So the Bush Administration is arguing that the New Mexico U.S. Attorney, David C. Iglesias, wasn't fired because of political pressure, he was fired because he did not aggressively pursue "voting fraud" cases. In fact the Bushies even got a New York Times reporter to write a story about that fact. There is only one problem with the story: the Bush Justice Department had selected Iglesias to present his views on voter fraud at a special seminar on the subject. This is how the Washington Post puts it in its article appearing on 3.19.2007:
David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a "voting integrity symposium" in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed.
So here is what we are supposed to believe: Igelsias was sufficiently aggressive in "voting fraud" cases to be chosen to present a symposium on the subject in 2005 but by 2006 was no longer sufficiently aggressive. If that makes sense to you, its because you are a confirmed Bush supporter and don't care about the facts, or you are a New York Times reporter.
What this shows is that the Bushies haven't factored in an aggressive media being egged on by Democrats who actually have power. In the past they would have floated this story in the New York Times and that would have been the end of it. Now, however, with the media in pursuit of this story, and Democrats wielding power, that stuff doesn't work anymore.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You can read the whole Post story by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Who's Dumber: Washington Beltway Media Commentators or Matt Drudge?
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a report from www.mediamatters.org outlining the "reputable" media commentators who repeated Matt Drudge's line about how Bush firing eight U.S. Attorneys was similar to Janet Reno firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys when Bill Clinton took office. To make this comparison you have to ignore the following facts:
1. Clinton's actions were at the start of his first term, Bush's actions were in the middle of his second term;
2. Clinton got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by a Republican President, Bush got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by himself; and
3. It is customary for an incoming administration to get rid of a prior administration's U.S. Attorneys, even when the incoming administration is of the same political party as George H.W. Bush did in 1989 when he took over from Reagan, it is unprecedented to can your own appointees.
Now such lack of analytical ability is not surprising coming from Matt Drudge. Drudge is a political hack, a partisan Republican hatchet-man who doesn't pretend to be a reputable journalist. The media commentators quoted in the article by Media Matters, however, are a whole another story, especially Mara Liasson from N.P.R. Are we supposed to be contributing to NPR stations like WKSU and WCPN so N.P.R. can hire idiots like Liasson? Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question in this entry's title is Washington Beltway Media Commentators. They actually think they are "objective."
1. Clinton's actions were at the start of his first term, Bush's actions were in the middle of his second term;
2. Clinton got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by a Republican President, Bush got rid of U.S. Attorneys appointed by himself; and
3. It is customary for an incoming administration to get rid of a prior administration's U.S. Attorneys, even when the incoming administration is of the same political party as George H.W. Bush did in 1989 when he took over from Reagan, it is unprecedented to can your own appointees.
Now such lack of analytical ability is not surprising coming from Matt Drudge. Drudge is a political hack, a partisan Republican hatchet-man who doesn't pretend to be a reputable journalist. The media commentators quoted in the article by Media Matters, however, are a whole another story, especially Mara Liasson from N.P.R. Are we supposed to be contributing to NPR stations like WKSU and WCPN so N.P.R. can hire idiots like Liasson? Oh, and by the way, the answer to the question in this entry's title is Washington Beltway Media Commentators. They actually think they are "objective."
Ohio & the New Economy: PD Article & Graphic
The Plain Dealer ran an interesting graphic with a story on Sunday, 3.18.2007, about Ohio and its place in the new economy. What was interesting was where Ohio is doing poorly. Two of the areas were workforce education and broadband availability. Both of these problems could be addressed by government, but won't if Republican philosophy is followed.
Here's how they could: make a college and/or technical education much cheaper by increasing government expenditures for higher education and increase the amount of education students get in high school and elementary education. Cut the average size of classes in half, increase teacher pay, and have less administrative positions. Encourage local governments to offer broadband access as part of a public utility system.
Here's why Republican philosophy won't allow such changes: the first would require taxes and the second would allow governments to compete with private providers of broadband connections such as Time-Warner. Both are anathema to the free-market ideologues who have power in the Republican party.
Democrats should study this article and familiarize themselves with the report that the article's authors studied. This report should be talked about in the 2007 off-year elections and used as a platform for local office. If you are running in a municipality or township that doesn't have good broadband penetration, use this report to come up with ideas for rectifying that condition. Use that when you talk to voters. Make your campaign about bringing your community into the 21st. century so our children and our grandchildren can compete with Indian and Chinese children.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Click on the link in this entry's title to read the PD article.
Here's how they could: make a college and/or technical education much cheaper by increasing government expenditures for higher education and increase the amount of education students get in high school and elementary education. Cut the average size of classes in half, increase teacher pay, and have less administrative positions. Encourage local governments to offer broadband access as part of a public utility system.
Here's why Republican philosophy won't allow such changes: the first would require taxes and the second would allow governments to compete with private providers of broadband connections such as Time-Warner. Both are anathema to the free-market ideologues who have power in the Republican party.
Democrats should study this article and familiarize themselves with the report that the article's authors studied. This report should be talked about in the 2007 off-year elections and used as a platform for local office. If you are running in a municipality or township that doesn't have good broadband penetration, use this report to come up with ideas for rectifying that condition. Use that when you talk to voters. Make your campaign about bringing your community into the 21st. century so our children and our grandchildren can compete with Indian and Chinese children.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Click on the link in this entry's title to read the PD article.
Bush's & America's Lost Opportunity in Foreign Policy
Reuters has a story out today, (3.18.2007), about how the Iraq War has undercut the Bush administration and its chances of getting any sort of domestic agenda passed. It has also ended the talk of how the "Boy Genius", aka Karl Rove, aka "Turd Blossom", was going to reshape American politics by forging one party domination of the United States. One commentator points out that America's standing overseas has never been so low and he wonders if even a new administration can turn our image abroad around. (Click on the link in this entry's title to read the whole story).
Which brings us to the topic of this entry. Right after the events of 9-11 Bush and America enjoyed immense popularity abroad. There was broad support for our invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the world recognized that you couldn't allow a country to harbor terrorists who murdered over 3,000 of your citizens to go unpunished. The apparently quick victory in Afghanistan only fortified that sentiment.
If the Bush Administration had stopped there, consolidated its victory in Afghanistan, and helped bring about a secular democracy in Afghanistan, things would have been so much different from the aspect of America's image in the world. The United States would have been seen as doing the right thing.
It wouldn't have been easy. There would have been resistance from elements in Pakistan who might have supported Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. We would probably still have troops in Afghanistan and we would be spending a lot of money in aid to Afghanistan, but such actions would be seen by the rest of the world as necessary. Other countries would have seen that supporting terrorism leads to having governments successfully overthrown. American foreign policy objectives would have been much clearer and more defensible.
Now, all this isn't to say that Democrats at home wouldn't have still had their differences with Bush. Indeed you can make an argument that the best thing that Bush did for the Democratic Party was start his war with Iraq. It has clearly led to a decline in public support for the Republican Party, and has led, along with the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a questioning of the basic competence of conservatives. Of course, its hard for Democrats to take any joy in this since it has come at the cost of over 3,000 American military deaths, the deaths of literally thousands of Iraqis, and the total disintegration of America's standing in the world.
Which brings us to the topic of this entry. Right after the events of 9-11 Bush and America enjoyed immense popularity abroad. There was broad support for our invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the world recognized that you couldn't allow a country to harbor terrorists who murdered over 3,000 of your citizens to go unpunished. The apparently quick victory in Afghanistan only fortified that sentiment.
If the Bush Administration had stopped there, consolidated its victory in Afghanistan, and helped bring about a secular democracy in Afghanistan, things would have been so much different from the aspect of America's image in the world. The United States would have been seen as doing the right thing.
It wouldn't have been easy. There would have been resistance from elements in Pakistan who might have supported Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. We would probably still have troops in Afghanistan and we would be spending a lot of money in aid to Afghanistan, but such actions would be seen by the rest of the world as necessary. Other countries would have seen that supporting terrorism leads to having governments successfully overthrown. American foreign policy objectives would have been much clearer and more defensible.
Now, all this isn't to say that Democrats at home wouldn't have still had their differences with Bush. Indeed you can make an argument that the best thing that Bush did for the Democratic Party was start his war with Iraq. It has clearly led to a decline in public support for the Republican Party, and has led, along with the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a questioning of the basic competence of conservatives. Of course, its hard for Democrats to take any joy in this since it has come at the cost of over 3,000 American military deaths, the deaths of literally thousands of Iraqis, and the total disintegration of America's standing in the world.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
L.A Times Article on Talking Points Memo & the Power of Blogs
The L.A. Times did a story on Saturday about the website www.talkingpointsmemo.com which is owned and operated by Josh Marshall. The article, which you can read by clicking on the link in this entry's title, is a very interesting analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of blogging using Marshall's pushing of the fired U.S. Attorneys as a case study.
One thing that the article makes clear is that blogging has a much closer relationship with its readers than mainstream journalism. The article also quotes the founder of company selling blog ad space as claiming that left of center blogs are getting over 160 million page views per month. If that is based just on the blogs that are running ads from his company, then that means that there are many more page views on left of center sites that are not being counted. This blog, for example, does not run any ads and so would not be counted in his research. Check out the article, we think you will find it interesting.
One thing that the article makes clear is that blogging has a much closer relationship with its readers than mainstream journalism. The article also quotes the founder of company selling blog ad space as claiming that left of center blogs are getting over 160 million page views per month. If that is based just on the blogs that are running ads from his company, then that means that there are many more page views on left of center sites that are not being counted. This blog, for example, does not run any ads and so would not be counted in his research. Check out the article, we think you will find it interesting.
Newsweek Poll: 58% Think U.S. Attorneys Fired Because of Politics
Newsweek magazine has a poll out which shows that 58% of all respondents, including 45% of Republicans, think that the seven U.S. Attorneys were fired for political reasons. Forty-seven percent agreed with the statement that the Bush Administration has introduced politics into too many areas of the Federal government. This U.S. Attorney scandal is a big problem for the Bushies because we Americans pride ourselves for having a "government of laws, not men." We take justifiable pride in our justice system. The sacking of U.S. Attorneys for not carrying out the political bidding of Gonzales and his political hatchet men is not sitting well and the only remedy that Bush has is to have Gonzales resign. The question becomes, though, what does Gonzales know about the Bush administration that Bush doesn't want exposed and what happens if you make old Alberto walk the political plank. (You can read the Newsweek story about its poll by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)
Friday, March 16, 2007
New York Times Calls Republican Allegations of "Voter Fraud" Bogus
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an editorial in the New York Times that points out that when Republican party officials use the term "voter fraud" they really mean voter suppression. Since 1960 Republicans have argued that Democrats use "voter fraud" to win elections. This supposed "voter fraud" is how they justify passing legislation that suppresses the vote of minorities and poor people. Why? Because such voters don't vote Republican and Republicans think that such voters don't deserve the right to vote.
We have seen this in Ohio. Last year the Republican General Assembly passed requirements that voters show identification when they vote. Interestingly they made the requirements for voting absentee less onerous than the requirements for voting in person. Now if you stop and think about it, there would be more chance that a voter could commit voter fraud by mail than showing up in person at the polls. Yet, the Republican controlled General Assembly ignored that fact when passing its legislation. Why? Because Republicans believe that more Republicans vote absentee than Democrats. Therefore, they rigged the system to give themselves an advantage.
All of this is done because deep down inside a lot of Republicans think they are better than other people. Because they are better, their votes should count more than other people's votes. It really is that simple.
We have seen this in Ohio. Last year the Republican General Assembly passed requirements that voters show identification when they vote. Interestingly they made the requirements for voting absentee less onerous than the requirements for voting in person. Now if you stop and think about it, there would be more chance that a voter could commit voter fraud by mail than showing up in person at the polls. Yet, the Republican controlled General Assembly ignored that fact when passing its legislation. Why? Because Republicans believe that more Republicans vote absentee than Democrats. Therefore, they rigged the system to give themselves an advantage.
All of this is done because deep down inside a lot of Republicans think they are better than other people. Because they are better, their votes should count more than other people's votes. It really is that simple.
MCDAC Democratic Newsletter for March 16, 2007
MCDAC Democratic Newsletter for March 16, 2007
Iraq War Anniversary Vigil in Medina
On March 19th, thousands of people all over the country will gather to hold candlelight vigils to observe the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq. Together, concerned citizens will solemnly honor the sacrifice made by more than 3,000 soldiers and untold numbers of civilians. As well, a wish to withdraw our troops and establish peace in the Middle East will be expressed. Americans en masse now say we can no longer send our fathers and mothers, sons and daughters under-equipped and unprepared into the middle of an un-winnable civil war. Please join other concerned citizens of Medina at a candlelight vigil on Monday, March 19th. The event details are: Iraq War Anniversary Vigil, Medina City Square, (across from the New Courthouse,) Medina, 8:30 p.m. Please bring a candle. Honor the sacrifice. Stop the escalation. Bring the troops home.
Medina County Democratic Yard Sign Committee
We are continuing to strengthen the Democratic Party in Medina County . Yard signs are a very important part of a candidate's efforts to get his/her name and message out to the voting public. Building on the success we achieved and the lessons we learned during the 2006 elections, we want to create a systematic approach to delivering candidate yard signs for every election. The process will include identifying priority locations by precinct, creating a group of volunteers who will assist candidates in identifying locations, putting together and delivering yard signs. We want to create an 'event' to deliver yard signs. The first meeting of the Yard Sign Committee will be held on Monday, April 16th at 7:00 PM at Panera's 4065 Pearl Road in Medina . We will use the meeting to begin to identify the priority sites within Medina County , outline volunteer opportunities and discuss how we will capture and maintain lists of individuals who are willing to post yard signs on their property. Come join the fun as we turn Medina County Blue!! Please contact Mary Ogden at ogden@zoominternet.net
for more information.
