You'd have to have your head in the sand not to know that the widespread use of torture has wrecked the reputation of the United States of America. The story, which should have been over with departure of George W. Bush from the White House, has been unfortunately continued with Barack Obama's insistence that he will violate the Freedom of Information Act by concealing photographic evidence of torture. Obama's coverup is keeping America's torture in the news, proving that it's the coverup, as much as the torture itself, that damages America's position in the world.
Last week, Representative Rush Holt introduced a common sense amendment to this year's Defense appropriations bill. The amendment will, if it is included in the equivalent Senate legislation, require the military to videotape all its interrogations, excepting those tactical interrogations that take place on the battlefield and cannot be taped because of practical considerations.
This bill protects interrogators as much as it protects the prisoners being interrogated. It also ensures that the intelligence collected by the military will be accurate, protecting soldiers and government agents who will depend upon that intelligence in dangerous situations. It's for these reasons that, earlier this year, a military task force requested the policy of required videotaping of interrogations.
Yet, for Representative Mike Arcuri, that isn't good enough. Arcuri voted against the Holt Amendment, ignoring military advice and leaving interrogations in the dark ages of Bush and Cheney. Arcuri's vote was bad for American soldiers, and bad for the reputation of the USA.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Mike Arcuri Has A Short Term Mind
On yet another issue, U.S. Representative Michael Arcuri has demonstrated an antiprogressive agenda this week. This time, the issue is climate change.
In 2008, people elected Democrats to Congress and the White House in large part because the Democrat promised a green energy revolution. They seemed so earnest, so honest. Yet, in 2009, we've learned that if you really want green energy, you're going to have to vote Green Party - at least in New York State's 24th district.
Yesterday Michael Arcuri voted to kill legislation promoting a green energy in order to fight global climate change, including global warming. Once again, Arcuri joined with the Republicans to support the kind of politics of pollution we saw under George W. Bush.
Why did Arcuri do it? Why did he vote with Big Oil, against the environment? Here's his excuse for opposing the legislation:
"In the short term it will have a negative effect on my district because of the high power costs."
This comment reveals why Mike Arcuri has come to be regarded as among the mental lightweights of the House of Representatives. In the short term, the bill will create higher power costs, but in the long term, it will actually lower costs. Trust Arcuri to ignore long term benefits in favor of short term thinking.
Besides that, what's the cost that this bill will actually create? According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cost for the average American will be 48 cents per day. Low income Americans will actually gain economically from the legislation. These calculations don't even take into account the economic benefit from avoiding damage related to climate change, which is estimated in the billions per year already.
It seems that Arcuri is willing to let Planet Earth go to pot for the sake of 48 cents in short term savings. In 2010, let's make Michael Arcuri a short term member of Congress.
In 2008, people elected Democrats to Congress and the White House in large part because the Democrat promised a green energy revolution. They seemed so earnest, so honest. Yet, in 2009, we've learned that if you really want green energy, you're going to have to vote Green Party - at least in New York State's 24th district.
Yesterday Michael Arcuri voted to kill legislation promoting a green energy in order to fight global climate change, including global warming. Once again, Arcuri joined with the Republicans to support the kind of politics of pollution we saw under George W. Bush.
Why did Arcuri do it? Why did he vote with Big Oil, against the environment? Here's his excuse for opposing the legislation:
"In the short term it will have a negative effect on my district because of the high power costs."
This comment reveals why Mike Arcuri has come to be regarded as among the mental lightweights of the House of Representatives. In the short term, the bill will create higher power costs, but in the long term, it will actually lower costs. Trust Arcuri to ignore long term benefits in favor of short term thinking.
Besides that, what's the cost that this bill will actually create? According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cost for the average American will be 48 cents per day. Low income Americans will actually gain economically from the legislation. These calculations don't even take into account the economic benefit from avoiding damage related to climate change, which is estimated in the billions per year already.
It seems that Arcuri is willing to let Planet Earth go to pot for the sake of 48 cents in short term savings. In 2010, let's make Michael Arcuri a short term member of Congress.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Mike Arcuri Not Among Those Opposing Discrimination
Two days ago, H.R. 3017 was introduced to the House of Representatives by Congressman Barney Frank. The bill would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
This is a very important bill to the LGBT voters in the 24th congressional district. Living under the fear of being fired from a job, just because of the homophobia of your boss, is a terrible burden during economic troubles like those we're currently suffering under.
Yet, as with so many important issues, Michael Arcuri is not on the job. H.R. 3017 is a strong bill, with 117 cosponsors. Congressman Arcuri is not among them.
Representative Arcuri won't protect his own constituents from job discrimination. Why should he be given another term in Congress?
This is a very important bill to the LGBT voters in the 24th congressional district. Living under the fear of being fired from a job, just because of the homophobia of your boss, is a terrible burden during economic troubles like those we're currently suffering under.
Yet, as with so many important issues, Michael Arcuri is not on the job. H.R. 3017 is a strong bill, with 117 cosponsors. Congressman Arcuri is not among them.
Representative Arcuri won't protect his own constituents from job discrimination. Why should he be given another term in Congress?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Arcuri Won't Act On Marriage Equality
You'd have to have your head in the sand not to know that we have a big problem of marriage inequality here in New York State. The majority of New York State residents support the legalization of same-sex marriage. The New York State Assembly has passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. The New York Senate was about to pass such a law, until two Democrats, motivated by extreme bigotry to block the legislation, started caucusing with the Republicans. New York State government has been thrown into chaos because the anti-equality minority cannot stand the idea of gays and lesbians being given constitutionally-guaranteed equality under the law.
Here in the 24th congressional district, we have a lot of same-sex couples that are struggling under the current regime of inequality. In these economic hard times, it's especially troubling to see people suffering without health care and other benefits that they're entitled to get.
I don't know what it's like up in Utica, but in the southern part of the district, we've all got many friends and neighbors who are same-sex couples, living together as families, often with children. These people aren't a threat to anyone's heterosexual marriage. They aren't seeking special benefits. They're hard-working citizens who are only looking to be treated the same as everyone else.
But what will their representative in Congress, Mike Arcuri, do for them? Not a thing. Arcuri has neither introduced nor cosponsored any legislation to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples. As our state is brought to a standstill, Congressman Arcuri is completely inactive. Search Arcuri's congressional web site, and you'll see that he hasn't bothered to issue a press release, or make a little speech.
The LGBT residents of New York's 24th congressional district cannot depend upon Michael Arcuri to represent them in Washington D.C. For that matter, the many heterosexual allies who want equal rights for their LGBT friends and neighbors can't count upon Arcuri for representation either.
Where Representative Arcuri is lacking, the Green Party is not. The Green Party stands explicitly and forcefully in support of marriage equality, and full legal equality for homosexual Americans. The Green Party platform reads, "We support the recognition of equal rights of persons gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to housing, jobs, civil marriage, medical benefits, child custody, and in all areas of life provided to all other citizens."
Where Arcuri refuses to act to protect the legal rights of his district's residents, a Green Party representative in Congress would not. For that reason, I'm hoping that 24th district voters have the opportunity to vote for a Green Party candidate in the 2010 congressional election.
Here in the 24th congressional district, we have a lot of same-sex couples that are struggling under the current regime of inequality. In these economic hard times, it's especially troubling to see people suffering without health care and other benefits that they're entitled to get.
I don't know what it's like up in Utica, but in the southern part of the district, we've all got many friends and neighbors who are same-sex couples, living together as families, often with children. These people aren't a threat to anyone's heterosexual marriage. They aren't seeking special benefits. They're hard-working citizens who are only looking to be treated the same as everyone else.
But what will their representative in Congress, Mike Arcuri, do for them? Not a thing. Arcuri has neither introduced nor cosponsored any legislation to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples. As our state is brought to a standstill, Congressman Arcuri is completely inactive. Search Arcuri's congressional web site, and you'll see that he hasn't bothered to issue a press release, or make a little speech.
