Congressmen Jim McGovern, D-MA held one of his annual "meet with the public" exercises where he spends a Saturday going to various towns in Massachusetts.
People have an opportunity to see him and have a brief face-to-face, one-on-one chat with him.
Jim McGovern was opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning and has a mostly consistent progressive/liberal voting record.
I saw this as an golden opportunity to let a Congressmen hear from the public the arguments in favor of holding Richard Bruce Cheney accountable to the law and to do my part to help push Congress in this direction.
So I began by first politely expressing appreciation for his efforts in trying to bring an end to the Iraq War and went on to explain that the Iraq Policy will never really change -- no matter what resolutions or legislation Congress either passes or does not pass -- as long as the people who regard themselves as the "unitary executive" (a totalitarian concept) remain in office.
I told him that I would be delighted if he support House Resolution 333 and made the point that this would send an important signal that these policies of pre-emptive War, Torture, runaway War-Profiteering, etc. are not accepted as lawful conduct and are subject to consequences.
I then paused for McGovern to respond. Instead of a thoughtful discussion on the subject, I just got back from him a series of non-sequitors and gruff dismissals.
________________________
First he said that, literally, (his exact words): "Bush was insane" and tried to make the argument that removing Dick Cheney (the man behind the curtain who has been directing our corrupt U.S Foreign Policy for the past 7 years) would not make a difference (-?-) regarding Iraq.
I pointed out that if you held a real investigation and had a parade of witnesses and whistleblowers coming forward spotlighting Cheney's deliberate fabrication and fraudulent manipulation of U. S. Intelligence, his War-Profiteering, support of Torture, etc., that Dick Cheney then would become as politically radioactive as Alberto Gonzales and that even members in the GOP would have trouble defending him, with their own reputations at stake, and the 2008 Election fast approaching.
His response was that the Senate isn't going to even impeach Gonzales. Well, I had no real answer to that response, aside from my view that the Senate was not doing its job if it permits Gonzales to stay (as well). But what I should have said was that one failure of courage does not merit failing to hold a man like Richard Bruce Cheney accountable for his disgraceful and possibly treasonous public conduct.
I tried to press the issue further with him and point out to him that it was necessary for Congress to establish that these policies are against the tenets of our Constitution, international law, human rights, and if we do not take action now then someone else will just come along such as Jeb Bush, Rudy Gulliani, Mitt Romney, etc. and just repeat them all over again.
At this, he just sneered back that if the people are "stupid enough to vote for them" then
that might happen, and then he complained that he wished (in his own words) "the people would act like citizens" and not have voted for Bush-Cheney in 2004.
Here was I, a member of the public acting in good faith as a citizen, listening to a man with the special privilege to vote in Congress -- yet abusing that privilege by refusing to hold the administration accountable -- now try to turn the issue around and just blame the public.
I told him that, in my view, John Kerry actually won Ohio and won the 2004 Election, and then tried to point out that you can't blame the public when the U.S. News Media has been continually misinforming them for 7 years.
At this point, it was clear that McGovern was not going to even treat the issue seriously. He stated that "the Speaker" (without mentioning Nancy Pelosi by name) is against impeachment and so is House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (also against impeachment) and that it would just produce a political backlash like it did when the GOP tried to impeach Bill Clinton.
I told him that they are wrong about that. The impeachment of Clinton was about something
non-serious and the public overwhelmingly supported Clinton during the entire ordeal and thought that it was not merited. That's why there was a backlash - no merit. This is totally different, I told him. This is about something serious. People have died and there is real blood on their hands. The public, in this case, does support impeachment. There is a growing grassroots movement that is unprecedented. Several States and Cities have even passed local impeachment initiatives in an effort to influence the U.S. Congress to do what is right and to act.
This did not matter to McGovern either.
What I saw was a man not trying to engage in any meaningful conversation about effective tactics for how to stop this unrelenting abuse of our country, but instead a man utterly lost in the paralyzing heirarchical power politics and inside-the-beltway-speak that have ruined this nation and is determined to keep it that way (ruined). As far as McGovern was concerned, this was all the
public's own fault -- not Congress for failing to act as a proper check and balance on this administration ( -?- ) and for failing to uphold the law and the U.S. Consititution that they were, in fact, sworn to protect.
The conversation ended, and I can only characterize it as a total failure.
It is a sad day when the subject of impeachment is right on the lips of some Republicans such as Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, etc., yet the Democratic Party seeks to pre-empt that awakening, ignore the whole subject, and refuse to perform its own constitutional government oversight responsibility, that the public is asking for.
Seven [ 7 ] House members have now co-sponsered House Resolution 333.
Rep. Jim McGovern will not be one of them.
This experience just made me appreciate Rep. Dennis Kucinich all the more.
He thinks that standing up for the country still matters.
He thinks that criminal policies should have consequences and should not just be blamed upon the public.
He thinks that, in order to survive, the country must remain a nation of laws and not a nation of the perogatives of the powerful.
It is a sad day when this is a minority viewpoint within the Democratic Party.