MCDAC to Hold Common Sense Meeting on March 17th
Repeat Item
On March 17th, from 10 am to noon, the Medina County Democratic Action Committee will be holding a meeting to discuss the future of Common Sense, Medina County's only Democratic newspaper. In 2006 MCDAC delivered approximately 90,000 copies of Common Sense to targeted households. MCDAC wants to establish standing committees to handle both the distribution and writing of Common Sense.
Our goal is to make Common Sense Medina County's source of news about local and county government. To accomplish this, however, we need your help. Please plan on attending the meeting on March 17th at the Cloverleaf Recreation Center located at the intersection of US Route 224 and County Rd. 35, aka, Friendsville Rd. Please let us know by email to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org that you will be attending.
MCDAC Blog Entries
MCDAC Blog Entries for 3/9-3/15
Sen. Joe Biden calls Bush Iraq policy "God awful."
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/senator-joe-biden-calls-bush-iraq.html
Reader submission: Employee free choice and Republican disinformation:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/reader-submission-employee-free-choice.html
"Document dump" reveals extent of White House involvement in U.S. Attorney firing:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/document-dump-reveals-extent-of-white.html
Washington insiders want Libby pardoned, the public doesn't:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/washington-insiders-want-libby-pardoned.html
The danger with the Republican approach to problems:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/danger-with-republican-approach-to.html
Why Bush can't pardon Libby now:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-bush-cant-pardon-libby-now.html
Medicaid funding & the Ohio General Assembly: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/medicaid-funding-ohio-general-assembly.html
Rove involved in firing of U.S. Attorneys: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/surprise-surprise-rove-involved-in.html
Voters look for character not experience: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/voters-look-for-character-not.html
Former Republican U.S. Attorneys incensed over firing of U.S. Attorneys: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/republican-attorneys-incensed-over.html
Giuliani's private life may hurt his 08 chances: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/giulianis-private-life-may-hurt-his.html
Is Attorney General Gonzales on the Bush Bubble: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-attorney-general-gonzales-on-bubble.html
Nevada Democrats cancel debate with Fox News after Roger Ailes "jokes" about Obama and bin Laden: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/nevada-dems-cancel-fox-debate-after.html
Is the Tax Revolt Era over: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-era-of-tax-revolt-over.html
Fired U.S. Attorneys scandal shows why Congressional oversight is important in getting media coverage:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/fired-us-attorneys-scandal-shows-why.html
We are always looking for short postings by Democrats and links to interesting articles. If you would like to submit an article or a link for our 'blog, please send them to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
Picture of President Bush and person playing George Washington, taken on President's Day, February, 2007. Unfortunately, only one of them has to give up his role when he goes home.
We recently took a snapshot of the locations of people in the U.S. who had posted messages on our blog. The snapshot appears above. It is quite interesting to note all the various locations. Only the internet could provide a way for people who are relatively far apart to communicate and share ideas. It is simply amazing.
Iraq War Anniversary Vigil in Medina
On March 19th, thousands of people all over the country will gather to hold candlelight vigils to observe the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq. Together, concerned citizens will solemnly honor the sacrifice made by more than 3,000 soldiers and untold numbers of civilians. As well, a wish to withdraw our troops and establish peace in the Middle East will be expressed. Americans en masse now say we can no longer send our fathers and mothers, sons and daughters under-equipped and unprepared into the middle of an un-winnable civil war. Please join other concerned citizens of Medina at a candlelight vigil on Monday, March 19th. The event details are: Iraq War Anniversary Vigil, Medina City Square, (across from the New Courthouse,) Medina, 8:30 p.m. Please bring a candle. Honor the sacrifice. Stop the escalation. Bring the troops home.
Medina County Democratic Yard Sign Committee
We are continuing to strengthen the Democratic Party in Medina County . Yard signs are a very important part of a candidate's efforts to get his/her name and message out to the voting public. Building on the success we achieved and the lessons we learned during the 2006 elections, we want to create a systematic approach to delivering candidate yard signs for every election. The process will include identifying priority locations by precinct, creating a group of volunteers who will assist candidates in identifying locations, putting together and delivering yard signs. We want to create an 'event' to deliver yard signs. The first meeting of the Yard Sign Committee will be held on Monday, April 16th at 7:00 PM at Panera's 4065 Pearl Road in Medina . We will use the meeting to begin to identify the priority sites within Medina County , outline volunteer opportunities and discuss how we will capture and maintain lists of individuals who are willing to post yard signs on their property. Come join the fun as we turn Medina County Blue!! Please contact Mary Ogden at ogden@zoominternet.net
for more information.
MCDAC to Hold Common Sense Meeting on March 17th
Repeat Item
On March 17th, from 10 am to noon, the Medina County Democratic Action Committee will be holding a meeting to discuss the future of Common Sense, Medina County's only Democratic newspaper. In 2006 MCDAC delivered approximately 90,000 copies of Common Sense to targeted households. MCDAC wants to establish standing committees to handle both the distribution and writing of Common Sense.
Our goal is to make Common Sense Medina County's source of news about local and county government. To accomplish this, however, we need your help. Please plan on attending the meeting on March 17th at the Cloverleaf Recreation Center located at the intersection of US Route 224 and County Rd. 35, aka, Friendsville Rd. Please let us know by email to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org that you will be attending.
MCDAC Blog Entries
MCDAC Blog Entries for 3/9-3/15
Sen. Joe Biden calls Bush Iraq policy "God awful."
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/senator-joe-biden-calls-bush-iraq.html
Reader submission: Employee free choice and Republican disinformation:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/reader-submission-employee-free-choice.html
"Document dump" reveals extent of White House involvement in U.S. Attorney firing:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/document-dump-reveals-extent-of-white.html
Washington insiders want Libby pardoned, the public doesn't:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/washington-insiders-want-libby-pardoned.html
The danger with the Republican approach to problems:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/danger-with-republican-approach-to.html
Why Bush can't pardon Libby now:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-bush-cant-pardon-libby-now.html
Medicaid funding & the Ohio General Assembly: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/medicaid-funding-ohio-general-assembly.html
Rove involved in firing of U.S. Attorneys: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/surprise-surprise-rove-involved-in.html
Voters look for character not experience: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/voters-look-for-character-not.html
Former Republican U.S. Attorneys incensed over firing of U.S. Attorneys: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/republican-attorneys-incensed-over.html
Giuliani's private life may hurt his 08 chances: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/giulianis-private-life-may-hurt-his.html
Is Attorney General Gonzales on the Bush Bubble: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-attorney-general-gonzales-on-bubble.html
Nevada Democrats cancel debate with Fox News after Roger Ailes "jokes" about Obama and bin Laden: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/nevada-dems-cancel-fox-debate-after.html
Is the Tax Revolt Era over: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-era-of-tax-revolt-over.html
Fired U.S. Attorneys scandal shows why Congressional oversight is important in getting media coverage:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/03/fired-us-attorneys-scandal-shows-why.html
We are always looking for short postings by Democrats and links to interesting articles. If you would like to submit an article or a link for our 'blog, please send them to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Senator Joe Biden Calls Bush Iraq Policy "God Awful" in Senate Debate
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can see a video clip of Senator Joe Biden, (D-MD) referring to President Bush's policy as "God awful". The clip shows a very passionate Biden responding to comments of Senator John McCain just moments before in which he said that those who oppose the President's plan should have the "courage" to cut off funding for the troops. Biden's response was to say to McCain "have the courage to tell the President that his policy is God awful." It is a very intriguing video clip.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Reader Submission: Employee Free Choice & Republican Disinformation
Republicans opposing the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act are lying up a storm to swing public opinion against the proposed law. Their primary attack claim is that the bill denies workers a free, fair election by secret ballot. Unfortunately, there is nothing free or fair about the current system of voting on unionization. The law is tilted heavily in favor of company power and against the workers.
I have been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize a business. I saw disturbing examples of intimidation and unfair tactics that the Employee Free Choice Act would have prevented. Companies are able to hold “captive audience meetings” to argue against unionization. They are legally able to include certain workers and exclude others. Attendance is mandatory for some and prohibited to others. They are held on company time. Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. Strong union supporters are usually excluded from “captive audience meetings” so the company position is the only one heard by the workers forced to attend. Sometimes illegal threats or statements are issued at these meetings when the company feels certain that workers attending them will not report them to the federal government.
The burden of proof by law regarding illegal tactics by companies in complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board definitely tilts toward the company. Most companies fail to see violations of labor laws by anti-union “so-called worker committees” (often comprised of quasi-management employees) while pro-union workers are threatened frequently with being fired if suspected of engaging in pro-union activities. The anti-union “so-called worker committees” can operate on company time (which is illegal) without much fear. While most companies will deny knowing about such activity, it seems likely that these companies often secretly organize these anti-union “so-called worker committees” and direct their operations. In almost every case, the company has complete knowledge of their activities.
Supervisors will often threaten employees when no witnesses are present. Threatened workers are often afraid of reporting the threats or do not know the procedure for reporting them. These threats are illegal but very difficult to prove. The company can fire pro-union workers during the election process to intimidate other workers even if the federal government or courts eventually get their jobs back. In the meantime, the union vote will often go against unionization out of fear.The company will sometimes threaten to close the business or move it if the workers vote for a union. This is illegal but it does happen. It is very difficult to prove.
Illegal activity by the company is difficult to prove in part because many companies make rules against bringing recording devices or cameras into the work area. This also makes it difficult to document unsafe working conditions. Workers can lose their jobs trying to document violations of labor or safety laws by the company.Union organizers and union officials do not have access to company property during the election cycle to discuss the benefits of unionization. They are not supplied with phone numbers of employees although the companies do have that information.If you distribute any union materials including union pledge cards on company property during working hours, you can and usually will be fired.
Pro-union workers are often warned about this even when they are not actively involved in the distribution of pledge cards or materials just to intimidate them from speaking up for unionization.The current union election system is not fair or free. It is much like the “free elections” held in Communist countries or other dictatorships.
The Republicans and their large corporate masters are being completely dishonest in the way they frame the issue and describe the current situation.Republicans falsely claim that workers are intimidated into signing union pledge cards. This is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers. Criminal behavior influencing union votes is almost always on the side of the company.
The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to stop this criminal behavior and all intimidation of workers. The legislation says that if a majority of workers sign pledge cards in favor of unionizing the union will be automatically recognized by law. It is majority rule. It eliminates the opportunity for the company to block the majority desire for unionization by using illegal tactics and intimidation. A vote against the Employee Free Choice Act is a vote in favor of the current rigged system. It is a vote in favor of company intimidation and illegal company behavior. It is a vote against the workers.
Democrats overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. In the House vote, only 2 Democrats voted against the legislation. 13 Republicans voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. The final vote was 241 in favor and 185 against.
Some Senate Republicans may attempt to block a vote on this legislation. If they do, every working American should vote against them. If any Democrat joins them, they should be defeated at the next election. Workers should contact their Senators immediately and let them know their vote on this legislation will determine your vote in the next election.It has been reported that Cheney has pledged that Bush will veto the Employee Free Choice Act. This is the best reason I can think of for voting Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election if Bush vetoes this pro-worker legislation.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a vote for worker rights. A vote against it is a vote against worker rights no matter how the Republicans spin it.
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ).
Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919.
Phone: 443-907-2367.
Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .
Feel free to publish or distribute without prior approval.
I have been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize a business. I saw disturbing examples of intimidation and unfair tactics that the Employee Free Choice Act would have prevented. Companies are able to hold “captive audience meetings” to argue against unionization. They are legally able to include certain workers and exclude others. Attendance is mandatory for some and prohibited to others. They are held on company time. Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. Strong union supporters are usually excluded from “captive audience meetings” so the company position is the only one heard by the workers forced to attend. Sometimes illegal threats or statements are issued at these meetings when the company feels certain that workers attending them will not report them to the federal government.
The burden of proof by law regarding illegal tactics by companies in complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board definitely tilts toward the company. Most companies fail to see violations of labor laws by anti-union “so-called worker committees” (often comprised of quasi-management employees) while pro-union workers are threatened frequently with being fired if suspected of engaging in pro-union activities. The anti-union “so-called worker committees” can operate on company time (which is illegal) without much fear. While most companies will deny knowing about such activity, it seems likely that these companies often secretly organize these anti-union “so-called worker committees” and direct their operations. In almost every case, the company has complete knowledge of their activities.
Supervisors will often threaten employees when no witnesses are present. Threatened workers are often afraid of reporting the threats or do not know the procedure for reporting them. These threats are illegal but very difficult to prove. The company can fire pro-union workers during the election process to intimidate other workers even if the federal government or courts eventually get their jobs back. In the meantime, the union vote will often go against unionization out of fear.The company will sometimes threaten to close the business or move it if the workers vote for a union. This is illegal but it does happen. It is very difficult to prove.
Illegal activity by the company is difficult to prove in part because many companies make rules against bringing recording devices or cameras into the work area. This also makes it difficult to document unsafe working conditions. Workers can lose their jobs trying to document violations of labor or safety laws by the company.Union organizers and union officials do not have access to company property during the election cycle to discuss the benefits of unionization. They are not supplied with phone numbers of employees although the companies do have that information.If you distribute any union materials including union pledge cards on company property during working hours, you can and usually will be fired.
Pro-union workers are often warned about this even when they are not actively involved in the distribution of pledge cards or materials just to intimidate them from speaking up for unionization.The current union election system is not fair or free. It is much like the “free elections” held in Communist countries or other dictatorships.
The Republicans and their large corporate masters are being completely dishonest in the way they frame the issue and describe the current situation.Republicans falsely claim that workers are intimidated into signing union pledge cards. This is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers. Criminal behavior influencing union votes is almost always on the side of the company.
The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to stop this criminal behavior and all intimidation of workers. The legislation says that if a majority of workers sign pledge cards in favor of unionizing the union will be automatically recognized by law. It is majority rule. It eliminates the opportunity for the company to block the majority desire for unionization by using illegal tactics and intimidation. A vote against the Employee Free Choice Act is a vote in favor of the current rigged system. It is a vote in favor of company intimidation and illegal company behavior. It is a vote against the workers.
