Swan Song

I made a big mistake. It was an error in judgment and timing. I was asked to run for the U.S. Senate by progressives who want peace and social justice. I agreed to take up the charge and try to challenge the incumbent. I did this because I believed (incorrectly) that there was a historic moment at hand when people of good will would turn their backs on the two party system and flock to an alternative, even one they did not really know about. I also believed that progressive organizations would flock even more to a progressive alternative. After all we were promised change and instead we got a third Bush term with a new face. It is disgusting and I thought all of us were so disgusted we would act. It turns out that is not true. People are disgusted but they did not act – they are tired (see below).

Progressive organizations are an entirely different matter. Some are simply not what they appear – that is they appear to be about an issue but are really fronts from the Democratic Party. Such organizations will not challenge the status quo because they live in and through the status quo. Other progressive organizations seemed to not care about the opportunity, much to my surprise. Labor, I thought, might be a wildcard. There is an obvious and undeniable connection between a strong Labor movement and average standards of living. The stronger Labor is the better we all live. But Labor is like a battered wife, not ready to leave the relationship. The Democrats constantly do things to undermine Labor and its interests, but Labor has no courage or power to its political convictions. At the state level Labor talks about being independent but it is just a pipe dream. And that is very sad for all of us, since that is the source of social power that could help ordinary working people to do better. Instead Labor works for Democrats who just take advantage of them and occasionally apologize for not being a better partner. Democrats abuse Labor and Labor tolerates it – there really is no hope until that dynamic changes.

I thought people would, en masse, care enough to support an independent challenge to the two-party system and its wars. I was wrong. It is time to admit that error and get on with life. I cannot do what I had hoped to do with this campaign and so I am pulling the plug on the effort now.

I have learned a great deal along the way. I understand some things better now. I think I understand our current descent into the fascism of Europe. I don’t think it is complicated. And I know that some think I sound melodramatic. Perhaps. It is true we cannot know the future when we ponder it as future. I understand much deeper the degree to which American politics is now just theater rather than democracy. For example, the Seattle Times reported today that the Republican front-runner in this race is actually a flaming hypocrite. It turns out he denounces government aid, but has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in such aid as a small farmer. It appears he does not know anything about how the world works, anything about history, anything about politics, but he can spout colorful nonsense. Now he has been caught in his own hypocrisy, but I think it will not matter much in the end. The incumbent has been voted the least intelligent member of Congress in the past (polls of interns done by one DC paper). This front runner is clearly not fit for the job but it is not clear the incumbent is either. So I predict a great deal of theater in which people who don’t know much of anything about anything have “debates” in which they give hyperbolic speeches devoid of real content. If I had stayed in the race I would have had the privilege of being excluded from those debates.

This theater of the absurd masquerading as democracy is disturbing, but even more disturbing is the fact that this dynamic cannot change as long as elections are primarily about money instead of ideas. The for-profit media have too much of a profit motive in the theater to encourage a contest of ideas and the dominant political parties have no interest in it either. Neither of them could do well if they were judged by the quality of their thinking and analysis. And this works for them, although not for democracy. It is all quite sad, really.

There are grave problems facing the nation. The economy is teetering on the edge of collapse and the steps that might make a real difference aren’t being done. I hear this from Left and mainstream economists. The necessary steps are not being taken. Instead we have debates about important issues to be sure, but the debates don’t happen in an orderly form. They are hysterical. Healthcare became hysterical for social conservatives and economic liberals, at least among those prone to hysteria. There seemed to be a lot of them.

These days people I think of as decent and well meaning are hysterical over racist legislation in Arizona. In this case I think the concern is quite legitimate. What is interesting is that these issues get dropped on the public sequentially. Now I don’t mean to imply a plot of some sort, just a pattern to the politics of the day. We are in crisis mode and I suspect that part is not accidental. Some just happen due to ill considered risks and bad luck, like oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico right now. Which things are crises at any given time is probably not under anyone’s control, but general social instability can be tolerated, encouraged or resisted. Our government seems to tolerate it at the very least, and at times much more. I think this is basic to what is called Straussian Politics, and I have said before I think both major parties are at the heart of it Straussian. One of them does a variant and so does not identify it by name.

