Here is something that I have noticed about myself: Ever since I started posting blog entries, I have been reading other people's opinions less. I also note that I have become more selective about whose opinions I read. This is a big change from my reading habits of a decade or so ago.
It used to be that I religiously read every opinion column that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer or the various magazines that came to our home. Didn't matter if they were liberal, conservative, or in between, I read them. This habit meant that I read columns by George Will, who I very seldom agreed with, and columns by Tom Oliphant, who I almost always agreed with. It also meant that I watched shows on PBS like Washington Week in Review or the News Hour, (although to be more accurate, that was more like 15 years ago.)
Now, however, I read opinion columns less and less and I have also stopped watching shows where viewers are subjected to hours of talking heads giving me their opinions. This trend started in the Clinton Administration. There was really no point in reading or listening to conservative commentators because after you had read a couple of them, you knew what the rest were going to say. It was some theme of "Clinton is horrible. He must be stopped, and the only thing that will stop him are those paragons of virtue, the Republicans." Unless you are Dick Cheney's wife, there is a limit to how much of this you can take.
The other thing, though, is that since I am now posting entries on blogs, I have much less time to read opinion pieces. I would rather read a news article, write my reactions to the article, and then post it as a blog entry than take the time to read a column by some right-wing whack job, like say Charles Krauthammer. After all, my time is limited and why waste it reading someone's opinion that will most likely just upset me?
Another reason why I read less and less opinion pieces is that I don't really think that most of the pundits and commentators are any smarter than I am, or for that matter, than some bloggers I read. The whole idea behind opinion columnists is that they have a degree of expertise that I don't possess. Once you determine that they don't have that expertise, then why read them at all?
An example is Maureen Dowd. Dowd very seldom gives you insight into a political problem that you couldn't get from your friends, although it is usually better expressed. Her whole style depends on making "clever" observations about political leaders' personalities and no observations about their policies. Since there is nothing in her background to indicate that she has more knowledge of human psychology than I do, why read her?
Given the fact that there are literally millions of bloggers around the world, this tendency, if indeed there is such a tendency, could have profound implications for the future of punditry. Newspapers may have to go back to being just about the facts, and not the opinion. Gee, wouldn't that just be terrible?
Anyway, if other bloggers have opinions on this topic, please share them with me in the comments section.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Reyes Challenges Bush on Intelligence Bill
The Raw Story, an online publication, reprinted the letter that Representative Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, sent to President Bush. The letter was sent in response to Bush's demands that the House of Representatives just pass the intelligence bill that cleared the Senate and send it to him for his signature. The letter makes several interesting points.
The first is that there are three ways that the existing FISA law can be used to protect Americans. Representative Reyes gives an example of how the law was used in Germany to disrupt a terrorist plot.
The second is that it is not logical that giving telecommunications companies immunity for something they did years ago will impact on protecting Americans in the future.
The third is that the dangers to America stem from the failures of this Administration to capture terrorists. Here is a quote from the letter regarding this point:
"If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch."
He ends the letter with a promise that he won't back down to anyone, terrorists or presidents. It is a powerful letter and very well written.
The first is that there are three ways that the existing FISA law can be used to protect Americans. Representative Reyes gives an example of how the law was used in Germany to disrupt a terrorist plot.
The second is that it is not logical that giving telecommunications companies immunity for something they did years ago will impact on protecting Americans in the future.
The third is that the dangers to America stem from the failures of this Administration to capture terrorists. Here is a quote from the letter regarding this point:
"If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch."
He ends the letter with a promise that he won't back down to anyone, terrorists or presidents. It is a powerful letter and very well written.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Washington Post: Clinton Campaign Screwed Up on Caucuses
One of the arguments that Senator Clinton makes about why she should be the nominee is that she is the more experienced candidate. She contends that having been through her husband's administration, she is in a much better position to actually get things done in D.C.
Her team's experience was also supposed to be the reason why she was in a much better position to actually win the nomination. Her campaign staff gave the impression to the national media that her advisors knew how to win the nomination and then win the presidency. Her early domination of fund-raising supported that theme.
There is a saying in prize-fighting that "everyone has a plan until they get hit." That certainly applies to the campaign between Clinton and Obama. Up until they started counting votes in Iowa, it looked as if she couldn't be stopped. Now, it looks like she is in for one tought fight.
According to the Washington Post's blog on campaigns called "The Trail" in an article titled "Clinton's Primary Gift", one reason may be that the Clinton campaign wrote off the caucus states after their experience in Iowa. In Iowa they poured between $20-25 million into the state only to lose. The problem with that decision, though, is that a lot of Democratic delegates, especially in states with smaller populations select their delegates with caucuses.
The result has been that Clinton has lost almost every state that has chosen its delegates with a caucus. This might have been an acceptable trade-off if she was winning every primary state, but she isn't. She has now lost primaries in 12 states and won primaries in 11 states, according to CNN's Election Center.
Two things are happening as a result of her strategy. The first is that she is losing a lot of delegates to Obama and the second is that he is getting a lot of momentum which helps him in the primary states coming up, including Ohio.
Indeed, you could make an argument that she is a great candidate because very few candidates could take 10 straight losses in both primaries and caucuses and still remain viable. If this trend continues, however, that will be scant comfort to her.
Her team's experience was also supposed to be the reason why she was in a much better position to actually win the nomination. Her campaign staff gave the impression to the national media that her advisors knew how to win the nomination and then win the presidency. Her early domination of fund-raising supported that theme.
There is a saying in prize-fighting that "everyone has a plan until they get hit." That certainly applies to the campaign between Clinton and Obama. Up until they started counting votes in Iowa, it looked as if she couldn't be stopped. Now, it looks like she is in for one tought fight.
According to the Washington Post's blog on campaigns called "The Trail" in an article titled "Clinton's Primary Gift", one reason may be that the Clinton campaign wrote off the caucus states after their experience in Iowa. In Iowa they poured between $20-25 million into the state only to lose. The problem with that decision, though, is that a lot of Democratic delegates, especially in states with smaller populations select their delegates with caucuses.
The result has been that Clinton has lost almost every state that has chosen its delegates with a caucus. This might have been an acceptable trade-off if she was winning every primary state, but she isn't. She has now lost primaries in 12 states and won primaries in 11 states, according to CNN's Election Center.
Two things are happening as a result of her strategy. The first is that she is losing a lot of delegates to Obama and the second is that he is getting a lot of momentum which helps him in the primary states coming up, including Ohio.
Indeed, you could make an argument that she is a great candidate because very few candidates could take 10 straight losses in both primaries and caucuses and still remain viable. If this trend continues, however, that will be scant comfort to her.
"Bonddad" Says Obama Program Can't Work Because After Bushies U.S. Doesn't Have the Money
Here is an article by Hale "Bonddad" Stewart" that looks at Obama's program and finds it impossible to implement because the U.S. doesn't have the money to spend 210 billion on infrastructure repairs. Stewart blogs about economic matters under the moniker "Bonddad" and started out on Daily Kos and now has his own blog. What's interesting about his entry, though, is this quote:
No candidate will run on a cleaning up the deficit platform. It's not an economic winner -- especially during a period of economic problems. In addition, the way to clean-up the mess -- raising taxes and asking people who benefited from the last 7 years to now pay their fair share of that growth -- is a politically dicey proposition at best. So what is actually in the interest of the country in the long-run just isn't going to work politically.
What Stewart doesn't talk about, though, is that the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 which is one reason why Republicans talk about making them "permanent" and why they want to inject their extension into the 2008 race. Since those tax-cuts are weighted toward the rich, it would seem that if they are allowed to "expire" as scheduled their expiration would go a long way toward helping us out of deficit problem.
What Obama could be counting on is changing the equation once he is elected so that the political pressure to extend the tax-cuts is not there. Risky perhaps, but interesting.
As a side-note, get this part of his article:
Now -- the Republicans have created a meter on their website to track the increases in government spending. You guys ran the government for 6 years. You had complete control. YOU GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SHUT THE HELL UP.
That, by the way, is just about exactly what Obama or Clinton should say to McCain during the debates, assuming that McCain is stupid enough to be seen on the same stage with either of them.
No candidate will run on a cleaning up the deficit platform. It's not an economic winner -- especially during a period of economic problems. In addition, the way to clean-up the mess -- raising taxes and asking people who benefited from the last 7 years to now pay their fair share of that growth -- is a politically dicey proposition at best. So what is actually in the interest of the country in the long-run just isn't going to work politically.
What Stewart doesn't talk about, though, is that the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 which is one reason why Republicans talk about making them "permanent" and why they want to inject their extension into the 2008 race. Since those tax-cuts are weighted toward the rich, it would seem that if they are allowed to "expire" as scheduled their expiration would go a long way toward helping us out of deficit problem.
What Obama could be counting on is changing the equation once he is elected so that the political pressure to extend the tax-cuts is not there. Risky perhaps, but interesting.
As a side-note, get this part of his article:
Now -- the Republicans have created a meter on their website to track the increases in government spending. You guys ran the government for 6 years. You had complete control. YOU GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SHUT THE HELL UP.
That, by the way, is just about exactly what Obama or Clinton should say to McCain during the debates, assuming that McCain is stupid enough to be seen on the same stage with either of them.
McCain: "Insulting to One's Intelligence" to ask How Long U.S. Will be in Iraq
Okay, this is one for the books: John McCain said that it is "insulting" to a person's intelligence to ask him how long he is prepared for American troops to stay in Iraq. Here's the quote from a Faux News Report:
Delivering a harsh rebuke to war critics, Sen. John McCain said Monday that it “almost insulting to one’s intelligence” to question how long the U.S. will keep troops in Iraq.
“Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war. The question is not how long we stay in Iraq, the question is whether we are able to reduce casualties, eliminate them, have the Iraqi military-as they are today-take over more and more of our responsibilities,” McCain said after a rally at the Virginia Aviation Museum.
The surge proponent ratcheted up his rhetoric today, accusing his Democratic rivals’ of having a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to fight a war.
“The argument is really almost insulting to one’s intelligence to say how long we’re in Iraq,” McCain said, noting that the U.S. has maintained thousands of troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan for decades. “The question is, will we be able to succeed with this strategy, which is succeeding, and withdraw American troops to bases out of harms way, eliminate the casualties, and have this counter-insurgency succeed—which we are on the path to doing.”
The reason why he has to use such rhetoric towards those who question his decisions on Iraq is that he has absolutely no idea how long he would keep American troops in Iraq. The reason why he doesn't know is that he is willing to cede control over whether American troops stay in Iraq and for how long to Iraqis. The reason why we say that he is ceding such control is that his plan would allow Iraqis to take as long as they want in establishing a political solution for Iraq because they wouldn't have to worry about our troops leaving. Basically, his approach is to enable the Iraqis to continue in their dynsfunction as long as they want.
We don't think that any American president should base the use of American troops on decisions that Americans don't control. We think that American troops should only be put in harm's way as a result of American decisions, not decisions by foreigners, whether such foreigners be English, French, German or Iraqi. There was a time when American presidents agreed with such an approach, but that belief is apprently passe on the Republican side.
Delivering a harsh rebuke to war critics, Sen. John McCain said Monday that it “almost insulting to one’s intelligence” to question how long the U.S. will keep troops in Iraq.
“Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war. The question is not how long we stay in Iraq, the question is whether we are able to reduce casualties, eliminate them, have the Iraqi military-as they are today-take over more and more of our responsibilities,” McCain said after a rally at the Virginia Aviation Museum.
The surge proponent ratcheted up his rhetoric today, accusing his Democratic rivals’ of having a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to fight a war.
“The argument is really almost insulting to one’s intelligence to say how long we’re in Iraq,” McCain said, noting that the U.S. has maintained thousands of troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan for decades. “The question is, will we be able to succeed with this strategy, which is succeeding, and withdraw American troops to bases out of harms way, eliminate the casualties, and have this counter-insurgency succeed—which we are on the path to doing.”
The reason why he has to use such rhetoric towards those who question his decisions on Iraq is that he has absolutely no idea how long he would keep American troops in Iraq. The reason why he doesn't know is that he is willing to cede control over whether American troops stay in Iraq and for how long to Iraqis. The reason why we say that he is ceding such control is that his plan would allow Iraqis to take as long as they want in establishing a political solution for Iraq because they wouldn't have to worry about our troops leaving. Basically, his approach is to enable the Iraqis to continue in their dynsfunction as long as they want.
We don't think that any American president should base the use of American troops on decisions that Americans don't control. We think that American troops should only be put in harm's way as a result of American decisions, not decisions by foreigners, whether such foreigners be English, French, German or Iraqi. There was a time when American presidents agreed with such an approach, but that belief is apprently passe on the Republican side.
Barack Obama is Using Populist Rhetoric in Home Stretch
David Sirota picked up on some interesting language from a speech that Barack Obama gave at the University of Wisconsin after he won the Potomac primaries on Tuesday. It was good stuff for those of us who favor a more populist approach to economic policy by the Democratic Party. Here is a quote from that speech:
"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years...So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead...
It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can - or should - stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this - when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate - we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America"
Since NAFTA was signed, Ohio and other northern industrial states, like Illinois, have lost hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs. Clinton has a big problem on this issue because her husband pushed NAFTA. Just think how much better off America would have been if Clinton had linked NAFTA and universal health insurance together, telling American employers that if you want the one, you have to support the other.
This is what Sirota says about Obama's top economic advisor:
With the departure of John Edwards, Obama is a candidate whose top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is the only remaining top presidential economic guru who acknowledges that our current trade deals are horrifying - rather than wonderful.
This is what Sirota says about today's political climate:
And though we've seen people like Bill Clinton promise as candidates to get tough on trade and then as president do exactly the opposite, this is a different candidate and a different era - with a much more angry public.
The question becomes which candidate is likely to move beyond the free-trade mindset that has dominated the media landscape since the 1990s, Clinton or Obama? Our money is on Obama because he doesn't have the same baggage on this issue that Clinton has.
"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years...So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead...
