The title of this entry is a quote from Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, the former Democratic Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. It comes from his autobiography called Man of the House. In Man of the House he tells about his first campaign when he ran for political office in Boston. He narrowly lost the election. He was talking to his landlady after the election who told him that she didn't vote for him because he never asked for her vote. He concluded that story with the quote that appears above.
Many local candidates make the same mistake that O'Neill made in his first race. They don't ask their friends, neighborhoods, and relatives to get involved in their campaigns. They have a variety of reasons. They don't want to appear "pushy". They don't want to intrude. They don't want to presume on their relationships. A lot of the time, though, they are afraid of being rejected.
If you want to run for office, you have to ask people to help you out. Often your friends and relatives want to get involved, but just like you don't want to presume on their time, they don't want to presume on your campaign. They are also afraid of rejection. So many times a potential source of volunteers goes unused.
Just as bad for a campaign, if not worse, is not thanking people for their help. Take the time to send volunteers and donors a thank you note, either written or typed, it doesn't matter. Another thing that you might want to consider is giving your volunteers and donors a souvenir of the campaign, like a T-shirt or a coffee cup. The cost of such items is relatively small compared to the potential benefits.
In any event, thought, Democratic candidates need to learn the O'Neill lesson: People like to be asked and they liked to be thanked."
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Iraqi Politicians Get to Determine If Americans Die
This is the situation that the Bush Administration has got us into: Iraqi politicians like Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki get to determine if American soldiers go into combat. This is from an article in the Washington Post:
"The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.
As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.
Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now."
So let me see if we have this straight. The Prime Minister of Iraq, without apparently consulting his American allies, decides to go after a political rival. This leads to fighting, which apparently was predictable. Now that the fighting has begun, according to the Post article, American troops are taking the lead. This is also from the Post article:
"U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting."
We have been told by this Administration that the U.S. is not being drawn into a civil war in Iraq. What the hell do you call it when armed groups of Iraqis are fighting each other for political power, a tea party? Of course it is a civil war. The fact that Sadr hasn't yet declared a rival government doesn't mean that its not a civil war.
If American soldiers are going to risk death, then the decision to put them in harm's way should be made by American politicians, not Iraqis. Not one American had the opportunity to elect this Prime Minister who is so careless with American lives.
Read the whole Post article here.
"The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.
As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.
Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now."
So let me see if we have this straight. The Prime Minister of Iraq, without apparently consulting his American allies, decides to go after a political rival. This leads to fighting, which apparently was predictable. Now that the fighting has begun, according to the Post article, American troops are taking the lead. This is also from the Post article:
"U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting."
We have been told by this Administration that the U.S. is not being drawn into a civil war in Iraq. What the hell do you call it when armed groups of Iraqis are fighting each other for political power, a tea party? Of course it is a civil war. The fact that Sadr hasn't yet declared a rival government doesn't mean that its not a civil war.
If American soldiers are going to risk death, then the decision to put them in harm's way should be made by American politicians, not Iraqis. Not one American had the opportunity to elect this Prime Minister who is so careless with American lives.
Read the whole Post article here.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Check Out This Bush Impersonation
Check out this kid's impersonation of Bubble-Boy. It is pretty good.
Judge James Kimbler Interview With Joel Hanek
Medina County Common Pleas Court Judge James Kimbler was interviewed by Brunswick Democrat Joel Hanek, who is a freelance reporter for MTV's Street Team-08. Joel interviewed Judge Kimbler about putting sentencing hearings on the internet using You Tube. Click here to watch the video: http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF00989DED00170098DE64/
Republicans Don't Win Elections, Democrats Lose Them
The title of this entry was a saying of the late Ohio Attorney General Tony Celebrezze. What he meant was that if Democrats stay united, and turned out to vote, they could win virtually every election in Ohio. It was only when Democrats were divided and/or didn't turn out, that Republicans won.
Although that was said almost 30 years ago, a Gallup poll that came out on Wednesday, March 26, 2008. This quote from the Gallup website explains it all:
"If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain
If McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCain"
Now, losing some Democratic voters to the GOP nominee is nothing new. In 2000 and in 2004, around 11% of the Democrats who voted in those elections voted for George W. Bush. Further, those numbers can be expected to come down once the Democrats have chosen a presidential nominee and had their convention. Still, those numbers, especially the 28% figure is troublesome. If Obama gets the nomination, he can't afford to lose over a quarter of the Democratic vote to McCain. Nor, could Clinton affored to lose almost a fifth of those votes, although obviously she would have an easier time getting down to the 89-90% level among Democrats.
There are a lot of explanations for these figures. Certainly racism, and for that matter, sexism, plays a part. Certainly the tone of the primary battle plays a part. Certainly the fact that the national media loves McCain plays a part. Regardless of the reason or reasons, though, this November's election will be one hell of a tough fight. The sooner this battle for the nomination ends, the better.
Click here to read the full Gallup poll results: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
Although that was said almost 30 years ago, a Gallup poll that came out on Wednesday, March 26, 2008. This quote from the Gallup website explains it all:
"If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain
If McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCain"
Now, losing some Democratic voters to the GOP nominee is nothing new. In 2000 and in 2004, around 11% of the Democrats who voted in those elections voted for George W. Bush. Further, those numbers can be expected to come down once the Democrats have chosen a presidential nominee and had their convention. Still, those numbers, especially the 28% figure is troublesome. If Obama gets the nomination, he can't afford to lose over a quarter of the Democratic vote to McCain. Nor, could Clinton affored to lose almost a fifth of those votes, although obviously she would have an easier time getting down to the 89-90% level among Democrats.
There are a lot of explanations for these figures. Certainly racism, and for that matter, sexism, plays a part. Certainly the tone of the primary battle plays a part. Certainly the fact that the national media loves McCain plays a part. Regardless of the reason or reasons, though, this November's election will be one hell of a tough fight. The sooner this battle for the nomination ends, the better.
Click here to read the full Gallup poll results: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
How McCain Works the Press
There is a fascinating article up on Huffington Post about how John McCain works the media. (The link to the article is found at the end of the this report.) The article is an interview with Paul Waldman who has co-authored a book with David Brock titled Free Ride: John McCain and the Media. Brock is the founder of Media Matters, an organization dedicated to countering right-wing bias in the news media.
In the interview, Waldman makes the case that John McCain gets a "free ride" from the media because he takes the time to stroke reporters and develop a personal relationship with them. This is a quote from the interview:
"But what McCain understands better than anyone in his profession is that nothing is more important than establishing a personal relationship with reporters. As he's found time and time again, when you build up those ties of friendship, they become a resource you can draw on later. So when something pops up that would be enormously problematic or even fatal for another politician, reporters give McCain the benefit of the doubt."
Waldman also explains how McCain's relationship with the media benefits him:
"What you find when you examine McCain's treatment by the press is this: The rules are different for John McCain. Other candidates get defined by their biggest weaknesses and the worst thing they ever did; McCain gets defined by his best qualities and the most noble thing he ever did. Other candidates find a press corps that mocks their spin and assumes they're phonies and liars; McCain's spin frames his coverage. (When was the last time you saw a story about McCain that didn't refer to him as a "maverick" or his utterances as "straight talk"?) Other candidates view the press as an adversary, and the coverage they get reflects that relationship; McCain views the press as a partner and friend, and that's how they treat him.
The result is that a whole series of ideas about McCain -- that he's a maverick, that he's a reformer, that he's an ideological moderate -- have become so embedded in the coverage of McCain that journalists no longer even ask whether they're true. And in many cases, these ideas are either completely false or have been wildly exaggerated."
Basically, if you are interested in establishing a relationship with someone, you do it by being nice to them, by flattering them, by making their jobs easier, and by not criticizing them, especially publicly. McCain is apparently applying those rules to the media because he wants a relationship with them. It obviously works, although, tellingly, not as well with his home-state news media.
In the article Waldman points out that reporters from his home-state of Arizona have seen the whole gambit of McCain's emotions. They have seen his temper, his rudeness to those who disagree with him, and his pettiness to his opponents. It is not as easy to stroke someone who has seen you blow up at them or others.
Still, since most of the media doesn't come from Arizona, McCain's treatment of the press gets him the results he wants. Since Obama hasn't been around that long, and since Clinton and the media seem to have some sort of love-hate relationship going, Democrats are going to have the face the fact that McCain will be getting much better media treatment than the eventual Democratic nominee.
Here is the link for the Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/free-ride-inside-the-med_n_93285.html
In the interview, Waldman makes the case that John McCain gets a "free ride" from the media because he takes the time to stroke reporters and develop a personal relationship with them. This is a quote from the interview:
"But what McCain understands better than anyone in his profession is that nothing is more important than establishing a personal relationship with reporters. As he's found time and time again, when you build up those ties of friendship, they become a resource you can draw on later. So when something pops up that would be enormously problematic or even fatal for another politician, reporters give McCain the benefit of the doubt."
Waldman also explains how McCain's relationship with the media benefits him:
"What you find when you examine McCain's treatment by the press is this: The rules are different for John McCain. Other candidates get defined by their biggest weaknesses and the worst thing they ever did; McCain gets defined by his best qualities and the most noble thing he ever did. Other candidates find a press corps that mocks their spin and assumes they're phonies and liars; McCain's spin frames his coverage. (When was the last time you saw a story about McCain that didn't refer to him as a "maverick" or his utterances as "straight talk"?) Other candidates view the press as an adversary, and the coverage they get reflects that relationship; McCain views the press as a partner and friend, and that's how they treat him.
The result is that a whole series of ideas about McCain -- that he's a maverick, that he's a reformer, that he's an ideological moderate -- have become so embedded in the coverage of McCain that journalists no longer even ask whether they're true. And in many cases, these ideas are either completely false or have been wildly exaggerated."
Basically, if you are interested in establishing a relationship with someone, you do it by being nice to them, by flattering them, by making their jobs easier, and by not criticizing them, especially publicly. McCain is apparently applying those rules to the media because he wants a relationship with them. It obviously works, although, tellingly, not as well with his home-state news media.
In the article Waldman points out that reporters from his home-state of Arizona have seen the whole gambit of McCain's emotions. They have seen his temper, his rudeness to those who disagree with him, and his pettiness to his opponents. It is not as easy to stroke someone who has seen you blow up at them or others.
Still, since most of the media doesn't come from Arizona, McCain's treatment of the press gets him the results he wants. Since Obama hasn't been around that long, and since Clinton and the media seem to have some sort of love-hate relationship going, Democrats are going to have the face the fact that McCain will be getting much better media treatment than the eventual Democratic nominee.
Here is the link for the Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/free-ride-inside-the-med_n_93285.html
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
God Save the US From Another Four Years of Dogmatic Certainity
Besides their enthusiasm for the Iraq War, and their willingness to apparently go to war with Iran, there is something else that George W. Bush and John McCain have in common. Both men share an absolute, dogmatic certainty that they are right, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Here is a recent quote from John McCain about Iraq, as contained in a story by the Associated Press: "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says.I've seen the facts on the ground." Now, of course, what McCain has seen on the ground is what the American military wanted him to see. So we question whether McCain is getting an objective view of what is happening "on the ground" no matter what he says.
Besides the fact that we wonder about the objectivity of what he was shown in Iraq, there is also the issue that McCain sees what he wants to see. Remember when he came back from Iraq the last time he was there and pronounced that a marketplace where he had walked wearing a bullet-proof vest, accompanied by soldiers, and protected by helicopters flying overhead showed the progress we were making in Iraq? Apparently it never dawned on McCain that his vaunted trip didn't show anything other than the American military could keep a United States Senator on a planned photo-op.
This conviction that they are right, no matter what the evidence, is why Bush and McCain agree on Iraq. It is also why the election of McCain would be a disaster for the United States. We would find ourselves trapped for another four years in Iraq, pouring lives and money down a sandy rat-hole while Osama bin Laden watches us bleed like the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan.
Here is a recent quote from John McCain about Iraq, as contained in a story by the Associated Press: "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says.I've seen the facts on the ground." Now, of course, what McCain has seen on the ground is what the American military wanted him to see. So we question whether McCain is getting an objective view of what is happening "on the ground" no matter what he says.
