After years of Republican control, Democrats were ecstatic to win back both Houses in 2006.  Unfortunately, we have found that we are blocked at every turn by a Republican majority that is unshakeable in its dedication to doing nothing and bad-mouthing everything.  Well, what did we expect?

But the last two years, if nothing else, should have taught us that there is no unimportant seat in either the House or the Senate.  Unfortunately, one of the best chances of Democrats stealing a seat seems to be falling off of the radar.  Despite the designation as a Red-to-Blue state, there doesn't seem to be much interest in New Mexico's Second District.

The first thing you should know about the district is that it's huge.  The entire state of Pennsylvania could fit within its borders and have room for squeezing in a few Rhode Islands around the edges.  If you think it isn't big, buddy, spend a day driving from Hobbs to Los Cruces and then up to Los Lomas.

But despite it's size, fewer than a quarter of a million votes will be cast here in November.  When you spread that few votes over that big an area, you are challenging your candidate to get his or her message out.  This is especially true when you consider there are probably half a dozen media centers that <i>have</i> to be coordinated and half a dozen more that <i>should</i> be worked to be successful.

History is against a Democrat here.  Republican Joe Skeen won 58-42 in 2000 and Republican Steve Pearce won it 60-40 in 2004.  But Steve Pearce is running for the NM-Senate this year, and trailing badly behind popular Democratic candidate Tom Udall.  Obama is leading the polls in New Mexico with a steady margin and Big Bill Richardson is on the stump for every Democrat in the state.

In other words, this district is ready for a change.  Plus the history isn't as bad as it seems at first blush.  Democrat Harold Runnels held the seat when I was a child there.  His death in 1980 led to a horrendous election where his wife split the Democratic vote with the nephew of the Governor (who also just moved into the district to run for office).  That allowed moderate Republican Joe Skeen to take the office on a write-in campaign.  When he died in office in 2003, Steve Pearce picked up the seat.

Think about the years - 1981-2 and 2003-4.  The first rise of Ronny Reagan and the second coming of George W. Bush.  This was a district that turned on the Republican brand (and, in the 1981 election, Democratic stupidity and arrogance).  With the Republican brand hovering somewhere around the popularity levels of Satan and Osama bin Laden, it looks like a chance for Democrats to take back a seat they never should have lost.

Republicans have put up slick-talking <a href="http://www.nmfbihop.com/userDiary.do;jsessionid=B1B8A540F8D591F4C5E14C5E23EE9AD8?personId=195">Ed Tinsley</a> to run against <a href="http://www.harryforcongress.com/">Harry Teague</a>.  The contrast could not be greater.

As a restauranteer, Tinsley has crusaded against higher minimum wages and backs a healthcare plan that is roughly analagous to a healthcare savings account that depends entirely upon his employees reporting higher tips.  Teague, on the other hand, runs an oilfield service company, backs universal healthcare, and has generously run an employee tuition-assistance program for years.  

While Tinsley has been able to call on his friends in the restaurant business - he served for years as an executive for the National Restaurant Association - Teague has been scrambling hard to raise money locally.  Teague has managed to outraise Tinsley by <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=NM02&cycle=2008">half a million dollars</a>, but that kind of money isn't going to last in this race.  Plus, half of the money is from Teague's own pocket.  That's unsustainable, and Tinsley actually has deep pockets as well.  If you take all of the self-financing out of it, the fundraising has been almost steady at around $800K each.

There is no unimportant seat in the House this year.  This district is an example of why Howard Dean has demanded a fifty-state effort.  New Mexico stands on the verge of being completely blue this year - but <a href="http://www.actblue.com/page/reenchanttheland">Harry Teague and the New Mexico Democrats</a> aren't going to be able to do it alone.

I spent part of my childhood in Southeastern New Mexico and part of me
still considers it "home".  For years I've scratched my head in wonder
as the residents of that area filed into the voting booth to send
conservative ideologues to Washington to represent them.  That may be
changing - and that makes this largely unknown district very important
in the national balance of power.



