Thursday, November 23, 2006

Articles/Links for MCDAC Newsletter for Week of November 17-24

LA Times columnist about one reason why the GOP lost control of Congress: lack of oversight. Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-na-outlook19nov19,1,4219901.column?coll=la-news-columns

Oregon Secretary of State on why that state's system of voting by mail is the best for America. Imagine an election without lines, chads, touch-screens, gliches, or recounts. Ohio can have that too. Voting by mail would be a big step forward. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701592.html

Democrats to stress economic issues in the new Congress, including raising the minimum wage, college affordability, and health care. They understand that it was middle-class anxiety that got them elected and they want to address such anxiety. Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801001.html

Former Bush allies are turning against Bush on Iraq including the man some say is the "architect" of the Iraq War, Richard Pearle, whom, we are told, resents being called the War's "architect". Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801076.html

Democratic State Chairs applaud Dean's "50-State Strategy". Article link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061118/ap_on_el_ge/democrats_dean

The so-called War on Terror could soon be the most expensive war since WWII, surpassing Vietnam. Article link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-iraq-costs_x.htm

Tony Blair doesn't dispute David Frost description of Iraq as having been "pretty much a diaster" during interview. Article link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2459292,00.html

Why political reporters in Washington, D.C. are like high school and junior high bullies Article link: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/11/kewl-kidz-and-queen-bees.html

Incoming Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus of Montana tells Bush that Social Security privatization is "off the table". Article link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Baucus_Finance_Agenda.html

From a online article by an editor at CBSNews.com: "Really, it's just a simple thesis: The men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history. And for 12 years, the media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do." Read whole article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/15/opinion/meyer/main2182755.shtml

According to the Bush Administration, Americans are no longer hungry, now they suffer from "low food security." The number of Americans suffering from "low food security", or what non-ideologue conservatives call hunger, at least part of last year was 12% or 35 million people. Read whole article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html?nav=rss_email/components

From the "We kid you not" department:

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women." Read whole article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601929.html

Time Magazine, hardly a bastion of liberalism, takes on five myths about the 2006 election. Read whole article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1560212,00.html

Senators Harry Reid and Barak Obama go after GOP dirty tricks such as harassing robo-calls and misleading flyers designed to influence elections. Read more:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002009.php

Speaking of "dirty tricks", a follower of Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter was arrested by the FBI after supposedly sending threatening letters to media figures and liberal politicians. Read more here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15721895/

Is Bush's Brain, aka Karl Rove, about to leave the White House following last week's election? Article link: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/17/rove-departure

Rove's influence on wane, but sources inside the White House say he will stay on. Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19rove.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1163912400&en=3d7666a9cf7533df&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Reader Submission: General Abizaid's Testimony Raises Questions

General Abizaid testified before Congress this past week. Under questioning by Senator Talent, General Abizaid acknowledged that embedding America advisers farther down to the company and platoon level of the Iraqi military would be useful, yet Adizaid stated there would only be embedded down through the battalion level team. Translation, no direct embeds at lower levels, a direct contradiction. Who is calling the shots for the U.S. Forces in Iraq, the military or the politicians in the Pentagon?
Kim Kendall

Editor's Note: Reader submissions are the opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of MCDAC, its officers, or other writers on this website.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Why Local Campaigns Often Fail

Local campaigns often fail to realize that they need both a message and a marketing plan. The message needs to be developed first. Candidates need to be able to express in one or two sentences why they are seeking office. They need to hone the message so that it can be summed up in one short paragraph. The message needs to be the same at the beginning of the campaign as it is at the end of the campaign. Gary Hart once said that Ronald Reagan was the last president who could sum up his political program in 12 seconds: "Government is too big, make it smaller; defense is too weak, make it stronger; and taxes are too high, make them lower." Although Hart may have meant his observation as a joke, think about this: in our media saturated world, the candidate who can sum up his/her message in 12 seconds has a distinct advantage over the candidate who takes 12 minutes. Local candidates often get into races with no clear idea of why they are running or what message they want to communicate to voters. Such candidates shouldn't be surprised when they lose.

After the message has been developed, then a local candidate needs to develop a marketing plan. How is the campaign going to get its message out to the voters? What advertising vehicles is it going to use? Who are the voters it is trying to reach? No business would spend thousands of dollars on promotion without some sort of plan. Yet, local candidates often do just that. They spend literally thousands of dollars on advertising without a plan. Such expenditures may result in victory, but it is not likely, especially if they are running against a candidate who has both a message and a plan.