Democrats overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. In the House vote, only 2 Democrats voted against the legislation. 13 Republicans voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. The final vote was 241 in favor and 185 against.
Some Senate Republicans may attempt to block a vote on this legislation. If they do, every working American should vote against them. If any Democrat joins them, they should be defeated at the next election. Workers should contact their Senators immediately and let them know their vote on this legislation will determine your vote in the next election.It has been reported that Cheney has pledged that Bush will veto the Employee Free Choice Act. This is the best reason I can think of for voting Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election if Bush vetoes this pro-worker legislation.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a vote for worker rights. A vote against it is a vote against worker rights no matter how the Republicans spin it.
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ).
Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919.
Phone: 443-907-2367.
Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .
Feel free to publish or distribute without prior approval.
Document "Dump" Reveals Extent of White House Involvement in U.S. Attorneys Firing
Reporters from several news outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post have been combing through documents they obtained from the Bush Administration regarding the firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys. (You can read the Times article by clicking on the link in this entry's title). What the documents show, including e-mail messages, is that a deputy to Harriet Miers, White House counsel and a short-lived White House nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, told the Justice Department on December 4th that "we're a go" for the firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys.
When you combine this story with the stories that appeared earlier in the week about Bush raising concerns over the prosecution of voting fraud cases a pattern emerges of White House wanting U.S. Attorneys fired for political reasons. The political reasons included prosecuting Republicans for corruption (the U.S. Attorney in California); not being aggressive in pursuing Democrats for corruption (the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico); or not aggressively pursuing supposed voting fraud cases (the U.S. Attorney in Washington). All three reasons attack the rule of law in the United States far more than a sitting President supposedly lying under oath in a deposition in a private civil action about consensual oral sex.
When you combine this story with the stories that appeared earlier in the week about Bush raising concerns over the prosecution of voting fraud cases a pattern emerges of White House wanting U.S. Attorneys fired for political reasons. The political reasons included prosecuting Republicans for corruption (the U.S. Attorney in California); not being aggressive in pursuing Democrats for corruption (the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico); or not aggressively pursuing supposed voting fraud cases (the U.S. Attorney in Washington). All three reasons attack the rule of law in the United States far more than a sitting President supposedly lying under oath in a deposition in a private civil action about consensual oral sex.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Washington Insiders Want Libby Pardoned, Public Doesn't
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will see the results of a poll taken by CNN in which respondents were asked if Libby, Cheney's former Chief of Staff who was recently found guilty of lying to a Federal Grand Jury, should be pardoned. Sixty-nine percent of those polled responded that he should not be pardoned. Yet, according to a posting on www.talkingpointsmemo.com Andrea Mitchell of NBC News claimed on a recent show that polling showed that the public supported a pardon for Libby. What's going on here?
What's going on is very simple: the media elite who live inside the Washington, D.C. "beltway" know Libby, they like him, and they want him pardoned. Mitchell, in particular, is married to the former Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, who is a life-long Republican and who blithely told the Congress in 2001 that America could afford Bush's tax cuts because the Federal surplus was "too large" for the economy. Clearly Alan Greenspan is locked into the Republican elite in D.C. and that elite also wants Libby pardoned. Mitchell and others like her are just repeating what they are hearing on the D.C. cocktail circuit.
The United States is ill-served by most of the Washington media. Like Mitchell way too many of them are too connected to the same people who have brought us the Iraq War, Federal deficits, trade policies that hurt American workers, and tax policies that favor the rich and well-connected, to objectively cover them. They make a lot of money and they benefit from the tax policies of this administration. Their children seldom enlist in the U.S. Armed Services. They have absolutely no idea what Bush's policies are doing to the middle class and too many of them simply don't care. The sooner they are put out of work by the Internet, the better.
What's going on is very simple: the media elite who live inside the Washington, D.C. "beltway" know Libby, they like him, and they want him pardoned. Mitchell, in particular, is married to the former Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, who is a life-long Republican and who blithely told the Congress in 2001 that America could afford Bush's tax cuts because the Federal surplus was "too large" for the economy. Clearly Alan Greenspan is locked into the Republican elite in D.C. and that elite also wants Libby pardoned. Mitchell and others like her are just repeating what they are hearing on the D.C. cocktail circuit.
The United States is ill-served by most of the Washington media. Like Mitchell way too many of them are too connected to the same people who have brought us the Iraq War, Federal deficits, trade policies that hurt American workers, and tax policies that favor the rich and well-connected, to objectively cover them. They make a lot of money and they benefit from the tax policies of this administration. Their children seldom enlist in the U.S. Armed Services. They have absolutely no idea what Bush's policies are doing to the middle class and too many of them simply don't care. The sooner they are put out of work by the Internet, the better.
The Danger with the Republican Approach to Problems
If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read an article about the House Republican Caucus that summarizes the problem with the Republican approach to government. A House Democratic Chair has made arrangments for a group to use a conference room to give a seminar on America's relations with the Muslim world. The Republicans are objecting and calling on the Democrats to retract the invitation. The reason, according to the Republicans, is that the group is an "apologist for terrorism." The group points out that it has been used by the FBI and other governmental agencies for information.
Here's why we think this is important: House Republicans have an adversion to receiving information that doesn't conform with their beliefs. They don't want to hear about global warming, they didn't want to hear whether the Bush Administration's reasons for the Iraq War were valid, they didn't want to hear medical evidence in the case of Teri Schaivo, and they don't want to know whether the policies they push actually work. They believe in "faith-based" government. If they have faith that they are right, that good enough for them and ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
We are fighting two wars involving Muslims. We were attacked on 9-11 by radical Muslims. We get oil from nations that are governed by Muslims. You would think that a member of Congress might want to know more about Muslims and especially the preception in Islamic societies of the United States. Of course, if the member of Congress is a Republican leader or perhaps even a regular Republican member, chances are that you would be wrong.
Here's why we think this is important: House Republicans have an adversion to receiving information that doesn't conform with their beliefs. They don't want to hear about global warming, they didn't want to hear whether the Bush Administration's reasons for the Iraq War were valid, they didn't want to hear medical evidence in the case of Teri Schaivo, and they don't want to know whether the policies they push actually work. They believe in "faith-based" government. If they have faith that they are right, that good enough for them and ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
We are fighting two wars involving Muslims. We were attacked on 9-11 by radical Muslims. We get oil from nations that are governed by Muslims. You would think that a member of Congress might want to know more about Muslims and especially the preception in Islamic societies of the United States. Of course, if the member of Congress is a Republican leader or perhaps even a regular Republican member, chances are that you would be wrong.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Why Bush Can't Pardon Libby Now
Newsweek magazine has a story that is out on its online edition speculating that Bush won't pardon Libby until the very end of his presidency. The article goes into some detail about how the Libby case violates the standards for pardons that Bush has allegedly been using. Now we all know that Bush could give a fig about his adherence to standards, his or anyone else's. The real reason why Bush can't pardon Libby right now is that it deprives him of the answer his press secretary gives whenever he is asked about anything to do with the Plame outing: "We can't talk about that because it is in litigation."
This administration has been using that particular dodge to get out of explaining to the media why King Karl Rove hasn't been fired for leaking Valerie Plame's name to the media. Back in 2003, when this all started, Bush said that he would fire anyone who leaked the name of a CIA agent to the media. Under that standard, KKR should have been fired a long time ago. Since, however, he is Bush's brain, that wouldn't have worked out very well. So they had to invent a reason not to answer the question about why Rove is still working at the White House. Presto, the excuse of "we can't talk about that because it is in litigation" was born.
If Bush pardoned Libby, however, there would be no appeal and the excuse would be gone. Because the Bushies use that particular excuse to avoid answering tough questions about Rove, don't expect a pardon of Libby for several months, right around January 19, 2009.
This administration has been using that particular dodge to get out of explaining to the media why King Karl Rove hasn't been fired for leaking Valerie Plame's name to the media. Back in 2003, when this all started, Bush said that he would fire anyone who leaked the name of a CIA agent to the media. Under that standard, KKR should have been fired a long time ago. Since, however, he is Bush's brain, that wouldn't have worked out very well. So they had to invent a reason not to answer the question about why Rove is still working at the White House. Presto, the excuse of "we can't talk about that because it is in litigation" was born.
If Bush pardoned Libby, however, there would be no appeal and the excuse would be gone. Because the Bushies use that particular excuse to avoid answering tough questions about Rove, don't expect a pardon of Libby for several months, right around January 19, 2009.
Medicaid Funding & the Ohio General Assembly
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a story by its Columbus Bureau Chief discussing the funding of Ohio's Medicaid program. According to this story a family of four earning $60,000.00 per year would see approximately $1,300.00 of its tax dollars go to this program.
One of the issues that always comes up during debate over Medicaid is how to handle senior citizens and their care. The article points out that in the past the nursing home lobby has managed to get what it wanted from the Ohio General Assembly. That is changing.
One of the changes that is being discussed is to try and shift more people from nursing homes to in-home care which would theoretically save money. Such a policy change, however, assumes that there will be skilled nursing aides to help families cope with caring for sick and disabled senior citizens.
In one of her last acts as State Auditor Betty Montgomery released a report calling for over 100 changes in Ohio's Medicaid program that she said would save over 400 million dollars per year. That report could become the blueprint for changing Ohio's Medicaid program. It will be interesting to see how much the House and Senate GOP leadership are willing to take on the nursing home lobby.
One of the issues that always comes up during debate over Medicaid is how to handle senior citizens and their care. The article points out that in the past the nursing home lobby has managed to get what it wanted from the Ohio General Assembly. That is changing.
One of the changes that is being discussed is to try and shift more people from nursing homes to in-home care which would theoretically save money. Such a policy change, however, assumes that there will be skilled nursing aides to help families cope with caring for sick and disabled senior citizens.
In one of her last acts as State Auditor Betty Montgomery released a report calling for over 100 changes in Ohio's Medicaid program that she said would save over 400 million dollars per year. That report could become the blueprint for changing Ohio's Medicaid program. It will be interesting to see how much the House and Senate GOP leadership are willing to take on the nursing home lobby.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Surprise, Surprise, Rove Involved in Firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney
In the article linked to in this entry's title by the McClatchy Washington Bureau, the New Mexico Republican chairman admits to asking Rove to help get rid of the U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias. Rove was the person who told the Republican Chairman that Iglesias was going to be replaced. You just knew that somewhere, somehow, Rove's fingerprints would be on this mess.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times asked in a column this weekend about those U.S. Attorneys who weren't fired. Since we know that Gonzales and his puppets at the Department of Justice weren't above using the DOJ for political purposes, and since we know that most of them weren't fired, what was going on with the ones that weren't. How many politically inspired investigations did they start at the request of the Bushies? That is the question that Democratic Representatives and Senators should be asking next week when Congress reconvenes after the weekend.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times asked in a column this weekend about those U.S. Attorneys who weren't fired. Since we know that Gonzales and his puppets at the Department of Justice weren't above using the DOJ for political purposes, and since we know that most of them weren't fired, what was going on with the ones that weren't. How many politically inspired investigations did they start at the request of the Bushies? That is the question that Democratic Representatives and Senators should be asking next week when Congress reconvenes after the weekend.
Voters Look For Character Not Experience
This is from the AP news story linked to in this entry's title:
WASHINGTON — For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.
A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.
The story goes on to examine the poll results and also to examine how the various candidates stack up on the whole "character" factor. One of the political consultants quoted in the poll points out that "character" encompasses a matrix of issues, including intelligence and empathy. This poll makes sense because voters don't have the time to get to really know a candidate and never did have the time. Voters have always depended on cues to tell them how to vote.
In the past such cues included a candidate's party identification. That cue, however, is declining in importance and has been for several years. What has taken its place are things such as gender, race, religion, and "character." These cues give voters short-hand information about whether they are likely to agree with what a candidate would do if the candidate is elected.
Now, liberals and progressives have a choice: they can gnash their teeth in frustration and demand that voters look at issues, something that voters aren't likely to do, or they can start running campaigns based on the cues that voters use in deciding who to support. Our recommendation is the latter because we want to win elections not run civic education campaigns.
WASHINGTON — For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.
A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.
The story goes on to examine the poll results and also to examine how the various candidates stack up on the whole "character" factor. One of the political consultants quoted in the poll points out that "character" encompasses a matrix of issues, including intelligence and empathy. This poll makes sense because voters don't have the time to get to really know a candidate and never did have the time. Voters have always depended on cues to tell them how to vote.
In the past such cues included a candidate's party identification. That cue, however, is declining in importance and has been for several years. What has taken its place are things such as gender, race, religion, and "character." These cues give voters short-hand information about whether they are likely to agree with what a candidate would do if the candidate is elected.
Now, liberals and progressives have a choice: they can gnash their teeth in frustration and demand that voters look at issues, something that voters aren't likely to do, or they can start running campaigns based on the cues that voters use in deciding who to support. Our recommendation is the latter because we want to win elections not run civic education campaigns.
Republican Attorneys Incensed over Firing of U.S. Attorneys
The article linked to in this entry's title reports on how former U.S. Attorneys, Republicans, are incensed over the firing of the U.S. Attorneys on December 7th, 2006. The former U.S. Attorneys don't dispute the Bush Administration's decision to terminate the U.S. Attorneys, or even necessarily why it was done, but they are upset with they consider the ruining of the reputations of the U.S. Attorneys involved. This article is interesting for several reasons.
One is that Republicans are starting to realize that the man they wanted to be king, Bubble-Boy Georgie, has absolutely no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself and his own family. In the Bush world, people are meant to serve them and once they are of no use, they are disposed of and the Bushes move on. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.
Second is that, at least in this story, the former Republican U.S. Attorneys don't seem upset that the Bush Administration sacked them for not carrying out political hits on Democrats or for purging U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted Republicans for corruption. They are mad because the professional reputations of the attorneys has been damaged. If true, this says a lot about their priorities both as lawyers and as people.