Leo Strauss was a political philosopher who came up with a variation on European Fascism in which the state uses psychological manipulation rather than state terror as the primary mechanism of control. Strauss believed that the population was not fit to govern itself and so the people with power had to use “gentlemen” who believe the lies the government tells, the myths of society and can repeat them with enthusiasm (clearly the incumbent and the Republican front-runner are ideal from the Straussian point of view). He believed that war was the best way to keep society ordered. If we are at war then we are busy with that and not other concerns for social justice, equality or fairness. The Neo-Conservatives of the Republican Party have enthusiastically embraced this philosophy. The Neo-Liberals of the Democratic Party have embraced this way of governing but they don’t talk about Strauss. They both put on a play every couple of years in which they pretend to have democratic elections, but really they just have theater in which people are allowed to vote but only for a limited range of inadequate options.

These crises have tired people out. The Obama campaign tired people out. We thought if we did all that work that he (they, the Democrats) would use the power we gave them to do good in the world. Instead they just continued the same old imperialist policies and in same cases extended them. It is not simply that Obama and the Democrats have not done what they promised, it is that they are not who they claim to be. People are recognizing this but are too worn out to do much about it. Probably the turn out in this primary will be historically low as a result.

I am impressed now with the mechanisms they have for social control, mechanisms I understand much better now. We are a big country and it is amazing that they can do the most absurd things, put forth moronic policies, start wars with no reason, turn us into a torture state, bomb countries we are not at war with, and more all while convincing the American people to accept this as necessary or inevitable. It is neither necessary nor inevitable that we are an imperial power, a torture state, or that we sit and watch the global economy collapse while simultaneously watching the rise of a domestic “Blackshirts” movement.

People are tired, and this is why. It matters to an Independent political campaign that people are so profoundly tired. Sure, if I was a pro-corporate hack it would be easy to attract money and so tired populations are not such a big issue, and in fact can be quite helpful. A campaign like mine needs people, energetic volunteers. A political campaign is akin to starting a new business, that measures success in near instant terms (relative to ordinary business), and certain sorts of specialized knowledge are key to that. For a very large campaign much of the things that are a big deal for me, for my volunteers, are huge. A campaign needs momentum and I failed to generate that.

I have considered that it might be important, in fact very important to go on for precisely the reasons I mentioned above. These are scary times and we need to challenge that. Is that not precisely what I was intending to do? Well yes. So why I am dropping out? I made a mistake in coming to certain conclusions about what I could do and expect. I overreached myself and my evidence. Poetically it feels like flying too close to the sun. More straightforwardly it is a painful lesson in trying but not being able to try hard enough due to a mistaken analysis. Many people have expressed sympathy. I tried and that is more than most. There are some people who helped me, and they made it easy to get started, and had confidence in me. I did too. I feel that I have let them down; as well as all my supporters, and myself. But I tried and learned a great deal. To a scholar (especially but not exclusively) that makes this sort of experience valuable, if costly in other ways.

Thank you all! I am sorry I could not do more. I wish us all well, as I am deeply concerned.

Yours,

Richard

Rev. Dr. Richard Curtis, former Independent Candidate for U.S. Senate

If You Can't Follow the Constitution then Resign!

 Dr. Richard Curtis, a professional philosopher and candidate for the U.S. Senate (I-WA) issued the following statement and analysis, Thursday, May 6, 2010:

When those who have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States publicly call for the violation of the Constitution they should either resign or be expelled from office. There is no excuse for disrespecting the Constitution, especially by those entrusted, and sworn to protect it. If certain Senators actually introduce legislation allowing U.S. citizens to be stripped of their rights without trial these people should be forced to resign or expelled. It is despicable that defenders of the Constitution would so freely disregard everything it says and stands for.

For example: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) recently said: “I’m now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights.”

What I would like to know is what in the world is this man thinking? He wants to just declare citizens non-citizens and ship them off to Guantanamo? Does he have any idea how the world works? It is as if he just doesn’t bother trying to make any sense and just spots off nonsense. Lieberman is an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate and the independent political movement that seems to put us together.

Granted the Senator has a way of using English that makes proper sentences and he can even seem like a sane person until you look at his ideas. The problem with the above quote is in the word, “found.” You see Sen. Lieberman has no idea what that means, who should determine it or what standards should apply. One might think this is a straight-forward problem but the Senator seems to not believe in such things as human rights. So when he talks about “a citizen who is found to be involved” he does not intend to say, “when a legitimate legal process finds” someone guilty, rather it seems that he means “when he or someone he likes thinks someone is guilty.” And all of that does not even begin to get to the problem of how the State Department comes up with that list of terrorist organizations (it includes medical charities, people who donate bicycles around the world, and all manner of groups that have nothing to do with violence). It is a list with no moral content and to suggest that one use it as a basis for denying people’s rights is not just immoral but actually evil.