Local campaigns need to work on the 2MS: message and marketing. Local government is too important to approach a campaign for local office like a high-school student election.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

MCDAC Democratic Newsletter for 11.17.2006

More on Medina County Election Results

A lot of people who have recently moved into Medina County or recently got involved in politics may be wondering why so many long time Medina County Democrats were so excited by last Tuesday's results. (Read the rest at http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-on-medina-county-election-results.html

The On-Going Battle in American Politics

Since the creation of the United States, there has been an on-going debate in America over what is and is not the proper role of government. (Read the rest at http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-going-battle-in-american-politics.html )

Dem TV Video on the U.S. Supreme Court

Last week we put up a video on Dem TV that raises a question about the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to view the video: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/dem-tv-video-on-us-supreme-court.html

Rove is Not a Genius

In 2000 the "boy genius" Karl Rove, aka Turd Blossom as the President fondly refers to him, sent George W. Bush to California during the last week of the campaign. (Read the rest at http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/rove-is-not-genius-in-2000-boy-genius.html)

Name Recognition Trumps Everything

This is very hard for candidates to understand, especially if they have never run for office before, but name recognition is extremely important. (Read the rest at http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/name-recognition-trumps-everything.html)

Articles/Links

Is Hillary getting ready to announce this winter for the 2008 nomination? The Hill, a Congressional newspaper that covers the Senate and House, seems to think so in this article: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/111406/clinton.html

Senator-elect Jim Webb does the unthinkable and actually talks about America's growing class differences. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

Is support for "free trade" bills crumbling? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/business/15trade.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1163566800&en=87fe6f8f64b83576&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Republicans upset over Bush announcing that Rumsfeld would resign after the 2006 midterm election. Many believe that it cost them control of one or both Houses of Congress. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people. http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/11/12/ap3166168.html

How King Karl got is so wrong. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15675318/site/newsweek/ And how the media continues to kiss his rotund behind. http://mediamatters.org/columns/200611140003

The Boston Globe reports on how the battle over Social Security laid the groundwork for the Dems taking control of Congress on November 7th, 2006: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/12/social_security_at_roots_of_shift/?page=1

Remember oversight by Congress of the Executive Branch? Well, the Democrats plan to restore the concept in Washington. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/washington/12oversight.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=07d26de296e6c4dd&ex=1320987600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin rules out running for the Democratic nomination in 2008. In his statement he said that since the Democrats took control of the Senate, he believes that he can be more effective working in the Senate than running for president. It will be interesting to see if other Senators such as Biden, Kerry, and even Clinton find staying in the Senate more attractive now that they will be in the majority for at least two years and maybe the next six. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_el_pr/feingold_president

A very interesting profile on Harry Reid, the new Senate Majority Leader. One of the dumbest things that Frist did, and he did a whole lot of dumb things, was work to get rid of Tom Daschle. He got rid of Daschle and got Reid in his life who has been a much more effective Minority Leader than Daschle ever was. Thanks for helping us out, Bill, you idiot. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/us/politics/10reid.html?ei=5094&en=76271991a422d347&hp=&ex=1163221200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1163174308-45H8yOpFr16LD4tXCLuIHg

A lot of people don't realize that while Nancy Pelosi has lived in San Fransisco, where she raised her family, she actually grew up in Baltimore where both her father and her brother were mayor. This article points out how she learned politics from watching her father. One thing that that taught her was the importance of government in helping those who can't help themselves. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901581.html

Bush wants John Bolton to be confirmed as U.N. Ambassador, but Senator Lincoln Chaffee is not going to back him on the Bolton nomination in the committee. According to Joe Biden, incoming Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Bolton nomination is "dead." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6134734.stm

From the "I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a Democrat" department. After winning both the House and the Senate and a whole lot of state legislative seats, James Carville has the bright idea of getting rid of Howard Dean as DNC Chair. Why? Because Dean wants to build up the Democratic Party in all 50 states. Only a Washington insider married to a high-level Republican operative would think that is a bad idea. Oh, and it gets better, he wants to replace him with Harold Ford, who just lost the Tennessee Senate race. Boy, that's just makes a lot of freaking sense, doesn't it. http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=56467

By the way, James, a poster over at Red State, a conservative blog, credits Dean's "50-state strategy" with "destroying" the Delaware GOP.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/j_map/2006/nov/14/is_howard_deans_strategy_working