Third is that Republicans don't seem to have empathy or sympathy for people unless it affects them or people like them. An extreme example of this was when Bush went down to Mississippi and lamented about Sen. Trent Lott's house being destroyed in Katrina while poor people were dying in the streets of New Orleans. If it doesn't happen to them or their friends then it doesn't matter.
One is that Republicans are starting to realize that the man they wanted to be king, Bubble-Boy Georgie, has absolutely no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself and his own family. In the Bush world, people are meant to serve them and once they are of no use, they are disposed of and the Bushes move on. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.
Second is that, at least in this story, the former Republican U.S. Attorneys don't seem upset that the Bush Administration sacked them for not carrying out political hits on Democrats or for purging U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted Republicans for corruption. They are mad because the professional reputations of the attorneys has been damaged. If true, this says a lot about their priorities both as lawyers and as people.
Third is that Republicans don't seem to have empathy or sympathy for people unless it affects them or people like them. An extreme example of this was when Bush went down to Mississippi and lamented about Sen. Trent Lott's house being destroyed in Katrina while poor people were dying in the streets of New Orleans. If it doesn't happen to them or their friends then it doesn't matter.
Giuliani's Private Life May Hurt His Chances
Just as the public is anointing Rudy, the Political Transvestite*, the front-runner, the media is starting to look at his messy personal life. His first marriage was a 14 year marriage that got annulled when he apparently realized he was married to his second cousin. At the time of that annulment he was already involved with the woman who became his second wife, by whom he had two children.
That marriage fell apart when he got involved with his third wife. It included such scenes as a judge issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the PT from having his mistress over at Gracie Mansion, the Mayor's residence, while his children and wife were there. When he left the marital residence, he resided with a gay couple and their dog.
Now, he is married for a third time and running for president. His son, Andrew, told the media this past week that he is too busy trying to become a professional golfer to campaign with his father and that he has some problems with his father's new wife. Apparently Andrew and his sis weren't too happy about how Dad trashed Mom during the whole divorce process. This revelation led to Rudy asking the media not to involve his family in this campaign. A wish, by the way that John McCain, who was involved with his heiress second wife during his first marriage, also voiced.
As the AP article linked to in this entry's title shows, that ain't going to happen. The media long ago gave up serious political journalism for political celebrity journalism. Political celebrity journalism means covering politicians like the entertainment media covers movie stars only with poll results. Political celebrity journalists are about to descend on the story of PT's marriages like seagulls on a dead fish at the beach. Which, by the time they get through with Rudy and his Three Wives, will be an apt analogy.
___________________________________________________________________
*We call Giuliani the Political Transvestite because he is pretending to be something he isn't, a social conservative, to get the Republican nomination.
That marriage fell apart when he got involved with his third wife. It included such scenes as a judge issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the PT from having his mistress over at Gracie Mansion, the Mayor's residence, while his children and wife were there. When he left the marital residence, he resided with a gay couple and their dog.
Now, he is married for a third time and running for president. His son, Andrew, told the media this past week that he is too busy trying to become a professional golfer to campaign with his father and that he has some problems with his father's new wife. Apparently Andrew and his sis weren't too happy about how Dad trashed Mom during the whole divorce process. This revelation led to Rudy asking the media not to involve his family in this campaign. A wish, by the way that John McCain, who was involved with his heiress second wife during his first marriage, also voiced.
As the AP article linked to in this entry's title shows, that ain't going to happen. The media long ago gave up serious political journalism for political celebrity journalism. Political celebrity journalism means covering politicians like the entertainment media covers movie stars only with poll results. Political celebrity journalists are about to descend on the story of PT's marriages like seagulls on a dead fish at the beach. Which, by the time they get through with Rudy and his Three Wives, will be an apt analogy.
___________________________________________________________________
*We call Giuliani the Political Transvestite because he is pretending to be something he isn't, a social conservative, to get the Republican nomination.
Is Attorney General Gonzales on the Bubble?
The Associated Press ran an article by one of its political reporters in which he speculated that Attorney General Gonzales might have to leave following the revelation that the FBI abused powers granted it by the Patriot Act. (This entry's title has a link to the AP article) This news comes on the heels of the scandal involving the fired U.S. Attorneys. Both stories play into the theme of the politicization of the Justice Department by the Bush Administration.
It will be interesting to see if Gonzales can survive the take-over of Congress by Democrats. The vaunted Bush loyalty only works one way. Bushes expect loyalty but they don't feel like they have to give it. That's because they are better than other people and when it becomes inconvenient for them to have someone in their lives politically, they get rid of them. An example of this is the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress, he was gone.
The same thing could happen to Gonzales and even Cheney. The only person who might be untouchable is Rove and that is only because he knows too much to dump.
It will be interesting to see if Gonzales can survive the take-over of Congress by Democrats. The vaunted Bush loyalty only works one way. Bushes expect loyalty but they don't feel like they have to give it. That's because they are better than other people and when it becomes inconvenient for them to have someone in their lives politically, they get rid of them. An example of this is the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress, he was gone.
The same thing could happen to Gonzales and even Cheney. The only person who might be untouchable is Rove and that is only because he knows too much to dump.
Nevada Dems Cancel Fox Debate After Ailes "Jokes" About Obama and bin Laden
The Nevada Democratic Party has pulled out of the debate it was going to hold in August with Fox News. The reason given was the fact that Roger Ailes, the former Republican operative who runs Fox News, made jokes at a speech he gave about Obama when he compared Obama to bin Laden. The real reason, however, might have been the pressure that liberal organizations such as Move On were putting on for the Nevada debate to be canceled. (If you click on this entry's title you can read an article in Politico about the cancellation of the Nevada debate.)
This move will probably draw some criticism from the news media which has a vested interest in making sure that politicians give them access. It is, however, a very smart thing. Fox News is not a legitimate news organization. It is a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. Democrats, by appearing on its programs, are giving it a credibility that it certainly doesn't deserve.
Boycotting Fox News is something that Democrats should have done a long time ago. They should throw their reporters off the press planes, bar them from Democratic events, refuse to return their phone calls, and stop co-operating with them. Would other news organizations criticize them? Sure, but they would get the message that the Democratic Party is not going to co-operate with any news organization in its own destruction.
This move will probably draw some criticism from the news media which has a vested interest in making sure that politicians give them access. It is, however, a very smart thing. Fox News is not a legitimate news organization. It is a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. Democrats, by appearing on its programs, are giving it a credibility that it certainly doesn't deserve.
Boycotting Fox News is something that Democrats should have done a long time ago. They should throw their reporters off the press planes, bar them from Democratic events, refuse to return their phone calls, and stop co-operating with them. Would other news organizations criticize them? Sure, but they would get the message that the Democratic Party is not going to co-operate with any news organization in its own destruction.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Is the Era of the Tax Revolt Over?
In the article linked to in this entry's title Mark Schmitt, a writer for The Washington Monthly, argues that just like every political movement has a beginning, they also have an end, and the end of the tax revolt era is at hand. He points out that with what he calls the tax revolt era spanning 30 years, almost every politician in office has come of age during that period. This means that both Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in campaigns where the rate of taxation is an issue. Indeed, if contemporary conservatism was built around opposition to taxes, opposition to communism, and opposition to "big government", the only thing that may be left that is holding conservatives together in the issue of taxes.
Communism is no longer a viable political movement opposing the United States. The Bush Administration has pretty much demonstrated that conservatives don't mind "big government" as long as it makes their supporters wealthy. Campaigning on lowering taxes is about the only thing left for Republicans. If, however, the public is coming to the realization that taxes are necessary to provide services that taxpayers want, then the Republican Party could find itself without a winning issue. Now, wouldn't that just be a shame?
Communism is no longer a viable political movement opposing the United States. The Bush Administration has pretty much demonstrated that conservatives don't mind "big government" as long as it makes their supporters wealthy. Campaigning on lowering taxes is about the only thing left for Republicans. If, however, the public is coming to the realization that taxes are necessary to provide services that taxpayers want, then the Republican Party could find itself without a winning issue. Now, wouldn't that just be a shame?
Fired U.S. Attorneys Scandal Shows Why Congressional Oversight is Important
Josh Marshall, creator of the website www.talkingpointsmemo.com had a column in The Hill, a newspaper devoted to covering Capitol Hill pointing out that if the Dems had not taken control of Congress the Bush Administration would have gotten away with firing the seven U.S. Attorneys as political retribution. (You can read the article by clicking on the link in this entry's title).
The only reason why this has become a problem for the Bushies is that with Dems controlling the Congress, investigators with subpoena power were able to get the U.S. Attorneys to testify about what happened. This oversight meant that people like Marshall, who has been covering this scandal on his website, could get someone in power to take their allegations seriously. Without the hearings this scandal, like so many others concerning the Bush Administration, would never have came to the attention of most of the public.
This is what happened with this story: first a group of people, notably Marshall, started writing about the firing of these attorneys. Then, a few reporters at a few news outlets picked it up and ran stories, thus making more people aware of what was happening. After that, Senators and Representatives started talking about it and that led to Congressional hearings. Because of those hearings there was much more news coverage, which feeds on itself and produces more coverage.
If, however, there had not been Dems controlling the Congress, the hearings wouldn't have taken place, and the third and most critical component, the huge expansion of the news coverage, wouldn't have happened. That's why Congressional oversight is important and that's why the last two years of the Bush Administration won't be anything like the first six years, a fact for which most Americans will be thankful.
The only reason why this has become a problem for the Bushies is that with Dems controlling the Congress, investigators with subpoena power were able to get the U.S. Attorneys to testify about what happened. This oversight meant that people like Marshall, who has been covering this scandal on his website, could get someone in power to take their allegations seriously. Without the hearings this scandal, like so many others concerning the Bush Administration, would never have came to the attention of most of the public.
This is what happened with this story: first a group of people, notably Marshall, started writing about the firing of these attorneys. Then, a few reporters at a few news outlets picked it up and ran stories, thus making more people aware of what was happening. After that, Senators and Representatives started talking about it and that led to Congressional hearings. Because of those hearings there was much more news coverage, which feeds on itself and produces more coverage.
If, however, there had not been Dems controlling the Congress, the hearings wouldn't have taken place, and the third and most critical component, the huge expansion of the news coverage, wouldn't have happened. That's why Congressional oversight is important and that's why the last two years of the Bush Administration won't be anything like the first six years, a fact for which most Americans will be thankful.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
The "Secular Vote" in the 2006 Ohio Senate Race
Right after the 2004 presidential election there were a lot of articles on how the Democratic Party was in trouble with members of the religious right and how that trouble led to Bush's re-election. For a long time this theme dominated the media. Very little attention was given to the other side of the equation and that is whether Republicans were in trouble with, for want of a better term, the secular left.
With the 2006 election cycle, however, some commentators began to pay attention to that side of the equation. John Green, director of the Bliss Center for Applied Politics at the University of Akron, was quoted in an article pointing out that Ohioans who were not regular church goers were organizing politically at the same rate as the religious right. Because of Green's comments, the following article at Huffington Post caught our eye: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/the-conservatives-secul_b_42359.html In the article Bill Scher argues that conservatives have problems with the secular voters that are bigger than the problems liberals have with the religious voters.
Based on that column, we examined the results of the CNN exit poll for Ohio's Senate race in 2006. That examination showed some interesting results.
According to the exit poll, 16% of Ohio voters surveyed attended church more than once a week. Among that group DeWine beat Brown by 62% to 38%. The same poll showed 30% attending weekly and among that group DeWine beat Brown by the much narrower margin of 52% to 48%. Respondents who only attended church once a month went for Brown by a margin of 59 to 48% and they accounted for 13% of the respondents. Respondents who attended church a few times a year accounted for 27% of the respondents and Brown beat DeWine by 69% to 31%. Respondents who never attended church accounted for 13% of the respondents and they went for Brown by a whopping 74% to 26%.
The survey is interesting for several reasons. First of all, it shows that respondents who attend church once a month or less accounted for 53% of the respondents. Second, only among the voters who attended church more than once a week did DeWine have a significant lead over Brown of 24%. They accounted for 16% of the respondents. Brown, however, significantly exceed that margin with those respondents who never attended church when he beat DeWine by 48% and they accounted for 13% of the respondents. Third while the biggest group, those attending church once a week did go for DeWine by 4%, the second biggest group, those attending church only a few times a year went for Brown by 38% of the vote. Brown was able to decisively beat DeWine among voters who have no or little church attendance while staying close to DeWine among those voters who attend church weekly.
A lot of this is being missed by the mainstream media. Most media commentators would not find anything "new" in secular voters voting for Democrats. They probably believe that such voting has been taking place for years. Such a belief is probably correct. What is new, however, may be that such voters are now overwhelmingly voting for Democrats.
____________________________________________________________________
You can view the entire CNN exit poll results for the Brown-DeWine race by clicking on this entry's title.
With the 2006 election cycle, however, some commentators began to pay attention to that side of the equation. John Green, director of the Bliss Center for Applied Politics at the University of Akron, was quoted in an article pointing out that Ohioans who were not regular church goers were organizing politically at the same rate as the religious right. Because of Green's comments, the following article at Huffington Post caught our eye: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/the-conservatives-secul_b_42359.html In the article Bill Scher argues that conservatives have problems with the secular voters that are bigger than the problems liberals have with the religious voters.
Based on that column, we examined the results of the CNN exit poll for Ohio's Senate race in 2006. That examination showed some interesting results.
According to the exit poll, 16% of Ohio voters surveyed attended church more than once a week. Among that group DeWine beat Brown by 62% to 38%. The same poll showed 30% attending weekly and among that group DeWine beat Brown by the much narrower margin of 52% to 48%. Respondents who only attended church once a month went for Brown by a margin of 59 to 48% and they accounted for 13% of the respondents. Respondents who attended church a few times a year accounted for 27% of the respondents and Brown beat DeWine by 69% to 31%. Respondents who never attended church accounted for 13% of the respondents and they went for Brown by a whopping 74% to 26%.
