Winning on the Ground

In politics it is not the production of the message that costs campaigns money. It is the delivery of the message that runs up the price of campaigning. Consider the production and delivery of Common Sense, MCDAC's Democratic newspaper. It costs MCDAC approximately $0.05-$0.08 an issue to print Common Sense. That is the production cost. The delivery cost, assuming that we use the United States mail is approximately $0.21 cents per copy, assuming that we use a mailing house that can get us a cheaper rate by using bar-coding and bulk rate permits. As you can see, the delivery cost is more than twice the cost of production.

This is not just true for printing a newspaper, it is also true for newspaper advertising, direct mail, radio, and television ads. All of those delivery mechanisms cost far more than the cost of producing the message. In our opinion, this is why Democrats have had trouble winning elections, especially at the local level over the last 30 years.

During that time there has been a steady drop in the number of people who identify themselves as members of one political party or another. This means that there has been reduction in the number of people who depend of party identification to tell them what candidates to support. This leaves name identification as the one of the primary means that voters use to decide what candidates to support. Name identification can be purchased by advertising. This puts candidates with more money at a distinct advantage. Usually, in local campaigns, that means that Republicans have more resources to put into buying name identification. This, in turn, translates into winning elections.

What Democrats need to do is develop alternate means of delivering their political messages. This means developing a core of volunteers who are willing to work on the ground by doing things like door to door canvassing, literature distributions, putting up yard signs, and making phone calls. All of these are effective in delivering political messages, and all of them cost much less than using paid delivery mechanisms.

MCDAC is attempting to build a network of such volunteers in Medina County. We need your help to build this network, we can't do it alone. We want you to help us deliver Common Sense to Medina County voters before the November 7th election. If you are interested in volunteering, please send your name, address, and telephone number to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org. We guarantee that we will put you to work.
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Reader Submission: The De-Criminalization of Torture

I don't want to hear about abortion. I don't want to hear about stem-cell research. I don't want to hear about federal judgeships. They are so much noise. Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way are in IMMINENT Danger!
The George Bush Administration and its rubber stamp Republican Congress have decriminalized torture. This is NOT acceptable. The line has to be drawn in the sand. And must be chiseled in stone. This must be stopped at all costs. Our collective souls have been sold. The Republicans wanted a divisive election issue. Well… They have gotten what they wished for.
Tax breaks to the rich, oh bother. Amnesty for illegal aliens … whatever. Budget deficits and economic ruin can wait for another day. Cronyism and political corruption… so what. Global warming, at our leisure.
The GOP compromise bill A.K.A. The Decriminalization of Torture Act is so far out of bounds that it trumps everything. The Geneva Conventions are irrelevant if it is not criminal to break them. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if there is no penalty there is no crime. All discussions not specifically related to blocking this bill need to be shut down. This bill cannot be allowed to pass. All politicians that love this country and what it stands for must put their bodies in front of this travesty in the making.
This isn't about terrorism. This isn't about fear mongering. This isn't about being reelected. Who cares what happens in the Middle East when our very own country is in mortal danger. It isn't a complex issue.
The facts are short and repugnant. The Decriminalization of Torture act must be defeated. Political consequences be damned. It is time for you to write your congressman. It is time for your outrage. It is time for your courage. It is time that all Americans stand up and be counted. It is time for a filibuster. The enemy is amongst us, and his name is George Bush and his ally, the Republican Congress, who think they are infallible.

Angie Pratt
__________________________________________________________________
Reader submissions reflect the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of MCDAC or any of its officers/members.

Reader Submission: Nook-yoo-lar Power by Randy Todd

George W. Bush has become the world's foremost authority on which countries should be allowed to possess nuclear technology. How scary is that?! A man who can't even correctly pronounce the word is, apparently, telling every country on the planet exactly who is allowed to build and maintain such things as nuclear power plants. Somehow, one would think that kind of decision making would be reserved for someone who possesses a higher intelligence quotient. Bush barely ranks as what is determined to be "average" intelligence.

Clearly, this Bush administration has demonstrated absolute ineptness regarding foreign policy. In fact, George W. Bush didn't even devise his own foreign policy. If one were to do just a little investigation, one would find that Bush's foreign policy was taken -- almost verbatim -- from an essay written back in the 1990's by a man named Paul Wolfowitz. The essay served as the mission statement of a group of "Neocons," who formed a group of extremely aggressive, ultra-conservatives deemed 'A Project for a New American Century.' Some of the names associated with this group whose ultimate goal is to control the global economy include: Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Baker, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, among many of whom are names from former Republican presidential administrations, including the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

In 1997, the aforementioned war mongers sent an official letter to then President Bill Clinton, urging him to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. It's not too tough to see these people had an agenda long before they ever recruited the not-so-bright Bush to be their talking head. The only reason they recruited Bush was name recognition. Given his father's administration's failed attempt at doing away Hussein, one would think having a Bush on the ballot would be the recipe for failure. One could only conclude that George W. Bush could not possibly be the person actually running the country. Far too much of Bush the younger's life history has just gone missing. Of course, when one's father has been the former director of the CIA, it's fairly easy to understand how what should be public record can simply disappear.

This story begins almost 60 years prior to 1997. The Bush family has long been involved in the petroleum industry. Senator Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather, took his interest in oil to the Mideast, particularly to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. Prescott Bush was extremely instrumental in manipulating local politics in Iran, and was largely responsible for the installation of the Shah of Iran. Millions of dollars of Iranian petroleum products procured by the Prescott Bush companies found their way to Nazi Germany. So much oil made its way to Hitler that Bush's assets were eventually frozen by the United States government, because it appeared as if America were directly supporting the Nazis. Needless to say, it didn't make America's traditional allies, England and France, very happy.

In the 1970's, particularly during the Carter administration, the Bush family was still manipulating the political landscape in Iran and Iraq, causing upheaval among the locals. Islamic extremists finally figured out that the Shah of Iran was quite literally giving away the vast majority of profits emanating from its oil fields to American interests. It was destroying the economy of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini stirred-up the masses which, in turn, resulted in deposing the Shah, and overrunning the American embassy. The American nationals working in the embassy were kidnapped, regularly beaten, tortured and held hostage for months. Iranian nationals in America held protest marches, causing much unrest in American cities. There were daily reminders of the hostages on all the network national news programs.

President Ronald Reagan was eventually elected to office in 1980. Reagan's vice president was none other than George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA. It's been told by those who were working closely within the Reagan-Bush campaign, that members of that campaign were overtly and covertly negotiating with the Iranian government, trying to secure the release of the American hostages prior to the election. The actions taken by the Reagan-Bush team became affectionately known as the Iran-Contra "Arms-for-Hostages" deal.

The Reagan administration was playing both sides of the fence. Reagan and Bush were supplying Saddam Hussein with arms, money and military advisers to apply pressure on Iran. Hussein had already been warring with Iran for eight years. In fact, a guy named Donald Rumsfeld was present at the signing of the deal; sealing said deal by shaking the hand of his newly found business partner. Hussein had a sweetheart deal he couldn't refuse -- with the most technologically advanced, deadly military minds on the planet -- the United States of America.

On the other side of the fence was Iran. The Islamic fanatics, now in control of the Iranian government, were enticed by American military and CIA agents offering the same weaponry sold to Saddam Hussein, essentially leveling the playing field, in return for freeing the hostages taken from the American embassy in Teheran. Colonel Oliver North brokered the deal, which included laundering the money involved through Central American freedom fighters in El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama. Of course, the Central American folks were "friends" procured by George H.W. Bush during his tenure as director of the CIA. All this clandestine stuff was going on, and we haven't even made mention of the so-called 'Cold War' with the Soviet Union. How could American citizens keep track of it all...? They couldn't and didn't!

But what about the Cold War? Well, it also made its way into the area. The Soviet Union tried desperately, albeit unsuccessfully, to invade and take control of Afghanistan. It seems that an extremely rich Islamic extremist from Saudi Arabia, made his way into Afghanistan, to gather together other Islamic fundamentalists in order to fend off the Soviet military. This person whose family is obscenely rich and influential in Saudi Arabia; whose family has long-time ties to the Bush family's oil dynasty in the Arabian mideast started receiving covert funding and arms from the Reagan-Bush administration.

This so-called "freedom fighter" from Saudi Arabia has since become a widely recognized name in the United States -- none other than Osama bin Laden. All that funding from Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush was instrumental in creating and sustaining the Islamic fundamentalists came to be known as the Taliban. It was also the birth of the terror group dubbed al-Qaeda.

