The Ironic Cherry Reads... If It Hadn't Been for Dubya

Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights

by Molly Ivins & Lou Dubose

If you don't know Molly Ivins, you missed one of the great political writers of all time.  She came to my attention when I read a review of her collected articles entitled, "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?"  Molly Ivins once wrote about Texas politics, and with great gusto about the Texas legislature.  After writing in the Dallas Times Herald about one local politician, "if his IQ slips any lower, we'll have to water him twice a day," a number of humorless readers canceled their subscriptions.  To which the Times Herald put up billboards all around Dallas saying, "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?"  Yes, she could.

She had a wonderful wit and was fearless, lived life as I imagine a Texan would.  She had a great time mocking the idiots in the Texas legislature, so it was only natural that she would be the one to expose George W. Bush in all his ignorance and privilege.  She, along with Lou Dubose, wrote books about the Bush years entitled Shrub (his years as governor and campaign for president) and Bushwacked (the presidency).  Over the years, Molly maintained her sense of humor, but writing about the serious damage that was being done to our country became more dark and pronounced.

In 2007, Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose published her last book, Bill of Wrongs, while Molly was dying of cancer.  In the acknowledgements, Dubose has the sad privilege of thanking her for her contributions to exposing injustices and attacks on our democracy throughout her life.  This book was her last attempt to warn us that our rights were under attack.  Molly begins the book talking about how she is less amused and more alarmed by the transgressions of the Bush administration.  For someone who lived her life laughing past the graveyard, this was something to take seriously.

When I hear people talk wistfully of the Dubya years, I find myself missing Molly more than ever.  We need her to give us a good shake, to remind us that without Bush, we would not have become so desensitized to losing our rights.  It was a slippery slope indeed, and on so many fronts.  As we talk about children in cages, we are not talking about the war on Muslims.  We try to fight for women, DACA children, African Americans, LGBTQ, and for gods' sake the New York Times and the Capital Gazette, but can't seem to keep up with the hatred being spewed and violations that are being made on each of us daily, by the twitter president and his partners in crime, the US Congress and the Supreme Court.

We keep reminding ourselves that this is not normal.  Yet after only 24 hours of the media talking about how the Democrats were going to fight Mitch McConnell's push to get another radical right wing supreme court justice on the bench, last night I heard a bunch of talking heads going through Trump's list of potential nominees, assessing them as though this was going to be a normal process.  More air time validating the unconstitutional consolidation of the three once independent branches of our government.

So, let me give you a quick run-through of Molly's reporting of the plundering of the Constitution that went on during the Bush years.

Before Bush, we could protest in view of the president.  During the Bush years, people began to get arrested at rallies for, one example, wearing a t-shirt that read:

This arrest, mind you, wasn't even at a rally; it was during an official presidential visit.  Celebrating the 4th of July.  As he gave a speech about "free thought, free expression."  Those were the days, when we had a president that really knew how to double-talk, with sincerity. 

Molly features South Carolina's own Brett Bursey in his fight for the right to protest, as Bush's own deplorables worked to create the "free speech zones" that now typically make certain that our free speech is hidden from view.

Bill of Wrongs was published in 2007, after years of dizzying changes brought about by the shock of 9/11.  After years of tyrants like Dick Cheney turning our fears into frenzy.  Terrifyingly, the PATRIOT Act that was pushed through Congress in 2003 is now just a fact of life, as we struggle with Russian interference and a president that welcomes it.  I was surprised to recall that the chillingly acronymed ICE -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- was only imagined and implemented in 2003.  As an arm of the creepily named "Department of Homeland Security," which itself was invented in 2002.  All just part of the government these days.  (Since the horrifying past weeks of children in cages, separated from their families, there has been a growing call for the end to ICE.  Infuriatingly, our own Congressional Democrats are walking it back, pleading for moderation.  What can I say?)

During the Bush years, it wasn't just political appointees that were chosen for their loyalty and ideology.  I recall some news about screening and litmus tests for judicial appointments, and a nation horrified.  Unlike the current stable genius who is raiding our democracy, Bush was shrewd enough to deny what he was doing; he knew he couldn't get away with such a flagrant abuse of power.  These days, the orange haired tyrant wants us all to know he is denying us our rights as he does it.  A short year or so ago we were appalled that he had demanded loyalty from his FBI Director; today we don't even blink at the thought of justice department toadies. That slippery slope gets steeper and ever more slippery.  And lest we give him too much credit, our republican Congress has been excluding its elected Democratic representatives from lawmaking since our first black president was elected.  Trump has no new bad ideas, he just flaunts the old ones. 

