Wexler, Gutierrez, Baldwin, Kucinich, and the People Call For Cheney Censure

Rep. Wexler Wants Cheney Impeachment Hearings

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

May I offer my sincerest gratitude to Representatives, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, and Tammy Baldwin. These glorious members of the House Judiciary Committee, recently raised the volume on the issue of impeachment for Vice President Cheney. The three invite us, the average citizen, to join them. Please express your distress; sign the petition. Call for Hearings. Without you the Vice President will continue to avoid an official and necessary censure.

Please sign the petition. Join Congressman Wexler’s Call For Cheney impeachment Hearings.

Please do not stop there. Americans have seen what occurs when we are complacent. For too long Congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke of what many thought obvious, and only a few listened.

Throughout his term, Vice President, Richard B. Cheney acted on questionable information. He made decisions that many considered problematic. Cheney “may” have committed numerous “high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, no matter how many millions of Americans joined in the call to censure, the cry was hushed. The mainstream media barely and rarely spoke of the measure. Only a scant number of Representatives endorsed House Resolution 333, submitted by the Representative from Ohio.

As House leaders sat silent, Vice President Cheney continued to violate the doctrine known as the United States Constitution. He did so without charge or challenge.

For years, Richard B. Cheney declared the Executive Branch has “supreme” power. Many scoffed; however, Congress initiated no formal action. The Vice President did not stop doing as he pleased. Complaints from the House and the Senate mounted; yet, Cheney remained safe from censure.

It seemed the Vice President’s skin, and his contempt for law, were impenetrable. Richard B. Cheney refused and rebuffs accountability.

The Vice President prefers aggression and plans attacks against other Nation States. Until now Congress, and the American people stood by. Finally, the tide may have turned.

Each day, Americans and Legislators discover much occurred within the White House walls over the last seven years. We are increasingly certain the Vice President acted with dubious authority. The more we learn, the more we realize a need to impeach Richard B. Cheney. Representatives and House Judiciary Committee Members Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Tammy Baldwin, and the cyberspace community have stated their extreme concern. However, just as Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich realized during his campaign to hold Cheney accountable, the media would rather not address this state of affairs.

If we the people are to be served, if we are to honor the rights afforded us by the United States Constitution, we must do more than wait for Congress to act. Our signature on a petition will not be enough to convince a reluctant House Speaker that it is time to embrace this cause. I invite you to submit a Letter to the Editor of any and every newspaper. For Representative Wexler alone, although he tried, cannot create the news storm necessary for impeachment.

I offer my own submission for your review. Please request coverage. Ask Journalist nationwide to report on more than this Administration wants us to hear. I thank you for all that you are and all that you do.

If you wish to use my letter, without the links and signature, I offer a Portable Document Format [pdf] version.

Letter to the Editor, Call to Cover Cheney Impeachment Hearings.

Dearest Editorial Staff . . .

I am aware of a troublesome campaign to ignore the call to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. I write to express my distress and to request coverage.

On Florida Progressive Radio, Representative Robert Wexler spoke of what he and his colleagues experienced when they submitted an Op-Ed essay on the topic. The major print media outlets did not publish this important treatise on impeachment. The message was not muffled; it was ostensibly silenced.

The mainstream media acted as though an investigation into the practices within the Oval Office, or the Office of the Vice President, were permanently “off the table.” No matter the outcry from the masses, the media continues to dismiss the call.

Auspiciously, after the news organizations cast the cry for censure aside, Representative Wexler turned to the public. The cyberspace community connected to the memorandum the Congressman and his colleagues wrote. Those that surf the Web not only endorsed the crucial communication, Internet users garnered greater support for the proposition. An ambitious online effort heralded the need for immediate impeachment hearings. Within a short time, more than a hundred thousand signers stated they were in favor of a move to censure Vice President Dick Cheney.

Constitutional scholars have warned us. The precedent we set when we overlook what an arrogant Administration does will forever damage our nation. If Americans do not uphold democratic principles, we weaken our Constitution.

For too long, Presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich has been a lone Congressional voice. On more than one occasion, Kucinich spoke of the need to censure Vice President Cheney. In November 2007, Representative Kucinich presented a Privileged Motion on the floor of the House. Even that bold overture received little press.

Nonetheless, some of his fellow Representatives considered the possibility. With the introduction of new evidence, three prominent Representatives felt as though they too had reason to move forward with an investigation and hearings.

Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), all Members of the House Judiciary Committee, considered the novel revelation offered by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. The Vice President and his staff purposefully gave then Press Secretary McClellan false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert Central Intelligence agent. Dick Cheney and his team intentionally chose to release erroneous reports to the American people. This realization prompted the newly stated and amplified concern for impeachment.

Only after much protest from readers did the Miami Herald print an edited version of the original letter from the Representatives. However, it seems that Florida publication and all other periodicals are happy to leave the issue behind. We, the people are not willing to remain silent.

The need to impeach is imperative. I implore you. I invite your newspaper to truly inform Americans. Rather than encourage apathy, please tell the people, print, more than the White House wants us to know.

Sincerely . . .

Betsy L. Angert
Florida

Dear friends, family, and familiars; I thank you all for your interest and participation in the process. On behalf of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Representatives, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Tammy Baldwin, our country, and the Constitution may I extend my deepest appreciation for your thoughts, words, and deeds. We can only hope that United, America will peacefully stand strong again. We cannot know unless and until we begin to censure those that fight against us. We are one, or were, the United States of America, a democratic nation, of, by, and for the people. Together we can take our country back.

References and Resources in Support of Impeachment Hearings . . .

• Wexler Calls For Cheney Impeachment Hearings, By Congressman Robert Wexler.
  
• Synopsis of Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney.
  
• Cheney’s Law. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• A Man With Secrets. By Charlie Savage, Barton Gellman, Bruce Fein, Bradford Berenson, Jack Goldsmith, Michael Isikoff. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• Interviews. Bradford Berenson, David Gergen, Jack Goldsmith, Charlie Savage. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• Cheney’s View of the World. Barton Gellman, David Gergen, Evan Thomas, Ron Suskind, Charlie Savage, Bruce Fein. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• Impeach Cheney Now! Submitted by davidswanson. AfterDowningStreet.org.
  
• The Impeachment of Dick Cheney. Florida Progressive Radio. Blog Radio.December 20, 2007
  
• 30,000 People Join Congressman Wexler's Call for Hearings in Just 24 Hours. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman. December 15, 2007
  
• Wexler Launches Online Push for Cheney Impeachment Hearings. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman.
  
• 100,000 Answer Wexler Call for Hearings. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman. December 19, 2007
  
• Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Vote On Impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney TODAY. Congressman Dennis Kucinich. November 6, 2007
  
• Kucinich Statement on Privileged Resolution. Congressman Dennis Kucinich. November 6, 2007
  
• Impeach Cheney, The Vice President Has Run Utterly Amok and Must Be Stopped. By Bruce Fein. Slate Magazine. Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
  
• pdf Impeach Cheney, The Vice President Has Run Utterly Amok and Must Be Stopped. By Bruce Fein. Slate Magazine. Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
  
• Let Cheney impeachment hearings proceed, By Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, and Tammy Baldwin, Members of the House Judiciary Committee. Washington District of Columbia. Miami Herald. December 19, 2007

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Civics, Congress, Impeach GW Bush, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Valerie Plame | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Cheney; Comedy. A Rogue Nation, or Rebel Without a Cause

  
  Countdown: Cheney Casts Himself Out

  copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

  Updated, June 25, 2007
  Each day the Bush/Cheney Administration entertains us. They offer new twists and turns in what is seen as a “comedy of errors.” Possibly this latest report is classified as “comedy of the absurd.” This week it was revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney is not part of the Executive Branch. Indeed, he is above the law, at least that is what the Vice President's office claims.
  

  Apparently, there are nuances within the definition of the Executive Branch that exclude the Vice President. Literally, the term ‘Vice President’ is not contained in the description of this arm of the government.

  Executive Branch

  The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
  . . .
  To learn more about the Executive Branch please visit the President’s Cabinet page on the White House web site

  If we seek further understanding and travel to the designated page, we cannot help notice there, under the heading Cabinet Rank Members we see the esteemed Executive Richard B. Cheney. If we journey further into the depths of cyberspace deliverance, we learn that the Vice President has been proudly proclaimed a policy decision-maker for decades. He has held numerous positions within the White House, and served under Presidents since 1969.

  Nonetheless, this exclusive and exceptional public servant claims he is not part of the Cabinet and therefore need not abide by rules governing this group. A man well-known for frequently invoking Executive Privilege when he does not wish to testify about the doings of his office claims he is not affiliated with the Branch of government that affords him rights under or above the law.

  Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
  He asserts he's exempt from showing an agency how his office keeps secrets because he's not fully part of the administration.
  By Josh Meyer
  Los Angeles Times
  June 22, 2007

  WASHINGTON — For the last four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has made the controversial claim that his office is not fully part of the Bush administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies' handling of classified national security information, officials said Thursday.

  Cheney has held that his office is not fully part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets.

  According to documents released Thursday by a House committee, Cheney's staff has blocked efforts by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to enforce a key component of the presidential order: a mandatory on-site inspection of the vice president's office. At least one of those inspections would have come at a particularly delicate time — when Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and other aides were under criminal investigation for their suspected roles in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

  In an eight-page letter to Cheney on Thursday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) also charged that Cheney or his top staffers tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office this year after its director tried repeatedly to force Cheney's office to comply with the presidential order.

  Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride confirmed the vice president's position Thursday but said she could not discuss the matter in detail, including whether Cheney or his aides tried to abolish the information security office. "We are confident that we are conducting this office properly under the law," McBride said.

  Nevertheless, there is information demonstrating that indeed, Mister Cheney and his cohorts wish to eliminate the Information Security Oversight Office. The two administrative centers have been in conflict for years. The Oversight agency, a division of the National Archives, in accordance with the President’s policy, has attempted to gather information from the Vice President pertaining to what documents his office has deemed classified. Mister Bush, in his infinite wisdom claimed the American people have the right to know what the “executives” representing them have are doing; albeit if not in the present at least in the future. Information must be preserved for posterity.

  By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further amend Executive Order 12958, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12958 is amended to read as follows:
  "Classified National Security Information

  This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nations progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nations security remains a priority.

  The President’s office has abided by the rules and done as required by his law. However, the Vice President never has. Dick Cheney has resisted all attempts to retrieve the required information.

  Ultimately, the Information Oversight Office appealed the issue to the Justice Department. That division has yet to rule on the case.

  Nevertheless, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Henry A. Waxman took action. In the midst of this “comedy,” Representative Waxman, Democrat of California, disclosed that documentation from the Richard Cheney’s office validates that this Vice has long endeavored to close the Oversight Office.

  Admittedly, Congressman Waxman, is prominent among those Democrats wanting to investigate the Bush administration. However, Representative Waxman states this issue is only one of many that cause him to question the practices of this Administration. His efforts towards resolving this quandary are separate from his other concerns.

  On Thursday, June 21, 2007 Chairman Waxman sent an eight page letter sent to the Vice President stating his alarm and his desire to resolve what surely must be a misunderstanding.

  Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events cited in Mr. Waxman’s letter.

  The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staff’s classification of internal documents, the vice president’s office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.

  But the National Archives is an executive branch department headed by a presidential appointee, and it is assigned to collect the data on classified documents under a presidential executive order. Its Information Security Oversight Office is the archives division that oversees classification and declassification.

  “I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

  Absurd, did Chairman Waxman say “absurd?” This is beyond ridiculous. This comedy is replete with the bizarre. On June 23, 2007 the President himself stated that he too is exempt from his own law.

  The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

  An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

  Oh my. I understand there is much inferred and implied in this writ. I never truly thought disclosure was the intent, only the claim. In this post-September 11 era, privacy for Federal officials is preserved. Records are rescinded. Nonetheless, I did see this small clause posited below repeated referrals to the Office of the President and his Vice.

  Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

  (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
  (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
  (3) restrain competition; or
  (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

  My mistake. After re-reading that last line, I grasp the truer meaning. In the Bush Administration, every action is taken as an effort to secure the nation. Mister Bush often reminds us he and his Cabinet are protecting us, the people, from [a perceived] “evil.” Sadly or strangely, these Executives hear hatred in every utterance. They see malice in all endeavors, excluding those executed by them, the executives in the White House . . . or is it the Senate. I am so confused.

  Mister Cheney is President of the Senate is he not, or is he a member of the Cabinet? Is the Presidential appointees part of the Executive Branch. Might Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney be a rogue, a rebel . . . What of Mister Bush? Where doe he stand, and does the law he wrote apply to him or his office?

  Perhaps Assistant Press Secretary Dana Perino can help me understand. During a press conference on June 25, 2007 Miss Perino expounded.

  Q Dana, as long as we're talking about branches of government, can you go back to Vice President Cheney again, the argument that he's not part of the executive branch. Does the President believe he's part of the executive branch?