The LGBT residents of New York's 24th congressional district cannot depend upon Michael Arcuri to represent them in Washington D.C. For that matter, the many heterosexual allies who want equal rights for their LGBT friends and neighbors can't count upon Arcuri for representation either.
Where Representative Arcuri is lacking, the Green Party is not. The Green Party stands explicitly and forcefully in support of marriage equality, and full legal equality for homosexual Americans. The Green Party platform reads, "We support the recognition of equal rights of persons gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to housing, jobs, civil marriage, medical benefits, child custody, and in all areas of life provided to all other citizens."
Where Arcuri refuses to act to protect the legal rights of his district's residents, a Green Party representative in Congress would not. For that reason, I'm hoping that 24th district voters have the opportunity to vote for a Green Party candidate in the 2010 congressional election.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Mike Arcuri Only 21 Percent Progressive
24th district residents who have hoped that voting for Mike Arcuri would help bring about progressive change have been sadly disappointed. In the 111th Congress, Representative Arcuri has earned a progressive legislative score of only 21 out of 100 in the current session of Congress.
A 21 percent progressive? Is that what 24th congressional district voters thought they were voting for?
Representative Michael Arcuri has made himself part of the problem, not part of the solution.
A 21 percent progressive? Is that what 24th congressional district voters thought they were voting for?
Representative Michael Arcuri has made himself part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
24th District Green?
24th District Green? There will be some who could comment that I've always been a Green, and that may be true in some sense, but I've never been registered as a member of the Green Party of New York State before. Still, looking back I can see that the Green Party was always the right place for me.
I knew I could never be a Republican. I value science, liberty and the natural world too much for that. I was a Democrat for years, at times very active within the Party, because I believed that the Democrats supported my values, and would defend them against the Republican onslaught.
In 2002, the Democrats promised resistance to the Republican agenda... as soon as the election was over. They couldn't risk losing seats, they said. In 2004, the Democrats said we needed to accept a lot of Republican rhetoric from Democratic candidates, because the elections couldn't be lost, but there would be resistance, they promised... as soon as the election was over. In 2006, the Democrats said that they would resist the Republicans, but took impeachment off the table, and said that a progressive agenda would come soon... after the election. [This was when Blue Dog Mike Arcuri came along and said that he thought that the Republican Military Commissions Act was just great].
In 2008, we heard the same thing. Accept big government spying, and more coal-burning power plants, and increased offshore drilling, and mixing church and state, and gay bashing, we were told, but just for the campaign. Change, and hope, and Yes We Can will come, they said... after the election.
Now, it's after the election, and the Democrats, true to form, are breaking the promises they made to advance a progressive agenda. They're supporting government secrecy, and lobbyist influence, and more war, and fossil fuel energy expansion, homophobia, mixing church and state. They're not retracting the Bush-era laws that hobbled our civil liberties. They're not holding anyone accountable for the crimes of the last 8 years. They're throwing obscene amounts of money to the same corrupt corporations that got our economy into trouble in the first place.
At the state level, Democratic governors have been a disaster. They've missed the opportunity for a reinvestment in our state's social infrastructure because of their arrogance and corruption. David Paterson's insistence that higher income New Yorkers won't be asked to carry their share of the burden created by Wall Street's meltdown smashed his credibility. His appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand, an inexperienced Blue Dog who leans far to the right, was a confirmation that the Democrats are more interested in power than principle.
There are a few Democratic politicians I appreciate. I respect my representative in the New York State Assembly, for example, and some of the Democratic politicians in my town and county. These Democrats aren't enough to redeem their party, however. Supporting the Democratic Party has become an exercise of the delusional hope that a few worthy individuals can reform a corrupt organization.
I'm casting my lot with the Greens, because though they don't have power, they have principle. I'd rather lose trying to do the right thing than win with people who have shown that they can't be trusted with power they have already been given.
I knew I could never be a Republican. I value science, liberty and the natural world too much for that. I was a Democrat for years, at times very active within the Party, because I believed that the Democrats supported my values, and would defend them against the Republican onslaught.
In 2002, the Democrats promised resistance to the Republican agenda... as soon as the election was over. They couldn't risk losing seats, they said. In 2004, the Democrats said we needed to accept a lot of Republican rhetoric from Democratic candidates, because the elections couldn't be lost, but there would be resistance, they promised... as soon as the election was over. In 2006, the Democrats said that they would resist the Republicans, but took impeachment off the table, and said that a progressive agenda would come soon... after the election. [This was when Blue Dog Mike Arcuri came along and said that he thought that the Republican Military Commissions Act was just great].
In 2008, we heard the same thing. Accept big government spying, and more coal-burning power plants, and increased offshore drilling, and mixing church and state, and gay bashing, we were told, but just for the campaign. Change, and hope, and Yes We Can will come, they said... after the election.
Now, it's after the election, and the Democrats, true to form, are breaking the promises they made to advance a progressive agenda. They're supporting government secrecy, and lobbyist influence, and more war, and fossil fuel energy expansion, homophobia, mixing church and state. They're not retracting the Bush-era laws that hobbled our civil liberties. They're not holding anyone accountable for the crimes of the last 8 years. They're throwing obscene amounts of money to the same corrupt corporations that got our economy into trouble in the first place.
At the state level, Democratic governors have been a disaster. They've missed the opportunity for a reinvestment in our state's social infrastructure because of their arrogance and corruption. David Paterson's insistence that higher income New Yorkers won't be asked to carry their share of the burden created by Wall Street's meltdown smashed his credibility. His appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand, an inexperienced Blue Dog who leans far to the right, was a confirmation that the Democrats are more interested in power than principle.
There are a few Democratic politicians I appreciate. I respect my representative in the New York State Assembly, for example, and some of the Democratic politicians in my town and county. These Democrats aren't enough to redeem their party, however. Supporting the Democratic Party has become an exercise of the delusional hope that a few worthy individuals can reform a corrupt organization.
I'm casting my lot with the Greens, because though they don't have power, they have principle. I'd rather lose trying to do the right thing than win with people who have shown that they can't be trusted with power they have already been given.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Mike Arcuri Joining Bush Republicans For Unlimited Spying
What a disappointment. Congressman Michael Arcuri has done it again. He's wimped out, gone soft as a noodle, and given in to Republican demands.
George W. Bush is a lame duck, the least popular President in American history. If ever there was a time when Mike Arcuri would be able to stand up Bush and the Republicans, now would be it.
Sadly, Representative Arcuri fails.
Michael Arcuri intends to vote in favor of expanding George W. Bush's powers yet again. Just as Arcuri supported the Military Commissions Act, which was just ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court this month, Arcuri is now supporting the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304.
The FISA Amendments Act allows the White House to listen to our telephone calls, read your emails, and even track people's physical movements through GPS. Additionally, physical searches of Americans' homes and businesses is allowed at the whim of the Attorney General. Electronic surveillance is allowed without a search warrant, and without any real judicial review. The Attorney General sets the spying operations in motion, and then is the only one with the power to certify that they meet the requirements of the law and the Constitution. No congressional oversight.
Then there's the issue of retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations that broke the law by helping President Bush spy on Americans without going to the FISA courts. The D.C. office of Congressman Michael Arcuri is shamelessly claiming that H.R. 6304 is a "compromise" that does not provide retroactive immunity.
If you have actually read the bill, you can see that Arcuri's office is not being honest in this regard. The legislation clearly gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations, with nothing more required than the President's approval.
Attorney Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains, "Whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity is anything but: the current proposal is the exact same blanket immunity that the Senate passed in February and that the House rejected in March, only with a few new bells and whistles."
The provisions of H.R. 6304 are unconstitutional violations of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights clearly states that any searches by government officials must be upheld by a search warrant backed by proof of valid suspicion of criminal activity. H.R. 6304 purposefully evades these requirements, and makes the Bill of Rights meaningless.
It seems that whenever there is an election coming up, Michael Arcuri will happily abandon his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution. First, Arcuri helped to toss habeas corpus and fair trials out the window. Now, Arcuri joins George W. Bush again to help him spy against American citizens without restraint.
What a disappointment Arcuri has been. What a wasted opportunity. What a sorry excuse for a Democrat.