It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can - or should - stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this - when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate - we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America"
Since NAFTA was signed, Ohio and other northern industrial states, like Illinois, have lost hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs. Clinton has a big problem on this issue because her husband pushed NAFTA. Just think how much better off America would have been if Clinton had linked NAFTA and universal health insurance together, telling American employers that if you want the one, you have to support the other.
This is what Sirota says about Obama's top economic advisor:
With the departure of John Edwards, Obama is a candidate whose top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is the only remaining top presidential economic guru who acknowledges that our current trade deals are horrifying - rather than wonderful.
This is what Sirota says about today's political climate:
And though we've seen people like Bill Clinton promise as candidates to get tough on trade and then as president do exactly the opposite, this is a different candidate and a different era - with a much more angry public.
The question becomes which candidate is likely to move beyond the free-trade mindset that has dominated the media landscape since the 1990s, Clinton or Obama? Our money is on Obama because he doesn't have the same baggage on this issue that Clinton has.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Voinovich and McCain Vote Against Bill Containing Ban on Waterboarding
Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) joined Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in voting against a intelligence bill that contained a ban on waterboarding. The bill contained a provision that prohibited the CIA from engaging in conduct that violates the U.S. Army Field Manual. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) voted in favor of the bill.
This, of course, is just the latest of a series of positions that McCain has taken that represents a change from his previous, i.e., before running for President in 2008, positions. Originally he was against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, now he is for them. Originally he was for the immigration bill that he co-authored; now he is against it. Originally he was against torture, now he is against banning it. These are a series of well known and well publicized flip-flops. Now, let's see if the news media calls him out on them.
Of course, it will help if Democrats point out to the media what he is doing. Last night, in a speech in Wisconsin after he had won the Potomac primaries, Obama did just that by pointing out McCain's change of position on Bush's tax cuts. The phrase he used was that the "wheels have come off the Straight Talk Express." This is exactly what Democrats need to do to in this election; draw a sharp distinction with McCain.
On the war, Obama is in the better position to do that, but on economic policy, both Clinton and Obama can do it. The point is, though, that it has to be done.
This, of course, is just the latest of a series of positions that McCain has taken that represents a change from his previous, i.e., before running for President in 2008, positions. Originally he was against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, now he is for them. Originally he was for the immigration bill that he co-authored; now he is against it. Originally he was against torture, now he is against banning it. These are a series of well known and well publicized flip-flops. Now, let's see if the news media calls him out on them.
Of course, it will help if Democrats point out to the media what he is doing. Last night, in a speech in Wisconsin after he had won the Potomac primaries, Obama did just that by pointing out McCain's change of position on Bush's tax cuts. The phrase he used was that the "wheels have come off the Straight Talk Express." This is exactly what Democrats need to do to in this election; draw a sharp distinction with McCain.
On the war, Obama is in the better position to do that, but on economic policy, both Clinton and Obama can do it. The point is, though, that it has to be done.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Contact Information for Clinton and Obama Campaigns
The following message is from Pam Miller, Chair of the Medina County Democratic Party:
I have the following contact info for the Presidential Primary campaigns:
Obama Campaign:
Matt Besser, 216-338-3554
Hillary Clinton Campaign
Lisa, 404-207-6768
Anyone who is interested in assisting either campaign, should call these people. Please pass on their names & numbers to those who ask you how to get involved.
Thanks.
Pam
I have the following contact info for the Presidential Primary campaigns:
Obama Campaign:
Matt Besser, 216-338-3554
Hillary Clinton Campaign
Lisa, 404-207-6768
Anyone who is interested in assisting either campaign, should call these people. Please pass on their names & numbers to those who ask you how to get involved.
Thanks.
Pam
Why the Media Likes Personality: Most Reporters Don't Know Policy
There is an amazing post over at Cleveland.com in which PD reporter Mark Naymik takes some shots at how Clinton came across during her endorsement interview. Apparently she acted as if she knew more than the PD writers and she didn't ask them for their endorsement. Now, this caught our attention because right now in our house people are reading The Big Con by Jonathon Chait. It is a very fascinating book and deals with how believers in supply-side economics managed to convince the media and the public that this whacked-out economic theory was viable.
One of the most important reasons he cites is that most reporters don't know issues and don't want to learn issues. Therefore, according to Chait, they "scorn campaigns rooted in issues and lacking a personal narrative." Which leads us to the blog entry by Naymik. Nowhere in his entry does Naymik discuss any point of policy which was important to the PD in giving its endorsement to Obama. The tone of the entry can be found from this closing paragraphs:
Clinton is a fine candidate.
But she isn't paying attention to one of the messages voters sent Democrat John Kerry in 2004: Nobody likes a smarty-pants.
Basically he is telling candidates for public office that the PD doesn't really care what you know, they care how you get along with them. Interestingly, in the same blog, he points out that Senator John McCain was actually talking to someone else while do his telephone interview with the PD. Now, that strikes us as more than a little rude, but apparently being rude is more acceptable to the PD than knowing too much about the issues or not asking the editorial board for its endorsement. Naymik takes care to mention that both Obama and McCain did just that. Oh, and he also liked the fact that John McCain made a bad joke about "waterboarding."
The other thing that he doesn't point out is that relatively few Americans met John Kerry during his campaign for the presidency. So where did this belief that he was a "smarty-pants" come from? Why, the media, of course, only Naymik either doesn't realize it or doesn't want to acknowledge it.
Look, you can complain all you want about the fact that most media personnel are not really all that interested in issues, or you can accept it and try to go with the candidate who has the better personality. We realize it is aggravating, but you are probably not going to change the culure of the media during one campaign cycle.
Thanks to Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
One of the most important reasons he cites is that most reporters don't know issues and don't want to learn issues. Therefore, according to Chait, they "scorn campaigns rooted in issues and lacking a personal narrative." Which leads us to the blog entry by Naymik. Nowhere in his entry does Naymik discuss any point of policy which was important to the PD in giving its endorsement to Obama. The tone of the entry can be found from this closing paragraphs:
Clinton is a fine candidate.
But she isn't paying attention to one of the messages voters sent Democrat John Kerry in 2004: Nobody likes a smarty-pants.
Basically he is telling candidates for public office that the PD doesn't really care what you know, they care how you get along with them. Interestingly, in the same blog, he points out that Senator John McCain was actually talking to someone else while do his telephone interview with the PD. Now, that strikes us as more than a little rude, but apparently being rude is more acceptable to the PD than knowing too much about the issues or not asking the editorial board for its endorsement. Naymik takes care to mention that both Obama and McCain did just that. Oh, and he also liked the fact that John McCain made a bad joke about "waterboarding."
The other thing that he doesn't point out is that relatively few Americans met John Kerry during his campaign for the presidency. So where did this belief that he was a "smarty-pants" come from? Why, the media, of course, only Naymik either doesn't realize it or doesn't want to acknowledge it.
Look, you can complain all you want about the fact that most media personnel are not really all that interested in issues, or you can accept it and try to go with the candidate who has the better personality. We realize it is aggravating, but you are probably not going to change the culure of the media during one campaign cycle.
Thanks to Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
Who Will do Better in the Electoral College, Clinton or Obama?
In 2000 Al Gore won 18 states plus the District of Columbia and lost the electoral college by 5 votes, (assuming that you accept the totals from Floria). In 2004 John Kerry won 17 states plus the District of Columbia and lost the electoral college by 25 votes. The question that is facing Democrats isn't which candidate can get the most votes, its which candidate can win the electoral college.
So far, there is a case to be made by each candidate. The one made by Obama is that he is showing strength in states that Democrats don't normally win, such as Kansas, and if he could duplicate that effort in the fall, he would put many more states in play and thus increase his chances of winning the presidency. The counter-argument is that a lot of his wins in so called "red" states have been in caucuses and such results are not a true indicator of how he will run in the fall.
The case for Clinton is that she is showing strength in states that Democrats absolutely have to carry, and she is showing strength with Latino voters. The latter could become very important because she could take Florida, New Mexico, and Colorado, which would give her the presidency. The counter-argument is that she is showing strength in states that Obama can also carry if he is the Democratic nominee and so is adding nothing to the electoral mix.
Ohio is a very important state in the GOP's calculations. No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. It has a very diverse population and if Obama or Clinton could win Ohio, then he or she would probably also win Missouri and maybe Florida. Those three states would guarantee the presidency for the Dems.
So while electability is important, it isn't popular vote electability, it is who can take enough states to win the electoral college. Ohio Dems could do a lot worse than trying to read polls of Ohio voters showing the results in match-ups between McCain and Clinton and McCain and Obama.
So far, there is a case to be made by each candidate. The one made by Obama is that he is showing strength in states that Democrats don't normally win, such as Kansas, and if he could duplicate that effort in the fall, he would put many more states in play and thus increase his chances of winning the presidency. The counter-argument is that a lot of his wins in so called "red" states have been in caucuses and such results are not a true indicator of how he will run in the fall.
The case for Clinton is that she is showing strength in states that Democrats absolutely have to carry, and she is showing strength with Latino voters. The latter could become very important because she could take Florida, New Mexico, and Colorado, which would give her the presidency. The counter-argument is that she is showing strength in states that Obama can also carry if he is the Democratic nominee and so is adding nothing to the electoral mix.
Ohio is a very important state in the GOP's calculations. No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. It has a very diverse population and if Obama or Clinton could win Ohio, then he or she would probably also win Missouri and maybe Florida. Those three states would guarantee the presidency for the Dems.
So while electability is important, it isn't popular vote electability, it is who can take enough states to win the electoral college. Ohio Dems could do a lot worse than trying to read polls of Ohio voters showing the results in match-ups between McCain and Clinton and McCain and Obama.
Zogby Exit Polls Focus on Dems who are Evangelicals
Last week we posted an entry that talked about the fact that most exit polls don't ask Democratic voters if they are evangelicals. This week we find out that the Zogby polling group did just that in Missouri and Tennessee during last week's primaries. According to a Yahoo News story on the exit polls, they were commissioned by a organization called Faith in Public Life. Faith in Public Life is described as a non-partisan resource center.
The results are interesting. This is a quote from the Yahoo article:
In Missouri, the polls showed 34 percent of all white evangelicals who voted took part in the Democratic primary versus 66 percent in the Republican primary.
Evangelicals made up 19 percent of all Democratic voters in Missouri and supported Clinton over Obama by 54 percent to 37 percent, closely mirroring the vote among all whites.
In Tennessee, the polls indicated 32 percent of primary voters who fit this profile were Democratic and accounted for 29 percent of the party's vote there.
It would be interesting to see what such exit polls would show for Ohio. One problem with the media is that very few reporters actually know white evangelicals. Since they don't know from personal experience any evangelical voters who are Democratic, it is easy for them to conclude that all such voters are Republicans.
This, of course, is not true. Indeed in 2004, according to the 2004 CNN exit poll, 21% of white evangelicals voted for John Kerry and they made up 23% of the electorate. Raising that percentage to 30% would have made a big impact on the 2004 election since Bush lost those voters who were not white, evangelicals by a 56% to 43% margin.
Hopefully, Zogby will continue such exit polls and publication of their results will begin to change the perceptions of the media.
The results are interesting. This is a quote from the Yahoo article:
In Missouri, the polls showed 34 percent of all white evangelicals who voted took part in the Democratic primary versus 66 percent in the Republican primary.
Evangelicals made up 19 percent of all Democratic voters in Missouri and supported Clinton over Obama by 54 percent to 37 percent, closely mirroring the vote among all whites.
In Tennessee, the polls indicated 32 percent of primary voters who fit this profile were Democratic and accounted for 29 percent of the party's vote there.
It would be interesting to see what such exit polls would show for Ohio. One problem with the media is that very few reporters actually know white evangelicals. Since they don't know from personal experience any evangelical voters who are Democratic, it is easy for them to conclude that all such voters are Republicans.
This, of course, is not true. Indeed in 2004, according to the 2004 CNN exit poll, 21% of white evangelicals voted for John Kerry and they made up 23% of the electorate. Raising that percentage to 30% would have made a big impact on the 2004 election since Bush lost those voters who were not white, evangelicals by a 56% to 43% margin.
Hopefully, Zogby will continue such exit polls and publication of their results will begin to change the perceptions of the media.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Is the National Journal Trying to Tar Obama With a Liberal Brush?
The National Journal released its annual ranking of how liberal or conservative Senators are on Thursday, January 31, 2008. Interestingly Obama was ranked the most "liberal" Senator and Clinton was ranked the 16th most liberal. In 2004, the National Journal ranked John Kerry the most liberal Senator, and also ranked John Edwards as pretty liberal also.
Now, in the 2006 rankings Obama had a liberal score of 86 and Clinton had a liberal score of 70.2. Those scores meant that Obama was ranked 10th most liberal and Clinton was ranked 32nd most liberal. In 2007, however, Obama moves up to number one and Clinton moves up to number 16. Quite a jump.
So how does the National Journal come up with this ranking system? Well, the National Journal doesn't base its ranking on every vote. According to the Journal the rankings are based on what it calls 99 key votes.
If you look at the supposed "key votes" you find that 26 of them are proposals to limit debate on various bills, and seven of them are proposals to table various bills. Thus, a third of the votes aren't votes on legislation at all. Further, the list is inherently subjective. An example is the very first vote listed, which was a proposal to set up an Office of Public Integrity. Apparently, according to the Journal, if you are in favor of enforcing ethics laws against Senators, you are a liberal.
Now, how did the National Journal get into the ranking business? Well, it was a brainchild of Bill Schneider, who is a political commentator on CNN. This is how the Journal explains Schneider's work on these rankings:
The ratings system -- devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal -- also assigns "composite" scores, an average of the members' issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama's composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.
So where does Bill Schneider come from? Well, among other things, he is described by Wikipedia as a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI is then described by Wikipedia in the following language:
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943. It is associated with neoconservative domestic and foreign policy views.[1][2][3] According to the institute its mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."[4] AEI is an independent, non-profit organization. It is supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is located in Washington, D.C.
AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[5] More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.
So basically what we have is a ranking system devised by a conservative which is used by a supposed "non-partisan" media company to produce rankings that are used every four years to tar Democratic presidential nominees with a "liberal" brush. To make it even more interesting, the system is based on a very subjective set of votes with the liberal-conservative position subjectively set by the National Journal.