Lincoln Chaffee, who just lost a race as an incumbent Republican Senator from Rhode Island, is thinking about leaving the Republican Party. Now on the one hand this could be seen as "sour grapes" but on the other hand it could be seen as the harbinger of things to come. Over the last several election cycles the New England states have become more and more Democratic as the national GOP has gone further and further to the right under Rove and Bush. Over the next several years, look for other NE Republicans to move into the Democratic party. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_el_se/rhode_island_senate

Two of the six newly elected Senators come from the South, four of them, including Sherrod Brown, come from states that Bush carried twice. Clearly Democrats can win in so-called "red states". This article explains why we can't write off the South: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_el_se/rhode_island_senate

Twenty-four states have now raised the minimum wage, with Ohio joining five other states last Tuesday. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/44084/

Democrats pledge ethics overhaul when the take control in January. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_el_ge/ethics_overhaul

For the love of God, can we finally put to rest the idea that the media is somehow "liberal"? Read this blog entry and tell me why it is that when Bush admits to lying, the Washington Post can't bring itself to call the lie a lie. What is with these people that they are just afraid to say that this administration tells lies? http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/extremely-odd-behavior-from-washington.html

Franklin County won't count provisional ballots until after the OSU-Michigan game. http://www.dispatch.com/news/news.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/10/20061110-A1-00.html

Washington Post article on Sherrod Brown's victory in the Ohio Senate race. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111001454.html?nav=rss_politics

Bush's popularity slips to a new low in the Newsweek as only 31% of Americans approve of the job he is doing. Frankly, that seems a bit high to us, but as Abraham Lincoln once said "you can fool some of the people all of the time." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15667442/site/newsweek/

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Dem TV Video on the U.S. Supreme Court

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QUprfwpxp2w">

More on Medina County Election Results

A lot of people who have recently moved into Medina County or recently got involved in politics may be wondering why so many long time Medina County Democrats were so excited by last Tuesday's results. Here's why: Prior to last Tuesday's elections, it had been 20 years since a Democratic nominee for President or Governor carried Medina County The last candidate to do so was Dick Celeste in 1986. It had been 14 years since a Democratic nominee for Senator last carried Medina county. Prior to Sherrod Brown, the last Senatorial candidate to do so was John Glenn in 1992. What makes the results of last week's victory in Medina County by both Strickland and Brown more impressive was that neither was running as an incumbent. As one long time Medina County Democrat said this past week: "I haven't felt so good the day after an election since 1986".

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Rove is Not a Genius

In 2000 the "boy genius" Karl Rove, aka Turd Blossom as the President fondly refers to him, sent George W. Bush to California during the last week of the campaign. This was breathlessly hailed by the national media as a brilliant tactic because he was expanding the playing field. Al Gore's people sent him to Florida. On election night California went for Gore by a huge margin and Florida went down to the wire and beyond. Bush only carried Florida because the U.S. Supreme Court decided to pull off a black-robed coup and give him the election. This year, during the closing weeks of the campaign, Rove has the GOP spend money in Michigan, North Dakota, and New Jersey. Once again he tried to expand the playing field and once again he came up short as Democratic candidates not only carried those three states but Virgiana, Missouri, and Montana by narrow margins. Once again you have to wonder how this guy ever got the label of "genius". One thing about the national media pundits, though, they don't let the facts confuse them. In their dictionaries Rove is a political genius and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise.

The On-Going Battle in American Politics

Since the creation of the United States, there has been an on-going debate in America over what is and is not the proper role of government. It started with the adoption of the United States Constitution and continues to this day. That debate is at the heart of the partisan divide between the two parties. If you ask Republicans and Democrats what role does government have in educating children, guaranteeing access to health care, protecting consumers from shoddy products and services, and helping Americans with retirement, you are likely to get different answers based on what each side sees as the proper role of government. Democrats can usually win this debate, if they engage in it and are not distracted by Republican attempts to confuse the electorate and distract it. Most Americans don't agree with the Republicans that the government has no or little role to play in areas such as education, health care, consumer protection, and retirement security. When Democrats primarily focus on these pocketbook issues, they win. When, however, they primarily focus on contentious social issues they usually lose.