Is any of this beginning to sound the least bit familiar?Is it a stretch for one to think that George W. Bush wants his family's business back? It's no small wonder that Iran wants to possess nuclear capability. If for no other reason, it’s only to protect itself from further plundering of its oil fields by the Bush dynasty. Neither is it a stretch for one to believe that Russia has a vested interest in Iran's oil, but Vladimir Putin is prepared to buy it at fair market value. Russia's slipping a few leftover nuclear warheads into Iran would do well to solidify that partnership. Again, it's not surprising that several of Russia's nuclear weapons cannot be located. It's also entirely possible that the "Cold War" never really ended. The Russians were just regrouping. Calling Russia an ally is only something trumped-up by the delusional minds controlling George W. Bush.

What is even scarier is the fact that yet another member of the Bush family is waiting in the wings as the next heir to the American throne. Jeb Bush, current governor of the state of Florida, has already been touted as a possible Republican candidate for a future presidential bid. Depending upon how fed-up Americans become with the lies, deceit and denial of any tarnishing of America's image worldwide, we could have a continuation of foreign policy blunder after blunder, all in the name of world economic and militaristic domination.According to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, America is SUPPOSEDLY mired in a federal deficit of $437 billion.

Congressman Jim Cooper [D-TN] released his new book entitled "Financial Report of the United States." Cooper avidly refutes the U.S. Treasury report as being grossly inaccurate and deceptive. Cooper says the actual federal deficit is actually two to ten times higher than what the Bush administration claims. He also states that the Medicare and Social Security deficits contained in the Bush report are approximately eight times lower than the actual figures.Worrying about the nuclear capabilities of Iran seems to be the least of problems of the Bush administration. Physical destruction of life and landscape are minimal problems compared to the economic destruction of our beloved United States of America.

Every step taken by the current Bush administration has, literally, been disastrous. Even the Herbert Hoover administration cannot come close to the ineptness, incompetence and professional malfeasance of the so-called leadership displayed by the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney administrations from January 21, 2001 to the present. Former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was correct when he exclaimed the United States would be destroyed from within. George W. Bush has rapidly led us down a path of destruction from within. "Nook-yoo-lar" proliferation is truly the least of our problems. By far, the most worrisome, pressing problem facing the United States of America is George W. Bush.
___________________________________________________________________
The above reader submission represents the views of its author and those views are not necessarily those of the Medina County Democratic Action Committee.

Why Bush May Want An Endless War

Here is a point that the media doesn't often mention: During the Cold War, (1946-1991), there were 10 presidential elections. Democrats won four of them: 1948, 1960, 1964, and 1976. Republicans won six of them. Not only did the Republicans win the majority of presidential elections held during the Cold War, but three of those Democratic wins were relatively close: 1948, 1960, and 1976. The Republicans only had two elections of their six wins that were relatively close: 1968 and 1980. The other four elections were blow-outs. During the same period there was only one Democratic blow-out and that was in 1964.

The end of the Cold War brought different results in the next three elections. Clinton wins both the 1992 and the 1996 elections and Gore wins the popular vote in 2000 and comes within 600 votes of winning the 2000 electoral college vote. In 2004, however, after the start of the Iraqi War, Bush wins the presidential vote by about 3 million votes. The closest re-election of any president since the end of WWII, but still a vast improvement over his popular vote in 2000.

Now we have Bush telling Americans that we are in another generational conflict between America and Islamic fanatics. This conflict started with the attacks on 9-11 and continued, according to Bush, with the Iraqi War. During that period there has been three elections. In each of those elections Bush and Rove have painted Democrats as weak on terror and not to be trusted with America's security. This resulted in capturing the Senate in 2002 and Bush's re-election in 2004. Take away the events of 9-11 and it is not at all obvious that Bush would have won re-election in 2004 or that the Republicans would still control the Congress in 2006.

Clearly, the Republican Party benefits politically from keeping the American public on a "war" footing. This is because they can paint "liberals" as people who don't understand the threat and are too naive to trust with America's security. This approach was used during the Cold War with a great deal of success and is being used now with regards to America's response to terrorism. Compare the rhetoric of 2006 with the language used by conservative Republicans during the Cold War. It is very similar language. Indeed, the political "father" of Bush and Rove is not Ronald Reagan, but Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, Bush does not heistate to demonize his political opponents or to question their loyalty to America.

All of this is not to say that Bush is totally cynical about the policies he advocates. Like any good salesman, he believes in his product. Like any good salesperson, however, his belief in the product coincides with his personal self-interest. Just like a good salesperson gets commissions from his or her sales, Bush gets political power from his. Thus, like a good salesperson, Bush's personal interest coincides with the successful pushing of his sales pitch, the "War on Terror."
__________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Bi-partisan to Republicans means Democratic Surrender

When Republicans talk about bi-partisanship they mean that Democrats should surrender. When Democrats talk about bi-partisanship, they mean compromise and trying to find a common solution. That difference is why, until recently, Democrats were getting rolled in Washington.

Here's what would happen: Republicans would pass a bill in the House much different than one passed in the Senate. Then, in conference committee, Republicans would re-write the bill to suit their conservative supporters and, when it got back to the Senate, "red-state" Democrats would be pressured to support it, and it would pass. This was exactly how Republicans managed to pass their reckless tax cuts that have led to huge deficits replacing the surpluses of the Clinton years.

It took about four years for Democrats to wake up and become an opposition party. It really happened when Bush proposed Social Security privatization. Try as they might, the GOP just couldn't find any Democrats willing to support that idea. Without some Democratic "cover", moderate Republicans weren't going to stick their necks out, and so the bill died. They same thing was recently seen with the John Bolton nomination. When Chafee(R-RI), who is in a very tough race, decided to stop supporting Bolton, the vote on the nomination was canceled in the Foreign Relations committee.

More than anything else, the idea that Democrats should become an opposition party is what defeated Lieberman in the August primary. Grassroot Democrats want their party to oppose Bush because they believe that opposition to Bush is necessary for America. Grassroot Democrats don't want their party to compromise on vital Democratic principles. Grassroot Democrats want the same thing as grassroot Republicans, a party that stands for something.

All of this is troubling to Democrats like Lieberman and to some in the media. They decry Democratic opposition to Bush as being the result of something called "Bush hatred." They demand that Democrats compromise their principles so that "things can get done" and "gridlock" avoided. (Interestingly enough, though, they don't demand that Republicans compromise, just Democrats.)

Well, the days when the grassroots of the Democratic Party allowed Democratic politicians to compromise Democratic values in the name of "efficiency" are over. After all, it really doesn't matter if you are "getting things done" if, in the process, you are losing your political soul.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

A Vote for DeWine is a Vote for Bush

Much earlier this year, or maybe late last year, a Democrat sent us an email message. In this message, this Democrat praised Mike DeWine for voting against Bush on drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge Area, (ANWAR). Well, it was certainly nice of DeWine to oppose Bush on ANWAR, but here is the bottom line, a vote for DeWine is a vote for Bush.

DeWine supported Bush 96% of the time in the Senate. He voted for Bush's reckless tax cuts, helping to plunge this country back into deficit spending. He voted for Bush's two Supreme Court nominees. He voted for the war in Iraq. He voted this year for an amendment to the budget bill that would have privatized Social Security, even though he is trying to deny he supports Bush's privatization plan. In short Mike DeWine is a Bush clone, only shorter.

Don't be fooled by the corporate media calling him a "moderate." The Republicans have moved the political "center" so far to the right that what used to be referred to as conservative is now called moderate.

Don't be fooled by his "independence" ads, either. Karl Rove wouldn't be helping Mike DeWine raise money and campaign against Sherrod Brown if he wasn't a Bushie at heart. Say what you will about the Bushies, but when it comes to loyalty, these people could teach the Mafia a thing or two.

This is a very simple concept to understand: if you like Bush and what he has done, vote for DeWine, if you don't, then vote for Brown. Just don't tell us that you don't like Bush but are supporting DeWine. That dog won't hunt.
_________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

White House Press Corps: Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent

This is what the White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, said today at a press briefing: There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.

Now, here what's incredible: Not one White House reporter asked Snow to name a Democrat who has said that we shouldn't fight the war on terror, or question al-Qaeda, or try and listen to al-Qaeda. Not one reporter thought to ask that simple question. Not one.

Now, if a reporter had asked such a question, then maybe Snow would have tried to wiggle out of the implication he was making by saying that those parts of his comments don't refer to Democrats, but at least he should have been made to spell it out. Instead what he did was use the word "Democrats" when talking about opposition to the Patriot Act, to warrantless surveillance, and to Guantanamo. After doing that, he then makes the leap that being against those things is being against the war on terror, and the reporters present let him get away with it. It is up to reporters to challenge that kind of stuff. It is a simple thing to do, and yet no one did it.