The Second Congressional District basically consists of everything in
New Mexico south of Albuequerque.  The Democrats have found a quality
candidate in Harry Teague
- a high school dropout who went to work in the oilfields for $1.50 an
hour and slowly worked his way up to owning his own oilfield service
company.  Meanwhile, Republicans settled on Ed Tinsley to represent
their interests - and to carry out their war on the working man.





The rumor is that there isn't much difference between the two men.  If
you dig into Tinsley's past, however, you can easily find out that this
is a heinous lie. 



Tinsley has been widely questioned about whether or not he actually
lives in the district or if he spends more time at his "second home" in
Santa Fe.  But it isn't just his home that takes him away from the
district - it's everything in his life, from his kids going to college to every one of his business interests to his "public service" as a Board Member and President of the National Restaurant Association.

It is in his role of NRA Board member that Ed Tinsley actually tips his hand about how he hates his own workers.  It sounds like campaign spin, I know, but I don't know how else to characterize someone who testifies to Congress that his employee should not be able to touch her retirement account to keep her daughter alive - or who thinks that the real problem with workers is that they are simply too stupid to save the pittance he calls their paycheck.

Then there is this nice little discovery where we find out that the NRA is anti-minimum wage and pro-drunk driving.  Those who follow lobbyist-politics regularly will recognize the name of Lee Culpepper - you can usually find him shilling for Walmart.  So long as he's fighting the idea of a living wage, he's happy.  But the full quote from the NRA release makes it clear - this group wants to be shielded from lawsuits of drunk-driving victims. 

The Republican Party has waged a class and economic war against the working man since 1980.  Ed Tinsley wants to continue that war - he has his foot on his workers' throats and he likes it.  They are dependent on him and he enjoys telling them it's their own damn fault.  Ed Tinsley in Congress would not only be a disaster for New Mexico, but for the entire country.

Senator John McCain stepped off of the False-Outrage Express today to launch one of the most reprehensible political attacks of the campaign. It went like this:

And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," the Arizona senator said in a harshly worded statement issued Thursday.

Well, Mr. McCain, I served six years in the US Navy and, since you feel it is necessary to invoke the ghosts of your family , let me say that it took Vietnam almost twenty years to kill my father through alcoholism and my grandfather was awarded multiple Purple Hearts for the wounds he received while a POW of the Japanese in World War 2. He was in his sixties before the rice mold growing in his lungs developed emphasema. So, let me lecture you on how you are betraying our comrades in arms.

I agree with you that being President means that you must make tough decisions based on what is right rather than what is politically expedient. Please explain why it is right for us to now turn our back on our veterans. I'd really like to hear this come from your mouth, Senator McCain, since taxpayers footed the entire cost of your years at the Naval Academy - why is it that the grunts that actually risk their lives now are worth less than you have received? In fact, it seems rather niggardly to me for you to stand up after four generations of your family have had free educations at taxpayer expense and say that it is simply too expensive to give equal consideration to others. Have you no shame, sir?

Apparently not. You tout your "alternative" as being generous when the real effect is to cut our young veterans off from the guarantee of a college education they now have. For generations, our deal for veterans has been that a single enlistment qualifies a veteran for full educational benefits - you would impose a "sliding scale" on that deal. Instead of serving six years and having a bachelor's degree before they are thirty, you would have them serve a full career to be able to get that benefit. Have you no shame, sir?

Apparently not. You claim that allowing veterans to have their full benefits will encourage them to leave the military. The truth of the matter is that it has not handicapped our military to date. But shutting younger veterans out of their full benefits will save millions of dollars - so it's nice to see that you've fully embraced the Bush Doctrine of cheap compassion and a swift kick in the seat of the pants for the veterans your decisions send into harm's way. You talk of allowing veterans to pass their benefits along to their children - but of what use is that unless you realize that they will be too old to utilize those beneftis themselves? You would send them into battle and them have them hand down their future to their children as if it were somehow a wonderful new entitlement. Have you no shame, sir?