Think about the just completed campaigns for governor and senator in Ohio. Both Strickland and Brown focused on pocketbook issues and both were very successful. Most Ohioans don't want their government to only be responsive to the rich and well-connected. Most Ohioans want their government to work for the middle class. If, however, we don't tell them that is what we want to do and if the other side is telling them that all we want to do is encourage abortions, allow gays to marry, take away guns, and protect terrorists, then we are going to lost elections. In politics you have to have a message and then you have to deliver that message. Too often the Democratic message is "we're not the other guys." That simply doesn't cut it. As Harry Truman once said, "If the choice is between a Republican and a Democrat who sounds like a Republican, the public will choose the real thing every time."

Name Recognition Trumps Everything

This is very hard for candidates to understand, especially if they have never run for office before, but name recognition is extremely important. Indeed in counties such as Medina, which is experiencing a lot of growth, it is probably the most important part of winning elections. Candidates are people who are very interested in politics and government. It is easy for them to believe that everyone is as interested in these matters as they are. After all, their friends and family all know they are running for office, doesn't this mean that the rest of the public knows as well? Well, no, it doesn't.

Put yourself in the position of the voter in last week's election. In Medina County there were 27 candidates major party candidates running in 14 races. (There would have been 28, but our county auditor was unopposed). Not counting the county auditor, you had 26 candidates to try and remember when you went to vote. That is a lot of information to carry around in your head. You are going to look for ways to shortcut the process. One way is by party identification, that is, only voting for candidates who are members of one political party or the other. Another way, although we don't like to discuss it, is by racial or gender identification, that is, only voting for candidates on racial or gender grounds. Usually most voters, however, don't vote for reasons of party, race, or gender. That leaves name identification, voting for the names that you know.

Sorting out candidates by name identification allows voters to go through the process of voting quickly. If they recognize the name, and if the recognition is not negative, then they are more likely than not to vote for that name. This is why incumbents have such an advantage. They have a whole term in office to get known whereas their opponents have only a few weeks, or at best, a few months.

Name identification also explains why, even in last week's anti-GOP wave in Ohio, local Republicans still won. The scandals in state government weren't scandals involving local candidates. No local Republican in Medina County got money from Bob Ney, or benefited from Coingate, or was a part of the Taft Administration. Therefore, those scandals weren't going to be as effective as Democrats may have thought in getting rid of local GOP incumbents or GOP candidates with prior ballot exposure.

What local Democratic candidates need to work on is getting better known before they run for office. At least one to two years out a person considering running for a county-wide race in a county as big as Medina County should be working on becoming known. Trying to become well known the year you run for office isn't going to work unless you have a lot of money to spend building up name identification.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Democratic Newsletter for November 10, 2006

MCDAC Democratic Newsletter for 11.10.2006

Medina County Unofficial Election Results

With all 150 precincts counted, the unofficial results show that Ted Strickland, Sherrod Brown, Richard Cordray, Jennifer Brunner, and Marc Dann all carried Medina County. Locally Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack won re-election by over 7,000 votes. A complete list of the unofficial results for Medina County can be viewed here: http://www.boe.co.medina.oh.us:2000/results-1.htm

Huge Increase in Medina County Vote for Governor

Just in case you are wondering if GOTV works consider these numbers. In 2002 Tim Hagen lost Medina County by over 10,000 votes and 47.048 voters voted in that race. In 2006 Ted Strickland carries Medina County by around 13,000 votes according to the unofficial results and 64,329 voters vote for governor. That is an increase of 17281 voters for a percentage increase of 36.7%. It was that increase in voters that led to five out of six partisan state-wide candidates winning Medina County. That is why GOTV is so important and why party chairs stress it so much. Thanks to all of you who participated in GOTV in Medina County!

The Return of Good Old-Fashioned Democratic Economic Populism

Sherrod Brown's successful campaign for the U.S. Senate was an example of using economic populism to win an election. A previous post at www.mcdac.blogspot.com discussed what some Republican commentators call the rise of "Wal-Mart Republicans". http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/08/going-after-wal-mart-republicans.html The thesis is that Republicans use cultural issues to appear to be populists while selling out working and middle class families on economic issues. The way to counter such tactics is to do what Sherrod did: fight cultural populism with economic populism.

Speak out against unfair trade policies that care more about businesses making money from imports than saving American jobs. Speak out against a health system that is broken and not protecting American families. Speak out against a war that sends the sons and daughters of American families to die on the sands of the Middle East in support of failed policies.