Time and time again Democrats argue that the media is dominated by corporations who are loyal to Bush's economic agenda and that is why reporters don't call him and his underlings on this stuff. Well, there is another explanation: they just aren't that good at doing their job.
__________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Why Political Pundits Are Trite

Most well-known political pundits say trite things, offer no new insight into politics, and are content to report and comment on the conventional wisdom inside Washington, D.C. They all say the same thing because most political pundits work for corporations and most corporations don't value risk-taking.

Consider for example the production of movies and television shows. If there is a hit movie or television show, then the following season there are several knock-offs of the original. Why? Because if you are an executive at a studio and you "greenlight" a production that bombs, but is a knock-off of a previous hit, you might not lose your job. If, heaven forbid, you have "greenlighted" an experimental film or TV show that bombs, you better get your resume ready because you could be hitting the bricks.

The same is true in political punditry. If you report or comment on the conventional wisdom, then your editors, supervisors, colleagues, or whoever is important to you are not going to think you are an idiot. If you start giving out radical insight that is not supported by the conventional wisdom, then you have set yourself up for questioning and being made to look foolish.

This is why, even though the polls show that Bush's popularity has been falling steadily over the last year or so, the media continued to act as if the American public still liked Bush. The media had adopted that nugget of conventional wisdom in 2000, it was reinforced in 2001 after 9-11, and reinforced again by his re-election in 2004. Never mind that he got re-elected by an incredibly small margin when compared to other re-elected presidents. The conventional wisdom of the political pundits was that every American voter was just dying to have a beer with good old George. Only recently has it occurred to the political pundits in Washington that the American voters have left the bar and no longer want to pick up the tab.

Once the media gets a theme into its collective heads, then God only knows what it will take to get it out. With the illusion of Bush's popularity it has taken the incompetence of this administration in Iraq and during Katrina to convince the media that these idiots have no idea what they are doing. The American public, however, has been way ahead of them.

Don't think of political pundits as reporters, think of them as your former high school classmates. The well known political pundits are the "cool kids" who set the trend for others. How many of those "cool kids" actually thought for themselves as compared to how many just echoed what others thought? If your high school was like ours, not very many of the "cool kids" were original thinkers.

The bottom line? Don't take the political pundits seriously. They are, after all, only mimicking what they have heard from others.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Towards A Democratic Tax Policy

One problem that Democrats have is that we have allowed Republicans to control the tax debate in America. We have allowed Republicans to continue to press for irresponsible tax cuts without coming up with a tax policy that would actually help American middle class families without plunging America into debt. Part of the problem is that Democratic tax policy is often framed in terms that only those interested in fiscal policy can understand. Republicans use the message that "Democrats think they can spend your money better than you can." As a recent article we read points out, this is actually the basis of every Republican tax-cutting proposal. (Here is that article's link: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/0609/warrena.php).

What Democrats need to do is develop a tax-plan that is aimed at the middle class and would still raise sufficient revenue to run the country without borrowing billions and billions of dollars. One Democratic senator who has done just that is Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Highlights of his tax plan, which he calls the Fair Flat Tax Plan of are:

• provides higher standard deductions for every individual
• ends tax provisions that prefer unearned income such as capital gains and dividends over wage and salary income, and
• provides an unprecedented, refundable 10 percent tax credit for every taxpayer’s state and local taxes – a direct benefit for the more than two-thirds of taxpayers who currently do not itemize their taxes.
• reduces the 1040 down to a single page

(This list is taken from his official website which can be visited here: http://wyden.senate.gov/)

Senator Wyden actually spoke in Cleveland and the City Club about his tax plan in April of this year. The text of his speech can be read here: http://wyden.senate.gov/media/speeches/2006/04142006_City_Club_on_taxes.html. What we like about Wyden's approach is that he isn't sitting around wringing his hands and whining about how voters don't really, really understand what the Republicans are doing. He is going out and devising his own tax plan and exposing that while Republicans say they are for the middle class, their policies actually favor the rich over the rest of us. He does this by using their rhetoric of "Flat Tax" but adds the essential element of fairness.

All of this is not to say that we think that every Democrat running for Federal office should rush out and endorse this plan. What we are saying is that every Democrat running for Federal office should think about a taxation policy that reduces U.S. debt, helps the middle class, and simplifies the tax code. Since 1980 we have been playing defense on the issue of taxation. A whole generation is enough time to learn how to play offense on taxation.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Ad About Osama bin Laden

Going After "Wal-Mart Republicans"

When you think of liberals do you primarily think of economic issues or social issues? Do you think of issues such as gun control, abortion, gay rights, the environment, or do you think of issues such as trade, access to health care, union organizing, and the minimum wage? It seems that since the 1960s the word "liberal" has become associated primarily with social issues while in the 1930s through the 1950s it was associated primarily with economic issues.

This trend started in the 1960s with the advent of the civil rights movement, followed by the anti-war movement, the movement for women rights, and finally the movement for gay rights. During this time period the media identified liberals as being primarily concerned with social issues as opposed to being primarily concerned with economic issues.

During that same period white working class male voters began to leave the Democratic party. In 1968 millions of them voted for Wallace, particularly in the South, and millions voted for Nixon. While Watergate led many to go back to Democrats in the 1976 election, by 1984 the media was talking about the birth of Reagan Democrats, Democrats who sided with their party on economic issues but deserted their party over social issues such as abortion.

Republicans have used these issues to convince millions of Americans that liberals and the Democratic Party don't represent them or reflect their values. Republicans engage in what Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas, calls cultural populism. Cultural populism is the use of issues to convince working class whites that liberals represent an elite group determined to impose their values on the rest of society. Republicans present themselves as the defenders of traditional values against this elite.

This works as long as social issues are at the forefront of the political discussion. It doesn't work when they try to advance a conservative economic agenda. The same voters that agree with the Republicans on abortion and gun control don't necessarily agree with them on economic issues like trade, social security, and access to medical care. The reaction to the Bush plan for privatizing Social Security is a recent example of working class white voters parting with the economic conservative agenda of the Republicans.

The way to avoid for Democrats to avoid this problem is to start advancing economic programs that benefit working class voters. Programs such as universal health care, increased vacation time so families can spend more time together, fair trade agreements that don't outsource jobs to other countries, and an affordable college education. White working class voters will vote for Democratic candidates provided those candidates speak to their concerns.

It is important for Democrats to start doing this because some Republican activists are beginning to talk about the birth of "Wal-Mart Republicans." This phrase, which was the title of an article in the conservative magazine The National Review, describes socially conservative Americans who value Democratic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, access to medical care, and protection of the environment.

The problem for the GOP is that their coalition depends on white working class voters voting for Republicans because of social issues, rich people voting for Republicans because of tax cuts, and small government advocates voting for Republicans because they want a smaller national government. This coalition, which was started by Nixon and continued by Reagan, is already showing signs of strain. It is up to Democrats to find ways to advance the interests of white working class Americans on economic issues and bust it wide open.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

"War on Terror": 2005 Statistics

In 2005 there were over 11,000 terrorist acts worldwide, according to the U.S. Government's Center for CounterTerrorism. That does not include attacks on American military personnel, since they are not non-combatants, which is the standard used by the Center. Over 30% of the terrorist attacks took place in Iraq. ____________________________________________________________________________________ MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

The War Against Terror & The Iraqi War Are Not The Same

One of the themes being sounded by the GOP and its allies in the media is that Democrats are weak on the so-called War on Terror because a great majority of Democrats don't support the Iraqi War, and especially don't support the way it has been handled by Bush & Co. In making this argument they conflate the Iraqi War with the War on Terror as if they were one and the same. They are not and Democrats need to point this out again and again.

The War on Terror was authorized by Congress in a resolution called "Authorization for Use of Military Force" or AUMF. That resolution is contained in Public Law No. 107-40 and was adopted by the House of Representatives by a 420-1 vote and in the Senate by a 98-0 vote. One Democrat opposed the Resolution in the House, Congressperson Lee from California, and no Democratic Senator opposed the Resolution.

That resolution authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Interestingly the Bush Administration did not try and use that Resolution to justify the war in Iraq. Instead it lobbied for and got a new resolution entitled the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. That resolution was contained in Public Law 107-243 and passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23.

The fact that there were two resolutions passed by Congress is seldom mentioned by the media, or, for that matter, by Democrats. Yet, that fact is very important. If the Iraqi government prior to our invasion was involved in the 9-11 attacks, then there would not have been the need for a second resolution. The reason why there would not have been the need is that the first resolution allowed the use of force against nations that aided the attacks on 9-11. The only conclusion to be drawn from the need for two resolutions is that the Bush Administration knew that the use of force against Iraq based on the first resolution wouldn't pass muster, even from the lapdog American media.

