Newspaper Clippings

[OYID]

Further Clarification, and a Call to Civility
by Senator Philip Donovan for The Worker

The following is a statement quoted exactly as it appeared in an article defending the Right-Wing:

The USA and PSA have never before supplied the MSAAF, as the socialists claim.

This other statement is from another article published by the same outlet:

...we meant aircraft. But those of a different persuasion read into it we meant they'd never supplied anything.

At this point it's only natural to wonder: Exactly when did the phrase 'never before supplied' change from its literal meaning (that is, that the subject in question has never before supplied) into "never before supplied except when it comes to everything the Air Force does or needs other than aircraft and also every other branch of the armed forces"? What said magazine claims are "MSA-built-developed-designed aircraft" are actually kept together with foreign-purchased parts, supplies and repairs, and coordinated with foreign-purchased equipment for logistics. Let's keep in mind that the pictured planes are significantly older than the outdated models that would be bought from the neighbors under the Coalition's plan and yet these old planes can still be retrofitted to allow for more modern parts. Food for thought.

Our country is facing a decisive moment in its history and yet here stand the Rightists playing at semantics, trying to push a same-old Defense bill through without even the slightest pretense of trying to come together and work towards a compromise. The President started his administration extending a patriotic hand across the aisle, but so far all he's heard back from the Right-Wing is irrational bile and slights against the very integrity of our democratic process.

Which brings me to my greater interest in this article and that is the matter of civility: there is a toxic atmosphere at this moment on Kansas City, one that has been grown and fostered by the actions and declarations of the Right-Wing. The radical "Conservative" minority inside the Republican Party seems to be dominating the entire institution, strong-arming their way into the spotlight both in Congress and in the media, to the point that their disparaging, intolerant and frankly backwards ways are all one ever hears from the Party of Abraham Lincoln nowadays. Where are the voices of the Republican Liberals? Where are the Moderates? Heck, where are the Neo-Conservatives, even? It seems that what should be a veritable plurality of voices within the GOP has become a stridently Far-Right anthem, silencing any possible hints of progress or even moderation. One has to wonder if the respective heads of the Republican factions have been bullied by the Conservative clique into submission, in which case their followers might want to reconsider a change in political leadership.

The negative effects of Conservative hegemony are clear for all to see: from carelessly racist remarks tossed about on a radio show that would make the lowest Segregationist proud, to the continued attempts to divert attention from Europe-linked warlords and bandits bringing a heart-breaking humanitarian crisis (which an isolationist-Republican policy of inaction allowed to fester) knocking big and loudly at our doors. The President has taken decisive action to address the effects of Hurricane Allen, and yet the Right-Wing cries foul at not being asked for permission. It appears empathy and compassion should have to go through the callous Conservatives' approval before ever being considered.

Nowhere is the GOP's steady decline into pseudo-Fascism more evident that in the hateful intolerant discourse brandished by the recent magazine article quoted above: it is, truly, a gallery of horrors. It starts out by making some sort of hint at Stalinist inclinations within the Socialist Party. As a Democratic Trotskyist, I take offense at being identified with that great falsifier of Socialism. Had the Republicans taken more interest in learning about the political tendencies of the modern world (and not just the pre-war era), they would have been tipped off as to my real beliefs the moment I began to advocate for inner-party plurality and the constructive-instructive coexistence of tendencies, two paragraphs above.

"Some badly-groomed intern". The SS might be impressed with your passion for a hegemonic "right" sense of attire, Herr Conservative, but it appears to be (much to your own chagrin, I imagine) that this is still the Mountain States of America. Our country is the last best hope for democracy on the planet, and I firmly believe that there will come a time, sooner or later, that we will leap from our current boundaries and once again bring real democratic values to the oppressed peoples of the world. Among these values, regardless of how much you forget them, is the value of Tolerance, one that we in the Socialist Party exercise with a strong sense of civic duty and an ardently patriotic fervor. I won't tell you how we wear our hair, that is none of your business, but I will denounce and decry your utterly undemocratic and anti-Liberty attempts to bully people into looking like how you think it "right".

Finally, their retort: "F in English, ladies." Ladies? Seriously? Are we resorting to using the honorable and prestigious title of Woman as an insult now? Is this what the Right has come to? Is their refusal to work with us Socialists truly so great that they're willing to hand the reins of their whole Party (and their printing press) to a vocal, radical, far gone minority that would lead them down a path into becoming precisely the sort of Fascist Far-Rightists that destroy everything they claim to defend? Would it not be less harmful to give in a little and work with the Coalition in the short term, rather than wager on the Conservatives and risk losing everything in the long run?

As a man of ideas, of egalitarian principle, of tolerant, plural and democratic values; as a citizen of and believer in MS America, I make an earnest call to civility from the Republican Party, and challenge its followers to question the direction taken by their leadership. A house divided against itself cannot stand, but it has no hope when it's hosting an arsonist.

[Coin]

Progressive & Socialist Inaction Threatens Our Democracy
From the weekly column of Matthew James Carpenter, Representative for Oklahoma
First published in The Oklahoman, 18th May, 1981

The right to free speech in these Mountain States of America is among our most sacred of democratic traditions. I enjoy - as millions of us do - reading the newspapers, local and national, with my breakfast and on my way to work. As a window into the state of the nation, even those openly hostile to the Republican Party which I am proud to represent can be intriguing.

Our freedoms are eternally under threat in this most dangerous of worlds. Some try to shout down those who would oppose them - I see it myself every day in Congress, inevitably and sadly from all sides. But others try to smear, to libel, to slander. Eroding trust in politicians and the political system, this sadly has become a clear tactic of the Socialist administration and their lackeys.

By this I refer to a senator, no less. Philip Donovan of - what else - the Socialist Party, author of such bipartisan works of fiction as "Madre Patria Proletaria: Proletarian Syndicalism and the Mexican Struggle for a Sovereign Worker's Motherland", and his recent comments on the GOP. Either his hopes to create a sovereign workers' motherland rest on torpedoing the democratic process and insulting the intelligence of the American people, or the Socialist Party's new congressional leader is a complete and utter fool.

I shan't quote his accusations as far as the Republican Party goes; but suffice to say calling your opponents far-right Fascists is beyond what we might call civilized or polite discourse. It is also entirely improper for a supposed representative of his state. I call on him to retract such irresponsible language.

But if socialist words are irresponsible, their deeds - or lack thereof - are downright dangerous. The lack of any real legislative agenda or Congressional efforts by our unelected President and his Progressive allies erodes further the trust of the American people in this Congress. They have, for no reason other than petty poilitical point-scoring, bypassed Congress in sending unscrutinised aid to Mexico, and actively undermined the cross-party House bill which would have sent aid to disaster-hit Americans by duplicating it as an executive order.

That the Senator, President or anyone in the present government has not deemed it worthy to explain any of this to the American people is scandalous.

But we see worse. Entrepreneurs, businessmen and women and workers in every state have watched with concern as the budget deficit widens to an astonishing 60 credits a year, adding 30% to our national debt. They watched with horror as the markets deemed business in the MSA more risky when the administration failed to propose, let alone pass, a budget.

Does this administration feel comfortable dodging awkward fiscal questions only to shackle future generations with more and more debt?

Several of us on the Republican benches proposed a budget that would deal with the situation. A balancing of the books. No structural deficit. A tax incentive to exports and industry. Common sense solutions - we did not expect them all to be taken on board by the government. But we see the need to sort this nation's fiscal situation.

We have received no response, no answer, not even an acknowledgement from a sleepwalking administration led by an unelected President. Such inaction increases popular disillusionment. It gives the lie to their claims through long years of opposition, their criticism of the Republican administration.

It plays into the hands of a President nobody voted for and his fascist lobbyists, and some in his own party who wish to destroy our Republic's freedoms and traditions. Defending that Republic and the freedom of every man, woman and child in these Mountain States is not something we will abandon.

I can only ask Senator Donovan to do likewise. To cease spending his time insulting democratically elected representatives. To support a budget for this financial year. To listen to the common sense solutions we put before all of Congress and all the people. To support the defence of the MSA and American interests - not foreign lobbyists.

I call on Senator Donovan to debate and speak on these issues in public with us. On all the Coalition, Progressive and Socialist. But the administration, from Senator Donovan and his fellow Congressmen to the President, from the Socialists to the Progressives, must do the job the American people expect and deserve.

The alternative, readers, doesn't bear thinking about.

[OYID]

Compromise Glimpsed as Conservatives Intensify Their Rhetoric
The continued hegemony of the Conservative faction threatens the democratic principles of the Republican Party
By Senator Philip Donovan for The Worker.