The survey is interesting for several reasons. First of all, it shows that respondents who attend church once a month or less accounted for 53% of the respondents. Second, only among the voters who attended church more than once a week did DeWine have a significant lead over Brown of 24%. They accounted for 16% of the respondents. Brown, however, significantly exceed that margin with those respondents who never attended church when he beat DeWine by 48% and they accounted for 13% of the respondents. Third while the biggest group, those attending church once a week did go for DeWine by 4%, the second biggest group, those attending church only a few times a year went for Brown by 38% of the vote. Brown was able to decisively beat DeWine among voters who have no or little church attendance while staying close to DeWine among those voters who attend church weekly.
A lot of this is being missed by the mainstream media. Most media commentators would not find anything "new" in secular voters voting for Democrats. They probably believe that such voting has been taking place for years. Such a belief is probably correct. What is new, however, may be that such voters are now overwhelmingly voting for Democrats.
____________________________________________________________________
You can view the entire CNN exit poll results for the Brown-DeWine race by clicking on this entry's title.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Women in State Legislatures: Ohio & Nationwide
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will go to a page on the National Conference of State Legislatures website. The page deals with the number of women serving in the legislatures of the fifty states.
Nationally there are 7382 seats in the 50 state legislatures. Of those 7382 seats, 1735 or 23.5% are held by women. Of those 1735 women, 1187 are Democrats, 535 are Republicans, 4 are a third party member, and 9, in Nebraska, are officially non-partisan. Thus, Democrats make up 68.4% of all women serving in the state legislatures.
In Ohio, the number of women in the General Assembly is 23 out of 132 total members for a percentage of 17.4%. Of the states that border Ohio, Michigan has the most women as a percentage of that state's legislature at 19.6% and Kentucky has the lowest at 12.3%.
Nationally there are 7382 seats in the 50 state legislatures. Of those 7382 seats, 1735 or 23.5% are held by women. Of those 1735 women, 1187 are Democrats, 535 are Republicans, 4 are a third party member, and 9, in Nebraska, are officially non-partisan. Thus, Democrats make up 68.4% of all women serving in the state legislatures.
In Ohio, the number of women in the General Assembly is 23 out of 132 total members for a percentage of 17.4%. Of the states that border Ohio, Michigan has the most women as a percentage of that state's legislature at 19.6% and Kentucky has the lowest at 12.3%.
Justice Department Official Reportedly Told Fired U.S. Attorney not to Talk to Media
The shoes just keep dropping on the fired U.S. Attorneys story. Now it is being reported that a Justice Department official told one of the fired U.S. Attorneys that if they talked to the media more information about them would be released publicly. Although that U.S. Attorney didn't regard the tone as threatening, another one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, when told of the conversation, regarded it as a threat. That Attorney believed that the implication was that if the fired U.S. Attorneys talked to the media, damaging information on them or their families would be released.
One thing that should be kept in mind when considering this aspect of the story is that all U.S. Attorneys go through background checks by the F.B.I. when being considered for appointment. These background checks are known to be very thorough. The fired U.S. Attorneys would know that somewhere in the Justice Department was a file with their name on it. They would also know that it might contain information that they wouldn't want publicly released. An Administration that "outed" a covert CIA agent who was working on weapons of mass destruction to get back at her husband while this nation is at war wouldn't hesitate to destroy the personal and professional reputations of six or seven fired U.S. Attorneys.
One thing that should be kept in mind when considering this aspect of the story is that all U.S. Attorneys go through background checks by the F.B.I. when being considered for appointment. These background checks are known to be very thorough. The fired U.S. Attorneys would know that somewhere in the Justice Department was a file with their name on it. They would also know that it might contain information that they wouldn't want publicly released. An Administration that "outed" a covert CIA agent who was working on weapons of mass destruction to get back at her husband while this nation is at war wouldn't hesitate to destroy the personal and professional reputations of six or seven fired U.S. Attorneys.
Two New Mexico Republicans Involved in U.S. Attorney's Firing
As the link in this entry's title to a Washington Post article shows, two New Mexico Republicans are implicated in the firing of the U.S. Attorney in that state on December 7th. They are that state's Republican Senator Pete Domenici and Congressperson Heather Wilson.
Both of them are running the same defense which is basically "yes I called him, but I didn't pressure him." Of course that defense ignores political reality. If you are a politically appointed U.S. Attorney, and you receive a call about an ongoing public corruption case from two prominent Republicans, the mere fact that the call is made is political pressure. Given the context of the calls the pressure was about as subtle as the head of a horse on the U.S. Attorney's bed.
The facts are that Heather Wilson, who is regarded as the political heiress to Pete Domenci's Senate Seat in 2014, was in a very tight race in a district that Gore carried in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. She needed something to take the heat off of her and put it on the Democrats. She had an interest in seeing that a New Mexico Democrat was indicted before the election. Domenici had an interest in seeing that his political ally got elected. Both of them screwed up and are now paying the price.
The irony may be that the lack of oversight during the first six years of the Bush Administration by Congressional Republicans may have contributed to their behavior. When one party controls everything that party's members begin to think that the rules don't apply to them. In such an environment even otherwise ethical politicians do stupid things. Pete Domenici risking his political reputation by making a phone call to help a friend qualifies as one of those stupid things.
Both of them are running the same defense which is basically "yes I called him, but I didn't pressure him." Of course that defense ignores political reality. If you are a politically appointed U.S. Attorney, and you receive a call about an ongoing public corruption case from two prominent Republicans, the mere fact that the call is made is political pressure. Given the context of the calls the pressure was about as subtle as the head of a horse on the U.S. Attorney's bed.
The facts are that Heather Wilson, who is regarded as the political heiress to Pete Domenci's Senate Seat in 2014, was in a very tight race in a district that Gore carried in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. She needed something to take the heat off of her and put it on the Democrats. She had an interest in seeing that a New Mexico Democrat was indicted before the election. Domenici had an interest in seeing that his political ally got elected. Both of them screwed up and are now paying the price.
The irony may be that the lack of oversight during the first six years of the Bush Administration by Congressional Republicans may have contributed to their behavior. When one party controls everything that party's members begin to think that the rules don't apply to them. In such an environment even otherwise ethical politicians do stupid things. Pete Domenici risking his political reputation by making a phone call to help a friend qualifies as one of those stupid things.
Monday, March 05, 2007
"It's Just Not Walter Reed"-Must Read Story in the Washington Post
The Washington Post ran another story on how the VA is taking care of wounded veterans. The bottom line of the story is that the problem is more than just one hospital or installation. According to the article there has been a culture of indifference to wounded veterans and bureaucratic obstacles to getting vets adequate care. Click on the link in this entry's title to read the whole Washington Post story.
LaTourette Joins Dems on Employee Free Choice Act
An examination of House Roll Call 118 for the 110th Congress shows that Steve LaTourette, (R-OH), was the only Ohio Republican to vote with the Ohio Dems for the Employee Free Choice Act. As far as we can tell, all the other Republicans voted against this bill, which was being pushed by organized labor to restore equality in the battle for union representation. This is the second time that LaTourette has sided with Dems in an important vote while all other Ohio Republicans voted with the Republican leadership, the first being on the Iraq War Resolution opposing the surge ordered by President Bush.
Conservative Blogger Calls Upon CPAC to Ban Coulter Next Year
In the past we have often stated our view that conservatives and Republicans apply one set of rules to others and another set of rules to themselves. An example of this is seen when Hillary Clinton is attacked as Machivallian for staying married to her husband while the double adulterer, Rudy Giuliani, is praised by the same conservatives. Another example is that perjury allegedly committed by Bill Clinton is a crime deserving of impeachment while Scooter Libby allegedly lying to a Federal Grand Jury is no big deal. We could go on, but you get the idea.
Therefore, we were pleasantly surprised to learn that a conservative blog, The American Mind, is leading a petition drive to have Ann Coulter banned for future events such as the Conservative Action Political Conference. This blogger has decided that calling John Edwards a "faggot" is not defensible and that her appearances at such events does more harm than good for the conservative cause. We compliment The American Mind for this position.
Therefore, we were pleasantly surprised to learn that a conservative blog, The American Mind, is leading a petition drive to have Ann Coulter banned for future events such as the Conservative Action Political Conference. This blogger has decided that calling John Edwards a "faggot" is not defensible and that her appearances at such events does more harm than good for the conservative cause. We compliment The American Mind for this position.
How Ted Strickland is Different
An Akron Beacon Journal reporter, Dennis Willard, posted a story in that paper's Sunday edition about how Ted Strickland is different than Bob Taft or George Voinovich. It is an interesting article and one that every Democrat should read. Ted Strickland is different because he is not allowing the General Assembly to set the agenda which both Voinovich and Taft did and because he governs with a whole different philosophy. Check it out, it is worth the time. You can read Willard's article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Using Federal Funds to Reward Your Friends
The following is from the first paragraph of a story on the blog "Talk to Action":
Wade Horn has been very kind to Religious Right organizations, including the one that he founded in 1994 with Religious Right money -- the National Fatherhood Initiative in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Appointed by President Bush as Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services, Horn oversees an annual budget of 47 billion dollars. Horn has shown that he knows all about the hand that feeds, and now, he has taken care to feed the National Fatherhood Initiative with a "Capacities Building" grant in the amount of $999,534 from a program he started in his agency and called by the familiar-ringing name of the "Responsible Fatherhood Initiative."
The whole article can be viewed by clicking on the link in this entry's title. Talk to Action is a blog that reports on what it calls "The Religious Right".
Wade Horn has been very kind to Religious Right organizations, including the one that he founded in 1994 with Religious Right money -- the National Fatherhood Initiative in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Appointed by President Bush as Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services, Horn oversees an annual budget of 47 billion dollars. Horn has shown that he knows all about the hand that feeds, and now, he has taken care to feed the National Fatherhood Initiative with a "Capacities Building" grant in the amount of $999,534 from a program he started in his agency and called by the familiar-ringing name of the "Responsible Fatherhood Initiative."
The whole article can be viewed by clicking on the link in this entry's title. Talk to Action is a blog that reports on what it calls "The Religious Right".
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Threats Against the Rule of Law
The rule of law depends on, among other things, being represented by counsel. Counsel that is competent and free of intimidation. That's why the article linked to in this entry's title is so troubling.
Apparently the United States has been holding an Australian man named David Hicks for almost five years. Originally he was charged with three charges relating to terrorism, attempted murder, aiding the enemy, and conspiracy to commit war crimes. Those three charges have been reduced to one charge, providing material support to terrorists, which wasn't even a crime for Americans to commit until after we had seized him. He is to be tried by a military tribunal and is being represented by Major Michael Mori, a U.S. Marine.
Now Major Mori may be charged with crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice by the lead prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis. Apparently it is a crime under the UCMJ to use contemptuous language toward the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Defense. This crime is punishable by imprisonment. Obviously this will impede Major Mori's ability to conduct a defense of David Hicks. It would seem that even if Major Mori is guilty of this offense, Colonel Davis could have waited until after the Hicks trial, which is due to start fairly soon, to charge him.
This case, by the way, is receiving a lot of attention in Australia. It is not doing the US's image with the Australians any good and hurts our reputation as a nation that believes in the rule of law, even for its enemies.
Apparently the United States has been holding an Australian man named David Hicks for almost five years. Originally he was charged with three charges relating to terrorism, attempted murder, aiding the enemy, and conspiracy to commit war crimes. Those three charges have been reduced to one charge, providing material support to terrorists, which wasn't even a crime for Americans to commit until after we had seized him. He is to be tried by a military tribunal and is being represented by Major Michael Mori, a U.S. Marine.
Now Major Mori may be charged with crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice by the lead prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis. Apparently it is a crime under the UCMJ to use contemptuous language toward the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Defense. This crime is punishable by imprisonment. Obviously this will impede Major Mori's ability to conduct a defense of David Hicks. It would seem that even if Major Mori is guilty of this offense, Colonel Davis could have waited until after the Hicks trial, which is due to start fairly soon, to charge him.
This case, by the way, is receiving a lot of attention in Australia. It is not doing the US's image with the Australians any good and hurts our reputation as a nation that believes in the rule of law, even for its enemies.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
How Media Supervisors Influence What Information You Receive
If you click on this entry's title you can read a blog post by former Washington Times reporter George Archibald. Archibald claims to be the first reporter hired by the Washington Times outside of the original founding group. The Washington Times is a paper owned by the Moonies and is a wingnut media outlet. Now, this former reporter is a true believer, no doubt about it, and the reason why we are recommending his article is not that we agree with him. It is because his article contains fascinating examples of how editors and other media supervisors determine and define what is news.
Often media personnel like to deny how they shape the news by the story lines they chose to present. They act as if news stories just magically appear. Well, that is simply not true. There are literally millions of stories that the media could present, but only a relatively small number get presented. Every story that is presented appears because of the conscious decision of someone to present the story. In corporate media there are a number of such persons. There is the author of the piece, his or her supervisor, that person's supervisor, and depending on the importance of the story, maybe another person, perhaps the publisher, owner, or station manager.
These decisions are why labor issues aren't covered by most major news outlets while we hear about Anna Nicole Smith and her demise ad nauseum. These decisions are why the negative aspects of trade agreements aren't usually presented to the public and why, until recently, Bush was presented as just "a regular guy", even though he was raised, and remains, part of the economic elite of America.
It is also why blogs are much more individualistic in outlook. Usually they are run by one person, or a small group of people, and they have a particular bent or outlook. The writers are not supervised by people who may have a different agenda than the writer of the story. It is also why blogs can, if they chose, get ahead of a story, because the writer doesn't have to work through a bureaucracy, so to speak.
Often media personnel like to deny how they shape the news by the story lines they chose to present. They act as if news stories just magically appear. Well, that is simply not true. There are literally millions of stories that the media could present, but only a relatively small number get presented. Every story that is presented appears because of the conscious decision of someone to present the story. In corporate media there are a number of such persons. There is the author of the piece, his or her supervisor, that person's supervisor, and depending on the importance of the story, maybe another person, perhaps the publisher, owner, or station manager.
These decisions are why labor issues aren't covered by most major news outlets while we hear about Anna Nicole Smith and her demise ad nauseum. These decisions are why the negative aspects of trade agreements aren't usually presented to the public and why, until recently, Bush was presented as just "a regular guy", even though he was raised, and remains, part of the economic elite of America.
It is also why blogs are much more individualistic in outlook. Usually they are run by one person, or a small group of people, and they have a particular bent or outlook. The writers are not supervised by people who may have a different agenda than the writer of the story. It is also why blogs can, if they chose, get ahead of a story, because the writer doesn't have to work through a bureaucracy, so to speak.
Washington Post: U.S. Attorney Fired Because of Not Supporting Bush's Policies
The Washington Post ran a story in the March 3rd edition reporting that the White House, aka, the Bush Administration, backed the mass firings of the seven U.S. Attorneys. The reason is that they were not carrying out Bush's policies on prosecution of illegal immigrants, firearms, and other issues. So what this means is that the Bush Administration is realizing that this is not going to blow over and they are trying to give their supporters on Capitol Hill some ammunition when the hearing start this next week in the Senate.
This is a very interesting development. This story was obviously leaked to the Washington Post by Bush Administration officials. They are trying to push back against the theme that the U.S. Attorneys were fired because they were too vigorous in prosecuting Republicans for public corruption or not vigorous enough prosecuting Democrats. In order to do that, though, they had to come up with an explanation that makes sense, so they came up with this one. In doing so, however, they have now put the White House's fingerprints on this decision. This will give a reason for Democrats to try and find out which officials in the White House or the Justice Department wanted them fired. It will also give a new direction for reporters pursuing this story. All in all this is not going well for the Bushies.
This is a very interesting development. This story was obviously leaked to the Washington Post by Bush Administration officials. They are trying to push back against the theme that the U.S. Attorneys were fired because they were too vigorous in prosecuting Republicans for public corruption or not vigorous enough prosecuting Democrats. In order to do that, though, they had to come up with an explanation that makes sense, so they came up with this one. In doing so, however, they have now put the White House's fingerprints on this decision. This will give a reason for Democrats to try and find out which officials in the White House or the Justice Department wanted them fired. It will also give a new direction for reporters pursuing this story. All in all this is not going well for the Bushies.
Giuliani: The Political Transvestite
If you click on this entry's title you will find a video clip of Rudy Giuliani in drag kissing Donald Trump. Being in drag is a very fitting metaphor for Rudy because he is a political transvestite. He takes on whatever outer garments that are necessary to win political power. When he was in New York, where liberals and progressives are a real force, he painted himself as a social liberal on issues such as abortion and gay rights. Now that he is trying to win the Republican nomination he portrays himself as a conservative. Once again he is taking on the garments necessary for political power.
Democrats may laugh at Rudy's pandering, but we shouldn't write him off. Movement conservatives like the kind that were at the Conservative Political Action Conference don't care about whether their candidates are hypocrites, they just care about obtaining political power. If they think that only Rudy can stop a Democrat from winning the White House, then they will get behind him. They are more terrified of a Democrat in the White House than they are that the political transvestite will once again change his clothes.
Democrats may laugh at Rudy's pandering, but we shouldn't write him off. Movement conservatives like the kind that were at the Conservative Political Action Conference don't care about whether their candidates are hypocrites, they just care about obtaining political power. If they think that only Rudy can stop a Democrat from winning the White House, then they will get behind him. They are more terrified of a Democrat in the White House than they are that the political transvestite will once again change his clothes.
Friday, March 02, 2007
A Blog About Economics That Makes Sense
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an article about economics that is very interesting. The author postulates the theory that over the last 25 years politicians of both parties in the U.S. have pushed policies that allowed both capital and goods to flow freely around the globe. During that time over two billion workers in China, India, the former USSR, and Eastern Europe have entered the global workforce because of the fall of communism in Russia, China, and Eastern Europe and the modernization of the Indian economy. Because of the entry of these workers into a global economy that allows for more free movement of capital and goods, America has become the financier of the global market while China and other areas have become the labor force. Result? Millions of high-paying jobs lost to foreign countries.
He points out that there is an economic theorem that says if a country with capital trades with a country that has cheaper labor, the result will be increased profits and a lowering of wages in the country with capital. We are seeing this in America as the divide between the rich and the rest of us increases. It is a very fascinating article and one that is worth the time it takes to read it.
He points out that there is an economic theorem that says if a country with capital trades with a country that has cheaper labor, the result will be increased profits and a lowering of wages in the country with capital. We are seeing this in America as the divide between the rich and the rest of us increases. It is a very fascinating article and one that is worth the time it takes to read it.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
You Tube Launches Channel for Politicians
Click on the link in this entry's title to check out the new channel that You Tube has launched for politicians. It is a very interesting idea. Not sure if all politicians would post to this channel or just candidates running for president.
UPDATE: Barack Obama's video clips have had more viewers than all others candidates who have posted combined. Second is John Edwards and in third place is Hillary. None of the Republicans who have clips up have as many viewers as any of the top three Democrats. This was as of Friday afternoon.
UPDATE: Barack Obama's video clips have had more viewers than all others candidates who have posted combined. Second is John Edwards and in third place is Hillary. None of the Republicans who have clips up have as many viewers as any of the top three Democrats. This was as of Friday afternoon.
Fired U.S. Attorney Cites Political Pressure as Reason for Dismissal
At the end of 2006 and the beginning of this year the Bush Administration's Justice Department dismissed several U.S. Attorneys from their positions. For those readers who may not be aware of how this works an U.S. Attorney is the prosecutor for the Federal government in each of the Federal District Court divisions across the nation. In Ohio there are two of them, one for the Northern District of Ohio and one for the Southern District of Ohio.
They are presidential appointments and serve at the pleasure of the President. Since they are presidential appointments they are usually of the same political party as the president. These are very coveted political appointments. When the Justice Department dismissed or fired these U.S. Attorneys they were dismissing fellow Republicans, not career civil servants.
Because several of these officials were engaged in political corruption probes, including the one that took down Duke Cunningham, the former Congressman now convicted felon from California, there was concern among several Democratic Senators, particularly Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, that these dismissals were "pay-back" for these U.S. Attorneys doing their jobs. The concern increased when they found out that under a little-known provision of the Patriot Act renewal last fall, these U.S. Attorneys could be replaced without going through Senate confirmation.
Yesterday, February 28, the concern rose to a whole new level when one of the fired U.S. Attorneys revealed that right before the election two members of Congress tried to pressure him to bring indictments in a public corruption probe of New Mexico Democrats before the November election. Although he refused to name them, from his comments they are believed to be Republicans. He speculated that his refusal to rush the indictments is why he was dismissed.
This U.S. Attorney is very interesting since he is of Hispanic descent, the son of a Baptist minister, and was reportedly the model for the Tom Cruise character in the film A Few Good Men. He would seem to be exactly the person the Bush Administration would want in public office except, of course, that he is ethical. Click on this entry's title to read the Washington Post story.
They are presidential appointments and serve at the pleasure of the President. Since they are presidential appointments they are usually of the same political party as the president. These are very coveted political appointments. When the Justice Department dismissed or fired these U.S. Attorneys they were dismissing fellow Republicans, not career civil servants.
Because several of these officials were engaged in political corruption probes, including the one that took down Duke Cunningham, the former Congressman now convicted felon from California, there was concern among several Democratic Senators, particularly Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, that these dismissals were "pay-back" for these U.S. Attorneys doing their jobs. The concern increased when they found out that under a little-known provision of the Patriot Act renewal last fall, these U.S. Attorneys could be replaced without going through Senate confirmation.
Yesterday, February 28, the concern rose to a whole new level when one of the fired U.S. Attorneys revealed that right before the election two members of Congress tried to pressure him to bring indictments in a public corruption probe of New Mexico Democrats before the November election. Although he refused to name them, from his comments they are believed to be Republicans. He speculated that his refusal to rush the indictments is why he was dismissed.
This U.S. Attorney is very interesting since he is of Hispanic descent, the son of a Baptist minister, and was reportedly the model for the Tom Cruise character in the film A Few Good Men. He would seem to be exactly the person the Bush Administration would want in public office except, of course, that he is ethical. Click on this entry's title to read the Washington Post story.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
New Hillary Clinton Webcast on Energy
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can view the latest webcast from Senator Hillary Clinton on energy. If anyone knows of any other webcasts by Democratic candidates running for President, please send them to us so we can link to them in our blog. Send the links to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Connie Schultz Column on Condolezza Rice
Connie Shultz wrote a column last week in which she listed women that she admired. She didn't include Secretary of State Rice. Several readers emailed her to ask why she omitted Rice's name. Some speculated that it was because Rice is a Republican. Today Schultz answered these readers with a column about why she didn't include Rice. The reason was Rice's advocacy of the Iraq War as National Security Advisor and her continuing defense of that war as Secretary of State. It is a great column and you can read it by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Why Not Try Lowering the Cost of Campaigns?
The amazing thing about political journalism is the "pack mentality" that seems to affect its practitioners. Almost all political journalists and commentators think "inside the box." There seems to be very little original thinking. This means that both issues discussed by political journalists and solutions proposed are fairly narrow. Take, for example, campaign financing.
Since the Watergate era the focus on the issue of campaign financing has been to regulate the contribution side of the equation. This means passing legislation that restricts the amount of money that can be given to a particular candidate by a particular person or entity. Yet, the cost of campaigns keeps rising, and the amount of money going to candidates keeps going up and up, especially for campaigns for Federal office. Meanwhile, the cost of campaigns going up means that more and more people are discouraged from running for local offices because those races are becoming more and more expensive.
Here's a suggestion: focus on the bringing the cost of campaigns down. How? Here's one idea that could have a significant impact: allow candidates for all offices to mail at the same rate as non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations can mail for a very reduced rate. Extend that rate to all political candidates. There would obviously be some cost to the USPS, but the benefit to society of driving down the cost of campaigns would be worth it.
Actually, it is our understanding that the law does allow the state organizations of the Republican and Democratic parties to mail at the same rate as non-profit organizations, or at a very similar rate. The above proposal would extend that rate to all candidates running for public office.
There may very well be problems with this proposal that we haven't thought of, and maybe its not such a great idea, but the important thing is to change the focus from controlling contributions to lowering the cost of campaigns. If the cost of campaigns could be significantly brought down, then more people could run for office without risking bankruptcy.
Since the Watergate era the focus on the issue of campaign financing has been to regulate the contribution side of the equation. This means passing legislation that restricts the amount of money that can be given to a particular candidate by a particular person or entity. Yet, the cost of campaigns keeps rising, and the amount of money going to candidates keeps going up and up, especially for campaigns for Federal office. Meanwhile, the cost of campaigns going up means that more and more people are discouraged from running for local offices because those races are becoming more and more expensive.
Here's a suggestion: focus on the bringing the cost of campaigns down. How? Here's one idea that could have a significant impact: allow candidates for all offices to mail at the same rate as non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations can mail for a very reduced rate. Extend that rate to all political candidates. There would obviously be some cost to the USPS, but the benefit to society of driving down the cost of campaigns would be worth it.
Actually, it is our understanding that the law does allow the state organizations of the Republican and Democratic parties to mail at the same rate as non-profit organizations, or at a very similar rate. The above proposal would extend that rate to all candidates running for public office.
There may very well be problems with this proposal that we haven't thought of, and maybe its not such a great idea, but the important thing is to change the focus from controlling contributions to lowering the cost of campaigns. If the cost of campaigns could be significantly brought down, then more people could run for office without risking bankruptcy.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Are Irish-American Journalists Out for the Clintons?
Bob Somerby, a product of the Irish-American culture himself, had a posting on January 30, 2007 on his blog "The Daily Howler" on how Irish-American pundits, notably Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd, have had it out for the Clintons since 1992. This is not an original thought with Somerby. Back during Bill Clinton's presidency a writer wrote an article for, we believe, the National Journal, about how Clinton had trouble with Irish American journalists. Besides Dowd and Matthews, that writer also mentioned the late Michael Kelley, who was editor of the Atlantic Monthly and died in Iraq. It is an interesting thesis and, given the role that Maureen Dowd recently had in causing the recent conflict between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a timely one. (You can read Somerby's article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)
Akron Beacon Journal Article on Retail Employees' Pay
The front page of the Akron Beacon Journal's Business section had a story today, (2.25.2007), about retail jobs in Ohio. It points out that retail jobs are paying less and that pay for retail employees is not keeping up with other sectors of the economy. In Medina County, for example, retail jobs have increased but retail pay has declined by 10% according to the article. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is quoted as attributing at least some of the decline in pay for retail employees to that sector's lack of organized workers. Other factors cited in the article include technology, which is allowing retail establishments to eliminate jobs by use of such mechanisms as self-checkout stations.
What is interesting about this article is that one of the arguments made by supporters of free trade treaties such as NAFTA is that while manufacturing jobs may be lost, service sector jobs will step in and fill the void. Well, as this article shows, the pay for such jobs is much less than the pay for the lost jobs. This affects all of us, not just the workers involved. If lower paying jobs replace higher paying jobs, then workers won't have as much money to spend on things like entertainment, cars, groceries, dining out, and recreation. It means that professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and dentists may find that their clients don't have as much to spend of their services. It will affect construction jobs because people who don't have as much money can't spend as much on housing. It will affect governments, especially governmental bodies like school boards, who have to go back to voters on a regular basis for approval of tax levies. In short, when one section of the economy suffers, all of the economy may suffer.
