Reader Submission: Commissioner Geissman is being an obstructionist

Medina County Commissioner Pat Geissman is playing the old and stale republican argument against helping school districts. In her recent "Gazette" article she asked if the governor and legislature should have a chance to do something about school funding. The legislature’s political balance has been republican for about 16 years now. The past 13 years that same legislature has ignored 4 rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court to fulfill their legal duty and follow the Constitution of the State of Ohio. Is Ted Strickland going to make them suddenly change their posture? She states the obvious that voters don’t like property taxes. Evidently her obstructionist attitude has caused brain lock. A sales tax is not a property tax. It is the fairest way to spread an increase. The amount of the tax you pay is based on what you spend. Her shortsightedness also seems to ignore the fact that everyone who buys something in Medina County would pay not just those of us who live here. She has not done her homework when she says that a sales tax isn’t meant for schools. The very law language, which requires the county to put it on the ballot specifically, references school districts. Geissman’s blockading of a new concept is further supported by her argument that maybe the county will need an increase although she doesn’t think so. Thinking like that can be applied in almost every situation anyone ever faces. Something may impact on my decision someday so I will not have the courage to make a decision today. She admits that she isn’t an expert on school funding and that local school boards are very capable and responsive. Those boards put the issue on her desk and she has admitted she isn’t capable in school funding so she is going to ignore the wishes of the school boards and be unresponsive. Obviously Geissman has learned well from her school-funding mentor Chuck Calvert. Over 60% of Ohio spoke loudly last November and elected Democrat Ted Strickland Governor with the directive to fix school funding. Geissman evidently didn’t hear or read about that message. She needs to be sent her own message when she is next up for election.

Dave Osborne

Bloomberg Reports Wolfowitz Driving Away Managers at World Bank

Bloomberg News reported that managers of the World Bank are very concerned that Paul Wolfowitz, one of the geniuses who came up with idea of the Iraq War, is driving away experienced managers and replacing them with political allies. These political allies are connected to American action in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again the Bushies show that when it comes to government, what matters isn't competence but loyalty. Loyalty to Bush, to neo-con principles, loyalty to the cause. The Bushies trash every governmental agency or function they touch. One can only imagine the damage they will do to our country before they leave office.

The Rise of Suburban Populism?

David Ignatius is a columnist for the Washington Post who wrote a column recently quoting Rahm Emanuel, who led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election. Emanuel referred to something he calls "suburban populism." Here is a quote from the Ignatius's column:

Middle-class voters are angry because they feel that their standard of living -- from education to health care to retirement -- is under assault. For a generation, GOP strategists encouraged these suburban voters to focus their anxiety and resentment on urban minorities, but Emanuel argues that isn’t working anymore.

“Today, the new welfare queen is corporate America,” he says. Suburban voters, like those in the inner cities, “are angry at powerful citizens who are getting a better deal than they are.” Thanks to this suburban populism, the Democrats picked up Republican seats in Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut and other states.

The Democratic leadership is fashioning a legislative programme that tries to respond to this public anger quickly and decisively. Pelosi’s agenda for the first 100 hours is a set of tight, doable proposals -- raise the minimum wage, ease terms for student loans, tighten budget rules on congressional spending, cut subsidies for the oil industry, cut drug costs.What’s interesting is that these proposals, so far, have been getting scores of Republican votes. For the rest of the year, Emanuel says, the leadership hopes to stress energy independence (with fuel-saving efficiency standards for appliances and cars) and a move toward better health care for children. (You can read the whole column by clicking on this entry's title. )

Now, readers of this blog may know that we believe that concentrating on economic issues is the way Democrats win elections. We think that the Sherrod Brown's successful campaign here in Ohio shows how this works. As a friend of ours pointed out, Sherrod was the first politician in a long time to come out and explicitly say he was going to fight for the middle class. The result was a stunning victory over an established Republican, even in counties like Medina County which usually votes Republican.

What progressives and Democrats need to do is sit down and come up with policy proposals that can be used in the 2007 off year elections to show suburban voters that electing Democrats at the local level will make their communities better. Perhaps what is needed is a conference that focuses on using local government, like township, village council, and city council positions to make life better for voters.

In a democracy political campaigns are about what is the proper role of government. That question is, or should be, at the root of all political campaigns. Democrats need to make it the issue in this year's local elections.

Kucinch to Chair Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Attempt to Reinstate Fairness Doctrine

The Center for Public Integrity reports on a speech given by Dennis Kucinich where he announces that as chair of Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, he is going to open the issue of re-establishing the "Fairness Doctrine". Until its demise in the 1980s, the Doctrine assured that opposing viewpoints were heard on electronic media such as radio and television. Since its demise, we have seen the rise of virulent talk radio represented by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Ingram, etc. The reason why these shows predominate on the public's airwaves is because the owners don't have to give opposing viewpoints an opportunity to respond.

The article also reports that Kucinich wants to conduct hearings on the concentration of media into fewer and fewer corporations and on the role of the Federal Communications Commission in regulating the media. Kucinich also said that he supported a Federal shield law for both bloggers and journalists.

Kucinich gave his remarks at the National Conference for Media Reform. He made his remarks in an unannounced speech to about 2,000 delegates. You can read the Center for Public Integrity's report on Kucinich's speech by clicking on the link in this entry's title.

Find Out Who Owns the Media

The Center for Media Integrity has a really cool website in which you can find out who owns the media in a particular area using zip codes as a search term. You can see how this works by clicking on the link for the search page for the 44256 zip code by clicking on the link in this entry's title. The map that the site uses is interactive and you can find out ownership for both cable and broadband television stations, radio stations, and newspapers. The map allows you to change the area that you are looking at and to zoom in and out to make the area bigger and smaller.

The site tells you who owns what and links to websites of the owning companies. It is good to know which company owns what in the event you are organizing campaigns to pressure advertisers, or you want to know where to send complaints or inquiries.

Long Wait for Bush's New Way Forward a Mistake

Interesting article from the Washington Post about how the long delay in announcing Bush's plan from the release of the Iraq Study Group Report has hurt Bush's political support. The article also contains a short but significant sentence about how Democrats have offered several alternatives to Bush's plan. The fact that the writer decided to mention the fact that Democrats have offered alternatives is significant because it shows that the media is no longer accepting Bush's spin on events. Bush is going to have a difficult final two years in Washington getting anything done if Republicans keep bailing on him and the media doesn't cover for him. Of course, his problem is a nation's hope. (The WP article is linked to this entry's title.)

Bogus GOP Outrage over Boxer's Comments to Rice

Okay, so the Republicans thought about it overnight and realized that Sen. Barbara Boxer handed Secretary of State Rice her lunch on Thursday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This happened when Boxer pointed out to Rice that neither she nor Boxer had family members in harm's way in Iraq. Boxer doesn't because her children are too old and her grandchildren too young. Rice doesn't because no one from her immediate family serves in the U.S. Armed Forces. Boxer's point was that Rice like most of the Bushies don't have any family members who are sacrificing by being in Iraq.

Now, the Bushies understand this point. Even they aren't that stupid. They don't want people dwelling on this because people might begin to wonder why the Bush twins aren't over in Iraq helping to advance Daddy's noble crusade. So, they did what they normally do, they attacked Boxer for supposedly being against single women, being anti-feminist, (that came courtesy of Tony Snow and the New York Post) and being anti-black (That last one was courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.)

Now, we all know this is a crock. Tony Snow and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers who are still loyal to Bubble-Boy could care less about feminists. Rush could care less about black people. This is just some bs to try and distract attention from the point Boxer was making. For the Bushies sacrifice is for the other guy.

House Republicans Splintering

According the article linked to in this entry's title, House Republicans, freed from the heavy hand of Tom DeLay and his henchmen are leaving their party to vote with Democrats on issues such as increasing the minimum wage, adopting PayGo budgeting, and authorizing stem-cell research. This in the face of the Republican's leadership claims that the GOP would fracture the Democrats.

One of the facts that most of the mainsteam media doesn't really talk about is the ability of Nancy Pelosi to keep the House Democrats united. On the minimum wage bill, not one Democrat defected. Last year when Bush unveiled his Social Security plan no House Democrat supported it. As we go deeper and deeper into this legislation session, Democrats should pick up momentum which doesn't bode well for the Republicans. Increasingly Bush will be vetoing popular legislation, which will set the stage for the 2008 election cycle.