Besides the fact that we wonder about the objectivity of what he was shown in Iraq, there is also the issue that McCain sees what he wants to see. Remember when he came back from Iraq the last time he was there and pronounced that a marketplace where he had walked wearing a bullet-proof vest, accompanied by soldiers, and protected by helicopters flying overhead showed the progress we were making in Iraq? Apparently it never dawned on McCain that his vaunted trip didn't show anything other than the American military could keep a United States Senator on a planned photo-op.
This conviction that they are right, no matter what the evidence, is why Bush and McCain agree on Iraq. It is also why the election of McCain would be a disaster for the United States. We would find ourselves trapped for another four years in Iraq, pouring lives and money down a sandy rat-hole while Osama bin Laden watches us bleed like the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan.
Not Their Kids
Here is a question: Does anyone know of anybody who has died in this war and who is a child of a member of the Bush Administration? Does anyone know of a person who has been wounded in this war and who is a child of a member of the Bush Administration? Here we are, 4,000 Americans dead and about 29,000 wounded and none of them, as far as we know, are the children of the people who got us into this mess.
Of course, we shouldn't be so hard on the Bushies, because according to Vice-President Dick Cheney, the person who is sacrificing the most is George W. Bush. Here is a question from an ABC News reporter and here is Cheney's answer:
Q. from Martha Raddatz: "I want to start with the milestone today of 4,000 dead in Iraq. Americans. And just what effect do you think it has on the country?"
A. from Dick, the Duck-Hunter, Cheney: It obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that's involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have. The president carries the biggest burden, obviously. He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."
More than anything that we have seen come from the mouth of Dick Cheney, this points out how the Bush Administration sees the world. Apparently, according to the DH, losing a child over in Iraq is not greater than the sacrifice that Bubble-Boy is making. Apparently having a loved one wounded in Iraq is not as great as BB's sacrifice. What more needs to be said about this Administration?
Of course, we shouldn't be so hard on the Bushies, because according to Vice-President Dick Cheney, the person who is sacrificing the most is George W. Bush. Here is a question from an ABC News reporter and here is Cheney's answer:
Q. from Martha Raddatz: "I want to start with the milestone today of 4,000 dead in Iraq. Americans. And just what effect do you think it has on the country?"
A. from Dick, the Duck-Hunter, Cheney: It obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that's involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have. The president carries the biggest burden, obviously. He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."
More than anything that we have seen come from the mouth of Dick Cheney, this points out how the Bush Administration sees the world. Apparently, according to the DH, losing a child over in Iraq is not greater than the sacrifice that Bubble-Boy is making. Apparently having a loved one wounded in Iraq is not as great as BB's sacrifice. What more needs to be said about this Administration?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Medina County Stalemate?
Since 2000 no incumbent Democrat running for re-election to a county office has been defeated, nor has any Medina County Democratic judge. Indeed, the last time that an incumbent Democratic county official was defeated was in 1996 when Commissioner Ferris Brown was narrowly defeated by Steve Hambley. Since then, all Democratic county elected officials and judges have either won re-election or haven't been opposed.
The flip side of this coin is that since 2000, no Republican elected county official or judge has been defeated either. The last time a Republican incumbent was defeated was in 2000 when Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack defeated DR Judge James Leaver. Judge Leaver had been appointed by the then-Republican Governor to fill out the term of DR Judge Ralph Berry who had left the bench to go back into private practice.
That means that in the election years of 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and since Municipal Court Judges are elected in odd-numbered years, 1999 and 2005, no elected incumbent has been defeated. This is somewhat unusual for Medina County, based on recent past history.
Starting with 1976, almost every election year saw an incumbent official defeated, usually a Republican, since they held more offices. In 1976 the GOP lost the Sheriff's office. In 1980, the GOP lost a seat on the County Commission and the Prosecutor's office. In 1982, the GOP lost the Auditor's office. In 1984, the Republicans gained back the Prosecutor's seat they lost, but then lost it again in 1988 with the election of Dear Holman, who is still Medina County Prosecutor. In 1990, every incumbent retained their office, but in 1992, while the GOP gained back one commissioner seat, they lost another. Finally, in both 1994 and 1996, Republicans both successfully defended their county elected offices and gained one back when, as mentioned above, the GOP defeated Ferris Brown.
There may be several reasons why incumbents have been harder to defeat in the last several election cycles. One is that Medina County experienced rapid growth during the 1990s, growth which has continued up until last year. It may be harder to defeat incumbents when there is high growth because it is more difficult for challengers to get known. It has also become much more expensive to run a county-wide race in Medina County. This cuts against incumbents being defeated because it is harder for challengers to raise the money to mount effective campaigns. Finally, the Democrats who are presently in office, and the Republicans also, have been there for several years. This means that their names are very well known, especially compared to challengers.
Given the fact, however, that the Democratic primary vote was much higher than the Republican primary vote, it may be that 2008 represents the best shot Democrats have had in several years of defeating Republican incumbents. In order to win, however, local Democrats must support their candidates both financially and with volunteer help. No candidate can win a race on his or her own.
The flip side of this coin is that since 2000, no Republican elected county official or judge has been defeated either. The last time a Republican incumbent was defeated was in 2000 when Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack defeated DR Judge James Leaver. Judge Leaver had been appointed by the then-Republican Governor to fill out the term of DR Judge Ralph Berry who had left the bench to go back into private practice.
That means that in the election years of 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and since Municipal Court Judges are elected in odd-numbered years, 1999 and 2005, no elected incumbent has been defeated. This is somewhat unusual for Medina County, based on recent past history.
Starting with 1976, almost every election year saw an incumbent official defeated, usually a Republican, since they held more offices. In 1976 the GOP lost the Sheriff's office. In 1980, the GOP lost a seat on the County Commission and the Prosecutor's office. In 1982, the GOP lost the Auditor's office. In 1984, the Republicans gained back the Prosecutor's seat they lost, but then lost it again in 1988 with the election of Dear Holman, who is still Medina County Prosecutor. In 1990, every incumbent retained their office, but in 1992, while the GOP gained back one commissioner seat, they lost another. Finally, in both 1994 and 1996, Republicans both successfully defended their county elected offices and gained one back when, as mentioned above, the GOP defeated Ferris Brown.
There may be several reasons why incumbents have been harder to defeat in the last several election cycles. One is that Medina County experienced rapid growth during the 1990s, growth which has continued up until last year. It may be harder to defeat incumbents when there is high growth because it is more difficult for challengers to get known. It has also become much more expensive to run a county-wide race in Medina County. This cuts against incumbents being defeated because it is harder for challengers to raise the money to mount effective campaigns. Finally, the Democrats who are presently in office, and the Republicans also, have been there for several years. This means that their names are very well known, especially compared to challengers.
Given the fact, however, that the Democratic primary vote was much higher than the Republican primary vote, it may be that 2008 represents the best shot Democrats have had in several years of defeating Republican incumbents. In order to win, however, local Democrats must support their candidates both financially and with volunteer help. No candidate can win a race on his or her own.
Politico Writers Make Case that Clinton Has Virtually No Chance of Winning Nomination
Here is an interesting article by two Politico writers that makes the case that Hillary Clinton has virtually no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Here is a quote from that article:
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
The article goes on to argue that there are several reasons why the media is pushing this theme. One is that they love a horse race. A horse race is good for the bottom line and also means that people are paying attention to their work. Another is that the media is captivated by the Clintons' ability to get out of political jams. No reporter wants to make the mistake the media made right before the New Hampshire primary.
So, assuming that her advisers understand her chances are slim, why does she keep fighting? Well, a slim chance may be better than no chance, which is what she would have if she gave up. Also, she is a competitor and doesn't want to admit defeat. There is also the fact that the next 10 races or so may actually favor her in that many of them are closed primaries where Republicans and independents can't vote.
The danger for Democrats is that Clinton will under mind Obama's chances of winning in the fall while not being able to defeat him for the nomination. Party leaders will not want that to happen. That's why, unless Obama's poll numbers go in the tank between now and the end of the primary season, superdelegates will start breaking for Obama well before the Democratic convention in August.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
The article goes on to argue that there are several reasons why the media is pushing this theme. One is that they love a horse race. A horse race is good for the bottom line and also means that people are paying attention to their work. Another is that the media is captivated by the Clintons' ability to get out of political jams. No reporter wants to make the mistake the media made right before the New Hampshire primary.
So, assuming that her advisers understand her chances are slim, why does she keep fighting? Well, a slim chance may be better than no chance, which is what she would have if she gave up. Also, she is a competitor and doesn't want to admit defeat. There is also the fact that the next 10 races or so may actually favor her in that many of them are closed primaries where Republicans and independents can't vote.
The danger for Democrats is that Clinton will under mind Obama's chances of winning in the fall while not being able to defeat him for the nomination. Party leaders will not want that to happen. That's why, unless Obama's poll numbers go in the tank between now and the end of the primary season, superdelegates will start breaking for Obama well before the Democratic convention in August.
African-American Washington Post Writer Urges Obama to "Show Them Your White Side."
Here is a very funny article that makes a very good point: Barack Obama needs to find a way to connect with white voters who are getting screwed by the huge corporations that run our society. He calls such voters the "aw hell no" block.
Here is a quote from the article:
So it's official. Sen. Barack Obama is black enough. Now it's time for him to switch gears. Okay, maybe not Obama himself -- he does a good job of appearing to be above the political and racial fray, as his speech last week proved again -- but his supporters. They need to start pushing the idea of how white he is.
Yes, that's right: Barack Obama is as white as he is black. The one-drop rule is not a genetic law or a social fact; it is a construct of this country's racist imagination. For Pete's sake, he's a distant cousin of Dick Cheney's. We need to start stressing the idea that his universal appeal is partly due to his being white, like all the presidents before him.
I know, I know. For a while the big issue was Obama's blackness. But the King (Jesse Jackson) and the Prime Minister (Al Sharpton) of black people announced he'd passed the test. Of course, it took a gang of white people in Iowa voting for him before they felt comfortable anointing him, but it happened. All of a sudden, Bill Clinton looked less like a gumbo of James Brown, John Coltrane and Magic Johnson and more like a potluck dinner of Tom Jones, Kenny G and Larry Bird.
Of course, Obama is aware of the need to find a way to connect with white voters of the AHN block. That is one reason why he stressed that he could no more abandon his minister than he could his white grandmother for saying racist things. So he is well aware of the need to make that connection.
So maybe, as the writer of the article, Bomani Armah, says that is really Obama's supporters who need to start stressing his "white side" to undecided voters. Armah goes on to list some things that Obama can do, and they are pretty funny, but they all make the point that voters vote for candidates who they can relate to, and that relating is more important to getting their vote then policy.
Here is a quote from the article:
So it's official. Sen. Barack Obama is black enough. Now it's time for him to switch gears. Okay, maybe not Obama himself -- he does a good job of appearing to be above the political and racial fray, as his speech last week proved again -- but his supporters. They need to start pushing the idea of how white he is.
Yes, that's right: Barack Obama is as white as he is black. The one-drop rule is not a genetic law or a social fact; it is a construct of this country's racist imagination. For Pete's sake, he's a distant cousin of Dick Cheney's. We need to start stressing the idea that his universal appeal is partly due to his being white, like all the presidents before him.
I know, I know. For a while the big issue was Obama's blackness. But the King (Jesse Jackson) and the Prime Minister (Al Sharpton) of black people announced he'd passed the test. Of course, it took a gang of white people in Iowa voting for him before they felt comfortable anointing him, but it happened. All of a sudden, Bill Clinton looked less like a gumbo of James Brown, John Coltrane and Magic Johnson and more like a potluck dinner of Tom Jones, Kenny G and Larry Bird.
Of course, Obama is aware of the need to find a way to connect with white voters of the AHN block. That is one reason why he stressed that he could no more abandon his minister than he could his white grandmother for saying racist things. So he is well aware of the need to make that connection.
So maybe, as the writer of the article, Bomani Armah, says that is really Obama's supporters who need to start stressing his "white side" to undecided voters. Armah goes on to list some things that Obama can do, and they are pretty funny, but they all make the point that voters vote for candidates who they can relate to, and that relating is more important to getting their vote then policy.
Democrats Need to Talk About Greed
There is an article in the New York Times on Sunday, March 22, 2008, about the split between Republicans and Democrats over the need for regulation of the financial services industry. This article illustrates why Democrats need to do a better job of linking the financial crisis caused by recent events such as the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and the collapse of Bear Sterns to Republicans. As much as Republicans may want to act as if these things just happen, there is a connection. That connection is that Republicans don't believe in regulation of business and therefore are ill equipped to deal with the problems caused by a very human condition: greed.