The ranking system is then released to the public and picked up the media with little or no explanation of what the rankings represent or how they were determined. Yep, sounds real objective to us.
Now, in the 2006 rankings Obama had a liberal score of 86 and Clinton had a liberal score of 70.2. Those scores meant that Obama was ranked 10th most liberal and Clinton was ranked 32nd most liberal. In 2007, however, Obama moves up to number one and Clinton moves up to number 16. Quite a jump.
So how does the National Journal come up with this ranking system? Well, the National Journal doesn't base its ranking on every vote. According to the Journal the rankings are based on what it calls 99 key votes.
If you look at the supposed "key votes" you find that 26 of them are proposals to limit debate on various bills, and seven of them are proposals to table various bills. Thus, a third of the votes aren't votes on legislation at all. Further, the list is inherently subjective. An example is the very first vote listed, which was a proposal to set up an Office of Public Integrity. Apparently, according to the Journal, if you are in favor of enforcing ethics laws against Senators, you are a liberal.
Now, how did the National Journal get into the ranking business? Well, it was a brainchild of Bill Schneider, who is a political commentator on CNN. This is how the Journal explains Schneider's work on these rankings:
The ratings system -- devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal -- also assigns "composite" scores, an average of the members' issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama's composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.
So where does Bill Schneider come from? Well, among other things, he is described by Wikipedia as a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI is then described by Wikipedia in the following language:
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943. It is associated with neoconservative domestic and foreign policy views.[1][2][3] According to the institute its mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."[4] AEI is an independent, non-profit organization. It is supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is located in Washington, D.C.
AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[5] More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.
So basically what we have is a ranking system devised by a conservative which is used by a supposed "non-partisan" media company to produce rankings that are used every four years to tar Democratic presidential nominees with a "liberal" brush. To make it even more interesting, the system is based on a very subjective set of votes with the liberal-conservative position subjectively set by the National Journal.
The ranking system is then released to the public and picked up the media with little or no explanation of what the rankings represent or how they were determined. Yep, sounds real objective to us.
Brian Feron for Commissioner Leap-Year FundRaiser
Leap into the future with the kick-off campaign for:
Brian T. Feron for Medina County Commissioner!
The kick-off fundraiser will be held Friday, February 29th, 5pm - 8pm at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 131 North East St, Medina. A donation of $20.00 is requested.
We will have appetizers, refreshments and an opportunity to meet Brian. There will be campaign information and opportunities to sign-up and help with his campaign. RSVP to Dorothy Feron @ 330-725-5945 or e-mail FeronForCommissioner@yahoo.com.
If you are unable to attend you can still help! Send a contribution payable to Brian T. Feron for Commissioner, 5211 Wedgewood Rd., Medina, OH 44256.
For more information on his campaign visit www.BrianFeron.com.
Brian T. Feron for Medina County Commissioner!
The kick-off fundraiser will be held Friday, February 29th, 5pm - 8pm at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 131 North East St, Medina. A donation of $20.00 is requested.
We will have appetizers, refreshments and an opportunity to meet Brian. There will be campaign information and opportunities to sign-up and help with his campaign. RSVP to Dorothy Feron @ 330-725-5945 or e-mail FeronForCommissioner@yahoo.com.
If you are unable to attend you can still help! Send a contribution payable to Brian T. Feron for Commissioner, 5211 Wedgewood Rd., Medina, OH 44256.
For more information on his campaign visit www.BrianFeron.com.
Guidelines for Placing Items in the MCDAC Newsletter
The Medina County Democratic Action Committee sends out an weekly email newsletter early each Friday morning. We are happy to run items from Democratic candidates about their campaigns and to run announcements about campaign events like fundraisers. There is no charge for this service, but the following guidelines must be observed:
1. We require that you give us a short paragraph describing the event with information such as date, time, location, cost, contact person, any telephone numbers and email addresses. This paragraph must be included in your email message to us requesting that we run the announcement. It cannot be an attachment. We don't edit your announcements and are not responsible for any mistakes.
2. This information must be received by Wednesday at 5 pm to be included in that Friday's newsletter.
3. We reserve the right to reject any announcement without explanation.
4. Announcements must be sent by email to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
MCDAC is a separate political action committee and is not part of the Medina County Democratic Party, although it often works with the MCDP on various projects. Therefore, posting an item with MCDAC does not guarantee that it will be posted by the Medina County Democratic Party at its website, www.medinadems.org.
1. We require that you give us a short paragraph describing the event with information such as date, time, location, cost, contact person, any telephone numbers and email addresses. This paragraph must be included in your email message to us requesting that we run the announcement. It cannot be an attachment. We don't edit your announcements and are not responsible for any mistakes.
2. This information must be received by Wednesday at 5 pm to be included in that Friday's newsletter.
3. We reserve the right to reject any announcement without explanation.
4. Announcements must be sent by email to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
MCDAC is a separate political action committee and is not part of the Medina County Democratic Party, although it often works with the MCDP on various projects. Therefore, posting an item with MCDAC does not guarantee that it will be posted by the Medina County Democratic Party at its website, www.medinadems.org.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Only Thing Wrong With Obama is Some of His Online Supporters
A friend and I were talking last week and he mentioned that the only thing he didn't like about Obama was his supporters. The level of their bitterness toward the Clintons is just astounding. Here we have a fairly liberal Senator, Clinton, and she is regarded as no better than Bush. Well, here's a reality check for you:
Clinton wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq after being attacked by Bin Laden and his followers;
Clinton wouldn't have vetoed more health insurance coverage for children;
Clinton wouldn't have nominated Roberts and Alito;
Clinton wouldn't have advocated tax cuts for the wealthy;
Clinton wouldn't have run huge deficits to pay for the aforementioned tax cuts;
Clinton wouldn't have authorized torture against American prisoners;
Clinton wouldn't have held an American citizen in detention for over three years before bringing charges against him while denying him access to counsel;
Clinton wouldn't have tried to do away with the Social Security program; and
Clinton wouldn't have supported a Medicare prescription drug benefit that prohibited the government from using its economic muscle to get better prices from drug companies.
Yet, to Obama supporters, Clinton and Bush seem to be one and the same. A lot of Obama's online supporters seem to be taking the position that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination, then they will be just as happy to see McCain win the presidency. A McCain victory, of course, would do nothing to advance the ideas that Obama advocates.
Now, this is not to say that Clinton is perfect. Her support of the Iraq War Resolution was an incredible blunder and, by itself, may very well disqualify her for the presidency. But to act like she is as bad as Bush indicates either an intellectual dishonesty or a total lack of understanding of what the Bush Administration has done to this country.
Clinton wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq after being attacked by Bin Laden and his followers;
Clinton wouldn't have vetoed more health insurance coverage for children;
Clinton wouldn't have nominated Roberts and Alito;
Clinton wouldn't have advocated tax cuts for the wealthy;
Clinton wouldn't have run huge deficits to pay for the aforementioned tax cuts;
Clinton wouldn't have authorized torture against American prisoners;
Clinton wouldn't have held an American citizen in detention for over three years before bringing charges against him while denying him access to counsel;
Clinton wouldn't have tried to do away with the Social Security program; and
Clinton wouldn't have supported a Medicare prescription drug benefit that prohibited the government from using its economic muscle to get better prices from drug companies.
Yet, to Obama supporters, Clinton and Bush seem to be one and the same. A lot of Obama's online supporters seem to be taking the position that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination, then they will be just as happy to see McCain win the presidency. A McCain victory, of course, would do nothing to advance the ideas that Obama advocates.
Now, this is not to say that Clinton is perfect. Her support of the Iraq War Resolution was an incredible blunder and, by itself, may very well disqualify her for the presidency. But to act like she is as bad as Bush indicates either an intellectual dishonesty or a total lack of understanding of what the Bush Administration has done to this country.
Washington State GOP Declares McCain Winner of Caucuses After Counting 87% of the Vote
So if you thought that Republicans only play games with vote counting when Democrats are involved, think again. The Washington State GOP put out an announcement on its website that McCain had won its state caucus after only counting 87% of the vote. Here is a quote from the announcement:
Tukwila, WA…Washington State Republican Party Chairman announced tonight that Senator John McCain has won the 2008 Republican precinct caucuses in Washington State. With 87.2 percent of precincts reporting statewide, Sen. McCain leads the GOP field with 25.5 % of delegates. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee took 23.7 %, Texas Congressman Ron Paul 20.6 %, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won 16.5 %. Approximately 12.7 % of delegates reported their preference as “uncommitted”, while another 1.1% reported their preference as “other.”
Now, we can see why media outlets make such announcements. They use exit polls which supposedly gives them a way to gauge how the elections results will look. They are also in the news business and so there are institutional pressures on them to get such information out to the public as soon as they can.
Political parties, however, are under no such pressure, and to our knowledge, don't run exit polls. So why would the Chair of the Washington State GOP jump the gun on this and declare the winner on only part of the returns?
Well, here's our take on it. McCain is likely to be nominee and the Washington State GOP Chair knows that, and, for that matter, may be backing McCain. Up until the Washington announcement McCain was having a bad night. He had been trounced in Kansas and was losing the Louisiana primary. Then, lo and behold. a ray of light comes beaming out of the west and the national media is told that McCain didn't lose all three Saturday events, he just lost two of them, and interestingly, the one he supposedly won was north of the Mason-Dixon line.
That last point is very important. McCain's people are portraying Huckabee as only having appeal in states with large blocks of evangelical Christians, like Iowa and Kansas, or in southern and border states like Georgia, Louisiana, and West Virginia. A loss in Washington state would have hurt that particular spin.
Now, all of this may just be partisan speculation on our part. On Monday, February 11, 2008, the Washington state GOP will release the total returns, and it may very well be that McCain will be the legitimate winner. The problem is, of course, that when it comes to counting votes, you just can't trust the GOP, even when it is dealing with one of its own.
Tukwila, WA…Washington State Republican Party Chairman announced tonight that Senator John McCain has won the 2008 Republican precinct caucuses in Washington State. With 87.2 percent of precincts reporting statewide, Sen. McCain leads the GOP field with 25.5 % of delegates. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee took 23.7 %, Texas Congressman Ron Paul 20.6 %, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won 16.5 %. Approximately 12.7 % of delegates reported their preference as “uncommitted”, while another 1.1% reported their preference as “other.”
Now, we can see why media outlets make such announcements. They use exit polls which supposedly gives them a way to gauge how the elections results will look. They are also in the news business and so there are institutional pressures on them to get such information out to the public as soon as they can.
Political parties, however, are under no such pressure, and to our knowledge, don't run exit polls. So why would the Chair of the Washington State GOP jump the gun on this and declare the winner on only part of the returns?
Well, here's our take on it. McCain is likely to be nominee and the Washington State GOP Chair knows that, and, for that matter, may be backing McCain. Up until the Washington announcement McCain was having a bad night. He had been trounced in Kansas and was losing the Louisiana primary. Then, lo and behold. a ray of light comes beaming out of the west and the national media is told that McCain didn't lose all three Saturday events, he just lost two of them, and interestingly, the one he supposedly won was north of the Mason-Dixon line.
That last point is very important. McCain's people are portraying Huckabee as only having appeal in states with large blocks of evangelical Christians, like Iowa and Kansas, or in southern and border states like Georgia, Louisiana, and West Virginia. A loss in Washington state would have hurt that particular spin.
Now, all of this may just be partisan speculation on our part. On Monday, February 11, 2008, the Washington state GOP will release the total returns, and it may very well be that McCain will be the legitimate winner. The problem is, of course, that when it comes to counting votes, you just can't trust the GOP, even when it is dealing with one of its own.
Medina County State Representative Compares Strickland to Rhodes
Back in the Sixties and the Seventies there was a four term Ohio governor named Jim Rhodes who campaigned on the platform of "Jobs and Progress". Although he had been mayor of Columbus and State Auditor before becoming Governor, he grew up in Southeastern Ohio. One of the ideas that he promoted was that there should be a college or university within 30 miles of every person in Ohio.
Now, 26 years after Rhodes left office, Governor Ted Strickland is advocating similar ideas. During his State of the State address, Governor Strickland called for using a bond package to try and revitalize Ohio's economy. State Representative Bill Batchelder, (R-Medina County), told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he heard more Jim Rhodes from Strickland during the State of the State address than he had since Rhodes died.
Batchelder told the PD reporter that he thought the similarities came from both men growing up poor and both men coming from Southeast Ohio. This is how Batchelder put it to the PD:
"I think he knows more down here," said the veteran lawmaker of Strickland, motioning to his gut. "I think he has a real sense of the public just like Jim did. What they feel and what their aspirations are. I think it comes from growing up without much and coming from down there."
Those of us who are Ohio Democrats and remember the fact that Rhodes beat us in four elections find the comparasion interesting. Ohio Dems could do far worse, and have, than nominating and electing a Democratic version of Jim Rhodes.
Now, 26 years after Rhodes left office, Governor Ted Strickland is advocating similar ideas. During his State of the State address, Governor Strickland called for using a bond package to try and revitalize Ohio's economy. State Representative Bill Batchelder, (R-Medina County), told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he heard more Jim Rhodes from Strickland during the State of the State address than he had since Rhodes died.
Batchelder told the PD reporter that he thought the similarities came from both men growing up poor and both men coming from Southeast Ohio. This is how Batchelder put it to the PD:
"I think he knows more down here," said the veteran lawmaker of Strickland, motioning to his gut. "I think he has a real sense of the public just like Jim did. What they feel and what their aspirations are. I think it comes from growing up without much and coming from down there."
Those of us who are Ohio Democrats and remember the fact that Rhodes beat us in four elections find the comparasion interesting. Ohio Dems could do far worse, and have, than nominating and electing a Democratic version of Jim Rhodes.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Two Polls Have Obama Leading McCain Outside the Margin of Error
CNN is reporting that there are two polls out that show that Obama is leading McCain outside of the polls' margins of error. This is from the CNN article:
A CNN poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation February 1-3, shows Clinton three points ahead of McCain, 50 percent to 47 percent. That's within the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points, meaning that the race is statistically tied..