Another example: Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) said, “Even if you’re an American citizen helping the enemy, you should be viewed as a military threat…” And Sen. McCain said reading a citizen his rights was a “serious mistake.”

Really, you all don’t believe in the Constitution, you don’t believe in the principles that are supposed to guide our justice system? You don’t believe that people are innocent until proven guilty? It seems important to note here that the accused they have in mind (Faisal Shahzad) was not informed of his rights at the appropriate time (although he was later). Perhaps this is just an attempt to circumvent U.S. law, by declaring after the fact that such illegal behavior by law enforcement is acceptable (in circumstances that are never defined, but somehow always involve people of color accused of crimes in curious circumstances). No need for the truth or Constitutional procedure here any longer, in the country these people would have us live in. When Glenn Beck laments the lost America of his youth perhaps he means Miranda rights – that would at least make sense.

Evidently if someone shows up at Sen. Graham’s or Sen. McCain’s office and accuses them of being a terrorist, they believe they should be taken off and tortured until such time as they can prove their innocence (never mind that that is a logical impossibility). Since they obviously think such rules should apply to brown and black skinned people they ought to believe totalitarian laws should apply to them as well. Though, somehow I expect the these people’s thinking does not involve anything so pedestrian as logical consistency.

It is like Republicans along with Lieberman take turns spitting on the Constitution. These people seem not to have heard of the Bill of Rights, or just ignore it – in violation of their oath of office, I might point out – and that is why they should be expelled. It is not just that Lieberman and the rest suggest moronic and totalitarian laws, people can say what they want, it is that they do this as part of our legislative process even though such laws are clearly unconstitutional. They are insulting all of us.

These people also seem to have no understanding of legal philosophy or any sense of what purpose laws have. They are completely confused about the difference between military problems and police problems and yet they keep getting elected. It is as if reason is the real enemy these people have; and no matter how absurd and vile the idea they will support it.

I am in a race to join the Senate and it deeply disturbs me that so many of them have absolutely no respect for the Constitution, for human beings, or for human rights. These are the most powerful people in the world and they don’t even expect morality or rationality from their own members. It is disgraceful that Lieberman, Graham and McCain are not laughed out of the building for suggesting such ridiculous things. If people’s lives were not being destroyed by these wastes of carbon the whole thing would be funny. As it is they are a national disgrace.

You could throw darts at random phrases on a wall and come up with better legislation than these people. I realize the Republicans are ideologically committed to the insane idea that less government (except the military) is always better. Do they have to prove their devotion to that bit of seasoned irrationality by killing and ruining so many people’s lives?

Now, to be clear, there is no mystery why someone who has no understanding of the proper functions of government, the U.S. Constitution, history or anything for that matter can and, very often, is elected to high office. Both political parties make use of the political philosophy of Leo Strauss, which is itself just a mild version of the fascist philosophy of Carl Schmitt. This is celebrated by Neo-Conservative Intellectuals, but the foundations of Strauss’s political philosophy guide both Neo-Conservatives and the Democratic Leadership Council. These principles include primarily the belief that some are fit to rule and others follow, that leaders should lie to the public, and most vitally that wars are needed to keep citizen occupied. The Senators quoted above and at least a hundred other figures could be quoted to make the point that these people are not fit to lead. Ironically they are chosen for precisely that reason. Strauss said that those who really understand the world in his way (the Wise) should whisper in the ears of politicians (the Gentlemen) and they would tell the public the lies that must be told to keep society the way it is. That is why we are still at war even though a popular president promised to end at least one of them, that is why we are a torture state even though a popular president promised to end those crimes.

What is mysterious is why the American people have tolerated this for so long.

Why Can’t We Have a Rational Drug Policy?

There was tremendous hope that when President Obama asked former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske to head up drug policy that this would herald a new and rational direction in national drug policy. Sadly, it appears nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather than Kerlikowske informing policy it appears policy is corrupting him.

I once would have said I had great respect for the man but that is hard to say after reading this:

"As President Obama himself has said, “Never has it been more important to have a national drug control strategy guided by sound principles of public safety and public health.” We cannot continue to pursue the same old strategy."

and expect better results. The Obama Administration’s strategy is unique because it takes advantage of what we now know about how to more effectively prevent drug use, provide addiction treatment, and enforce the law against illegal drugs.