What is interesting about this article is that one of the arguments made by supporters of free trade treaties such as NAFTA is that while manufacturing jobs may be lost, service sector jobs will step in and fill the void. Well, as this article shows, the pay for such jobs is much less than the pay for the lost jobs. This affects all of us, not just the workers involved. If lower paying jobs replace higher paying jobs, then workers won't have as much money to spend on things like entertainment, cars, groceries, dining out, and recreation. It means that professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and dentists may find that their clients don't have as much to spend of their services. It will affect construction jobs because people who don't have as much money can't spend as much on housing. It will affect governments, especially governmental bodies like school boards, who have to go back to voters on a regular basis for approval of tax levies. In short, when one section of the economy suffers, all of the economy may suffer.
U.S. Economy Not Working for Increasing Segment of Society
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will read an article posted on Yahoo News about the fast increasing gap between the rich and the poor in the United States. The article also points out that while productivity is increase, and corporate profits are increasing, wages are going up much more slowly. One point that the article makes clear is the difference between European countries and the United States in terms of governmental aid for the poor.
So when Bush and his supporters talk about how good the economy is doing because of Bush's tax cuts, remember that they are speaking about only one part of the economy, their part. There is another part of our society that's not benefiting from the Bush administration's policies.
So when Bush and his supporters talk about how good the economy is doing because of Bush's tax cuts, remember that they are speaking about only one part of the economy, their part. There is another part of our society that's not benefiting from the Bush administration's policies.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Giuliani Leads McCain by 22% Among Republicans in New Poll
A new poll from Quinnipiac University has McCain trailing former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani by 22 points, 40% to 18% among registered Republicans. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can see the results of this poll and others on the Republican nomination race posted by Polling Point. It will be interesting to see what political commentators based in D.C. make of this poll.
Our analysis is that Republicans don't want to nominate any candidate who is linked so closely to Bush's Iraq War. Guiliani is linked to the events of 9-11, but not nearly as much to the Iraq War. Registered Republicans may want a candidate for president who can recall the heroism of the events of 9-11 without carrying the baggage of the mess that Bush has made of the Iraq War. The question then becomes whether the Democrats will nominate someone who can be labeled as a supporter of the war, at least at its inception.
Our analysis is that Republicans don't want to nominate any candidate who is linked so closely to Bush's Iraq War. Guiliani is linked to the events of 9-11, but not nearly as much to the Iraq War. Registered Republicans may want a candidate for president who can recall the heroism of the events of 9-11 without carrying the baggage of the mess that Bush has made of the Iraq War. The question then becomes whether the Democrats will nominate someone who can be labeled as a supporter of the war, at least at its inception.
How Obama Handles Attacks from Republicans
About two weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, said that if Obama got elected his policy for Iraq would be a victory for terrorists. Obama replied that if Howard was so much in favor of the Iraqi War, he should send another 20,000 Australian troops to Iraq to help relieve the American military.
This last week, speaking in Austin at a rally, he made a response to Dick Cheney's assertions that the British pull down of troops in Iraq is a good sign. He listed all the things that Cheney has said about the war that turned out to be wrong. He also said that if Dick Cheney says things are going well, then you know that "you are probably in trouble."
We think that Democrats often get themselves in trouble by trying to have it both ways. They often disagree with Republicans using language that tries to have it both ways. That doesn't cut it and makes the speaker look weak. If you think that Republican policies are a disaster for America, say so, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try and play cute. It doesn't work.
(Click on this entry's title to read more about Obama's comments about Darth Vader, ie, our country's Vice-President.)
This last week, speaking in Austin at a rally, he made a response to Dick Cheney's assertions that the British pull down of troops in Iraq is a good sign. He listed all the things that Cheney has said about the war that turned out to be wrong. He also said that if Dick Cheney says things are going well, then you know that "you are probably in trouble."
We think that Democrats often get themselves in trouble by trying to have it both ways. They often disagree with Republicans using language that tries to have it both ways. That doesn't cut it and makes the speaker look weak. If you think that Republican policies are a disaster for America, say so, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try and play cute. It doesn't work.
(Click on this entry's title to read more about Obama's comments about Darth Vader, ie, our country's Vice-President.)
Americans Underestimate the Number of Iraqis Killed in War
An interesting survey reported by the Associated Press in the article linked to in this entry's title shows that while Americans are pretty well informed about the number of Americans killed in Iraq, they are not nearly as well informed about the number of Iraqis killed. The survey also shows that younger people are much more likely to know someone who died in this war than older people. It is a pretty interesting article.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Global Issues Website
If you click on the link in this entry's title, it will take you to the home page for a site called Global Issues. This is apparently a website that tracks certain issues such as military spending, global warming, racism, and other issues that affect all of us. According to this website, America's military spending has gone up from 288 billion in 2000 to 441 billion in fiscal year 2006, not counting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend almost seven times on our military as the number two nation, which is China. (You can see the graph here: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp ). The site's operator gives the sources for the information he posts and links to more information. Check it out, you will find it very interesting.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Newsweek Columnist Claims U.S. to be in Iraq for 10 Years
Michael Hirsh of Newsweek has a column online in which he argues that what most Democratic and Republican candidates for president aren't realizing is that the approach the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq is pursuing could mean American soldiers will be in Iraq for up to 10 additional years. According to a military source that is quoted in the article, the U.S. is pursuing a "classic counterinsurgency" strategy. This involves moving American troops out from four main "superbases" to 160 smaller bases where they can interact with the Iraqi population. It also means that American troops are taking the lead in dealing the insurgents instead of Iraqi troops.
There are a couple of points that need to be kept in mind when reading this article. One is that apparently the Bush administration has wasted not only 3,000+ American lives and billions of American dollars, but also about four years of time. We could have been pursuing this strategy from the beginning of the armed resistance, but instead this administration's incompetence meant that the wrong tactics were being used. George W. Bush has put us in deep shit.
There are a couple of points that need to be kept in mind when reading this article. One is that apparently the Bush administration has wasted not only 3,000+ American lives and billions of American dollars, but also about four years of time. We could have been pursuing this strategy from the beginning of the armed resistance, but instead this administration's incompetence meant that the wrong tactics were being used. George W. Bush has put us in deep shit.
A Website Devoted to Attacking Fox News
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will go to www.foxattacks.com where you can watch a video on how Fox News has presented news about Sen. Barack Obama. It is fascinating. It also gives you tips on how to fight back against Fox News.
Why Political Journalism Sucks: The Media Focuses on Celebrity
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will be taken to an interesting article in the online edition of American Prospect magazine. The article raises the question of why Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico isn't getting more coverage. The reason posed by the author is that during the last decade or so political journalists decided that celebrity counted more than political or governing experience. Obama has more celebrity status than Richardson, so does Edwards and Clinton.
It's not just Democratic candidates who are covered more if they are celebrities, it also happens to Republicans. Consider the coverage given to Rudy Guiliani, a former Mayor of New York, the city where most national media companies are headquartered, to that given to Huckabee, the Governor of Arkansas.
It is an interesting theory and a very well written article. Take a minute and check it out.
It's not just Democratic candidates who are covered more if they are celebrities, it also happens to Republicans. Consider the coverage given to Rudy Guiliani, a former Mayor of New York, the city where most national media companies are headquartered, to that given to Huckabee, the Governor of Arkansas.
It is an interesting theory and a very well written article. Take a minute and check it out.
Psychology Today Article on Political Ideology & Personality
Okay, so we have all instinctly known that there are innate personality differences between liberals and conservatives, but it is nice to have proof. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you will see an article that explores those differences. Conservatives respond more to threats that involve death and are more organized in their personal lives. Liberals like color and are messier. The article also explains why Republicans use ads that convey implied or explicit threats such as the ad that the Bush campaign ran in 2004 with the wolves or the ad that Reagan ran in 1984 with the bear lumbering through the woods. What the article also points out, though, is that research indicates that simply asking people to stop and analyze the information they are being given leads to a decrease in susceptibility to this kind of psychological manipulation.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Mother Jones Article Claims Iraqi War Increased Terrorism Seven Times
Mother Jones magazine has an interesting article about the connection between terrorism and the Iraq War. According to the two authors, both connected with New York University's School of Law, the level of terrorist attacks has gone up seven times from the period between 3.21.2003 to 9.30.2006 compared to the period of 9.12.2001 to 3.20.2003. March 20, 2003, was the start of the Iraqi War. According to the researchers they set out to answer the three following questions:
1. Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?
2. What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the "war on terrorism") are excluded?
3. Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?
The authors believe these questions to be important because the Bush Administration often makes the argument that while the Iraq War is hard, it is necessary because terrorists have to understand that we will fight them. The thinking seems to be that once we have demonstrated that we will resist them, they will stop attacking us. A Of course, that argument only makes sense if the Iraq War is actually having the claimed effect. If instead, as these authors argue, it is having the effect of actually increasing terrorist attacks, then the above rationale goes out the window.
The article is worth reading. Of course, since it is based on empirical evidence and not on wishful thinking, it will be ignored by the radical right-wing Republicans who make up Bush's base.
1. Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?
2. What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the "war on terrorism") are excluded?
3. Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?
The authors believe these questions to be important because the Bush Administration often makes the argument that while the Iraq War is hard, it is necessary because terrorists have to understand that we will fight them. The thinking seems to be that once we have demonstrated that we will resist them, they will stop attacking us. A Of course, that argument only makes sense if the Iraq War is actually having the claimed effect. If instead, as these authors argue, it is having the effect of actually increasing terrorist attacks, then the above rationale goes out the window.
The article is worth reading. Of course, since it is based on empirical evidence and not on wishful thinking, it will be ignored by the radical right-wing Republicans who make up Bush's base.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Nine Republicans Didn't Vote on Iraq Debate Cloture Bill
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the results of the vote on the motion last Saturday to close debate on the House anti-escalation resolution. Of the ten Senators who didn't vote on the motion, nine were Republicans. Only one Democrat didn't vote, Tim Johnson, D-SD, and he is recovering from brain surgery. Now, those votes weren't needed by the Republican leadership and so, as far as the result is concerned, it didn't matter that they didn't vote. Consider this point, however. Every public opinion poll shows that the number one issue on the public's mind is Iraq. So, on this important subject, nine Republican Senators couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote. That is simply a dereliction of duty and one that voters in their states should be reminded of when they run for re-election. We aren't crazy about how Voinovich voted, but at least he showed up and voted.
Hillary Clinton's Use of Webcasts in 08 Campaign
When Hillary Clinton announced, she used a webcast to reach supporters and the general public. She bypassed the traditional first announcement to a rally where supporters are invited along with the media. Now her campaign is using webcasts embedded in email announcements to announce her positions to her supporters. The first one that has been issued deals with Iraq. You can view it by clicking on the link in this entry's title. A viewer can, of course, also view it by going to her presidential campaign website.
This is a very intriguing step and one that many more campaigns will be adopting, if they haven't already. It allows politicians to bypass the media and get their message directly out to their supporters and it is much cheaper than buying commercial time on television.
Tactics like this will, over time, change the relationship between the media and candidates. Right now, candidates need the media and so put up with the a lot of the media's stupidity on issues and campaigns so as not to tick off media representatives. Once they no longer need the media, candidates will become a lot less tolerant of their stupidity, their vapidness, and their biases.
Such tactics could also drastically reduce the cost of campaigns. It costs a lot less to send out email messages than to run 30 second spots on television and you can target them a lot better. This is a campaign tool that bears watching and developing, not just for national campaigns, but for local campaigns as well.
This is a very intriguing step and one that many more campaigns will be adopting, if they haven't already. It allows politicians to bypass the media and get their message directly out to their supporters and it is much cheaper than buying commercial time on television.
Tactics like this will, over time, change the relationship between the media and candidates. Right now, candidates need the media and so put up with the a lot of the media's stupidity on issues and campaigns so as not to tick off media representatives. Once they no longer need the media, candidates will become a lot less tolerant of their stupidity, their vapidness, and their biases.
Such tactics could also drastically reduce the cost of campaigns. It costs a lot less to send out email messages than to run 30 second spots on television and you can target them a lot better. This is a campaign tool that bears watching and developing, not just for national campaigns, but for local campaigns as well.
Monday, February 19, 2007
A Picture of Two Men Playing at Being President
Picture of President Bush and person playing George Washington, taken on President's Day, February, 2007. Unfortunately, only one of them has to give up his role when he goes home.
Why Did Bush Administration & GOP Congress Make It Easier to Declare Martial Law?
Here's something that both the left and the right can agree on: it shouldn't be easy for the national government in Washington to declare martial law and take control of state law enforcement. Yet, last October, that's exactly what the Republican controlled Congress did when it passed the defense authorization bill. Tucked away in the bill were two amendments that collectively make it easier for the President to declare martial law. Apparently this was passed with little discussion and no input from the nation's governors. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an NY Times editorial on this subject.
Can you imagine the outcry from the right-wing media if Bill Clinton had wanted to make it easier for the President to declare martial law? Windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about this Federal power grab. Yet, when Bush does it, too many of these same pundits and commentators keep their mouths shuts. That's because for too many Republicans their party is no longer the Republican Party but the Bush party. They have made the glorification of George W. Bush the end of their political philosophy. If their Glorious Leader wants it, then it must be okay, because after all he's got God on his side.
Luckily for the United States there are Republicans in Congress willing to join a genuinely bi-partisan effort to amend this horrible legislation and repeal those sections that would increase the power of the presidency. Only a fool, or Dick Cheney, and of course those two terms may be synonymous, would think that the President of the United States, and especially this President, needs an power increase.
Can you imagine the outcry from the right-wing media if Bill Clinton had wanted to make it easier for the President to declare martial law? Windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about this Federal power grab. Yet, when Bush does it, too many of these same pundits and commentators keep their mouths shuts. That's because for too many Republicans their party is no longer the Republican Party but the Bush party. They have made the glorification of George W. Bush the end of their political philosophy. If their Glorious Leader wants it, then it must be okay, because after all he's got God on his side.