A Time magazine poll, conducted February 1-4, also shows a dead heat between Clinton and McCain. Each was backed by 46 percent of those polled.
What is particularly interesting is how much better than Obama does better than McCain with male voters:
Why does Obama do better against McCain than Clinton? Obama does do a little better than Clinton with independents and Republicans.
But the big difference is men: Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie.
Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins.
Some Democrats may be worried about how Obama will fare with white voters. Whites give McCain a 15-point lead over Clinton, (56 percent for McCain, 41 percent for Clinton).
But Obama actually fares better than Clinton with white voters. McCain still leads, but by a smaller margin, (52 to 43 percent).
Obama argues that he can reach across party lines. And he does do a little better than Clinton with Independents and Republicans, at least in these polls.
But the big difference is that Clinton doesn't draw very well with men. Obama does.
If Obama can keep that kind of support among men and white voters, then McCain is toast.
A CNN poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation February 1-3, shows Clinton three points ahead of McCain, 50 percent to 47 percent. That's within the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points, meaning that the race is statistically tied..
A Time magazine poll, conducted February 1-4, also shows a dead heat between Clinton and McCain. Each was backed by 46 percent of those polled.
What is particularly interesting is how much better than Obama does better than McCain with male voters:
Why does Obama do better against McCain than Clinton? Obama does do a little better than Clinton with independents and Republicans.
But the big difference is men: Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie.
Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins.
Some Democrats may be worried about how Obama will fare with white voters. Whites give McCain a 15-point lead over Clinton, (56 percent for McCain, 41 percent for Clinton).
But Obama actually fares better than Clinton with white voters. McCain still leads, but by a smaller margin, (52 to 43 percent).
Obama argues that he can reach across party lines. And he does do a little better than Clinton with Independents and Republicans, at least in these polls.
But the big difference is that Clinton doesn't draw very well with men. Obama does.
If Obama can keep that kind of support among men and white voters, then McCain is toast.
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown Tells Cleveland PD that He Will Let Ohio Dems Decide his Vote as Super-Delegate
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he will let the voters of Ohio decide how he will vote as one of Ohio's super-delegates. This is from the article:
Brown, the senator, is likely to help the eventual nominee campaign in Ohio. He said he will not announce his preference until after the March 4 primary.
"I'm going to let the voters of Ohio decide," he said.
What if they decide on a candidate who wouldn't be his first choice?
"I don't know," Brown said. "I think that both of them are very acceptable. Either of them will be so preferable to the Bush Republicans that are running the country now."
For what it's worth, we think that Senator Brown is making a very smart choice both politically and for the interests of the Ohio Democratic Party. Ohio's Democratic Party doesn't need to be caught up in what is an increasingly hostile and bitter primary process.
Brown, the senator, is likely to help the eventual nominee campaign in Ohio. He said he will not announce his preference until after the March 4 primary.
"I'm going to let the voters of Ohio decide," he said.
What if they decide on a candidate who wouldn't be his first choice?
"I don't know," Brown said. "I think that both of them are very acceptable. Either of them will be so preferable to the Bush Republicans that are running the country now."
For what it's worth, we think that Senator Brown is making a very smart choice both politically and for the interests of the Ohio Democratic Party. Ohio's Democratic Party doesn't need to be caught up in what is an increasingly hostile and bitter primary process.
Cleveland Plain Dealer Endorses Obama and McCain for Ohio's Primary in March
The Cleveland Plain Dealer endorsed Senator Barack Obama and Arizona John McCain for the respective nominations of their political parties. The PD endorsment of Obama seems to based on the fact that Hillary Clinton carries a lot of baggage with her. This is from the endorsement:
But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?
The editorial goes on to make an interesting point in the follow language:
Bill Clinton says his wife excelled at "making positive changes in other people's lives." Consider that construction. Then listen as Obama talks of bringing people together to change their own lives.
America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it.
One of the points that Obama supporters sometime make is that his background as a community organizer shows that he is more able to put together grassroots change in America. That's a very good point.
As far as the endorsement of McCain, the PD makes the point that McCain can win Ohio, which Republicans have to win to hold on to the presidency:
Because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans enjoy majority status, independents decide elections in Ohio. That means you don't win here by driving people out of your party's tent. You win by inviting them in.
Of course what Ohio Dems have to worry about is that the PD will jump at the chance to endorse McCain over Obama.
But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?
The editorial goes on to make an interesting point in the follow language:
Bill Clinton says his wife excelled at "making positive changes in other people's lives." Consider that construction. Then listen as Obama talks of bringing people together to change their own lives.
America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it.
One of the points that Obama supporters sometime make is that his background as a community organizer shows that he is more able to put together grassroots change in America. That's a very good point.
As far as the endorsement of McCain, the PD makes the point that McCain can win Ohio, which Republicans have to win to hold on to the presidency:
Because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans enjoy majority status, independents decide elections in Ohio. That means you don't win here by driving people out of your party's tent. You win by inviting them in.
Of course what Ohio Dems have to worry about is that the PD will jump at the chance to endorse McCain over Obama.
Medina County Auditor Mike Kovack's Annual Chili Cook-Off
There are a few things that Medina County Democrats can count on. One is that the Medina County Democratic Party will have its two annual dinners; another is that Dean Holman will have his St. Paddy's Day party; and the third is that Medina County Auditor Mike Kovack will have his annual chili cook-off. Mike's cook-off is coming up on February 21, 2008. Below is the information. If you like chili and supporting Democrats, then this event is for you.
Mike Kovack's 14th Annual Chili Cook Off
February 21st from 5:00 to 7:00
Medina Eagles, 696 Lafayette Road, Medina
For information call Joan Heller (330) 725-0945
Mike Kovack's 14th Annual Chili Cook Off
February 21st from 5:00 to 7:00
Medina Eagles, 696 Lafayette Road, Medina
For information call Joan Heller (330) 725-0945
The Father and Brother of Hinckley Dem Rosie Collier Passed Away
Rosie Collier and Al Junke sent us this notice about her dad and brother passing away. Our condolences to Rosie on her loss. Our prayers are with them.
For those in Medina County that know Rosie Collier and Al Junke, we would like to thank you for the outpouring of support we have received over the past week. Rosie lost her brother, David Wolnik, 72, of Wickliffe, last Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008. He was buried at Chester Township Cemetery February 5, 2008. Some ten hours later Rosies beloved father, Jack Wolnik, 97, of Hinckley also left us.
David Wolnik served in the U.S. Army Reserve, retired after 35 years of service from Sohio as a chemical lab technician. He then worked for Lubrizol, retiring after ten years. Polka music was Dave's passion. His career as a drummer spanned over 50 years and included 84 bands. He appeared on numerous recordings and performed with Cleveland polka legends such as Bobby Timko, Joey Miskulin and Joe Fedorchak.
David performed with America's Polka King, Frankie Yankovic who, along with Dave on the drums, recorded the first Grammy winning polka record and performed with Frankie Yankovic on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. In 2001, he was inducted into the Polka Hall of Fame.
Jack Wolnik also served in the U.S. Army Reserve, rising to a rank of second lieutenant. Jack lived much of his working life in Clevelands Tremont area and in Parma, he like his two sons, Dave and Ken, and his daughter, Rosie, also retired from Sohio after long careers. Jack spent the last 12 years living with Rosie and Al in Hinckley. Jack was one of the charter members of the Friends of Medina County Home. He loved to visit the county home and talk with the residents and the staff.
Jack helped Al and Rosie thru both levy campaigns to save the County Home, Jim Dudeks campaign and the Kerry/Edwards campaign. He truly was a lifelong democrat. One time we took Jack to a event to meet Dennis Kucinich, as Dennis approached Jack, he said, "I remember you, west 7th street [Jacks old neighborhood]" turns out as a child Dennis had talked with Jack, played in the area Jack lived and remembered Jack.
Please donate to the Friends of Medina County Home, P.O. Box 1997, Medina, Ohio 44258, in the name of Jack and David Wolnik.
Rosie Collier
Al Junke
Hinckley Ohio
For those in Medina County that know Rosie Collier and Al Junke, we would like to thank you for the outpouring of support we have received over the past week. Rosie lost her brother, David Wolnik, 72, of Wickliffe, last Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008. He was buried at Chester Township Cemetery February 5, 2008. Some ten hours later Rosies beloved father, Jack Wolnik, 97, of Hinckley also left us.
David Wolnik served in the U.S. Army Reserve, retired after 35 years of service from Sohio as a chemical lab technician. He then worked for Lubrizol, retiring after ten years. Polka music was Dave's passion. His career as a drummer spanned over 50 years and included 84 bands. He appeared on numerous recordings and performed with Cleveland polka legends such as Bobby Timko, Joey Miskulin and Joe Fedorchak.
David performed with America's Polka King, Frankie Yankovic who, along with Dave on the drums, recorded the first Grammy winning polka record and performed with Frankie Yankovic on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. In 2001, he was inducted into the Polka Hall of Fame.
Jack Wolnik also served in the U.S. Army Reserve, rising to a rank of second lieutenant. Jack lived much of his working life in Clevelands Tremont area and in Parma, he like his two sons, Dave and Ken, and his daughter, Rosie, also retired from Sohio after long careers. Jack spent the last 12 years living with Rosie and Al in Hinckley. Jack was one of the charter members of the Friends of Medina County Home. He loved to visit the county home and talk with the residents and the staff.
Jack helped Al and Rosie thru both levy campaigns to save the County Home, Jim Dudeks campaign and the Kerry/Edwards campaign. He truly was a lifelong democrat. One time we took Jack to a event to meet Dennis Kucinich, as Dennis approached Jack, he said, "I remember you, west 7th street [Jacks old neighborhood]" turns out as a child Dennis had talked with Jack, played in the area Jack lived and remembered Jack.
Please donate to the Friends of Medina County Home, P.O. Box 1997, Medina, Ohio 44258, in the name of Jack and David Wolnik.
Rosie Collier
Al Junke
Hinckley Ohio
Check Out This Blog by Medina County Dem: Cee Jay's Cyber Space
Julie Batey of the Medina County Democratic Women sent us the link to the blog CeeJay's Cyber Space. Cee Jay posts on politics and, as an added bonus, you can get a list of Universalist-Unitarian blogs. Check it out, we think that you will like it.
MCDAC Blog VIsitors: Six Month Comparisons
Six Month Comparisons of Visitors to the MCDAC blog:
2371 visitors from August of 2006 to January of 2007
8555 visitors from August of 2007 to January of 2008.
This represents an increase in visitors of over 350%.
MCDAC thanks all of those who have visited our blog.
2371 visitors from August of 2006 to January of 2007
8555 visitors from August of 2007 to January of 2008.
This represents an increase in visitors of over 350%.
MCDAC thanks all of those who have visited our blog.
Only When a Woman or a African-American Runs Does Media Become Concerned about "Dividing" America
Gerald Seib writes for the Wall Street Journal. He had a column on February 6, 2008, lamenting the divisions that are supposedly being created by the Clinton-Obama race. The column was titled "When Will the Wounds Heal?" and contained the following:
The problem for Democrats is that the race is opening up the kind of sensitive divides that go to the party's very identity as an institution that unites races and genders.
The racial split was glaring in Georgia, where exit polls showed that roughly half the Democrats who voted were African-American, and that some 80% of them voted for Sen. Obama. And it wasn't just Georgia. In New York, a much different kind of state, roughly six in 10 blacks went for Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton in her home state.
The flip side of the black-white split is the white-Hispanic split. Hispanics are starting to consistently back Sen. Clinton. In the electoral crucible of California, for instance, roughly two-thirds of Hispanics went for her, exit polls showed.
There also is a less glaring split within the party between men and women, with women going for Mrs. Clinton, and older women showing more enthusiasm than younger women. Older Democrats generally are tending toward Sen. Clinton, younger ones toward Sen. Obama.
Such commentary by other pundits can be found on other media websites. Now, we don't know Mr. Seib, but we are willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that he is a white male. The reason why we think that is that white males tend not to realize or acknowledge that this country has been divided along racial lines when voting for generations.
From the end of the civil war until 1964, the states of the old Confederacy voted pretty consistently for the Democratic nominee. Indeed in 1952 and 1956, Adlai Stevenson, in two elections, carried states of the old Confederacy 13 times out of a possible 22 times. All that, though, began to change when the Congress passed, and Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Starting in 1964 with Goldwater, and then continuing in 1968, the states of the old Confederacy started voting against Democrats. By 1972, this voting pattern was very clear. Indeed, the only two Democrats who carried states in the old Confederacy were Carter in 1976 and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. Natives of the old South, however, even they didn't do that well.
In 1976 Carter carried 10 states out of a possible 11 old Confederacy states, but in 1980, that figure dropped to just 1. In 1992, Clinton carried 4 out of a possible 11 states, and in 1996, he again carried 4 out of 11, but not the same 4. Those results mean that two white male southerners managed to carry old Confederacy states 19 times out of a possible 44 times.
The reason is very simple, and can be summed up in one word: Race. Old Confederate states were reliably Democratic until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and since then, they have been reliably Republican. Yet, very few media commentators are willing to call that voting pattern for what it is: Whites deciding to vote for the candidates of the party that they conceive of as the most "white."
Now, however, when we have a credible African-American candidate and a credible femal candidate running for the Democratic nomination, they are now concerned about the dividing of America. Give us a break.
The problem for Democrats is that the race is opening up the kind of sensitive divides that go to the party's very identity as an institution that unites races and genders.
The racial split was glaring in Georgia, where exit polls showed that roughly half the Democrats who voted were African-American, and that some 80% of them voted for Sen. Obama. And it wasn't just Georgia. In New York, a much different kind of state, roughly six in 10 blacks went for Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton in her home state.
The flip side of the black-white split is the white-Hispanic split. Hispanics are starting to consistently back Sen. Clinton. In the electoral crucible of California, for instance, roughly two-thirds of Hispanics went for her, exit polls showed.
There also is a less glaring split within the party between men and women, with women going for Mrs. Clinton, and older women showing more enthusiasm than younger women. Older Democrats generally are tending toward Sen. Clinton, younger ones toward Sen. Obama.