Yesterday I wrote an article for this very publication, and already has the Conservative Far-Right clique currently dominating the Republican Party issued a response. I must say, I'm kind of flattered, but I must also note that they're not the only ones who have found my article interesting: authors, academics, public servants, workers, small business owners, people in the military and even some within the Republican Party have responded well to my critique of the de facto Conservative control of the GOP and support a call for what some have called "A Return To Republican Pluralism". I can't say for sure I'd agree with reforming or even restoring an obsolete institution such as it is, but for what it's worth I wish them luck in building a useful tool for excising the will of the people and a real testament to inner-Party democracy and political good will, rather than just an instrument for the lobbyists of big business entities like McDonnell.

The Conservatives are hyperbolic in their answers, as they're wont to, decrying accusations of Fascism where none exist, merely the warning from an old New Mexico Socialist that theirs is precisely their sort of language the Right-Wing always adopts before a historical turn for the worse. Perhaps they should ask themselves why they're so sensitive to the implication.

Despite what they write on their magazine articles, I'm glad to see the Conservative faction responding somewhat positively to yesterday's commotion by actually attempting to build compromise, however timidly, on the Senate and House floors. This in contrast, of course, to the continued strident tone of their printed propaganda, which bears the question of whether they can truly be earnest in their efforts or if they are merely being pushed to the center by the public pressure put upon them by free comment and the growing displeasure within their own Party.

The personal attacks against my person do not worry me. Over my years in politics and academia, as well as from my very start as a grassroots youth organizer, I have always been treated thus by the supposedly intimidating thugs of the Far-Right. Unlike the Republicans, Socialists have always faced persecution and intolerance, so we've developed a thicker skin than our Congressional counterparts. The Congressman calls my book a partisan work of fiction, but as my esteemed colleagues in academia know, Madre Patria... is an in-depth, exhaustive piece of research written over many years of investigative and theoretical labor into the nature of the ongoing social revolution in the Mexican territory. I assure the Congressman that as much as the title may scare him, it is merely a reference to official Mexican propaganda of the Nineteen-Forties, meant to reflect the evolving values of a society in turmoil, and not without a hint of irony either: during the mentioned time period, different factions within the Mexican State struggled to impose their own views and vision for the country, each straining to impose their interpretation of what the Madre Patria Proletaria actually meant.

It is, I've been told, a thoroughly appropriate title. I do appreciate the Conservatives taking their time to read up on my work, and I would recommend they not only read the book they mentioned by also have a look at my other works. Socialism and Democracy, in particular, could be interesting to many of them.

The Conservative response is still notable, however, in that, for all the pseudo-Segregationist bile spouted by Congressman Carpenter, he's never once touched on the major topic of my article: that is, the continued hegemony and dominance of the minority Conservative faction. And this from the man that would accuse me of being undemocratic! If you're so democratic, Mr. Carpenter, where are the other voices inside your Party? Why is the Conservative faction always acting alone? What has happened to ensure that "what should be a veritable plurality of voices within the GOP has become a stridently Far-Right anthem"? The Republican Party sounds terribly one-dimensional for a place that would challenge the Socialists' democracy, doesn't it?

Two final points on the agenda: Aid and the Deficit. Might we be so bold, Mr. Carpenter, as to point out, as it stands verified in News Bulletin, that it was "The Cargo administration’s budget leaving the country running at an annual deficit of 60 credits". So this is clearly a matter of Republicans messing things up and then growing irate at their successors for taking too long to fix their mess. Patience, Conservatives, we will address the problems we inherited from your administrations yet. As for the aid, I've made some clarifications above, but will use this space to commend the maturity and the stature of the Conservative faction who, when faced with a humanitarian crisis, is less interested in taking swift and decisive action to alleviate their countryman's pain than to talk of "gain" and "cheap political points". I expected you be callous, but not that you'd be so petty.

[Huojin]

Spoiler

Show

Edward McDonald: And we’re back, here at Face the Nation, we welcome two of the Capital’s best - Senator Jose Marquez of Texas, and Representative Matthew Carpenter of Oklahoma. Gentlemen, welcome.

Representative Carpenter: Pleasure to be here Edward.

Senator Marquez: Thank you Edward, it's an honor to be here

Edward McDonald: I'll run over the rules one final time for everyone, just to be sure - I'll be directing questions and statements at both of you, which you'll offer responses to. You can question each other, and interrupt each other, but do refrain from shouting too much.

Lets start with some of the latest news from Congress - the media furore surrounding the Republican Party and the Socialist Party. Senator Marquez, I want to start with you - as an outside observer to this argument, approximately the political mid-point of the fierce debating both on the Hill and in the news, with insults being traded, what’re your thoughts on the matter?

Senator Marquez: Well Ed, being a witness to some of the fierce debates that have occurred between both the Republicans and the Socialists in Congress, I believe that it is a saddening state of affairs, especially given the statements made for interparty cooperation in the wake of President Stone's assassination. We should be working together to further the President's legacy, not drowning it out in partisan diatribe and petty insults

Edward McDonald: Representative Carpenter, your thoughts? You, of course, have been caught up in this whole debate personally.

Representative Carpenter: Well first of all the Senator is right in saying the Progressives are mere witnesses to the debates in Congress - I'm afraid they don't often take part in or contribute to debates in the House or Senate. Despite being the largest party in Congress, I might add.

But I'd like to tackle the issue head on. We're not above working across the aisle. Have a look at the business in Congress just today - at the House and Senate level. Republican senators are the ones who've brought up and discussed major issues on the present socialist-introduced bill on foreign aid volunteers. Republican representatives, meanwhile, have worked along with our socialist colleagues in bringing to the House a bill auditing our national gold reserves. These are all real, practical, common sense contributions on both sides. But that doesn't mean you agree with everything they say. And on defence and fiscal responsiblity in particular, the gap between the Socialist and Republican positions is wide.

Now you mentioned my being caught up in it - you're right, I am. I found Senator Donovan's attacks on me and the Republican Party petty and irresponsible. But does that mean we won't work together in the national interest on other issues? Not at all. The present "furore" as you put it, is due in large part to bad facts being bandied about by this administration's representatives.

Edward McDonald: Senator Marquez, do you have any response to the accusations levelled by both sides at the Progressive Party? This Congress, in which the Progressive Party is the largest, is set to go down as one of the least productive congresses since the end of the war.

Senator Marquez: Of course. While it is true that, at least on the surface level, the Progressive Party has been relatively inactive, that doesn't give justice to the fact that we are dealing with a diverse group of interests. The Progressive Party cannot deal in absolutes as others might. That perceived inactivity is a result of that, and our efforts to work to bring compromise. There have also been some internal issues as a result of President Stone's assassination, but the Progressive Party does plan to be more involved in Congress in the immediate future.

Representative Carpenter: Senator Marquez, we're climbing on six months without a budget or legislative agenda, that's not /perceived/ inactivity, that's just plain old inactivity on the part of the Progressives and the Socialists. What do you say to businesses worried about the financial health of this government? I accept we won't agree on much of the nitty-gritty of taxation and spending, but the Republicans presented a balanced budget to the House and the Progressives and socialists have simply ignored it.

Senator Marquez: I don't deny that there are issues. However, we are working to resolve those, and counteract the legislative inertia that has taken hold

Representative Carpenter: Then what is your opinion on the proposed Republican budget? Because the American people want to know what this administration plans to do about our fiscal situation.

Senator Marquez: Well, I can't speak on behalf of President Roux-Johnson, but I believe that while the budget does take some good steps, specifically in the area of agriculture, I do have reservations about other parts of it, specifically the deregulation of industry as well as the reduction of health benefits for the people. I'm also skeptical as to whether the proposed Low Export tariff the Republicans have proposed will provide the economic benefits they claim

Edward McDonald: We understand there's been considerable renewed debate amongst the Coalition, beginning with the President's address to the nation and including major figures in the Liberal and Hard Left caucus. Do you have any insights to offer on the direction of a budget proposal?

Senator Marquez: There has, yes. Now, coming up with a budget proposal acceptable to everyone is going to be hard, but we should do our best to find a solution that doesn't unnecessarily compromise those values that this nation was built upon, and provides for the people so they can live a full life.

Edward McDonald: Can you talk about any specifics, or perhaps alternatives to Republican proposals?

Senator Marquez: Well, I can't get too far into specifics at this point, but given the confidence that has been expressed in the businesses of the Mountain States, there is the possibility of a cut in subsidies, as well as defense spending.

Representative Carpenter: Senator are you truly telling the American people that after nearly six months you can't point to one concrete spending cut you'd make?

Senator Marquez: That's the trouble of being part of a Coalition Representative Carpenter. Not that the Republicans would know anything about that.

