HeidiAllen.com

(cross-posted to the Daily Kos)

On February 12th, 1999, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison gave a closed-door statement on her reasons for voting to impeach then-President William Jefferson Clinton. As you might expect, she listed perjury as a primary reason, but she listed many others, including a forceful argument for presidential impeachment without an indictable crime.

Early on she says, “I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed.” I’ll assume that this includes laws dealing with government surveillance of civilians, as well as those applicable to outing an undercover CIA agent.

While describing Clinton’s deposition, she says, “…the Judge and participating counsel for the parties, either knowingly or unknowingly, formulated a definition of the meaning of the words ’sexual relations’ to exclude certain forms of human contact that in their commonly accepted meaning would be included.”

And what of changing the words “covert operative” to exclude their commonly accepted meaning?

She goes on, “It was alleged, among other things, that the President coached, manipulated, and influenced false testimony of witnesses…”.

It is alleged that Vice-President Cheney did all this in preparation for the Scooter Libby trial.

“…engineered the hiding of gifts and evidence that was subject to subpoena…”

As opposed to Rove using the RNC email server so that a subpoena wouldn’t turn up evidence against him?

“While under oath before the Federal grand jury, the President gave perjurious testimony before the grand jury…”

Yet, when discussing the Scooter Libby trial, Senator Hutchison said, “…I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime…”

In her 1999 statement, Hutchison says, “…engaging personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony…”

Perhaps the Senator has forgotten that she engaged in that behavior herself, with the help of Karl Rove.

But then, my friends, Senator Hutchison makes one of the most interesting arguments for Presidential impeachment that I’ve read:

“I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader.”

Well said, Kay.

I’ve recently become friends with a Tibetan Buddhist monk/doctor. He’s rapidly learning English, but conversation can still be difficult. The other day, we were having a vegetarian meal with a number of people when he began to tell a story about the “rough, but good” people of far northwestern Tibet (the Kekexili region).

He said that the extreme cold, dryness and lack of soil makes it nearly impossible for them to grow fruits or vegetables. This (among other things) has led to a culture that’s quite different from that of southern Tibet, where most of the population lives.

He spoke a few more sentences that I only vaguely understood… something to do with northwestern Tibetans traveling to southern Tibet. The story ended with “…because they eat only meat!”

He laughed heartily, but then saw the confused looks on our faces. “That is a kind of a joke.”, he explained.

Then it dawned on me. Even Tibetan monks have Polack/Aggie/blonde jokes. It seems we humans have an innate need to poke fun at other groups of people whom we see as less sophisticated or intelligent than ourselves, even if we do it in a gentle, loving fashion. I wonder why that is?

I just got off the phone with someone from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. They were looking for donations, volunteers, or at very least, a signup for their mailing list. I refused to give them any of these things.

A few days ago, my brother tried mightily to get me to admit that Obama would win the presidency in 2008. I refused.

Why am I so obstinate?

First of all, the filing deadlines for running for President of the United States, which vary by state, are generally between September 2007 and January 2008. In other words, we still have at least another 7 months to see who comes forward to run. I’m not picking a candidate until I know who the candidates are. Reasonable?

Second of all, most of the candidates who have already declared are serving in elected positions right now. Rather than criss-crossing the country trying to appeal to black voters or the religious right, they should be doing their jobs. We’re in a critical political period, and we need all hands on deck. I am NOT impressed by people who ignore the public office they currently hold in favor of doing early campaigning for a higher one.

Third of all, pointless news about the presidential candidates is already obliterating coverage of far more important stories, and that’s wrong. We get precious little reporting on real news as it is.

However, since it seems that the candidates are bent on this whole “early lead” concept, (how quickly they forget Howard Dean), I ask just one thing. If you’re going to stump, at least pledge to do something instead of speechifying.

You can’t prove that you care about civil rights by waxing poetic on historical moments of the past. You prove it by telling people how you intend to reduce the unemployment rate among African Americans, or what you plan to do about the still-worrisome Patriot Act.

You don’t convince people that you give a damn about blue-collar workers by endlessly pointing out your parent’s blue-collar roots. You do it by listing the steps you’ll take to keep jobs right here in the US and to create new ones. You do it by pledging to re-negotiate our free trade agreements as fair trade agreements, thus stemming the flow of jobs overseas (and stemming the tide of illegal immigrants over our borders).

Lastly, you can’t ride Al Gore’s coattails on the environment by using phrases like, “Someday, our cars will run on hydrogen.” You convince people that you’re serious by promising to help fund the California hydrogen corridor initiative, making California’s fuel standards apply nationwide and promoting cool roofs.

I have no patience for speechifying. I don’t care how pretty your words are or how many emotional buttons you can push. Until you’re willing to tell me something concrete that you intend to do, leave me alone.