Thus, there is a difference between the War on Terror and the Iraqi War. This is something that Democrats need to point out again and again. Democratic Representatives overwhelmingly backed the use of force in 2001 to go after terrorist organizations and the countries that harbor them, the disagreement started in 2003 when the Bush Administration started a war with a country that had not attacked or helped attack the United States.

Democrats need to point out that the Bush Administration had not won the War on Terror when they started the Iraqi War. Osama bin Laden is still alive, al Quida is still operating, terrorist attacks are actually on the increase in the world, including in Iraq where over 2500 American service personnel have been killed and many thousands wounded. Democrats need to point out again and again that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraqis were not involved in the attack on September 11, 2001, and that Democratic Senators and Representatives have always supported, and continue to support, the use of military force to hunt down and eliminate terrorist organizations.

We cannot count on the media to do this for us. The media is complicit in both the start of the Iraqi War under false pretenses and the conflating of the Iraqi War with the War on Terror. We have to make sure that our fellow citizens understand this distinction. If we don't, then we run the risk that our fellow citizens will believe the Republican lies that they, and their media allies, are spreading. _______________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Lieberman Doesn't Get It

Okay, here is a question: if Bill Clinton had kissed a Republican Senator would the GOP have supported that Senator or run him out of the party? If there were liberal commentators on cable news who are as liberal as O'Reilly and Hannity are conservative and they endorsed the Clinton-kissing Senator would Republicans continue to regard that person as a Republican? If our hypothetical Republican Senator went on television after losing a primary to a fellow Republican and announced that he was not going to honor the results of the primary but would run as an independent would Republicans still support that Senator? The answer to all those questions is a resounding NO. Why then do right-wing commentators believe that Democrats should feel bad about Lieberman's defeat or back him against Lamont in November?

In the coming months Democrats may hear Republicans tell us that the defeat of Lieberman tells us something about the Democratic Party. Such claims will be bs. What the defeat of Lieberman shows is that Democrats want their elected officials to oppose Bush. They want him opposed on the Iraqi War, on his plans to privatize Social Security, on his plans to turn America's schools over to private companies, on just about everything he stands for or supports. Democrats want their elected officials to be an opposition party, not an accommodation party.

Make no mistake about it, a accommodationist is exactly what Joe Lieberman was and is in the Senate. Anytime Fox News wants a Democrat to come on their shows and tell America what was wrong with the Democratic Party, Joe is the person they call. This was the person who blasted Bill Clinton on getting oral sex from an intern, but can't seem to find it in his heart to criticize George Bush's illegal power grabs. This was the person who wouldn't be tough with Cheney during the their debate in 2000, but was willing to be tough on Ned Lamont, a fellow Democrat. This was the person who said that Kerry shouldn't challenge the results of the 2004 election yet now wants to run as an independent after losing the Democratic Primary.

In the short run the mainstream media will portray this as some sort of set back for the Democratic Party. Of course these are the same geniuses who said that Clinton was toast in 1992, that he would be a one term president, that the public wanted Congress to impeach him, that Gore would get rolled by Bush in 2000 and that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In the long run the Democratic Party is better off without him.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

How Democrats Can Drive You Crazy

There is an article in the Akron Beacon Journal about the governor's race in Ohio that illustrates how Democrats are often their own worst enemy. The article by John McCarthy of the Associated Press contends that party regulars are slow to get behind Strickland and Blackwell because they are outside of the parties' mainstream. According to this article the reason that Democrats are having trouble lining up behind Strickland is because he is from a rural area and opposes gun control. (Read the article here: http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/15214888.htm )

The article is very short on specifics. It only names two Democrats as sources. One is Eric Fingerhut, who was planning to run against Strickland for the Democratic nomination and the other is a professor from Youngstown State University. Since the Ohio Democratic Party is composed of literally millions of people, it is hard to accept that two people speak for millions. Putting that aside, and assuming that this article is accurate in that there are some Democrats from urban areas that are lukewarm about Strickland, this article shows how Democrats can drive you crazy.

Since 1962, the Ohio Democratic Party has only won three elections for Governor. Those occurred in 1970, 1982, and 1986. During that time we have nominated the following nominees: 1962-Mike DeSalle; 1966-Frazier Reams, Jr.; 1970-John Gilligan; 1974-John Gilligan; 1978-Dick Celeste; 1982-Dick Celeste; 1986-Dick Celeste; 1990-Tony Celebrezze; 1994-Rob Burch; 1998-Lee Fisher; and 2002-Tim Hagan. All but Burch came from one of the top eight urban counties in Ohio. DeSalle and Reams came from Lucas County; Gilligan from Hamiliton County; Celeste, Celebrezze, Fisher, and Hagan from Cuyahoga County. Let's see what that means. It means that 10 times we nominated Democrats from urban counties and they proceeded to lose seven elections. That's a 70%-30% loss/win record, folks, and that is not going to cut it in politics.

We don't know if Ted Strickland can win, but we do know that Democrats from urban areas haven't been winning. It is past time to do something different. That something different is nominating and then electing a Democrat from a "red" part of the state. A Democrat who can get votes in suburban and rural counties. A Democrat who can win more than 10 counties. Instead of complaining and whining about Ted Strickland's stance on gun control, get behind him and let's win for a change.
_________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

Political Psychology 101-The Politics of Security

In John Dean's book, Conservatives without Conscience, he attempts to explain why so many present-day conservatives are just down-right mean. He concludes that it is because they are not conservatives as much as they are authoritarians. He has a chapter on how Cheney and Bush have used the "politics of fear" to govern and keep the Republican Party in power.

If you stop and think about it, a lot of the appeal of the Republican Party is based on being afraid of something or someone. Whether it's fear of terrorists, fear of gays, fear of blacks, fear of strong women, fear of liberals, or fear of the popular culture, fear is used by Cheney and Bush to keep power. The message is this: "You are afraid of _______ (fill in with approriate Republican bogeyman). Vote for us and we will protect you from this danger."

There are several reasons why this tactic works. First, there is a significant portion of the population that responds to this sort of appeal. According to a social psychologist cited in Dean's book, approximately 25% of the population is comfortable with authoritariansim. So appeals based on fear work with such individuals. Second, and this is something that we tend to forget, one of the main purposes of government is to provide security for the governed. In times of perceived danger, when people are more worried abut security, ( say America after the 9-11 attacks), appeals based on fear find more fertile ground. Finally, such appeals are simple to understand. In a world of increasing bombardment of information, political messages that are simple to understand have a better shot at cutting through the static.

Compounding the problem is that the media is either complicit in the peddling of the politics of fear, (for example, Fox News), or refuses to recognize that such peddling is occurring. An example of this was the refusal of most of the major news outlets in this country to critically examine Bush's claims that a war in Iraq would enhance America's security. From the New York Times on down, most American news outlets allowed Bush's claims to go unexamined until we had invaded Iraq and had not found any WMDs. By that time, of course, we had 140,000 American soldiers mired down in what is looking increasingly like a low intensity civil war.

So how do we counter the politics of fear? We can, of course, practice the politics of fear ourselves. There are several legitimate claims that we can make about this administration's drive to push Americans into economic insecurity. Proposals such as privatizing Social Security, taxing earned income at substantially higher rates than unearned income, turning over Medicare's prescription drug plan to the drug companies, trade agreements that allow American companies to ship American jobs to third world countries, eliminating aid to college students, the list goes on and on. Creative ads could be devised that point out how the Bushies want to create insecurity at home while wasting American lives in the sands of the Middle East.

Another way to counter the politics of fear is to realize it is happening and point out to the media that it is happening. Often we assume that when reporters anc commentators don't critically examine the Bush Administration it is because of their complicity when actually it is often because of their lack of knowledge. We have an obligation to make them aware by writing letters to the editors and, perhaps more importantly, by emailing them information countering the misinformation put out by Bush and his supporters.

A third way to counter the politics of fear is to point out to the American public that it is being practiced. Very few Democratic politicians do this. Most of them are so busy fighting each radical proposal that comes out that they don't have or take the time to look at the big picture. Yet, if they would do so, they could tell American voters what is happening and counter it with the politics of hope.

The politics of hope seeks to unite, not divide, Americans. The politics of hope plays on Americans' dreams, not their fears. The politics of hope takes advantage of the good nature of the American people. The politics of hope was the politics of FDR, JFK, the pre-Viet Nam LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. It has been behind every successful Democratic campaign for the presidency since 1932. Why? Because it works. Because ultimately Americans would rather hear the voices of hope than the voices of fear.