Way back in the aughts, we had journalists imprisoned for not giving up their sources.  We had unchecked government surveillance of American citizens.  There were Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, black sites, torture memos; that was when the right wingnut John Ashcroft and James Comey got to be heroes, when torture became "enhanced interrogation techniques," and they reached the limit of what they could tolerate.

We talk fondly about Bush defending Muslims after 9/11, but while he was saying the right things, the FBI was surveilling and falsely arresting people who happened to be Muslim; Ivins and Dubose describe Attorney Brandon Mayfield's arrest for the Madrid train bombings.  Sure he was Muslim...  And did you hear that?

But he was Muslim, but they were protesting, but she was crossing the border, but he looked dangerous...

Which brings up the subject of religious freedom.  It was probably Karl Rove who decided that Dubya should call himself a "compassionate conservative."  And the Bush administration happily gave over federal funds to Christian organizations to do the work of government.  We mostly didn't worry about it too much.  It was hard to see what was wrong with doing good.  Unless you are gay and can only appeal for help from a fundamentalist Christian group.  Or you are a young woman who needs contraceptive care (or an abortion, which our government has decided not to pay for decades ago, for religious reasons).

During the Bush years, our librarians fought for our right to privacy.  Many of them.  I worked at a library where the branch manager happily gave up the internet sign-up list because a rape suspect said he was at the library on the computer during the time of the assault.  She was tickled that she could be part of solving the crime.  We had patrons who were unhappy that we didn't keep records of what they had read (so they wouldn't have to...).

I hate to say this, but most of us these days don't understand what could happen if:  our library records, computer records, phone records become available.  We have allowed businesses from Facebook to AT&T to credit card companies to have access to our personal data.  It takes seconds online to apply for and receive a credit card.  Because they have all our information.

The despot-in-chief wanted a national database of our voter registration records, and most of us couldn't understand what the big fuss was about.  Which left our governors and state attorneys general on their own, fighting the fight for our right to a protected secret ballot.

Forget the slippery slope.  We went over the cliff when we allowed ourselves to be frightened and intimidated into The PATRIOT Act.  And if I were more knowledgeable about history, I could go back farther.  We have been complacent about our rights.  We have a government TODAY -- all three branches -- that are complicit in dismantling the Bill of Rights.

Oh, my, I had intended to write a summary of Molly's book, highlighting each area that our rights were violated during the Bush years... but I couldn't help but go into a rant.  So many outrages, so many injustices, so many egregious violations of our civil rights.

And it all started with George W. Bush.  Please take the time to read the book.  Ivins and Dubose have done an excellent job, in just 200 pages, of describing the harm that began with Bush and his own basket of deplorables, many of whom have stuck around and crawled out from under their rocks now that Trump has freed up the swamp for his own personal use.

Our wonderful library still has copies that survived the Henderson Purge (which began around the end of the Bush era).  And because libraries have only so much space, I urge you to check it out, because:  use it or lose it.

Bill of Wrongs is so very relevant and important today.  But go back farther into the beginnings of the political life of George W. Bush.  We need to be clear that without him we would not be tolerating Trump.  As Will Ferrell said in his reprise of Dubya, "I was really bad.  Like historically not good."

Molly Ivins is the journalist that painted the picture of what harm Dubya could do, with a laugh and then with alarm.  If only we had listened.  If only she were here now, to help us through these dark days.

When Nanney Backs Down

This morning I read that the appropriately named Wendy Nanney, House representative from Greenville, had introduced a bill that would require bicyclists and moped operators to be licensed and insured.  "Hmph," I muttered, there goes Mama Nanney again.  I gave a wee bit of thought to what a boondoggle that would be for the insurance industry, one of the groups that our legislators take good care of here in South Carolina, and then went on to other matters.

Hours later the headline in The State informed that after great protest, Nanney had withdrawn the bill.

Now, let's back up a little here.  Wendy Nanney is the legislator that is pursuing with no less than religious zeal the bill that would prohibit abortions after twenty weeks.  She has brought all the power that the Bible and bad science can bear, and many of her partners in crime lined up to co-sponsor the bill.  It mattered not that scientists had proven that the "facts" of her bill were wrong.  And she cared not that women's health and medical care were being invaded and compromised by the requirements of the bill.  Wendy was out to save "lives."