These financial crises take place when human beings want to make a lot of money. Now, on the one hand, to quote the character played by Michael Douglas in Wall Street, "greed is good." The desire to make a buck is what drives the American economy.
On the other hand, however, greed can cause human beings to do things that are bad for others. When the desire to make a buck overtakes any feeling of civic responsibility, then people start doing things that are bad for the rest of us. Things like loaning money to people who are not really able to pay the money back, or things like creating exotic financial instruments that investors don't really understand. Greed causes the strong to prey on the weak, all in the name of "rugged individualism."
That's where government comes in. Government regulation can level the playing field, make sure that the strong understand there are consequences to preying on the weak, or perhaps a better way to describe it is preying on the uninformed. Wall Street executives, like most of us, don't want to go to prison or have their reputations ruined.
When liberals try to pass legislation banning discrimination of various kinds, conservatives often claim that liberals just don't understand human nature. They claim that human nature is what drives people to discriminate and "you just can't change human nature." Well, if that is so, then one thing that you can't change is the all too human condition of greed. You can, though, regulate it. Something that Republicans just don't want to do.
The issue facing Democrats is how to make that lack of will to regulate business understandable to American voters. Here's a suggestion: Start talking about the greed of Wall Street executives. Americans understand simple, clear language. Instead of talking about hedge funds and sub-prime mortgages until voters' eyes glaze over, talk about the need to control human greed. In other words, don't talk details, talk philosophy. People elect officeholders based on philosophy. It is the officeholders job to then attend to the details.
All too often, the only side talking about philosophy is the GOP. They explain their attacks on government by saying things like "big government is bad." The way to counter that is not to list all the beneficial programs that Democrats have passed, the way to counter that is to have a equally clear message. On regulation of the economy, the clear message should be that "humans are greedy and greed needs to be controlled." A clear, simple message beats a complicated message every time.
These financial crises take place when human beings want to make a lot of money. Now, on the one hand, to quote the character played by Michael Douglas in Wall Street, "greed is good." The desire to make a buck is what drives the American economy.
On the other hand, however, greed can cause human beings to do things that are bad for others. When the desire to make a buck overtakes any feeling of civic responsibility, then people start doing things that are bad for the rest of us. Things like loaning money to people who are not really able to pay the money back, or things like creating exotic financial instruments that investors don't really understand. Greed causes the strong to prey on the weak, all in the name of "rugged individualism."
That's where government comes in. Government regulation can level the playing field, make sure that the strong understand there are consequences to preying on the weak, or perhaps a better way to describe it is preying on the uninformed. Wall Street executives, like most of us, don't want to go to prison or have their reputations ruined.
When liberals try to pass legislation banning discrimination of various kinds, conservatives often claim that liberals just don't understand human nature. They claim that human nature is what drives people to discriminate and "you just can't change human nature." Well, if that is so, then one thing that you can't change is the all too human condition of greed. You can, though, regulate it. Something that Republicans just don't want to do.
The issue facing Democrats is how to make that lack of will to regulate business understandable to American voters. Here's a suggestion: Start talking about the greed of Wall Street executives. Americans understand simple, clear language. Instead of talking about hedge funds and sub-prime mortgages until voters' eyes glaze over, talk about the need to control human greed. In other words, don't talk details, talk philosophy. People elect officeholders based on philosophy. It is the officeholders job to then attend to the details.
All too often, the only side talking about philosophy is the GOP. They explain their attacks on government by saying things like "big government is bad." The way to counter that is not to list all the beneficial programs that Democrats have passed, the way to counter that is to have a equally clear message. On regulation of the economy, the clear message should be that "humans are greedy and greed needs to be controlled." A clear, simple message beats a complicated message every time.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
How Many More American Soldiers Have to Die Before the Washington Elite Admits it was Wrong?
The Washington Post ran an editorial on Thursday, March 20, 2008, that made the case that the two Democratic contenders' views on Iraq are as equally mistaken as George W. Bush's views. On so many levels, this editorial was very offensive.
First of all, it does a very large disservice to Senator Barack Obama, who, unlike the editorial staff of the Washington Post, was right about the fact that the Bush Admnistration didn't make the case for war back in 2002.
Second, after being wrong on almost everything that they have written about this war, we are to assume that when they write that withdrawal would be a disaster for the U.S., we are now to believe that they are right? Where is the evidence that they are right? Where is the evidence that withdrawal from Iraq would harm American security? Does such evidence come from the same people who told us before the invasion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or that we had to worry about mushroom clouds over our cities?
The Washington elite, which includes Fred Hiatt, editorial director of the Post, backed this war, were cheerleaders for this war, and now don't want to admit that they were wrong. Well, here is our question for these so-called "experts": How many more thousands of Americans have to die, or be wounded, before you are willing to admit that you were wrong? How many more billions have to be poured into Iraq before you admit that you were taken in by Bush and his lackies? The blood of the Iraq War isn't just on the hands of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. It is also on the hands of synophants like Hiatt who are not now, even after five miserable years of war, willing to admit that they were, and are, wrong about Iraq.
First of all, it does a very large disservice to Senator Barack Obama, who, unlike the editorial staff of the Washington Post, was right about the fact that the Bush Admnistration didn't make the case for war back in 2002.
Second, after being wrong on almost everything that they have written about this war, we are to assume that when they write that withdrawal would be a disaster for the U.S., we are now to believe that they are right? Where is the evidence that they are right? Where is the evidence that withdrawal from Iraq would harm American security? Does such evidence come from the same people who told us before the invasion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or that we had to worry about mushroom clouds over our cities?
The Washington elite, which includes Fred Hiatt, editorial director of the Post, backed this war, were cheerleaders for this war, and now don't want to admit that they were wrong. Well, here is our question for these so-called "experts": How many more thousands of Americans have to die, or be wounded, before you are willing to admit that you were wrong? How many more billions have to be poured into Iraq before you admit that you were taken in by Bush and his lackies? The blood of the Iraq War isn't just on the hands of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. It is also on the hands of synophants like Hiatt who are not now, even after five miserable years of war, willing to admit that they were, and are, wrong about Iraq.
Medina County Dem Chair Presents Arguments for Four Year Term for Central Committee Members
Common Sense-the Reason for 4-Year Terms
The question has been raised as to whether the Medina County Democratic Party should change the length of its membership terms from 4 years to 2 years.
First, let me reassure all those who were elected to the Central Committee on March 4th that you have been elected to a 4-year term and nothing can change that.
Second, I think it's helpful to review why the Party has 4-year terms. In the early 1990's, the State of Ohio changed its laws to allow the political parties to select either 2 or 4-year terms. At the time, both the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party in Medina County changed to the 4-year system. The reason is simple: it makes for a much easier process in recruiting members and makes it easier for Central Committee members so they don't have to circulate petitions so frequently. Unfortunately, when Ohio moved its Presidential Primary to March it put a burden on people because the timing for the filing deadline is now in early January, at a time when most people's energies are devoted to holiday and family activities. This year, both parties in our County fell short on filling all their Central Committee spots (although we did better than the Republicans!). This is not unusual in any county.
As Chair, however, I take responsibility for this and know that we should begin much earlier and much more comprehensively 4 years from now to field a full slate for the Central Committee.
Meanwhile, the Executive Committee, as it has done in the past, will appoint or re-appoint members to the open slots. In fact, when positions fall vacant or new people step forward who could fill empty slots, we make appointments any time throughout the cycle. We already have a substantial list of those who for whatever reason did not get their petitions in but would like to serve, as well as others who have offered their services. Anyone who is interested should get in touch with me immediately (330-725-7487 or pam450@bright.net.
In conclusion, to shorten Central Committee terms from the current 4-years would be a step backwards and would only consume time and effort that would be better put to use in working to recruit and elect Democratic candidates in Medina County.
Pam Miller, Chair,
Medina County Democratic Party
The question has been raised as to whether the Medina County Democratic Party should change the length of its membership terms from 4 years to 2 years.
First, let me reassure all those who were elected to the Central Committee on March 4th that you have been elected to a 4-year term and nothing can change that.
Second, I think it's helpful to review why the Party has 4-year terms. In the early 1990's, the State of Ohio changed its laws to allow the political parties to select either 2 or 4-year terms. At the time, both the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party in Medina County changed to the 4-year system. The reason is simple: it makes for a much easier process in recruiting members and makes it easier for Central Committee members so they don't have to circulate petitions so frequently. Unfortunately, when Ohio moved its Presidential Primary to March it put a burden on people because the timing for the filing deadline is now in early January, at a time when most people's energies are devoted to holiday and family activities. This year, both parties in our County fell short on filling all their Central Committee spots (although we did better than the Republicans!). This is not unusual in any county.
As Chair, however, I take responsibility for this and know that we should begin much earlier and much more comprehensively 4 years from now to field a full slate for the Central Committee.
Meanwhile, the Executive Committee, as it has done in the past, will appoint or re-appoint members to the open slots. In fact, when positions fall vacant or new people step forward who could fill empty slots, we make appointments any time throughout the cycle. We already have a substantial list of those who for whatever reason did not get their petitions in but would like to serve, as well as others who have offered their services. Anyone who is interested should get in touch with me immediately (330-725-7487 or pam450@bright.net.
In conclusion, to shorten Central Committee terms from the current 4-years would be a step backwards and would only consume time and effort that would be better put to use in working to recruit and elect Democratic candidates in Medina County.
Pam Miller, Chair,
Medina County Democratic Party
New Ohio SurveyUSA Poll Shows Clinton Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain
SurveyUSA has a new poll out that shows Clinton beating McCain in Ohio while Obama loses to McCain in Ohio. The results make sense when you consider that in the recent Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary, Obama only carried four counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamiliton, and Montgomery. He lost other large counties including Lucas, Lorain, Summit, and Mahoning. This poll is also consistent with other SurveyUSA polls showing that he has also lost ground in Missouri and Kentucky.
While winning Kentucky is not essential for Democrats, winning either Missouri or Ohio would be extremely helpful in winning the electoral college vote this fall. The last two elections have been very close in the electoral college and in both elections Bush carried both states. If Democrats had carried Ohio in either 2000 or 2004, Bush would have lost those elections. If Democrats had carried Missouri in 2000, Bush would have lost that election. If Democrats could carry both states in 2008, it would be impossible for McCain to win the electoral college, assuming that the other states break the way they did in 2000 or 2004.
These polls show that the controversy over Rev. Wright's sermons are hurting Obama with white voters. Whether the damage is permanent is another question. It will be interesting to see if polls taken after Obama's speech in Philadelphia show him bouncing back.
While winning Kentucky is not essential for Democrats, winning either Missouri or Ohio would be extremely helpful in winning the electoral college vote this fall. The last two elections have been very close in the electoral college and in both elections Bush carried both states. If Democrats had carried Ohio in either 2000 or 2004, Bush would have lost those elections. If Democrats had carried Missouri in 2000, Bush would have lost that election. If Democrats could carry both states in 2008, it would be impossible for McCain to win the electoral college, assuming that the other states break the way they did in 2000 or 2004.
These polls show that the controversy over Rev. Wright's sermons are hurting Obama with white voters. Whether the damage is permanent is another question. It will be interesting to see if polls taken after Obama's speech in Philadelphia show him bouncing back.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
View and Read Obama Speech on America and Race
The Obama campaign has posted both the text of his speech on race given yesterday and it has also posted a video clip of his speech. It is a very powerful speech. It addresses the issue of race in America. It deals with his background as the product of both the white and black culture in America. It is well worth the time it takes to both watch the speech and also read it online. It can be viewed here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords
Monday, March 17, 2008
Proposed Amendments to the By-Laws of the Medina County Democratic Party
Medina County Democratic Party
Paragraph two of The PREAMBLE of the BYLAWS for the Medina County Democratic Party:
“We acknowledge that a political party that wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead; a party that asks for the people's trust must prove that it trusts the people; and a party that hopes to call forth the best our nation can achieve must embody the best of the nation's heritage and traditions. In accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the State of Ohio and the Constitution and Bylaws of the National and Ohio Democratic Parties, we pledge to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of a society of free people.”