Political Psychology 101-The Politics of Equality

In the post that appears below called Political Psychology 101, we make reference to a paper called Political Conservatism as Socially Motivated Cognition. That paper points out that studies show that more a person leans to the right on the political spectrum, the more they share certain traits. Among these traits are an intolerance for ambiguity and a tolerance for inequality. The post below talks about the need some conservatives have for non-ambiguous situations. This post wants to talk about the fact that conservatives aren't all that concerned about inequality and, indeed, many prefer that our society remain unequal.

Since the founding of America, there has been a constant expansion of equality in our society. At first only white men with property could vote. Then it was extended to white men without property. Next, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, came the theoretical extension of the franchise to black males. Following that came the extension to white females. Finally, in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson redeemed the promise of the 14th Amendment and got Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which extended political equality to black citizens in states of the Old Confederacy and backed up the extension with Federal coercion.

While the struggle for political equality went on, there was also a battle for social equality in our society. Women and minorities battled to open up educational, business, and professional opportunities to all Americans. The battle continues to this day.

In all these battles, conservatives opposed the drive for equality. Conservative voices didn't want non-landowning people to vote, didn't want blacks freed or voting, didn't think that women should be seen outside the home taking part in the political life of our nation, didn't want the Federal government to back up the drive for equal rights with force.

This is the eternal conflict between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in extending equality of opportunity, conservatives do not. If you look at almost every major battle between liberals and conservatives on the domestic side, that conflict will appear. It dictates which sides people take in budget battles, in Supreme Court nomination fights, in battles over tax policy.

If liberals are asked "how are you different than conservatives", the answer should be that "I believe in using the power of the government to extend equality of opportunity to all Americans, conservatives do not." Only after establishing that baseline is it then possible to engage in a discussion of particular policies. _________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby gives authorization for reprinting of the above without attribution.

Political Psychology 101-The Politics of Clarity

In 2003 an excellent article was written called Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. The article was written by several psychologists. They surveyed over 50 years of results of psychological studies to determine what traits political conservatives shared. They found that political conservatives were people who didn't like ambiguity, were tolerant of inequality, wanted cognitive closure, responded to appeals based on threat of loss, and were not open to new experiences. They went on to postulate that political conservatives were receiving psychological benefits from the way they voted. Voting for conservative candidates was not just being done because it was in their own self-interest, it was being done because, for want of a better ten, it "made them feel good about themselves."

If you stop and think for a moment about the above paragraph, it is easy to see why conservatives responded to Bush's 2004 campaign. One thing that Bush isn't is ambiguous. As he once said "I know what I believe and I believe that what I believe is right." Bush also apparently doesn't question his decisions once they are made, and, in fact, there is little evidence that he engages in any intellectual curiosity about the impact of his decisions while he is making them. He gives his supporters both cognitive closure and no ambiguity when he uses phrases like bringing bin Laden back "dead or alive" or telling the insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on."

Contrast his certainty with the ambiguity of a lot of liberals. It sometimes seems that liberals want to talk every problem to death, that they can find a lot of reasons why the other side has good arguments, and they seem to take special pleasure in recognizing the other sides point of view. In short, they don't portray an image of decisiveness, but rather one of indecisiveness.

When John Kerry said in 2004 that he had voted for the Iraqi war budget before he voted against it, the election was lost. In a country that leans more to the right than to the left, such a statement wasn't going to come across as studied and nuanced, it was going to come across as trying to have it both ways. It looked like he didn't have the courage of his convictions.

What we need are for liberal Democrats running for office to do the following:

1. Articulate clearly and unambiguously what they stand for;
2. Be non-apologetic about what they stand for;
3. Be forceful in pushing for the adoption of their positions; and
4. Be unapologetic about pursuing power.

All of this doesn't mean that you have to be rude, or uncivil, or personally disagreeable. It is possible, contrary to what wingnuts like O'Reilly and Limbaugh believe, to disagree with someone without be personally insulting. What it does mean, though, is that you have to know what you believe and unapologetically want to advance your beliefs. It means that you have to be unapologetic about the pursuit of political power.

A political campaign isn't a debate, it isn't a lesson in civics, or a lesson in campaigning. A political campaign is about winning so your side can accomplish certain objectives. Its way past time for liberal Democrats to understand that the only purpose of a political campaign is to get and keep power. If you don't want the power, don't run for the office. If you don't know what you will do with power, don't run for office.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC will be glad to send you this article on request. Please send your email address to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org and put "political article" in the subject line. MCDAC hereby gives permission to use the above without attribution.

Social Securty, DeWine, the media, and what Dems should do

Occasionally MCDAC sends out email messages to media outlets trying to prod them to cover certain stories. One of those was sent out earlier this year about Mike DeWine voting in favor of the DeMint amendment. This amendment to the budget bill would have created private accounts for Social Security and would have eliminated survivors' benefits for widows, widowers, and children of deceased workers. In our message we argued that Ohio voters needed to know about this vote before the November election so that they could factor this vote into their decision in the Brown-DeWine race. Email responses we received from two reporters at a particular Ohio newspaper were very instructive and also very frustrating.

Bascially their reponse was that the fact that DeWine voted for the DeMint amendment was not news because (1). everyone knows that Social Security "reform" won't happen this year; (2). it's not fair to cherry-pick DeWine's votes for political purposes because that is exactly what the Republicans did in 2004 to Kerry and Democrats complained about that practice; and (3). DeWine voted in favor of some amendments proposed by Democrats and we weren't complaining about those votes.

Obviously these responses don't bear critical analysis. The fact that Bush's privatization plans are not likely to be passed this year has nothing to do with whether Ohio voters should be aware of DeWine's support for Social Security privatization. Indeed, since DeWine had carefully avoided either supporting or opposing Bush's privatization plans in 2005, his vote on the DeMint amendment was particularly instructive because it gave us an indictation on how he would vote if the plan ever came before the Senate. DeWine's support of other Democratic proposals doesn't really mean one thing or another in terms of Social Security.

What was frustrating about these responses was that the reporters were insisting that politics be looked at as a "game" with no relationship to the daily lives of literally millions of Ohioans. Since the "game" wasn't going to be won this year by supporters of Bush's destruction of Social Security it wasn't worth covering. Further, it is somehow violating the rules of the "game" to actually point out how DeWine votes because of complaints from Kerry supporters in 2004 and because DeWine supports other Democratic proposals.

Voters don't look at politics as a "game", they look at it as affecting goverment which affects their lives. They want to know that candidates are going to do once they are in office. Democratic accountability depends of voters receving such information. If the media refuses to supply such information, then how are voters supposed to hold candidates accountable for their positions by their votes?

The other interesting thing about this interaction is that both reporters engaged in a dialogue with us regarding both the DeWine vote and their newspaper's decision not to cover that vote. Although they didn't change their positions, they at least gave us the courtesy of replying, and indeed, were far more forthcoming in their responses than we expected. Obviously this exchange wouldn't have been possible before email.

Based on the above, here is our suggestion: Democrats should make an effort to gather email addresses of reporters and other media personnel and then make sure those email addresses are known to Democratic organizations. Those addresses should be used in an attempt to influence coverage of both politics and government. They should not be used to harass, vilify, or demean reporters and others, such activities are rude and counter-productive. Democrats should use email to engage reporters in a dialogue with the goal of making sure the Democratic message is heard.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the republication of the above without attribution.

Reader Submission: Testifying in Columbus on the proposed Ohio anti-abortion bill

When I tell friends where I spent my time last Tuesday, they think I must be mistaken. Surely, I didn’t just tell them that I went to a hearing at our statehouse on a bill that might have been expected in the legislature in 1906, not 2006. Surely, I could not have said that supposedly intelligent, thinking, progressive people consider it civilized to make abortions completely, totally illegal under any circumstances—even prosecutable should an Ohioan cross or help someone cross the state line to obtain a safe, sanitary termination of an unwanted pregnancy. Surely they didn’t mean to further defile a victim of rape or incest by forcing her into another unwanted, unbidden act that will forever change her life. No, they said, you must be incorrect. Everyone knows, they said, that abortions will go on, as they always have, whether they are legal or illegal and that, in the later case, only the rich will be able to afford safe ones. And, some said, who wants to force someone to have a child when she feels she cannot or must not.

It makes me sad to think that some honestly believe that a living, breathing, knowledgeable woman has no right to choose what happens inside her own body. I won’t try to argue the philosophical or religious views that abhor this particular act, but surely they don’t believe that a woman’s body belongs to the state, that her rights should be subordinated to others beliefs, that she should be enslaved to the choices of others. Well, maybe they do. Maybe that’s why Ohio continues to slide down the continuum of desirable places to live. Or maybe it’s just another political ploy to create more divisiveness among voters.

