It's tough being blue in a determinedly red state. Most people, including my elected officials, really have no interest in anything I have to say. Not that it's stopped me, though.
Even though I know it's mostly a waste of time, I've been corresponding with my Congressman, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), on a variety of topics since his election. I have yet to get a straight answer from him on anything. Usually I just chock it up to "politics as usual," and go rantingly about my business, but this time I decided to call him on it.
There's more...
After Rep. DeFazio introduced
HRC 391 (scroll down - it's near the bottom), which would remind Bush that he can't just declare war on Iran without the approval of Congress, I wrote
this letter to Rep. Cole. In this letter, I ask him to lend his support to HRC 391 and I comment on checks and balances and such.
And here's a brief rundown of his response.
Thank you for sharing your concerns about possible military action in Iran. It is a pleasure to hear from you.
OK, I know that's not true. He hates to hear from me. I've gotten tons of "kiss off, you crazy woman" letters from him. Sometimes his staff doesn't even bother to proofread them. (Though it's kinda sweet: he crosses through the "Ms." and writes in my first name. Awwww.)
In the second paragraph, he talks about the military option of tactical nuclear strikes against Iranian targets.
A lot of attention has gone to reports that some in the Bush Administration are considering tactical nuclear strikes against Iranian targets, Of course, any time someone brings up a list of military options, no matter how long, the suggestion for nuclear weapons will stick out. This is not to say, however, that the use of nuclear weapons is being considered more seriously than other options, or even that the use of nuclear weapons is probable. Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that the United States has many choices when it comes to foreign policy.
Well, thanks for the patronizing condescension, Congressman. Note that I don't even mention nuclear strikes in my letter, only the issue of the President unilaterally declaring war against Iran.
In the third paragraph, he lectures me about the need to have a "thorough, thoughtful conversation about each of the options." He then goes on to say that history has taught us the lesson that "we cannot long ignore menaces beyond our own borders," attacks President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust, and then brags that he has introduced a bill (H.Res.601) that would condemn Ahmadinejad's assertion. He's also "deeply" concerned about the "rhetoric" of Iran's leadership.
That last one made me giggle, I confess. But I don't think I asked him about those things, either.
And here's the one I love the most: He tells me about jumping on the bandwagon for H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act. Apparently we're to assist groups working to spread democracy in Iran while maintaining economic sanctions. It passed 397-21.
You can read his complete response here.
You'll note that nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in his response does he address my question, which is basically: Where do you stand on unfettered Presidential power?
Here's the letter I'm sending today:
Dear Congressman Cole,
Thank you for your response to my letter regarding your position on HCR 391. Unfortunately, however, you did not address the concerns I raised in my letter.
I asked for your support for HCR 391, which would remind the administration that, according to the Constitution, it is Congress, and only Congress, that can declare war. As we have seen, President Bush has acted in defiance of the will of Congress on numerous occasions. Such actions are a clear threat to the system of checks and balances laid forth in the Constitution.
I did not ask for your position on tactical nuclear strikes against Iranian targets. I did not ask for your opinion of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust statement. I did not ask what you were doing to promote democracy in Iran. I asked you to support a bill that will remind the President that he does NOT have the right to disregard the will of Congress, and that he is NOT above the rule of law.
Where precisely do you stand on the issue of checks and balances, on the question of unfettered presidential power? Do you believe that Congress has the responsibility to uphold the Constitution? If so, what are you doing to remain revelant to the actual governance of this country? In my opinion, allowing the president to co-opt the Constitutional rights and responsibilities of Congress is an abrogation of your duty to the American people.
Here are the questions I would like for you to answer: What are you doing to make sure that President Bush doesn't make your position as a Congressman completely irrelevant? Where do you stand on the issue of the "unitary executive"? Do you believe that the President should be allowed to completely disregard the acts of Congress? Would you support Bush's obvious power grab if he were a Democrat and not a Republican? What are you doing to demonstrate that your first and only loyalty is to the Constitution and the American people? What are you doing to set yourself apart from party hacks whose apparent goal is to consolidate power in the hands of one party? How do you feel about going down in history as one of those people who sat idly by during the shredding of the Constitution?
Congressman Cole, I do not wish to be insulting, but I am highly offended by your refusal to engage with the question I asked. I will not be put off with misdirection on issues that have nothing to do with President Bush's attempt to make Congress irrelevant, and I resent the implication that I am not astute enough to recognize your efforts at misdirection for what they are.
Thank you for your attention to my questions.
I can't wait to see what he has to say about this. I'm resolved not to let him blow me off again without at least putting up a fight!