The strategy itself is a document released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The quote above is from page five.

Sadly it appears that almost nothing of what Kerlikowske is claiming is true. Yes, they are trying to use more treatment than in the past but as a plan of action their strategies for doing this are empyt and meaningless. It is tragic that the status quo of keeping street drugs illegal persists in the absence of any rational justification for the policy. For details visit the web site of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).

Treating drug users as criminals only perpetuates cycles of crime and violence. We know this, Obama knows this, but he will not support any effort to use real science to guide policy. The science tells us that prohibition is just about the worst idea, unless one’s goal is to keep huge numbers of people locked up. This, I assume, is the real goal. The government uses drug policy as a way of covering the fact that it has no coherent economic policy and so cannot deal with unemployment. Instead of providing jobs and meaningful opportunities to all the Obama adminsitration prefers to keep locking them up – at truly horrific rates.

This leaves untouch three additionally important reasons why the President’s policy is really just an abuse of the citizenry. The first is the medical benefits of cannibis. These are not studied because actual science would contradict government policy so the government keeps marijuana out of medical research. This is not just irrational but down right cruel. It is difficult to think of the Obama administration, indeed the whole of the Democratic Party, as nothing more than a theater production that tries to leave people with a good feeling. It is just theater, with no substance, no thought, no significant improvement in policy from the past.

Second, the environmental benefits of switching from petroleum to hemp based plastics would transform our world. Hemp is food, fuel, building material, paper, medicine and plastics – all from one plant, one illegal plant. The reasons, of course, that this plant are illegal are economic not moral. The plant was outlawed when it became a threat to new products being developed by big corporations. They have tried to convince people there is a moral arugment to be made for this policy with lie after lie, but in truth it is only rational if one’s goal is making rich people richer.

Third, the economic benefits to a change in policy are huge. If we just treated marijuana like alcohol many social problems would dramatically decrease and many different levels of government would benefit from this huge addition to the tax base.

Why can’t we have a rational drug policy? Because such a policy would threaten certain people’s profits and the government works for them and not us. I, of course, am running to represent people instead of corporations and would introduce legislation to immediately legalize all forms of hemp and decriminalize other drugs so as to rely on treatment exclusively.

It is not complicated, there are just too many greedy jerks and their toadies in the way of sound policy.

Richard Curtis, PhD

Weekly Update: Racist and Environmental Chaos Reigns Supreme

The world was filled with chaos of the racist and environmental types this week.

The campaign tried to call some attention to the absurd and delusional position taken by the White House in reaction to BP’s massive oil spill. The White House thinks we need to hold off deciding whether to continue coastal oil drilling depending on what they find caused this tragedy.

“Stupid” is the word that comes to mind. It is outrageously moronic to argue in the face of what will be the worst environmental disaster US history that we should continue doing the same things that caused this tragedy. You see, that would be insane. Rational people look at this and say, “OK, clearly the risks are much greater than we appreciated and obviously we should not do this any longer.” That is what sane people think in the face of significant challenges to old ways of doing things. They use reason and adapt. But of course our political system has nothing whatsoever to do with reason, as it is predicted entirely on corporate profits.

However that is not the only disturbing part of the news this week. The new “immigration” law in Arizona was setting the tone for action on the streets this week. Tens, if not hundred of thousands of people across the country were involved in May Day protests against this new law. The law itself is blatantly unconstitutional, and one imagines it will never survive court challenge.

This raises some interesting and disturbing questions about the law and the reaction to it. Immigration has been the issue the two parties have decided they want to focus on these days. Why? Because immigration as an issue distracts people from the wars and the economy, the issues they don’t want to discuss.

It seems to me that this is not really about immigration at all, but about creating distractions that occupy people and keep them from organizing a revolt against the government for mismanaging the economy and keeping us in these criminal wars.

What is the immigration problem? Apparently, the only problem is that people want immigration to be a problem. I have yet to understand why anyone is worried about immigration. I understand why people worry about how illegal immigrants are treated. I advocate respecting the human rights of all people – all people. What is the problem? We have illegal immigrants? Is that the problem? No, it is as it always has been. My wife is descended from an illegal immigrant (ironically not Mexican but via Mexico). Many of us are. What is the problem?

There is no actual immediate problem. It is created out of thin air by the Republicans in order to give people something to worry about that has no potential to disrupt the war machine. It is pure distraction of no substance.