Bush Doesn't Ask for Tax Increase for War

According to the Bloomberg Reports, George W. Bush, aka Bubble-Boy, is the first president in 150 years not to seek a tax increase to finance a war.(You can read the whole Bloomberg article by clicking on this entry's title.) This is going back to the Mexican-American war in the 1840s. All other presidents were smart enough to realize that you can't fight a war without a tax increase unless you are willing to go into debt. Now, the Republicans will try to argue that the national debt is going down. This is because the national debt doesn't count intra-governmental debt, ie, what the American government borrows from the Social Security trust fund to finance the government.

If Democrats wanted to go after Bush on the deficit, the first step would be to resurrect the lockbox concept that Al Gore talked about in 2000. This means passing a law that prohibits Social Security and Medicare funds from being used for anything other than those two programs. The immediate effect of this would be to illustrate how bad off the government finances are and to force reality into the debate about our government's spending and tax policies. It would also put the Bush administration into a real bind. They couldn't support such a move and opposing it would be politically unpopular. It would also reinforce the Democratic Congress's reputation as a defender of these two very popular programs.

The Iraq-Iran War?

According to the article linked to in this entry's title, NBC News anchors were very puzzled by comments Bush made to them during an off the record briefing on his speech. This article quotes Tim Russert as saying that apparently Bush expects Iran to surface as a problem very soon.

This would also explain why, during his speech on Wednesday, he announced that the U.S. is sending Patriot missiles to Iraq. Since these are missiles used against military airplanes and missiles, and since the insurgents in Iraq don't have such military assets, why are these units being sent to Iraq? Could it be because the Bush administration expects a military confrontation with Iran?

A friend of ours once told us that Bush will get out of Iraq by trying to go through Iran. We thought he was joking. He said that he wasn't joking and was being serious. It sounds like the same sort of thinking that got us embroiled in this war in the first place.

Sacrifice Increases for Army Reserve & National Guard

The U.S. Army is increasing the time that a Army Reserves or National Guard may be called for service in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In the past the Army had a policy that the Reserve and Guard could not be called for duty in Afghanistan or Iraq for more than 24 cumulative months. The new policy is that they may not be called for duty for more than 24 consecutive months, but there is no limit on the total amount of time they may be called. The Pentagon spokesperson said, however, that the Pentagon wants to limit deployments to 12 consecutive months. (Click on the entry's title to read the whole article.)

Let's see: Bush won't tax the rich to pay for his war, he won't call upon his supporters to join the Army to fight the war, but he will extend the amount of time that citizen-soldiers are ordered to fight in the war. Yep, that's Bubble-Boy's idea of shared sacrifice.

Newsweek's Fineman Sees Fear in Bush's Eyes During Iraq Speech

Howard Fineman has a well deserved reputation in Washington as being an exceptional purveyor of conventional wisdom. His reputation doesn't depend on original thinking or on pungent analysis. It depends on his ability to figure out what the conventional wisdom is among the Washington elite and then report on it. So, when he writes that he sees fear in Bush's eyes, it is significant. Not because it is true, although it may very well be true, but because this may become the conventional wisdom of the Beltway elite.

If you click on the link in this entry's title and read the article another fact jumps out at you. He apparently believes that one thing that drives Bush is his fear of being branded a "loser." Not that over 3,000 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives in Iraq. Not that our reputation around the world has been totally trashed or that we have lost the moral high ground that we had after the attacks on September 11, 2001. No, according to Fineman what Bush is afraid of it being branded a "loser."

This brings up the problem with George W. Bush and indeed the whole Bush clan. They are in government not to serve the public, but to satisfy their egos. It is not about us, it is about them. It is not about solving America's problems, but about filling their need for public adulation. As far as we can tell, the history of the Bush family in politics is a history of self-gratification.

New American Troops Going to Iraq Without Better Humvees

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that new troops bound for Iraq will be arriving without the more armored transports that are supposedly being made for the Pentagon. So let's see if we have this right: initially Bubble-Boy doesn't send enough troops to do the job. Then he doesn't have body armor for the ones that he sent over. Not only doesn't he have enough body armor, but he also doesn't have appropriately armored transport vehicles. When all this is pointed out to the Pentagon, it promises to develop a better transport vehicle, only its not ready in time to be used by the troops that are being sent as BB escalates the war. If the consequences weren't so terrible for our troops, this would almost sound like a bad joke. (You can read the Sun article by clicking on the title of this entry.)

Strickland Vetoes First Bill within 16 Hours of Taking Office

The Columbus Dispatch noted in the story linked to in this entry's title that in his first 16 hours after taking the oath of office, Ted Strickland issued tough ethics regulations for his administration. His regulations are stricter than the law passed by the General Assembly. He also did something that took former Governor Robert Taft four years to do and that was veto a bill. In the waning days of the last session of the General Assembly, the Republicans passed a bill that limited damages for lead paint manufactuers. The bill was then sent to Taft, who neither signed it nor issued a veto. Instead his plan was to allow this bill to become law without his signature. Under the Ohio Constitution, a governor has 10 days to either sign the bill or veto the bill. If he does neither, then the bill becomes law without his signature.

Now, in this case, Taft believed that since the General Assembly ended his session on December 26, 2006, the ten days started then and consequently would end on January 6, 2007, before Strickland took office. The problem for the Republicans, though, is that while the General Assembly ended its session on December 26th, the bill wasn't received in the Governor's office until December 28th, 2006. By this calculation, the ten day period had not yet expired when Strickland issued his veto. Naturally, of course, Republicans are outraged by this position and are vowing to wage "war" against Strickland.

What's important isn't whether Strickland is right or wrong. What's important is that he just showed the GOP-led General Assembly that he won't be pushed around and that he will use his powers to stop them from unilaterally enacting their agenda. If the Republicans in the General Assembly thought they could bully Ted Strickland, they just got a quick lesson in gubernatorial prerogatives. Let's hope they heed it.

Gallup Poll Finds Big Majority Opposes Iraq War Escalation

The Gallup organization ran a pre-Bush speech (scheduled for Wednesday) poll on the issue of escalating the Iraqi War and found that a big majority opposes such escalation. (You can get the details by clicking on this entry's title. ) Gallup believes that support for the Bush's plan may increase after he gives the speech, but initially over 60% of the public is opposed to increasing the number of troops in Iraq.

Note that we are avoiding using the term "surge" to describe the planned troop increase. The word "surge" implies a short-term increase in troops, but there is nothing in this administration's recent history to give us confidence that the troop increase will be short-term, no matter what Bush says or doesn't say Wednesday night. We also think that the media is playing into Bush's hands when they allow him and his supporters to decide what language is going to be used to describe their actions.

One of the ways that Bush controls the media is by getting it to accept his language. His supporters use a label and if the media doesn't accept that label, it is accused of "bias" or more specifically, "liberal bias." Apparently the charge of "liberal bias" is so intimidating that grown men and women feel that they have no choice but to give in to the demands of Bush and his radical right-wing supporters.

Here is a news flash for the media: you get to decide what language to use to describe Bush's actions. That's part of your job. You are more than just stenographers blindly reporting what Bush and his supporters say.

Why Hawks Win: A Provocative Essay

Foreign Policy magazine has an article about why "hawks' prevail over "doves" when it comes to influencing policy-makers. The article, which can be linked to by clicking on this entry's title, argues that humans have a built in "bias" that leads policy makers to prefer the advice of "hawks" over "doves." It is a fascinating article and if you are interested in a psychological explanation of why Bubble-Boy got us into Iraq, this article is for you.

Hunters Pressuring NRA to Break With Bush Administration on Access to Public Lands

According to an article in the Washington Post, (which you can link to by clicking on this entry's title). hunters inside the National Rifle Association are pressuring the NRA to resist the Bush Administration's efforts to open Federal lands to development. Why? Because such development destroys hunting habitats. The Clinton Administration proposed and adopted a regulation during the 1990s that allowed hunters to walk in and ride horses into Federal lands, but prohibited the building of roads on such lands. At first both hunters and wildlife officials resisted such regulations, but now, after watching the Bushies turn over the Federal lands to mining and drilling interests, are beginning to support such regulations.