At the least, wouldn’t we be better off spending time and money on preventing abortions through good education and family planning? I applaud that family value.

bbrandon@neo.rr.com
___________________________________________________________________
The above submission does not necessarily reflect the opinion of MCDAC or any of its members.

Dem News Links for week of June 18th, 2006

Wall Street Journal prints Zogby survey showing Republicans in only 7 of 16 battleground Senate races.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash06.html?project=elections06-ft&h=495&w=778&hasAd=1&mod=blogs

Blackwell attacks Democrats' faith in God at speech in Toledo.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/NEWS09/606150480/-1/NEWS

Strickland counter-attacks. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14866814.htm

Editor & Publisher, a trade magazine for the publishing industry, points out that the media is either downplaying or ignoring poll results that show majority of Americans want deadlines for pulling out of Iraq. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726568

Congressman Ralph Regula under fire for steering federal money to museum created by his wife.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14847261.htm

Congressman Murtha blasts Rove on Meet the Press, scores him for sitting on his "fat backside in an air conditioned office", calls Bush's policy of "stay the course" "stay and pay."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Murtha_Rove_sits_on_fat_backside_0618.html

White House press secretary criticizes media's concentration on fate of missing American soldiers.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/18/snow-focus-kidnapped/

Majority of Americans think that the Iraqi war has made things "worse off" for Americans.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689006

DeWine criticized for allowing telecom mergers to take place with no oversight.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/isope/115063180565350.xml&coll=2

Is Blackwell courting racists and then trying to cover it up?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/8/2250/63002

Interesting graphic about which Ohio counties are supporting which gubernatorial candidate financially
http://www.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/interactive/moneywatch/

This article details how much money each candidate is raising outside of Ohio
http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1150533122181290.xml&coll=

John Kerry says Republican plan for Iraq is "lie and die." http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060620_kerry_lie_and_die/

Political Change is Hard Work

Not to sound too much like our president, "Bubble-Boy", but political change is hard work. That may be why the number of people who actually work for political change is only a small percentage of the number of people who talk about political change. Yet, while talking about change is important because it helps shape political discussions in our homes, workplaces, schools, etc., in the end political change is only accomplished by people going out and contacting other people.

In the last 40 years or so political campaigns have gone from being labor intensive to capital intensive. Back in the 1960s and even in the 1970s most political campaigns relied more on volunteers than on paid help. If a campaign wanted to do a mailing, for example, it got a bunch of volunteers together at a location and everyone put on address stickers and stuffed envelopes. If a campaign wanted to do phone work, they needed live bodies to actually make the calls.

Now, it is much different. Because of technology it is possible for a mailing house to mail thousands of households at one time. Because of technology, it is possible for a campaign to use "robo-calls" and put their message into thousands of homes and never use a real person to make the calls. The reason why it is tempting to use this technology is because you know the work gets done, there is very little co-ordination involved, and companies for whom this is their business generally do a better job than volunteers, no matter how well intentioned.

All of this technology comes at a price. First of all, it is expensive and that means that more dollars must be raised for political campaigns. This puts Democrats at a disadvantage because Democrats generally don't have as much access to money as Republicans. Second, by removing humans from the process, you have lessening the involvement between the campaign and the people the campaign is supposed to be about serving. Third, by relying so much on technology campaigns are giving the impression that they only people who matter are the ones signing checks. This only increases the cynicism that people have about politics.

The flip side, though, is that is politically inclined people want political campaigns to be about more than fund-raising they have to be willing to do the hard work of politics. They have to be willing to make phone calls, go door to door, work parades, drop literature, and do all the things that are essentail to winning elections, but which are also not fun.

If you are reading these words chances are good that you are interested in bringing about political change. What you have to ask yourselves is whether you are willing to do the hard work that is necessary to bring about that change. We can't answer that for you, only you can give that answer.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby authorizes the reproduction of the above without attribution.

Reader Submission: Why Busby Lost CA-50 Special Election

I wanted to comment on the election for Duke Cunningham's congressional seat. From my reading, I did not get a sense of the Democratic candidate's position on the immigration issue. This is a prime example of both the Republican strategy for '06 and a deficiency in Democratic values and/or tactics.

Middle Americans are against amnesty, guest worker programs, and for a fence to stop illegals, yet it would seem many Democratic candidates hold a different position. They talk of providing social programs for illegals, positively about guest worker programs, etc. The White House's sudden shift to the immigration issue was intentional for this California special election seat. It was a test case: Can Republicans, given their continuous failure, win elections? The answer they received from the voters was YES if they target a wedge issue that Democratic candidates are on the wrong side of with the general public.

What image does it give the American voter when Democratic candidates say to the American people, you should burden yourself and the country with the financial responsibility of illegal aliens. Add to that the back drop of job insecurity many Americans feel with foreign outsourcing. Democratic leaders must finally come to understand they must reflect middle American values and not believe they can impose their own and win.

In 2004 the gay marriage issue was divisive among Democratic candidates and middle American voters. We are now suffering four more years of additional decay to American life under the Bush administration. Was the democratic stance on gay marriage the result of a vocal well connected minority? Yes. Is the democratic stance on immigration equally mis-guided? Yes.

Middle American Democrats must stand up to our vocal minority and say your position is out of the mainstream and does not warrant losing an election over. Does access to gay marriage really improve life for the vast majority of Americans? The answer is NO. Middle American Democrats must retake control of our party or Republicans win, and that, America can not afford.

Kim Kendall
___________________________________________________________________
The above is posted with permission of the writer. Posting of entries on this blog does not necessarily reflect the views of MCDAC or any of its members.

Rumsfeld's Troop Decisions Come Back to Haunt U.S.

There will be a lot of words written about the U.S. Marines who allegedly murdered civilans at Haditha, Iraq, over the next few weeks. Most of them will concern what allegedly happened between the Iraqis and the Marines. Relatively few of them will concern Rumsfeld's decision to try and fight this war on the cheap. Yet, it is that decision that led to what happened at Haditha.

Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff back in 2002, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand troops would be needed to "put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other." He based his testimony on the American experience in the Kosovo, where there was a ratio of 1 soldier for every 1000 people. That candor led to this rebuke from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who called his estimate "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." Rumsfeld himself was reported to have called Shinseki's testimony "bullshit".

So, where are we at three years and counting since our invasion? We have a ongoing insurgency in Iraq. We have lost many more men since the war "ended" than we did during the war itself, and now we have reports of American Marines murdering Iraqi civilans. If the arrogant idiots who run the Defense Department had listened to a professional military man instead of each other, a lot of the tragedy of the last three years would have been avoided. Putting several hundred thousand troops in Iraq would have reduced the chances of the insurgency and avoided the breakdown of law and order that followed the fall of Hussein.

Of course, that didn't happen in the faith-based presidency of George W. Bush. Because, after all, why would you listen to experts when you are convinced that you are doing God's work?
___________________________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby grants permission to use this work without attribution.

Reform Proposal: Increase Size of the U.S. House

Currently there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. This means that each Representative represents over 685,000 people in Congress. In some cases, such as the Representative from South Dakota, there is only one Representative for the entire state. All of these members have to run every two years, and, because of the size of their districts, they have to raise a lot of money to run competitive campaigns.

Almost every proposal to reform campaigns for Congress involves cutting down contributions, but they are never successful. Here is an idea that hasn't been tried: reduce the cost of campaigns. How? By tripling or even quadrupling the size of the House of Representatives. Go from the present size of 435 Representatives to 1305 or even 1740 Representatives.

By increasing the size of Congress, you would decrease the cost of campaigning. Instead of representing 685,000 people, each member would be representing 228,000 people at 1305 Representatives or 171,000 people at 1740. It is much easier to advertise yourself to 228,000 people or 171,000 people than it is to 685,000.

Cities would pick up more representatives, and so would suburbs, and small towns. It would be much easier for members of Congress to stay in touch with their constituents if they were representing fewer people. It would also be easier to mount challenges to such members because the cost of campaigning would be less.

The present size of the House of Representatives has been at this number since Hawaii and Alaska came into the Union. During the time, the population of the United States has increased dramatically. It is time to bring Congress back in touch with the people by increasing the number of Representatives. In fact, it is overdue.

It's Never Their Children

One thing that you have to admire about the Bush family is their ability to keep their children out of harm's way in Iraq. It takes a lot of nerve to send someone else's child to war while keeping your own safely in the United States. The Bush family is definitely up to the challenge, though. While some of their contemparies are dying in Iraq, the Bush twins are taking spinning classes at an exclusive Washington gym.