George W. Bush is a lame duck, the least popular President in American history. If ever there was a time when Mike Arcuri would be able to stand up Bush and the Republicans, now would be it.
Sadly, Representative Arcuri fails.
Michael Arcuri intends to vote in favor of expanding George W. Bush's powers yet again. Just as Arcuri supported the Military Commissions Act, which was just ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court this month, Arcuri is now supporting the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304.
The FISA Amendments Act allows the White House to listen to our telephone calls, read your emails, and even track people's physical movements through GPS. Additionally, physical searches of Americans' homes and businesses is allowed at the whim of the Attorney General. Electronic surveillance is allowed without a search warrant, and without any real judicial review. The Attorney General sets the spying operations in motion, and then is the only one with the power to certify that they meet the requirements of the law and the Constitution. No congressional oversight.
Then there's the issue of retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations that broke the law by helping President Bush spy on Americans without going to the FISA courts. The D.C. office of Congressman Michael Arcuri is shamelessly claiming that H.R. 6304 is a "compromise" that does not provide retroactive immunity.
If you have actually read the bill, you can see that Arcuri's office is not being honest in this regard. The legislation clearly gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations, with nothing more required than the President's approval.
Attorney Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains, "Whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity is anything but: the current proposal is the exact same blanket immunity that the Senate passed in February and that the House rejected in March, only with a few new bells and whistles."
The provisions of H.R. 6304 are unconstitutional violations of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights clearly states that any searches by government officials must be upheld by a search warrant backed by proof of valid suspicion of criminal activity. H.R. 6304 purposefully evades these requirements, and makes the Bill of Rights meaningless.
It seems that whenever there is an election coming up, Michael Arcuri will happily abandon his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution. First, Arcuri helped to toss habeas corpus and fair trials out the window. Now, Arcuri joins George W. Bush again to help him spy against American citizens without restraint.
What a disappointment Arcuri has been. What a wasted opportunity. What a sorry excuse for a Democrat.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Michael Arcuri Relents On Military Commissions Act
There's great news for the people of New York's 24th congressional district this week. Mike Arcuri, who is in his first months of representing us in the U.S. House, has relented on the Military Commissions Act.
It was a great disappointment to many people here last year when, as a candidate, Michael Arcuri said that he thought the Military Commissions Act was a great idea, and that if he were in Congress, he would have voted for it. The Military Commissions Act represents the kind of abuse of power that the Democratic Party is supposed to stand against.
It revoked the protection of habeas corpus.
It ended enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.
It legalized torture.
It replaced the authority of ordinary American courts with a new system of kangaroo courts with outrageously low standards of justice, and trials conducted in secret
It replaced the presumption of innocence with the presumption of guilt
It gave the President of the United States the power to arbitrarily imprison someone without trial, stripping people of their rights through the declaration of their status as "enemy"
The problem was that when he said he approved of the Military Commissions Act, candidate Michael Arcuri and his campaign staff had not bothered to actually read the legislation. They didn't know what a terrible thing they were supporting.
Since Arcuri has become a member of Congress, however, he has been persuaded to consider the actual contact of the Military Commissions Act. Looking at the facts of what the Military Commissions Act does, it appears that Congressman Arcuri has come to the reasonable conclusion that the Military Commissions Act's assaults on the foundations of American freedom are unacceptable.
Michael Arcuri has added his co-sponsorship to H.R. 1415, the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. This new legislation comes the closest of any legislation in the House of Representatives to repealing the Military Commissions Act. It was originally sponsored by veteran congressman from New York State Jerrold Nadler, though it is essentially the same bill that was written for the Senate by Christopher Dodd, who is also running for the Democratic nominaton for President in 2008 on the basis of his opposition to the Military Commissions Act.
If only it didn't take so long for Arcuri to be persuaded to reverse his position, some good might have been done. However, Congressman Arcuri seems only willing to take a principled stand when it isn't election time.
It was a great disappointment to many people here last year when, as a candidate, Michael Arcuri said that he thought the Military Commissions Act was a great idea, and that if he were in Congress, he would have voted for it. The Military Commissions Act represents the kind of abuse of power that the Democratic Party is supposed to stand against.
The problem was that when he said he approved of the Military Commissions Act, candidate Michael Arcuri and his campaign staff had not bothered to actually read the legislation. They didn't know what a terrible thing they were supporting.
Since Arcuri has become a member of Congress, however, he has been persuaded to consider the actual contact of the Military Commissions Act. Looking at the facts of what the Military Commissions Act does, it appears that Congressman Arcuri has come to the reasonable conclusion that the Military Commissions Act's assaults on the foundations of American freedom are unacceptable.
Michael Arcuri has added his co-sponsorship to H.R. 1415, the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. This new legislation comes the closest of any legislation in the House of Representatives to repealing the Military Commissions Act. It was originally sponsored by veteran congressman from New York State Jerrold Nadler, though it is essentially the same bill that was written for the Senate by Christopher Dodd, who is also running for the Democratic nominaton for President in 2008 on the basis of his opposition to the Military Commissions Act.
If only it didn't take so long for Arcuri to be persuaded to reverse his position, some good might have been done. However, Congressman Arcuri seems only willing to take a principled stand when it isn't election time.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Michael Arcuri Disagrees With Surge. Now What?
Readers of yore know that I am suspicious when it comes to Congressman Michael Arcuri. Representative Arcuri is the kind of Democrat who leans toward being a Republican a lot of the time. He has, as a former District Attorney, a record of pushing a law and order attitude that sometimes fails to recognize people's legal rights. Arcuri's support of the Military Commissions Act is a form of this attitude writ large.
Still, there are some areas in which Mike Arcuri could be redeemed. On the matter of Iraq, for example, Congressman Arcuri seems yet to have formed a coherent position. During the campaign last year, Arcuri fumbled and fudged, and avoided giving specifics beyond such vague promises as "benchmarks".
As last week's change of heart on the House legislation to set an end date for the war in Iraq shows, we can influence Arcuri. The change of heart came after calls from constituents who requested that Arcuri take a firm stand.
Michael Arcuri certainly did the right thing in February, when he voted for the non-binding resolution disagreeing with George W. Bush's plan for an escalation in Iraq - a plan which has failed, as this weekend's carnage illustrates. However, that was just a non-binding resolution, expressing an opinion.
The campaign is over. It's no longer time to just say what you would do, if elected, or what opinion you have about what the President is doing. It's time for clear action.
Supporting this month's legislation with a specific end date for the war in Iraq is a good start, but with the Senate's failure to pass equivalent legislation, more action will be needed.
Let's keep an eye on Congressman Arcuri, and watch how he votes.
Still, there are some areas in which Mike Arcuri could be redeemed. On the matter of Iraq, for example, Congressman Arcuri seems yet to have formed a coherent position. During the campaign last year, Arcuri fumbled and fudged, and avoided giving specifics beyond such vague promises as "benchmarks".
As last week's change of heart on the House legislation to set an end date for the war in Iraq shows, we can influence Arcuri. The change of heart came after calls from constituents who requested that Arcuri take a firm stand.
Michael Arcuri certainly did the right thing in February, when he voted for the non-binding resolution disagreeing with George W. Bush's plan for an escalation in Iraq - a plan which has failed, as this weekend's carnage illustrates. However, that was just a non-binding resolution, expressing an opinion.
The campaign is over. It's no longer time to just say what you would do, if elected, or what opinion you have about what the President is doing. It's time for clear action.
Supporting this month's legislation with a specific end date for the war in Iraq is a good start, but with the Senate's failure to pass equivalent legislation, more action will be needed.
Let's keep an eye on Congressman Arcuri, and watch how he votes.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Mike Arcuri Relents on Iraq
The antiwar majority of New York State's 24th congressional district can be proud of itself this morning. As a result of pressure from our district's voters, Michael Arcuri has changed his position on the legislation to end the war in Iraq.
At first, Congressman Arcuri was standing firm with the rest of his right wing caucus of Blue Dog Democrats. Once Arcuri's pro-war position became known, however, his offices began to receive telephone calls questioning his judgment.