Is Bush Losing Utah?

According to a poll by the Salt Lake City Tribune only 42% of Utah residents support Bush's handling of the war. Only 44% support a escalation of the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Just six months ago support for Bush on Iraq was over 50% in Utah. If Bubble-Boy is losing Utah, the GOP is in BIG trouble. _____________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read the Tribune story about the poll.

Advice to Progressives: Dream Bigger Dreams!

Katha Pollitt of the Nation magazine has advice for liberals: dream bigger dreams! Advocate universal healthcare for all, cheap or free higher education, and a minimum wage of $9.00 an hour and indexed for inflation. Build a movement and stop worrying about finding a leader. If you have the right movement, leaders will emerge and come to you. It is a provocative article and can be read by clicking on the link in the title heading.

Will 2008 Mark the End of "Boomer" Obessions in American Politics

Since 1968, when Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew first used what was perceived as the rise of the counter-culture to gain political power, presidential politics has been shaped by the forces unleashed in the 1960s. Most of the time this has been to the detriment of the Democratic Party. In that period Republicans won elections in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. During that period Democrats won elections in 1976, 1992, and 1998. If you are keeping score, that's Rs 7 and Ds 3.

The decade of the sixties unleashed a form of passionate politics because the challenges of that era were very divisive. America faced challenges to the established order from movements that advocated civil rights for blacks, women, and gays, from the anti-Vietnam War movement, from the environmental movement, and from people who challenged the existing sexual mores of the time. All of those movements found a political home in the Democratic Party and all of them were bitterly opposed by other Americans. It is not surprising that their opponents found a political home in the Republican Party.

It is no wonder, then, that the politics spawned by that era was and remains very personal and divisive. Time, however, changes everything. The "baby boom" started with people born in 1946 and ended with people born in 1960. The oldest boomers are now 60 and the youngest are 46. They are starting to give way to the next generation.

According to Howard Fineman of Newsweek this could lead to a politics that is no longer dominated by boomer obsessions. (You can read his article by clicking on the title of this entry.) Although his article doesn't go on with this analysis, Democrats far more than Republicans will benefit from America moving past the "culture wars." From our perspective it can't happen soon enough.

Reader Submission: Getting the Government We Deserve

A Cleveland columnist recently said no one should expect state government to save the state. He said it should get out of the way so the entrepreneurs and big business can save us. Do we actually believe that?

State government is the 500-pound gorilla. Ohio has been terribly ill-served by this state government and particularly this legislature for more than 10 years. They have taken university and public school systems that were once considered in the elites of this country and practically dismantled them. Think employers want poorly educated workers?

This legislature has sent a resounding message around the country that Ohio is not an inclusive and welcoming state. Think cutting-edge industry and innovative entrepreneurs want to locate here with a message like that?

While declaring they've lowered taxes, this legislature has ferociously pushed the tax burden down to the local level. Upset about your local school taxes? Point your finger at this legislature.
What concerned parents will move to a state that doesn't value public education?

Look around this country and you find prospering areas have forward-thinking, innovative governments unafraid to lead. Those areas not doing well often have self-serving governments more interested in the next election than defending the people's interests.

We usually get the government we deserve. Unfortunately, right now we are getting exactly what we deserve. We swept the executive offices clean this last election. We'll see how our new leaders perform. However, the lame duck legislature's performance this month should have shamed all Ohioans. A majority of those folks are back next year. That does not bode well for our state.

Wake up, Ohio. Government does matter. Until we begin voting our economic interests we will continue our descent into the lowest-tier states. You and I and Ohio deserve much better.

Michael E. Kovack
Medina County AuditorMedina, Ohio
___________________________________________________________________
Mike Kovack is a Democrat and has been county auditor for Medina County since 1993. He was re-elected in 2006 without opposition.

Ken Blackwell: A Sore Loser Until the Bitter End

Ken Blackwell, the outgoing Secretary of State, has decided that he will not turn over the keys to his office until 12:01 am on Monday, January 8, 2007. Since the election he has refused to meet with Jennifer Brunner, the incoming Secretary of State. We have always wondered whether Republicans are worse losers than they are winners. As far as Blackwell is concerned, we know the answer, he is equally obnoxious in defeat as in victory.

You have to wonder where this kind of attitude comes from, since it is shown by a lot of Republicans. Basically we think that it stems from a belief that they are better than others, and that kind of mindset cannot handle voter rejection. We believe that they are overlooking the opportunity their recent state-wide defeats have given them. Now they will be able to put into practice their belief that the private market is better at economic evaluation than government. They will now have a chance to show everyone just what the private market thinks of their abilities. On second thought, maybe that is exactly what they are afraid of and could explain why they are so bitter about losing power.
___________________________________________________________________
Click on the title of this entry to read a news article on the transition of power in various state offices.

ABC News Reports: Senators Regret Iraq War Vote

ABC News is reporting that at least 57 Senators would vote against the Iraq War Resolution if it was presented for a vote today. ABC News reports that, at most, only 43 Senators would vote for the resolution. _________________________________________________________________
You can get the full details by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title. Thanks to the blogger Minor Ripper who sent us the link to this story.

State Senator Capri Cafaro's Swearing-In

State Senator Capri Cafaro was sworn in this week as a new Ohio State Senator. Capri had run for Congress in the 13th District and had campaigned extensively in Medina County. She was kind enough to send us photos of her swearing in and we decided to share them with our readers. If you have photos of Democratic events and would like to share them with MCDAC, send them to us at the email address below the picture of State Senator Cafaro.

joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.

Dems Adopt "PayGo" in the U.S. House

The Democratic controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to change the budget rules for the U.S. House. They went back to a system that the Republicans used during Clinton's presidency, but abandoned when George W. Bush became president. The system's nickname is PayGo and works like this: any new spending increase proposed has to be backed by either tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere and any new tax cuts have to be backed by either spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. (You can link to the CBS News story about PayGo by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title.)

Adopting PayGo will help to restore fiscal sanity to Congress, but only a third of the Republicans voted for it. Why? Because it will make it harder to extend Bush's reckless tax cuts when they expire in 2010. Given a choice between cutting taxes and moving toward a balanced budget, most Republicans chose cutting taxes. This vote, more than any other that will be taken this session, shows that Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility, they are the party of reckless tax cutting. Republicans used to call Democrats "tax and spend liberals". Well, the vote on PayGo shows that they are "borrow and spend radical conservatives."

Republican County Treasurer vs. Republican County Commissioners

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on Wednesday that earlier this week Republican Medina County Treasurer John Burke sent a letter to the three Republican Medina County Commissioners demanding that they personally help reimburse his office for a missing tax payment. (The story can be viewed by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title.)

In 2006 approximately $1,000.00 that was received as a tax payment was found to be missing from the County Treasurer's office. Employees of the Treasurer's office made up the missing money from personal funds. In the letter Burke claimed that the missing payment was the result of the Medina County Commissioners not providing him with adequate computer software and equipment. He therefore suggested that the County Commissioners each contribute $12.00, which was the same amount contributed by each of his employees. The Commissioners are refusing this request.

Bush to Blame General George Casey for Iraq Problems?

The New York Times published a report that Bush has supposedly lost confidence in General Casey, the head of the American military in Iraq, and is going to replace him as the top commander. The article, which can be read by clicking on the arrow next to the title of this entry, quotes unnamed administration sources as saying that Bush lost confidence in Casey over the last year. Never mind, of course, that Bush and Cheney kept singing Casey's praises in 2006, someone has to take the fall for Bubble-Boy's screw-ups, and Casey's name has come up.

The attempt to blame Casey for the mistakes of the Iraq War brings this question to mind: is there anyone involved with George W. Bush who has not suffered a loss to their reputation? Think about it. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, even Dick Cheney, to name just a few, have all suffered damage to their reputations. The United States Supreme Court has seen its reputation decline since it put him in office with the dubious reasoning of Bush v. Gore. The American people have suffered an enormous blow to its reputation because of the Iraqi War. Bubble-Boy trashes the reputation of everyone involved with him.

Bush to Call for Sacrifice?