This ability to keep their children out of harm's way is not just limited to the Bushes. It is something that both the Congress and the Executive branch do quite well. When the vote was taken to give President Bush the authority to start the Iraqi War, only one Senator, Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, had a child who would be going into combat as a result of his father's vote. To our knowledge the only Bush cabinet member who has had a child serve in Iraq is former Attorney General Ashcroft.

In fact, most of the cheerleaders for this war don't have to worry about their children fighting or dying in Iraq. It's never their children who are maimed, killed, or traumatized by the Iraqi War. It is never their families who receive the news that their child is coming home in a coffin. Here's our question: if the Iraqi War is such a great idea, why aren't the children of its backers volunteering to go fight it? For that matter, why isn't President Bush asking his supporters to encourage their children to enlist to spread democracy in the middle east?
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

People Who Hate Government Shouldn't Run Government

".....the country could, in fact, get very excited again about the opportunity to make government work", Newt Gingrich, April 16, 2006, talking about the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

The above quote illustrates a fundmental problem with Gingrich's logic. The problem is that a lot of conservatives in goverment don't want the government to work. They hate goverment, have contempt for government, and don't think that there is much that government can, and more importantly, should do. The problem is, of course, that the American public doesn't agree. So what happens is that radical conservatives hide their real feelings about government from the voters. They realize that American voters who aren't nearly as driven by ideology as by the desire for results won't accept candidates who come right out and say that they want to be elected so they can dismantle the government.

So they hide their real intentions. They don't say they want to destroy Social Security, they say they want to "improve it" and "reform it." They pass an education act that imposes mandates on public schools, but doesn't provide enough funding to meet these mandates, and call it the "No Child Left Behind" act. Tax breaks for the wealthy get packaged as "creating jobs."

Why do they resort to such dishonest language? Well, imagine what would happen if they actually used real language to describe what they want. Bush's poll numbers would be down below 30, instead of down below 40, in the "approve of" category.

Ever so often, though, something comes along with strips away the veneer and exposes the real aim of the radical right of the GOP. In September of 2005 it was Hurricane Katrina. Then it becomes very apparent that turning the government over to people who hate government can, literally, kill you.

This is the simple message that Democrats need to carry to the American people: you wouldn't turn your family, your home, or your church over to someone who hated them, why should you do that to your government?___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

Reader Submission: Illegal Immigration

I don't have a problem with "immigration". I do have a problem with the "illegal" part of theequation.

Yes, all of us have immigrants in our ancestry. I married a legal immigrant who is now a naturalizedcitizen.

What is the very first thing an illegal immigrant doeswhen he/she sets foot in the U.S. You got it, breaks our federal immigration laws. He/she starts out not respecting the laws of the land.

Does he think that he can pick and choose the laws he wishes to obey and those he doesn't? Can we citizens do the same and get away with it?Why is there any question about this problem? What else is going on here? Our laws are our laws or they aren't.

What would happen if huge numbers of American citizenscofflaws were to hold rally/demonstrations in ourcities? Like in a sting operation, might they berounded up and dealt with while so convenientlygathered in one place?
____________________________________________________________________
Reader submissions do not necessarily represent the views of MCDAC, its officers, or anyone associated with MCDAC.

Reader Submission: Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice

Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
By AngiePratt - PoliticalPosts.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:“Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.”

George Bush and his administration have obstructed justice. He and Cheney have systematically attempted to mislead not only the American people but also Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Although Bush and Cheney did not testify under oath, due to an inexplicable extension of courtesy, both have still provided information that obfuscated the White House's use of classified information for political gain. In so doing they actually caused the perpetration of a series of crimes by Libby and Karl Rove.

Since Bush and Cheney conveniently declassified the information, Libby and Rove didn't break the law. What they did was attempt to cover up the fact that the White House declassified information for immoral, self-serving purposes. Had this come out prior to the 2004 election, Bush and Cheney would have undoubtedly been out of a job. That, friends and neighbors, is called motive.

This is evidenced by the fact that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby attempted to get the White House to stand up for him by admitting what had occurred. According to R. Jeffrey Smith, of the Washington Post: 'Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."'

In the White House's denial of Libby's request for exoneration, Bush and Cheney created the situation that caused the crimes that Libby is accused of to occur. By refusing to come clean with the American public and Fitzgerald, the President and Vice President of the United States of America committed the crime of obstruction of justice.

The fact is, it isn't against the law for the President and/or Vice President of the United States to lie to the American public. It also isn't against the law for the President to selectively declassify documents. It is, however, against the law to obstruct justice whether or not you live at the White House.
____________________________________________________________________
The author of the above editorial gave MCDAC permission to re-produce it.

Cost of College Education at Ohio's Public Universities

This graph is from the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank's website. It shows how tuition is increasing at every college in Ohio. (If graph doesn't show, click on the rectangle to make it appear.)

MCDAC Rant: Republican Efforts to Cut Off Democratic Funding

Over the past 25 years the national GOP has made a concerted effort to cut off funding for Democratic candidates. They have done this by going after unions, attorneys who represent plaintiffs in personal injury litigation, and public schools. Why public schools, you ask, because historically teachers who teach in public schools back Democrats.

Of course, all of these targets also have enemies in the GOP coalition. Corporations oppose unions and trial attorneys because both of them are a check on corporate power. Elements of the religious right oppose public schools because they believe they are too secular. So by targeting unions, trial attorneys, and public schools, the GOP kills two birds with one stone. It makes its corporate and religious right supporters happy and it weakens Democratic leaning organizations.

How do they do target these organizations? With the case of unions, it is trying to enact legislation that restricts union activities and use of union funds for political purposes. With the case of trial lawyers, it is trying to enact caps on damages that injured people can recover and trying to restrict class-action lawsuits. With the case of public schools, it is supporting charter schools with taxpayer money and putting more and more requirements on public schools while exempting private schools from the same requirements.

This explains why the Internet freaks out the GOP as a fund-raising tool for Democrats and progressives. It is almost impossible to shut down the Internet for just one group of political donors. Even the Republican dominated U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't stand for that. Which is why, of course, House Republicans are all of a sudden interested in applying McCain-Feingold to 527 organizations that solicit on the web. It's not because of a concern for good government, it is because of a concern that GOP hegemony is threatened.

The next time you hear a GOP candidate talking about attacking unions, trial lawyers, or public schools, just remember that more than philosophy is at work. It's not only the philosophy, it's the money.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

DeWine, Tax Cuts, & Employment

In a statement on the Plain Dealer's blog, OPEN, Senator DeWine claims that he supports tax cuts because they lead to the creation of jobs. This reason is often offered by Republicans to explain why we should keep pouring tax cut upon tax cut on the wealthy while the Federal Goverment runs billions of dollars in deficits.

Although this job creation line is always parroted by tax cuts supporters, they never offer any evidence to back up this claim. Indeed, if job creation is casued by tax cuts, then why have so many jobs left Ohio? Since 2000 we have seen tax cuts at the Federal level and tax cuts at the state level, yet our unemployment rate has barely moved. Between 2003-2005 employment increased in Ohio by .1%, while it increased in the United States as a whole by 2.2%. Shouldn't the Republican tax cuts be kicking in and helping Ohio's economy?

Of course, whether Ohio's employment rate will ever benefit from Republican tax cuts depends on whether the underlying rationale for such tax cuts is sound. Republican rationale for tax cuts is that tax-payers will take their tax cuts and invest them in new jobs. There is, however, a fatal flaw in such reasoning.

The flaw is that employment doesn't depend on how much money the employer has, it depends on what it costs to hire a person versus the money that such person can make his/her employer. If an employer decides that hiring a person makes economic sense in terms of the income generated by such employee outweighing the cost of such employee, then the person is hired. If, however, the cost of such employee is not as great as anticipated revenue, then the employer is not going to make the hire.

Another way that tax cuts could lead to more economic activity would be if taxpayers used the tax cuts to purchase goods and services. There is scant evidence, however, that wealthy taxpayers, who received most of the benefit from Bush's tax cuts are using the money to purchase goods and services they otherwise wouldn't purchase. Indeed, most of the wealthy taxpayers are investing their tax cuts, not spending them.

So, the next time a Republican claims that tax cuts are good for the economy, we think reporters should ask, "Oh yeah? Prove it."
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

DeWine Votes to Privatize Social Security

Last Thursday Senator Mike DeWine voted to privatize Social Security and eliminate Disability Benefits and Survivors' Benefits for widows, widowers and orphans when he voted for an unsuccessful amendment (Senate Amendment 3087) to the budget resolution sponsored by Senator DeMint of South Carolina. The majority of Ohioans do not want Social Security privatized and there is no evidence that they want Survivors' and Disability benefits eliminated. Senator Voinovich also did not stand up for Medina County as he was the only Senator not to vote on the issue.