Now, Mike Arcuri has promised to vote in favor of the resolution to end the war.
If you called Arcuri's offices, good for you.
At first, Congressman Arcuri was standing firm with the rest of his right wing caucus of Blue Dog Democrats. Once Arcuri's pro-war position became known, however, his offices began to receive telephone calls questioning his judgment.
Now, Mike Arcuri has promised to vote in favor of the resolution to end the war.
If you called Arcuri's offices, good for you.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Michael Arcuri Wavers on Iraq
It was an email from MoveOn that got me back to writing this blog.
It seems that Michael Arcuri is considering whether he will side with the Republicans, against the Democrats, on the resolution to end the Iraq War. No kidding.
From the MoveOn message:
Could this be the same Michael Arcuri who used the aw shucks story about talking to his son about ending the war in Iraq while campaigning last year? Yup, same guy. Apparently, Arcuri is having a very different conversation with his son now: A conversation about flip-flopping.
I wonder, how do the Utica Democrats feel now about putting this guy in Congress?
If you're a Democrat who voted for Michael Arcuri, give his office a phone call at 202-225-3665, and remind him what he was elected to do.
It seems that Michael Arcuri is considering whether he will side with the Republicans, against the Democrats, on the resolution to end the Iraq War. No kidding.
From the MoveOn message:
"Dick Cheney and his allies in Congress are on an all-out assault—saying that Democrats are "undermining the troops" by trying to end the war.1 And some Democrats are wavering.
Can you call Rep. Arcuri and tell him that you want our troops home safely this year? They won't vote until next week so we still have time to affect the final plan and your call could make all the difference.
Congressman Michael Arcuri
Phone: 202-225-3665"
"Some representatives are afraid. They're nervous about taking any measures to end the war. It's a political calculation—they don't want to "own" the war, they want it to be Bush's problem. That's a failure of leadership: How do you tell our troops that they're being asked to fight and die because Democrats don't want to "own" the war?"
Could this be the same Michael Arcuri who used the aw shucks story about talking to his son about ending the war in Iraq while campaigning last year? Yup, same guy. Apparently, Arcuri is having a very different conversation with his son now: A conversation about flip-flopping.
I wonder, how do the Utica Democrats feel now about putting this guy in Congress?
If you're a Democrat who voted for Michael Arcuri, give his office a phone call at 202-225-3665, and remind him what he was elected to do.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Will Michael Arcuri Join Pelosi in Silence on Military Commissions Act?
This morning, the Washington Post laments that the new Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives seems to have no intention of investigation, much less providing a remedy for, the infamous Military Commissions Act.
For those who have not paid attention to the news this autumn, the Military Commissions Act does the following:
Revokes the right of habeas corpus
Ends enforcement of the Geneva Conventions
Legalizes torture
Gives war criminals legal amnesty
Sets up kangaroo courts with absurd standards of justice
Provides the President of the United States the power to imprison people without any criminal charge or proof of wrongdoing
Democrats were elected to Congress to challenge the Republican way of doing things. But, so far, Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem very interested in dealing with the most serious Republican abuses: The Republicans' attacks upon the liberty that Americans once held dear. Do Americans still hold that liberty dear?
Some clearly do. Others don't seem to care - and among those others are many Democrats. Nancy Pelosi did not vote for the Military Commissions Act, but she faces a House of Representatives in which the majority of members did, or would have, if they had been elected. New Congressman Mike Arcuri is among those who supported the Military Comissions Act. He thought it was a jim dandy idea.
When a big chunk of the Democratic Congress joins the Republicans in supporting laws like the Military Commissions Act, we may have a Democratic Party majority in Congress, but more functionally, we still have a Congress that disdains the effort to protect the freedoms guaranteed us under the Bill of Rights.
We will see, in a few short weeks, what kind of Congressman Michael Arcuri will really be. Will he work with other Democrats to take action on the Military Commissions Act? If he follows the new House leadership, it appears that he won't. Here's what the Washington Post's editorial board had to say this morning about the House Democratic leaderships apparent plan of inaction on the Military Commissions Act:
For those who have not paid attention to the news this autumn, the Military Commissions Act does the following:
Democrats were elected to Congress to challenge the Republican way of doing things. But, so far, Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem very interested in dealing with the most serious Republican abuses: The Republicans' attacks upon the liberty that Americans once held dear. Do Americans still hold that liberty dear?
Some clearly do. Others don't seem to care - and among those others are many Democrats. Nancy Pelosi did not vote for the Military Commissions Act, but she faces a House of Representatives in which the majority of members did, or would have, if they had been elected. New Congressman Mike Arcuri is among those who supported the Military Comissions Act. He thought it was a jim dandy idea.
When a big chunk of the Democratic Congress joins the Republicans in supporting laws like the Military Commissions Act, we may have a Democratic Party majority in Congress, but more functionally, we still have a Congress that disdains the effort to protect the freedoms guaranteed us under the Bill of Rights.
We will see, in a few short weeks, what kind of Congressman Michael Arcuri will really be. Will he work with other Democrats to take action on the Military Commissions Act? If he follows the new House leadership, it appears that he won't. Here's what the Washington Post's editorial board had to say this morning about the House Democratic leaderships apparent plan of inaction on the Military Commissions Act:
"Future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently named three priorities for investigation, including private contracting in Iraq, the handling of Hurricane Katrina and the administration's formulation of energy policy. It's hard to understand why Democrats would insist on examining Vice President Cheney's first-term energy task force but would not seek to determine -- at last -- how senior military commanders and defense officials may have contributed to the prisoner abuse scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. No one but low-ranking soldiers has been criminally prosecuted for the shocking abuse at Abu Ghraib, despite evidence that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and several top generals played a role in sanctioning practices such as sexually humiliating prisoners and threatening them with dogs. Democrats now will have the opportunity -- and the duty -- to insist on accountability."
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Congress Must Act to Restrain Security State Insanity
What's shown, or heard, in this video may be the tipping point that finally brings America face to face with the nightmarish implications of its Homeland Security paranoia. Watch it. More than that, listen to it, because much of the action is obscured by the crowd of witnesses...
...witnesses of the repeated attacks by police against a UCLA student, using a taser stun gun. What had the student done? Had he been violent? No. He was simply reading books in his own university library, without identification. For that, the police shocked him over and over again, with the student screaming in pain each time. I count at least 5 times the student was shocked.
I'm putting this movie on this blog, because it is a sign of a serious problem that Congress needs to deal with: The security paranoia in the United States has gotten out of hand. As the Los Angeles Times reports, this is not an isolated incident. More and more, police are being caught on tape using violent force against people just for refusing to show identification in public places.
The police in this particular incident were so violent that they threatened to attack one witness, David Remesnitsky, with their stun gun simply for not leaving the scene of the brutality.
Describing the attack, Remesnitsky said, "It was beyond grotesque. By the end they took him over the stairs, lifted him up and Tasered him on his rear end. It seemed like it was inappropriately placed. The Tasering was so unnecessary and they just kept doing it."
We don't need security sweeps of police officers through university libraries, attacking students with stun guns, to keep us safe. Homeland Security has gone too far. The Democratic Congress ought to be holding hearings on this problem, and finding ways to bring the security paranoia back under control.
Well, that's my reaction, anyway, after watching a student being electrically shocked over and over and over and over again. But, as the Democrats in this district keeps on telling me, I'm just part of the liberal fringe that Congressman Arcuri wants to distance himself from.
Maybe this kind of thing is what the Democratic mainstream wants: Strong shows of force against students emperiling the security of the Homeland by reading books without an ID. Maybe most people feel safer with these kinds of security sweeps taking place. Law and order and all that.
We're all in danger, after all, right? There are terrorists lurking in every airport, just waiting for us to stop putting our shoes through the X-ray machines, right?
...witnesses of the repeated attacks by police against a UCLA student, using a taser stun gun. What had the student done? Had he been violent? No. He was simply reading books in his own university library, without identification. For that, the police shocked him over and over again, with the student screaming in pain each time. I count at least 5 times the student was shocked.