So how are we doing? From the perspective of having served for two years as a Precinct person and Central Committee Member, we are doing reasonably well, but we should be doing better, for the following reason.
• Medina County has 151 Precincts but only 63 Precinct persons were elected at the just completed March Primary. This means that 88 (~58%) of the Precincts do not have benefit of an elected Precinct person. If Precinct persons serve a beneficial role, then why are there so many vacancies?
Speaking as a Precinct person who was appointed to the Central Committee in 2006, I have, by my initiative been involved in various activities. However, there has not been a meeting of the Central Committee, to my knowledge, since my appointment. Nor have there been any communications to me about activities of the Executive Committee. This concerned me, so I undertook to try to find out why. A careful review of the BYLAWS received by me shortly after appointment, but only now critically examined, reveals some likely causes that should be changed to achieve possible solutions.
1. Precinct persons are elected on the same four year cycle as the Presidential election in the March primary. The filing petition deadline is 60 days before the primary date, or about 3 January for 2008. This means the candidates will very likely need to secure the petition form from the BOE, and then make contact with at least five registered Democrats, who reside in their Precinct to seek their signatures on the petition, during the busy holiday season which may why many Precincts have not even a single candidate filing for Precinct person. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
2. Once elected, the Precinct persons and now Central Committee Members are called to an organization meeting to elect a fifteen member Executive Committee and four Committee Officers. This is the only meeting of the Central Committee until four years later when the next four year election cycle produces a new group of elected or re-elected Precinct persons. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
3. The fifteen Central Committee Members elected to serve as the Executive Committee participate in Executive Committee meetings, at least six per year, and it is the responsibility of the Secretary to provide access to meeting proceedings or minutes to the Executive Committee Members only. The Executive Committee has no apparent accountability to provide feedback to the Central Committee. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
So what might be done in order to try to improve? The BYLAWS can be changed by amendment. The BYLAWS stipulate that the BYLAWS should be reviewed every four years, and any proposed changes are to be voted on at the organization meeting of the Central Committee. With the organization meeting date close upon us, perhaps in early April, now is the time to get the amendments on the agenda, where they can be debated and voted upon. If not done now, it will be 2012 before we will have the next opportunity!
The BYLAWS contains eighteen ARTICLES. It is proposed that seven ARTICLES need to be amended to accomplish the following changes.
1. Change to a two year election cycle from the current four year election cycle for the Central Committee Precinct persons.
• The next election will be in two years, or 2010, which has a later May primary. This moves the petition process until after the busy holiday season for the candidates for the off-Presidential election years at least.
2. Clarify language to reflect that the four officers; Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer serve as officers for both the Central and Executive Committees to be elected by majority vote of the Central Committee at the organizational meeting.
3. Hold the Central Committee organization meeting following the Precinct person elections on a two year cycle.
• This doubles the frequency that the Central Committee will meet.
4. Expand availability of the official proceedings or minutes, of the Executive Committee meetings to both the Executive Committee and Central Committee members to accomplish accountability feedback.
• This increase of communication should facilitate more bottom-up participation, input to party activities, and improve teamwork.
5. Change the cycle for BYLAW review from four years to two years to be acted upon at the organizational Central Committee meeting.
• Enables a more nimble organization, ready to more quickly change process to improve when it is recognized that improvement is needed.
If you are a Precinct person who will be participating in the upcoming organizational meeting, it is requested that the proposed BYLAW amendments be given your serious consideration and ultimately your support.
Thank you,
Bob Simmons, Wadsworth Township Precinct B committee person.
Paragraph two of The PREAMBLE of the BYLAWS for the Medina County Democratic Party:
“We acknowledge that a political party that wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead; a party that asks for the people's trust must prove that it trusts the people; and a party that hopes to call forth the best our nation can achieve must embody the best of the nation's heritage and traditions. In accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the State of Ohio and the Constitution and Bylaws of the National and Ohio Democratic Parties, we pledge to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of a society of free people.”
So how are we doing? From the perspective of having served for two years as a Precinct person and Central Committee Member, we are doing reasonably well, but we should be doing better, for the following reason.
• Medina County has 151 Precincts but only 63 Precinct persons were elected at the just completed March Primary. This means that 88 (~58%) of the Precincts do not have benefit of an elected Precinct person. If Precinct persons serve a beneficial role, then why are there so many vacancies?
Speaking as a Precinct person who was appointed to the Central Committee in 2006, I have, by my initiative been involved in various activities. However, there has not been a meeting of the Central Committee, to my knowledge, since my appointment. Nor have there been any communications to me about activities of the Executive Committee. This concerned me, so I undertook to try to find out why. A careful review of the BYLAWS received by me shortly after appointment, but only now critically examined, reveals some likely causes that should be changed to achieve possible solutions.
1. Precinct persons are elected on the same four year cycle as the Presidential election in the March primary. The filing petition deadline is 60 days before the primary date, or about 3 January for 2008. This means the candidates will very likely need to secure the petition form from the BOE, and then make contact with at least five registered Democrats, who reside in their Precinct to seek their signatures on the petition, during the busy holiday season which may why many Precincts have not even a single candidate filing for Precinct person. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
2. Once elected, the Precinct persons and now Central Committee Members are called to an organization meeting to elect a fifteen member Executive Committee and four Committee Officers. This is the only meeting of the Central Committee until four years later when the next four year election cycle produces a new group of elected or re-elected Precinct persons. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
3. The fifteen Central Committee Members elected to serve as the Executive Committee participate in Executive Committee meetings, at least six per year, and it is the responsibility of the Secretary to provide access to meeting proceedings or minutes to the Executive Committee Members only. The Executive Committee has no apparent accountability to provide feedback to the Central Committee. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
So what might be done in order to try to improve? The BYLAWS can be changed by amendment. The BYLAWS stipulate that the BYLAWS should be reviewed every four years, and any proposed changes are to be voted on at the organization meeting of the Central Committee. With the organization meeting date close upon us, perhaps in early April, now is the time to get the amendments on the agenda, where they can be debated and voted upon. If not done now, it will be 2012 before we will have the next opportunity!
The BYLAWS contains eighteen ARTICLES. It is proposed that seven ARTICLES need to be amended to accomplish the following changes.
1. Change to a two year election cycle from the current four year election cycle for the Central Committee Precinct persons.
• The next election will be in two years, or 2010, which has a later May primary. This moves the petition process until after the busy holiday season for the candidates for the off-Presidential election years at least.
2. Clarify language to reflect that the four officers; Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer serve as officers for both the Central and Executive Committees to be elected by majority vote of the Central Committee at the organizational meeting.
3. Hold the Central Committee organization meeting following the Precinct person elections on a two year cycle.
• This doubles the frequency that the Central Committee will meet.
4. Expand availability of the official proceedings or minutes, of the Executive Committee meetings to both the Executive Committee and Central Committee members to accomplish accountability feedback.
• This increase of communication should facilitate more bottom-up participation, input to party activities, and improve teamwork.
5. Change the cycle for BYLAW review from four years to two years to be acted upon at the organizational Central Committee meeting.
• Enables a more nimble organization, ready to more quickly change process to improve when it is recognized that improvement is needed.
If you are a Precinct person who will be participating in the upcoming organizational meeting, it is requested that the proposed BYLAW amendments be given your serious consideration and ultimately your support.
Thank you,
Bob Simmons, Wadsworth Township Precinct B committee person.
The Psychological Damage to Soldiers Caused by Iraq War
There is an excellent article out by Agence France-Presse (AFP) regarding the psychological damage that has been done to members of the American military serving in Iraq. The article is based on the experiences of the 10Th Mountain Division, which the article calls "one of the most deployed brigades in the US Army since the September 11 attacks of 2001."
This is from the article:
Suicides, family breakups, depression and social stigma are just some of the hidden legacies of the Iraq war among the more than one million US troops who have served in the campaign.
While nearly 4,000 American troops have been killed in the war and more than 29,000 have been wounded, those who escape physical injury still stand a high chance of developing psychological scars that may stay with them for life.
The article points out that troops who are experiencing psychological stress caused by repeated combat tours and/or the amount of combat action they are seeing, have to wait months before receiving an appointment to see a mental health professional. This is also from the article:
The study, by the group Veterans for America, found that the mental health care provided for soldiers did not meet the psychological burden they had suffered during repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Sooner or later, and likely sooner, we're going to hit the wall and something will have to change," said Bobby Muller, the founder of Veterans for America and a former Marine paralyzed while serving in Vietnam in 1969.
The report criticized a Pentagon policy of extending tours of duty from 12 to 15 months and insufficient time between deployments to recuperate as key factors in the high level of mental problems among returning US troops.
On its most recent deployment, the 10th Mountain Division's second brigade combat team lost 52 troops killed in action, while a further 270 were wounded, out of a total troop strength of around 3,500 soldiers.
The figures reveal the unit's soldiers to be five times more likely to be killed in action than the average soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to the report -- a major psychological stress on the troops.
The study found troops in the unit reported low morale, spousal abuse and attempted suicides. And yet, troops had to wait up to two months for an appointment with a mental health expert once they returned, it said.
The article also pointed out the rise in the attempted suicide rate among U.S. Army personnel: According to the figures, more than 2,000 soldiers tried to take their own lives or injure themselves in 2006, compared to about 375 in 2002.
This article shows what happens to combat troops when the civilian leadership, ie, the President, send them off on a war that is not well thought out, has no clear purpose other than removing one man from power, and there are no plans to handle what happens after that person is removed from power.
The article is well worth the few minutes it will take to read it. You will find it very enlightening. Of course, since AFP is a French company, it is likely that the right-wing blowhards who support this war will just ignore it. After all, who knows better, Bush or the French?
This is from the article:
Suicides, family breakups, depression and social stigma are just some of the hidden legacies of the Iraq war among the more than one million US troops who have served in the campaign.
While nearly 4,000 American troops have been killed in the war and more than 29,000 have been wounded, those who escape physical injury still stand a high chance of developing psychological scars that may stay with them for life.
The article points out that troops who are experiencing psychological stress caused by repeated combat tours and/or the amount of combat action they are seeing, have to wait months before receiving an appointment to see a mental health professional. This is also from the article:
The study, by the group Veterans for America, found that the mental health care provided for soldiers did not meet the psychological burden they had suffered during repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Sooner or later, and likely sooner, we're going to hit the wall and something will have to change," said Bobby Muller, the founder of Veterans for America and a former Marine paralyzed while serving in Vietnam in 1969.
The report criticized a Pentagon policy of extending tours of duty from 12 to 15 months and insufficient time between deployments to recuperate as key factors in the high level of mental problems among returning US troops.
On its most recent deployment, the 10th Mountain Division's second brigade combat team lost 52 troops killed in action, while a further 270 were wounded, out of a total troop strength of around 3,500 soldiers.
The figures reveal the unit's soldiers to be five times more likely to be killed in action than the average soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to the report -- a major psychological stress on the troops.
The study found troops in the unit reported low morale, spousal abuse and attempted suicides. And yet, troops had to wait up to two months for an appointment with a mental health expert once they returned, it said.
The article also pointed out the rise in the attempted suicide rate among U.S. Army personnel: According to the figures, more than 2,000 soldiers tried to take their own lives or injure themselves in 2006, compared to about 375 in 2002.
This article shows what happens to combat troops when the civilian leadership, ie, the President, send them off on a war that is not well thought out, has no clear purpose other than removing one man from power, and there are no plans to handle what happens after that person is removed from power.
The article is well worth the few minutes it will take to read it. You will find it very enlightening. Of course, since AFP is a French company, it is likely that the right-wing blowhards who support this war will just ignore it. After all, who knows better, Bush or the French?
Wall Street Journal Poll Shows Very Close Race This November
The Wall Street Journal and NBC released a poll on March 13th that shows a very close race for President this November. While the poll shows McCain losing to either Obama or Clinton, the results are very close. Here is a quote from the Christian Science Monitor article that is linked to above:
In the matchups in the NBC/Journal poll, Senator Obama comes in ahead of McCain by 47 to 44 percent. Senator Clinton edges McCain by 47 to 45 percent. Both races fall within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points
Right now Democrats have a fundraising advantage and they need to exploit it. This is also from the article:
Part of the challenge facing the McCain campaign is that Democrats have raised more money than Republicans in the current presidential campaign. "What is of interest to me this cycle is ... the Democrat funding advantage," McInturff said. "I just felt as a Republican we had a God-given right to more money.... Republicans, if they look a little bewildered, it is because they are not used to being outfunded. I think that is a huge story this cycle."