The BBC is reporting that President Bush, aka "Bubble-Boy", is going to call for sacrifice when he announces to America that he is increasing the number of troops in Iraq. (You can read the article by clicking on the arrow next to this post's title.) That brings up this question, just who is sacrificing for Bush's war?

The over 3,000 American troops killed have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families have sacrificed. The over 22,000 American troops wounded have sacrificed. Their families have sacrificed. The men and women serving in Iraq are sacrificing. Their families are sacrificing. That's it. No one else. Why? Because George W. Bush has not demanded that his supporters, who don't fall into one the above categories, sacrifice anything to support his war.

He has not demanded that they support a tax raise to pay for the cost of this war.
He has not demanded that they consider enlisting to support this war.
His children are not enlisting to support this war.

In short, he has not demanded any sacrifice of the American people or of his supporters in support of this war, unless they fall into one of the groups listed above. It just seems to us that if our government is going to send American men and women to war, it should at least ask the rest of us to bear some cost of that war.

Republican Iraq War Supporter Who Won Close Election Changes Her Tune

Rep. Heather Wilson, (R-NM), described by the Albuquerque Journal as initially a "staunch supporter" of the war, is now telling New Mexico reporters that she is opposed to increasing the number of American troops in Iraq and, in fact, believes that withdrawing troops might "serve United States interests better" but does not "favor a complete troop withdrawal."

Wilson was high on the House Democrats' target list in 2006. She comes from a district that Kerry carried in 2004, but one that she manages to win. She apparently has decided that losing her seat over George W. Bush's war is not what she has in mind for her political career. According to the Journal's article she is not alone in her decision to oppose Iraqi troop escalation since only one member of New Mexico's five member delegation supports troop escalation.

Wilson called for a re-thinking of American policy regarding Iraq. In what might be a considerable understatement she said that the US seems to "lack focus" on what it is trying to accomplish. She described the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government as an "aspiration" but not something that is vital to American national security.

Wilson is a Air Force Academy graduate and a former National Security Council aide. If she has decided to bail on Bubble-Boy's Iraqi adventure, can other Republicans, especially ones from swing districts be far behind?
___________________________________________________________________
Click on the arrow next to this post's title to link to the Journal article.

Richard Clarke Article in the Washington Post

In an article in the Washington Post, former Clinton and Bush national security official, Richard Clarke, points out something that is seldom commented on by the media. It is that Bush's focus on Iraq is causing his national security team to be distracted from other more pressing problems, like global warming and trouble along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. It is an interesting article. Check it out by clicking on the arrow next to the title of this post.
___________________________________________________________________
If you like what you read on MCDAC blog, scroll down and fill out the FeedBlitz subscription form. It is located just above the links. You will be sent a daily listing of the post headlines. You can then click on the ones that you like and read the full entry.

CNN Gets Bitchy with John Edwards

Scroll down the page and read the transcript of the interview with John Edwards and you see the uphill battle that Democrats face in dealing with the media. The media is determined to put everything into a dichotomy. In this case it is either you agree with Bush and want more troops, or you want to lose and give up the fight. Of course, the American people aren't buying this stuff but the media insiders are and that is going to be a problem for Dems in 2008.

What Democrats need to do is what Clinton did with Chris Wallace on Fox and that is simply not take their stuff. What a reporter/pundit asks a stupid question, call the question stupid, don't dignify it with an answer or treat it like a serious question. If they are asking "got you" questions, call them on it. They need product, they aren't going to stop asking you on their programs and Democrats don't need to take their crap.

A Mission Statement for America?

In his interview with Bob Woodward, the following quote appears from former President Gerald Ford: "Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

That statement made us wonder if what is needed for America is a mission statement. What is the mission of the United States Government and is this administration fulfilling that mission? The quote from President Ford suggests one such mission statement. That statement might be as follows: It shall be the mission of the United States Government to provide for the security of the American people.

Assuming that would be the mission, how is this administration doing fulfilling that mission? Well, based on what is happening in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and what happened with Hurricane Katrina, not very well. In Iraq it has American troops bogged down in a sectarian civil war; in Afghanistan we are seeing resurgence of the Taliban, the same government that harbored bin Laden while he planned his attacks on America. In New Orleans we saw the complete failure of this administration to protect the security of Americans, before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina.

The advantage of having a mission statement is that when you are asked to do something, like say invade Iraq, you would contrast the thing you are being asked to do with the goal of your organization, as set forth in the mission statement. This is just a hunch, but we don't think that if comparing America's mission statement with the Iraq War had been done that reasonable people would have came out in favor of the war.

Because a comparison wouldn't have just meant that looking at this Administration's Iraqi claims, but also whether alternative actions would have worked just as well to protect the security of the American people. At least such an comparison would have forced members of the United States Constitution to defend their support of this war in terms that the American people could understand.

Receive MCDAC Email Alerts

At the bottom of this page is a sign-up form to receive Feed Blitz email alerts from our blog. You will receive daily email messages telling you of new postings which you can then click on to read. Its free and you can unsubscribe at any time. If you like what you read on our blog, this is a great way to stay in touch.
_____________________________________________________________________
Feed Blitz is protected by copyright and is used by MCDAC with permission.

Military Personnel's Doubts about Bush Growing

The Military Times, a newspaper that circulates among military personnel, conducts a poll every year in late December. This poll, which is done by mail, is sent to personnel of all the armed services. This year's poll shows waning support for President Bush and his handling of the Iraqi War.

Here are some of the results:

Percentage of respondents approving of Bush's handling of the war: 37%
Percentage of respondents disapproving of Bush's handling of the war: 42%

Percentage who think that Iraqi War is part of the War on Terror: 47%
Percentage who think that Iraqi War is a separate military action: 47%

Percentage who think that number of troops should be increased: 38%
Percentage who think number of troops should remain the same: 13%
Percentage who think that number of troops should be decreased: 26%

Percentage of respondents who think that it will be more than two year before large number of Iraqi troops are ready to replace American troops: 70%.
Percentage of respondents who think that it will be 10 years before large number of Iraqi troops are ready to replace American troops: 12%.

This poll shows a sharp decline in Bush's support in the military as compared to two years ago. Then 63% of American troops polled supported Bush's handling of the Iraqi War. The full results can be viewed by clicking on the arrow next to the post title above.

Lieberman, Bush, and Iraq

In a column about the need for escalating the number of American troops in Iraq, Joe Lieberman cannot bring himself to blame Bush for the insufficient number of troops in Iraq.(Lieberman article can be linked to by hitting the arrow next to title of this post) In the article the following quote appears: "In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission." Note that nowhere in his article, does Lieberman point out who is responsible for not putting enough troops into Iraq. Well, here is a clue, it wasn't those people who opposed the war, and it wasn't the Democratic Party and its elected officials, it was the administration of George W. Bush.

This is a small example of why Joe Lieberman drives Democrats crazy. He was so moralistic about Bill Clinton lying about oral sex, but he is not nearly as worked up about George W. Bush getting us into a war under false pretenses. He can't bring himself, even now, after the incompetence of this administration has been shown time and time again, and after he has safely won re-election to criticize Bush like he criticized Clinton. This is what we would like to see one those insufferable talking heads like Tim Russert ask Liebrman: "Senator do you consider George W. Bush's mistakes in Iraq worse than Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky?" We think the answer would be extremely interesting.

Ford Disagreed with Bush on Iraq

Bob Woodward has a story posted on MSNBC's website that quotes Ford from an interview in July of 2004 disagreeing with Bush on the decision to invade Iraq. He told Woodward that the interview could only be published after his death, although he did not specify any waiting period after his death before the article could be published. The story can be read here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372929/

We have this theory that George W. Bush was pushed for the presidency by people who wanted to make Ford and George H.W. Bush look better by comparison. Think about it for a minute. Who wouldn't have taken Ford, Nixon pardon and all, or take his father, awkward syntax and all, over "Bubble-Boy" and his Boy Genius, Rove. After all, Cheney and Rumsfeld served both Ford and BB's father. What better way to improve the historical standing of Ford and Bush I than by getting Bush to start a war with Iraq. Far-fetched, you say? Well, it makes as much sense as going into Iraq to get rid of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Stand Tall for America

Is what Senator Ron Wyden calls an organization that he has created to help push for affordable health care for all Americans. The address is here: http://www.standtallforamerica.com/ After we posted a reference to Sen. Wyden's health care proposal on this blog, Kari Chisholm, who is working on this plan with Sen. Wyden's organization, posted a comment which had a link to the above website. If you are interested in this subject, you might want to check it out.

