Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Impeach Bush for Christmas
The White House censored her subversive Christmas tree ornament -- only to spread its anti-Bush cheer.
Seattle artist Deborah Lawrence says she is crestfallen that the ornament she was commissioned to design for the White House Christmas tree will not be displayed. But then again, she always suspected the "ornament might not be met with full enthusiasm."
Deborah Lawrence with her offending orb. (Image via the artist) A mixed-media artist whose work is charged by politics,
Lawrence, 55, striped a silver bulb with a swirl of tiny text from a
resolution to impeach Bush. "America cannot regain its moral leadership
in the world if America cannot hold its leaders accountable for their
actions at home," the text reads. "Without accountability, a Democracy
will fail."
As one of over 350 artists asked to create a Christmas ornament, Lawrence submitted her work to a White House office this October. She never heard a word of criticism. Along with the other artists, she was invited by Laura Bush to attend a White House reception on Tuesday afternoon, Dec. 2.
On Monday, Lawrence gave an interview to Washington Post gossip columnist Roxanne Roberts, revealing her political handiwork. Lawrence was not supposed to talk about the ornament publicly until Laura Bush revealed the "secret theme" of the ornaments -- the colors of the flag -- at the Tuesday afternoon reception. But she didn't explicitly ask that the interview not be published. "I guess I was naïve," Lawrence says. On Tuesday morning, her interview hit the Post newsstands.
After a little morning reading, and a close look at the ornament, Laura Bush apparently found it lacking the Christmas spirit. "It's inappropriate and it's not being hung," Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for the first lady, told the Post on Tuesday afternoon. "We reviewed the ornament along with all the [other] ornaments, and Mrs. Bush deemed it inappropriate for the holiday tree."
Lawrence nevertheless was welcomed at the reception in the White House's Blue Room. She posed for a photograph by the tree with her fellow artists, listened patiently as Laura Bush gave a talk about compassion, and gladly explained to artists why they couldn't find her ornament on the tree. "It was a lovely afternoon," she says.
Lawrence was actually flummoxed when she first got the commission this summer. "I had an immediate, convulsive reaction to the request," she says. "Why would I want to put a smiley face of tacit approval on an administration famous for lies, greed, warmongering and religious fundamentalism?"
After all, on the cover of her 2008 book, "Dee Dee Does Utopia," Lawrence depicts a scrawny George W. Bush spoon-feeding the word "FEAR" down the throat of a woman shown in silhouette. The president stands atop a pedestal inscribed with a quote from Nazi Reischmarschall Hermann Goering, in which Hitler's deputy notes how easy it is for leaders to fool their people into supporting a war.
In fact, Lawrence was tapped for the honor by Washington state congressman Jim McDermott, a staunch anti-war liberal who advocated Bush's impeachment. Each year, certain members of Congress are invited to pick artists for the tree, and when McDermott asked a local arts organization, 4culture, for ideas, Lawrence's name came up.
To return the favor, Lawrence, whose political work has been shown at galleries across the country, including a recent show at the Lincoln Center, offered a written homage to McDermott on the ornament: "McDermott was attacked for predicting that no WMDs would be found in Iraq, and he was correct."
Along with the impeachment resolution, Lawrence noted moments of civil disobedience and activism in Washington state: the 1919 Seattle General Strike, in which 65,000 workers walked off the job, and the 1999 WTO protests. McDermott's office told the Associated Press that the congressman had "no role whatever" in the ornament's theme and design.
In past years, White House ornaments have tended to be cloying balls of patriotism. For instance, 2007's secret theme was an homage to the national park system. But the White House Christmas tree does have a history of controversy. In 1972, the Nixon administration was lambasted for topping its tree with the atomic symbol of peace instead of the traditional star. And in 1995, the Clinton administration refused to censor an ornament depicting Newt Gingrich's stocking filled with lumps of coal.
The White House may have dumped Lawrence's ornament like a lump of coal. But censoring it only spread its anti-Bush cheer. "My original intention was to make a statement," Lawrence says. "I felt like I needed to register my feelings about this administration. And I got a really great chance to do it."
- Posted in



24 Comments so far
Show AllAnother trenchant example of why Dubya, Cheney, & Co. are such an incompetent creepy crew: they don't do their homework. The best that can come out of this is Deborah Lawrence sells a lot of ornaments this year.
www.wunderman-comics.com
This would not have happened if Nancy Pelosi had not taken "impeachment off the table" in November 2006.
I'm sure as an 'artist' you're used to having work accepted or rejected by the person commissioning the piece.. You made your statement.. time to move on..
How about we 'move on' after we 'get out'.
Good Idea
Kate, my christmas cookie recipes.
Go Deborah Lawrence Go. I am happily "green".
There's another political antiwar artist whose work I like: Emily Duffy. google her name. She had a show of political sculpture in California in October. Photos online.
Not very Christmassy is it?
The White House I mean. It would take a La Palma-proportioned landslide's worth of snow dumped over it, inhabitants still inside, before the merest inklings of festivity take hold.