What is the problem with the new Arizona law? Well, it is unconstitutional and that seems to be a problem. Did thousands of people need to take to the streets to denounce a law the courts will void anyway? Probably not. Why all the excitement then? For exactly the same reasons the Republicans made immigration an issue to begin with – it is an issue that will not disrupt the war machine. So the Democrats can (and did) focus all of this anger and energy on a target that will just go away once any judge looks at it. The Democrats managed to make May Day – the International Workers’ Day – about something that will be fixed in the ordinary course of a judicial challenge. Instead of May Day being about workers’ rights and peace, which is what May Day is supposed to be about, the Democrats (and a network of organizations they dominate) took all that energy and effort and directed it specifically aw! ay from the issues that matter most to working people – peace and jobs.

When you think about it they are quite brilliant really. The level of social control, what Antonio Gramsci called “Hegemony”, is astounding. In the midst of two illegal wars and a depression the big parties managed to eliminate all conversation about the wars and economy even during an election year. They are quite clever, evil, but clever. Gramsci would be stunned at the total hegemonic control that is exerted by our two party duopoly. Now, to be honest we are much closer to Mussolini’s Italy than most of us want to think (the society Gramsci wrote about). We have a network of secret prisons around the world, we actively practice torture, we are illegally occupying two countries and are bombing a third, while threatening a fourth. We are living Mussolini’s philosophy of government quite literally. The Democrats promised peace and respect for human rights – they delivered nothing. And ! still they control all of the popular energy that should be going into open revolts. It is astounding that they can control the American people so well.

This was predicted, years ago, of course. Many astute thinkers predicted that an Obama victory would be the death of progressivism in America. He promised so much and so many felt such hope, and then it all comes crashing down in the reality that he never really intended to do any of that, and as long as the Republicans can seem outright deranged then that will keep progressive forces too afraid to rebel – this is the pinnacle of lesser evil politics. It is the pinnacle of Straussian politics being taken up by both political parties in what looks like a coordinated effort to keep the American people from demanding justice and peace.

This is tragic on many levels but not least because we remain at war, and we are watching our society and economy become something that looks more like the Third World than the First. Some economists say we will look like Mexico in less than 30 years – that is within that time the American middle class will have virtually vanished. And what will the Democrats do to save us? Absolutely nothing because they have no desire to save us (the middle class), they are in it for corporate profits just like the Republicans. Is there anyone who actually believes this is not true? The tragedy is that we, the American people, seem to have been beaten down so completely that we do not have the energy to fight, and then what little energy we have is deviously and maliciously diverted to issues that do not alter the fundamental realities of American politics.

The tragedy is deep and profound.

God help us all! (And I don’t even believe in a god!).

Yours with sorrow,

Richard

Oil Man in the White House

On March 31, 2010, President Obama, fulfilling a campaign promise to allow offshore drilling as part of his “comprehensive energy policy,” announced he would propose off-shore drilling along the eastern Gulf of Mexico, much of the East Coast, and Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska.

Now, less than a month after this announcement, we are experiencing probably the worst oil tragedy in modern history in the Gulf of Mexico. In response to questions on this environmental crisis, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “We need to figure out what happened.”

Really, Mr. President, we need to figure out what happened? Does it matter why oil extraction systems fail? What we do know is that the destruction will be massive. It will kill the only coral reef system in the United States and cause untold damage to all manner of animal lives – including and most painfully, untold human lives. And in response, all you can say is, “We need to figure out what happened?”

You, Mr. President, had been warned of this very possibility. You knew and yet came down on the side of corporate interests against the warnings of coastal governors, environmentalists, and senators. On the very day you made your announcement, Senator Frank Lautenberg (R-NJ) released a statement where he stated, in part, "Giving Big Oil more access to our nation's waters is really a 'Kill, Baby, Kill' policy. It threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars."

In his March 31 press release, Sen. Lautenberg emphasized the following:

· Drilling damages our vibrant coastal economies

· Drilling is dangerous

· More drilling will not solve our energy problems




How do you feel now, Mr. President?

We cannot drill offshore!

What more will it take before we admit the need to get off our fossil fuel habit?

This environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico threatens hundreds of species of wildlife, not to mention the tragic loss of human life.

We need to radically restructure the way we fuel a modern society, and it can be done with concerted effort. We just have to elect politicians who will choose reason over the interests of large campaign contributors.

Richard Curtis

Curtis for Senate Events This Weekend

The Richard Curtis for U.S. Senate campaign will be heavily involved in May Day activities this weekend.  We encourage you to attend as many of these events as possible given the good causes they involve.  The campaign will have people with signs and other materials at all of the events so please find the person with a bunch of signs and pick one up for the rally and for home, as well as other materials and buttons, etc.