Has Bush Raised Your Expectations about Iraq?

If you are a regular reader of this blog, we think we know the answer, and it is either "No" or "Hell, NO". According to this article by the AP, ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_expectations ), political experts think that Americans' expectations about Iraq are being raised by Bush taking so long to roll out his "New Way Forward" plan. Now, with approval ratings for his Iraq policy at 27%, according to the last AP poll in December, he would seem to have a long way to go. The theory is that since he is known to be so stubborn, and since he is taking a long time to announce his plan, Americans are beginning to believe that maybe he actually will announce something new that allows us to withdraw from Iraq without it becoming a bloodbath of sectarian violence.

Had more Americans, including media reporters, read Frank Rich's book, The Greatest Story Ever Sold, they would understand what is happening. Rich recalls the infamous quote by Andrew Card, former White House Chief of Staff, that you "don't roll out a new product over the summer", to explain why the Bushies were waiting until the fall of 2002 to announce its plans for Iraq. Rich's book makes the point that with this White House everything is about politics and nothing is about policy, or, perhaps more accurately, policy is always subordinate to politics. Part of politics is marketing. The problem with this White House is that it thinks that everything in politics is marketing.

If you don't roll out a new product over the summer, when shows are repeated on TV and Americans are busy taking vacations, watching Little League games, and relaxing, you also don't roll out a new product when people are distracted by Christmas and the New Year's holiday. Hence Bush's decision to wait until January of 2007 to announce his supposed "New Way Forward" on Iraq.

The irony, of course, is that since the American people aren't as cynical as "bubble-boy" and his incompetent group of toadies, this is going to work against him. He is raising expectations for a genuine "New Way Forward", not just a new catchphrase for the old policy. If he doesn't meet them, he will be in even a worse position with the American public than before.

Democrats and Fiscal Responsibility

According to this article in the Washington Post, ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html ), Democrats want to drive down the deficit, preserve middle-class tax cuts, and pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One way they want to do this is force Bush to raise taxes to pay for his Iraq War. Budget Director Robert Portman claims that there is no need for a tax increase because the reduction in the expected size of the deficit shows that the Republican tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are stimulating the economy. Democrats respond by claiming that the deficit is artificially low because of increased borrowing from Social Security revenues. They point out that the fastest growing part of the budget is for interest payments on the national debt.

Here's a suggestion: bring back Al Gore's "lockbox" concept. Pass a law that prohibits the use of Social Security revenues for anything other than funding Social Security and Medicare. Force this administration to show the American people how they are plundering Social Security revenues to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Such a move would seize the financial initiative.

Iraq: The Republican War

In the 1950s and 60s one of the attacks on Democrats was that Democratic Presidents got America into wars. There was some justification for that charge. WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War were all started under Democratic Presidents, and except for WWI, Democratic Presidents were supported in these wars by Democratic-controlled Congresses.

Well, this current war is a Republican War. A Republican President urged support for this war, and a Republican-controlled Congress went along with him. It was a Republican Secretary of State who went to the United Nations and told them that there was proof that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. It was a Republican Vice-President who claimed that our troops would be greeted as liberators.

The result? We have now lost more troops in the Iraq War than we lost civilians on September 11, 2001. ( Article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq ) Americans don't feel any safer, bin Laden is still at large, hundred of Iraqis are dying each month because of sectarian violence, and America's standing in the world has plummented. Meanwhile, the Taliban, who sheltered the evil organization that attacked us, is enjoying a resurgence in Afghanistan.

In the 2008 presidential election, the question will be whether the Republican Party nominee can escape political retribution for the horrible mistakes of the Bush Administration. This will be especially true if the GOP nominee is John McCain, who is now calling for more troops to go to Iraq. The only way that could happen would be if the Democratic Party nominee was a person who supported the war and if such a nominee was not able to articulate a foreign policy vision that would avoid such a disaster in the future.

Katrina Fraud Could Top 2 Billion Dollars

Because of the lax ways of the Bush Administration in handling Federal aid for Hurricane Katrina, losses due to fraud could top 2 billion dollars, according to Federal and Congressional investigators. This is another example of the incompetence of the Bush Administration and its appointees. Remember when we were told in 2000 that the election of the first President to have a MBA, from Harvard, no less, would bring about good management? Put that right up there with "Misson Accomplished", "compassionate conservatism", and "No Child Left Behind."
You can read an article about this here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061225/ap_on_bi_ge/katrina_contracts

Oaths of Office and the United States Constitution

Article Six, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Three things are apparent from a reading of this paragraph:

1. All Senators, Representatives, and all officials of the various states have to take an oath to support the United States Constitution;

2. Unlike the oath taken by the President, the Constitution doesn't prescribe any certain language for such an oath; and

3. No religious test can be ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States.

The oath of office that is prescribed in the U.S. Constitution for the President is found in Article III, Clause 8, and reads as follows:

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Note that the above oath does not require that it be made upon a Bible and does not include any reference to God, although there is nothing to prohibit a President from taking the oath on a Bible or adding the words "So help me God" to the oath.

Washington Dems Plan to Put Health Care Back on the Table

The Washington Post has a story, ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/24/AR2006122400589.html ), about the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate wanting to put health care back on the table. Since the defeat of the Clinton administration's efforts in 1993-1994, there has not been a major effort to reform the nation's health care system. Polls show growing dissatisfaction with the system, increases in costs to employers, and growing numbers of uninsured Americans.

According to a Republican Senator quoted in the story Democrats will not be able to get universal health care enacted. If that is true, and we are not sure it is, then that means that reform will be centered around continuation of the employer based system we now use. American's employer based system is putting American business at a competitive disadvantage against companies based in countries that have universal health care provided and funded by the national government. One reason why Toyota enjoys a competitive advantage against American automakers is that Toyota doesn't have the same costs for employee health insurance as American automakers.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) plans to introduce a bill to provide health insurance for all Americans using a centrally financed system of private insurance companies. ( Senator Wyden's website offers links to a more detailed description of his plan. You can link here: http://wyden.senate.gov/ ). If Democrats could deliver solid reform of the nation's health care system, not only would they be doing the right thing, but also the politically advantageous thing.

Strickland to Change Judicial Appointment Process

According to this Columbus Dispatch article, ( http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/12/23/20061223-D1-03.html ), the Strickland administration is going to change how judicial appointments are handled. Under the last two Republican governors, three names were sent by the local Republican Party to the Governor's office. The Governor then chose one of the three for the appointment. Strickland wants to set up a screening process, similar to the one used by Dick Celeste when he was governor.

Considering that over 80% of all Ohio judges start their judicial careers via gubernatorial appointment, this is a very significant development. This should lead to greater transparency in judicial appointments and more diversity in the people appointed. It should also lead to greater confidence in the appointment process.

Reader Submission: Sherrod Brown's Victory by the Numbers

An analysis of the November 7th vote shows that Democrat Sherrod Brown ran a far stronger race than Ohio's Democratic U.S. Senate candidates have run in the past 12 years. Since 1994, up until this year, Republicans had totally dominated Ohio's Senate contests.

The numbers don't lie and these are the numbers:

1994
DeWine (R) 53%
Hyatt (D) 39%

1998
Voinovich (R) 56%
Boyle (D) 44%

2000
DeWine (R) 60%
T. Celeste (D) 36%

2004
Voinovich (R) 64%
Fingerhut (D) 36%

2006
Brown (D) 56%
DeWine (R) 44%

In the 10 year period from 1994 to 2004, Republican U.S. Senate candidates averaged 58% of the vote while Democratic candidates only averaged 39% of the vote. This meant that the average Republican victory margin during that period was 19% of the vote. Such an average meant that Democratic U.S. Senate candidates took "a thumpin" from 1994 to 2004.

Sherrod Brown changed that. He beat incumbent Mike DeWine by 12% of the vote. That is huge-particularly in light of the miserable results Democratic candidates obtained during the 1994-2004 period.