I already had this story out last night at Constitutionalert just didn't have a photo available at post time.
I thank you for inspiring her Dennis, least we forget the Framers.
BillofRights
Ha! Give me a break!
When will the constant droning of shrill, unrealistic extremists end?
"Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush! Yadda, yadda, yadda..."
Okay, we heard you. But it's not going to happen.
Impeachment is a remedy of last resort, that the consequences of an impeachment process, a serious one now, would be to divide the country in a way that is not very helpful.
In terms of holding Bush administration officials accountable for illegality, any crime has to be taken quite seriously. We should make sure there’s a process for investigating and opening up past wrongdoing in a way that doesn’t even have the appearance of partisan retribution. I’m sure an Obama administration will be very careful both not to turn a blind eye to illegality in the past and to institute a process that has guarantees of independence, so that there isn’t a sense of the kind of retribution we’ve seen at some points in the last decade or two that’s not healthy.
For example, there has been a big debate among law professors and within the Supreme Court about the President’s adherent authority to wiretap people. And while I agree that the President’s position is wrong, the idea that it’s an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President’s power is too far-reaching. There are people in the Clinton administration who share Bush’s view with respect to foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested that the Bush administration position is right. So, although I do think the Bush administration is wrong, the notion that it’s an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of what an impeachable offense is. That’s high crimes and misdemeanors. And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is not impeachable.
I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t criminalize crimes. Crimes are against the law, and if there’s been egregious wrongdoing in violation of the law, then it’s not right to put a blind eye to that. I guess I’m saying that emotions play an important role in thinking about what the legal system should be doing. But under our constitutional order, we go back and forth between the emotions and the legal requirements, and that’s a way of guaranteeing fairness. And as I say, it's very important to have a degree of bipartisanship with respect to subsequent investigations.
Besides, we have Obama now!
His election does more to alleviate the crimes of the Bush administration than impeachment ever could.
The time has come:
Let's move on.
Let's change.
You figure the Nuremberg trails were a big mistake?
What?!?
William Sapp, Patriot
I love this woman..she has balls...unlike so many so-called 'conservatives' who have NO CONCEPT of what that term means. She is a TRUE PATRIOT. Artists are the consciences of the nation.
William:
A lack of balls is not a condition relegated just to today's conservatives; the (D) party has displayed an INCREDIBLE lack of spine. None of this - from Iraq/Afghanistan to all-too-ordinary renditions to Thomas-Alito-Scalia-Roberts to the Patriot Act to illegal eavesdropping (not to mention retroactive immunity to corporations that colluded with said criminals) to AGs fired by a politicized DoJ run by born-again lawyers with WalMart law degrees to the evisceration of the 1st and 4th amendments to blah blah blah - would have been possible with the silent as well as active participation of the Bidens, Pelosis, Reids, Emanuels, Obamas, etc.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
snydly
Scene: cold block room w/single light bulb. CIA “interrogation” room. An Arab being water-boarded. The agent pouring the water says, “OK, Abdul, I’m gonna ask you one more time—Who set up 9/11?” Abdul: “blubDickblubblub blubCheneyblubblub”. Second agent with a clip board, to a third agent: “Eh, that’s what they all say the first few times…”
Little mouse in the corner says: “Must be a conspiracy”.
Joe Hope should understand that for many impeachment advocates it's not vengence that drives the cause.
It's the recognition that without some kind of legal, civilized accountability (best provided-for by the impeachment process in this case), the benchmark for allowable conduct -- conduct that Bush so drastically lowered, will easily if not likely become fixed.
Impeachment hearings may be a hopeless cause at this point.
We all understand that.
But since when has the virtue of any decent moral cause been determined by its
day-to-day practicality?
Hyper-pragmatists (a polite, benefit-of-the-doubt term) like Joe Hope, would never have written the Declaration of Independence; never sanctioned the Union's fighting the US Civil War against the Confederacy, or carried the banner for women's suffrage, or..........need I go on?.
Such psyches, as Joe Hope manifests, want only to move on; move away as quickly as possible from anything too difficult, too 'disruptive'; never apparently realizing that only because others did NOT choose such gooey 'paths of least resistance' does his beloved country exist at all.
My response to 'Joe' doesn't mean that I believe that every contended human moral/political issue needs such extreme rigor.
But what Bush has done in he past 8 years, as an illegally-acting CEO under our Constitution, definitely does demand illumination, accountability and, most importantly, correction --precisely for my reasons cited above.
How telling that Joe uses the screen name 'Joe Hope.'
Where is your hope, sir?
Better you should call yourself as you are: Joe Half-hope.
"Hyper-pragmatists (a polite, benefit-of-the-doubt term) like Joe Hope, would never have written the Declaration of Independence; never sanctioned the Union's fighting the US Civil War against the Confederacy, or carried the banner for women's suffrage, or..........need I go on?."
Well, women's suffrage was a human right and I certainly would have supported the movement. The Declaration of Independence and the Civil War I would have supported as well. But let's be clear, those were dire circumstances, war was our only option. I don't think now is the time for ANOTHER civil war. Is that what you want - all out war against the Republicans?