I'm putting this movie on this blog, because it is a sign of a serious problem that Congress needs to deal with: The security paranoia in the United States has gotten out of hand. As the Los Angeles Times reports, this is not an isolated incident. More and more, police are being caught on tape using violent force against people just for refusing to show identification in public places.
The police in this particular incident were so violent that they threatened to attack one witness, David Remesnitsky, with their stun gun simply for not leaving the scene of the brutality.
Describing the attack, Remesnitsky said, "It was beyond grotesque. By the end they took him over the stairs, lifted him up and Tasered him on his rear end. It seemed like it was inappropriately placed. The Tasering was so unnecessary and they just kept doing it."
We don't need security sweeps of police officers through university libraries, attacking students with stun guns, to keep us safe. Homeland Security has gone too far. The Democratic Congress ought to be holding hearings on this problem, and finding ways to bring the security paranoia back under control.
Well, that's my reaction, anyway, after watching a student being electrically shocked over and over and over and over again. But, as the Democrats in this district keeps on telling me, I'm just part of the liberal fringe that Congressman Arcuri wants to distance himself from.
Maybe this kind of thing is what the Democratic mainstream wants: Strong shows of force against students emperiling the security of the Homeland by reading books without an ID. Maybe most people feel safer with these kinds of security sweeps taking place. Law and order and all that.
We're all in danger, after all, right? There are terrorists lurking in every airport, just waiting for us to stop putting our shoes through the X-ray machines, right?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Don't Judge Michael Arcuri On This Vote
Michael Arcuri is set to take one of his first actions as a member of Congress, voting for majority leader of the House of Representatives. There's a real contest for that seat, between Steny Hoyer and John Murtha. Steny Hoyer is the longtime Democratic Party Whip in the House of Representatives, and John Murtha gained nationwide fame recently by coming out in favor of ending the Iraq War.
John Murtha is to be thanked for supporting an end to the Iraq War, and giving cover to other Democrats on the issue. However, Murtha has a right wing voting record on many issues that makes him a troubling pick for Majority Leader in a Democratic House. Murtha voted in favor of starting the war in Iraq in the first place, for one thing. Murtha has also supported attacks on the Endangered Species Act and voted in favor of ridiculous measures such as amending the Constitution in order to ban flag burning.
Worse than John Murtha's affinity for parts of the right wing agenda is his long history of corruption. The Democrats promised to clean up corruption in the House, but that promise looks like a sham with the nomination of Murtha. Melanie Sloan, the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, comments, "Pelosi's endorsement suggests to me she was interested in the culture of corruption only as a campaign issue and has no real interest in true reform."
Steny Hoyer doesn't have the long history of corruption that John Murtha has had, but he does share Murtha's propensity for abandoning the Democratic Party mainstream in Congress in order to vote with the Republicans on important issues. For example, Hoyer recently crossed party lines in order to vote to renew the Patriot Act in spite of serious concerns about the law's use in assembling gigantic government databases filled with information about the private, legal activities of American citizens. Hoyer's job as Democratic Whip was to make sure that as few Democratic members of the House crossed party lines as possible, so what was he doing crossing working with George W. Bush and the Republicans? Hoyer's failures as Democratic Whip, serving during a time when the Congressional Democrats became famous for their lack cohesion, suggests that he won't do a good job as Majority Leader.
Then there's Congressman Hoyer's support for the Iraq War. Like Murtha, Hoyer voted against the will of the majority of Democratic voters in 2002 when he helped George W. Bush start the war. At least Murtha eventually saw the error of his ways. Not Hoyer. Steny Hoyer has kept on supporting the Iraq War, long after any rational justifications for doing so fell away.
Who will new Congressman Michael Arcuri vote for in this election for Majority Leader? Arcuri says he supports Steny Hoyer. That's not a good choice. On the other hand, voting for Murtha wouldn't be a good choice either. Arcuri's worth as a member of Congress cannot be judged by this vote.
However, the Democrats of the House of Representatives in general certainly can be judged for this vote. Steny Hoyer and John Murtha may be powerful, but they are not at all the most qualified for the job of Majority Leader. The Democrats said they'd run things differently if they got the majority back, but the Murtha-Hoyer contest does not instill confidence.
John Murtha is to be thanked for supporting an end to the Iraq War, and giving cover to other Democrats on the issue. However, Murtha has a right wing voting record on many issues that makes him a troubling pick for Majority Leader in a Democratic House. Murtha voted in favor of starting the war in Iraq in the first place, for one thing. Murtha has also supported attacks on the Endangered Species Act and voted in favor of ridiculous measures such as amending the Constitution in order to ban flag burning.
Worse than John Murtha's affinity for parts of the right wing agenda is his long history of corruption. The Democrats promised to clean up corruption in the House, but that promise looks like a sham with the nomination of Murtha. Melanie Sloan, the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, comments, "Pelosi's endorsement suggests to me she was interested in the culture of corruption only as a campaign issue and has no real interest in true reform."
Steny Hoyer doesn't have the long history of corruption that John Murtha has had, but he does share Murtha's propensity for abandoning the Democratic Party mainstream in Congress in order to vote with the Republicans on important issues. For example, Hoyer recently crossed party lines in order to vote to renew the Patriot Act in spite of serious concerns about the law's use in assembling gigantic government databases filled with information about the private, legal activities of American citizens. Hoyer's job as Democratic Whip was to make sure that as few Democratic members of the House crossed party lines as possible, so what was he doing crossing working with George W. Bush and the Republicans? Hoyer's failures as Democratic Whip, serving during a time when the Congressional Democrats became famous for their lack cohesion, suggests that he won't do a good job as Majority Leader.
Then there's Congressman Hoyer's support for the Iraq War. Like Murtha, Hoyer voted against the will of the majority of Democratic voters in 2002 when he helped George W. Bush start the war. At least Murtha eventually saw the error of his ways. Not Hoyer. Steny Hoyer has kept on supporting the Iraq War, long after any rational justifications for doing so fell away.
Who will new Congressman Michael Arcuri vote for in this election for Majority Leader? Arcuri says he supports Steny Hoyer. That's not a good choice. On the other hand, voting for Murtha wouldn't be a good choice either. Arcuri's worth as a member of Congress cannot be judged by this vote.
However, the Democrats of the House of Representatives in general certainly can be judged for this vote. Steny Hoyer and John Murtha may be powerful, but they are not at all the most qualified for the job of Majority Leader. The Democrats said they'd run things differently if they got the majority back, but the Murtha-Hoyer contest does not instill confidence.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Reason for Skepticism of Arcuri and House Democrats
The Democrats have retaken the Congress, and this has been the cause of much celebrating across America. Celebrating is fun, but it doesn't actually get anything done.
Luckily, the new Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives has come out with a plan for getting things done. Unfortunately, that plan gives great cause for skepticism.
Go ahead and look at the House Democrats' legislative plan. Notice something missing? I'll give you a hint: The central issue of the 2006 congressional campaign was, for most voters, the war in Iraq.
There's nothing in the House Democrats' plan about Iraq at all. No plan for Iraq.
There's also nothing in the House Democrats' plan for dealing with the Military Commissions Act, or the new warrantless wiretapping legalization, or any of the other serious attacks on our liberty. Go ahead and search the entire website of the incoming House Democratic leadership. I did. On the entire web site, there is not a single mention of the Military Commissions Act. There isn't one mention of habeas corpus.
The House Democrats do mention torture, though - 4 times. Unfortunately, the last time they did so was in April, 2005.
At the bottom of the House Democratic leadership's 100 hours plan, there is the statement, "This new direction represents the priorities of a unified Democratic Party. This is our pledge to the American people."
Were these your priorities in voting for Democrat Mike Arcuri? No plan for Iraq? Do nothing about restoring the foundations of liberty in America?
Maybe the House Democrats have another, second, secret plan to deal with these other priorities later. Maybe, but there is good cause for skepticism.
The time for party loyalty and the election rhetoric is over. We need to look at the facts of what the Democrats say they plan to do, not what we assume or hope that they would do.
