and motivational speaker. His candidacy has done a lot to build the party for the long term. He deserves credit for that.

I wonder how much credit is due to George W. Bush. He’s the backdrop to this campaign and he set the stage for this.

#1 is universal healthcare – as a cancer surviver…
#2 is Iraq and any future wars
#3 economy
#4 is energy…. publicly owned, accountable to the public and renewable
#5 holding the current crop of bast*ds accountable

All these things are tied together. The war in Iraq, the dependency on oil and the health care problem are devastating the economy.

Perhaps the only major issues not related to the standard of living of the people and to the economy is the Constitutional angle. Are we going to support the Constitution or are Republicans so fundamentally opposed that they are going to go even further than Bush and force a crisis upon us?

Ordinary issues are tough enough, to face a Constitutional crisis on top of it would seem to demand some very bright people who can handle more than just one or two major issues in a presidency.

For example: the Dem nominee who would come out and say that they were going to spend the next few years investigating things like the Unitary Executive and all that has flowed from that rationale would cement the liberal base in a heartbeat…yet all we hear from the candidates is crickets. If we are having difficulty “nudging” the Dem Congress on such issues as telecom immunity, imagine the difficulties we will face on new issues not as well publicized.

There was an uproar (albeit limited to progressive circles) in the late nineties at Clinton’s repeal of Glass/Steagall, yet nothing happened and we now see the fallout. Who is prepared to ask Hillary about that segment of her “experience”? Who is asking Obama, whose advisors hail almost exclusively from Wall Street, how he will deal with banking deregulations’ consequences?

Pach has nailed it. Neither Obama nor Hillary are progressives. Each is different from the other, but they occupy the same spot on the political spectrum.

I wonder how many Edwards supporters went over to Obama thinking he was a Progressive. Surprise surprise, the Cool-Aid has a little bitterness in it.

Now we are all having to take a leap of faith not unlike the one we would have had to take with Edwards and the question of whether he was really a Progressive.

At least Edwards wrote his own speeches.

That’s what really frustrates me– if we can’t elect a progressive now, when?

We’re facing several problems.

1) Apparently you can’t be a Progressive if you came from a Southern state since everybody knows you have to be from Massachussetts, Minnesota or Illinois to be a Progressive.

2) It’s hard to admit, but we are a minority of America. Even within the Democratic party we are a minority — growing and significant, but still a minority.

3) We usually refuse large donors and that makes it harder to campaign and win. It also earns a lot of derision and nastiness from the punditocracy who declare your candidacy dead before it’s begun.

3) There are far too many of us who will walk off to the Green party if a Dem candidate isn’t ‘perfect’. As Howard Dean said, we’ve got to stop making perfect the enemy of the good.

4) I’m sure there are more reasons. When you’re losing and you’re not in power there are always an infinite supply of reasons.

As long as CT has a republican governor, it will not be in a Democratic President’s best interest to have him leave his Senate seat.

I tend to agree for now. But, in the future it might become possible to see a transition away from the well-known incumbent (Lieberman) to an unknown Republican and then fight that person with a more Progressive Democrat to get a clearer more distinct difference before the voters.

As things stand we can’t beat him with another Dem and that’s not acceptable.

Having said that no person who is ever elected will be 100% of what you would want. We must nudge the president to do the right thing in all instances. Help him or her make the tough decisions buy letting them know how we feel about the issues.

But above all we must ensure that the idea of the unitary executive dies with the Bush Administration. We should demand an investigation into every craptastic legalism they have put forth and tear them up one by one.

If we don’t kill the Unitary Executive NOW it will come back to haunt us in the future like the criminals of Iran-Contra scandal that were never punished and treated like the criminals they are.

Criminal behavior should not be overlooked. Ever.

Plus, he is such an outspoken advocate, I feel confident that were an Administration for which he worked doing something not in the American citizenry’s best interests, he would be the first to speak up. Just as he spoke up over NAFTA, bank deregulation and the Iraq war.

It would give me, at any rate, a sense of security knowing that Nader was in a positon to blow the whistle on an Obama or a Clinton Presidency.

But, anyway, good post. That is the question. How will those who so strenuously advocated for Obama and Clinton to the exclusion of Edwards and Kucinich hold their candidates feet to the fire when they do things averse to their interests. I’m betting they will develop a short term memory and bitch a lot; just as with the former Bush crowd.