The question thus becomes: Why did Sherrod Brown do so well? Although a full answer might depend of more detailed number crunching, a preliminary analysis shows that Sherrod Brown created a strong campaign organization and, just as importantly, talked about issues in a way that appealed to most Ohioans.

Ohio's Democrats would do well to learn these two lessons from Sherrod Brown. One, if you want to win a statewide campaign you need to put together a strong campaign organization. Two, you need to talk about issues that interest most Ohioans, and take political positions that appeal to most Ohioans.

This may sound simplistic but it is something that Ohio's Democratic U.S. Senate candidates were unable to do from 1994-2004.

Bill Mann
Columbus, Ohio
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Mann is a Columbus attorney who has long been interested in politics.

New Hampshire Newspaper Poll Shows Tie in '08 Dem Preference

This is the report of a poll done for the Concord Monitor, a New Hampshire newspaper, that shows Obama and Hillary basically tied among NH Dems. You can read the full story here:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061224/REPOSITORY/612240366 We present this for your enjoyment and note that the campaign for the 08 nomination is beginning earlier than usual. The fact that there is so much coverage of the 2008 presidential race almost two years before the election shows (a) the impact of having so much media as compared to even 2000; (b) the desperation of Americans to get this administration out of power; and (c) the fact that political reporters will always focus on the horserace as opposed to substantive ideas.

Bush, Tax Cuts, and the Iraq War

E.J. Dionne argues in this column ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401364.html ) that the Iraqi War has never been Bush's top priority, preserving and extending his tax cuts has always been his first priority. He calculates that for every dollar this Administration has spent on the war, it has cut taxes by two dollars. Obviously this can't continue, and the deficits we are experiencing is the natural result of such a policy.

Democrats should demand that if Bush wants to increase troops in Iraq, and wants billions of dollars for Iraq's unemployed, then he should propose raising taxes to pay for expanding the war effort. It would be fascinating to see Republicans try and explain why we should spend billions of dollars more in Iraq, but not raise taxes to pay for such expenditures.

Bush Wants 10 Billion for Iraqi Jobs

According to this report in the London Times, ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2517659,00.html ) the Bush Administration is seeking up to 10 billion additional dollars to provide Iraqis with jobs. These jobs would be created by rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure. Gingrich, who is advocating this plan, calls for a cross between the Marshall Plan and the New Deal for Iraqis. According to Gingrich, the plan is to "mop up" every unemployed Iraqi and give them a job.

Do you think that anyone in the media will get the irony of this? Here we have a conservative Republican, who would never call for such a plan in the United States, urging a plan that he describes as a cross between two plans associated with liberal Democratic presidents. And he is doing all of this with a straight face.

Well, here is a question for Mr. Gingrich and the Bush Administration: why are Iraqis more worthy than unemployed Americans? Why is such a plan a good idea for Iraqis but not for Americans? Are unemployed Americans not good enough for their own government to help?

The only job plan this administration has for unemployed young people in America is to have them join the military so they can risk their lives, apparently to protect American companies while they provide jobs for Iraqis. Democrats need to start asking why we can spend American tax dollars to provide unemployed Iraqis with jobs, but not unemployed Americans. Watching Republicans try and explain the difference would illustrate the difference between us and them.
It would illustrate the difference between a political party that wants to help Americans and a political party that doesn't.

Two About Hillary

According to a new poll out Hillary leads McCain by 7% in a 2008 match-up. Read more here:http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill1219,0,7746184.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

Interesting article about Hillary and Obama and who they would be appealing to if they both ran for president. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16238556/site/newsweek/

Time to Amend the Ohio Constitution?

Plain Dealer columnist Tom Suddes ran a column this week calling for a new constitutional convention for Ohio. Ohio's had three constitutions during its history. One was adopted in 1803 when Ohio became a state; the second one was adopted in 1851; and the third was adopted in 1912. The 1912 constitution is constitution Ohio uses today. Therefore, in the first 109 years of Ohio's existence as a state, it adopted three constitutions, but hasn't adopted a new constitution for the last 94 years. As Suddes writes, Ohio is overdue for a new constitution.

In his column Suddes advocates the adoption of a one house General Assembly, like Nebraska's; going from five state-wide elected executive officers to two, governor and auditor; and addressing hot-button social issues. It is a very thought-provoking idea. You can read all of the column here: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/thomas_suddes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1166261749183420.xml&coll=2

From Dick Cheney's Office: An Immoral Suggestion for Iraq

The New York Times ran an article in its Week in Review section this last Sunday called Whispers and Why Nots. According to this article, some genius in Cheney's office, perhaps even Darth Vader himself, is advocating allowing the Shites in Iraq to either eliminate or uproot and displace Iraq's Sunni Muslims. (The article can be read here although site registeration is required http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/weekinreview/17cooper.html?ref=weekinreview ) Bascially what this would mean is that we would have invaded a country, overthrown its government, and allow one group of citizens to engage in ethnic cleansing of another group of citizens. Such a policy would be immoral, stupid, and would haunt American foreign policy for decades to come. Of course, come to think of it, it sounds like something that Bubble-Boy and Darth would come up with.

Colin Powell Comes Out Against Sending More Troops to Iraq

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell came out against sending more troops into Iraq. Let's see, Powell former Secretary of State, retired Chair of the Joint Chief of Staffs, West Point graduate, and Vietnam War veteran is against sending more troops. Dick Cheney, the man whose advice got us into this mess, is for sending more troops. Whose advice would you take? Well, if you are "bubble boy" you follow Cheney's advice because that way you look "tough" and "strong" and not "weak". Of course, it isn't your children who are going to die in Iraq and it isn't your family that is going to live in fear of a visit telling you that your son/daughter/father/mother/sister/brother has died. It is so easy for this President to be "tough" with the children of other parents. (You can read more about Powell's comments here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/17/ftn/main2274583.shtml

Reader Submission: Democratic Organizations Support Worker Rights

Our Labor friends need your help. As you may know, the Union workers at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company are on strike. If you work an eight-hour day and forty hour week, if you receive time and a half after forty hours, if your workplace is safe, if you receive vacation time that cumulates with your service time, if you have health care and retirement benefits, and if you believe in America's middle class - give our Labor Unions a BIG Thank you. Because without the Labor movement in America, you would not have the benefits I just mentioned. It is time for all of us to give back.

Goodyear was hurting In 2003. The union responded to the crisis Goodyear was experiencing and agreed to allow the company to cut some 6,000 jobs including closing a plant in Alabama, as well as trim pay, health care and pension benefits in order make the company solvent. The company has turned the corner and is now making a profit.

Now, Goodyear wants more cuts at the expense of the workers. Goodyear wants to cut their pay, hurt retiree benefits and close more factories in Gadsden, Ala., and Tyler, Texas that employ about 2,200 union jobs. Mike Roop, a USW member employed at Goodyear stated, "That's a slap in the face, say workers who believe they helped get Goodyear back in the black. "Two billion dollars in concessions in 2003. Now they want more," The company touted the vital role the union played in its $1 billion turnaround plan but investors don't think it's enough. According to the SEC documents, many of the investors, have been pressuring the company to shift jobs overseas for cheaper labor and production costs. Whatever happened to the common good in this country?

Labor Unions have been decimated by corporate America and the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. It is time to help our Labor friends build another workers movement, not unlike the labor/industrial movement in early 20th century, that recognized the dignity of work, fair pay, and a rightful voice through collective bargaining contracts. Will you show your support for signing up to stand with our Labor friends? We are looking for folks to give two hours a week to walk the picket line with our Labor friends. If you don't have the time then can you donate food items for the families of the striking workers? How about making a donation to the USW-L2 strike fund?

(Editor's Note: You can learn more about the Goodyear strike at www.ohiopac.org)
___________________________________________________________________
Above submitted by Patrick Carano of the Progressive Democrats of Ameria.

Congresswoman-elect Betty Sutton to be on Rules Committee

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped Betty Sutton, (D-13), to serve on the Rules Committee. This is probably the most powerful committee in the U.S. House of Representatives since it controls the terms of debate of all legislation referred to the House from its various committees. (For more on the Rules Committee, click here: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Rules
It is rare for a new Congressperson to get an appointment to the Rules Committee. The fact that Sutton was able to get such an appointment shows the respect she is already getting from Speaker Pelosi. Congratulations to Congresswoman Sutton.