  MS. PERINO: I think that that is an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it. I think when we were talking about the EO from last week, we've gone over that several times. You probably don't want me to go over it again. But the Vice President -- any Vice President has legislative and executive functions.

  Every Vice President has legislative and executive functions. The executive functions are given to him by the President. For example, the Vice President's paycheck comes from the Senate. So these are -- that's an interesting constitutional question. When we are talking about this EO, it is separate and apart from -- the President and the Vice President oversee the executive agencies. Supreme Court precedent shows that the Vice President and the President are not seen as an agency when it comes to executive orders.

  Q I know that's your argument about an agency, but it's very separate from the argument the Vice President is making. And what is the President -- what is the White House's view of the argument the Vice President is making on whether or not he's part of the executive branch?

  Q For one, I think -- I mean, the information is clearly –

  MS. PERINO: I'm not opining on it, because the President did not intend for the Vice President to be subject as an agency in that section of the EO.

  I understand; I think. Dick Cheney works for those that pay him. I thought the American public paid his salary. Perhaps I am wrong. Please help me dear reader. Did the people not place Mister Cheney in the Executive Branch; was he not elected to serve as an Executive? Tell me this all but a dream. It must be. For now I experience up is down, and down is out or above the law. Were this all not so tragic this truly would be a comedy.

  I as a citizen of this country, or correction, a person in the American audience can only hope I will awaken from this nightmare and discover the theatre is closed.

  Bush and Cheney; Comedy of the Absurd, of Errors, of the Executives . . .
  

• Cheney claims a non-executive privilege By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 22, 2007
  
• pdf Cheney claims a non-executive privilege By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 22, 2007
  
• Executive Order Office of the Press Secretary. March 25, 2003
  
• Representative Henry A. Waxman letter to Vice President, Dick Cheney. The Oversight Committee June 21, 2007
  
• Bush claims oversight exemption too, The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's. By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 23, 2007
  
• Bush claims oversight exemption too, The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's. By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 23, 2007
  
• Press Briefing by Dana Perino. Office of the Press Secretary. June 25, 2007
  

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 25, 2007 at 04:45 PM in Civics, Lawbreakers, National Security, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , United States Constitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Procreate or Annul the Marriage. Washington Initiative

  © Copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
  

  

  After marrying, my Mom tried diligently for four full years to give birth to a child. She went from specialist to specialist. Batteries of tests were run, and then, re-run. Although she and my father were both fertile and they were a couple that thoroughly enjoyed intercourse, they could not seem to produce a baby. My Mom, a scientist at heart, concluded that perhaps, she was not fecund when most women were. Perchance her cycle was different. Once considering that possibility was enough. From then on, she was able to plan her pregnancies. My Mom gave birth to three children, none born in the first three years.

  Apparently, if a Washington State initiative passes, couples such as my parents would be required to have their marriage annulled. "Naturally," gay partnerships, would not, could not be considered. Obviously, such a union would not be classified as marriage material. The Religious Right, may have felt embolden after the state Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, however they did not propose a plan to go further. They did not restrict what constitutes marriage in a manner that might seem feasible to them. Numerous pious persons say the bible deems the purpose of matrimony is procreation. Thus, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance took action.
  

  This organization, [WDMA] has filed papers stating

  marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

  All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

  Organizer Gregory Gadow proclaimed in a printed statement, “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage." As absurd as this measure is, it may have purpose. Profundity is always welcome and wise, though the dynamics for introducing such depth could go awry.

  I have other relatives, friends too, that though bountifully able to produce babies struggled to do so. Many discovered they could not produce. For one or both the machinery was not as it was meant to be. Infertilty is common. Some couples, when first married cannot afford to give birth to a newborn. Times are tight. They plan to become parents; however, for now there is a need to wait. Many fathers and mothers want to provide a secure and stable home for their offspring. They are building a nest egg and attempting to establish a foundation. Furthering their family is in the plans; it will be, though in the future. First, they need to find the funds. Down payments on homes are steep.

  Some persons purposely choose not to have children. They may marry late. They may fear being the best of parents; theirs were not. There are a myriad of reasons for not bring children into a marriage.

  There is much to be considered when preparing for progeny. Customs and conventions do not always equate to wisdom.

  That being said, I am baffled. Conservatives claim the Progressives want too much government in their lives. Yet, when it comes to "privacy" issues, it seems the traditionalists want greater restrictions, even, or especially, in the bedroom. They actively wish to stamp out sex, unless the intent is to procreate. The Right seeks to further scrutinize what goes on in the boudoir.

  Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

  Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

  Perhaps, enthusiast are not working to change the law. Perchance they are only wishing to discuss how ridiculous the people in America are. When, we as a nation, determine the definition for family we forget circumstances within our own. I understand the logic; I fear unexpected results.

  Please peruse the Initiative . . .
  

  Initiative 957
  If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
  

  add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
  

  require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
  

  require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized";
  

  establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
  

  make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

  Consider this assessment. Fewer Americans married with children - Census Bureau statistics show that married people with children account for 25% of American households. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Then, make your own. What does "marriage" mean to you.

  Contemplate the references . . .
  

• Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids. NorthWest Cable News. Associated Press. Tuesday, February 6, 2007
  
• Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance.
  
• Statement by Gregory Gadow, Sponsor of I-957 (the Defense of Marriage Initiative). Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance
  
• Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted by Secretary of State Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance
  
• Married Without Children Marriage Partnership. Christianity Today International Fall 2003
  
• The State of Our Unions, The Social Health of Marriage in America 2006. Essay: Life Without Children. By Barbara Dafoe Whitehead Dav. 2006
  
• Childless: Some by Chance, Some by Choice, By Nancy Rome. Special to The Washington Post. Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page HE01
  
• pdf Childless: Some by Chance, Some by Choice, By Nancy Rome. Special to The Washington Post. Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page HE01
  

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 10, 2007 at 02:14 PM in American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Civics, Civil Rights, Communities, Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Compassionate Conservatives, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Ethics, Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Marital Status, Marriage, Quality of Life, Question Everything, Religious Right | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Is Biden a Racist? Was Kerry "Electable"? America Decides.

  © copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
  

  
  Please view the video and listen to Presidential hopeful Joseph Biden describe the dreaded "incident."
  Biden Responds to Obama 'Clean' Black Comment.

  For former Governor Howard Dean, the end began with a passionate scream. Apparently, some thought expressing excitement is not Presidential. For Senator Joseph Biden, the close of a Presidential campaign may have started with a stumble. Say it ain't so Joe. This foot-in-mouth blunder may have profoundly altered a campaign that began only hours earlier. The elder statesman offered this assessment of his fellow Senator and Democratic candidate Barrack Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean that's a storybook, man."

  Years ago, Joseph Biden tripped on his own tongue. He made a disparaging remark about Indians. For decades, many of the electorate thought Biden the storybook man. Senator Joseph Biden was often thought of as an electable candidate. He seemed to have it all, good looks, a strong and consistently liberal voting record, a grasp of the issues, a white face, and a male body. Yet, Senator Biden consistently creates what he cannot control, an endless downward spiral. Perchance, Americans join him. Our fellow citizens make arbitrary assessments again and again.
  

  Numerous persons say Senator Biden is just too chatty. When he apologizes for one misstep, he stumbles into a deeper hole.

  A symbol of Biden's predicament was that the Delaware senator could not decide which verbal sin warranted the biggest apology. He abjectly apologized to Jesse Jackson and Sharpton -- both prior presidential candidates -- for implying that they were not as "articulate and bright and clean" as Obama. Biden also gave contradictory explanations of what he meant by "clean," saying in a press conference that it was a shorthand for "clean as a whistle," and then insisting to Stewart and Sharpton that he was praising Obama's "fresh" ideas.

  As I reflect on the Biden blunder and contrast it with the Dean Scream, I find myself horrified. I do object to the seemingly racist comment Senator Joseph Biden made this week, and the one he uttered years ago when he was out on the campaign trail. However, I never struggled with the enthusiastic utterance made by Governor Dean. My problems with Dean were deeper. I actually enjoyed his energy and thought he was more “electable” than John Kerry. Nevertheless, the choice is not mine alone to make.

  What horrifies me is, how we as a nation judge so quickly. Our assessments are superficial and frequently shortsighted. As I contemplate whom we vote for and why, I feel deeply distressed.

  Although Americans are raised to believe beauty is only skin deep, they often act as though the opposite is true. Citizens in the United States consider what is on the surface and then decide. Good looks and great sound bites often sell a candidate. Name recognition solidifies a lead. During our last Presidential election, presumed electabilty ruled the race. Substance was, and today is, rarely considered. Actually, an intelligent man or woman is not highly thought of in Party circles.

  Public relations experts say a scholarly sort cannot relate to the common people. The pundits prefer a likable popular fellow or female. You might recall the numbers that stated they wanted to go have a beer with George W. Bush.