Because Sherrod spoke of protecting Ohio's middle class families and because he campaigned everywhere in Ohio, he is out next United States Senator. He also deprived DeWine of the ability to turn middle class families against him on so-called "value" issues. Attempts to link Sherrod to culturally divisive issues such as abortion weren't successful. Why? Because Sherrod was giving Ohioans the choice of voting to oppose policies that are destroying the middle class. Hopefully other Ohio politicans will follow his example.

The Bullies were Beat

One of the worst things about Karl Rove's success has been the way he was praised by the national media. It wasn't just that they gave attention to a man who practices a mean brand of politics. The real harm was that Karl Rove's success encouraged other Republicans to try the same sort of tactics. Whether it was robocalls against Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland or a nasty letter dropped on Judge Kovack the weekend before the election, the genesis was the same: a belief that all that matters is winning.

Well, here is a news flash for all the Republican bullies who model themselves on King Karl: the people are smarter than you think. You may have some short term success with those tactics, but eventually the people figure out that you are nothing more than a bully with an elephant pin.

MCDAC Report on the 2006 ElectionYear

In 2006 the Medina County Democratic Action Committee printed and distributed over 92,000 copies of Common Sense, averaging over 23,000 copies per issue. MCDAC sent over approximately 10,000 email messages per month. These messages included the weekly email Democratic Newsletter, messages on behalf of local candidates, and messages on behalf of the Medina County Democratic Party and allied organizations. None of this would have been possible without the help of our donors and volunteers. We had a great 2006 election year and look forward to being involved in the local elections of 2007.

Dem TV Project

This past summer MCDAC launched the Dem TV project. As of Saturday morning, November 4, 2006 there had been 3316 views of Dem TV video clips on You Tube. A survey of the numbers shows that shorter clips or clips involving national issues or candidates for national office are be viewed more often than other clips.

New Dem TV Clip

We have posted a new Dem TV clip called "Supreme Court Question". Check it out by going to http://www.demtv.org and then clicking on the link. If you like the clip, please forward to your friends. Please feel free to send your comments about the clip to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.


Medina County's Newest Democrat?

Republican Medina County Commissioner Sharon Ray had her picture taken with Ted Strickland at some event. Then, miraculously, this picture was sent out by some newly created group that just happens to have a Republican chairperson. Apparently Sharon wanted to be identified with Ted's team and not with her own. We can certainly see why. Maybe she is thinking about a political conversion.

CNN Exit Poll for Ohio

CNN does exit polling for U.S. elections and then posts the results on the Internet. It has some very fascinating information. In Ohio, for example, Sherrod Brown took a majority of the votes from both men and women, running slightly better among women. He took a majority of the votes in all age categories. There is other information available. Check out the exit polls at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.2.html


Interesting Articles/Links

Black voters tell the GOP "it isn't the color of a candidate's skin, its what he or she stands for" by rejecting high-profile black Republican candidates such as Blackwell. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/black.republicans.ap/index.html

In a 1999 war game played by U.S. military personnel called "Desert Crossing", the military was asked to assume that Saddam had been overthrown by a war. The goal of the game: figure out what happens next. The conclusion of the game? Even 400,000 troops wouldn't guarantee stability. How many did Rumsfeld put in Iraq? About 140,000. The incompetence of this administration would be laughable if it wasn't resulting in the deaths of Americans and Iraqis. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_war_games

The incompetence of this adminstration is breathtaking. The latest example? The Bush Administration posted documents seized from Iraq giving instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb on the Internet in Arabiac. When this was pointed out by the New York Times, they took the information off the website. Of course the reason was it was posted was because of the insistence of House and Senate Republicans who were hoping that they would find information of Iraqis WMDs. By the way, it was posted over the objections of Negroponte, the National Intelligence Director. http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/11/posted_by_frank.html

Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi says that the clearest way that Bush could show his desire for a change is by firing Rumsfled, Bush announces Rumsfeld's "resignation" about 30 minutes later. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163026213065&call_pageid=968332188492

Here's a report about how the U.S. ignored warnings from the British that invading Iraq and toppling its government would lead to "chaos". Apparently the Blair government told those making the predications to stop making them during the run-up to the U.S. led invasion in 2003. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1962686.ece

Was the 2006 mid-term election the "revenge of the left" or the "revenge of the center"? E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post poses that question in his analysis of what happened this past Tuesday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802080.html