Such commentary by other pundits can be found on other media websites. Now, we don't know Mr. Seib, but we are willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that he is a white male. The reason why we think that is that white males tend not to realize or acknowledge that this country has been divided along racial lines when voting for generations.
From the end of the civil war until 1964, the states of the old Confederacy voted pretty consistently for the Democratic nominee. Indeed in 1952 and 1956, Adlai Stevenson, in two elections, carried states of the old Confederacy 13 times out of a possible 22 times. All that, though, began to change when the Congress passed, and Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Starting in 1964 with Goldwater, and then continuing in 1968, the states of the old Confederacy started voting against Democrats. By 1972, this voting pattern was very clear. Indeed, the only two Democrats who carried states in the old Confederacy were Carter in 1976 and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. Natives of the old South, however, even they didn't do that well.
In 1976 Carter carried 10 states out of a possible 11 old Confederacy states, but in 1980, that figure dropped to just 1. In 1992, Clinton carried 4 out of a possible 11 states, and in 1996, he again carried 4 out of 11, but not the same 4. Those results mean that two white male southerners managed to carry old Confederacy states 19 times out of a possible 44 times.
The reason is very simple, and can be summed up in one word: Race. Old Confederate states were reliably Democratic until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and since then, they have been reliably Republican. Yet, very few media commentators are willing to call that voting pattern for what it is: Whites deciding to vote for the candidates of the party that they conceive of as the most "white."
Now, however, when we have a credible African-American candidate and a credible femal candidate running for the Democratic nomination, they are now concerned about the dividing of America. Give us a break.
For Dems, is 2008 like 1968?
In 1968 the United States was in a war that was losing support among Americans. A Senator, Eugene McCarthy, challenged President Johnson and, after almost losing the New Hampshire primary, Johnson dropped out. Before he left, however, but after the NH primary, Senator Robert Kennedy got in the race. That situation created much bitterness toward Kennedy from the Democratic left. Many liberals denounced RFK for what they saw as his political opportunism and for trying to use the connection to his brother, JFK, to elevate himself to the presidency.
Kennedy won the 1968 Indiana primary, lost Oregon, and was winning California when he was killed. Although supporters like to think that he would have won the nomination if he had lived, such a result was far from certain.
Now, what does 1968 have to do with 2008? Well, again we have an unpopular war and we have a challenger, Barack Obama, who was against the war earlier than his Democratic opponent. We have a person who is perceived by many as running on her family member's name and who is perceived as being very opportunistic while the left views her opponent as far more principled.
Obviously, the analogy is not perfect, but the point is that just like in 1968, the issue of war and peace is again dividing the Democratic left. Nothing stirs up bitterness like a fight in the family. That is proving true this year, just like it did in 1968.
The result in 1968 was a very close election in November which was won by Nixon in the popular vote by a shade over 500,000 votes. What Democrats have to wonder is whether history is about to repeat itself?
We already have Obama supporters pledging not to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. Such Obama supporters cast Democrats supporting Hillary as "traditionalists", whatever the hell that means. (Since Clinton would be the first woman nominated for president by a major political party, it is hard to see how supporting her is being a traditionalist, but maybe I'm missing something.)They see themselves as true progressives upholding the noble principles of the Democratic Party.
This, of course, is similar to what happened in 1968 between McCarthy and Kennedy supporters. Let's hope that the outcome is not another GOP victory in a close election.
Kennedy won the 1968 Indiana primary, lost Oregon, and was winning California when he was killed. Although supporters like to think that he would have won the nomination if he had lived, such a result was far from certain.
Now, what does 1968 have to do with 2008? Well, again we have an unpopular war and we have a challenger, Barack Obama, who was against the war earlier than his Democratic opponent. We have a person who is perceived by many as running on her family member's name and who is perceived as being very opportunistic while the left views her opponent as far more principled.
Obviously, the analogy is not perfect, but the point is that just like in 1968, the issue of war and peace is again dividing the Democratic left. Nothing stirs up bitterness like a fight in the family. That is proving true this year, just like it did in 1968.
The result in 1968 was a very close election in November which was won by Nixon in the popular vote by a shade over 500,000 votes. What Democrats have to wonder is whether history is about to repeat itself?
We already have Obama supporters pledging not to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. Such Obama supporters cast Democrats supporting Hillary as "traditionalists", whatever the hell that means. (Since Clinton would be the first woman nominated for president by a major political party, it is hard to see how supporting her is being a traditionalist, but maybe I'm missing something.)They see themselves as true progressives upholding the noble principles of the Democratic Party.
This, of course, is similar to what happened in 1968 between McCarthy and Kennedy supporters. Let's hope that the outcome is not another GOP victory in a close election.
If McCain is the GOP Nominee, 2008 Election Will Be About the War,
This is from the lead paragraph of an article appearing on the News section of the Yahoo website:
Republican John McCain plans to run a general election campaign as steadfast protector of the United States in the face of terrorism as well as a crusader against big government. The Democrats, he says, offer neither.
The Republicans have run three straight national elections using terrorism as the main issue. They won two of them, 2002 and 2004, but lost the third, 2006. If McCain is the nominee, however, they will have no choice but to use it in 2008. That's because given McCain's steadfast support of the war and comments like he doesn't care if the United States is in Iraq for the next 100 years, they can't run as the party that will end the war. Therefore, they have to run a campaign that casts Democrats opposed to the war as being dangerous for Americans. Since one of the main responsibilities of a government is to provide for the security of the people it governs, this argument will find supporters.
Democrats, though, have to realize that this won't be like 2006. The media is owned by people who make a lot of money and really like Bush's tax cuts. They want to see those tax cuts continue beyond their 2010 expiration date. Their best shot is if McCain is president.
This means that we will keep hearing about how the "surge" is working and we will hear less and less about the political benchmarks that the Iraqis are supposed to be reaching. All this will help McCain.
This is not to say that McCain's victory is a foregone conclusion. He has a lot of problems. It is is say, however, that 2008 will be a very bitter and dirty race. McCain will demonize whoever runs against him as being weak on terrorism and will claim that Americans will be in danger if either Democrat is elected.
Republican John McCain plans to run a general election campaign as steadfast protector of the United States in the face of terrorism as well as a crusader against big government. The Democrats, he says, offer neither.
The Republicans have run three straight national elections using terrorism as the main issue. They won two of them, 2002 and 2004, but lost the third, 2006. If McCain is the nominee, however, they will have no choice but to use it in 2008. That's because given McCain's steadfast support of the war and comments like he doesn't care if the United States is in Iraq for the next 100 years, they can't run as the party that will end the war. Therefore, they have to run a campaign that casts Democrats opposed to the war as being dangerous for Americans. Since one of the main responsibilities of a government is to provide for the security of the people it governs, this argument will find supporters.
Democrats, though, have to realize that this won't be like 2006. The media is owned by people who make a lot of money and really like Bush's tax cuts. They want to see those tax cuts continue beyond their 2010 expiration date. Their best shot is if McCain is president.
This means that we will keep hearing about how the "surge" is working and we will hear less and less about the political benchmarks that the Iraqis are supposed to be reaching. All this will help McCain.
This is not to say that McCain's victory is a foregone conclusion. He has a lot of problems. It is is say, however, that 2008 will be a very bitter and dirty race. McCain will demonize whoever runs against him as being weak on terrorism and will claim that Americans will be in danger if either Democrat is elected.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Is Obama Attacking Clinton's Health Care Plan with Right-Wing Tactics?
A lot of commentators think so, including Paul Krugman of the New York Times. According to experts, Clinton's health care plan, by calling for mandated coverage, would cover millions more Americans than Obama's plan, which, except for children, does not mandate coverage for all Americans.
This is how Krugman puts it in his February 4th column:
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.
Krugman explains that last comment by later citing in his column to a study by a MIT professor:
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
Further, Obama attacks Clinton's plan using right-wing style language attacking Clinton's plan on the issue of mandates. Krugman compares this to the infamous Harry and Louise ads of the 1990s that were created by the insurance industry:
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
What Krugman worries about is that even if Obama later decides that there should be mandates, his campaign's rhetoric against mandates will be used to defeat such a plan in Congress.
Obama's supporters like to claim that he practices a cleaner, more progressive form of politics, but using right-wing scare tactics against Clinton's health care plan doesn't strike us as particularly progressive.
This is how Krugman puts it in his February 4th column:
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.
Krugman explains that last comment by later citing in his column to a study by a MIT professor:
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
Further, Obama attacks Clinton's plan using right-wing style language attacking Clinton's plan on the issue of mandates. Krugman compares this to the infamous Harry and Louise ads of the 1990s that were created by the insurance industry:
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
What Krugman worries about is that even if Obama later decides that there should be mandates, his campaign's rhetoric against mandates will be used to defeat such a plan in Congress.
Obama's supporters like to claim that he practices a cleaner, more progressive form of politics, but using right-wing scare tactics against Clinton's health care plan doesn't strike us as particularly progressive.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Having Trouble Following Dem Delegate Count? Try this Blog
Here is the link: http://www.demconwatch.blogspot.com/ It is pretty helpful and very interesting.
Barack Obama Video: "Yes, We Can"
Medina County Democrat Nick Hanek sent us the link to a music video called "Yes We Can" which uses Obama's words accompanied by music and singing by various people. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYYIf you are supporting Obama, or even if you are not, it is well worth the investment of the time it takes to view it.
Clinton, not Obama, Carries the Scars of the Sixties
Hillary Clinton was born in 1947, Barack Obama was born in 1961. This means that when she gave the commencement address at Wellsley College in 1969, he was around seven years old. More importantly, it means that he missed being a part of the sixties, and he missed all the conflicts that came with the sixties.
Hillary Clinton has been on the right's radar ever since her Wellsley, which landed her on the cover of Life magazine. She followed that up with being on the Democratic legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee which voted out articles of impeachment for President Nixon. Oh, and by the way, she went to Texas in 1972 and worked for McGovern's campaign against Nixon.
She was involved in the anti-war movement and the women's movement, both of which led to deep divisions among Americans. She has been caricatured by the right wing for over three decades, which really intensified when she became first lady. Conservatives hate her, and most have no idea why, they just know they can't stand her.
Barack Obama missed all that because when he was 18, it was already 1979, and the passions of the sixties were ebbing. Indeed, with the ascendacy of Reagan and the new Republican right, liberals were constantly on the defensive. This means that the great movements of the sixties were replaced with activities like community organizing, which, by the way, he did.
One reason why the politics of the nineties was so toxic was that the baby boomers who had violently disagreed over civil rights, the Vietnam War, and women's rights, became leaders in the eighties and nineties. The passions unleashed by those battles continued. It is one reason why the right hated Clinton and the left hates Bush. Not coincidentally, Clinton and Bush were on the opposite sides of most of the cultural battles of the sixties.
Obama has the ability to transcend that divide. This is why Republicans are worried about him. They built the modern conservative movement by using social populism to convince working Americans that liberals were some strange elite who didn't share their values and were attempting to change their America.
That's easy to do with Clinton, who has a long history of articles and activities to draw upon. It is much harder to do with Obama. Most Americans don't really get drawn into politics the way that activists do and the chance to rise above the passions of the sixties may just be irresistible.
Hillary Clinton has been on the right's radar ever since her Wellsley, which landed her on the cover of Life magazine. She followed that up with being on the Democratic legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee which voted out articles of impeachment for President Nixon. Oh, and by the way, she went to Texas in 1972 and worked for McGovern's campaign against Nixon.
She was involved in the anti-war movement and the women's movement, both of which led to deep divisions among Americans. She has been caricatured by the right wing for over three decades, which really intensified when she became first lady. Conservatives hate her, and most have no idea why, they just know they can't stand her.
Barack Obama missed all that because when he was 18, it was already 1979, and the passions of the sixties were ebbing. Indeed, with the ascendacy of Reagan and the new Republican right, liberals were constantly on the defensive. This means that the great movements of the sixties were replaced with activities like community organizing, which, by the way, he did.
One reason why the politics of the nineties was so toxic was that the baby boomers who had violently disagreed over civil rights, the Vietnam War, and women's rights, became leaders in the eighties and nineties. The passions unleashed by those battles continued. It is one reason why the right hated Clinton and the left hates Bush. Not coincidentally, Clinton and Bush were on the opposite sides of most of the cultural battles of the sixties.
Obama has the ability to transcend that divide. This is why Republicans are worried about him. They built the modern conservative movement by using social populism to convince working Americans that liberals were some strange elite who didn't share their values and were attempting to change their America.
That's easy to do with Clinton, who has a long history of articles and activities to draw upon. It is much harder to do with Obama. Most Americans don't really get drawn into politics the way that activists do and the chance to rise above the passions of the sixties may just be irresistible.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Dem Super-Delegates Should Vote the Way Their State/District Votes
Barack Obama is arguing that the Democratic so-called "super-delegates" who are United States Representatives, Senators, Governors, former presidential and vice-presidential nominees, and members of the DNC from the various states, as well as some others, should vote for the candidate who wins a majority of the elected delegates, not counting, of course, Michigan and Florida. He is also suggesting that if they don't agree to this idea, they are somehow defying the will of the voters.
Here's our quesition: Why should a United States Representative from say Ohio, whose district votes for Clinton in the March 4th primary, vote for Obama just because he wins elsewhere? Isn't it more democratic for such a representative to vote the way his or her district votes?
Of course what Obama doesn't want is for the super-delegates to decide the nomination if he can't win their votes, Thus, his suggestion that they should all vote for the candidate with most voted on delegates. Of course, this means that whether elected officials vote for Obama or Clinton would depend on the structure adopted by other states to select candidates. What if our hypothetical representative believes that the caucus system in Iowa or Nevada is inherently undemocratic and not as fair as a primary? Why should they have to go along with a candidate who has won a majority of delegates using such a system?
Under the idea expressed above, super-delegates in the individual states would reflect the wishes of the Democrats in their state and not the wishes of Democrats in other states. This strikes me as a lot fairer and also, quite frankly, gets the super-delegates off the hook.
If I were such a delegate, I would be announcing that that is how I will vote at the convention. It is a fair idea and doesn't favor either Clinton or Obama. It also takes the uncertainity out of the process and reinforces the decisions of voters and caucus attendees.