Luckily for the United States there are Republicans in Congress willing to join a genuinely bi-partisan effort to amend this horrible legislation and repeal those sections that would increase the power of the presidency. Only a fool, or Dick Cheney, and of course those two terms may be synonymous, would think that the President of the United States, and especially this President, needs an power increase.
Washington's Speech Resigning His Commission
In December of 1783, at Annapolis, Maryland, George Washington surrendered his commission as commanding general of the Continental Army. This act is seen by many historians as establishing the tradition in America that the military is subordinate to civilian political leadership. Today, we take this for granted, but it wasn't always so clear. If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read a Washington Post article about the speech that Washington gave when he tendered his resignation to the Continental Congress. The State of Maryland has recently acquired the original draft of Washington's speech, written in his own handwriting. It is a very interesting article and one that all of us can reflect on during this President's Day.
What Happens When You Start a Second War Without Finishing the First One
The New York Times has a story in its February 19th edition, which you can read by clicking on the link in this title's entry, about how Al Qaeda chiefs are re-establishing control over their world-wide network. They are doing this by basing themselves in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are getting away with this because Bubble-Boy Bush started one war without finishing the first one against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He was so eager to attack Iraq that he didn't stop and make sure that he had completely destroyed Al Qaeda before embarking on that adventure.
Bush likes to say that the Iraqi War is part of the War on Terror. Well, it seems to us that the first thing he should have done with his War on Terror is make sure that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-2001 were destroyed. He didn't and now all Americans are at risk from further attacks by these evil people. Just another screw-up from this administration.
Bush likes to say that the Iraqi War is part of the War on Terror. Well, it seems to us that the first thing he should have done with his War on Terror is make sure that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-2001 were destroyed. He didn't and now all Americans are at risk from further attacks by these evil people. Just another screw-up from this administration.
10 Ten Words Used to Describe Bush
The following is from a very recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. In this survey, the respondents were asked to choose just one word to describe President Bush. Note that Incompetent and Arrogant made the first two, and that out of the top ten words, five were negative and five were position. Mary Kaplan of the Huffington Post has a article about how the responses to this particular question has changed over the last three years and he also provides a link to the actual poll in a pdf file. You can read Kaplan's column by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush. Tell me just the ONE best word that describes him.
February 2007
34 Incompetent
25 Arrogant
25 Honest
19 Good
19 Idiot
13 Integrity
13 Leader
11 Strong
11 Stupid
10 Ignorant
Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush. Tell me just the ONE best word that describes him.
February 2007
34 Incompetent
25 Arrogant
25 Honest
19 Good
19 Idiot
13 Integrity
13 Leader
11 Strong
11 Stupid
10 Ignorant
Washington Post Expose on Treatment of Wounded Soldiers at Walter Reed Hosptial
President Bush has said that we owe our wounded soldiers everything we can do for them because of their sacrifices on our behalf. No matter how you feel about the people who started this war, the soldiers who are fighting it deserve our country's full support. That's why it is shocking to read an expose that the Washington Post ran on conditions that some of our wounded soldiers are exposed to at Walter Reed. Click on the link in this entry's title to read the full story.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Power of the Internet
We recently took a snapshot of the locations of people in the U.S. who had posted messages on our blog. The snapshot appears above. It is quite interesting to note all the various locations. Only the internet could provide a way for people who are relatively far apart to communicate and share ideas. It is simply amazing.
NY Times Story on NAFTA Shows Sherrod Brown was Right
The New York Times, in an article in its The Week in Review section has a story on how NAFTA hasn't really slowed down illegal immigration from Mexico. According to the article, that's because NAFTA sponsors assumed that both governments and markets would act "rationally", ie, the way the sponsors thought they would act. It seems like they haven't and now immigration from Mexico is about 500,000 persons per year, 85% of it illegal. What's more, manufacturing jobs in Mexico have declined, partly because of competition from China. Farmers in Mexico are losing business because of competition from the United States.
When Sherrod Brown was running for the U.S. Senate this past year, a lot of editorial page writers called him a "protectionist" and took issue with his criticism of the NAFTA treaty. Well, guess what, as this article shows he was right to oppose NAFTA and he is right to oppose other trade treaties. This article makes clear that neither the US Government nor the Mexican Government did what they should have done with regard to infrastructure development before implementing NAFTA. Neither anticipated what would happen to Mexican jobs because of trade with China and neither planned for Mexican farmers losing income from American competition. In short, Washington needs politicians like Sherrod Brown who approach so-called "fair trade" agreements with skepticism.
You can read the whole NY Times article by clicking on the link in this entry's title. Free site registration may be required.
When Sherrod Brown was running for the U.S. Senate this past year, a lot of editorial page writers called him a "protectionist" and took issue with his criticism of the NAFTA treaty. Well, guess what, as this article shows he was right to oppose NAFTA and he is right to oppose other trade treaties. This article makes clear that neither the US Government nor the Mexican Government did what they should have done with regard to infrastructure development before implementing NAFTA. Neither anticipated what would happen to Mexican jobs because of trade with China and neither planned for Mexican farmers losing income from American competition. In short, Washington needs politicians like Sherrod Brown who approach so-called "fair trade" agreements with skepticism.
You can read the whole NY Times article by clicking on the link in this entry's title. Free site registration may be required.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Flip-flopping George Voinovich Votes With Bush on Iraq
Okay, this is what Senator George Voinovich has done over the last two weeks. First he voted against ending the Republican filibuster on the Warner-Levin Resolution which meant that the Resolution couldn't come before the Senate for a vote. Then he signed a letter to both Reid and O'Connell grousing about the Senate not conducting a debate on the Resolution. Then, today, February 17, 2007, he again votes against ending the Republican filibuster on the Resolution that was passed by the House of Representatives. Now, we imagine that he will now issue some sort of statement about how he really doesn't support Bush on Iraq or some sort of statement to make it appear like he doesn't support Bush on Iraq.
This guy is, and has been since 2001 when Bubble-Boy took office, a Bush enabler. In the 1990s, when Clinton was President and he was Governor, he railed against deficit spending by the Federal government, then helped pass Bush's reckless tax cuts that plunged America into historic deficits. He has helped Bush put right-wing zealots on the Federal bench. He refuses to take a stand against Bush's war in Iraq. On every major vote, he has supported Bush, and yet the Ohio media keeps spinning the myth of good old "moderate" George Voinovich. Well, as they say in D.C., a Republican moderate is a person who if you were drowning 15 feet off shore, would throw you 10 feet of rope. (Click on the link in this entry's title to see how the entire Senate voted.)
This guy is, and has been since 2001 when Bubble-Boy took office, a Bush enabler. In the 1990s, when Clinton was President and he was Governor, he railed against deficit spending by the Federal government, then helped pass Bush's reckless tax cuts that plunged America into historic deficits. He has helped Bush put right-wing zealots on the Federal bench. He refuses to take a stand against Bush's war in Iraq. On every major vote, he has supported Bush, and yet the Ohio media keeps spinning the myth of good old "moderate" George Voinovich. Well, as they say in D.C., a Republican moderate is a person who if you were drowning 15 feet off shore, would throw you 10 feet of rope. (Click on the link in this entry's title to see how the entire Senate voted.)
Presidents and Intellectual Curiosity
President Bush doesn't come across as a man who has a lot of intellectual curiosity. This is not the same thing as saying that he is not intelligent. The two are not necessarily related. You can be a bright person and yet have no desire to learn about why things are the way they are. It is this lack of intellectual curiosity that distinguishes him from Bill Clinton, among other things.
Because Bush seems to lack intellectual curiosity, he is vulnerable to being misled by others. He seems to be a man who, if told something that meshes with his beliefs, doesn't question what he is being told. He doesn't seem to care about why things are they way they are.
Because he doesn't have much intellectual curiosity, he didn't ask the right questions about invading Iraq. He didn't take the time to find out what it meant for America that Iraq has two Islamic factions that don't necessarily get along. Or what would happen to Iran's influence in the region if you removed the Iraqi government which was comprised of Sunnis and replaced it with a government led by Shia politicians.
Intellectual curiosity in a president is a very important trait because it will led them to ask the right questions or question what they are being told. Yet, most political reporters never talk about this trait when discussing political candidates. They would rather talk about things like why Al Gore changed the color of his suits, or whether he was "comfortable in his own skin." Yet it is Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity that has cost this country thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars.
Because Bush seems to lack intellectual curiosity, he is vulnerable to being misled by others. He seems to be a man who, if told something that meshes with his beliefs, doesn't question what he is being told. He doesn't seem to care about why things are they way they are.
Because he doesn't have much intellectual curiosity, he didn't ask the right questions about invading Iraq. He didn't take the time to find out what it meant for America that Iraq has two Islamic factions that don't necessarily get along. Or what would happen to Iran's influence in the region if you removed the Iraqi government which was comprised of Sunnis and replaced it with a government led by Shia politicians.
Intellectual curiosity in a president is a very important trait because it will led them to ask the right questions or question what they are being told. Yet, most political reporters never talk about this trait when discussing political candidates. They would rather talk about things like why Al Gore changed the color of his suits, or whether he was "comfortable in his own skin." Yet it is Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity that has cost this country thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars.
Human Compassion Goes Down as Number of Victims Goes Up
If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read an article about a study in human compassion. The author of the study concludes that as the number of victims goes up, human compassion goes down. He concludes that this is one reason why humans will respond emotionally to reports about one human in trouble, but not to reports of large scale suffering.
Although the author's conclusion is open to debate, it is a very provocative thesis. Of course, as the American aid response to Hurricane Katrina shows, there are millions of humans who are greatly affected by scenes of mass tragedy. Yet, news stories about events that affect one or a small number of humans do bring about intense responses.
Think of the emotional responses to the news story about the child who fell down the well back in the nineties and was rescued. There was an intense interest in that story. Or the story about the miners who were trapped down in West Virginia. That was also intensely followed.
Maybe its because we can see how are actions can affect one person, but find it much harder to see how our actions can affect a large number of people. Maybe there is something in our make-up that emotionally protects us from being overwhelmed by reports of mass suffering.
This study does have political implications. If you are interested in bringing about a societal response to a problem, like say the lack of health insurance for millions of Americans, don't cite statistics, rather tell a story about how the lack of insurance affects just one child or one family. Listeners will be able to make an emotional connection and once that connection is made, they will be able to then understand what the statistics mean.
Although the author's conclusion is open to debate, it is a very provocative thesis. Of course, as the American aid response to Hurricane Katrina shows, there are millions of humans who are greatly affected by scenes of mass tragedy. Yet, news stories about events that affect one or a small number of humans do bring about intense responses.
Think of the emotional responses to the news story about the child who fell down the well back in the nineties and was rescued. There was an intense interest in that story. Or the story about the miners who were trapped down in West Virginia. That was also intensely followed.
Maybe its because we can see how are actions can affect one person, but find it much harder to see how our actions can affect a large number of people. Maybe there is something in our make-up that emotionally protects us from being overwhelmed by reports of mass suffering.
This study does have political implications. If you are interested in bringing about a societal response to a problem, like say the lack of health insurance for millions of Americans, don't cite statistics, rather tell a story about how the lack of insurance affects just one child or one family. Listeners will be able to make an emotional connection and once that connection is made, they will be able to then understand what the statistics mean.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Anti-Escalation Resolution Passes U.S. House, Ohio Republicans Support Bush
Seventeen Republicans voted against the Bush administration's escalation of troops in Iraq on Roll Call 99. You can view the results by clicking on the link in this entry's title. A quick review shows no Ohio Republican voting for the Resolution, which means that they all decided to stick with Bush, including Republicans who had tight races like Pryce and Schmidt. Congressman Regula, OH-16, voted against the Resolution.
Although earlier this week, commentators were saying that as few as 12 or as many as 60 Republicans might bolt and support the anti-escalation Resolution, in the final analysis party loyalty apparently won out. Of course, if this plan doesn't work, then it will be very hard for Republicans to escape responibility for the mess that is Iraq in 2008.
UPDATE: Our apologies to Steve LaTourette, who was one of the 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on this issue. What's interesting is that he didn't have near the close race that Pyrce had, yet he managed to support the anti-escalation resolution.
Although earlier this week, commentators were saying that as few as 12 or as many as 60 Republicans might bolt and support the anti-escalation Resolution, in the final analysis party loyalty apparently won out. Of course, if this plan doesn't work, then it will be very hard for Republicans to escape responibility for the mess that is Iraq in 2008.
UPDATE: Our apologies to Steve LaTourette, who was one of the 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on this issue. What's interesting is that he didn't have near the close race that Pyrce had, yet he managed to support the anti-escalation resolution.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Turn Medina County Blue Project Report: Campaign Workshop
Around 40 Medina County Democrats turned out on Saturday, February 10th, to learn about campaigning methods and tactics. Speakers included Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman, Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack, Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler, Pat Walker, John Celebrezze, and Carol Gurney. The meeting was moderated by Mary Odgen, who moderated the Strategic Initiative meetings in 2005.
Attendees included candidates and campaign workers from Wadsworth, Brunswick, and other Medina County areas. Topics covered included message development, message, delivery, targeting, and fundraising. The speakers made presentations and took questions. Attendees filled out evaluation forms which will be used to develop future programs.
More Turn Medina County Blue Project meetings will be held during 2007 and 2008. If you are interested in attending, make sure that you send your email address to Medina County Democratic Chair Pam Miller at pam450@bright.net.
Attendees included candidates and campaign workers from Wadsworth, Brunswick, and other Medina County areas. Topics covered included message development, message, delivery, targeting, and fundraising. The speakers made presentations and took questions. Attendees filled out evaluation forms which will be used to develop future programs.
More Turn Medina County Blue Project meetings will be held during 2007 and 2008. If you are interested in attending, make sure that you send your email address to Medina County Democratic Chair Pam Miller at pam450@bright.net.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Website Devoted to John McCain's Flip-Flops
Click on the link in this entry's title to go to a website devoted to chronicling John McCain's flip-flops, which are many. Its mission is to take Americans off of the "Double-Talk Express."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)