Yet, when she looked out on the street and saw that bicyclists were being careless, and decided that it was her duty to write a law forcing them to, well, take a course and then pay for a license, there was such an outcry that she dropped the cause immediately.

So why are some "lives" more expendable than others?  Why would a woman making decisions about her own body be so much more important than a cyclist riding in a way that endangers themselves and puts others at risk?  In fact, Nanney points out that her bill would only require licensing for those fifteen or older.

Please, please explain to me why a child would not need the safety precautions that an adult cyclists requires???  This makes about as much sense as requiring a woman whose pregnancy is at risk to carry the pregnancy to term, while not making health care available for all pregnant women.

I worry about the mental health of many of our legislators.  It seems that they work so hard to prove their worth that their judgment fails.  And then they are rewarded with way too much power over us.

I also wonder that the Palmetto Cycling Coalition has more political clout than groups like the ACLU and the National Organization for Women.

Or it may be something else entirely.  After all, the South Carolina Restaurant and Lodging Association was quiet while a bill was passed allowing guns in bars and restaurants.  While they claim that was because owners were split on whether they were in favor of the bill, many owners say they were not made aware of the bill.  Of course, the NRA has more clout with legislators than both the Restaurant and Lodging Association and the Palmetto Cycling Coalition (and throw in NOW and the ACLU).

Which must make you want to ask who has so much clout that Nanney and her buddies would tirelessly pursue abortion bans and personhood bills?

As with the NRA, we need to follow the money.  It's not the right-to-life groups, really, that are keeping these horrible bills afloat, year after year.  They are merely the very loud and committed spokespeople.  They are being controlled by groups like the NRA, groups like the American Enterprise Institute, groups run by Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.  It may not seem like they are being controlled; maybe it is really just the Partnership from Hell.  But it amounts to the same thing.

The people with the money and power, who stand to lose some of that money and power if we unite against issues like living wage and health care, have learned that they can get followers to rise up and pledge their support for the candidates who will further their power agenda.  All they have to do is create a smokescreen of "moral issues."  Nixon did it with his "law and order" campaign.  Reagan's handlers realized that there were millions who could be turned to their advantage by pretending that the quest for power was a religious quest.

And today we have anti-abortion groups, anti-gay groups, anti-Moslem groups, all working to foment fear.  They support the candidates (and the candidates support them)  so that none of us can muster the strength or the dollars to fight the people who control the country:  big agriculture, pharmaceuticals, oil, Wall Street.  Fortunately for bicyclists, Wendy Nanney didn't think their lives were important enough to turn into a cause.

Running with Wendy

I recently wrote about the dirty dealings in Texas by opponent Greg Abbott and his minions (I use that word reluctantly; it gives minions a bad name).  The dirt that they dug up on Wendy Davis amounts to questions about how long she actually lived in her trailer, whether her husband helped fund her Harvard education, and whether she was a good mother.  If that's not a war on women, I don't know what is.

In fact, Karl Rove did it first in Texas for George W. Bush against Governor Ann Richards when he began a rumor that Richards was a lesbian.  He was able, then, to swing a state that would have re-elected Richards on her successful record as governor.  As Rove himself said,

"Look, I don’t attack people on their weaknesses.  That usually doesn’t get the job done. Voters already perceive weaknesses. You’ve got to go after the other guy’s strengths. That’s how you win."

And that's exactly the game plan against Wendy Davis.  The attacks are on her independence and her intelligence.  Oh, and her parenting.

But, as W. himself said,

Wendy and her daughters are fighting back.  But we need to fight with her.  In my state, where the best woman we can come up with for governor is Nikki Haley, and the best democrat is Vincent Sheheen, we need Wendy Davis far more than she needs us.  But I have done what I rarely do, I have put my money where my mouth is.  I have donated to Wendy's campaign, and I hope you reach way out to Wendy in Texas and do the same.

A groundswell of financial support will do even more than words to prove to men like Greg Abbott and Mitch McConnell that baseless and -- honestly -- stupid attacks on women will not work anymore.

I'm with Wendy.

Not Just About the President

You might think, by watching the "news" that the only important election coming up is that of Obama v. Romney.  And I have to admit, our President could be doing a better job reminding us why those Senate and House races are so important.  Like whenever he is accused of not having done enough in the past four years.