I agree with you fully when you say, "How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor." Your actions today - and your cowardly and dishonest attack against Senator Obama, who has stood to keep faith with our veterans - have proven that you are not fit to speak the President's name, much less to aspire to that position. Have you no shame, sir?

No. You have no shame. I do, though - and I am ashamed of you and your actions.

I applaud Geoffrey Stone's opinion article in the Chicago Tribune today.  Too often, discussions on the role of our nation's judiciary are either too dense to be widely disseminated or too slanted (usually to the right) to be of much use.  Stone manages to strike something close to the right balance - I'm just not sure anyone will hear what he's shouting.

The ongoing meme on the federal judiciary begins with the "lifetime tenure" of the job.  In actuality, there is no such term in the Constitution.  Federal judges hold their position so long as they exhibit "good behavior".  That means they have an indeterminate tenure based on their actions, not a lifetime appointment (I would concede that it is extra-ordinarily rare for a judge to be removed, but that is a separate matter). 

But arguing against "liberal activist judges" by saying they have a "lifetime tenure" benefits conservative activists in three main ways.  Firstly, it benefits them by making them "the people's champion".  Second, it benefits them by giving them a dependable target between elections.  Finally, it benefits them by obfuscating the points of law upon which our system turns.

By claiming that judges are chosen in an undemocratic fashion, conservatives automatically put themselves in the position of championing "the will of the people."  Judges never face a popular election, so it is obvious that the judges that disagree with conservatives would never win election.  This line of reasoning leads inexorably to the conclusion that liberals have appointed these "activist judges" specifically because they cannot win elections.  Afraid of the will of the people, liberals simply run an end-around and impose their own will on society.

This gives conservatives a reliable target to use between elections to detract from the failure of their policies.  Who cares that our soldiers are dying for some unknown reason, the federal judge in California just ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be forcibly recited because it contains the words "under God"!  We can't wait until the next election, send your money to fight now! 

Note that this works especially well when conservatives are holding all the cards in DC.  By pursuing and publicizing a few hopeless court cases, they can completely derail the attention of the average American.  Soon enough "cannot be forced to recite" becomes "will not be allowed to even if they want to do so" and the very idea that someone would fight to take away the right to say "under God" in the pledge while our soldiers are fighting and dying becomes the epitome of unpatriotic political opportunism.  This turns the failed policy - getting our soldiers killed needlessly - into a source of pride, while simultaneously building a fake reason to fight (obviously, we have to fight them over there if there are already people over here willing to destroy our rights).

Finally, it obfuscates the very points of law that the courts were designed to protect.  The courts are not designed to be yet another venue for public opinion - if that were designed, then there would be no need for a judge at all and lynching would be the ultimate fulfillment of justice instead of a vile abomination.  The purpose of a judge is, to borrow from the conservative lexicon, to stand astride public opinion yelling, "Stop!"

By engaging opponents in the merits of the system of tenure for good behavior, conservatives avoid any number of issues - chief of which is the definition of "good behavior".  So we have a Supreme Court Justice who goes duck hunting with a Vice President who has a case pending before the Court - action that would almost assuredly trigger disciplinary action in a lower ranking jurist.  But any discussion of Scalia's behavior is brought back to the process of selection for more prudent and liberal judges.  So long as the discussion remains on those grounds - and particularly as long as the myth of "lifetime tenure" abounds - then conservatives are assured a victory.

Notice that when they system of appointment is the problem, then judicial ideology is irrelevant.  This is, I believe, one of the reasons why so many Democratic Senators have capitulated to Republican tactics over the appointment of judges.  If the system is undemocratic, then we must enforce a "nice balance of ideology".  But if the system of appointment is democratic - and it can be argued that it is as democratic as anything the Senate does - then ideology becomes a much more central concern.  What matters isn't a "balance of opinion" or even "the will of the people" - what matters is a willingness to follow sound judicial reasoning and to pursue justice, not ideologically rigorous decisions.