Here was the Montgomery plan: she would drop out of the race for Governor and run for Attorney General. She would be the lone survivor of the Ken Blackwell slaughter and then she would run for Governor in 2010 and take out Ted Strickland. Well, something happened to that plan and it is named Marc Dann. Apparently Montgomery is so shocked that she isn't taking questions from the media. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1163065365195850.xml&coll=2

This is why you fight everywhere and concede nothing to the GOP: Strickland courted rural Ohio; it paid off. Cleveland Plain Dealer. November 9, 2006.
http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1163065486195850.xml&coll=2

With thousands of absentee and provisional ballots remaining to be counted, Deborah Pryce, Republican Congresswoman from Columbus wants her opponent to concede. Her opponent, Franklin County Commissioner Mary Kilroy refuses to do so pointing out that Pryce's lead is about 2,200 votes and the number of ballots left to count is around 15,000. What is with these Republicans not wanting to count all the votes? http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election.php?story=225307

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Democratic Newsletter for November 3, 2006

MCDAC Democratic Newsletter

Only 4 Days Left Until November 7th, election.

Sherrod Brown Rally in Wadsworth

On Saturday, October 28, between 125-150 Medina County Democrats rallied in Wadsworth in support of Sherrod Brown, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senator from Ohio. Before Sherrod arrived, the crowd greeted local candidates such as John Dean running for Medina County Commissioner, Judge Mary Kovack running for re-election as Medina County Domestic Relations Judge, and Attorney Clair Dickinson who is running for the Ninth District Court of Appeals. After a rousing introduction from Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic Chair, Sherrod fired up the crowd by pointing out that he is drawing sharp distinctions between his record and that of incumbent Senator Mike DeWine. Sherrod reminded the crowd that on the War in Iraq, stem cell research, outsourcing American jobs, and health care, he, and not DeWine is the candidate who represents the majority view in Ohio.

The rally was organized by Marti Hallstrom from Wadsworth and Julie Batey, head of the Wadsworth Democratic group. If you want to get involved with the Wadsworth Dems and help turn Wadsworth "blue", contact Julie at juliebatey@neo.rr.com.

Fran Strickland at Medina Dem HQ

On Wednesday evening, November 1, 60 to 70 Medina County Dems showed up at Medina County Dem HQ to greet Ohio's next first lady, Fran Strickland, as she worked the phones to get out the vote in Medina County. Fran's appearance marked the beginning of our efforts to maximize the Medina County vote for Ted Strickland, Sherrod Brown, and the rest of the Democratic ticket. There is still time to get involved with the GOTV effort. To find out how you can get involved, contact David Brown at dnbrown@zoominternet.net.

DeWine Draws Six at Medina County GOP HQ

According to a story in the October 29th edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Mike DeWine had six people show up at the Medina County GOP Headquarters to take part in a canvass in Medina. The DeWine event was at the same time as the Sherrod Brown rally which drew between 125 and 150. Hmm, wonder which side has the enthusiasm this election?

Medina County Young Dems Election Night Party

The Medina County Young Democrats are having an election night party at Buffalo Wild Wings on Route 18 in Medina starting at 8 pm on November 7th. Everyone is invited and you may bring a guest. The party will be in the backroom of the restaurant. For more information contact Amanda Armstrong at amanda.m.armstrong@gmail.com

Iraq Articles

George Will refers to Iraqi War as a "fiasco" in an article blasting Cheney.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15460708/site/newsweek/

Audit finds that Bush administration cannot account for thousands of missing firearms in supposedly intended for the Iraqi security forces. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/ap_on_go_ot/iraq_reconstruction_audits

Iraqi War features prominently in Dem ads against Republicans in races for the U.S. House and Senate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_go_pr_wh/election_rdp

American military taking orders from Iraqi government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103100452.html

Other Articles

Wal-Mart fires the ad-man who came up with the anti-Harold Ford "Bimbo" ad in Tennessee. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_el_se/tennessee_senate_wal_mart

Dems seek to make the 2006 elections a referendum on the failed policies of George W. Bush.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/ap_on_el_se/election_rdp

Democrats expand the playing field in the 2006 campaign by buying tv time in seats once regarded as "safe" by the GOP. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=480

Dispatch columnist blasts Republicans for their history of resorting to smears to win campaigns.
http://www.dispatch.com/editorials/editorials.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/29/20061029-D7-01.html

Ohioans are showing increasing interest in politics.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/state/15891305.htm

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Polls Show Independents Breaking for Dems

Over the last five years the GOP, under the guidance of Karl Rove and George W. Bush, have consistently played to the "base" of the Republican Party. They have consistently rejected bi-partisanship in favor of policies and politics that rallied their base regardless of the effect it had on the rest of the electorate. They assumed that they would be able to spin off enough independents and Dems to get Bush re-elected and expand or keep their hold on Congress.