Promises by someone who has no legislative record are easy to make, and easy to break.
Michael Arcuri hasn't had the chance to actually do anything as a member of Congress. No votes yet. No cosponsorships yet. As those opportunities for action come, however, I'll be keeping track here of what Michael Arcuri actually does.
Luckily, the new Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives has come out with a plan for getting things done. Unfortunately, that plan gives great cause for skepticism.
Go ahead and look at the House Democrats' legislative plan. Notice something missing? I'll give you a hint: The central issue of the 2006 congressional campaign was, for most voters, the war in Iraq.
There's nothing in the House Democrats' plan about Iraq at all. No plan for Iraq.
There's also nothing in the House Democrats' plan for dealing with the Military Commissions Act, or the new warrantless wiretapping legalization, or any of the other serious attacks on our liberty. Go ahead and search the entire website of the incoming House Democratic leadership. I did. On the entire web site, there is not a single mention of the Military Commissions Act. There isn't one mention of habeas corpus.
The House Democrats do mention torture, though - 4 times. Unfortunately, the last time they did so was in April, 2005.
At the bottom of the House Democratic leadership's 100 hours plan, there is the statement, "This new direction represents the priorities of a unified Democratic Party. This is our pledge to the American people."
Were these your priorities in voting for Democrat Mike Arcuri? No plan for Iraq? Do nothing about restoring the foundations of liberty in America?
Maybe the House Democrats have another, second, secret plan to deal with these other priorities later. Maybe, but there is good cause for skepticism.
The time for party loyalty and the election rhetoric is over. We need to look at the facts of what the Democrats say they plan to do, not what we assume or hope that they would do.
Promises by someone who has no legislative record are easy to make, and easy to break.
Michael Arcuri hasn't had the chance to actually do anything as a member of Congress. No votes yet. No cosponsorships yet. As those opportunities for action come, however, I'll be keeping track here of what Michael Arcuri actually does.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Learned from Michael Arcuri's Victory
I learned a few very important things from Michael Arcuri's strong victory last night:
1. My political opinions are not representative of the opinions of the Democrats in the 24th congressional district.
2. My political opinions are not represented by the Democrats of the 24th congressional district.
3. In our district, the huge majority of Democrats will not reject the Democratic candidate for Congress
4. Independents are a major force to be reckoned with in the 24th congressional district, even though they're poorly understood, and may not really be a force so much as a collection of tens of thousands of forces that occasionally move in the same direction
5. I really ought to stop making predictions about what will happen in the future
Most Democratic voters in this district seem to have been unconcerned that Michael Arcuri supports the Military Commissions Act. Heck, they may not even know what the Military Commissions Act is, or care to know. There may even be some Democrats in this district who know what the Military Commissions Act is and are glad that Michael Arcuri supports it.
This makes me part of that "liberal fringe" that Michael Arcuri blasted earlier on in the campaign. That bothers me, that it's just a tiny fringe of the Democratic Party now that cares about things like the end of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, and the legalization of torture.
There is another group of Democrats in this district than those I've already mentioned, though, a small group: They're the Democrats who know what the Military Commissions Act is, know that Michael Arcuri supports it, are disturbed about that support, but voted for Arcuri anyway. This small group voted for Michael Arcuri because they were worried that, if they didn't help Arcuri get elected, they would be responsible for the Democrats failing to take back control of the House of Representatives.
This group of Democrats made a figurative deal with the devil. As with all deals with the devil, the devil came out on top. Michael Arcuri's win was actually not at all necessary to the effort to take back the House of Representatives from the Republicans. The Democrats needed 15 seats. By my count, they got at least 27.
Some of these Democrats may harbor fantasies that Michael Arcuri will be challenged from within the Democratic Party in 2008. I'm not going to predict for certain that that won't happen, because I've learned that I'm pretty bad at making political predictions. However, I will observe that the Democratic County Committees have learned a couple of nasty lessons:
1. If they don't let the voters have a political primary, victory results.
2. With a shift toward the right wing of the Democratic Party, victory results.
Given this learning, why in the world would the Democratic County Committees in this district abandon what gave them success, and support a progressive challenger? No, the Democrats are stuck with a decidedly unprogressive Michael Arcuri now, at least until he's defeated by a Republican.
But, then, I'm not a Democrat any longer. I started out this year blogging as 24 Democrat, but now end it writing as 24 independent. Clearly, a person like myself doesn't really fit well within the Democratic Party of New York's 24th congressional district. I'm re-registered as a non-affiliated voter, though that registration won't take effect until 2008.
Let the Democrats celebrate. As for myself, I'll be watching what Congressman Arcuri actually does in Washington D.C., for good and for bad.
Read on, if you like, when the next session of Congress begins in January.
1. My political opinions are not representative of the opinions of the Democrats in the 24th congressional district.
2. My political opinions are not represented by the Democrats of the 24th congressional district.
3. In our district, the huge majority of Democrats will not reject the Democratic candidate for Congress
4. Independents are a major force to be reckoned with in the 24th congressional district, even though they're poorly understood, and may not really be a force so much as a collection of tens of thousands of forces that occasionally move in the same direction
5. I really ought to stop making predictions about what will happen in the future
Most Democratic voters in this district seem to have been unconcerned that Michael Arcuri supports the Military Commissions Act. Heck, they may not even know what the Military Commissions Act is, or care to know. There may even be some Democrats in this district who know what the Military Commissions Act is and are glad that Michael Arcuri supports it.
This makes me part of that "liberal fringe" that Michael Arcuri blasted earlier on in the campaign. That bothers me, that it's just a tiny fringe of the Democratic Party now that cares about things like the end of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, and the legalization of torture.
There is another group of Democrats in this district than those I've already mentioned, though, a small group: They're the Democrats who know what the Military Commissions Act is, know that Michael Arcuri supports it, are disturbed about that support, but voted for Arcuri anyway. This small group voted for Michael Arcuri because they were worried that, if they didn't help Arcuri get elected, they would be responsible for the Democrats failing to take back control of the House of Representatives.
This group of Democrats made a figurative deal with the devil. As with all deals with the devil, the devil came out on top. Michael Arcuri's win was actually not at all necessary to the effort to take back the House of Representatives from the Republicans. The Democrats needed 15 seats. By my count, they got at least 27.
Some of these Democrats may harbor fantasies that Michael Arcuri will be challenged from within the Democratic Party in 2008. I'm not going to predict for certain that that won't happen, because I've learned that I'm pretty bad at making political predictions. However, I will observe that the Democratic County Committees have learned a couple of nasty lessons:
1. If they don't let the voters have a political primary, victory results.
2. With a shift toward the right wing of the Democratic Party, victory results.
Given this learning, why in the world would the Democratic County Committees in this district abandon what gave them success, and support a progressive challenger? No, the Democrats are stuck with a decidedly unprogressive Michael Arcuri now, at least until he's defeated by a Republican.
But, then, I'm not a Democrat any longer. I started out this year blogging as 24 Democrat, but now end it writing as 24 independent. Clearly, a person like myself doesn't really fit well within the Democratic Party of New York's 24th congressional district. I'm re-registered as a non-affiliated voter, though that registration won't take effect until 2008.
Let the Democrats celebrate. As for myself, I'll be watching what Congressman Arcuri actually does in Washington D.C., for good and for bad.
Read on, if you like, when the next session of Congress begins in January.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Mike Arcuri and Ray Meier Death Penalty Pander
Congressional elections sort out the wheat from the chaff. True leaders respond to the pressure of campaigning by rising above the level of crass politicking and popular gimmicks to stand for what's right, inspiring voters to join them in the effort to make things better. Weak-minded politicians who cannot muster the courage or creativity necessary to make such a stand appeal instead to cheap, crowd-pleasing gestures that turn voters on without requiring them to think.
Here in the 24th congressional district of New York State, we have been stuck with a couple of big pieces of chaff this year, weak-minded politicians so obsessed with pleasing voters that they have descended into pandering to us.