It has been an effective meme for conservatives, and its use should only be expected to expand in the near future as Democrats begin to reassert the checks and balances of the Constitution. It isn't just the Congress and Presidency that has gotten out of balance, but the judiciary that has begun to consistently rule in the favor of the powerful rather than in favor of an expansive understanding of individual rights.  The appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, together with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, provide ample opportunity to carry the debate over judicial appointments into the public eye - and if liberals are able to redefine the argument into the underlying democratic process of judicial selection, the tenure of good behavior, and the willingness to rule in favor of the weak and oppressed when justice demands it, then they will be successful in changing the face of the federal judiciary.

Or we can wait for fifty or sixty years when the bumper crop of conservative judges begins to age off of the bench.

There is a very real danger of any campaign - and particularly one that
will have stretched for two years by the time it reaches its natural
end - losing its identity.  The demands a candidate faces to give in to
unreasonable demands by inches yields yard after yard until a complete
about-face has been executed and the "flip-flop" charge gets levied. 
So I have to say that I'm encouraged by Barack Obama's ability to turn
the news cycle away from the  ill advised "tax-holiday" on gasoline.



It shows the great inner strength of the candidate - the man - who
would be President.  Conventional wisdom holds that the worst thing a
candidate can do is refuse to give voters what they want - and they 
always want to have lower taxes.  If speaking truth to power is a
virtue, and power in a democracy lies in the hands of the people; then
Barack Obama has shown that he is willing to speak truth to power and
voters are responding to it.



This is the problem with all of the advice Obama is getting from
pundits - they all want Obama to be something other than what he is. 
Or, more to the point, they want him to do what he has already done,
but to do it in a way that demolishes his opponents.  Obama may be
susceptible to Clinton's charge that he can't "close the deal", but he
cannot be accused of trying to destroy Hillary Clinton or her career. 
Honestly, I can't say the same of her (but that's a separate post).



Take, for example,  Leon Fink's analysis of the "working class".  He says that Obama can win the Archie Bunkers of the world by:  

Such a speech might clear the air for wavering Democrats.
Obama could repackage his commitments on jobs, taxes, Social Security,
Immigration and trade union rights. On health care, he should make
clear that if his initial proposal does not bring about effective
universal coverage, he will move quickly to remedy any deficiency.
Finally, he needs to tie his consistent opposition to the Iraq war to
the inequality of sacrifice in this country, an inequality that stacks
the children of workers into graves and hospital beds.

Ahem.  Take a look: 

The costs of war are greatest for the troops and those who love them, but we know that war has other costs as well. Yesterday, I addressed some of these other costs in a speech on the strategic consequences of the Iraq war. I spoke about how this war has diverted us from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and from addressing the other challenges of the 21st Century: violent extremism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

And today, I want to talk about another cost of this war - the toll it has taken on our economy. Because at a time when we're on the brink of recession - when neighborhoods have For Sale signs outside every home, and working families are struggling to keep up with rising costs - ordinary Americans are paying a price for this war.

When you're spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you're paying a price for this war.

Obama doesn't need to morph into all things for all people - doing so would only underscore the insincerity of those efforts.  He simply needs to get his stride back - to get angry and fill his heart with the love of what America could be if only those who lead us would look after America's best interests instead of personal profits, both financial and political.  He needs to return the campaign to his most fertile grounds with a clear statement of "This, I believe..."

Americans are desperate - despite the "non-recession" we are skidding through, there are plenty of people who are suffering.  They aren't afraid to work and they aren't afraid of tough times - they are afraid their sacrifices will go unnoticed.  They are afraid that all of their back-breaking labor will simply go to pad another multi-billionaire's next luxury retreat rather than their own kid's school.

Obama has moved from a rather unimportant second-rate candidate for US Senate to the front-runner in the Democratic primary for the US Presidency.  He has done it his way - by being himself and talking directly from his heart.  Rev. Wright may have pulled him off of that slightly.  But policy details won't win this election.  One of the most successful Democrats of the twentieth century used to say that elections are won by a vision of the future, not an explanation of the past.