For the most part it worked. They picked up control of the Senate in 2002, got Bush re-elected in 2004, and picked up five House seats that year. The problem, though, is that while their base is happy with the policies of this government, independents are not. The election of 2004 was followed by an attempt to privatize Social Security, which so far has failed. The Iraq War gets increasingly unpopular, and they are in danger of losing both Houses of Congress in this year's elections.

If you look closely at the polling data it is because GOP support is cratering among independents. On some issues they are getting almost the same numbers among independents as among Democrats, and that isn't good.

Of course the problem for Democratic candidates is that most independents don't have the same intensity about politics as committed partisans. Because of that fact, independents don't vote as consistently as either registered Republicans or registered Democrats. This election, though, may be different. If independents show up and vote they way the pre-election polls show them voting, this election will be a good one for us and a bad one for them.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Republicans Have to go Negative to Win

One of the talking points of the GOP is that they are the party of "ideas" and that the Democrats don't have any "ideas." This is almost always the claim of Republicans in Washington and they get a remarkably large number of Beltway Journalists to buy into it. Well, here is a question: if the GOP is the "Party of Ideas" that are supported by the public, then why are so many Republican campaigns nothing more than one long attack ad?

Think about it. Think of all the ads you are seeing on TV by Republicans. How many of them are about ideas or public policies? The House Republican Campaign Committee recently poured eight million dollars into 30 House races. According to the breakdown of the money, about 98% of that money will be spent attacking Democratic candidates and only about 2% will be spent supporting Republican candidates.

The reality, of course, is that the GOP is not the "Party of Ideas" supported by ordinary working Americans. Such Americans don't want the privatization of Social Security, or unbalanced budgets because of tax cuts for the wealthy, or a war in Iraq that does nothing to improve American security. The GOP is, however, the "Party of Ideas" for the well-connected, or the rich, or for those who advocate war while keeping their own children home safe and sound.

Since such people don't amount to a majority in any election, the GOP uses scare tactics and smear campaigns funded by its rich backers to try and defeat Democrats. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Don't be fooled, however, into thinking that Democrats are losing elections because of the superior ideas of the Republicans. It just isn't true.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes use of the above without attribution.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Republican Protection?

One of the essential purposes of any government, indeed perhaps the primary purpose, is to provide protection for those that it governs. People formed governments because they realized that they needed this protection. Protection from the world at large, from outsiders, and from each other. Since January 20, 2001, the Republican Party has had complete control over the Federal government. They control the Congress, the Presidency, and the United States Supreme Court. So, given that control, how are they doing?

Not so well, it appears. They couldn't protect the residents of the Gulf Coast from the effects of Hurricane Katrina, they can't protect Americans in Iraq from attack, and they can't even protect teenage pages from the sexual predations of one of their own. They are failing in the most basic purposes of government.

One of the ongoing debates between conservatives and liberals is what dangers government should protect us from, what type of protection falls within the purview of the government. Liberals, for example, argue that government has an obligation to make sure that all Americans have access to medical care, conservatives argue that this should be left to the market. Liberals argue that Americans' natural environment should be protected, conservatives want to leave protection of the environment to corporations and businesses. Liberals argue that Americans should be protected from a penniless old age, once again conservatives argue that this should be left to the market.

There is ample room to debate these points, but the failure to protect displayed in Hurricane Katrina, or in Iraq, or with Representative Mark Foley is different. You don't protect Americans by disregarding warnings that levees might break because of a Category 5 Hurricane. You don't protect Americans by putting them in a foreign country with no plan to win or to exit. You surely don't protect American children by covering up for a sexual predatory Congressman for political purposes.

All of these failures represent the most basic of failures. All of them are rooted in the philosophy of the modern Republican Party. That philosophy demands that only those with money, or access, or connections deserve the protection of government. We have about 38 days to make sure that Americans get this message: you can't count on those who hate government to run government anymore than you can count on the devil to save your soul.
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

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.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

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.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

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.

Friday, September 15, 2006

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.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

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.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

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.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

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.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

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.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

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.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

"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.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

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.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

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.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

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.