1. The Annual International Marijuana Liberation March - Saturday

This one is a very exciting event that is happening in over 130 countries and thousands of cities and towns around the world.  Locally it is happening in the midst of organizing for Initiative 1068, which would legalize adult consumption of marijuana and hemp farming.  This initiative is vitally important to both divert people from the prison system and keep them part of society; it would radically reduce spending on courts, jails and prisons; and the farming aspect would open up opportunities for farmers all over the state to raise and sell and particularly easy to grow and useful plant – the most useful plant on Earth.

Gather at Volunteer Park sometime after 11AM (there is a program at each end of the march), speakers will start at 1PM just before the march starts.  The march will go from Volunteer Park to Westlake Plaza, where there will be a few more speakers.  (Richard will be speaking at Westlake sometime around 4PM, but the campaign will have people at both ends and in between.)


2. Immigration Rights March – Saturday

Given the new (and racist) immigration law in Arizona this annual event is expected to be especially important.

Rally starts at noon at Judkins Playfield (behind St. Mary's church, 611 20th Ave South), the march will leave at 12:30 pm to go to Memorial Stadium at Seattle Center.(Richard will be at Judkins Playfield at a minimum, but the campaign should have people at both ends and in between.)

3. Abolish Nuclear Weapons – Sunday (May 2)

Ground Zero and Abolish Nuclear Weapons are both very committed organizations that do excellent work trying to keep humanity from destroying itself.

Rally starts at 1:30 PM at the Seattle University Quad followed by a march to Seattle Waterfront Park (next to the aquarium).  The campaign is in the process of building relationships with these groups and is an enthusiastic supporter of their efforts.  (Richard will be at the Waterfront Park but the campaign should have people at both ends and in between.)


If you can be at one or more of the locations of these events and would like to help distribute literature please contact the office: Tom@curtis4senate.org

Weekly Update - Wall Street Reform or Folly?

Cartoon via Ed Stein

Financial regulation was the major news item this past week. After all the duplicity on the part of the Democrats in this financial mess, we now are supposed to applaud them for going after Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs is no angel here, don’t get me wrong. If it weren’t for Goldman pulling the trigger on AIG by demanding AIG put up cash to show its ability to pay (collateral calls), taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for an $80 billion bailout. A bailout spearheaded by none other than ex-Goldman Chairman and CEO, Henry Paulson, who at the time of the bailout was United States Secretary of the Treasury. Then, in typical cronyism fashion, Ed Liddy, who was on the board of Goldman from 2003 – 2008, was put in charge of AIG so that Goldman recouped every cent of its AIG debt. Classic fox guarding the hen house, wouldn’t you agree?

But, this is all smoke and mirrors to hide the real story which is the deregulation of the financial market which led to its near collapse. Deregulation goes back to the Clinton administration with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (November 4, 1999).

Senator Murray voted with the Democratic Party in support of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. President Clinton has since apologized and admitted this was a mistake but we have yet to hear Senator Murray issue an apology for her vote.

In typical manipulation of facts, the truth is covered over by the appearance of the Democrats finally going after the “bad guys” and their call for financial reform. Their financial “reform,” however, is all smoke and mirrors because it is not fixing the problem which the Democrats had a major role in causing. One analyst said there were enough holes in this finance reform bill for bankers to drive their Ferraris through. Another referred to it as all holes and no cheese.

Even the sponsor of the bill, Senator Chris Dodd, admits that this bill "will not stop the next crisis from coming" and a recent Moody’s report states, “the proposed regulatory framework doesn’t appear to be significantly different from what exists today.”

In order to successfully reform Wall Street, if elected, I would work to:

Resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act
Cap the size of big banks at $100 billion in assets
Require that all derivative trades be done on open exchanges to protect against speculative buying and selling

So don’t let the Democrats, and Senator Murray, convince you that they have your best interests at heart. Senator Murray voted the wrong way in 1999. Do we reward her by sending her back to the Senate?

If elected, I won’t be looking out for the best interests of my cronies on Wall Street or in the Big Banks. My campaign accepts no corporate donations and is dependent on individuals who want to change the status quo in Washington, DC, today. Re-electing Senator Murray is sending the wrong message.

I hope to hear from you and for your help in this campaign to bring about real reform that is so badly needed in our government today.

Richard