That was Bill Clinton.  So let Barack Obama show that he listened.

There are few topics more disputed than the role of women in the US military.  Having spent six years in the US Navy, I have to say that I met women who I was proud to serve alongside - and some that disgusted me.  That is all the more true of the men I knew, too.  It had nothing to do with gender, it was all about how well they handled themselves under pressure.

Unfortunately, the military is proving that "grace under pressure" really doesn't matter in combat.  What matters is having a penis.  A penis, no matter how tiny or non-functional, qualifies its owner for combat duty.  Lacking such natural endowment is enough to disqualify a person.  Even if they have been awarded a Silver Star.

The Silver Star is the third highest award a soldier can receive for combat action - behind the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross.  It is awarded "to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction."


Pfc. Monica Brown earned her Silver Star.  She risked her life to render life-saving medical aid to her injured comrades.  From the WaPo article:

Looking back, Brown saw the Humvee engulfed in a fireball as its
fuel tank and fuel cans ignited. Insurgents about 100 yards to the east
opened up with machine guns and AK-47

Four of those injured crawled or were thrown from the Humvee, while a
fifth, Spec. Larry Spray, was caught inside by his boot and was on
fire. Sgt. Zachary Tellier managed to pull him out.

Brown and a colleague then grabbed Spec. Stanson Smith, who was in
shock and blinded by blood from his lacerated forehead, and dragged him
by his body armor into a ditch about 15 yards away. Tellier helped
Spray limp over.

No sooner were they in the ditch that insurgents began firing
mortars. Brown threw her body over Smith, shielding him as more than a
dozen rounds hit nearby. The ammunition inside the burning Humvee then
started exploding, including 60mm mortars, 40mm grenade rounds and
rifle ammunition. Again, Brown lay over the wounded.

 
Whether you support the political decisions that put our troops in danger or not, you cannot say that they do not deserve the very best battlefield medical attention possible.  Pfc Brown gave that, and more.  Taking her off of the battlefield is not only a dishonor to her bravery and ability, it is a decision that puts her comrades-in-arms at risk.  She took her trial-by-fire and passed it - and everyone is being punished for it.

Republicans like to talk about adapting our military to meet the demands of the future.  Why are they so intent on clinging to outmoded rules of the past?  Why are women held to a different standard?  Why are gay Americans prevented from serving without hiding their identity?  Is their blood less precious?  Are their lives any less of a sacrifice?

If you think the economy is struggling now - and if you don't, then you live in some alternate reality - then just wait until George W. Bush and the Fed get through throwing gasoline on the flames.

In ordinary economic times, putting more money in the hands of people means that more money gets spent on more things - so demand is spurred, resulting in more jobs, and the economy grows.  The rising tide may not lift all boats, but it at least lets people hold on to a bit of flotsam.  But we are not in ordinary economic times.

The proof comes in the results of recent attempts to expand our money supply.  Basically, there are three ways to accomplish this - governmental deficit spending, lower interest rates, and tax cuts.  Deficit spending under the Bush Administration has been the norm and interest rates have been cut - sometimes under emergency conditions - repeatedly over the last six months.  The result?  

Our GDP growth rate for the last quarter was about as anemic as is possible.  The rate of inflation - not counting food and energy - is rising.  Our economy has an illness, but more of what made it sick will only kill it faster.

The problem lies in the fact that food and energy are not being accounted for in the economic plans.  Food is excluded from inflation calculations because it is erratic under the best conditions.  Plus, food costs are especially susceptible to energy spikes - it's hard to get a tomato from Brazil to New York at $2 a pound.

Energy prices - specifically, the price of oil on the world market - is both a product and a part of the equation in US inflation.  World oil contracts are written in US dollars - so if the value of the dollar falls, the price of oil has to rise even if the entire rest of the market remains stable (an unlikely event).

