The 2009-2010 “Old Congress” vs. "Change"

The 2009-2010 “Old Congress” and Why “Change” Will Never Happen (Again)
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2033
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

The 2009-2010 “Old Congress” vs. "Change"

Post by johnkarls »

.
The 2009-2010 “Old Congress” and Why “Change” Will Never Happen (Again)

From: readingliberallyemaillist@johnkarls.com
To: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
Cc:
Subject: Proposed Q for “Q&A” Portion of DRINKing Liberally Presentation Fri Eve
Date: Tue, February 26, 2008
Time: Various (e-mail program limit of 100 e-mails per hour)

Dear Friends,

I apologize for sending an “extra edition” of our weekly newsletter.

However, I thought you might appreciate receiving correspondence with Prof. Chambless about a proposed question for the “Q&A” portion of his presentation at DRINKing Liberally this coming Fri Eve in the back room of Piper Down (1492 S. State St.). Prof. Chambless’ e-mail in the correspondence that follows indicates, among other things, that he intends to begin his presentation at 6:00 p.m.

I hope to see you all Friday evening at DRINKing Liberally!!!

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Proposed Question for Q&A Your DL Presentation Fri Eve
From: John Karls
Date: Tue, February 26, 2008 4:36 am
To: xxxx@poli-sci.utah.edu
Cc: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prof. Chambless:

In the interests of having as informative and successful a presentation as possible Fri eve, I am providing in advance a question that I will ask during your Q&A period if called upon. Though in order to respect the integrity of what you would like your message to be, I will try to introduce myself for just a moment before your talk so that you will know whom not to call upon in the event that you do not want to address it. The question –

Your presentation stresses the importance of the Democratic Party reaching 60 seats in the U.S. Senate in the 2008 election.

However, vis-à-vis the Iraq War, we have always been very frustrated that the Democratic Party has continually refused to use its 40-plus seat blocking power in the Senate to block or even restrict in any way funding for the war. Even insulting our intelligence by staging a charade last fall in which the Democratic-Controlled Committee reported to the Senate Floor a war-funding bill that had no restrictions so that each of the restrictions could be put into floor amendments that would fail to garner 60 votes – RATHER THAN THE DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED COMMITTEE REPORTING TO THE SENATE FLOOR A WAR-FUNDING BILL THAT ALREADY CONTAINED ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WANTED TO APPEAR WILLING TO SUPPORT, SO THAT 60 VOTES WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR A FLOOR AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ANY OF THEM.

And vis-à-vis domestic issues, we are constantly bombarded from myriad sources with the depressing “news” that 40 years of voting for “change” candidates with no results will continue forever until something is done about lobbyists’ “campaign contributions” (de facto bribes) that, to paraphrase solely Washington Post Columnist Dana Milbank’s book “Homo Politicus,” dictate everything that happens in Washington.

And you haven’t even mentioned the Democratic Party’s “blue dog” (conservative) Senators who won’t contribute to the 60-vote goal on anything except organizational matters.

Would you care to comment on these matters?

*****
The reason for phrasing the concluding sentence in this manner is the vivid memory of John Kennedy’s wit and grace when asked precisely that question by a reporter at a news conference after a very-lengthy introductory statement from the reporter about an embarrassing matter (it was probably the “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba).

John Kennedy's single-word answer – “No” – followed by non-chalantly calling upon the next questioner to great applause!!!

But “no worries” as Leslie Pickering Francis and Australians would say, you won’t even have to call on me.

Good luck with your presentation!!! Excelsior!!!

Sincerely yours,

John K.

PS – FYI, our “Wiki-Politica” Universal Health Care group was already planning before the announcement of your presentation to meet for a “working session” at the Feb. 29 Drinking Liberally meeting because I had to sing with the Utah Symphony Chorus on Feb. 22.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: RE: Prof. Tim Chambless' Presentation at Drinking Liberally Fri Eve
From: Leslie Francis
Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 4:04 pm
To: John Karls; John Francis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks--no worries. Leslie


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Prof. Tim Chambless’ Presentation at Drinking Liberally Fri Eve
From: John Karls
Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 12:39 pm
To: Leslie Pickering Francis; John Francis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Leslie and John,

I’m very sorry to bother you with something like this but, since I mentioned your name, Leslie, in the attached fax sent earlier today to Prof. Chambless and he had the reaction he did, it occurred that it might be advisable in the light of what is happening.

The attachment and the ensuing e-mail correspondence should be self-explanatory.

It would appear that Prof. Chambless is intent on preaching that all the faithful have to do is enable the Democratic Party to reach 60 seats in the U.S. Senate and all our problems will be history!!!

I wonder whether he is aware of such things as yesterday’s edition of “Meet the Press” where NY Times Columnist David Brooks commented that there are 76 (Democractic) Committee Chairs in Congress and “at least 75% of them” are “wholly-owned subsidiaries” of the companies whose committees have theoretical jurisdiction over them.

I hope all is well with you!!!

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Presentation Friday to SLC political group
From: John Karls
Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 12:08 pm
To: "Tim Chambless" <xxxx@poli-sci.utah.edu>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prof. Chambless:

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. And taking the time to be so precise.

I am sorry that you mis-construed the purpose of my fax.

