Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 9: Trent Lott, Republican Leader

While all the nattering is going on about the really refreshing openness and consideration of different viewpoints on such matters as the War on Iraq and Congressional earmarks in the House Democratic Caucus, it might be interesting to consider some of the basic positions of the newly elected Republican Senate Minority Whip, Trent Lott. Let’s, for example, hear what he has to say about race and racism, homosexuality and homophobia. They tell us volumes about what the Republican positions on these two critical questions concerning the social fabric of our county really are.

In a 1984 interview with the magazine, Southern Partisan, a journal of apologia for the Confederate States of America, he said (Applebome, P., “Dueling with the Heirs of Jeff Davis,” News of the Week in Review, New York Times, Dec. 27, 1998, p. 1): “I think that a lot of the fundamental principles that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important to people across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party.” One might want to ask Sen. Lott himself, and the party that chose him once again to be part of their Senate leadership, just which are the particular principles espoused by Davis to which he subscribes. The theory of white supremacy? The justification of slavery? The rights of the states in which slave-holding was legal at the time to continue the institution of slavery in perpetuity? Or perhaps it was the rights of slave-holders to bring the institution into any of the then unorganized territories.

 On the matter of homosexuality, in 2002 or so (and for this one I do not have before me the reference), on the Senate floor he said words to the effect of: “The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. So it is, and that’s that.”

 Tells us a lot, and a Lott too, about contemporary Republicanism, doesn’t it? That these positions are little known also tells us how much and how little are really known about what Republicans and their chosen leaders really stand for.

This item was originally pubished on BuzzFlash on Tue, 11/21/2006 – 11:08am.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/030

“Dr. J” is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), Contributing Editor for The Planetary Movement (http://www.planetarymovement.org/ and a Columnist for BuzzFlash.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 8: Not So Fast, Jim, or “The Return of the Chith”

So, just like me, you thought that Cheney was finished, huh? You thought that the upcoming report of the “Baker Commission” would set the course for a reasonable withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, primarily because the two original Georgite objectives of the invasion, oil and bases, had been achieved. You thought, like me, that the unceremonious ouster of Rumsfeld and the insertion of the old Bush-I/Baker hand, Bob Gates, signified that the battles had been fought and the Baker wing of the Republican power elite had won. You thought, like me, thought that the Baker folks were probably inwardly happy with the election of a Democratic Congress because dealing with rational people would make it easier for them to achieve their desired aim. Finally, like me, you thought that the next major head to roll might very well be Cheney’s. Well, we all have to think again.

 Vice-President “Permanent War” Cheney ain’t giving up without a fight. That was made clear by two events that occurred yesterday (Nov. 15, 2006). One was the testimony of the (obvious Cheney puppet) Gen. John Abizaid before a Senate panel that any talk of time-tables or “phased withdrawal” would be very ill-advised, that the “job wasn’t finished,” that the Iraqi forces needed lots more, better, and different training and leadership (as if it had not been his task to do that all these many months — what was this guy doing?) Sounded very much like “Stay the Course” without using those now prohibited words. Second was the announcement that the White House was setting up its own “study group” for Iraq policy and that the report of the Baker Commission was something they would certainly consider. Sounds like that report has suddenly gone from determining the future to teetering on the edge of the dustbin for policies that the Georgites just don’t like (any that are not their’s).

 This stuff has Cheney’s fingerprints all over it. And why would the No. 1 Georgite go in this direction? A) He really doesn’t feature losing his job and being unceremoniously tossed into the dustbin of failed Iraq policies himself. B) He still believes in the Neo-con/Project for a New American Century program for US world domination that has been at the heart of U.S. Middle East policy since Bush took over the Presidency. C) He still really wants to bomb the hell out of Iran “to show the world who is boss,” something that will definitely not happen if the Baker Commission polices, which include, oh my gosh, actually talking with Iran and Syria, are adopted. And D) most importantly, if an Iraq withdrawal is achieved, if Iran is not bombed to smithereens, if the “War on Terrorism” actually becomes a war on terrorism, not a cover for American imperialism, there go Cheney’s chances of establishing his dreamed of “Unitary Executive” otherwise known as “Fascist Dictatorship,” for which the legislative basis has already been established, right here in River City.