But other events cause oil prices to rise - like declining Mexican production, unrest in Nigeria, a strike at the only refinery in Scotland, Russian attempts to nationalize parts of oil production fields, Chinese officials talking openly of selling dollars, and Iranian belligerence in the Gulf  - so that even if the value of the dollar remained constant, prices would rise because of legitimate fears of market disruption.  When both market conditions and US inflation occurs at the same time, the net effect is a runaway spike on oil prices.  As we have seen recently, sometimes the two can even feed off of each other.

So we are in an unusual economic time.  But, even with the "stimulus checks" in the mail, the Fed is expected to lower interest rates further.  This is only going to drive inflation higher - which will, in turn, cause the price of oil to rise, and then cause prices to rise again.  In less lofty terms, we're about to be backdoored without the benefit of lubricant.

There are already calls for the Fed to stop lowering rates.  But that misses the full equation, because it is not merely interest rates that are at work here, but the full effect of governmental actions that increase the money supply.  Higher interest rates and tax cuts actually work against each other.   One cuts the value of money and the other raises it. If we are going to call for the Fed to play fire department, the least we can do is stop asking George W. Bush to play with fire and matches.

Deficit spending is far too difficult to reign in to be a viable policy option - it will take something close to a decade of growth to bring that under control.  But it is possible to repeal the Bush tax cuts and choke off the flow of easy money to the investing class (or, it will be in about ten months).  Just as the tax cuts gave inordinate amounts of free money to the wealthy to dump in the economy, rationalizing the tax rates would take a large chunk of cash out of the economy without adversely effecting those at the bottom of the pay-scale.

Since our economy is not in a full-out recession, this could be enough to nudge the growth needle back up.  As the value of the dollar increased, it would counteract the geopolitical forces driving the cost of oil upwards, at least in part.  That would provide relief in both the energy and food markets and provide widespread economic relief.  Once Americans have extra money after paying their fuel and food costs, they will be able - and more than willing - to spend on other things.  That jump-starts the cycle of demand to jobs to growth to widespread well-being.

This is the drum that both Democratic candidates need to be beating.  Yes, let's repeal the regressive federal gas taxes - but only in conjunction with repealing the Bush tax cuts and - just perhaps - even implementing a temporary millionaire's tax on excessively high incomes.  What we are seeing now is the blatant warfare on the lower classes - and the upper classes are not suffering at all.


It is, after all, the economy, stupid.  But more importantly, it is that the economy has been - and is continuing to be - wrecked by ill-advised and immoral tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is a repost as my browser (yeah, that's the problem) seems to have disagreed with the user interface.

Let's say a local mayor is willing to take a bribe.  Let's also pretend that there is a local bar-owner who needs to get the police off her back.  How does the bar-owner get "a big wad of cash" into the hands of the mayor?  In Guttenberg, New Jersey, it was accomplished by hiring a "see-no-evil kind-of-guy" (SNEKOG).

The mayor's name is David della Donna, and he and his wife Anna (who served on the local planning board) were convicted today on three out of five counts in federal court.  There is an allegation from the mayor's son that the prosecution's star witness (Luisa Medrano, the bar owner) will escape prosecution because of her cooperation. 


As disturbing as it is to consider that someone like Medrano (pdf) could skate entirely, it is also unlikely that any federal attorney (even Chris Christie) would so blatantly disregard the needs of the community.  I don't doubt that Medrano might get to plead to a lesser charge, but international human trafficking and forced slavery is hardly the type of thing a potential gubernatorial candidate would forgive.

But then it seems unlikely that a sitting Governor would be likely to forgive that SNEKOG.  Even more unlikely would be that SNEKOG getting off without any plea agreement with either the state or federal officials.  Yet Javier Inclan not only faces no state or federal charges for testifying under oath that he functioned as the bagman in the corruption scheme, Governor Jon Corzine now commended his Deputy Chief of Staff for "doing the right thing".