Representative Carpenter: If I were in your position Senator Marquez, I wouldn't dream of representing an unelected President on this programme.

Are you truly telling me, that after six months, you haven't agreed anything? Do you have any idea how that sounds to the American people? To business? To families? To the common man? To hear an off-the-cuff mark about "subsidy cuts" without any clear indication of what you mean, all the while while market confidence in the MSA is dented by such gross fiscal irresponsibility?

Senator Marquez: I'd like to remind you that I don't represent this unelected President. I represent the Progressive Moderates. Phillip Donovan represents the Socialist Party

Edward McDonald: Senator, are you saying that the President is unelected?

Senator Marquez: Insofar as he was elected to be the Vice President, and not for the office of the Presidency itself

Edward McDonald: Very well. Lets move along. We're getting word in that moments ago, Congressman Higgins and the Appropriations Committee passed the Gold Reserves Audit Bill back to the floor for debate and voting. There's been a lot of speculation as to the reasoning behind this, Representative Carpenter, can you speak to the true intentions behind this bill?

Representative Carpenter: ...well, the intentions are rather clear. I spoke earlier about the need for us all in this Congress to be willing to work together on matters of common sense. I'm pleased to see both the Progressives and Socialists accepting much of what Representative Perez, our Minority Whip, had to say with the bill.

There are two main reasons we might want to audit our gold reserves, as I understand it: one is for planning for the worst, and the other is to inform economic policy. Particularly with the debate over the gold standard. I simply find it very surprising such an audit has not been carried out since the war, and think it overdue.

Edward McDonald: What would you say is Republican policy on a return to the gold standard?

Representative Carpenter: Our policy at the moment is not to return to the gold standard, although there are many within the party - and without - who feel differently. I myself can see the attraction of both arguments, but feel that the evidence isn't sufficient. But that's not to say that a debate on the issue isn't valid - I read with interest the reviews - if not yet the book by Martin Dorian, advocating a return.

Edward McDonald: Senator Marquez, your thoughts on the matter?

Senator Marquez: While I can agree that knowing the current state of our gold reserves is a good decision in terms of reasonable fiscal policy, I would prefer to stay away from the notion that we're 'planning for the worst' as Representative Carpenter put it.

Unless, of course, he's suggesting we sell some of the reserves to make up for the current budgetary shortfall. I can only imagine the negative economic impact that such an action would have, if businesses see us resorting to such lengths to keep our government afloat.

Representative Carpenter: I agree with Senator Marquez - selling the gold reserves to make up a fiscal shortfall would be quite negative. I merely implied "the worst" as far as the international situation might deteriorate. A very major and unlikely hypothetical, I grant you, but something every administration must never discount.

Edward McDonald: You would refute then, Congressman, the rumours and implications slipping from the hill that some have considered a sale of some of the gold?

Representative Carpenter: I would categorically refute that. Certainly that has not been raised either by or to any Conservative Republican Congressmen. I can't speak for those across the aisle, but I would consider selling the gold post-audit selling out the American people - I don't believe I can make it clearer than that.

Senator Marquez: I can say much the same for the Progressive Moderates. Excepting the part where Representative Carpenter supported selling the gold post audit just now

Representative Carpenter: Pardon?

Senator Marquez: My apologies there Representative. that was a mistake on my part. I've got a lot on my mind right now, as you surely understand.

Representative Carpenter: It's quite alright. I'm sure a communist newspaper will misunderstand me quite a lot worse.

Edward McDonald: Moving along, Senator you mentioned the potential for cuts in defense spending - and some of the fiercest debate has surrounded the Air Defence Fighter Development Bill currently before the house. Your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, have passed this bill back to the House floor. How would you reconcile these positions? And furthermore, what are your thoughts on the President's "socialist defense policy"?

Senator Marquez: Well Ed, I would say that my colleagues in the Appropriations Committee recognize that a general debate on the state of the Air Force, and the equipment they use, is something worth having. to reconcile that is simply to admit that a desire to see a wider debate, doesn't equal approval of the bill itself.

As for the 'socialist defense policy', as you put it, I'd like to put my faith in the people of the MSA as well, that if it comes to a war they have the determination and strength to resist whatever may come their way. But we're going to need more than just bodies if the USA or the PSA decides they have a bone to pick with us. By no means do I speak ill of the brave citizens of the MSA, nor their desire to defend their country in times of crisis, but we have to recognize that the war was not lost because the Fascists had more people to their cause. We must strike a balance between a reliance on the people, and a technology that will help us effectively resist in a conflict.

Edward McDonald: Senator, you of course served lengthily and with distinction in our nation's Navy - would you prefer to see funds directed there, or if not, where do you have in mind?

Senator Marquez: I'm not opposed to seeing that funding to the Air Force, no, but given recent events on the Great Lakes by the USA in infringing upon MSA territorial waters, a further strengthening of the Navy seems like a more reasonable application of funds for the protection of our nation. Of course, I can see why Representative Carpenter would support the application of greater funding to the Air Force, given that he was a part of the Air Force, and would naturally be disposed to see that as more necessary than the other Armed Services branches

Representative Carpenter: If I might break in - there're a few issues here which are not all comparable despite coming under the mantle of defense. Firstly the Republican Party's position is that our annual military budget should remain where it is, because there are other areas we can cut costs in and the USA in particular has become more and more aggressive. This includes all branches, I might add. Now that is quite clear, and I do not support favouring any branch with extra annual funding, or indeed investment funding. But the Air Defence Bill is a different issue.

This is a one-time cost. I've been over these arguments many times, but genuinely I do hope the Progressives will see the merit in them. I have a particular experience and knowledge of the air force. Hence my supporting this bill. There's been a lot of misinformation from the far left on this, but here are the facts. We presently have a near twenty year old fighter force. American researched, built and developed. That can't stay the same. For three reasons.

One is practical: if we don't do it now or soon, we'll lose the ability to do it at all. As a one-time investment, the sooner, the better. We lose that ability to manufacture and design our own advanced air force at our peril.

Two is strategic: You've seen the US ships in the Great Lakes. If their aircraft start interfering in our airspace, they're outmatched.

Third is as a deterrent.

We cannot bow to those lobbyists - who presently have the ear of the president - who want to make us buy obsolete aircraft from the PSA and MSA.

Senator Marquez: That seems like a very alarmist outlook on things. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the threat we currently have to deal with, rather than future possibilities?

Representative Carpenter: You saw the socialist counter-proposition, right? That's not a future possibility, it's present tense, right now. And these are not, as some socialists have claimed, some kind of Luftwaffe-equalled aircraft. They're air /defence/ fighters. Advanced enough to protect us, but not a threatening investment. I truly hope the Senator and the Progressive Moderates will vote with me on this.

Senator Marquez: I'm not saying we can't develop more modern aircraft, but at the moment it seems like the funds involved could be better applied elsewhere, addressing current infringements upon our national security

Representative Carpenter: As I said Senator, I do not support one branch over another. Air defence is but one aspect of our armed forces. My expertise lie with the MSAAF and their needs - your own are with the navy. If there were a bill presented before Congress by your good self on defence, I would respect your contribution enormously and, if there were a gap in our defences, support any common sense measure. Because that is what the air defence bill is - sensible. We can't leave it and hope the issue goes away, because next year these won't be twenty year old fighters we're using, they'll be twenty-one year old.

Senator Marquez: I'm glad to hear that. You'll forgive me for a bit of my own worry though, given the current political atmosphere between the Republicans and Socialists, and the fact that a Republican is Secretary of Defense, which leaves me a tad concerned for the defense of our nation should these disagreements on the direction of our defense policy continue. I hope then that the Republicans will continue to hold to their voiced desire for cooperation, so that the people of the MSA don't unnecessarily suffer as a result.

Representative Carpenter: The Republican Party, from the most conservative to the most libertarian, is as a whole united on ensuring the republic is well-defended. But I would not lie - the fact that the Progressives have supported the accession of an unelected socialist President, whose defense policy comes in the form of rambling speeches about militarising our borders - leaves me particularly concerned as well. Particularly now they apparently support military budget cuts?

Senator Marquez: I'm glad to hear that. And yet you also voiced your disapproval of the 'socialist defense policy'. Forgive me if I'm concerned that the disagreement in policy will lead to deficiency in action to defend out nation. Perhaps to prove a point. And we cannot be blamed for following the Presidential line of succession. Certainly no one expected anything to happen to President Stone

Representative Carpenter: President Stone himself questioned the potential legitimacy of a socialist successor, did he not?

But Senator Marquez. The American people do not want a socialist defence policy. Nor do they want a progressive defence policy. Nor a republican. They want a sensible, solid, sound defence policy. That responsibly defends this nation. And that is what the Republican Party has and will stand for.