Evan Bayh Pulls out of Presidential Race

The 2008 Democratic field for the presidential nomination was reduced by one as Senator Evan Bayh, (D-IN), pulled out. Senator Bayh concluded that he couldn't muster the resources to run for President. You can read more here: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061216/LOCAL19/612160469

Republicans and their oaths of office

Mr. Batchelder will soon be reciting the oath of office as a newly elected representative. In that oath he will " . . . solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Ohio . . ."
He does not have the right to decide which laws he will support and which ones he chooses to ignore. For 12 long years the Republicans have thumbed their collective noses at the Ohio Supreme Court and the citizens of Ohio. The Republicans have not worked to form a legal method of funding public education. To the contrary they have created charter schools that are siphoning public dollars off into the bank accounts of corporate diploma mills. In addition, not only have the Republicans not reduced the reliance on property taxes to fund education, they have made it worse. Therefore schools and townships, for example, are forced to return to the voters more often than ever. Ohio’s voters spoke very loudly in the last election. Unlike his predecessor Mr. Batchelder has the opportunity to listen to the Supreme Court and to the electorate and not violate his promise to follow the Ohio Constitution. Nonfeasance is defined as the failure to perform an act that is either an official duty or a legal requirement. Betty Montgomery as Ohio Attorney General chose to look the other way and not hold her Republican cronies responsible for failing to perform their collective duty to perform the legal requirement given them in the DeRolph decision. New Attorney General Marc Dann and Governor Ted Strickland must hold the Legislature responsible. If they do then Ohio’s schools and local governments will benefit and the reliance on property taxes will be lessened. We all need to be Argus-eyed from day one and hold those elected accountable for their decisions.

Dave Osborne

Congressman Says Bush is in "Deep Shit" in Iraq

Yes, he actually used that phrase when responding to a reporter's question about what plan the Democrats have for Iraq. Rangel made the observation when noting the absurdity of the media allowing Bush to get us into this war under false pretenses and then demanding that Democrats find a solution. A solution, by the way, that Bush would most likely never implement. Rangel's observation, along with a report about what possible Democratic presidential contenders think about Iraq is here: http://www.observer.com/20061218/20061218_Jason_Horowitz_politics_newsstory1.asp

Dems Have Bigger US House Majority than GOP in 1994

With a majority of 233 to 202, Dems now enjoy a bigger U.S. House than the Republicans ever had from 1995-2006. You may not know that because since the election, Republicans have been acting as if the Democrats didn't do that well in the 2006 elections and most of the media has been letting them get away with it. Why? We don't think it is because they biased against Dems, we think it is because most political reporters are lazy and/or incompetent. They don't want to take the time to actually do research, they have absolutely no sense of history, and they just want to report what they are told. Since Republican operatives are willing to lie when they talk to the media, then their spin gets reported as if it is fact.

Dems Win Last House Election of 2006

The Democratic candidate won the last contested House seat of 2006 for Texas's 23rd District. The seat, which was the subject of a lawsuit heard by the United States Supreme Court, had been held for 14 years by a Republican. This win brings to 31 the number of seats in the U.S. House that changed from Republican to Democrat. This last victory gives the Democrats a 233-202 edge in the House. You can get all the glorious details here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201601.html

American Dead or Wounded in Iraq at 25,000

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek

Frank Proposes New Deal for Labor and Business

Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA), is proposing a new deal between labor unions, government and business. It is based on creating a universal health insurance program, making it easier to unionize and tying trade deals to environmental and labor regulations. In return business would get relief from governmental regulation. It is a interesting idea. Read more here: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12286

Conservatives, Republicans Abandoning Bush Over Iraq

A new CBS poll shows that since the election there has been a 23% drop in support for Bush's handling of the war among Republicans. There has also been a drop for support of this war among self-described "conservatives." Expect more Republicans in Congress to start sounding like Democrats as they see the possibility of even more electoral defeats in 2008. Read the poll results here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/11/opinion/polls/main2247797.shtml

Sherrod Brown Interview with Mother Jones

Sherrod Brown gave an interview to Mother Jones magazine in which he disavows interest in being a vice-presidential nominee, but talks about why the Democratic nominee in 2008 has to pay attention to Ohio and why that nominee should push a economic populist message. Here is the link: http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2006/12/sherrod_brown.html

GOP Senator Refers to Iraq War Strategy as "Criminal"

Okay, so maybe it is because Gordon Smith, R-OR, is up for re-election in 2008, but this past week, he referred to the Bush Administration's strategy for Iraq as "criminal." He explained his remarks more fully here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/10/sen-smith-on-iraq-that-is-dereliction-that-is-immoral/ Expect to see more and more Republicans who are up for re-election in 2008 trying to distance themselves from Bush to protect themselves in 2008. Our job? Don't let them get away with it.

Is the Bush Clan Turning on Karl Rove?

According to this item in the US News & World Report, the Bushies are really upset with Karl Rove's performance in the mid-term elections. Apparently bubble-boy believed King Karl when he promised that the GOP would hold the House and Senate. Now, since it didn't, the Bushies have to blame someone and it looks like the scapegoat is going to be Rove. All of this shouldn't surprise anyone. The vaunted loyalty of the the Bush family only goes one way. As soon as you are no longer useful to them, over the side you go. Look at the treatment of Rumsfeld, the former Treasurer Secretary O'Neill, Colin Powell, and anyone else who was loyal to the Bush family, but didn't practice self-delusion when it came to George W's mess in Iraq. Their reputations were attacked, their abilities belittled, and their loyalty repaid with treachery. Why? Because bubble-boy, aka our President, can't stand to hear the truth. Anyway, here is the article: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/washingtonwhispers/061210/has_king_karl_lost_his_magic_t.htm

53% of Ohioans Voted for Democrats for Congress

Only 39% Will be Represented by a Dem

The Columbus Dispatch ran an interesting article pointing out that while 53% of Ohio's voters voted for a Democrat for Congress, Democrats only won 7 out of 18 contested seats. This disparity between the actual vote and the election results is one of the worse in the country according to the organization Fair Vote. This is because the GOP has controlled the redistricting for Congressional seats after the 1990 census and the 2000 census. Democrats need to consider pushing for a constitutional amendment that will change the way Ohio apportions congressional and state house districts. A system that stressed competitiveness would be better for Democrats and Republicans both. (Click here to read the full Dispatch article: http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/12/03/20061203-A1-02.html )

Economic Populists Take on Entrenched Power in DC

Alternet has an interesting article on how the incoming class of economic populists, including Sherrod Brown in the Senate, will have to fight entrenched power, including a lot of Democratic insiders, on the issue of "fair trade" versus "free trade". (Click here for the link: http://www.alternet.org/stories/44898/ ) It will be very interesting to watch this battle play out, especially in the 2008 Democratic primaries. NAFTA was passed on Bill Clinton's watch, but it is hard to see a lot of support for NAFTA style trade agreements in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Indeed, NAFTA may turn out to be more of liability for Senator Clinton than her support of the Iraq War in 2003. If she was opposed by a candidate who could run against her on both trade and the war, she would have a fight on her hands.

Worse than Truman's "Do-Nothing Congress"

Remember the Republican-controlled Congress that Harry Truman labeled the "Do-Nothing Congress" back in 1948? Well, the departing Republican-controlled Congress can now claim the name. The Congress that met from 2005-2007 will have spent the least amount of time actually meeting in Congressional history; didn't pass any significant legislation; and didn't pass at least 8 of the 11 annual spending bills usually enacted to keep the United States government running. Now, of course, it is somewhat ironic for Democrats to criticize this Congress for not-doing anything when you consider that what they wanted to do was so horrible. They wanted to privatize Social Security; get rid of the estate tax, which only affects the super-rich; and make permanent the reckless tax breaks enacted earlier this decade by their Republican colleagues in concert with their bubble-boy leader. Looking at it that way, maybe them doing nothing was the best we could hope for. It would have been nice, though, if they could have actually worked on solving some of our nation's problems instead of pursuing their narrow ideological agenda. An agenda, by the way, which was rejected on November 7Th. You can read more about this "do-nothing-est" Congress here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120200764.html

Death Rate in Iraq Higher for Soldiers from Rural US

Did you know that the death rate for American soldiers from rural areas is higher than for American soldiers from urban areas? Did you also know that rural voters helped Democrats take control of the United States Senate? Check out this interesting website about rural communities. http://www.ruralstrategies.org/default.html

Bush: Worst President Ever?