This election season, puppeteers like Karl Rove and the Kochs are busy funneling money into races to defeat those Democrats that have stood the strongest for our democratic values.

But why not?  It's been working for years.

In 2004, Senator Tom Daschle, who was accused by Dick Cheney of being the "chief obstructionist" of the Bush agenda, was up in the polls by 5-7%.  It was reported to be the most expensive Senate race in 2004, and we watched in shock as he was defeated.

This year, Rove's piggybank, Crossroads GPS, has targeted critically important people like Elizabeth Warren, who if elected would surely effect positive change in our financial lives.  Rove, who has gotten away with so many criminal acts, like his part in outing CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame, does not even pretend to fund only "issues ads", which is a requirement of anonymously funded superpacs.

Outspoken and ethical Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio has been targeted by right wing groups which have spent over 17 million to be rid of him.  The radical and powerful Club for Growth is at the top of opponent Josh Mandel's contributors' list, with Senate Conservatives Fund right behind.

We should be hearing more about these Senate races, because they are so important.  Same is true of the House.

Because when it comes down to why the Obama agenda has struggled to succeed, we only need look to Congress.  The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners have twisted and perverted the function of this institution, not just since Obama came to the White House, but since the Democrats won control in 2006.

The proof is in Mitch McConnell's proud goal in the Senate:

where filibusters made it necessary to have 60 votes rather than a mere majority for any bill that reflected the Democratic agenda.

And let's not forget the oft-teary-eyed John Boehner, and his shout-out over the voices of the Democrats in the House over  Obama's health care bill:

Yes, I'm talking about the "jobs, jobs, jobs" John Boehner who began introducing anti-abortion bills to the House on his first day, and only stops to play a few rounds of golf with his moneyed constituents.

If we don't change the composition in our Congress this year, a re-elected Obama will face another four years of frustrated goals.  On the other hand, Romney is getting his rubber stamp warmed up just in case he wins, because, per the king of the tax cut and the Republican Party Grover Norquist, all they will need come November is a president that will sign any bill a Republican Congress will send.

Cut taxes for the rich and cut social services and safety nets for the rest of us.  Gut Medicare, ban birth control, increase spending on defense, and watch the debt rise like we haven't seen since the days of "W".  And send in the Scalia clone to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because what that Republican Congress wants, is what Romney will give us.

So let's not forget how important all those other people that are running for office on November 6 really are.  Because this is what it really comes down to:

Pardon My Cynicism, But I'm Exhausted

I tried watching the third debate last night, I really did.  But let's be honest here, this whole thing has gone on way too long.  We've all heard the same questions, and seen the same tap dances around those questions, way too many times.

It feels like it's been y-e-a-r-s.  Oh, that's right, it has been.

Meanwhile, all those millionaires and billionaires who won't allow a penny to be squeezed out of their tight fists so that a child can get health care have been throwing buckets of cash at -- again, let's be honest -- all the candidates.  Yes, some have been targeted by more of this generosity than others, and we all know who they are.  The Rove's and the Koch's and all those other weasels have been waltzing around tossing hundred dollar bills at candidates like Little Orphan Annie cartoon characters.

Barack Obama has been a good president, probably as good as any we could have gotten in this catastrophic post-W. era.  But he's no 98-percenter, anti-Wall-Street liberal.

And so many of us are supporting candidates who could be heros, if they can only spend enough money to be heard over the sound of all the corporate speech that's going on.  So we give our $5, $25, $100 or more whenever we can and whenever they ask.

And boy do they ask.

Think of all the good things we could have done with that money.  We could have paid down some of our own personal debt.  We maybe could have taken our kids on a vacation.  We could have done a couple of car or house repairs that we can't afford.  We could have had that doctor's visit that we keep putting off.  Or just gotten a haircut.

But we need to keep feeding this god-awful monstrous campaign machine.  How on earth did we get here?  Why do we tolerate this enormous drain on our time, on our wallets, on our country?

And yet, on November 7, those fools in the media are going to start to conjecture on who's going to run in 2016, and damn if it doesn't start all over again.

So last night, after five minutes of same old/same old, I went back to the DVD I had been watching, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, by Martin Scorsese.  I think I made a good choice.

Only one thing might have convinced me to stay tuned to the debate:

DEBATE ENDS ABRUPTLY AS OBAMA PUNCHES ROMNEY IN FACE

Posted by Andy Borowitz