  This was on my mind as I listened to Senator Biden speak of his African American opponent, Barrack Obama. Biden spoke favorably of the Black American Senator from Illinois, or so he thought. He mentioned characteristics that he believed to be complimentary and I thought of Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. However, unlike Obama who may have a chance, Congresswoman Chisholm never did The Congresswoman knew this and spoke of it.

  "I am a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I make that statement proudly, in the full knowledge that, as a black person and as a female person, I do not have a chance of actually gaining that office in this election year. I make that statement seriously, knowing that my candidacy itself can change the face and future of American politics — that it will be important to the needs and hopes of every one of you — even though, in the conventional sense, I will not win."
  
~ Shirley Chisholm June 4, 1972

  Perhaps, we as a nation might ponder; what constitutes a "win." Missus Chisholm may not have become President of the United Sates; nevertheless, she won great respect. Shirley Chisholm was a forthright, determined educator-turned-politician. The Congresswoman shattered racial and gender barriers. she became a national symbol of liberal politics in the 1960's and 1970's. this woman, this African American person, this fine female won the hearts and minds of many Americans. Shirley Chisholm made possible what was considered impossible for centuries. She may not have been President of the United Sates of America; nonetheless, she left quite a legacy.

  Many that never took the highest office have made quite an impression. Consider former Senator and Vice President Albert Gore. People continually push him to seek the seat that was meant to be his. They want the Nobel Prize nominee to take the podium and rightfully claim the office he was elected to. Many forget the compromises Al Gore felt forced to make as a Presidential candidate. Likely, he recalls.

  America is Wal-Mart country; we look for a bargain, not brains. We want a quick fix, not quality. Americans wait for a crisis before they act. You might recall Senator Albert Gore published his book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit in 1992. He was passionately concerned about the environment more than fifteen years ago. Then many thought him silly. Now as climate change creates infinite hardships worldwide, we turn to Albert Gore. We honor him. We listen to his wisdom. A Presidential candidate, Al Gore may be forced to stifle his passion again. You doubt it? Remember Dean, the scream, and then let us talk about Dukakis. What was his sin?

  Howard Dean was considered a man of strength, a campaigner that stood by his convictions, and that hurt him. Mark Singer, a Journalist writing for Time Magazine penned his perspective of the Dean downfall and discussed how it damaged the Democratic Party.

  Dean would have one more, less tangible advantage: he doesn't sound like a politician. One reason the flip-flop charge has stuck is that Kerry, with his meandering, caveat-filled speaking style, often seems like a guy trying to avoid a straight answer. Sensing that vulnerability, Republicans have run the same playbook they ran against Al Gore: portraying Kerry's personality deficiencies as deficiencies of character. As a result, while Kerry leads Bush on most domestic issues, voters turn sour when asked about Kerry the man. In last week's TIME poll, Kerry's biggest deficit versus Bush was in "sticking to his positions." Only 37% of registered voters in the survey said Kerry does that, compared with 84% for Bush.

  Dean wouldn't have that problem. Polls in Iowa showed him doing best among voters who value a candidate who "takes strong stands." It's true that Dean's passion exploded the night he lost Iowa — into a scream heard around the world. But it was the flip side of the spontaneity that made him seem authentic, a straight shooter. With his blunt, no-nonsense style, Dean actually evoked — more than any of his Democratic rivals — President Bush.

  Were Dean the nominee, the Bush campaign would probably be going after him not as a flip-flopper but as a lefty. Lefty isn't exactly a term of endearment. But at least it evokes issues rather than character. Character debates sank Al Gore and threaten to sink John Kerry now. A debate about issues, on the other hand — especially the biggest issue of all, Iraq — is something Democrats could win.

  The nature of a person is difficult to discern when the media and the opposing Party promotes an image. A candidate's attempts to control the message can also cause difficulty. It seems that more American's remember the image of Michael Dukakis in a tank than they recall what he stood for. Issues are rarely discussed on the campaign trail and when they are, watch out. Consider what a contender says and how he says it. The public certainly will. The honorable Governor Dukakis was devastated throughout his run, rarely were issues the focus. Character was. When Michael Dukakis answered a question too calmly he was considered cold and thus, not electable. Yet, let us look at the man again. Perhaps, time will afford a more accurate assessment

  The National Governors' Association honored Dukakis in 1986, naming him the most effective governor in the nation.

  By 1