Governor Corzine promised when he took office that his highest priority would be ethics and that he would work to "earn back the people's confidence".  Is this how he earns back our trust?  By praising a man who openly admits - without shame or apology - that he was in a position to stop the mayor's corruption and the bar owner's human trafficking and slave-ring?

It isn't like this unfolded quickly.  I first picked up the story on March 28.  The Governor's Deputy Chief of Staff's part in the criminal enterprise was sent out with the trash on two consecutive Fridays.  If Javier Inclan had any shame he'd resign in disgrace.  But the truth of the matter is that Javier Inclan, by his own testimony, has shown that he is unfit to hold any public office.  

Faithfully turning one's eyes away from wrong-doing should not be rewarded.  Javier Inclan has been incompetent at every post that Jon Corzine has promoted him to fill.  But once a man has proven that he is unable to be trusted a little, it can hardly be argued that he is worthy of being trusted a lot.

I'm personally invested in this case because I find it personally offensive that my community became a destination for an international slave ring.  I find it personally offensive that a bar owner forced a pregnant woman to take abortificants after the health clinic told her the pregnancy was too advanced for a procedure - resulting in a premature live birth and then death of an innocent child.  I find it personally offensive that the political establishment of my county and state has stood by silently without condemning either the mayor or his Treasurer, Javier Inclan.  I find it personally offensive that Javier Inclan has testified that he made it "business as usual" to violate the terms of his office, but was promoted to County Clerk for doing so - and when his office had its ability to issue passports revoked, he was promoted to the Governor's constituent services office.  

I find it personally offensive that a man who could have made a difference by offering simple anonymous phone call instead decided it was more important to further his political career than to take the simplest possible action to uphold the public trust he'd been given.  I find it personally offensive that a man who served as the linchpin for corruption and slavery is now working as a gatekeeper for the Governor of my state.

I'm not a Democrat because I hate Republicans.  I'm a Democrat because I believe that government, in the words of Jefferson, is instituted to protect the rights of its citizens.  I'm a Progressive because I believe that government should put the needs of its people before the needs of its corporations.  I believe, as Elie Wiesel wrote, the opposite of love is apathy and that I love my country, my community, and my party enough to not be so apathetic that when someone does something so vile as to commend someone like Javier Inclan, I refuse to sit back and be a good sheep.

Jon Corzine, for whatever reason, simply can't see his way to do what is right.  He can't see that Javier Inclan must be fired and that charges must be filed.  Anything less is simply ensuring that Inclan's actions will be taken again and again and again.  Holding Inclan responsible will not prevent people from coming forward - thought it might ensure that they hire a lawyer and talk to prosecutors prior to testifying.  There is no excuse for letting Javier Inclan continue to suckle at the public tit while knifing us in the back.

Let's say a local mayor is willing to take a bribe.  Let's also pretend that there is a local bar-owner who needs to get the police off her back.  How does the bar-owner get "a big wad of cash" into the hands of the mayor?  In Guttenberg, New Jersey, it was accomplished by hiring a "see-no-evil kind-of-guy" (SNEKOG).

The mayor's name is David della Donna, and he and his wife Anna (who served on the local planning board) <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_thurman_hart/2008/04/just_short_of_justice.html">were convicted today</a> on three out of five counts in federal court.  There is an allegation from the mayor's son that the prosecution's star witness (Luisa Medrano, the bar owner) will <a href="http://www.nj.com/hudsoncountynow/index.ssf/2008/04/della_donnas_guilty_on_three_c.html">escape prosecution because of her cooperation</a>.  

As disturbing as it is to consider that <a href="http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6wIaRdIUlcASgpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=130ue9rjr/EXP=1209580168/**http%3a//www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/MedranoSuperIndict7-20.pdf">someone like Medrano</a> (pdf) could skate entirely, it is also unlikely that any federal attorney (<a href="http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7622">even Chris Christie</a>) would so blatantly disregard the needs of the community.  I don't doubt that Medrano might get to plead to a lesser charge, but international human trafficking and forced slavery is hardly the type of thing a potential governorial candidate would forgive.