Take flag burning, for example. Both Ray Meier and Michael Arcuri have come out in opposition to it. But, is it a meaningful issue? Have we got a rash of flag burnings going on here in the 24th district? Can anyone remember the last time that someone burned a flag here? Would we really want to make it a crime to engage in that kind of protest, and if so, what other forms of protest should we criminalize? Flag burning isn't so much an issue as it is an opportunity for Michael Arcuri and Ray Meier to appeal to the bigoted resentment of the expression of unpopular ideas.
The pandering gets more serious when it comes to the death penalty, however. Both Ray Meier and Michael Arcuri have campaigned as strong supporters of the death penalty. That's a popular position to take. It makes a lot of people happy to think of bad guys getting killed as punishment for their crimes.
The problem is that the death penalty is nothing but a crowd-pleasing gimmick. It isn't a serious policy.
Thanks to the pandering of Republican politicians in Albany, we had the death penalty in New York State for many years. But, during all that time, not a single person was actually executed. The last execution of a person in New York State was in 1963. Then, you have to back another 19 years to get the last execution before that. Although there was a death penalty in effect for most of the 20th century in New York State, only 8 people were executed during that time.
The reason for this tiny number of executions is that the death penalty just doesn't work. The legal apparatus of the death penalty has never really been worked out, and the result is that either hardly anyone is ever executed, or too many people, including a lot of innocent people, are put to death. The recent DNA proof of large numbers of innocent people put on death row ought to give any thinking person serious doubts about the death penalty.
Of course, Ray Meier and Michael Arcuri haven't shown themselves to be thinking people this year. They're politicians out pandering for votes.
Mike Arcuri and Ray Meier support the death penalty, not because the death penalty would do a thing to make our lives better here in New York, but because they want to create the impression that they're tough guys.
Tough guys are the last thing we need in Congress right now. We need smart guys, and guys with integrity. We need leaders who have the capacity to grow into statesmen.
We here in the 24th district won't what we need this year. Go out and vote today. Voting is important. Just don't have any illusions about the race for the House of Representatives. This year, you'll only have the opportunity to pick your particular preference of pander.
Just close your eyes and think of 2008.
Here in the 24th congressional district of New York State, we have been stuck with a couple of big pieces of chaff this year, weak-minded politicians so obsessed with pleasing voters that they have descended into pandering to us.
Take flag burning, for example. Both Ray Meier and Michael Arcuri have come out in opposition to it. But, is it a meaningful issue? Have we got a rash of flag burnings going on here in the 24th district? Can anyone remember the last time that someone burned a flag here? Would we really want to make it a crime to engage in that kind of protest, and if so, what other forms of protest should we criminalize? Flag burning isn't so much an issue as it is an opportunity for Michael Arcuri and Ray Meier to appeal to the bigoted resentment of the expression of unpopular ideas.
The pandering gets more serious when it comes to the death penalty, however. Both Ray Meier and Michael Arcuri have campaigned as strong supporters of the death penalty. That's a popular position to take. It makes a lot of people happy to think of bad guys getting killed as punishment for their crimes.
The problem is that the death penalty is nothing but a crowd-pleasing gimmick. It isn't a serious policy.
Thanks to the pandering of Republican politicians in Albany, we had the death penalty in New York State for many years. But, during all that time, not a single person was actually executed. The last execution of a person in New York State was in 1963. Then, you have to back another 19 years to get the last execution before that. Although there was a death penalty in effect for most of the 20th century in New York State, only 8 people were executed during that time.
The reason for this tiny number of executions is that the death penalty just doesn't work. The legal apparatus of the death penalty has never really been worked out, and the result is that either hardly anyone is ever executed, or too many people, including a lot of innocent people, are put to death. The recent DNA proof of large numbers of innocent people put on death row ought to give any thinking person serious doubts about the death penalty.
Of course, Ray Meier and Michael Arcuri haven't shown themselves to be thinking people this year. They're politicians out pandering for votes.
Mike Arcuri and Ray Meier support the death penalty, not because the death penalty would do a thing to make our lives better here in New York, but because they want to create the impression that they're tough guys.
Tough guys are the last thing we need in Congress right now. We need smart guys, and guys with integrity. We need leaders who have the capacity to grow into statesmen.
We here in the 24th district won't what we need this year. Go out and vote today. Voting is important. Just don't have any illusions about the race for the House of Representatives. This year, you'll only have the opportunity to pick your particular preference of pander.
Just close your eyes and think of 2008.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Bob Johnson is What Integrity Looks Like
24th district Democrats, Michael Arcuri has broken his promise to local Democratic elected officials. He recently tried to placate angry Democrats by promising Democratic elected officials from our district that he would come out with a public statement opposing the Military Commissions Act. Mike Arcuri said he would put that statement on his web site.
Michael Arcuri lied to them. He hasn't done it. Michael Arcuri's staff confirmed to me today that Arcuri still supports the Military Commissions Act.
Arcuri's new line would be amusing, if it weren't so darkly pathetic: Arcuri now says that if he had been in Congress this September, when the House of Representatives voted for the Military Commissions Act, he would have voted for it, and then, later at some time or another, would try to work to amend it.
Interesting idea, that: A freshman member of the House of Representatives amending a law pushed through Congress by the President of the United States. Come on, history buffs, think hard now. When was the last time that happened?
The 24th district's county Democratic committees got a real first class weasel in Michael Arcuri when then they rushed to prematurely appoint a nominee in order to prevent a primary. Oh, Mike Arcuri talks tough in his campaign speeches. He'll stand up to George W. Bush, he says. But when it comes down to actually making a stand, to showing some integrity, Michael Arcuri folds like a piece of origami paper.
When the heat was on, Arcuri stood with Ray Meier and George W. Bush. Whatever it takes to win an election seems to be Arcuri's motto. Of course, as soon as this election is over, if Arcuri wins, he's got the 2008 election to think about. Heck, the House of Representatives is almost constantly up for election. If a candidate for the House can't show some backbone during an election, he never will.
So, it seems that Arcuri's campaign is willing to say one thing in public, and another thing to Democratic supporters in private. Does Michael Arcuri even remember what the truth is any more? If he's willing to deceive members of local Democratic committees, why should we trust anything he says?
Bob Johnson, the Democratic candidate to the north of us, didn't get the early and constant assistance from the DCCC that Michael Arcuri, Rahm Emanuel's "recruit", got. But Bob Johnson has one thing that Michael Arcuri will never have: Integrity.
Go ahead and listen to what Bob Johnson had to say about the Military Commissions Act in the campaign commercial below. Listen, and just try to imagine Michael Arcuri getting this kind of moral strength to pass through his lips.
Yes, Michael Arcuri has a good shot at winning tomorrow, but at what cost? No matter whether Ray Meier wins or Michael Arcuri wins tomorrow, we will get a representative who is happy to support the worst right wing causes that the Republicans bring forth. That's not the choice we deserved.
Yes, Bob Johnson probably won't win, but he's standing up for something more important than victory for the sake of victory. Bob Johnson aligned himself with a noble, but dying, cause: The defense of liberty in America.
Tomorrow, will you be like Michael Arcuri, or will you be like Bob Johnson?
Michael Arcuri lied to them. He hasn't done it. Michael Arcuri's staff confirmed to me today that Arcuri still supports the Military Commissions Act.
Arcuri's new line would be amusing, if it weren't so darkly pathetic: Arcuri now says that if he had been in Congress this September, when the House of Representatives voted for the Military Commissions Act, he would have voted for it, and then, later at some time or another, would try to work to amend it.
Interesting idea, that: A freshman member of the House of Representatives amending a law pushed through Congress by the President of the United States. Come on, history buffs, think hard now. When was the last time that happened?
The 24th district's county Democratic committees got a real first class weasel in Michael Arcuri when then they rushed to prematurely appoint a nominee in order to prevent a primary. Oh, Mike Arcuri talks tough in his campaign speeches. He'll stand up to George W. Bush, he says. But when it comes down to actually making a stand, to showing some integrity, Michael Arcuri folds like a piece of origami paper.