A lot of pressure will be applied to the Democratic candidate to accept public financing, especially from newspaper editorial boards. Why? Because in an environment where both candidates are limited in what they can spend, newspaper editorials have somewhat more significance. Well, their possible editorial support is not a sufficient reasons to give up this advantage.
Democrats who think this will be an easy election aren't in touch with reality. The Democrats will be nominating either a woman or an African-American for President. Such an nominee is going to be a very big change for America, and not all Americans are going to accept such a change. This election will be down and dirty and Democrats have to be prepared for such an election.
In the matchups in the NBC/Journal poll, Senator Obama comes in ahead of McCain by 47 to 44 percent. Senator Clinton edges McCain by 47 to 45 percent. Both races fall within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points
Right now Democrats have a fundraising advantage and they need to exploit it. This is also from the article:
Part of the challenge facing the McCain campaign is that Democrats have raised more money than Republicans in the current presidential campaign. "What is of interest to me this cycle is ... the Democrat funding advantage," McInturff said. "I just felt as a Republican we had a God-given right to more money.... Republicans, if they look a little bewildered, it is because they are not used to being outfunded. I think that is a huge story this cycle."
A lot of pressure will be applied to the Democratic candidate to accept public financing, especially from newspaper editorial boards. Why? Because in an environment where both candidates are limited in what they can spend, newspaper editorials have somewhat more significance. Well, their possible editorial support is not a sufficient reasons to give up this advantage.
Democrats who think this will be an easy election aren't in touch with reality. The Democrats will be nominating either a woman or an African-American for President. Such an nominee is going to be a very big change for America, and not all Americans are going to accept such a change. This election will be down and dirty and Democrats have to be prepared for such an election.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
How Sherrod Brown Took the Senate in 2006
Earlier we posted an entry on why Howard Metzenbaum got elected three times to the U.S. Senate from Ohio. Our point was that Metzenbaum, although a Jewish liberal, got votes from white working class voters, even while, in 1988, Dukasis was losing Ohio to George H.W. Bush. We pointed out that he did it by talking about economic issues first, last, and always.
That post got us wondering how Sherrod Brown did with white working class voters in the 2006 election against Mike DeWine. Now, for purposes of this entry, we are defining working class voters as voters who don't possess a four year college degree.
The CNN Exit Poll for the 2006 Ohio Senate Race shows that Brown carried this demographic group of voters against DeWine in 2006. Here are some numbers from that poll:
Brown beat DeWine among all white voters by a 52% to 48% margin. He took white males by a margin of 51% to 49% and white women by a margin of 53% to 47%. He took non-college educated 57% to 43% and he took college graduates by a margin of 55% to 45%. Among white voters who stated religious preferences, the only group that Brown lost were white Protestants, and he took white Catholics, white Jews, whites of other religions, and whites who don't have any religion.
Among geographical regions, the only areas he lost was Southwestern Ohio, and he won in cities and suburbs, but lost in small towns and in rural areas. He won both among union members and among non-union members.
Whoever comes out of the race for the Democratic nomination should take a long look at Sherrod's 2006 campaign for Senator and use that same approach when campaigning not only in Ohio but all over the United States.
That post got us wondering how Sherrod Brown did with white working class voters in the 2006 election against Mike DeWine. Now, for purposes of this entry, we are defining working class voters as voters who don't possess a four year college degree.
The CNN Exit Poll for the 2006 Ohio Senate Race shows that Brown carried this demographic group of voters against DeWine in 2006. Here are some numbers from that poll:
Brown beat DeWine among all white voters by a 52% to 48% margin. He took white males by a margin of 51% to 49% and white women by a margin of 53% to 47%. He took non-college educated 57% to 43% and he took college graduates by a margin of 55% to 45%. Among white voters who stated religious preferences, the only group that Brown lost were white Protestants, and he took white Catholics, white Jews, whites of other religions, and whites who don't have any religion.
Among geographical regions, the only areas he lost was Southwestern Ohio, and he won in cities and suburbs, but lost in small towns and in rural areas. He won both among union members and among non-union members.
Whoever comes out of the race for the Democratic nomination should take a long look at Sherrod's 2006 campaign for Senator and use that same approach when campaigning not only in Ohio but all over the United States.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Rasmussen Reports Running Daily Presidential Primary Tracking Polls
Rasmussen Reports are running daily presidential primary tracking polls and posting them online. The daily poll on the Democratic Presidential primary vote is showing a definite tightening of the race between Clinton and Obama. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wonders if this is the first evidence of the effect that the revelations about the retiring pastor of Barack Obama's church are having on the race.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Media Ignores McCain Not Releasing Tax Returns While Going After Clinton
Media Matters columnist Jamison Foser has a column up about how the media goes after Hillary Clinton for not releasing her tax returns while ignoring that McCain hasn't released his tax returns. Now, this could be just one more example of the double standard that is applied to the Clintons by the national media, or it could reflect the fact that McCain's opponents didn't go after him on this issue during the primaries like Obama went after Clinton.
One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.
Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.
The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.
One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.
Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.
The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.
Same Old Bush _________(You Fill in the Blank)
Today Bubble-Boy told the American public that he realized that the economy was in a "tough time" but that there would be a rebound. Well, yes, there will be eventually be a rebound, but the question isn't if but when. Of course, BB has no way of knowing when, since he seems to have absolutely no knowledge of economics.
His observations about the economy rank up there with his belief that our nation could afford his tax cuts and still have a surplus, his confident assertions about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, Dick Cheney's warnings about Iraq and mushroom clouds, and observations about American troops being greeted as liberators.
On just about every major pronouncement of policy, BB has been proved wrong. To quote Stephen Colbert, "the facts are biased against the President."
His observations about the economy rank up there with his belief that our nation could afford his tax cuts and still have a surplus, his confident assertions about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, Dick Cheney's warnings about Iraq and mushroom clouds, and observations about American troops being greeted as liberators.
On just about every major pronouncement of policy, BB has been proved wrong. To quote Stephen Colbert, "the facts are biased against the President."
Why Howard Metzenbaum Won Elections in Ohio
One of the problems that the Democratic Party has had over the last 42 years is winning votes from white working-class males who don't have a college degree. Supposedly the Democratic Party hasn't won a majority of such votes since 1964. There has been a lot of speculation about why this is so and more speculation about how to get such votes back. Well, here's our suggestion: Look at the career of Howard Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum was Jewish, a businessman, and a liberal from the east side of Cleveland. Yet, he had no trouble winning votes from white, working class males. Why? Because he was an economic populist who consistently stood up for the economic interests of Ohioans. He was tough, combative, and didn't take anything from anybody.
In 1988 he spoke to a group of UAW retirees in Parma. He told them that he was on the hit list of every right-wing group in America. Then, his voice roaring, he told them "I don't mind their hatred, I welcome it." It was classic Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum didn't always win. The first time he won the Democratic nomination for Senate, in 1970, he lost the general election to Robert Taft, the father of Ohio's former governor. The second time he ran, after being appointed in 1973 by John Gilligan, he lost to John Glenn in the Democratic Primary. The third time, in 1976, he won. He went on to serve three terms in the Senate. So that was another trait of Metzenbaum's: persistence.
Liberals who want to know how to win elections should study his career. They should talk about economic inequality, about fighting the power of huge corporations, and about standing up for ordinary Americans. They should never stop fighting, and they should be intellectually and politically tough. If they do, they will be true to the heritage of our party and, like Howard Metzenbaum, they will win their share of elections.
Click here to read the PD articles on Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum was Jewish, a businessman, and a liberal from the east side of Cleveland. Yet, he had no trouble winning votes from white, working class males. Why? Because he was an economic populist who consistently stood up for the economic interests of Ohioans. He was tough, combative, and didn't take anything from anybody.
In 1988 he spoke to a group of UAW retirees in Parma. He told them that he was on the hit list of every right-wing group in America. Then, his voice roaring, he told them "I don't mind their hatred, I welcome it." It was classic Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum didn't always win. The first time he won the Democratic nomination for Senate, in 1970, he lost the general election to Robert Taft, the father of Ohio's former governor. The second time he ran, after being appointed in 1973 by John Gilligan, he lost to John Glenn in the Democratic Primary. The third time, in 1976, he won. He went on to serve three terms in the Senate. So that was another trait of Metzenbaum's: persistence.
Liberals who want to know how to win elections should study his career. They should talk about economic inequality, about fighting the power of huge corporations, and about standing up for ordinary Americans. They should never stop fighting, and they should be intellectually and politically tough. If they do, they will be true to the heritage of our party and, like Howard Metzenbaum, they will win their share of elections.
Click here to read the PD articles on Metzenbaum.
Bush, History, and the Iraq War
Slavery had been established in the United States for about 240 years when the American Civil War broke out. That war killed over 500,000 Americans and was the worst war in terms of military casualities ever fought by the U.S.
The split between the Shias and the Sunnis in Islam has lasted far longer than 240 years. In Iraq it is compounded by the fact that Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, killed, tortured, or imprisoned thousands of Muslims who were not Sunni. So, it shouldn't come as any surprise to us when Iraqis find it difficult to set aside their differences and work together.
Yet, this administration, from the beginning, has acted like it had absolutely no sense of history when it decided to being Bubble-Boy's horrible adventures. No one in this Administration seemed to consider whether, after we toppled Hussein, the Iraqis would be able to work together and actually form a government.
Now, here we are, 4,000 American dead, 20,000 American wounded, and half a trillion American dollars later, and, lo and behold. the Bushies are discovering that the Iraqis are having trouble working together in post-Hussein Iraq.
The following is from a Washington Post article about General Petraeus's upcoming testimony before the United States Congress in April: Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.
Here's the bottom line: Bubble-Boy and McCain want the decision of how long American troops should stand in harm's way in Iraq to be made by Iraqis because they are willing to keep troops there until there is a so-called political "reconcilation." We have no idea how long that will take, or whether it will ever take place.
America can't control what Iraqis do, it can only control what it does. Yet, Bush and McCain want to cede control over how long our troops are in Iraq to Iraqis. Call us old-fashioned but we believe that American politicians, not Iraqi ones, should decide how long American troops stay in Iraq.
The split between the Shias and the Sunnis in Islam has lasted far longer than 240 years. In Iraq it is compounded by the fact that Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, killed, tortured, or imprisoned thousands of Muslims who were not Sunni. So, it shouldn't come as any surprise to us when Iraqis find it difficult to set aside their differences and work together.
Yet, this administration, from the beginning, has acted like it had absolutely no sense of history when it decided to being Bubble-Boy's horrible adventures. No one in this Administration seemed to consider whether, after we toppled Hussein, the Iraqis would be able to work together and actually form a government.
Now, here we are, 4,000 American dead, 20,000 American wounded, and half a trillion American dollars later, and, lo and behold. the Bushies are discovering that the Iraqis are having trouble working together in post-Hussein Iraq.
The following is from a Washington Post article about General Petraeus's upcoming testimony before the United States Congress in April: Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.
Here's the bottom line: Bubble-Boy and McCain want the decision of how long American troops should stand in harm's way in Iraq to be made by Iraqis because they are willing to keep troops there until there is a so-called political "reconcilation." We have no idea how long that will take, or whether it will ever take place.
America can't control what Iraqis do, it can only control what it does. Yet, Bush and McCain want to cede control over how long our troops are in Iraq to Iraqis. Call us old-fashioned but we believe that American politicians, not Iraqi ones, should decide how long American troops stay in Iraq.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Scenes from Dean Holman's St. Patrick's Day Fundraiser
Medina County Prosecutor held his St. Patrick's Day Fundraiser on Thursday, March 13th, at the Medina Eagles Club on Lafayette Road. Guests included Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, Judge James L. Kimbler, Judge Dale Chase, Judge Eve Belfance, who is running for the Ninth District Court of Appeals, Judge Judith Cross, retired from the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, a representative from Congresswoman Betty Sutton's office, and all three Trustees of York Township.
Prominent Democrats included Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic Chair, Tom Wolfe, former chair of the Medina County Democratic Party, and his wife, Colleen, Joyce Kimbler, Treasurer of the Medina County Democratic Action Committee (MCDAC), Julie Batey, chair of the Wadsworth Democratic Group, and Steve Bailey, one of the founders of MCDAC.