Why would Senator DeWine cast a vote to eliminate social security benefits? We think it is because he is facing a right-wing challenge in the Republican primary. To fend off that challenge, Senator DeWine is willing to sell out ordinary Ohioans. Senator DeWine has shown that he is not on our side. When you vote in May and November remember that Senator DeWine stands for the elimination of social security benefits.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Rant of the Week: Why Dems Should Push Balanced Budget

When Bush took over from Clinton the Federal government was running a surplus. After five complete years of Bush's economic policies the Federal government is running record deficits. Republicans used to describe Democrats as "tax and spend" liberals. The Bush administration is made up of "borrow and spend" conservatives. Given the Bush's administration record, it should be easy for Democrats to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, but we aren't. Why?

For some reason Democrats are afraid to push for a balanced budget. It seems to us that Democrats in the House and Senate are afraid that if they push for a balanced budget, the Republicans will use that as an excuse to do away with social programs. Consequently, while they attack Republicans for the fiscal insanity they have visited on America, they don't have a simple, coherent message for the American people.

The message they should be sending is that we need to balance the budget and quit running up huge deficits. Given the records of the Clinton and Bush administrations regarding fiscal policy, it is a message that we can believably deliver. Delivering this message allows us to talk about reckless tax cuts, the transfer of wealth that takes place when tax revenues are used for interest payments that go to the rich and not programs for the middle class, and about how the Chinese are buying a bigger and bigger share of our national debt.

Is there a risk to such a strategy? Sure, but we need to change what we are doing to win elections. We need to take definite stands and tell the American people why they should trust us with the national goverment. Balancing the budget is a good place to start.

Reader Rant: Gazette Editorial on Medina Municipal Clerk Election Overlooks Important Details

The recent Medina Gazette Clerk of Courts editorial history lesson was long on history but short on math. There are $26,000 important points that weren’t made in the Gazette’s editorial. Medina County Municipal Clerk of Courts, Lori Henry, performs her job for $64,000 per year. Chuck Calvert and Jane Leaver want the Medina County taxpayers to pay $90.057 per year for exactly the same job, but with one of their friends cashing the paycheck. Remember, incumbent Clerk Henry isn’t asking for a $26,000 raise. Chuck and Jane are. They want you to pay more for the job because their Republican friends like to make $90,057 per year instead of the $64,000 that Ms. Henry agreed to when she accepted the position.

Chuck and Jane undoubtedly assume that one of their very well funded politically astute Republican friends will be able to beat Ms. Henry in an election because Ms. Henry is not a politician and has never run in an election and doesn’t have the fundraising base and lobbyist money that get politicians like Jane and Chuck elected in Ohio. Lori is a Clerk – not a politician. Chuck and Jane may be right in their belief that Lori’s excellent job performance and low cost mean little or nothing to their donor and lobbyist base, but the $26,000 increase may seem important to the voters and to Judge Chase who appointed Lori to the position.

It is true that Chuck and Jane have terribly powerful and extremely wealthy supporters who will fund the campaign of their Republican friend with mountains of money and lots of back-room arm twisting. They probably think it will be like taking candy from a baby; because, after all, all they have to do is beat a Clerk out of her job and the taxpayers out of $26,000.

galishus@yahoo.com
___________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave us permission to run his letter on our blog.

Judge Kovack Educates the Public About Divorce & Finances

Do you know what happens financially if there is a divorce? Most people don't. Medina County Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack is changing that by holding free public seminars sponsored by the Medina County Committee for Informed Citizens.

The first seminar, "Surviving the Chaos: Saving Your Finances From Disaster After Divorce", was held on March 6th. Judge Kovack and her presenters spoke to a near capacity crowd at the County Adminstration Building. They covered topics such as what to expect from the divorce and dissolution process, tax consequences of separation agreements, how to calculate child support, and how businesses are valued in a divorce. The panel then took questions from the audience. Questions were asked about pensions, income for child support, parenting issues, domestic violence, as well as the presented topics.

When asked if she would hold more seminars, Judge Kovack answered: "The tremendous positive response to this seminar tells me that we need to conduct more seminars to give the public the information it needs." Judge Kovack and the CIC have already announced the date for the next seminar.

The next seminar will be held on April 24, 2006, at 7:00 pm at the Medina County Administration Building at 144 North Broadway Street in Medina. "Working 7 to 3: How Working Families Can Survive Divorce." The seminar is free and open to the public. Child-care will be provided. If you know anyone going through a divorce, or thinking about a divorce, this seminar is for you. For more information, call 330-764-1935 or visit the web site: www.judgemarykovack.org .
___________________________________________________________________

Rant of the Week: Dewine is a Bush Enabler

One of the problems Democrats have in this year's election for U.S. Senate is the common perception spread by the media that Mike DeWine is some kind of "moderate." They cite to his joining the so-called "Gang of 14" and his votes against drilling in the Artic Reserve. Since the media seems to love so-called "moderates", they usually stop their analysis at that point. Result" DeWine gets to seem like he is a Senator who is willing to break with his party.

This image, like so much else of the media's analysis, is false. DeWine is really a Bush enabler. Like the family member of an alcoholic who gives the drunk money to buy booze, DeWine gives his vote to Bush when it counts.

Irresponsible tax cuts? DeWine votes with Bush. Huge budget deficits? DeWine votes with Bush. Support for CAFTA? DeWine is there for his man Bush. Voting to authorize the Iraqi War? Check another vote for Bush from DeWine. Helping to cover up Bush's violation of the law in the NSA warrant-less spying scandal? Once again, DeWine is there for Bush.

In fact, it is impossible to find a major issue, except for Artic drilling, where DeWine has split with Bush, no matter what the consequences for Ohio. Ohio Democrats need to get the word out: when it comes to voting Bush's way, DeWine is no moderate and Ohio can do better.
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

Reader Rant: GOP Cuts Social Programs, Gives Break to Big Oil

Okay, who is in favor of giving more money to the oil and gas companies after they just announced the largest profits ever? Who thinks loans (not grants) to help defray education costs should be eliminated? Who thinks our military veterans should have their health insurance premiums rise by 100 or 200%? Who thinks that centers for traumatic brain injuries should cut back operations or close permanently? Who thinks educational programs about Alzheimer's are frivolous and should be eliminated? Who finds no use in a national registry for Lou Gehrig's disease? Who is in favor of terminating the entire budget of the Christopher and Dana Reeve paralysis center? Who thinks it isn't worth it to spend money on screening newborns and training emergency personnel to care for children? Who thinks preventative health projects begun by Ronald Reagan are worthless? Who thinks money spent for child safety seats for indigent children, research on E.coli, identification of West Nile Virus, and cardiovascular health programs are wastes of taxpayers' money?

The answer should be no one. Most likely every one of us has been or will be touched by one or more of the programs above. Every one of us has paid more for gasoline. So who has decided to give the oil companies $7 billion in tax exemptions regarding royalties they would normally pay the federal government?

The answer to all my questions is none other than George W. Bush and the Republican puppy dogs in the Congress and Senate. Our Ohio Republican leaders also favor these cuts.
If you favor all these cuts then by all means re-elect those in Columbus and Washington who feel programs like these have no value. Otherwise, choose carefully when voting and research who really thinks independently like you and me.
dlojackman@alo.com
____________________________________________________________________

Reader Rant: Trust in short supply

It is very disturbing to hear the right-wing parrots as they try to justify the illegalities of George W. Bush by saying that ``we just need to trust our president.'' It is very difficult to trust a president, as well as an administration, that has an unwavering record of deceit and an endless bag of evil tricks to stifle dissent -- from the ``town hall'' meetings that are thoroughly screened to remove any possibility of dissenting voices to retribution against whistle-blowers who simply tell the truth.

In hundreds of known incidents and probably thousands of unknown ones, the president and his cronies have used their position as an opportunity to suppress democracy and to destroy the very principles this country was founded on. At no time in America's history, which has spanned two world wars and decades of the Cold War, has our country been more at risk of losing its freedoms than it is right now. Sad to say, it is not because of Osama bin Laden, but because of Bush, who continues an unprecedented quest to achieve absolute and unquestioned power -- power that he and is minions have usurped with complete disregard for the Constitution.

As the right-wing couch patriots cower in fear of Osama bin Laden, our own president is working tirelessly to undermine our rights. With presidents like George W. Bush, who needs to fear enemies like bin Laden

ozmanian@msn.com
____________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave MCDAC permission to run the letter in our "blog".