But then it seems unlikely that a sitting Governor would be likely to forgive that SNEKOG.  Even more unlikely would be that SNEKOG getting off without any plea agreement with either the state or federal officials.  Yet Javier Inclan not only faces no state or federal charges for testifying under oath that he functioned as the bagman in the corruption scheme, Governor Jon Corzine now <a href="http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/19164/corzine-comends-his-deputy-chief-staff-witness-federal-prosecution-corrupt-mayor">commended his Deputy Chief of Staff</a> for "doing the right thing".

Governor Corzine promised when he took office that <a href="http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7623">his highest priority</a> would be ethics and that he would work to "earn back the people's confidence".  Is this how he earns back our trust?  By praising a man who openly admits - without shame or apology - that he was in a position to stop the mayor's corruption and the bar owner's human trafficking and slave-ring?

It isn't like this unfolded quickly.  I first picked up the story <a href="http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7261">on March 28</a>.  The Governor's Deputy Chief of Staff's part in the criminal enterprise was sent out with the trash on <a href="http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7300">two consecutive Fridays</a>.  If Javier Inclan had any shame <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_thurman_hart/2008/04/javier_inclan_should_resign_or.html#more">he'd resign in disgrace</a>.  But the truth of the matter is that Javier Inclan, by his own testimony, has shown that he is <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_thurman_hart/2008/04/javier_inclan_unfit_for_any_of.html">unfit to hold any public office</a>.  

Faithfully turning one's eyes away from wrong-doing <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_thurman_hart/2008/04/inclan_should_face_charges_or.html">should not be rewarded</a>.  Javier Inclan has been <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_thurman_hart/2008/04/it_isnt_personal_javier_inclan.html#more">incompetent at every post</a> that Jon Corzine has promoted him to fill.  But once a man has proven that he is <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_thurman_hart/2008/04/liar_or_lackey_inclan_must_go.html">unable to be trusted a little</a>, it can hardly be argued that he is worthy of being trusted a lot.

I'm personally invested in this case because I find it personally offensive that my community became a destination for an international slave ring.  I find it personally offensive that a bar owner forced a pregnant woman to take abortificants after the health clinic told her the pregnancy was too advanced for a procedure - resulting in a premature live birth and then death of an innocent child.  I find it personally offensive that the political establishment of my county and state has stood by silently without condemning either the mayor or his Treasurer, Javier Inclan.  I find it personally offensive that Javier Inclan has testified that he made it "business as usual" to violate the terms of his office, but was promoted to County Clerk for doing so - and when his office had its ability to issue passports revoked, he was promoted to the Governor's constituent services office.  

I find it personally offensive that a man who could have made a difference by offering simple anonymous phone call instead decided it was more important to further his political career than to take the simplest possible action to uphold the public trust he'd been given.  I find it personally offensive that a man who served as the linchpin for corruption and slavery is now working as a gatekeeper for the Governor of my state.

I'm not a Democrat because I hate Republicans.  I'm a Democrat because I believe that government, in the words of Jefferson, is instituted to protect the rights of its citizens.  I'm a Progressive because I believe that government should put the needs of its people before the needs of its corporations.  I believe, as Elie Wiesel wrote, the opposite of love is apathy and that I love my country, my community, and my party enough to not be so apathetic that when someone does something so vile as to commend someone like Javier Inclan, I refuse to sit back and be a good sheep.

Jon Corzine, for whatever reason, simply can't see his way to do what is right.  He can't see that Javier Inclan must be fired and that charges must be filed.  Anything less is simply ensuring that Inclan's actions will be taken again and again and again.  Holding Inclan responsible will not prevent people from coming forward - thought it might ensure that they hire a lawyer and talk to prosecutors prior to testifying.  There is no excuse for letting Javier Inclan continue to suckle at the public tit while knifing us in the back.

Tell Governor Corzine that <a href="http://www.nj.gov/governor/govmail.html">slavery and corruption is not heroic and brave</a>.