It's not perfect, but frankly it is fairer than the system being urged by Obama. His system is designed to help him, it is not designed to give expression to the wishes of Democrats in the various states.
Here's our quesition: Why should a United States Representative from say Ohio, whose district votes for Clinton in the March 4th primary, vote for Obama just because he wins elsewhere? Isn't it more democratic for such a representative to vote the way his or her district votes?
Of course what Obama doesn't want is for the super-delegates to decide the nomination if he can't win their votes, Thus, his suggestion that they should all vote for the candidate with most voted on delegates. Of course, this means that whether elected officials vote for Obama or Clinton would depend on the structure adopted by other states to select candidates. What if our hypothetical representative believes that the caucus system in Iowa or Nevada is inherently undemocratic and not as fair as a primary? Why should they have to go along with a candidate who has won a majority of delegates using such a system?
Under the idea expressed above, super-delegates in the individual states would reflect the wishes of the Democrats in their state and not the wishes of Democrats in other states. This strikes me as a lot fairer and also, quite frankly, gets the super-delegates off the hook.
If I were such a delegate, I would be announcing that that is how I will vote at the convention. It is a fair idea and doesn't favor either Clinton or Obama. It also takes the uncertainity out of the process and reinforces the decisions of voters and caucus attendees.
It's not perfect, but frankly it is fairer than the system being urged by Obama. His system is designed to help him, it is not designed to give expression to the wishes of Democrats in the various states.
"I'd Vote for a Woman, Just Not Her"
A lot of people have expressed that sentiment either on the Internet, or in articles, or in person. Such people claim that it's not Clinton's gender that bothers them, it is her personality. They don't trust her, think that she is insincere, and are supporting Obama in the 2008 race for the Democratic nomination. The sentiment that Clinton shouldn't be elected is often expressed by Democratic women in their 40s and 50s. Such women seem to assume that there will be an opportunity in the near future to nominate and elect a Democratic woman as president.
They shouldn't be so sure. In 1928, the Democratic Party nominated the first Roman Catholic, Al Smith, for President. He was defeated. It was another 32 years before another Roman Catholic, John F. Kennedy, was nominated and there has not been a Roman Catholic nominated by the Democratic Party or the Republican Party since 1960. This in spite of the fact that Roman Catholics are a highly prized voting block by both political parties.
In 1984 then New York Senator Geraldine Ferraro was selected for Vice-President by Walter Mondale. Now, 20 years later, Hillary Clinton is running for president. That means that two decades have passed since Ferraro was on the ticket and she wasn't chosen by voters but rather by the Presidential Democratic nominee.
Hillary Clinton possess several advantages that most women politicians don't possess. She has great name recognition, can raise money, is Senator from a big state that is home to a lot of big media companies, and has a husband who is a former president. She is the best positioned woman to run for president in the history of the Democratic Party. If she doesn't make it, it will be years, possibly a great many years, before another woman is in such a position.
All that is not to say that women voters who like Obama shouldn't vote for him, or should support Clinton just because she is a woman. What I am saying is that people who support the idea of a woman president, but vote against Clinton, should realize that they might not another opportunity in their lifetimes.
They shouldn't be so sure. In 1928, the Democratic Party nominated the first Roman Catholic, Al Smith, for President. He was defeated. It was another 32 years before another Roman Catholic, John F. Kennedy, was nominated and there has not been a Roman Catholic nominated by the Democratic Party or the Republican Party since 1960. This in spite of the fact that Roman Catholics are a highly prized voting block by both political parties.
In 1984 then New York Senator Geraldine Ferraro was selected for Vice-President by Walter Mondale. Now, 20 years later, Hillary Clinton is running for president. That means that two decades have passed since Ferraro was on the ticket and she wasn't chosen by voters but rather by the Presidential Democratic nominee.
Hillary Clinton possess several advantages that most women politicians don't possess. She has great name recognition, can raise money, is Senator from a big state that is home to a lot of big media companies, and has a husband who is a former president. She is the best positioned woman to run for president in the history of the Democratic Party. If she doesn't make it, it will be years, possibly a great many years, before another woman is in such a position.
All that is not to say that women voters who like Obama shouldn't vote for him, or should support Clinton just because she is a woman. What I am saying is that people who support the idea of a woman president, but vote against Clinton, should realize that they might not another opportunity in their lifetimes.
Voinovich Votes Against Cloture on GOP Filibuster of Dem Plans to Increase Stimulus Package
George W. Voinovich, who is a real budget hawk when Democrats occupy the White House or money is being spent to help real people, voted with the Republicans today on a cloture motion to end debate on Democratic amendment to the stimulus bill. The cloture motion failed by two votes, 58 to 41. Ohio's other United States Senator, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D, voted to cut off debate on the amendment. Both Clinton and Obama returned to the Capitol to vote for the cloture motion.
Here's what gets us about Voinovich. It's not that he voted against more money for the stimulus bill. We can see why he might oppose it, if he was truly sincere about increasing the Federal debt. We just don't think that he is sincere. Where he sees fiscal responsibility, we see insincerity since he voted for Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those tax cuts are a major reason why we have record setting deficits today.
If he had truly been a deficit hawk, as some of his media admirers in the Cleveland Plain Dealer like to call him, then he wouldn't have signed off on the huge tax cuts that Bush gave the wealthy unless the Republican controlled Congress had been willing to cut Federal spending to pay for the tax cuts. Of course, they weren't ready to do that and neither was the Bush Administration. Instead they ran up huge deficits and sold T-Bills to the Chinese that our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
Here's what gets us about Voinovich. It's not that he voted against more money for the stimulus bill. We can see why he might oppose it, if he was truly sincere about increasing the Federal debt. We just don't think that he is sincere. Where he sees fiscal responsibility, we see insincerity since he voted for Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Those tax cuts are a major reason why we have record setting deficits today.
If he had truly been a deficit hawk, as some of his media admirers in the Cleveland Plain Dealer like to call him, then he wouldn't have signed off on the huge tax cuts that Bush gave the wealthy unless the Republican controlled Congress had been willing to cut Federal spending to pay for the tax cuts. Of course, they weren't ready to do that and neither was the Bush Administration. Instead they ran up huge deficits and sold T-Bills to the Chinese that our children and grandchildren will end up paying.
Maureen Dowd Doesn't Know What She Is Talking About
There was a time when political reporters confined themselves to reporting what it was that candidates for public office, and office holders, said and did. They reported the facts connected with these people. That started to change with the publication of Making of the President 1960 by Theodore White. White won acclaim and commercial success by focusing on the process of electing a president, something that relatively few Americans had ever read about or studied. Following White's success, more and more writers began to focus on the process of politics and not the substance of politics.
In White's book, he focused on what the candidates did or said, but he reported what they said or did in the area of the process of securing the presidency. What came next, though, was political writers who attempt to report on the inner motives of presidential candidates.
Maureen Dowd is a very well known practioner of this form of politics. She writes about people she has seldom met or spent any amount of time with and who she doesn't make any claim to personally know. In short, she makes shit up.
Now, I doubt that she or her editors would put it that inelegantly. My guess is that she would claim that her musings on the inner lives of political figures such as the Clintons is based on the evidence she has from news reports of their actions and words. That argument, of course, brings up this question: what training does she have to draw the conclusions she draws?
Look at some of the claims she makes in a column dated February 6, 2008:
His visceral reaction to Obama — from the “fairy tale” line to the inappropriate Jesse Jackson comparison — is rooted less in his need to see his wife elected than in his need to see Obama lose, so that Bill’s legacy is protected. If Obama wins, he’ll be seen as the closest thing to J. F. K. since J. F. K. And J. F. K. is Bill’s hero.
I think Hillary truly believes that she and Bill are the only ones tough enough to get to the White House. Jack Nicholson endorsed her as “the best man for the job,” and she told David Letterman that “in my White House, we’ll know who wears the pantsuits.” But her pitch is the color of pitch: Because she has absorbed all the hate and body blows from nasty Republicans over the years, she is the best person to absorb more hate and body blows from nasty Republicans.
How in the world can she possibly know what Hillary and Bill Clinton think about anything? She doesn't claim to know them, she isn't a friend who spends time with them, and she doesn't even claim, as a biographer would, that she knows people who know them.
Now, she has a great job. She gets to ponificate about things she doesn't know a thing about, and, since she is writing about public figures, and offering her uninformed opiniions to boot, she has no worries about civil liability. Not bad work if you can get it.
In White's book, he focused on what the candidates did or said, but he reported what they said or did in the area of the process of securing the presidency. What came next, though, was political writers who attempt to report on the inner motives of presidential candidates.
Maureen Dowd is a very well known practioner of this form of politics. She writes about people she has seldom met or spent any amount of time with and who she doesn't make any claim to personally know. In short, she makes shit up.
Now, I doubt that she or her editors would put it that inelegantly. My guess is that she would claim that her musings on the inner lives of political figures such as the Clintons is based on the evidence she has from news reports of their actions and words. That argument, of course, brings up this question: what training does she have to draw the conclusions she draws?
Look at some of the claims she makes in a column dated February 6, 2008:
His visceral reaction to Obama — from the “fairy tale” line to the inappropriate Jesse Jackson comparison — is rooted less in his need to see his wife elected than in his need to see Obama lose, so that Bill’s legacy is protected. If Obama wins, he’ll be seen as the closest thing to J. F. K. since J. F. K. And J. F. K. is Bill’s hero.
I think Hillary truly believes that she and Bill are the only ones tough enough to get to the White House. Jack Nicholson endorsed her as “the best man for the job,” and she told David Letterman that “in my White House, we’ll know who wears the pantsuits.” But her pitch is the color of pitch: Because she has absorbed all the hate and body blows from nasty Republicans over the years, she is the best person to absorb more hate and body blows from nasty Republicans.
How in the world can she possibly know what Hillary and Bill Clinton think about anything? She doesn't claim to know them, she isn't a friend who spends time with them, and she doesn't even claim, as a biographer would, that she knows people who know them.
Now, she has a great job. She gets to ponificate about things she doesn't know a thing about, and, since she is writing about public figures, and offering her uninformed opiniions to boot, she has no worries about civil liability. Not bad work if you can get it.
So-Called Super Tuesday Results Inconclusive, Ohio to be Vital in Nomination Race
Here's a bit of political history for our readers. In 1976 Jimmy Carter was fighting it out with Jerry Brown for the Democratic nomination. On the first Tuesday in June, Carter won the Ohio primary. Mayor Richard Daley, the father of the present Mayor, and leader of the Illinois delegation to the convention, declared Carter as the nominee following his Ohio victory.
Since then there have been seven presidential elections and Ohio has never again played such a critical role, until now. With a very mixed result in the states selecting delegates on February 5, Ohio and Texas, both of which hold primaries on March 4, 2008, become very important.
This is because most of the big states in the United States will have selected delegates by March 4. The list includes Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Georgia. Michigan and Florida have also chosen delegates, but, according to the DNC, will not be seated. There are also Virginia and Pennsylvania, with Virginia's primary on February 12, and Pennsylvania on April 22.
It's hard to imagine, though, that any other combination will have the news media talking as much as Ohio and Texas. Ohio because no Republican has won the presidency without winning Ohio and Texas because of its large Hispanic vote. Indeed the two together will have 301 delegates being selected by the primary process. So the winner of those two primaries will have a lot to talk about with the uncommitted "super-delegates" who may end up holding the key to the Democratic nomination.
Since then there have been seven presidential elections and Ohio has never again played such a critical role, until now. With a very mixed result in the states selecting delegates on February 5, Ohio and Texas, both of which hold primaries on March 4, 2008, become very important.
This is because most of the big states in the United States will have selected delegates by March 4. The list includes Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Georgia. Michigan and Florida have also chosen delegates, but, according to the DNC, will not be seated. There are also Virginia and Pennsylvania, with Virginia's primary on February 12, and Pennsylvania on April 22.
It's hard to imagine, though, that any other combination will have the news media talking as much as Ohio and Texas. Ohio because no Republican has won the presidency without winning Ohio and Texas because of its large Hispanic vote. Indeed the two together will have 301 delegates being selected by the primary process. So the winner of those two primaries will have a lot to talk about with the uncommitted "super-delegates" who may end up holding the key to the Democratic nomination.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Medina County Foreclosures Double Under Bush
In 2000, the last year of the Clinton presidency, there were 337 foreclosures filed in Medina County Common Pleas Court. In 2007, after seven complete years of the Bush Administration, there were 856 foreclosures filed in Medina County. That's an increase of over 250%.
Foreclosures affect communities in many ways. They bring down the value of residential real estate. They can blight a neighborhood with vacant houses. They can lead to divorce and homeless families. In short, there is nothing good about a foreclosure of a family's home.
Now, here's why we think that Bush bears some responsibility. During his administration there was apparently no oversight of mortgage lenders. The worship of the free market meant that the Bushies didn't really care about what financial institutions were doing. After all, if the lenders made bad loans, then the market would give a "correction." A "correction" is, of course, a term like "collateral damage", a term that allows government officials to hide the pain of their decisions, or in this case, their non-decisions.
No one should be surprised by these events. After all, during the eighties under St. Ronnie and George H.W. Bush, we had the savings and loan crisis. Republican presidents follow policies that lead to financial institutions crashing and burning. Such presidents don't really care because they don't see the damage that such policies wreck on ordinary people.
What is surprising is that Democrats aren't jumping on the sub-prime mortgage crisis to make the point that we are making in this entry: Americans can't afford another Republican presidency. There is too much to do to clean up the mess from this one.
Foreclosures affect communities in many ways. They bring down the value of residential real estate. They can blight a neighborhood with vacant houses. They can lead to divorce and homeless families. In short, there is nothing good about a foreclosure of a family's home.
Now, here's why we think that Bush bears some responsibility. During his administration there was apparently no oversight of mortgage lenders. The worship of the free market meant that the Bushies didn't really care about what financial institutions were doing. After all, if the lenders made bad loans, then the market would give a "correction." A "correction" is, of course, a term like "collateral damage", a term that allows government officials to hide the pain of their decisions, or in this case, their non-decisions.