Representatives from several area labor unions, including the Laborers, the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, and the Teamsters, also attended.
Below are some scenes from the Fundraiser:
Prominent Democrats included Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic Chair, Tom Wolfe, former chair of the Medina County Democratic Party, and his wife, Colleen, Joyce Kimbler, Treasurer of the Medina County Democratic Action Committee (MCDAC), Julie Batey, chair of the Wadsworth Democratic Group, and Steve Bailey, one of the founders of MCDAC.
Representatives from several area labor unions, including the Laborers, the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, and the Teamsters, also attended.
Below are some scenes from the Fundraiser:
Representative Betty Sutton Leads Fight for Groundbreaking Ethics Legislation
On March 11, 2008, Congresswoman Betty Sutton led the fight to pass historic legislation to create an Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) as an independent body within the House. The legislation passed the House with a vote of 229-182.
“The formation of this independent ethics entity will help cure many of the inherent structural flaws that restrain our present ethics structure by eliminating the conflicts of interest that are found in our current system,” Sutton said. “The formation of the OCE is an illustration of our commitment to restoring the public’s trust in government and to ensure that any potential abuses in the future will be identified and addressed.”
The independent OCE would be composed of six individuals appointed jointly by the Speaker and Minority leader. Current Members of the House and lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the panel.
After enacting the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since the Watergate era earlier this year, this Democratic Congress continues to deliver on the pledge to end the culture of corruption and restore public trust in government. H.Res.895 is essential to instilling confidence in the ethics process and ensuring Members of Congress who violate the law or rules of the House of Representatives are held accountable for their actions.
“The formation of this independent ethics entity will help cure many of the inherent structural flaws that restrain our present ethics structure by eliminating the conflicts of interest that are found in our current system,” Sutton said. “The formation of the OCE is an illustration of our commitment to restoring the public’s trust in government and to ensure that any potential abuses in the future will be identified and addressed.”
The independent OCE would be composed of six individuals appointed jointly by the Speaker and Minority leader. Current Members of the House and lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the panel.
After enacting the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since the Watergate era earlier this year, this Democratic Congress continues to deliver on the pledge to end the culture of corruption and restore public trust in government. H.Res.895 is essential to instilling confidence in the ethics process and ensuring Members of Congress who violate the law or rules of the House of Representatives are held accountable for their actions.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Will Anti-War Voters Give Presidency to McCain?
That is the provocative thesis of an article in AlterNet.org. The article is called "Looming Threat for Dems: People Against the War Prefer McCain as President" and was written by Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.
Professor Chernus examines several public opinion polls and finds that McCain is doing relatively well even though most Americans don't believe that the war will be ultimately successful. He also argues that these polls show that McCain is seen as better prepared to protect the nation against terrorists, which is broader than the war in Iraq.
Professor Chernus points out that over the last year the percentage of people who believe that the war is "going well" has increased. This is from the article:
Over the last year, the number who say the war is going well jumped from 30% to 48% in the LAT/B poll. The NYT/CBS poll records a similar jump since last June, from 22% to 43%. In the WP/ABC poll, the number who see "significant progress" jumped from 31% to 43% in just the last three months. That increase tracks very closely with the growing political fortunes of McCain, who was all but counted out last summer.
He also points out the results of a Rasmussen Reports poll concerning the famous or infamous 3 a.m. call ad that the Clinton campaign ran against Obama in Ohio and Texas. This is from the article:
Remember the "crisis phone call, 3 AM" commercial that the Clinton campaign used so successfully? Rasmussen Reports was smart enough to ask voters whom they'd rather have answering that phone: Clinton, Obama, or . . . McCain. The two Democrats got only 25% each, while McCain was way ahead with 42%.
None of this is to suggest that McCain will beat either Obama or Clinton. It does mean, though, that this is going to be a very tough race for Democrats. If Obama is the nominee, Republicans will use race to divide Americans. If Clinton is the nominee, then the Republicans will use gender to divide Americans.
It is unfortunate that while our two main nominees are attacking each other as opposed to having a presumptive nominee going after McCain and defining him before he gets a chance to define himself.
Professor Chernus examines several public opinion polls and finds that McCain is doing relatively well even though most Americans don't believe that the war will be ultimately successful. He also argues that these polls show that McCain is seen as better prepared to protect the nation against terrorists, which is broader than the war in Iraq.
Professor Chernus points out that over the last year the percentage of people who believe that the war is "going well" has increased. This is from the article:
Over the last year, the number who say the war is going well jumped from 30% to 48% in the LAT/B poll. The NYT/CBS poll records a similar jump since last June, from 22% to 43%. In the WP/ABC poll, the number who see "significant progress" jumped from 31% to 43% in just the last three months. That increase tracks very closely with the growing political fortunes of McCain, who was all but counted out last summer.
He also points out the results of a Rasmussen Reports poll concerning the famous or infamous 3 a.m. call ad that the Clinton campaign ran against Obama in Ohio and Texas. This is from the article:
Remember the "crisis phone call, 3 AM" commercial that the Clinton campaign used so successfully? Rasmussen Reports was smart enough to ask voters whom they'd rather have answering that phone: Clinton, Obama, or . . . McCain. The two Democrats got only 25% each, while McCain was way ahead with 42%.
None of this is to suggest that McCain will beat either Obama or Clinton. It does mean, though, that this is going to be a very tough race for Democrats. If Obama is the nominee, Republicans will use race to divide Americans. If Clinton is the nominee, then the Republicans will use gender to divide Americans.
It is unfortunate that while our two main nominees are attacking each other as opposed to having a presumptive nominee going after McCain and defining him before he gets a chance to define himself.
Should Medina County Dems Adopt Two Year Terms for Members of the Central Committee?
On March 4, Democratic and Republican voters had the opportunity to elect precinct committee persons. Each precinct has one such official and collectively they make up the Central Committee of each party. One of their duties is to meet shortly after the results of the March primary are certified and select both the officers of the Central Committee and the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee becomes the governing board for the party. There is no legal requirement that the Central Committee meet as a body once the organizational meeting has been held. Although under the by-laws of the Medina County Democratic Party, the Chair of the Central Committee can call such meetings, traditionally there haven't been meetings of the Central Committee once the Executive Committee is chosen.
This year there were 63 Democratic precinct committee persons elected, out of a total of 151 Medina County precincts. This means that only 41.7% of the precincts elected Democratic precinct committee persons. These 63 elected party officials collectively received 8229 votes. This means that while 32,687 voters took Democratic presidential ballots, only 25.1% of potential Democratic voters voted for precinct committee persons.
The reason why there was only 63 Democrats running for the Central Committee was because many of the Democrats who were precinct committee persons as of the end of 2007 didn't file petitions to run for the Central Committee. The reason for that may have been the fact that the presidential primary in Ohio is in March and the petitions for the Central Committee have to be filed in early January, 60 days before the primary. This means that circulating petitions for Central Committee often conflicts with Christmas and holiday obligations. It also means that the weather can hinder the circulation of nominating petitions.
This is not a new problem for the Medina County Democratic Party. Under the Ohio Revised Code, a political party can chose whether the members of the Central Committee serve a two year term or a four year term. Since 1992 the members of the Medina County Democratic Central Committee have served a four year term. It may be time to consider having members of the Central Committee serve a two year term instead.
If the Medina County Central Committee amended the by-laws at the organizational meeting to shorten the term to two years, this means that members of the Central Committee would be elected in 2010, during the May primary. It would probably be much easier to get people to circulate nominating petitions during the spring than in the late fall and early winter. This would lead not only to more members of the Central Committee running for election, but would also lead to more Medina County Democrats voting for the Central Committee. Such an increased vote would give more legitimacy to decisions made by the Central Committee.
Another reason to adopt two year terms is that shorter terms would bring more accountability to the Democratic Party. Right now the opportunity to change the Executive Committee only occurs once every four years. Since the Executive Committee chooses the officers of the party, the opportunity to change those officers only occurs once every four years. Going to two year terms would result in greater accountability.
We are the Democratic Party. We are about accountability. We are about encouraging people to take part in their government by voting. Adopting two year terms for the Central Committee would be consistent with our party's philosophy. It would also lead to greater participation by Medina County Democrats in their party's operation.
This year there were 63 Democratic precinct committee persons elected, out of a total of 151 Medina County precincts. This means that only 41.7% of the precincts elected Democratic precinct committee persons. These 63 elected party officials collectively received 8229 votes. This means that while 32,687 voters took Democratic presidential ballots, only 25.1% of potential Democratic voters voted for precinct committee persons.
The reason why there was only 63 Democrats running for the Central Committee was because many of the Democrats who were precinct committee persons as of the end of 2007 didn't file petitions to run for the Central Committee. The reason for that may have been the fact that the presidential primary in Ohio is in March and the petitions for the Central Committee have to be filed in early January, 60 days before the primary. This means that circulating petitions for Central Committee often conflicts with Christmas and holiday obligations. It also means that the weather can hinder the circulation of nominating petitions.
This is not a new problem for the Medina County Democratic Party. Under the Ohio Revised Code, a political party can chose whether the members of the Central Committee serve a two year term or a four year term. Since 1992 the members of the Medina County Democratic Central Committee have served a four year term. It may be time to consider having members of the Central Committee serve a two year term instead.
If the Medina County Central Committee amended the by-laws at the organizational meeting to shorten the term to two years, this means that members of the Central Committee would be elected in 2010, during the May primary. It would probably be much easier to get people to circulate nominating petitions during the spring than in the late fall and early winter. This would lead not only to more members of the Central Committee running for election, but would also lead to more Medina County Democrats voting for the Central Committee. Such an increased vote would give more legitimacy to decisions made by the Central Committee.
Another reason to adopt two year terms is that shorter terms would bring more accountability to the Democratic Party. Right now the opportunity to change the Executive Committee only occurs once every four years. Since the Executive Committee chooses the officers of the party, the opportunity to change those officers only occurs once every four years. Going to two year terms would result in greater accountability.
We are the Democratic Party. We are about accountability. We are about encouraging people to take part in their government by voting. Adopting two year terms for the Central Committee would be consistent with our party's philosophy. It would also lead to greater participation by Medina County Democrats in their party's operation.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist Makes Case for Clinton Being the Stronger Candidate
Jonathon V. Last is a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who has a column called "One Last Thing" in that paper. A reader recently sent us a link to a column in the Sunday, March 9, 2008 paper in which he makes the argument that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate that Democrats can nominate to run against John McCain.
Here is the essense of his argument:
Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).
Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.
By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.
In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House
Of course, his argument assumes that Clinton holds the African-American vote and the vote from younger voters. It may be that an increasingly bitter primary could erode her support among those two voting blocks. Still, the argument is an interesting one and is well worth the time to read it.
Here is the essense of his argument:
Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).
Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.
By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.
In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House
Of course, his argument assumes that Clinton holds the African-American vote and the vote from younger voters. It may be that an increasingly bitter primary could erode her support among those two voting blocks. Still, the argument is an interesting one and is well worth the time to read it.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Four Things Every Local Democratic Party MUST Do
Every Local Democratic Party's Goal: To Win Elections.
But how do we get to that goal?
Four Things Every Local Party MUST Do:
Before getting started, it is important to do what every business or campaign should do: make a plan. A party should write out a definite, concrete plan that touches on specific goals and sets timelines. Without such a plan, there is no accountability and there is no improvement. By having set goals, it forces the party to work toward solid, achievable results.
It is definitely a good idea to ask your local party what its goals are and if they have them. Otherwise you’re being involved or supporting an organization without any thought being put behind it. It’s exactly like how you feel as a
First things first, make sure you have a written plan.
For every action or potential action that a party is considering, a party should make sure it fits into a category that will help it achieve its ultimate goal:
1. Fundraising:
This key helps a party achieve its goals. It is rarely what people think about when they think about getting involved in politics- but it leads to the things that make the differences. Without it, the rest is not possible. When you complain about a candidate not being able to respond to a message, when you see a television ad, or a newspaper ad, or you wonder about where the yard signs come from- that’s all about money.
Just like when you start up a business, it’s important to budget and get the money to meet that budget. Donors invest money in a business, a candidate, or an organization where they know the money is going toward specific goals.