Columbia University professor writes opinion column for the Washington Post arguing that Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States. Considering that he is battling luminaries like Pierce and Harding for the honor, you will really have to admire the job he is doing at establishing his reputation as the worst president. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html

Public: Iraq in Civil War

Just because "bubble-boy" doesn't understand reality doesn't mean that the public doesn't. According to poll results reported on by the Wall Street Journal, Americans believe that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116474147042634772-gU9Td4pkKwbUb_rqXDHGQHgOUnQ_20061229.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

The Great Republican Shut Out of 2006

Not one incumbent Democratic U.S. Representative, Senator, or Governor lost in 2006. That is really unique for mid-term elections. Not only that, but Democrats didn't lost control of any state legislative chambers they had controlled going into the midterm election, while Republicans lost control of 12. We picked up the House, the Senate, and went from a 22-28 deficit in state governors to a 28-22 advantage in state governors. All of this has caused internal finger-pointing among Republicans. Read this article about the fallout in the GOP and enjoy: http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/112906.html

Limitations of the GOP Southern Strategy

Here is a blog entry on Daily Kos that dissects the limitations of the GOP "southern strategy" developed by Nixon and then used successfully by Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and now bubble-boy, George W. Bush: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/29/1251/2453 The theory of the entry is that the southern strategy worked well as long as Northeast and Midwest Republicans stayed on board. What's happening, however, is that as the national GOP caters to Southern social conservatives, it loses support in the Northeast and is starting to lose support in the Midwest. This means that what Democrats in states like Ohio need to do is make sure that they split between social conservatives and Republican moderates widens.

The LA Times ran an article this past week on how the Bush administration is getting ready to submit a large supplemental budget request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to Congress. This budget request will bring the cost of the so-called "War on Terror" to over 500 billion dollars. This war is fast approaching the cost of the Vietnam War, which went on for about 10 years. All of this, of course, is not to mention the human cost of the war both to our troops and to the Iraqi civilians, who are increasingly caught in the middle of a civil war. Here is the article link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-warcosts29nov29,0,2663211.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Battle Between the "Money Party" and the "People Party"

David Sirota has an interesting take on the battle in Washington. He says it is not between Republicans and Democrats, but rather between what he calls the "money party" and the "people party". He sees this distinction in battles over minimum wage increases; trade agreements; union rights; and environmental safeguards. His argument is that on these issues Democrats often side with Republicans because of their allegiance to the money party. This is a link to his website: http://www.davidsirota.com/ Check it out, we think you will find it very thought provoking.

Global Warming and Conservatives

The Washington Post ran an article in Sunday's edition about how, even as the Bush Administration dithers about how to combat global warming, governments, businesses and animals in affected areas are making adjustments. Animals adjust by moving habitats. Businesses adjust by trying to change their operations. Local governments adjust by taking action on their own. (Here is the link for the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500877.html ).

Global warming will be to this generation of conservatives what the Great Depression was to the generation of the 1920s: an event that will discredit their philosophy for 50 years or more. In the 1920s, conservatives had succeeded in capturing control of the presidency and both branches of Congress. Republican pro-business philosophy was dominant. Conservatives had seen the election of Harding and Hoover. (Harding, of course, died in office and so Coolidge finished out his term). Harding was apparently an amiable dunce and Hoover a pretty bright engineer. America was seemingly enjoying the prosperity of the Roaring 20s. Then along came the stock market crash, which woke everyone up, followed by the worsening of a depression that had been afflicting the farm belt. All of a sudden a market based philosophy that claimed that government had little or no role in solving America's problems was a luxury that Americans could not afford, and so, with amazing speed, they elected FDR. From 1932-1968, Democrats occupied the White House for all but eight years. They controlled the Congress from 1932 until 1946 and then again from 1954 to 1994, a remarkable record of political dominance.

The reason why all of this occurred is that conservatives couldn't cope with a problem that defied their ideology. They put their faith in the marketplace and that faith failed them. Some problems are just too big, too enormous to be solved without the assistance of an activist national government. The Great Depression was one such problem and so is global warming. What Democrats and progressives have to do is seize this opportunity and start talking about governmental solutions to this problem.

Surprise, Surprise

Former commander of Iraqi prison says that Rumsfeld signed off on interrogation techniques that some have labeled "torture." (Read article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061125/pl_nm/iraq_rumsfeld_dc_1 ) The damage that this idiot did to the United States military and the mideast is just incredible, yet it couldn't have happened without Bush's consent. Not that Bush knew that Rumsfeld had approved such interrogation techniques, but rather that Bush put Rumsfeld in the position where he could do such things. Yet, Bush and his supporters will now try to distance themselves from the horror that is Iraq and blame Rumsfeld.

Being Bush Means Never Having to Take Responsbility

Josh Marshall, of TalkingPointsMemo.com, raises the question of whether Bush is walking away from Iraq. He points out that since the election Bush has been totally silent about Iraq and what is happening as a consequence of his war. (Here is the link to Marshall's article: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011269.php ) This, of course, is not the first time that Bush created a mess and walked away from it. He bankrupted two businesses down in Texas, he left Texas to become President without dealing with some of the problems his programs were causing Texas, he has plunged America into multi-billion deficits without seeming to worry about how we are going to pay them off, and now he may be planning the same thing for Iraq. He has gotten away with such behavior because when you come from a powerful and rich family, you can avoid accountability.

Take a look at his history: He got into prep school and Yale because of his name. Turned down by the University of Texas for law school, he was able to get into Harvard's School of Business because of his name. He was able to get into the Texas Air National Guard because of his name. He was able to walk away from the aforementioned bankruptcies because of his name. He got elected as Texas's Governor because of his name. He got elected President because of his name. Do we see a pattern here? This is a person who has never had to clean up his own mess or even acknowledge that he created a mess. Unfortunately, this time in Iraq, however, it isn't investors' money that is being squandered, it is the lives of thousands of American military personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

College Republicans to Offer "Whites Only" Scholarship

Let's suppose you are a local chapter of the College Republicans. Let's further suppose that your party has had trouble getting black voters to back it, even when, as in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, you run black candidates. Let's further suppose that your outgoing national chairman promised in the past to change the image of your party so make more appealing to black voters. What do you do? Well, if you are one College Republican club, you create a whites only scholarship because, after all, nothing says you aren't racists like, well, being racists. Read more here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11/22/caucasian.scholarship.reut/

MCDAC Newsletter for 11.24.2006

Newsletter changes

You may have noticed that we are linking more and more to the MCDAC blog. We are doing this because we keep running into problems with "spam" detectors on various e-mail servers. If we are above a certain size, or if we have too may links, then the spam detectors block our newsletters. This leads to us having to re-configure and then re-send them. This increases our expense. Therefore, what we are now doing is posting items on our blog and linking to the items. We apologize for any inconvenience that this causes, but we don't see any other realistic alternative. Thank you for reading MCDAC's Democratic Newsletter.

Changes to http://www.DemTV.org

We have made some changes to the Dem TV website. We are now hosting it on Blogger, which is the same service we use for the MCDAC Blog. Check it out and let us know what you think! If you are a Democratic officeholder, candidate, or oganization and have some videos you want to display, send them to us at joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.

Ted Strickland Transition Team

Friends:

Gov. Elect Strickland has opened up a website for his transition. At the website, you can sign up to be a volunteer on the transition and/or submit information to be considered for a position.

The link to the site is: http://govelect.ohio.gov

Rep. Michael Skindell

Why Local Campaigns Often Fail

Check out our posting on our blog about the 2Ms that local campaigns often seem to be missing: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-local-campaigns-often-fail-local.html

Reader Submission: General Abizaid's Testimony Raises Questions

Reader Kim Kendall has some thoughts about General Abizaid's testimony before Congress this past week. Article link: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/reader-submission-general-abizaids.html

Articles/Links

Read the articles and links section of the Newsletter at http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2006/11/articleslinks-for-mcdac-newsletter-for.html