No one should be surprised by these events. After all, during the eighties under St. Ronnie and George H.W. Bush, we had the savings and loan crisis. Republican presidents follow policies that lead to financial institutions crashing and burning. Such presidents don't really care because they don't see the damage that such policies wreck on ordinary people.
What is surprising is that Democrats aren't jumping on the sub-prime mortgage crisis to make the point that we are making in this entry: Americans can't afford another Republican presidency. There is too much to do to clean up the mess from this one.
Leonard W. Schultz, Pat Hanek's Father, Passed Away
LEONARD W. SCHULTZ, 87, of Medina passed away on Jan. 26, 2008. He is survived by his daughters, Jean (Ken) Pfister and Patricia (John) Hanek; grandchildren Abigail (Michael) Aguilar, Katherine Pfister and Nicholas, William and Joel Hanek; and great-granddaughter Angelina Pfister. He was preceded in death by his wife, Marjorie (nee Fulton) Schultz; parents William and Mary (nee Zephirin) Schultz; and four sisters. Mr. Schultz was buried at the Western Reserve National Miliary Cemetary in southern Medina County. A memorial service was held at Carlson Funeral Home in Brunswick, Ohio.
His daughter Pat is the State Central CommiteeWoman for the 22nd District. She was elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2006. Medina County Democrats also know her as one of the people who helps run the Medina County Democratic Party Headquarters during the fall in years when there is a presidential or gubernatorial election.
His daughter Pat is the State Central CommiteeWoman for the 22nd District. She was elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2006. Medina County Democrats also know her as one of the people who helps run the Medina County Democratic Party Headquarters during the fall in years when there is a presidential or gubernatorial election.
Medina County Democrat Joel Hanek is Blogging for MTV
MTV has started a project where they are hiring young people to blog about politics and society. The blog entries are put under the heading of "Think MTV", and they call the bloggers "Street Team 08". One of the bloggers is Medina County Democrat Joel Hanek. Joel is the son of Patricia and John Hanek. Patricia is the Central Committee Woman to the Ohio Democratic Party State Central Committee.
Joel's latest blog entry can be read here: http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF00989DED00080098CEE7/User/Blog/BlogPostDetail.aspx If you go to the link above, you can then link to other articles that Joel has written.
The entry linked to above is an article about the impact of the minimum wage on society. Joel is a graduate of Ohio University and his minimum wage blog entry refers to his experience at OU. Here is a quote from his minimum wage entry:
Nestled at the foothills of the Appalachians, Athens County is home to Ohio University (not to be confused with Ohio State University). Southeastern Ohio used to be home to an industry that relied mostly off of harvesting of the natural resources such as salt and coal mining. However, as the years have gone by, the largest employer in Athens County now is Ohio University, and next after that, Wal-Mart. As a small rural town, most of the jobs in Athens revolve around catering to the ebb and flow of college students – providing sustenance to the college kids and then cleaning up after them.
It’s quite the interesting juxtaposition: the college kid working for the dining services to make a little extra money to blow at the bars, and the middle aged mother working for the dining services to support a family.
If you get a chance check out Joel's minimum wage entry and his other articles for ThinkMTV. It will be well worth your time.
Joel's latest blog entry can be read here: http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF00989DED00080098CEE7/User/Blog/BlogPostDetail.aspx If you go to the link above, you can then link to other articles that Joel has written.
The entry linked to above is an article about the impact of the minimum wage on society. Joel is a graduate of Ohio University and his minimum wage blog entry refers to his experience at OU. Here is a quote from his minimum wage entry:
Nestled at the foothills of the Appalachians, Athens County is home to Ohio University (not to be confused with Ohio State University). Southeastern Ohio used to be home to an industry that relied mostly off of harvesting of the natural resources such as salt and coal mining. However, as the years have gone by, the largest employer in Athens County now is Ohio University, and next after that, Wal-Mart. As a small rural town, most of the jobs in Athens revolve around catering to the ebb and flow of college students – providing sustenance to the college kids and then cleaning up after them.
It’s quite the interesting juxtaposition: the college kid working for the dining services to make a little extra money to blow at the bars, and the middle aged mother working for the dining services to support a family.
If you get a chance check out Joel's minimum wage entry and his other articles for ThinkMTV. It will be well worth your time.
Obama Makes Dems Feel Good About Politics
There is an interesting column in the Washington Post by E.J. Dionne in which he argues that since there are little policy differences between Obama and Clinton, Democrats are supporting Obama because he appeals to them emotionally. Here is a quote from the article:
Barack Obama has surged to rough parity with Hillary Clinton in the national polls not because Democrats reject her carefully thought-out solutions to the central public problems but because he has created in the party's rank and file a feeling of liberation -- from intimidation by Republicans, from old divisions, from history itself.
If you look at the criticisms of Clinton from the left on the political blogs, it is seldom over policies, and often over personalities. The one exception is the war in Iraq. Her vote on the Resolution for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force is repeatedly cited as the one fundamental policy difference between her and Obama.
Yet, even regarding the war, the difference is largely over her past record and not over the difference between her present position and Obama's present position. Given that fact, why then are so many Democrats so drawn to Obama?
One big difference between Obama and Clinton seems to be how each of them regards the practice of politics. Clinton gives the impression that she regards politics as constant confrontation with Republicans. Given her husband's history, and her history, with the Republicans, this makes sense. Yet, most of us, even rabid Democratic partisans, grow tired of conflict and yearn for a more concilatory atmosphere. Obama gives the hope that such a atmosphere could exist, Clinton does not.
Democrats tend to favor candidates who connect with them emotionally. Think Bill Clinton over Paul Tsongas or, for that matter, Jack Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey. They favor candidates who seem to offer hope. Between Obama and Clinton, Obama is the candidate who seems warmer and seems more hopeful.
Such an appeal should not be underestimated. In the long run it is easier to maintain a campaign based on hope than one based on anger, a campaign based on appeals to the heart than on appeals to the brain.
Barack Obama has surged to rough parity with Hillary Clinton in the national polls not because Democrats reject her carefully thought-out solutions to the central public problems but because he has created in the party's rank and file a feeling of liberation -- from intimidation by Republicans, from old divisions, from history itself.
If you look at the criticisms of Clinton from the left on the political blogs, it is seldom over policies, and often over personalities. The one exception is the war in Iraq. Her vote on the Resolution for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force is repeatedly cited as the one fundamental policy difference between her and Obama.
Yet, even regarding the war, the difference is largely over her past record and not over the difference between her present position and Obama's present position. Given that fact, why then are so many Democrats so drawn to Obama?
One big difference between Obama and Clinton seems to be how each of them regards the practice of politics. Clinton gives the impression that she regards politics as constant confrontation with Republicans. Given her husband's history, and her history, with the Republicans, this makes sense. Yet, most of us, even rabid Democratic partisans, grow tired of conflict and yearn for a more concilatory atmosphere. Obama gives the hope that such a atmosphere could exist, Clinton does not.
Democrats tend to favor candidates who connect with them emotionally. Think Bill Clinton over Paul Tsongas or, for that matter, Jack Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey. They favor candidates who seem to offer hope. Between Obama and Clinton, Obama is the candidate who seems warmer and seems more hopeful.
Such an appeal should not be underestimated. In the long run it is easier to maintain a campaign based on hope than one based on anger, a campaign based on appeals to the heart than on appeals to the brain.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Republicans Worried that McCain is too Abrasive to be President
Okay, think about this: The former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, thinks that John McCain is too abrasive to be president. Now Santorum was regarded by progressives as a right-wing whack job. He relished in belittling Democrats, yet he regards McCain's personality as too unstable for the demands of the Oval Office.
His, and other assessments of McCain's personality by Republican Senators, can be found in a Washington Post article dated February 4, 2008. Apparently, McCain's treatment of his fellow Republican Senators, as well as Democratic Senators, over the years makes his Republican colleagues very, very nervous about him assuming the White House.
There is also a article out from AlterNet that makes the argument that McCain may be very vulnerable against either Obama or Clinton. The article points out that McCain is not aging well and has appeared confused during the primary campaign. It also points out that most voters in the United States have not yet seen McCain in debates or in speeches. Once they do, their assessment of McCain might change.
Of course, the reason why progressives and Democrats fear McCain is that the media loves him. A lot of white,middle-aged male reporters, like Chris Matthews get "the vapors" when they get around McCain, to use a phrase coined by Maureen Dowd. They totally lose their objectivity and go into a state of idol worship. Whether that hero-worship will continue remains to be seen.
Another area where McCain is vulnerable is on how he has constantly shifted positions since he decided to court the religious right. When he decided to run for president in 2008 the famed "Straight Talk" Express apparently jumped off the track.
A aging McCain matched up against a vigorous Obama would be a problem for the GOP, especially since Obama doesn't seem to arouse the ire of the Republican base like Clinton does. Alternatively, a Clinton who comes across as cool, intellectual and focused on policy would be a problem for McCain during debates if McCain appeared unfocused and abrasive.
Then there is the whole issue of McCain's personal life which hasn't gotten the attention from the media that it might if he is the actual nominee. McCain came back from being a prisoner of war, shortly thereafter divorced his wife who was the mother of his sons and had stood faithfully by while he was a prisoner for seven years, and married a 25 year old heirness and used her family's fortune to run for Senator. Now, that's certainly an inspiring story.
What also must be kept in mind is that the reason why some Democrats like McCain, his willingness to occasionally challenge his fellow Republicans, isn't an endearing character trait inside the GOP. The GOP is a party that loves uniformity of ideas, and challenging orthodoxy doesn't cut it for most Republicans.
All in all, John McCain may not be the best GOP candidate to face the Democrats.
His, and other assessments of McCain's personality by Republican Senators, can be found in a Washington Post article dated February 4, 2008. Apparently, McCain's treatment of his fellow Republican Senators, as well as Democratic Senators, over the years makes his Republican colleagues very, very nervous about him assuming the White House.
There is also a article out from AlterNet that makes the argument that McCain may be very vulnerable against either Obama or Clinton. The article points out that McCain is not aging well and has appeared confused during the primary campaign. It also points out that most voters in the United States have not yet seen McCain in debates or in speeches. Once they do, their assessment of McCain might change.
Of course, the reason why progressives and Democrats fear McCain is that the media loves him. A lot of white,middle-aged male reporters, like Chris Matthews get "the vapors" when they get around McCain, to use a phrase coined by Maureen Dowd. They totally lose their objectivity and go into a state of idol worship. Whether that hero-worship will continue remains to be seen.
Another area where McCain is vulnerable is on how he has constantly shifted positions since he decided to court the religious right. When he decided to run for president in 2008 the famed "Straight Talk" Express apparently jumped off the track.
A aging McCain matched up against a vigorous Obama would be a problem for the GOP, especially since Obama doesn't seem to arouse the ire of the Republican base like Clinton does. Alternatively, a Clinton who comes across as cool, intellectual and focused on policy would be a problem for McCain during debates if McCain appeared unfocused and abrasive.
Then there is the whole issue of McCain's personal life which hasn't gotten the attention from the media that it might if he is the actual nominee. McCain came back from being a prisoner of war, shortly thereafter divorced his wife who was the mother of his sons and had stood faithfully by while he was a prisoner for seven years, and married a 25 year old heirness and used her family's fortune to run for Senator. Now, that's certainly an inspiring story.
What also must be kept in mind is that the reason why some Democrats like McCain, his willingness to occasionally challenge his fellow Republicans, isn't an endearing character trait inside the GOP. The GOP is a party that loves uniformity of ideas, and challenging orthodoxy doesn't cut it for most Republicans.
All in all, John McCain may not be the best GOP candidate to face the Democrats.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Washington Post Poll: Obama Best Aganst McCain
The Washington Post has a poll out that shows Clinton and Obama as virtually tied. The graphic for the poll results can be seen here. What's interesting is that while Democrats seem to prefer Clinton on the issues of health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq, Obama matches up better against McCain, who appears to be the likely GOP nominee, than Clinton. Clinton loses to McCain by 49% to 46% while Obama beats McCain by the same margin.
Here are some reasons why we think that Obama does better in the poll against McCain than Clinton:
1. He matches up better with McCain on age;
2. He matches up better with McCain on being able to bring change to Washington; and
3. He matches up better with McCain on the war in Iraq.
McCain will be the oldest person to take office as president if he is sworn in on January 20, 2009. Even better than Kennedy against Nixon in 1960, Obama is a clear difference with McCain on the age issue. Although Kennedy was appreciably younger than Eisnhower, he was very close in age to Nixon. Further, Obama was born on the tail end of the baby boom and, to the extent that there is "boomer fatigue", his candidacy would benefit from that fatigue.
Both Clinton and Obama, by virtue of being female and African-American, are personifications of change. We give the benefit to Obama on that score, however, because, unlike Clinton, he has not been in D.C. politics since 1992. If there is uneasiness at the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, Obama benefits from that uneasiness.
Finally, on the war, Obama was opposed to the war from the start and can probably use McCain's recent comment about not caring if the U.S. is in Iraq for another 100 years more effectively than Clinton. Her trying to have it both ways on the war reminds us of Kerry's infamous line that he was voted against funding for the Iraq War before he voted for it.
Clinton would match up better with McCain on experience and on knowledge of the issues. Clinton would also be a clear contrast with McCain on gender, but that is matched by Obama being a clear contrast with McCain on race. The one big question that no one really knows until we get there is whether Obama can get enough of the white vote, particulary the white male vote, to be competitive with McCain.
If you believe, as we do, that drawing a clear contrast with your opponent is important in political campaigns, then Obama is a better choice.
Here are some reasons why we think that Obama does better in the poll against McCain than Clinton:
1. He matches up better with McCain on age;
2. He matches up better with McCain on being able to bring change to Washington; and
3. He matches up better with McCain on the war in Iraq.
McCain will be the oldest person to take office as president if he is sworn in on January 20, 2009. Even better than Kennedy against Nixon in 1960, Obama is a clear difference with McCain on the age issue. Although Kennedy was appreciably younger than Eisnhower, he was very close in age to Nixon. Further, Obama was born on the tail end of the baby boom and, to the extent that there is "boomer fatigue", his candidacy would benefit from that fatigue.