The most valuable fundraiser for any organization is the organization’s leader. That could mean the CEO, the candidate, or the Chair of the local party. That person is in the best, and sometimes the only, position to ask for money. If the organization’s leader doesn’t believe in what the organization enough to ask for you to take money to support it, then what person will want to give money?
Money gets yours message out, it builds your party, and it helps recruit your candidates. It’s the basic fundamental that drives the rest. Plan out how much money your party needs, how they plan to raise it, and by what time they will raise that amount. If you don’t know, ask! If you like what you hear, you should give money to help them reach their goals.
2. People:
Every local party covers a set amount of physical area that includes a population of people. While this point seems incredibly obvious, what we can conclude from it is not. It means there are only so many people in each area and we can keep track of them household by household and know a little bit about what each voter wants or needs. It takes time, but it’s about ID’ing our potential market. Just like a good marketing campaign, we need to keep track of who wants our product and who will vote for our party.
(Notice that we’re building a party, not a candidate. There will be good and bad candidates, but we’ll always have the Democratic Party. Remember: Crystal Clear Pepsi didn’t sink the entire brand. )
We have to keep track of every person that contacts our party, at a bare minimum. Is there a phone line they can call? Is there an email address? A website? There should be guidelines as to how long it should take for someone who contacts the party to get a return contact. Is there any other business where it is acceptable to ignore people who contact it for months at a time? It’s simple customer service
Remember: Today’s volunteers are tomorrow’s candidates and tomorrow’s donors. If someone wants a yard sign, they should get it right away, that’s a voter. People who work with the party should feel liked, appreciated, and encouraged to return.
Plan for how you want to keep track of, encourage, and nurture the people involved in the party. Most businesses have policies on this- thank you cards, phone calls, prompt contacts. It’s the difference between involvement and apathy.
And the voters who might vote for your party- why waste your time with someone who will never, ever, vote for your party? Focus on the voters who will vote for you, figure out who they are.
3. Candidates:
Easiest way to get candidates? Make a list of the people you have or would like to run. Figure out how to get them involved in the party, the community, and push them to run.
One of the key reasons the Democratic Party never seems to have enough candidates is because we do not push our people to run for every office possible. We don’t control enough school boards, city councils, and local government areas.
What steps is your party taking to develop and create candidates? Far too often parties fall into the trap that candidates magically fall from the sky- that’s not the case. We should be planning during the 2008 cycle for the 2009 and 2010 cycles. Each party should have a list going NOW of the candidates and people they see in the future cycles and for what position. We can’t start over every year hoping that candidates materialize from places we haven’t planned for.
Ask your local party who they plan on running in 2009 and 2010.
4. GOTV:
Get Out The Vote. The party should be responsible for its voters that they know, on election day and in early voting, that will vote for the Democratic Party. We’ve ID’s them and we know how to get a hold of them. The party should provide ways to get people to the polls, to make sure they’ve filled out absentee ballots or early voted.
How can a candidate expect to work on both the I’s and the D’s in the final months leading up to the election? And if a local Democratic party cannot make sure that the Democratic voters are voting… then what exactly are they doing?
Ask your local party what it plans on doing for the 30 days before the election and on election day in 2008. How many votes are they creating for the Democratic Party? Ask for numbers.
What else?:
Everything the party does should work to achieve one of the four things laid out here. If it’s not doing that, it’s not meeting a goal.
There should also be a message- but the message ties to a function. If you issue out a press release- does it help attract people into the party? Does it help a candidate? Does it raise money? Will more people vote on election day for our party?
Parties should also consider basic functions that tie to others. Does your party have a regular, comfortable, meeting place? That helps bring in people, for example.
Each thing that is done by the party must be in support of one of these goals.There’s more to this than I’ve laid out here in this- but it’s a great start for you to start to ask your local party how they are planning to meet their four core functions.
The Happ Legacy in the Medina County Democratic Party
In 1980 a father-son team ran for two offices in Medina County as Democrats. John Happ, the father, ran for Medina County Commissioner and Greg Happ, his son, ran for Medina County Prosecutor. Both were running against Republican incumbents. John was running against Bob Hale, who had been appointed to fill out the unexpired term of Mark Whitfield who had resigned, and Greg was running against Roger Ingraham, who was seeking is third term in office.
Both Happs won their elections. Their victories led to many more Democratic wins, and two officeholders connected with Greg Happ are still in office today, 28 years later. This record is the Happ legacy in the Medina County Democratic Party.
This is a list of Medina County Democrats elected who were connected to the Happs:
Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who has served as Medina County Prosecutor since 1988. Total years in office as of 2008: 20
Judge James Kimbler, who worked as a part-time assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge from 1986 to 1996, and who has served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge since 1996. Total years in office as of 2008:22
Judge Judith Cross, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge from 1986 to 1998. Total years in office: 12
Ferris Brown, whose campaign for Medina County Auditor in 1982 was managed by Dean Holman and who served as Medina County Auditor from 1982 to 1992, and then as Medina County Commissioner from 1992 to 1996. Total years in office: 14
If you add the years that John Happ was in office, (12), and the years that Greg Happ was in office, (4), to the years listed above, you will find that the number of years that these officials served or have served Medina County comes to 84 years. Since Judge Kimbler is unopposed he will serve another six years. If Dean Holman wins re-election, and he is easily the favorite in that race, then he will serve another four years. Adding those years to the 84 means that Democratic officials connected to the Happs will have served 94 years in office since they were elected in 1980.
Both Happs won their elections. Their victories led to many more Democratic wins, and two officeholders connected with Greg Happ are still in office today, 28 years later. This record is the Happ legacy in the Medina County Democratic Party.
This is a list of Medina County Democrats elected who were connected to the Happs:
Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who has served as Medina County Prosecutor since 1988. Total years in office as of 2008: 20
Judge James Kimbler, who worked as a part-time assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge from 1986 to 1996, and who has served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge since 1996. Total years in office as of 2008:22
Judge Judith Cross, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge from 1986 to 1998. Total years in office: 12
Ferris Brown, whose campaign for Medina County Auditor in 1982 was managed by Dean Holman and who served as Medina County Auditor from 1982 to 1992, and then as Medina County Commissioner from 1992 to 1996. Total years in office: 14
If you add the years that John Happ was in office, (12), and the years that Greg Happ was in office, (4), to the years listed above, you will find that the number of years that these officials served or have served Medina County comes to 84 years. Since Judge Kimbler is unopposed he will serve another six years. If Dean Holman wins re-election, and he is easily the favorite in that race, then he will serve another four years. Adding those years to the 84 means that Democratic officials connected to the Happs will have served 94 years in office since they were elected in 1980.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Are Florida and Michigan Heading Toward New Primaries By Mail?
The Democratic National Committee wants both Michigan and Florida to have new elections so that their delegations can be seated at the Democratic convention. While the Republican Governor of Florida is open to the idea of a new primary, he doesn't think the state of Florida should pay for the primary. Howard Dean, Chair of the DNC, doesn't think that the DNC should foot the bill. One idea that is gaining traction is to have new primaries in each state by mail.
The process would be that every Democratic voter in each state would receive a ballot by mail and would then fill it out and return it to the Democratic Parties of their respective states. This would obviously be expensive, but probably not as expensive as paying for poll workers to cover polling places for 12 hours or more. Oregon votes by mail and reports few problems with the concept.
One interesting aspect to such a procedure would be that Republicans and independents wouldn't be able to participate, as they can in other primaries.
The process would be that every Democratic voter in each state would receive a ballot by mail and would then fill it out and return it to the Democratic Parties of their respective states. This would obviously be expensive, but probably not as expensive as paying for poll workers to cover polling places for 12 hours or more. Oregon votes by mail and reports few problems with the concept.
One interesting aspect to such a procedure would be that Republicans and independents wouldn't be able to participate, as they can in other primaries.
More Evangelical Voters Vote in Ohio Democratic Primary
Faith in Public Life, in conjunction with Sojourners and Center for American Progress, instituted an exit poll that asked both Ohio Democratic and Republican voters in last week's election whether they were evangelical Christians. The poll results showed that 43% of white evangelical voters took part in the Ohio Democratic primary and 57% took part in the Republican primary.
This is from a Reuters news article on the exit poll:
The Tuesday poll also found that 42 percent of Ohio’s white evangelical voters ranked jobs and the economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote versus 14 percent who ranked abortion and same-sex marriage as the most important issue.
Such a finding may not be surprising in a Rust Belt state like Ohio, which has been shedding manufacturing and other jobs. But the poll also found that 54 percent of white evangelical primary voters surveyed wanted a broader agenda such as ending poverty and protecting the environment.
These voters are voters that Democrats can reach by talking about social justice issues and relating those issues to their faith. What Democrats can't do is decide that they aren't going to talk to such voters or try and address their concerns.
This is from a Reuters news article on the exit poll:
The Tuesday poll also found that 42 percent of Ohio’s white evangelical voters ranked jobs and the economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote versus 14 percent who ranked abortion and same-sex marriage as the most important issue.
Such a finding may not be surprising in a Rust Belt state like Ohio, which has been shedding manufacturing and other jobs. But the poll also found that 54 percent of white evangelical primary voters surveyed wanted a broader agenda such as ending poverty and protecting the environment.
These voters are voters that Democrats can reach by talking about social justice issues and relating those issues to their faith. What Democrats can't do is decide that they aren't going to talk to such voters or try and address their concerns.
Where is Iraq's Oil Money Going?
According to CNN that's what two United States Senators, Carl Levin, (D-MI) and John Warner, (R-VA), want to find out. Back in 2003, Americans were told that the Iraqis would be able to pay for the cost of their own reconstruction. So far, though, American taxpayers have paid 47 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. Senator Levin said on Friday that he believes that the Iraqis have billions in non-Iraqi banks worldwide, billions that could be used to help finance Iraq's reconstruction.
Here is a quote from the CNN article:
Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and John Warner, R-Virginia, said in their Friday letter to the Government Accountability Office that Iraq has "tremendous resources" in banks worldwide but is doing little to improve security and reconstruction efforts.
Iraqi officials did not immediately respond to the senators' allegations.
"We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," wrote the senators, who are their party's top members on the Armed Services Committee.
One of the ongoing themes of the last seven years of the Bush Administration has been how the rich and well connected are sticking ordinary Americans with the bills. It has happened with Bush's tax cuts, it has happened with the sub-prime mortgage business, and it is happening now with Iraqi reconstruction.
Here is a quote from the CNN article:
Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and John Warner, R-Virginia, said in their Friday letter to the Government Accountability Office that Iraq has "tremendous resources" in banks worldwide but is doing little to improve security and reconstruction efforts.
Iraqi officials did not immediately respond to the senators' allegations.
"We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," wrote the senators, who are their party's top members on the Armed Services Committee.
One of the ongoing themes of the last seven years of the Bush Administration has been how the rich and well connected are sticking ordinary Americans with the bills. It has happened with Bush's tax cuts, it has happened with the sub-prime mortgage business, and it is happening now with Iraqi reconstruction.
Are Clinton's Attacks on Obama Destroying Dem's Chances if Obama Wins Nomination?
A friend of ours sent this article that appears on the New Republic's website. Entitled "Go Already", the author, Jonathon Chait, makes the argument that the campaign Clinton is waging against Obama will really hurt the Democrats' chances of winning the White House if he is the nominee.
This is from the article:
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
He makes the argument that if she spends seven weeks attacking him in Pennslyvania, a swing state in the fall, it will hurt his chances of winning that state in November. He raises the question of whether the Republican Party could have carried Florida in 2000 if someone had spent seven weeks attacking Bush that spring. Here is how Chait puts it:
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
A problem that Clinton has is that, in the past, the Clintons have appeared willing to jeopardize Democratic chances of winning elections if it meant that they would win themselves. Robert Reich wrote a recent article for AlterNet in which he laid this tendency right at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Here is how he put it:
I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Like Chait, he also points out the harm such a "scorched earth" policy could cause:
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.
The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
There is a tendency among some Clinton supporters to write off any criticism of her, especially if it is made by men. Reich, however, is a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton and Jonathon Chait is no left-wing crazy. When people like Reich and Chait start suggesting that Clinton's campaign style is doing more harm than good, it is time to listen.