When the heat was on, Arcuri stood with Ray Meier and George W. Bush. Whatever it takes to win an election seems to be Arcuri's motto. Of course, as soon as this election is over, if Arcuri wins, he's got the 2008 election to think about. Heck, the House of Representatives is almost constantly up for election. If a candidate for the House can't show some backbone during an election, he never will.
So, it seems that Arcuri's campaign is willing to say one thing in public, and another thing to Democratic supporters in private. Does Michael Arcuri even remember what the truth is any more? If he's willing to deceive members of local Democratic committees, why should we trust anything he says?
Bob Johnson, the Democratic candidate to the north of us, didn't get the early and constant assistance from the DCCC that Michael Arcuri, Rahm Emanuel's "recruit", got. But Bob Johnson has one thing that Michael Arcuri will never have: Integrity.
Go ahead and listen to what Bob Johnson had to say about the Military Commissions Act in the campaign commercial below. Listen, and just try to imagine Michael Arcuri getting this kind of moral strength to pass through his lips.
Yes, Michael Arcuri has a good shot at winning tomorrow, but at what cost? No matter whether Ray Meier wins or Michael Arcuri wins tomorrow, we will get a representative who is happy to support the worst right wing causes that the Republicans bring forth. That's not the choice we deserved.
Yes, Bob Johnson probably won't win, but he's standing up for something more important than victory for the sake of victory. Bob Johnson aligned himself with a noble, but dying, cause: The defense of liberty in America.
Tomorrow, will you be like Michael Arcuri, or will you be like Bob Johnson?
Has Michael Arcuri Relented on Military Commissions Act?
I got a telephone call this morning from a Democratic office holder in my town informing me that Michael Arcuri has finally reversed his endorsement of the Military Commissions Act, and now opposes the law. This person told me that the Arcuri for Congress campaign has promised people to announce Arcuri's opposition to the Military Commissions Act on the Arcuri for Congress web site.
I regard this source as very credible. This source also told me that this statement promising to declare opposition to the Military Commissions Act has been made by Michael Arcuri to several different people.
Geneva blogger Jodi Dean writes that she saw Michael Arcuri say on October 30 that he has reversed his position on the Military Commissions Act. She notes that Democrats in Geneva have been up in arms against Michael Arcuri because of Arcuri's support for the Military Commissions act, writing, "there has been substantial pressure from left voices here in Geneva since his last visit".
Here's the trouble: I just called the Arcuri for Congress campaign, and was told that there has been no change in Michael Arcuri's support for the Military Commissions Act. I look on Michael Arcuri's web site, and I see that there is no statement at all indicating that Arcuri now opposes the Military Commissions Act. My source here in Ulysses also acknowledges that she has not seen any documented proof that Michael Arcuri has acknowledged his error and changed his position.
Nowhere in any place of public record, not in a newspaper or in a blog, has Michael Arcuri indicated a change in his support for the Military Commissions Act.
This issue is a vital matter in this race, because it's an indicator of whether Michael Arcuri will stand up to the Republicans in Washington D.C. or collaborate with them on the worst aspects of their legislative agenda.
The Military Commissions Act:
Revokes habeas corpus
Ends enforcement of the Geneva Conventions
Legalizes torture
Provides legal amnesty to George W. Bush for any war crimes he may have committed
Sets up an alternative system of kangaroo courts with absurdly low standards of justice
Gives President Bush the power to declare someone an "enemy", and then lock them up in a secret prison without any trial, for as long as he likes
It ought to be a no-brainer for a Democrat running for Congress to be against such a horrid law, but Michael Arcuri went and declared his support for the Military Commissions Act earlier this autumn... without bothering to actually read the law first.
It seems to me that Michael Arcuri may be trying to play this issue both ways, telling Democrats in private that he'll oppose the Military Commissions Act, while maintaining his support for the Military Commissions Act in public. Or, it could be that the rumors of Michael Arcuri's change of heart are merely that - rumors.
It seems that the Democrats in our district are getting nervous, and are deciding that Arcuri may well need the support of the progressives in this district after all.
Michael Arcuri, you know what you have to do to get our support. Make a statement in public, where it's documented, that you now oppose the Military Commissions Act.
It's that simple. Do the right thing. Your time is running out.
I regard this source as very credible. This source also told me that this statement promising to declare opposition to the Military Commissions Act has been made by Michael Arcuri to several different people.
Geneva blogger Jodi Dean writes that she saw Michael Arcuri say on October 30 that he has reversed his position on the Military Commissions Act. She notes that Democrats in Geneva have been up in arms against Michael Arcuri because of Arcuri's support for the Military Commissions act, writing, "there has been substantial pressure from left voices here in Geneva since his last visit".
Here's the trouble: I just called the Arcuri for Congress campaign, and was told that there has been no change in Michael Arcuri's support for the Military Commissions Act. I look on Michael Arcuri's web site, and I see that there is no statement at all indicating that Arcuri now opposes the Military Commissions Act. My source here in Ulysses also acknowledges that she has not seen any documented proof that Michael Arcuri has acknowledged his error and changed his position.
Nowhere in any place of public record, not in a newspaper or in a blog, has Michael Arcuri indicated a change in his support for the Military Commissions Act.
This issue is a vital matter in this race, because it's an indicator of whether Michael Arcuri will stand up to the Republicans in Washington D.C. or collaborate with them on the worst aspects of their legislative agenda.
The Military Commissions Act:
It ought to be a no-brainer for a Democrat running for Congress to be against such a horrid law, but Michael Arcuri went and declared his support for the Military Commissions Act earlier this autumn... without bothering to actually read the law first.
It seems to me that Michael Arcuri may be trying to play this issue both ways, telling Democrats in private that he'll oppose the Military Commissions Act, while maintaining his support for the Military Commissions Act in public. Or, it could be that the rumors of Michael Arcuri's change of heart are merely that - rumors.
It seems that the Democrats in our district are getting nervous, and are deciding that Arcuri may well need the support of the progressives in this district after all.
Michael Arcuri, you know what you have to do to get our support. Make a statement in public, where it's documented, that you now oppose the Military Commissions Act.
It's that simple. Do the right thing. Your time is running out.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
What kind of Democrat is a Boehlert Democrat?
"I always say I consider myself, to a large extent, to be the Boehlert Democrat." - Michael Arcuri
So Arcuri would have voted for the Iraq war, like Sherwood Boehlert did?
Mike Arcuri would have voted to give government-funded groups the right to fire people for not belonging to the right religion, like Sherwood Boehlert did?
Mike Arcuri would have voted to give President Bush the power to use the American military against the American people with HR 5122, like Sherwood Boehlert did?
Mike Arcuri would have voted with the Republicans to give a special tax break to millionaires like Paris Hilton, like Sherwood Boelert did?
Boehlert Democrat? Michael Arcuri sounds more like a Lieberman Democrat to me.
Look at who Michael Arcuri's campaign is taking money from, and you'll see why Arcuri is talking so much like Joseph Lieberman these days. Michael Arcuri's top ideological contributor is the New Democrat Coalition, an organization set up by Joseph Lieberman to promote right wing ideology within the Democratic Party.
Know what you're voting for on Tuesday, 24th district Democrats.
So Arcuri would have voted for the Iraq war, like Sherwood Boehlert did?
Mike Arcuri would have voted to give government-funded groups the right to fire people for not belonging to the right religion, like Sherwood Boehlert did?
Mike Arcuri would have voted to give President Bush the power to use the American military against the American people with HR 5122, like Sherwood Boehlert did?
Mike Arcuri would have voted with the Republicans to give a special tax break to millionaires like Paris Hilton, like Sherwood Boelert did?
Boehlert Democrat? Michael Arcuri sounds more like a Lieberman Democrat to me.
Look at who Michael Arcuri's campaign is taking money from, and you'll see why Arcuri is talking so much like Joseph Lieberman these days. Michael Arcuri's top ideological contributor is the New Democrat Coalition, an organization set up by Joseph Lieberman to promote right wing ideology within the Democratic Party.
Know what you're voting for on Tuesday, 24th district Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