And so the Baker-Cheney battle is underway. It will be a fascinating to watch. The future of Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the rest of the Middle East and of Constitutional Democracy right here at home, are in the balance. Oh yes, what are the “Chith?” The Cheneyite Sith of “Star Wars” fame, of course.

 This item originally appeared on BuzzFlash on Thu, 11/16/2006 – 4:13pm. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/028


“Dr. J.” is a nom de plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net) and a Columnist for BuzzFlash

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 7: Which Way Ya Gonna Go, Joe?

In the run-up to the election, Joe Lieberman was assuring Connecticut voters that [delete the first “he”] if elected he would continue to vote with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. He was elected, as you all know. (Why don’t I say “re-elected,” some might ask? Because it wasn’t Joe Lieberman, Democrat, who was elected, it was Joe Lieberman, former Democrat who was elected. He received about 70% of the Republican vote in Connecticut. If he had not gotten all of those Republican votes, the true Democratic candidate Ned Lamont would have won in a walk.) [Delete “further”] For his campaign, Lieberman received lots of Republican money and had senior Republican political consultants on his staff.

On October 17, 2006 elsewhere I published a short note speculating that were he to get back to the Senate, Lieberman might vote to caucus with the Republicans. Nevertheless, on the day after the election, appearing on the show of his “dear friend” Sean Hannity (!!!), Lieberman said unequivocally that he would caucus with the Democrats, while shooting darts at all the Democrats who had “deserted” him (“stabbed him in the back” [by supporting the elected nominee of their own party, of course] was the term Hannity used, without any demurrer from Lieberman). “I won’t ever forget what happened,” Lieberman said. But he also said, “I gave my word before the election [that he would caucus with the Dems.], and I will stick with it.”  In the new Senate his vote will be critical to how it is organized. If he votes with the Dems., it will be 51-49 and they will organize. If he votes with Repubs., it will be 50-50. The question of who would organize it in that case would be complex, very complex, but in any tie votes on legislation, Cheney would have the tie-breaker. (It is unclear if he would have the tie-breaker on organizing the Senate. At the very least there would be co-Majority leaders and the Committee chair positions would be spilt.) But now, all of a sudden, Lieberman’s not so sure which way he will go. On “Meet the Press” on Nov. 12, he announced that his party label would not be “D” but rather “ID:” Independent Democrat. Further he stated that he would now not rule out voting with the Republicans on the matter of organizing the Senate, although he was still “leaning” to the Democrats.

The question now becomes to whom, precisely, did he give his word on the matter of with whom he would be caucusing, were he to be going back to the Senate: the voters of Connecticut or the Republican power-brokers who put him back in office? Stay tuned, folks. Harry Reid may not be the Majority Leader after all, and the Dems. may not indeed have all of those juicy Committee Chairs. (Wouldn’t the Georgites in particular like not to have Pat Leahy running Judiciary, as they continue their assault on Constitutional Democracy.) “Say it ain’t so, Joe,” originally applied to the baseball great Shoeless Joe Jackson after the revelation of the “Chicago Black Sox” baseball betting scandal of 1919, may come to have a new meaning.

This article was originally published on BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/13/2006 – 3:28pm, at

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/027Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), the Contributing Editor for The Planetary Movement, and a Columnist for BuzzFlash. 

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 6: The Wisdom of Ann Coulter

This morning (it was Nov. 3), Ann Coulter, along with a steady stream of Republican heavyweights (and no Democrats) appeared on “Fox and Friends,” the “fair and balanced” morning show of the Fox”News”Channel. She shared a couple of pieces of political wisdom with her audience that I thought might enlighten our readers about what she is really about (that is, if you need any further enlightening). First, she told us that the prime reason that the Republicans need to retain control of Congress was that only the Bush Administration could be trusted to secure our nation’s security. This on the morning, as posted earlier today on Buzz Flash, that the New York Times revealed that since March until yesterday, the Department of Defense had up on the web a site about the dastardly Saddam Hussein that showed, among other things, how to make an atomic bomb. When asked how she would compare the Foley scandal with the Kerry scandal (sic), Ms. Coulter allowed that the former only concerned one single individual who needed help, while the latter concerned the whole of the Democratic Party, revealing how traitorous it is (well, you know those liberals). And there you have it, folks: the wisdom (sic, and sick) of Ann Coulter.

Please note: this item was originally published on the webmagazine BuzzFlash on Nov. 3, 2006