All of this is not to say we believe that Clinton should drop out. She has a right to campaign for President up and until Obama gets enough committed delegates to clinch the nomination. What she doesn't have the right to do is damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning in the fall. This election is too important to some of the most vulnerable members of our society for her to take that approach.
This is from the article:
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
He makes the argument that if she spends seven weeks attacking him in Pennslyvania, a swing state in the fall, it will hurt his chances of winning that state in November. He raises the question of whether the Republican Party could have carried Florida in 2000 if someone had spent seven weeks attacking Bush that spring. Here is how Chait puts it:
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
A problem that Clinton has is that, in the past, the Clintons have appeared willing to jeopardize Democratic chances of winning elections if it meant that they would win themselves. Robert Reich wrote a recent article for AlterNet in which he laid this tendency right at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Here is how he put it:
I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Like Chait, he also points out the harm such a "scorched earth" policy could cause:
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.
The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
There is a tendency among some Clinton supporters to write off any criticism of her, especially if it is made by men. Reich, however, is a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton and Jonathon Chait is no left-wing crazy. When people like Reich and Chait start suggesting that Clinton's campaign style is doing more harm than good, it is time to listen.
All of this is not to say we believe that Clinton should drop out. She has a right to campaign for President up and until Obama gets enough committed delegates to clinch the nomination. What she doesn't have the right to do is damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning in the fall. This election is too important to some of the most vulnerable members of our society for her to take that approach.
Sweet Revenge: Democrats Take Former GOP Speaker Hastert's Seat in Special Election
Dennis Hastert, the former Republican Speaker of the House, who helped turn the House into a lap-dog for George W. Bush, resigned and left the House late in 2007. His resignation meant that there had to be a special election for that seat. The election took place on Saturday, March 8, 2008, and the Democrats won the seat.
While the Republcan National Committee is trying to downplay the significance of the Democrats' win, this is a very good thing for Dems. The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee poured $1,000,000 into the race when it became apparent that the Democrats could take the seat. John McCain campaigned for the Republican nominee and Barack Obama endorsed the Democratic nominee. So, not only does the GOP lose a seat that had gone for George W. Bush in 2004 by a vote of 55% to 45%, its presidential nominee looks like he has zero coattails. All in all, a very good night for Democrats.
While the Republcan National Committee is trying to downplay the significance of the Democrats' win, this is a very good thing for Dems. The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee poured $1,000,000 into the race when it became apparent that the Democrats could take the seat. John McCain campaigned for the Republican nominee and Barack Obama endorsed the Democratic nominee. So, not only does the GOP lose a seat that had gone for George W. Bush in 2004 by a vote of 55% to 45%, its presidential nominee looks like he has zero coattails. All in all, a very good night for Democrats.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Medina County Democratic Party By-Laws
Earlier we posted an entry explaining the structure of local political parties in the State of Ohio. We think it would be helpful to any interested Medina County Democrats to have access to their party's By-Laws. Therefore we have posted them in pdf format at the following page on our website: http://medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org/MedinaDemPartyBy-laws.pdf A pdf reader such as Adobe Reader is necessary to read and print this copy of the By-Laws. You can obtain a free copy of Adobe Reader by going to www.adobe.com.
The Structure of County Political Parties in Ohio
Here is how county political parties are organized in Ohio. We are putting up this entry to explain to our readers how the Medina County Democratic Party is organized, but, since the structure is established by the Ohio Revised Code, basically the same structure is used by county political parties across the state.
In Ohio, each political party is organized around precinct committee persons. Each precinct has an elected committee person for the Democratic and Republican parties. During the March 4, 2008 primary, each party elected precinct committee persons, either for a four year term or a two year term. In Medina County, for example, the Democratic Party's committee persons serve a four year term while Republican precinct committee persons serve a two year term.
These precinct committee persons will meet at an organizational meeting after the March primary results are certified. Collectively they are referred to as the Central Committee of the county party. They elect a Chair of the Central Committee, a Vice-Chair, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. In Medina County the last two positions are combined.
The members of the Central Committee also elect an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee then elects its own officers. In Medina County the Executive Committee is composed of the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the Secretary, and the Treasurer. Unlike the Central Committee, the last two positions are not combined, but are held separately.
The Central Committee is the only political party organization that is recognized under the Ohio Revised Code for county political parties. (The State Central Committee is comprised of a Committeeman and a Committeewoman elected from each State Senate district. In Medina County's State Senate District the State Central Committee members are Pat Hanek and Michael Todd.) While political action committees like MCDAC can organize to support political candidates of any political party, their existence is not formally recognized under the Ohio Revised Code.
Only elected precinct committee persons get to vote at the organizational meeting of the Central Committee. This means that 61 people elected to precinct committee positions during the March primary will basically decide who governs the party during the next four years. The Ohio Revised Code does not require that there be any more meetings of the Central Committee after the organizational meeting. Traditionally, in Medina County, there have not been such meetings between the organizational meetings held every four years.
The Ohio Revised Code does provide, however, that the names of county party officials be sent to the board of elections for that county. The ORC also requires that the by-laws of the party be filed with the local board of elections.
Consequently, the members of the Executive Committee at their monthly meetings run the party. They control how money is raised, how it is spent, and they plan party functions. Their decisions effect how candidates are recruited, what, if any, financial support they get, and how resources are allocated. They are, for all practical purposes, the Medina County Democratic Party.
One additional power that the Executive Committee has under the Medina County Democratic Party by-laws is that it can appoint people to vacant positions in the Central Committee once its members have been elected by the Central Committee. The by-laws require that the Chair of the Central Committee forward to the Executive Committee the names of people being considered for such appointment and the Executive Committee then makes the appointment.
Medina County Democrats interested in knowing more about their party and its leaders can visit www.medinadems.org to learn more about the leadership and structure of the Medina County Democratic Party.
In Ohio, each political party is organized around precinct committee persons. Each precinct has an elected committee person for the Democratic and Republican parties. During the March 4, 2008 primary, each party elected precinct committee persons, either for a four year term or a two year term. In Medina County, for example, the Democratic Party's committee persons serve a four year term while Republican precinct committee persons serve a two year term.
These precinct committee persons will meet at an organizational meeting after the March primary results are certified. Collectively they are referred to as the Central Committee of the county party. They elect a Chair of the Central Committee, a Vice-Chair, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. In Medina County the last two positions are combined.
The members of the Central Committee also elect an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee then elects its own officers. In Medina County the Executive Committee is composed of the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the Secretary, and the Treasurer. Unlike the Central Committee, the last two positions are not combined, but are held separately.
The Central Committee is the only political party organization that is recognized under the Ohio Revised Code for county political parties. (The State Central Committee is comprised of a Committeeman and a Committeewoman elected from each State Senate district. In Medina County's State Senate District the State Central Committee members are Pat Hanek and Michael Todd.) While political action committees like MCDAC can organize to support political candidates of any political party, their existence is not formally recognized under the Ohio Revised Code.
Only elected precinct committee persons get to vote at the organizational meeting of the Central Committee. This means that 61 people elected to precinct committee positions during the March primary will basically decide who governs the party during the next four years. The Ohio Revised Code does not require that there be any more meetings of the Central Committee after the organizational meeting. Traditionally, in Medina County, there have not been such meetings between the organizational meetings held every four years.
The Ohio Revised Code does provide, however, that the names of county party officials be sent to the board of elections for that county. The ORC also requires that the by-laws of the party be filed with the local board of elections.
Consequently, the members of the Executive Committee at their monthly meetings run the party. They control how money is raised, how it is spent, and they plan party functions. Their decisions effect how candidates are recruited, what, if any, financial support they get, and how resources are allocated. They are, for all practical purposes, the Medina County Democratic Party.
One additional power that the Executive Committee has under the Medina County Democratic Party by-laws is that it can appoint people to vacant positions in the Central Committee once its members have been elected by the Central Committee. The by-laws require that the Chair of the Central Committee forward to the Executive Committee the names of people being considered for such appointment and the Executive Committee then makes the appointment.
Medina County Democrats interested in knowing more about their party and its leaders can visit www.medinadems.org to learn more about the leadership and structure of the Medina County Democratic Party.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Medina Democratic Presidential Primary Vote Goes Up Over 100% Between 04 and 08
Here is an interesting comparison of both the Democratic and Republican Parties Presidential Primary vote in 2004 and 2008:
Total Vote in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-15799
Total Vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-32687
Gain of 16888 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 106.8% from 2004 to 2008
Total vote in the 2004 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-21327
Total vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-23111
Gain of 1784 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 8.3% from 2004 to 2008.
Total Vote in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-15799
Total Vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-32687
Gain of 16888 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 106.8% from 2004 to 2008
Total vote in the 2004 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-21327
Total vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-23111
Gain of 1784 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 8.3% from 2004 to 2008.
The Irony in David Centner's Loss to Sheriff Hassinger
On Tuesday there were two contested primaries in Medina County, both of them in the Republican primary. One of them involved David Centner's campaign against Sheriff Neil Hassinger. Centner, a former Medina County Sheriff Deputy and a officer in a suburban Cuyahoga County police department, has been running for Medina County Sheriff almost since the last election in 2004. His ability to raise money was often talked about among both Republican and Democratic politicians. He was thought to have a strong campaign organization and was believed to be mounting a challenge to Sheriff Hassinger.
While on the evening of March 4, 2008, Centner's dream of becoming Sheriff, at least in 2009, came to an abrupt end. Centner lost to Hassinger by 5264 to 12504. In percentage terms that was a loss of 29.63% to 70.37%. It is hard to see the Republican Party turning around and nominating Centner in 2012, assuming that Hassinger doesn't seek re-election after such a convincing rejection by Republican voters this year.
The irony referred to in our entry title is that supposedly David Centner was a Democrat, but switched registration several years ago. Had he run for Sheriff as a Democrat he would be the Democratic nominee today, and wouldn't have had to face Neil Hassinger in a contested Republican primary. Would he have won as a Democrat? Who knows, but there is evidence that 2008 is going to be a Democratic year.
To be clear, we haven't verified that Centner was a Democrat and switched parties. We have, though, heard this from more than one person. We have also seen a computerized voting history of Centner, though, showing that he has only voted in one Republican primary since 1998. This means that he skipped the Republican primary in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, before he voted a Republican ballot in 2006. If that computerized history is true, it obviously indicates that Centner wasn't a very committed Republican.
By way of contrast, Neil Hassinger voted in all of the Republican primaries listed above. Centner's voting history suggests that he was not a very partisan Republican. Not a good trait to have in a contested Republican primary when your opponent has been the successful Republican nominee for Sheriff three times prior to the 2008 Republican primary.
These are our parting words: If you are a Democrat, or for that matter a Republican, and want to run for political office, maybe you are better off sticking with your own party, and congratulations to Sheriff Neil Hassinger on a resounding victory.
While on the evening of March 4, 2008, Centner's dream of becoming Sheriff, at least in 2009, came to an abrupt end. Centner lost to Hassinger by 5264 to 12504. In percentage terms that was a loss of 29.63% to 70.37%. It is hard to see the Republican Party turning around and nominating Centner in 2012, assuming that Hassinger doesn't seek re-election after such a convincing rejection by Republican voters this year.
The irony referred to in our entry title is that supposedly David Centner was a Democrat, but switched registration several years ago. Had he run for Sheriff as a Democrat he would be the Democratic nominee today, and wouldn't have had to face Neil Hassinger in a contested Republican primary. Would he have won as a Democrat? Who knows, but there is evidence that 2008 is going to be a Democratic year.
To be clear, we haven't verified that Centner was a Democrat and switched parties. We have, though, heard this from more than one person. We have also seen a computerized voting history of Centner, though, showing that he has only voted in one Republican primary since 1998. This means that he skipped the Republican primary in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, before he voted a Republican ballot in 2006. If that computerized history is true, it obviously indicates that Centner wasn't a very committed Republican.
By way of contrast, Neil Hassinger voted in all of the Republican primaries listed above. Centner's voting history suggests that he was not a very partisan Republican. Not a good trait to have in a contested Republican primary when your opponent has been the successful Republican nominee for Sheriff three times prior to the 2008 Republican primary.
These are our parting words: If you are a Democrat, or for that matter a Republican, and want to run for political office, maybe you are better off sticking with your own party, and congratulations to Sheriff Neil Hassinger on a resounding victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)