My point is that impeachment should be used only for clearly illegal offenses like WaterGate, not for differing interpretations of law (although I strongly disagree with Bush's view of the law). Obama will destroy his creditability and popularity if he appears vengeful or governs too far from the left. We need sunshine, we need transparency. I think before we begin any investigations of Bush, we need to decide how to proceed. Do we want to blame people and punish them (which will cause everyone involved to lie in order to save their own skin)? Or do we want to find out what happened and fix it (which could potentially involve granting legal immunity in exchange for honest testimony)? Personally, I prefer the more proactive approach of the latter. Revenge is unnecessary.
>>My point is that impeachment should be used only for clearly illegal offenses like WaterGate, not for differing interpretations of law (although I strongly disagree with Bush's view of the law).
Well, I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens was "clearly" a violation of the law. We have evidence in this case, since Bush signed the order authorizing the NSA to spy on us, knowing full well that this was a violation of the FISA act.
He should have been impeached for this. It was painfully simple, a clear and most heinous violation of the law and unconstitutional as well. And if you don't think this was an impeachable offense, then I must ask you why the feeble morons in congress (including your man Obama, who seems to give you so much "hope" despite his actions) quickly moved to pass "retroactive" immunity legislation once the offense was exposed?
Obama's credibility was destroyed long ago, by supporting actions like these. You're simply a fool if you expect any "transparency" from this guy.
This is not about "revenge", it's about the law. Bush broke the law. Period. It is not open to interpretation. He broke the law (FISA), hid his violations in a cloak of secrecy, and thus also violated the fourth amendment, that the President "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." What more evidence do you need? And I am only focusing on this one criminal act. There are others (in case you were living in a cave for the last 8 years).
If Obama had any intentions of using your "preferred" approach, he would have been pro-active in advocating Bush's impeachment and supported Kucinich and others in their efforts, rather than giving Bush a "get out of jail free" card and supporting retroactive immunity for the law breakers.
Sorry Joe....but you (and your hopeless hero Obama) have no leg to stand on here. Either Bush broke the law or he didn't. And clearly, he did. He should be impeached.
"My point is that impeachment should be used only for clearly illegal offenses like WaterGate, not for differing interpretations of law (although I strongly disagree with Bush's view of the law). "
Torture of prisoners: Clearly illegal.
Unprovoked war and occupation: Clearly illegal.
As John "Death Squad" Negroponte has shown, the only thing that happens if you let theses roaches scurry away is that they come back again. For justice, our reputation and our future it is imperative that we investigate and prosecute these criminals.
Letting them get away with it will only encourage more of the same.
I think we ought to start an Impeach Tree. Anyone so inclined could send an ornament. It should have a replica of the state's flag where it is from, and the town or county. It could list a reason for impeachment.
The Impeach Tree should stand on a table with rollers and should be pulled down every Peachtree Street in the country where possible. It should end up in DC on Inauguration Day.
Deborah Lawrence, will you head up this effort? Reply and post comments at this site for now.
Even if impeachment could not be finished in time, there is merit in considering articles of impeachment being brought against any Bush administration official that we don't want to see pardoned. As long as the process was started, there could be a legal argument made that, since the Constitution gives the president power to pardon "except in cases of impeachment," then congress might keep a presidential pardon option off the table.
What I like about this is the admission of guilt on the side of the so-called 'First lady'. The text on the artwork is so vague that it does not mention any of the Bush crimes explicitly. It just mentions a basic principle of democracy.
And Laura Bush apparently realizes that her husband has violated these principles.
As i started to read Dwight Baker's petition I at first thought he was trying to be funny or using parody, but then as I read I started to feel really sick. Mr. Baker, you are absolutely correct! Any patriotic citizen of this country should sign that petition and demand action regarding it.
Now, this is where things get complicated. Joe Hope, the pragmatist....and remember, our new President Elect is a pragmatist... wants to move on. Yes, the realization is there. To not move on means to confront the fact that we do not any longer live in a Democracy. To confront this and then to have the new President Obama do nothing, means that now we are faced with a no win situation. Better to just move on and hope for the best. At least that is the pragmatist's thinking.
The realization struck me...Nixon was impeached because there was political opposition to him. Clinton was impeached because there was political opposition to him. Bush will not be impeached because there is no political opposition to him! The people never did matter in this country! One would have to ask why? Why does our government disdain us? Why do corporations disdain us? Isn't the answer obvious to all? Governments are the takers. When most politicians become part of the system of power...they take all they can. There is no reciprocity. Our government is not of the people, by the people and for the people. It is for itself to gain and maintain power and control. Once at the top, forget about the bottom. The top is where to get. The top rules.
What will we do when hope is totally dead? Will we then finally realize that in order to really change, this entire system must be destroyed! To survive as a species, humans must come to terms with power. What we create now will determine whether or not we will be allowed to continue to exist.
Where can I get one of these ornaments?! : )