Both Clinton and Obama, by virtue of being female and African-American, are personifications of change. We give the benefit to Obama on that score, however, because, unlike Clinton, he has not been in D.C. politics since 1992. If there is uneasiness at the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, Obama benefits from that uneasiness.
Finally, on the war, Obama was opposed to the war from the start and can probably use McCain's recent comment about not caring if the U.S. is in Iraq for another 100 years more effectively than Clinton. Her trying to have it both ways on the war reminds us of Kerry's infamous line that he was voted against funding for the Iraq War before he voted for it.
Clinton would match up better with McCain on experience and on knowledge of the issues. Clinton would also be a clear contrast with McCain on gender, but that is matched by Obama being a clear contrast with McCain on race. The one big question that no one really knows until we get there is whether Obama can get enough of the white vote, particulary the white male vote, to be competitive with McCain.
If you believe, as we do, that drawing a clear contrast with your opponent is important in political campaigns, then Obama is a better choice.
Why the Online Hatred of Hillary on the Left?
As a reader of blogs, I have been sruck by the fact that so many of Obama supporters seem to despise Hillary Clinton just as much as George W. Bush. Indeed, many put her in the same category. This, of course, doesn't seem to make sense.
No one can say that had Hillary Clinton been president in 2003 that the Iraq War would have taken place. Indeed, while her husband seemed to have supported Bush's war, it should be noted that for eight years Bill Clinton had resisted pressure to go after Saddam Hussein from neo-cons.
Or take the expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Does anyone on the left think that Hillary Clinton would have opposed such an expansion?
Or take United States Supreme Court nominations. Does anyone on the left think that Hillary Clinton would have nominated Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Roberts or Alito?
So where does this attitude about Clinton come from? I believe that it comes from the fact that she supported the Resolution for the Authorization of the Use of Force and refuses to say that she made a wrong decision in voting for the Resolution.
Now, she didn't have to vote for the Resolution. She could have joined Democrats like Ohio's Senator Sherrod Brown and voted against the Resolution and taken the political heat. Indeed, since she wasn't going to be on the ballot for re-election until 2006, she would have had four years between her vote and her re-election campaign. Contrast that with Representatives like Sherrod who had to run in 2004.
Further, her explanation that she thought that Bush would use the Resolution to continue to pressure Hussein and to work with the U.N. doesn't make any sense. By 2003 it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention that Bush governed from a sense of entitlement and what the rest of the world thought about him just didn't matter. As he famously said, "I know what I believe, and I believe that what I believe is right." Not exactly the words of someone who is willing to listen to others.
There is the reasonable suspicion that she voted for the Resolution not because she supported it but because she wanted to make sure she wouldn't be attacked from the right as weak on defense if and when she ran for president. She seemed to take the left for granted, assuming that liberals would have to back her for president if she ran because there would be no realistic alternative.
No one likes being taken for granted, especially when, as it turns out, they were right about the war. It is aggravating to people who opposed the war from the start to see that they were right and then to have Clinton stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that she was wrong.
What has changed since 2003 is the rise of the Internet as a way of organizing politically and of raising political money. Further, she was, at is now obvious, wrong about the Left not having an alternative.
Because of her vote in 2003, everything she does is now seen as the result of poltical calculation and not principle. It is sad for those who think that Clinton has a lot to offer America, and it could be the death blow to her presidential ambitions.
No one can say that had Hillary Clinton been president in 2003 that the Iraq War would have taken place. Indeed, while her husband seemed to have supported Bush's war, it should be noted that for eight years Bill Clinton had resisted pressure to go after Saddam Hussein from neo-cons.
Or take the expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Does anyone on the left think that Hillary Clinton would have opposed such an expansion?
Or take United States Supreme Court nominations. Does anyone on the left think that Hillary Clinton would have nominated Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Roberts or Alito?
So where does this attitude about Clinton come from? I believe that it comes from the fact that she supported the Resolution for the Authorization of the Use of Force and refuses to say that she made a wrong decision in voting for the Resolution.
Now, she didn't have to vote for the Resolution. She could have joined Democrats like Ohio's Senator Sherrod Brown and voted against the Resolution and taken the political heat. Indeed, since she wasn't going to be on the ballot for re-election until 2006, she would have had four years between her vote and her re-election campaign. Contrast that with Representatives like Sherrod who had to run in 2004.
Further, her explanation that she thought that Bush would use the Resolution to continue to pressure Hussein and to work with the U.N. doesn't make any sense. By 2003 it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention that Bush governed from a sense of entitlement and what the rest of the world thought about him just didn't matter. As he famously said, "I know what I believe, and I believe that what I believe is right." Not exactly the words of someone who is willing to listen to others.
There is the reasonable suspicion that she voted for the Resolution not because she supported it but because she wanted to make sure she wouldn't be attacked from the right as weak on defense if and when she ran for president. She seemed to take the left for granted, assuming that liberals would have to back her for president if she ran because there would be no realistic alternative.
No one likes being taken for granted, especially when, as it turns out, they were right about the war. It is aggravating to people who opposed the war from the start to see that they were right and then to have Clinton stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that she was wrong.
What has changed since 2003 is the rise of the Internet as a way of organizing politically and of raising political money. Further, she was, at is now obvious, wrong about the Left not having an alternative.
Because of her vote in 2003, everything she does is now seen as the result of poltical calculation and not principle. It is sad for those who think that Clinton has a lot to offer America, and it could be the death blow to her presidential ambitions.
The Questions Exit Polls Don't Ask
Have you ever wondered why you never hear about the percentage of evangelical voters who vote Democratic? Think about it. You hear all the time about what percentage of Republicans voters are evangelical Christians, but never a discussion about what percentage are Democratic. That's because, according to this NY Times article, the exist polls don't ask that question.
This is a quote from the article:
If you want to know what percentage of voters in the Republican caucuses and primaries described themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians — and whom they voted for — exit polls will tell you. If you want to know what percentage of voters in the Democratic caucuses and primaries consider themselves born-again or evangelical Christians, well, sorry. No one knows.
No one knows because the exit polls did not ask
Here's why they don't ask:
Let’s be clear. Exit polls cannot ask about everything. The questionnaires handed voters hurrying away from polling places cannot be any longer than two sides of a single sheet of paper. Pollsters have to make choices. And representatives of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News and The Associated Press, who have formed the National Election Pool that has conducted state and national exit polls since 2003, have good reason to be tight-lipped about what goes into making those choices.
Interestingly enough both progressive evangelical Christians and Howard Dean are raising the point that since exit polls don't seek this information, the media doesn't cover the story of evangelical Democrats. This leads to the situation where most people think that Christians, especially evangelical Christians, only support Republicans.
This, of course, is not true. According to the CNN exit poll for the 2004 election, 23% of 2004 voters said that they were evangelical voters. Of those, 21% voted for John Kerry. Since there were over 112 million Americans voting, 21% of voters represented a lot of voters, indeed over 21 million of them.
This lack of balance in reporting voting by evangelicals may result from more than just a lack of space on a questionnaire. My guess is that very few reporters who cover national politics, or their editors, know many evangelical Christians. Therefore, given the attention that the Republican Party pays to evangelical Christians, it is easy for them to assume that evangelical Democrats don't exist.
News coverage represents the decisions that are made by reporters, editors, and publishers. Those decisions are governed by the background that these decision makers bring to the process. If their background is such that evangelical Christians are all lumped together as Republicans, their decisions will reflect that fact.
The problem isn't that America is diverse, the problem is that decision makers in the news industry may not be diverse, not only racially, but culturally.
This is a quote from the article:
If you want to know what percentage of voters in the Republican caucuses and primaries described themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians — and whom they voted for — exit polls will tell you. If you want to know what percentage of voters in the Democratic caucuses and primaries consider themselves born-again or evangelical Christians, well, sorry. No one knows.
No one knows because the exit polls did not ask
Here's why they don't ask:
Let’s be clear. Exit polls cannot ask about everything. The questionnaires handed voters hurrying away from polling places cannot be any longer than two sides of a single sheet of paper. Pollsters have to make choices. And representatives of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News and The Associated Press, who have formed the National Election Pool that has conducted state and national exit polls since 2003, have good reason to be tight-lipped about what goes into making those choices.
Interestingly enough both progressive evangelical Christians and Howard Dean are raising the point that since exit polls don't seek this information, the media doesn't cover the story of evangelical Democrats. This leads to the situation where most people think that Christians, especially evangelical Christians, only support Republicans.
This, of course, is not true. According to the CNN exit poll for the 2004 election, 23% of 2004 voters said that they were evangelical voters. Of those, 21% voted for John Kerry. Since there were over 112 million Americans voting, 21% of voters represented a lot of voters, indeed over 21 million of them.
This lack of balance in reporting voting by evangelicals may result from more than just a lack of space on a questionnaire. My guess is that very few reporters who cover national politics, or their editors, know many evangelical Christians. Therefore, given the attention that the Republican Party pays to evangelical Christians, it is easy for them to assume that evangelical Democrats don't exist.
News coverage represents the decisions that are made by reporters, editors, and publishers. Those decisions are governed by the background that these decision makers bring to the process. If their background is such that evangelical Christians are all lumped together as Republicans, their decisions will reflect that fact.
The problem isn't that America is diverse, the problem is that decision makers in the news industry may not be diverse, not only racially, but culturally.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
GOP Deficits Transfer Wealth from Working Class to Rich Americans
Since 1980 the GOP has been in the thrall of supply side economics, aka, trickle down economics. What this theory holds is that if you cut taxes on the rich, they will invest the money in ways that will help create jobs. Proponents of the theory hold that not only will this create jobs, it will grow revenue since more people will be employed and therefore will pay more into the government in the form of taxes.
Now there are several problems with this idea. The first is that the money that the rich save may not be invested in ways that create jobs. Rich people may decide that the best thing to do is loan the money to the Federal government by buying Treasury bonds. It is probably the safest investment out there since such bonds are backed by the Federal Government. In fact, under Republican presidents who have cut taxes, Reagan and Bush, the Federal Government had to dramatically increase its indebtness to pay for the Federal Government. Under Bubble-Boy Bush, for example, the national debt went from around four trillion dollars to around nine trillion dollars.
This debt is not being financed by selling $25.00 savings bonds to grandmothers to give to their grandchildren for presents. No, this debt is being financed by selling $10,000.00 Treasury bonds to rich Americans and rich foreigners. This means that rich Americans can take their savings from Bush's tax cuts, and use the money to buy Treasury bonds, which pay a guaranteed rate of return.
Meanwhile, of course, under this plan the debt service charge for the Federal government keeps increasing. This means that an increasing share of your tax dollar is being used to make interest payments to rich Americans and foreigners, instead of being used to finance government spending on infrastructure, defense, education, and healthcare.
What is suprising isn't that Republicans do this stuff, what is surprising is that Democrats don't call them on it. When the Federal government runs a deficit, it has to engage in wealth transfer to pay for it by taking money from working class people in the form of taxes and giving it to the rich in the form of interest payments. Republicans like to rail against government programs that transfer wealth, except, of course, when the wealth is being transferred upwards. Then, they like it such programs just fine.
Now there are several problems with this idea. The first is that the money that the rich save may not be invested in ways that create jobs. Rich people may decide that the best thing to do is loan the money to the Federal government by buying Treasury bonds. It is probably the safest investment out there since such bonds are backed by the Federal Government. In fact, under Republican presidents who have cut taxes, Reagan and Bush, the Federal Government had to dramatically increase its indebtness to pay for the Federal Government. Under Bubble-Boy Bush, for example, the national debt went from around four trillion dollars to around nine trillion dollars.
This debt is not being financed by selling $25.00 savings bonds to grandmothers to give to their grandchildren for presents. No, this debt is being financed by selling $10,000.00 Treasury bonds to rich Americans and rich foreigners. This means that rich Americans can take their savings from Bush's tax cuts, and use the money to buy Treasury bonds, which pay a guaranteed rate of return.
Meanwhile, of course, under this plan the debt service charge for the Federal government keeps increasing. This means that an increasing share of your tax dollar is being used to make interest payments to rich Americans and foreigners, instead of being used to finance government spending on infrastructure, defense, education, and healthcare.
What is suprising isn't that Republicans do this stuff, what is surprising is that Democrats don't call them on it. When the Federal government runs a deficit, it has to engage in wealth transfer to pay for it by taking money from working class people in the form of taxes and giving it to the rich in the form of interest payments. Republicans like to rail against government programs that transfer wealth, except, of course, when the wealth is being transferred upwards. Then, they like it such programs just fine.
Friday, February 01, 2008
"The Legacy of George W. Bush's Presidency" By the Numbers
The House Democratic Caucus on January 23, 2008, put up a great page on its website showing how much George W. Bush has mismanaged the country for the last seven years. What the page does is compare the country that he inherited to the county that he is leaving behind. The graphic is broken down into three sections: The economy; Quality of Life; and the Unites States and the World. It also has footnotes to back up its claims.
It points out things like the cost of gas rising from $1.39 a gallon to $3.07 a gallon; number of Americans that don't have medical insurance going up by 8.5 million in 6 years; and the cost of medical insurance for a family going from $6,230 to $12,106.
It is a great graphic and one that Democrats everywhere should print off to hand out to their friends, relatives, and co-workers. The only thing that I would fault it for is not having a section about Iraq, although putting statistics out on Iraq could appear to be using the death of soldiers for political gain. All in all, though, a great job by the House Democratic Caucus.
Thsnks to Pat Carano of Summit County for sending us information on this graphic.
It points out things like the cost of gas rising from $1.39 a gallon to $3.07 a gallon; number of Americans that don't have medical insurance going up by 8.5 million in 6 years; and the cost of medical insurance for a family going from $6,230 to $12,106.
It is a great graphic and one that Democrats everywhere should print off to hand out to their friends, relatives, and co-workers. The only thing that I would fault it for is not having a section about Iraq, although putting statistics out on Iraq could appear to be using the death of soldiers for political gain. All in all, though, a great job by the House Democratic Caucus.
Thsnks to Pat Carano of Summit County for sending us information on this graphic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)