Senator Marquez: Those statements were in regards to if he found complicit in anti-American activities by HUAC, not to a Socialist successor in general.

And while a sensible defense policy is what is needed, my worry stems from the concern that the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief may disagree on what constitutes a 'sensible, solid, sound defense policy', which could lead to friction that will harm the state of our armed forces and defense of our nation from aggression

Edward McDonald: Thank you, gentlemen. Continuing our discussion on both the budget and the military, the President in his address referenced “upcoming efforts to rebuild Haiti” “in close coordination with our allies and in a way that will benefit all parties involved”. To your minds, gentlemen, what does that involve? Are we talking about an invasion here?

Representative Carpenter: Frankly Edward I wish I could tell you what the President was thinking on this matter, but the Socialist-Progressive Coalition has been as forthcoming on expressing coherent foreign policy as they have on fiscal policy.

Senator Marquez: I certainly hope it doesn't involve an invasion Ed. I'm sure none of us want to get involved in the sort of quagmire that that could become.

Representative Carpenter: This very issue is indicative of the sleepwalking nature of the Socialist-Progressive administration. Here we have among the most senior Senators in the largest party in the Senate, and he has as much as idea as the man on the street.

Senator Marquez: In my mind, the sort of effort needed is one that assists the Haitian government to restore order and control, building upon what bastions of local support there are, discrediting the rebels, and regaining the support of the people. It should be a local initiative by the Haitian government, with limited support from the MSA. I'd like to remind Representative Carpenter that we were asked for our opinion, not an official position.

Representative Carpenter: Then what is the official position as you understand it? Do you know?

Senator Marquez: As I understand it, invasion is not currently being considered at this time. If events in Haiti degrade further and the President deems it necessary, then the option of military deployment becomes more viable. But at this time we will attempt to avoid the involvement of the armed forces in stabilizing Haiti if possible

Representative Carpenter: If you anticipate such a move, do you think calling for cuts to the military's budget wise?

If I might state my own view on the matter, getting aid and supplies to Haiti is at the moment more imperative than interfering in a civil war. We have thousands of Haitians arriving on our own shores, and we need to feed, clothe and house them. If we don't deal with the crisis in Haiti, it is clear more will arrive.

Senator Marquez: I believe that even if the funds currently enjoyed by the Armed Forces were to be reduced, the MSA would be able to effectively stage peacekeeping and rebuilding operations Haiti with the assistance of the Haitian government. Of course, we could just dump aid into Haiti and leave it at that, but we can't overlook the possibility that force may be required to protect civilians, or those providing aid to Haiti.

We have to ensure that aid reaches those who need it, and doesn't vanish into the hands of rebel movements or organized gangs

Representative Carpenter: That is very true. But let me get this straight.

You want firstly to cut the military budget.

You then want to spend more on creating a new volunteer corps.

You then want to - having cut the funding to the army for just such a mission - send them to Haiti?

Is it not the case that a more sensible option would be to stave off defence cuts while you consider deploying them abroad? And, in the end, does it not again show just how badly thought through and coordinated this administration's policies are? This is to say nothing of exactly what a budget cut for the military means. When does the Progressive Party, and their Socialist allies, intend to tell us this?

Senator Marquez: This operates under the assumption that the Army will not be able to effectively manage a single deployment into a hostile area, on the basis of protection rather than offensive action, even with a slight reduction in funds.

Representative Carpenter: So you confirm it is the army you would want to cut?

Senator Marquez: But of course, you'd have to ask the Secretary of Defense for details

Representative Carpenter: Senator Marquez, I believe it appropriate to point out here that the first any of us have heard of this new Progressive Policy of cutting the army is on this very program. How large a cut would you envisage? How many men and women who've signed up and served to defend their country would you want to put out of a job?

Senator Marquez: I believe you're once again confusing official policy with personal opinion

Representative Carpenter: In the absence of any official policy from this administration whatsoever, personal opinions, Senator, are about the only thing the American people can guess from.

Senator Marquez: You asked me what I understood the current position the administration had towards Haiti. I provided it as best I knew. The subsequent discussion of budget cuts was aimed as a personal question, not as a statement by the progressive Moderate faction.

I will not deny that budget cuts to the army are an option. Obviously I would prefer that all he brave men and women who have served our country would have a job. But sometimes we have to do things we don't like to go forward. And this is one of them

Edward McDonald: Senator Marquez, Representative Carpenter, thank you for your time today.

Senator Marquez: You're welcome Ed

Representative Carpenter: Been a pleasure Edward, Senator.

Edward McDonald: I'm sure you've got very busy schedules back on the Hill, so we'll let you get back to them. From me, Edward McDonald, this has been Face The Nation.

Star Tribune
Republicans Continue Attack Against President
Maintain Roux-Johnson is "unelected", Senator Marquez comes to his defense.

The Dallas Morning News
Progressive Senator Calls for Military Cuts
Unwarranted cuts, followed by foreign deployments - is the Party losing its grip?

The Kansas City Star
Questions Over Budget Come to Light
Coalition Agenda Remains Uncertain - Agriculture Subsidies or Cuts?

The Denver Post
Politicians Lost Over Government Direction!
Republicans, Progressives, Socialists - no one has a clue!

The Des Moines Register
Marquez Backs President's Defense Plans
Aims to combat United States interventionism - "balance" to be struck between manpower and technology.

[Huojin]

Spoiler

Show

Jerry Friedman: Fresh from Capitol Hill to the Newsnight studio, we have Anthony Nordquist, Congressman from Minnesota, Speaker of the House, and hopeful nominee-in-waiting for the Vice Presidency.

Mr Speaker.

Speaker Nordquist: Good evening, Jerry.

Jerry Friedman: When you read that figure in the news, that agricultural spending in this country takes up 6% of our spending, a greater proportion of the budget than spending on our armed forces, on veterans services, on government administration, on public order... Do those figures distress you in any way, Mr Speaker?

Speaker Nordquist: Ah, so we're starting with the interesting questions first. I suppose my first answer is, should they? Agriculture built this nation, and now more than ever we're a nation dependent on it. In a perfect world, we'd be able to provide for spending on all those categories you just mentioned, of course, but it's like I've said before. If you can't be perfect, be adequate.

Jerry Friedman: No one is calling for perfection, of course, but it's an important question. Agriculture contributes only 20% of our GDP, but takes up a third of the labor force, and costs only slightly less than public schools. Is that a sign of adequacy, or overspending?

Speaker Nordquist: It's a sign that we still have work to do. I don't believe spending is the issue, really, not if we're talking about hard figures. The issue is making policies that match our spending, to get the best results out of our tax dollars.

Jerry Friedman: When we're talking about making policies... You have a long history with legislating on agriculture... Food and Agriculture Act 1965, Farm Credit Act 1971, and so on. What is it precisely that your colleague, Congressman Wise, has proposed in the House that you find so vital?

Speaker Nordquist: That goes back to everything I just said, Jerry. Agriculture is a vital part of the economy, and we still have quite a bit of work to do. Congressman Wise, I believe, agrees with me on this, and in turn, I agree with the series of reforms he proposed. The past few years haven't been kind to the American farmer, but such a reasoned, far-reaching proposal might just help with that.

Jerry Friedman: Can you identify for us some of the issues this bill is tackling?

Speaker Nordquist: Firstly, it provides a new series of good faith practices to streamline the negotiation process and ensure a more just way of doing things in the industry. Secondly, Congressman Wise has set out to undo some of the unfortunate effects of the policies implemented by the Stassen and Cargo administrations, particularly in regards to soil erosion and integrity. But finally, and I'll be so bold as to say most importantly, Jerry, the CARA will provide the agricultural sector with a newfound sense of security and optimism through the Risk Management Agency and the Rural Development Program.

Jerry Friedman: And the costs to the budget as a result of this new program will be...?

With the Coalition not yet releasing a budget, and the budget deficit climbing, it might be added.

Speaker Nordquist: I have assurances from both the Administration and my friends working on the budget that it will be factored in to the budget accordingly. Nobody likes over-spending, but adjustments are a fact of government. I should also point out that, despite fears to the contrary, the FCIC has a history of actually *providing* revenue for the government, which should help to alleviate operating costs.

Jerry Friedman: What do you say to accusations that this bill is anti-business, given that these increases in spending are being increasingly directed at small farmers exclusively?

Speaker Nordquist: There's little to nothing exclusive about it. The tax cuts and subsidies that were proposed apply to everybody. If anything, I'd think that the bill would be welcomed by Big Agriculture, considering its ultimate aim of building a competitive, healthy market.

Jerry Friedman: A competitive, healthy market with what your colleague, Congressman Henderson called "harmful, overly-protectionist practices" in an interview he gave for the St Paul Pioneer Press?

Speaker Nordquist: Overly protectionist, Jerry? Is that what we're calling it when a government looks out for the citizens that elected them?

I respect Congressman Henderson as a colleague and a firm believer in practicing what he preaches, but when those practices involve making a fortune from big business...

Jerry Friedman: Well these are the accusations levelled - that protectionism is harming farmers elsewhere in the country, that by focusing subsidies on corn and feed grains, the agricultural programs are drowning out innovation and growth in markets in the south of the country...

Speaker Nordquist: I'd like to see the numbers on that. Then again, I'd also like to see the numbers on this deregulated utopia that's apparently being proposed. As said, the solution here isn't to, and I'm quoting my friend in the Senate, slash and burn government spending, but to make sure that spending goes to the right place, with the right practices being used to ensure everybody gets treated fairly.

Jerry Friedman: What about those accusations levelled by the /other/ side of the chamber, Mr Speaker? With Congressmen like Representative Chavez stating this bill does not go far enough, or more seriously, that you yourself receive significant backing from "Big Ag".

Speaker Nordquist: The only backing I'm aware of receiving is that of the constituency I've fought on behalf of for nearly two decades. But could the bill go farther? I'm sure. That's the thing, of course. Government is, essentially, a partnership. Go too far, and you overextend yourself, often with poor results. Let everything slide, and the people we work for have an entirely different set of issues to deal with.

Jerry Friedman: Very well. Lets talk about the President. He's nominated you as Vice President - what're your plans if you're confirmed in office?

Speaker Nordquist: After apologizing to my wife and children? I plan on doing what I've always aimed to do: tackle the issues facing us with a tripartisan focus. We've never had a Socialist President before, so it's an opportunity for us to build the Coalition into a truly unique alliance working for the average American.

Jerry Friedman: You're a supporter of the President, it is said... What do you make of the accusation that, as you've pointed out, he is the first Socialist President and - crucially - is "unelected"?

Speaker Nordquist: If I'm being completely honest, I think the idea that the President's somehow "unelected" is completely ludicrous. The American people voted for a Stone/Roux-Johnson ticket, and it's an insult to the intelligence of the voting public to insinuate that they were duped into backing the new President's way to the Wallace House. Everybody is well aware of the Constitution and the precedent of the line of succession.

Jerry Friedman: Is there not a question of mandate to govern?

The People elected a Progressive President, and a Socialist Vice President.

By comparison with the two major parties, the Socialists form a far smaller group of people in this country - is this a dictatorship, not of the majority, but of the minority?

Speaker Nordquist: Now you're engaging in thought exercises, Jerry. Of course it's not a dictatorship. The mandate to govern comes from the people and the Constitution. Nobody could have predicted the tragedy of President Stone's death, but it's almost laughable to think that nobody was aware of what a Socialist Vice President if the worst happened.

Oddly enough, I'd wager that quite a few of the people who are accusing President Roux-Johnson of being unelected didn't say a word when President Cargo succeeded Harold Stassen.

Jerry Friedman: Of course, the Stassen-Cargo transition is a similar comparison, but the argument that is made is, of course, that as the two were from the same party, and they held the consistent support of the public for the Republican Party, there was no issue of legitimacy here - are you arguing it's the same?

Speaker Nordquist: Why would the people of the Mountain States vote for a ticket they didn't support, Jerry? There's no legal or constitutional question of illegitimacy, only partisan bickering at a time when we could all do without it.

Jerry Friedman: Indeed. Do you have any comments for those whisperers in the corridors of power that a Constitutional amendment ought to be considered for cases such as these?

Speaker Nordquist: If there are in fact these whispers, I haven't heard of them. But I'm sure we can all guess where they're coming from.

Jerry Friedman: If you are confirmed as Vice President, as it is widely expected you will be, are you planning to remain on the ticket for 1984?

Speaker Nordquist: 1984 is quite a long way off. Ask me in two, maybe three years, once we've put all this behind us and moved forward in government.

Jerry Friedman: So you cannot state for me now whether the Progressive Party leadership has discussed backing the President continuing in office?

Speaker Nordquist: If I'm allowed to comment on their behalf, for the time being, the Progressive Party has more important issues than re-election to deal with.

Jerry Friedman: If there's no certainty, doesn't that mean he doesn't belong in office? If the President were a Progressive, this would undoubtedly not be an issue, no?

Speaker Nordquist: President Roux-Johnson belongs in office as much as President Stone did. But counting on certainty in politics is a bit like going to a Gophers hockey game and expecting there to be no fights. I'll support the President to the best of my ability and then some, but it's naive to try to predict the future, Jerry.

Jerry Friedman: This is going to be an issue, Mr Speaker - whether you comment on it or not.

Speaker Nordquist: I'm completely confident that the leadership of the Progressive Party and the office of the President will do what they believe is best for the country, and what I say or don't say right now won't change that fact.

Jerry Friedman: Very well. As an incoming member of the Roux-Johnson government, can you, of anyone, tell the American people what the government is planning in Haiti?

Are we looking at aid, are we sending arms, are we sending trainers, are we looking at another war... What is going on there?

Speaker Nordquist: I can tell you that we're considering every option at our disposal and then considering it again. The Haitian people are suffering from a tragedy right now, and as such, it's too important not to act without every possible course of action weighed out.

I can't tell you the what and when until we're fully confident that our decision will do the most amount of good and the least amount of harm. Hasty decisions in this sort of matter are, as we say back home, a heckuva way to mess the whole thing up.

Jerry Friedman: Senator Marquez, earlier this week in an appearance alongside Representative Carpenter, said that "invasion is not currently being considered at this time". Are you reluctant or unable to rule the matter out?

Speaker Nordquist: Well, for one, I wouldn't consider a possible Mountain States intervention in Haiti an invasion. What I will tell you, Jerry, is that the Wallace House won't act unilaterally in this matter, but the administration also refuses to let a humanitarian crisis like this fester and continually grow worse.

Jerry Friedman: Are you aware of the Haitian government having been consulted? Or our allies in the region - Cuba, Mexico, the Dominican Republican, and so on?

Speaker Nordquist: I'd be entirely surprised if that wasn't the case.

Jerry Friedman: But you're not willing to confirm it for us? No plans have been discussed? No top-level meetings?

Speaker Nordquist: I'll confirm for you right now that there have been meetings and discussions, of course. We're not going in blind, if we're going in at all, but we're also not going in unprepared, or with matters of national security and human rights all jumbled up because a potential Vice President ran his mouth a bit too much.

Jerry Friedman: Can you comment if the support you, and others in the Coalition leadership have lent to the Fighter Bill is indicative of a foreign policy more willing to intervene?

Speaker Nordquist: I don't think the two correlate to each other, honestly. The Fighter Bill is a matter of national defense. A possible intervention in Haiti is a matter of basic human rights, of demonstrating what sets us apart from our neighbors in Washington and San Francisco.

Jerry Friedman: The need to defend ourselves arises if we're stepping into a conflict zone where the USA is present, does it not? Further, with US aggression in the Gulf, can we safely do anything in Haiti?

Speaker Nordquist: Of course. Defense should never be too far from our minds, but I have faith the administration is planning a foreign policy that is both reasonable and compassionate. That naturally extends to the situation in Haiti.

Jerry Friedman: What about your personal opinion, Mr Speaker? What would you have us do in Haiti?

Speaker Nordquist: There's a saying in Latin I'm particularly fond of. 'Audemus jura nostra defendere'- we dare defend our rights. That's the real American spirit in a nutshell. But, with our rights secured and defended, shouldn't we encourage others to do the same?

Jerry Friedman: Mr Speaker, thank you for joining me.

Speaker Nordquist: Thank you for having me, Jerry. Maybe I'll go home and start working on that apology for Natalie.

Jerry Friedman: That's all from Newsnight. Goodnight.

St Paul Pioneer Press
Wannabe VP Defends Protectionism
No Clue Nordquist Lost on Agriculture, Haiti, And More

Houston Chronicle
Speaker Defends President
Right Wing Arguments Cut Short by Nordquist Responses

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Speaker: Government Undecided on War in Haiti
Consultation with Foreign Leaders and Planning Under Consideration

The Wichita Eagle
Exclusive from Speaker: Marquez Slip Republican's Fault
Party United Behind the President, No Dissatisfaction

[Snacks]

Nathan Hanlon: Will the Haywood Seven's Media Darling Add Political Matchmaker to his resume?
Senate Majority Leader mounts a stirring oration in support of President Roux-Johnson, condemns 'unelected' criticisms.

Speaking at a May Day charity dinner in Dallas hosted by southern Progressives and Socialists, Senate Majority Leader Nathan Hanlon was reported to have roused the crowd with a speech that, while predictably starting with the expected praise for the virtues embodied by the holiday, soon grew into a sternly-worded and solemn statement on the political atmosphere of the Mountain States that seemingly struck a chord with the diverse crowd and at its conclusion drew a standing ovation.

Now, it's on days like these: days about celebrating not just the prosperity we enjoy but the prosperity we enjoy in working together; it's days like this that we really have to consider and appreciate how truly lucky we are to have these days. Because we are one of the few countries, it seems these days, where the people have that. It's almost a cliche these days, but it’s true: freedom isn't free, and it's not just the soldier or the farmer or the laborer but everyone who has sacrificed, been hurt, or died for the sake of another who has paid the price of that freedom. Now, I don't think it's presumptuous to say that everyone here is grateful for those giving souls, and I am grateful for the chance to serve all of you.

I remember being a young man during the War, as well as after and meeting-or seeing on the street or in the papers, hearing on the radio-about those who saved America when it was on the brink of total loss. The Greatest Generation: that's what we call them, and it's accurate. All of them gave some, some of them gave all, and they did it for days like this. For days of peace to celebrate our American values. For the preservation of an America to carry on those values. They did it because it needed to be done by someone, and it might as well be them. They did it because they saw what Hitler and Tojo did in Europe and Asia and Africa: what they'd later do on our East and West Coasts; and decided it wasn't going to happen to them or their loved ones. They did it because they loved this country and all the promises-all the truths-that it stands for.

But sometimes, some of us forget. A lot of those heroes are gone now, and our memory gets fuzzy. To err is human, to forgive divine: we must strive to forgive our fellow Americans when they go astray, but we do not accept them tarnishing what our forefathers fought and died for. Sometimes we have to set the record straight: I intend to do so and I sincerely hope that, if after hearing me out you find you agree with me, you share the lesson with our wayward countrymen.

The Greatest Generation of Americans did not sacrifice their lives keeping the jackboot of fascism off our neck, they did not give life and limb taking the bullets and firebombs and torpedoes fired by the Empire of Japan at the American back, they did not give *everything* to defend our right to a democratic system of government only for the Republican Party to turn around and declare that the American people didn't know what they were doing when they elected the leader of the free world: the president of the Mountain States of America.

I know you've all heard it by now: "Not my president." Nice, concise little slogan-devoid of truth. I remember when David Cargo became president, I'm sure most of you do, too. I think everyone in this room had their quarrels with Mr. Cargo and his predecessor Mr. Stassen. It can be challenging when the president doesn't see eye to eye with you. But they were both my president-our president-yes, our president. Because the people spoke, and for better or worse they said that Stassen was the man who represented them. At the same time they said that Cargo was a man they trusted and that if something were to happen to Stassen, they trusted him to step in and handle things. Those are the rules of the republic that our Founding Fathers laid down- the republic that our soldiers died to protect.

So we didn't say back then "not my president." No, we recognized that in the face of trouble, the system so many fought and died for was working, that our democratically elected officials were continuing the work they were charged with doing, and we struggled together to make the American Dream a reality. That's what we did.

I've seen a lot of people: good, smart, patriotic people letting this little doubt work into their hearts. People who wept with hope and cheered ‘til they were out of breath when our friend Charles Stone announced that the Progressive-Socialist coalition had come back together, turning on each other and whispering it at every little failure they blamed our new president for. "Not our president," they say, and that kind of talk, friends, spits in the face of everything you claimed to work for.

Now, I won't pretend that President Roux-Johnson is one of my dearest friends. I respect him, but he's not. We've had our fair share of disagreements, but division is not what Charles Stone looked at when he led the forging of this coalition. He wanted to unite people. That is why he wanted to work with the socialist party, and when he needed a running mate he chose Mr. Roux-Johnson. I'm sure some of us were skeptical-I know I was-but I tried to get a feel for the man-and did so-and decided to trust Stone's judgment, as you did when you voted for the two of them. Yes, voted for your President and Vice President, knowing what their responsibilities were, and now some among us seem ready to shrug their shoulders on solidarity.

Well, I'm not ready to shrug. I'm ready to honor the legacy of Charles Stone: the coalition he forged, a new future for not just the American Left, but the American people. I'm standing here asking you to do the same. Are you with me, America?

While new polls on approval ratings have not yet been released following the speech making the rounds on evening news across the country, the media response has been strong from almost all political camps. With the Progressive-Socialist coalition reportedly being on shaky ground with each other as much as the public in the few weeks since former President Charles Stone's assassination, it remains to be seen whether this heartfelt speech, described by one respected commentator as "simultaneously a eulogy of our fallen President, a rallying call for the American left, and a castigation of political opportunism" will prove to be the pin that stabilizes the coalition that holds not only the Presidential administration, but the Congressional majority.

[Zar]

Shattered Skies-The Secretary of Defense speaks out against the ADF Bill and the politicization of national security

Today’s meeting with Secretary of Defense Joseph Cabrini is markedly different from the meeting with Representative Carpenter a few weeks ago. Instead of the open fields of an air force base, this interview takes place in the Kansas City offices of the Department of Defense. Secretary Cabrini sits in a chair across from me, clearly attentive.

WINGS: Secretary Cabrini, the Air Defense Fighter Development Bill has recently passed the House and is now being voted on in the Senate. How do you feel about the bill?

Secretary Cabrini: I believe it is the right step in the wrong direction.

WINGS: What do you mean by that?

Cabrini: It is true that the MSAAF is in need of a new fighter, but there are a few problems with the proposal in Congress. The development time for the creation of such a fighter would take years to accomplish. The bidding process for a brand new fighter would be extremely time consuming, as well as the actual development and production of such an aircraft. It would be likely that this program would finish in roughly a decade, leaving our air force to dangerously become more and more obsolete as we wait for the aircraft to finish.

In addition to the time it would take to develop the fighter, the program would also incur unnecessary costs. The bill will buy about 100 new aircraft for the sum of 20 credits. As of now, it is possible for an improved fighter to be bought at half that price, and for it to be put into active service almost immediately. These fighters would also have a vast amount of available spare parts, while a brand new fighter would require creation of new logistical infrastructure in order to keep them in working order.

The third problem with the bill is that it shows the fundamental lack of military understanding in the legislature. Even if this fighter could be developed and produced immediately, it would do little to improve the air defense of the MSA. Air-to-air operations by fighters are part of achieving air supremacy, but are not the Holy Grail that many politicians make them seem to be.

WINGS: Then what would do you think would be the best way to improve the MSAAF?

Cabrini: Based upon analysis in the Department of Defense, I believe that 100 fighter aircraft can be bought with 10 credits and put into service immediately. The other 10 credits can be put into acquiring Anti-Air defenses, MANPADS, radar, and other equipment that would be essential to the defense of national airspace.

WINGS: Are there any other problems you have seen in Congress regarding defense?

Cabrini: One thing that is troubling is the accusations that both sides have made during this debate. Our nation has recently undergone a great national tragedy with the assassination of our former president, yet many politicians cannot help hurling vile slander upon each other. Criticism in our government should not be composed of competing taunts of “Fascist Pig!” or “Godless Pinko!” There needs to be some sort of constructive dialogue.

[Coin]

"Short-Sightedness Bordering On Appeasement"
Cabrini abandonment of MS American defence contracts condemned in Senate

Kansas City, MSA - Sometimes Kansas City hits with something so entirely bizarre as to throw the press corps into a frenzy. The Secretary of Defence, Joseph Cabrini, making his first public announcement in a magazine interview where he claims a modernised air force would have little effect on air defence, and supporting buying obsolete fascist aircraft is one such frenzy-inducing moment.

Little wonder then that the chief backers of the bill - the Conservative faction of the Republican party - have so condemned their fellow Republicans who have so openly manufactured a dispute on the issue. Cabrini's long links with the neo-conservatives and Senator Rice in particular are well-known; but until now the neo-conservatives were if anything the most hawkishly pro-defence spending of the party.

Fiery words in Congress, then, were to be expected. But the words in the Senate - condemning the comments as either a mark of incompetence or slavish adherence to fascist lobbying - will echo throughout the nation. After all, calling for the dismemberment of your own defence industry is quite a strange position for a Secretary of State for Defence - and a supposed neo-conservative at that - to take.

Has Secretary Cabrini's Judgement Been Compromised?

The Secretary of Defence's comments on abandoning the MSA aeronautical industry are ill-advised and not in the national interest, writes Republican Senator Allan Clayton.

My first reaction upon reading what Mr Caprini - apparently our Secretary of Defence, though only his absence has been notable until now - said was a remarkable sense of deja vu. Aside from his theory that a fighter jet is inconsequential to air defence, and his opinion that it's not worth bothering with aircraft development because it would take too long, this answer in particular was quite revealing:

The [Air Defence Fighter] bill will buy about 100 new aircraft for the sum of 20 credits. As of now, it is possible for an improved fighter to be bought at half that price, and for it to be put into active service almost immediately. These fighters would also have a vast amount of available spare parts, while a brand new fighter would require creation of new logistical infrastructure in order to keep them in working order.

Lo and behold, a dropped Socialist amendment to the bill in the House, read as follows:

...why spend so much money on these sort of things when we already receive, though admittedly largely not out of our own free will, so many working-yet-outdated vehicles from our two lovely neighbors?... ...That way we're still buying these machines from our neighbors and thus so many of our colleagues will be dissuaded from voting against the interests of their own State...

This proposal also requested ten credits for one hundred foreign fighters. A strange coincidence, to find both a Socialist and a supposedly "Neo-Conservative" Secretary of Defence proposing the same thing. Stranger still when the failed Socialist proposition was the stronger.

Which leads me to ask - is Mr Caprini's judgement compromised? Why is he so desperate to buy old fascist equipment, and why are the ostensible "neo-conservatives" in support of him? Something in this affair smells rotten - and whatever reason the Secretary gives for wanting to appease fascists and hurt MS American jobs, I for one am intensely suspicious of what illicit, appeasing bargaining has gone on between his office and Washington or San Francisco.

[Huojin]

HAITIAN INTERVENTION: MILITARY PLANS LEAKED

Peter Harding, The Kansas City Star
June 26th, 1981

President Stone told us he was “concerned”. President Roux-Johnson discussed “proposals to help”. Senator Marquez told us that “invasion is not currently being considered”. And the Vice President told us the administration was “considering every option”. But the truth is out. Since the earliest days of ascending to the Presidency, the Roux-Johnson Administration has been planning a military intervention in Haiti - entirely unbeknownst to the American people.

Documents have been presented to The Kansas City Star that, after extensive investigation, we can confirm are genuine. These documents - stemming from OSS and Pentagon sources, worked out in conjunction with State Department officials, and commissioned by the President himself - outline a so-called “Haiti Plan”, involving the deployment of the Mountain States Marine Corps and no less than three battleships from the Mountain States Navy to secure major Haitian population centres and their territorial waters. The plan outlines a number of key objectives, including “eliminat[ing] armed fascist activity and influence in the country of Haiti”, “rebuild[ing] Haiti into a stable, functioning, allied State”, and, perhaps most damningly for this Socialist President, both “establish[ing] MSA mining interests and secur[ing] MS American influence over the Haitian territory” and “chip[ping] away at the Mexican sphere of influence”

Often touted as a crusader for the left wing, these developments, which bear close resemblance to the American interventionism of the late 19th and early 20th century, raise worrying concerns for this country’s future - not least as the government appears to break from long standing allies in Latin America.

The plans also detail a worrying level of OSS involvement overseas, planning for extensive intervention in Haitian domestic politics, and lobbying of the Cuban government to also become involved in planning, raising concerns over the extent to which our intelligence services are acting abroad.

When asked for comment, the Roux-Johnson Administration vehemently denied involvement or knowledge of the documents, as well as claiming that the seals and signs marked on the documents were forgeries. This is a statement we believe to be false, and further indicative of some level of cover-up or secrecy on behalf of the government. How deep this spreads, or what government plans pertaining to Haiti will become, remains to be seen.

These reports are extensive - far too much to be revealed in a single article. As part of an ongoing series, setting out details included within these reports, The Kansas City Star will be publishing excerpts over the next few weeks.

[Huojin]

Gallup Inc. Polling

Question: How do you feel about American intervention in Haiti?

Strongly Agree: 7%
Agree: 11%
Slightly Agree: 23%
Undecided: 24%
Slightly Disagree: 17%
Disagree: 13%
Strongly Disagree: 5%

Survey of 1008 people, margin of error +/-3 %

[Coin]

The Haitian Papers: A Diplomatic Disaster, say Republicans
Plan to invade and exploit poverty-stricken nation raises legal questions

Brian Santana, The Dallas Morning News
July 1st, 1981

Every man and his dog has heard the Socialist election message about Mexico. A key ally; a friend to be supported and even learned from; a nation with whom we must stay close. Toledanophilia, I've heard one particularly anti-left senator call it - the starry-eyed prime example of the grass looking lushfully greener (and redder) on the other side to a major section of the socialist party membership.

So while we've all had a while to chew over the Star revelations and the allegations of an administration planning to invade Haiti, put our men into the line of fire, and then frame Haiti's president all to make a quick buck for big mining, here's a thought for the cereal-munchers among you this morning. Namely: what in the hell were they thinking on an international level?

International adventurism is thankfully absent from our post-war history. For all the damaging implications of a fascist partition of America, we've kept our noses clean abroad. But the fact that the Roux-Johnson administration was drafting an invasion plan - probably in breach of the Treaty - and explicitly intending to weaken Mexico's sphere of influence in the Caribbean is, as Texas Republican Esteban Perez has stated: "a diplomatic disaster that puts into question not only this administration's competence, but also it's core foreign policy. How can Roux-Johnson claim to be acting in America's interests when he wants to please the USA by buying their old junk, and send Mexico into a rage? Haitians will now rightly question our motives for the next generation in our dealings with them, and they won't be alone."

But here's a slightly comforting thought for you, readers. If the administration managed to preemptively destroy the good work we might have done in our international relations by helping Haiti, it's probably an actually rather positive thing they haven't decided to destroy your wallets too by even drafting a budget.

Former MSAAF Top Brass Support ADF Bill
Carpenter condemns Roux-Johnson Veto as bill returns to House

Martin Perryman, The Oklahoman
July 2nd, 1981

The House of Representatives, KC. As the firestorm engulfing the administration over the Haitian Papers rages, a smaller but far older storm over the Air Defence Fighter Bill vetoed by Roux-Johnson has been stirred up as it returned to the House. Congressmen from both sides have expressed confusion at the President's position, and socialist u-turns on the issue. Roux-Johnson's lonely ally in proceedings, Secretary of Defense Cabrini, has come under sustained fire from Republicans. Chief sponsor of the bill, and well-known opponent of what has been called appeasement of the USA or PSA in defense spending, the political emnity between the Socialist President and House Minority Leader is well-known.

But Roux-Johnson's hopes of torpedoing the bill took a hit when Carpenter today pledged to get it through Congress all over again. Particularly with the evidence backing up our Oklahoma representative's statements regarding MSAAF support. And with concern in our state as far as jobs go, more and more of the public now find themselves opposing this President, no matter how many bumper stickers the Progressives print for him.

But among the most puzzling aspects of this presidential veto is the apparent u-turn. Many Socialist representatives will likely be furious at having been whipped to vote for a bill their President planned to veto anyway, and in so doing damage their reputations back home. As for what the Progressives, who fought hard for a Left-wing amendment to the bill, think of being kept in the dark as to Cabrini and Roux-Johnson's plan, rumours on the hill suggest serious disquiet, particularly coupled with the leak of an invasion plan signed off by the President that supported an invasion of Haiti in cahoots with big business. One wonders - what else has the President kept from the Coalition, from Congress and the citizens of these Mountain States?

[BgKnight]

The New Face in town.
Transcript of the "The Deliberation Report" on KMA Radio, with John Francis Cameron

John Cameron: ...alright I think we can leave it at that, thanks for your call Allan. Now the airwaves and newspapers are choc-a-bloc with the Haiti Papers, the legislative situation, the Johnson veto, and the Socialist-Progressive administration's inability to set a budget... so in all that, listeners, you may have missed a new leader for the moderate Republicans in Congress. His name is Senator Vernon Baker, war hero, former lieutenant governor of Wyoming and recently appointed Senator of said state, and he's with us here now.

Welcome to the programme, Senator.

Vernon Baker: Thank you Sir! A pleasure to be here indeed.

John Cameron: Now, you'll no doubt have guessed what the first issue we'll be speaking on is. The Haitian scandal has rocked Kansas City - and it's implications go further than domestic politics. What do you, as a leading Senator of the Moderate caucus of the Republican Party, think of the leak - is it genuine?

Vernon Baker: A very complex question indeed. It is my personal belief that this is indeed an actual document. I have no reason to doubt the journalistic integrity of the Kansas City Star, a newspaper that has show itself to be on the cutting edge of news. The Implications of this however are truly staggering, it will take me way to long to list them all, but I believe the real question is, what would the American people want?

And while I do not represent the entirety of the American people, I have been chosen to represent a group of them that has been through the mud of the second world war and has seen the fall of the American Republic. And I believe I speak with their voice when I say, that I am truly appalled at this move on behalf of the political elite of this country.

John Cameron:Strong words - but what should the government do now? They of course deny absolutely that there's any truth in the Haitian Papers...

Vernon Baker: [laughs] Of course they would deny it, what do you expect? The Kansas City Star caught them with their pants down. Before everything else, we need to launch a deep inquiry into the OSS and its actions. The same inquiry and investigation has to be applied to all elected officials who have participated in this deeply dangerous act.

John Cameron: If these documents are found to be true, then - what does this mean for MS American international politics? Would the Republican Moderates support intervention abroad?

Vernon Baker: Well, we call ourselves moderates for a reason, I have lived long enough to learn that you need to put yourself in the shoos of the other, to understand their motives in order to make a good decision. And I can see why certain members of congress would do such a thing, they are young, they haven't lived or haven't seen enough of the fighting, they are filled with idealism and believe that the world is theirs to define. And of course it is! But is this the way to restore the America we used to know and love?
Absolutely not.
Let me stress something, that I cannot stress enough, we are not fascists, we don't push, we don't invade and we don't kill, in order to push our own agenda. We help. The same amount of money we would invest in throwing our men away in the jungles of Haiti, we can invest in helping their economy, their society grow, we can lead by example, not by force of arms. The latter is just tip-toeing to Washingtonian segregationists, it is an action that is acceptable and expected of them. Don't get me wrong, it is paramount to keep our forces at the cutting edge of technology, but not for offence and subjugation of foreign nations, but for defense of our own sacred soil.

John Cameron:Now you mentioned technology there, so I'd like to move on to the subject of our defense spending. The President recently vetoed legislation your predecessor in the Senate and your Republican colleagues - bar some of the neo-Conservative faction - supported. How will you be voting if the ADF bill makes it to the Senate again?

Vernon Baker:In full support. Once again, I understand the worries of both the President and the neo-conservatives. They believe that if we invest in the development of a new air-defense fighter, we will waste too long and too much money. And indeed that is an understandable worry, but they miss that all of this does not go to waste, we are investing in America's future. In my view, my colleagues are blind to long-term planning and would much rather we invest in short term solutions. The problem is, in the long run, those short term solutions will keep escalating and the price for our rearmament will double and triple, if we keep buying obsolete weapons we will be more defenseless then if we were to invest in a fighter of our own. And in the long run, the program will pay itself off, as such an advanced fighter would not only serve us, but our allies as well, many nations would be more then happy to buy from a supplier who is not the Europa Pact or the Co-Prosperity Sphere, its easy to see countries who have chosen the third way, like South Africa or Mexico, would find it far more cost-effective to buy from a fellow neutral nation.

John Cameron: Now the bill's progress we'll all be watching eagerly in the media - and it'll be interesting to see the Progressive reaction. But what other bills would you like to see the Republican Party push through Congress?

Vernon Baker: A good question. While my branch of the party has yet to formulate a clear strategy, I can share with you some of the ideas that I would like to see pass through congress. For starters, one of the things my party will be fighting for is the rights of our Native American compatriots, while they have achieved great gains in the political scene, we will want to see more, until we have fully equalized our races in our great nation. Another bill I would like to see through congress, is the gun ownership act, however I am not certain if it will indeed pass in its current political form. And a major thing my party will be fighting for as a whole, as spoken with Mr Carpenter,a valued comrade of mine, is the deregulation of transport services, starting with the airline industry.

John Cameron:Now one thing you didn't mention there was the budget - we are still, after six months, sitting with Q41980's budget. What do you say to the administration on this issue?

Vernon Baker: We need to balance our books, the first priority of my own party is exactly that, finding the right balance in the budget to appease the American people. We will fight side by side with our colleagues for the right budget to pass and I will take it upon myself to push for the most painless solution and indeed, the quickest one, for the american people have waited for way too long.

John Cameron: Senator Baker, it's been a pleasure, but time is running out on us for the show, and I hope you'll join us again soon to speak on these issues as they develop.

Vernon Baker: The pleasure was all mine Sir, you have been a delightful host. At the earliest possible moment, I will be more then happy to meet you again in this room in front of the American people.

John Cameron: Well that's all we've got time for, folks, make sure you tune in tomorrow for an exclusive interview with Kansas City Star editor, Charles Aitken...

[Huojin]

HAITIAN INTERVENTION: THE MINING CONNECTION

Peter Harding, The Kansas City Star
July 3rd, 1981

For anyone who ever thought the Socialist Party's primary goal was to safeguard the rights of workers, the Haitian Papers exposed exclusively in The Kansas City Star will have made grim reading. After breaking the story, we now bring you yet more detail of this administration's plan to sell Haiti to the mining industry.

Not only did these Presidentially-commissioned papers show the government was preparing a legally questionable intervention in Haiti from the get-go (a move decried by Republican pundits as an "invasion"), Star analysis of these documents shows the government may even have planned to manipulate public opinion in the MSA. To quote from the relevant section, they said that "[domestic support for the intervention]...depends on the say so of the mining lobby." The writers of the report go on to detail various means discussed and analyzed by the administration to be used in keeping the Haitian government in support of working alongside big mining interests - including methods that, in the eyes of many, could be deemed intimidatory, libellous, and based on falsified information.

Equally damaging for the President, who in his veto comments levelled accusations at the right-wing for being in the pockets of the "military-industrial complex", are the sections of the report indicating that the President signed off on military escorts for the mining industry's prospectors. Accusations of double standards now follow this administration everywhere, while their position remains defiant, with an anonymous Wallace House source calling our reports "unsubstantiated claims" - but that they were, and this situation were not indicative of a possible government cover-up on the largest scale we have seen.

The Kansas City Star continues to stand by the accuracy and validity of our journalism, and will never shy from telling the truth to our readers. Though these papers have already made headlines, throughout the coming weeks we will continue to bring you further analysis of the details of what is perhaps the biggest scandal in a political generation.

[Gesar]

Department of Justice Press Office

Earlier today, the federal government sought and obtained a temporary prior restraint injunction on further publication of alleged government documents by The Kansas City Star. Charles Aitken, Editor at the Star, was offered every opportunity by the Mountain States government to voluntarily cease publication, but declined to do so. As a result, we have been forced to take this crucial step to safeguard out national interests.

After making our case first to the Mountain States District Court for the District of Kansas, and then to the Mountain States Court of Appeals, our request for an injunction was granted. Chief Judge Abrams, citing prior case law, including Near v Minnesota, stated that the government’s case met or appeared to meet the criteria required for establishing an exception to the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the continuation of this so-called “leak” presents a “grave and probable danger” to the American public, and to American interests.

Due to conflicting views between the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court has expressed its intent to examine the case, although at this time we are not concerned with those proceedings.

(OOC: Approved by Huojin)

[Huojin]

The Kansas City Star
Experts Confirm Haitian Papers
The Star stands by its publication, in spite of government attack.

The Dallas Morning News
Government Takes Newspapers To Court
Is this a sign of the rising tide of media censorship?

The Denver Post
Post To Republish Haitian Papers Documents
Injunctions silence Star, agreement reached to republish already released information.

St. Paul Pioneer Press
Government Cover Up Under Way?
Roux-Johnson Administration refuses to acknowledge Haitian Papers’ veracity.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Administration’s Blacklist Threats Revealed
No Cooperation, No Access, No Stories

Houston Chronicle
Republicans Call For Congressional Probe Into Haitian Papers
Congressmen Perez and Carpenter lead House Republicans to demand answers from the government.

Star Tribune
Allied Outrage At Anti-Alliance Actions
Statements issued by Mexican and Cuban governments denouncing OSS operations in Haiti.

Omaha World-Herald
Public Protests Brewing As Outrage Grows
Fuel added to anti-administration fires as public opinion turns over the Haitian Papers leak.

The Des Moines Register
Progressive Leadership Deflects Congressional Probe
Maintaining the Administration’s line, House Majority Leader and Whip call Haitian Papers forgeries.

The Wichita Eagle
Secretary Crocker Remains Defiant, Insists Haitian Papers Are False
Calls for resignation mount, despite statement to the Press and letter to Congress

The Oklahoman
Supreme Court Begins Hearing Haitian Papers Case
Appeal trial begins over government injunction!

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
US Navy On The Move - Haiti Bound?
Speculation abounds that classified documents indicating a government intervention in Haiti have prompted a US response.

Albuquerque Journal
”Corporate Colonialism” Angers Left
Socialist Workers’ caucus rebels against President over plans to sell Haiti to mining interests.