The sub-title of my letter was not intended to be a suggestion for the title of your talk. From 40-plus years in the business world where it is essential to "catch the eye" of the addressee immediately, the sub-title was only intended to grab your attention so that the letter was not tossed aside unread.

And the body of the letter was not intended to suggest a focus for your presentation. It was merely to provide a "heads up" that a talk whose topic was specified in an e-mail to Drinking Liberally members as "The 2008 Elections - A New President and A New (sic) Congress" is bound, under the circumstances, to provoke a lot of questions in your Q & A period about whether "change" is possible in "A New (sic) Congress."

Again, thank you very much for your prompt and conscientious reply. We look forward to hearing your presentation on the 29th!!!

Sincerely yours,

John Karls


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Presentation Friday to SLC political group
From: "Tim Chambless" <xxxx@poli-sci.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 8:57 am
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

Thank you for your fax which I received this Monday morning. Yes, I am sure that we share many common acquaintances and friends -- connected to the University of Utah academic community as well as the greater Salt Lake and Utah political culture(s). I appreciate your clarification with regard to the relationship of the group you head, in contrast to the other. There is an apparent difference.

I have some clarifications about my remarks to the Salt Lake City political group this Friday, February 29th, beginning at approximately 6:00 p.m. I want to emphasize that I plan on speaking about the current 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign and the issues being highlighted in this year's national campaign. In addition, I plan on speaking about the 36
U.S. Senate campaigns now being waged -- and their impact upon the 2009 occupant of the White House. I hope that the latter half of my time can be utilized by a lively question-and-answer session with all those who wish to participate. I am a big believer in dialogue and idea-exchanges.

I do not plan on speaking about the topic which I see in your fax: "The 2009-2010 'Old Congress' and Why 'Change' Will Never Happy (Again)." This topic is one apparently chosen by someone else -- not me. I will make predictions about the (next) 111th Congress which will convene in January 2009 and continue through 2010. I will also project how new members of the House and Senate will facilitate the "change" that all
presidential candidates have been calling for -- envisioned with a new President who will be given a new "governing mandate" by a new Congress.

Again, thank you for the fax. I know that all those who attend will have strong opinions and questions to share.

Good luck to you.
Tim Chambless


Tim Chambless, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor/Lecturer
Department of Political Science
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
260 S Central Campus Dr, Rm xxx
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
(801) 581-xxxx


---------------------------- Original Fax ----------------------------
Harvard Club – Box 126
27 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
Mobile = 01-917-270-xxxx
E-mail = John Karls
February 25, 2008


Via Fax = 801-585-6492

Prof. Timothy Chambless
Political Science Department
University of Utah
260 South Central Campus Drive – Room 252
Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Dear Sir:

Re: Your Presentation Friday Evening to SLC Drinking Liberally -- The 2009-2010 “Old Congress” and Why “Change” Will Never Happen (Again)

I don’t believe we have ever met, though I attend regularly the monthly U/U Humanities Department Happy Hours (though not a U/U alumnus) and know quite a few of the faculty (e.g., Leslie Pickering Francis who was the college roommate of my ex-wife of 33 years and our Maid of Honor in 1967).

The reason for writing is to provide a quick “heads up” regarding your presentation for DRINKing Liberally Friday evening vis-à-vis SLC READing Liberally, which I head.

However (“full disclosure”) SLC Reading Liberally is NOT formally related to SLC Drinking Liberally except that we both operate under the National Living Liberally umbrella, our membership overlaps considerably (approximately 80 of our 120 members are also members of Drinking Liberally), and our bulletin board is still located on the Drinking Liberally website = www.drinkingliberallyslc.org/reading.

The reason for the “heads up” is that quite a few of our dual members plan to attend your presentation. And our February meeting focused on “The Best Government Money Can Buy – Bribery and Extortion.” Please see our bulletin board (www.drinkingliberallyslc.org/reading) for details.

You might be interested in knowing that several of our members are now pursuing an independent project (National Living Liberally does not condone the endorsement of specific candidates or the advocacy of specific policy positions) that could be described briefly as –

1. For a wealthy widow who is sick and tired of having voted for “change” in Presidential elections for the last 40 years and then seen it blocked in Congress as a result of campaign contributions (aka bribes) to key Senators and Congresspersons, how can she “clear the path” for change on any particular issue by blasting out of the Senate and House the obstructionists???

2. Starting small (focusing first on universal health care), we will publish what are the key Senate/House committees that have jurisdiction, who their members are, what their positions are, and what campaign contributions (bribes) they have already accepted – including which members were there when the Clintons’ UHC proposal was killed in the 1990’s and, if still available, what campaign contributions (bribes) they received at that time and subsequently.

3. We will keep the “spot light” moving as progress (if any) is made, though we anticipate probably having to move out of the way some Democratic chairs/members who are already tainted, which would mean focusing our “spot light” on the Democratic leadership and putting pressure on them to spurn tradition and “fire” chairs/members who are being bribed not to perform their responsibilities!!!

You might want to comment on our READing Liberally unofficial project, though you will have a dual audience which includes neophytes who are long on enthusiasm and short on cynicism.

Sincerely yours,

John S. Karls

Post Reply

Return to “DRINKing Liberally Presentation - Fri Eve Feb 29”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest