Harold Myerson of the Washington Post has a very interesting column about the appearance of the three top Democratic presidential candidates at the recent DNC meeting. He writes that each of them displayed strengths and weaknesses.
Edwards strength was his ability to make the case on how Bush's economic policies are hurting Americans, especially Americans in union jobs. His weakness was that he didn't outline proposals to reach the unorganized part of the middle class, people who work at keyboards, not machines.
Clinton's strength was her ability to state how devastating Bush's policies have been to the entire middle class. Her weakness was that her policy proposals seem incremental and not enough to take on the wide scope of the problems she accurately identifies.
Obama's strength was his ability to speak to the destruction of faith and hope in government that conservative policies have brought about, but his weakness was that he didn't have policy proposals to match his language
The entire column can be read by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Is Voinovich Feeling Some Heat?
According to a blog entry by Steve Clemons over at the Talking Points Memo website operated by Josh Marshall, George Voinovich and six other so-called Republican moderates have sent a letter to the Senate Democratic and Republican leadership complaining about what they call a "stalemate" on debating a resolution on the Iraq War. (Clemons' article can be read by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)
What we find fascinating is that earlier today we learned that an email was sent out seeking people to write letters to Voinovich and complain about his vote earlier this week regarding the debate on the Warner Resolution. We are wondering if it is dawning on Republican Senators that backing George Bush and preventing the Warner Resolution from coming to a vote wasn't the brightest thing they could have done.
Previous posts on this blog that dealt with Voinovich and stopping the Republican filibuster of the Warner Resolution can be read here: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-voinovich-vote-to-stop-warner-from.html and here: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/02/voinovich-votes-to-stop-debate-on-bushs.html
What we find fascinating is that earlier today we learned that an email was sent out seeking people to write letters to Voinovich and complain about his vote earlier this week regarding the debate on the Warner Resolution. We are wondering if it is dawning on Republican Senators that backing George Bush and preventing the Warner Resolution from coming to a vote wasn't the brightest thing they could have done.
Previous posts on this blog that dealt with Voinovich and stopping the Republican filibuster of the Warner Resolution can be read here: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-voinovich-vote-to-stop-warner-from.html and here: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/02/voinovich-votes-to-stop-debate-on-bushs.html
Lieberman Proposes "War Tax"
Sen. Joe Lieberman, (I-CT), proposed that Congress pass a special "war tax" to fund what he calls the "war on terrorism" and what the rest of us call the Iraq War. He pointed out in his remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee that people have pointed out that the only Americans being asked to sacrifice are members of the military and civilians serving in Iraq, this blog among them.
This is actually an intellectually honest approach to funding the war, much more so than Bush's budget. It would also probably drive home to most Americans what this war is costing us in terms of money as well as American lives. Lieberman did not give any specifics on his tax idea and, of course, it won't get anywhere. Republicans prefer a borrow and spend approach to this war, as well as almost every other operation of the Federal government, and Democrats opposed to the war will find it very difficult to support any proposal of Lieberman's.
Politically, though, putting this idea in a bill form and discussing it would put pressure on Republicans to justify the cost of this war. As Lieberman pointed out in his remarks before the Armed Services Committee, funding this war will push out other domestic spending that the Democrats consider essential. His "war tax" would be an addition to Federal revenues and would theoretically free up more money for domestic spending.
Update: A better idea might to try and pass a law requiring that every time Congress authorizes military action it has to impose a special tax to pay for that military action. It might have the effect of making sure that our elected representatives think before they act and it would force all of us to recognize what military actions cost in terms of money since, with the advent of a volunteer military, most of us don't stop and think what they cost in terms of causalities.
This is actually an intellectually honest approach to funding the war, much more so than Bush's budget. It would also probably drive home to most Americans what this war is costing us in terms of money as well as American lives. Lieberman did not give any specifics on his tax idea and, of course, it won't get anywhere. Republicans prefer a borrow and spend approach to this war, as well as almost every other operation of the Federal government, and Democrats opposed to the war will find it very difficult to support any proposal of Lieberman's.
Politically, though, putting this idea in a bill form and discussing it would put pressure on Republicans to justify the cost of this war. As Lieberman pointed out in his remarks before the Armed Services Committee, funding this war will push out other domestic spending that the Democrats consider essential. His "war tax" would be an addition to Federal revenues and would theoretically free up more money for domestic spending.
Update: A better idea might to try and pass a law requiring that every time Congress authorizes military action it has to impose a special tax to pay for that military action. It might have the effect of making sure that our elected representatives think before they act and it would force all of us to recognize what military actions cost in terms of money since, with the advent of a volunteer military, most of us don't stop and think what they cost in terms of causalities.
Bush Administration Sent Billions Into Iraq Right After Saddam's Fall
It turns out that the Bush Administration sent billions of dollars into Iraq after Saddam's fall. The money came from Iraqi funds that had been frozen in America and came from Iraqi oil revenues. Here's the problem: they don't know what happened to the money or where it went. Now, they claim that the money didn't fall into the hands of insurgents, but let's face it, they really don't know that our troops aren't being wounded or killed by weapons purchased with this money. This fact came out during testimony in front of the House Committee on Government Operations and Oversight chaired by Rep. Harry Waxman, (D-CA). You can click on the link in this entry's title to read more about this.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Voinovich Votes in Favor of Bush's War Policy
George Voinovich, who claims that he is against escalation of the Iraqi War, just voted against ending a filibuster on the Warner Resolution. In short, he voted to make sure that there is not a vote on Bush's plan to escalate the war. Here is how the Washington Post explained the process:
At issue are four separate resolutions. The main resolution, worked out by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), would put the Senate on record opposing the additional troop deployment and calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict, but it would also oppose a cut-off of funds for troops in the field of battle. The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.
Against those competing resolutions are two others replete with political mischief-making. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them before stating, "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of fund." A second, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose the president's plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other materiel.
The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four resolutions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passage, or debate and vote on just two resolutions, Warner's and McCain's.
McConnell said each of the resolutions should only come to a vote if it attains the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. The reason was simple. Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only measure that could win 60 votes is Gregg's.
Democratic leaders feared that a debate designed to put the Senate on record opposing President Bush's war plan could conclude with passage of a resolution opposing a cutoff of funds for that plan.
To keep the heat on Republicans, Senate Democratic leaders charged that their opponents were simply trying to stifle a debate on the most hotly contested issue of the day.
"If Republicans cannot swallow the thin soup of the Warner resolution, how are they going to stomach a real debate on Iraq?" asked Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).
Ohio voters should remember the way that George Voinovich is acting on the Warner Resolution. He says that he is against Bush's escalation but doesn't want to go on record saying so. This is not exactly Voinovich's Profile in Courage moment we are seeing here. What we are seeing is a Republican who is against Bush's war except when it counts.
At issue are four separate resolutions. The main resolution, worked out by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), would put the Senate on record opposing the additional troop deployment and calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict, but it would also oppose a cut-off of funds for troops in the field of battle. The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.
Against those competing resolutions are two others replete with political mischief-making. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them before stating, "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of fund." A second, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose the president's plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other materiel.
The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four resolutions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passage, or debate and vote on just two resolutions, Warner's and McCain's.
McConnell said each of the resolutions should only come to a vote if it attains the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. The reason was simple. Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only measure that could win 60 votes is Gregg's.
Democratic leaders feared that a debate designed to put the Senate on record opposing President Bush's war plan could conclude with passage of a resolution opposing a cutoff of funds for that plan.
To keep the heat on Republicans, Senate Democratic leaders charged that their opponents were simply trying to stifle a debate on the most hotly contested issue of the day.
"If Republicans cannot swallow the thin soup of the Warner resolution, how are they going to stomach a real debate on Iraq?" asked Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).
Ohio voters should remember the way that George Voinovich is acting on the Warner Resolution. He says that he is against Bush's escalation but doesn't want to go on record saying so. This is not exactly Voinovich's Profile in Courage moment we are seeing here. What we are seeing is a Republican who is against Bush's war except when it counts.
Poverty Increasing in Medina County
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a very interesting story about how poverty is increasing in Medina County. Medina County is one of the fastest growing counties in Ohio and its median income is about $20,000 higher than the median income for the metropolitan area as a whole, but, as the article points out, it is not immune from increasing poverty. This is shown by the increase in foreclosure cases, by the increase in students using the free lunch programs, and by increases in social service applications. This is a very interesting story and one that everyone in Medina County should read. You can read it by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Will Voinovich Vote to Stop Warner Resolution From Going to the Floor?
Supposedly George Voinovich is against Bush's escalation on the war in Iraq, but the question becomes is he willing to allow a vote on the John Warner Resolution opposing escalation? Today, February 5, 2007, the Senate is scheduled to take a vote on whether the Warner Resolution will be allowed to come to the floor of the Senate. This vote has to obtain 60 votes. If it doesn't, it apparently won't be allowed to get to the floor. (An explanation of why this is so is found by clicking on the link in this entry's title.) Sen. McConnell, (R-KY), the Minority Leader of the Senate is claiming that all Republican Senators, apparently including Warner himself, will vote against allowing the Warner Resolution to come to the floor for debate.
All Republican Senators would include Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, Warner, and Hagel, all Republicans who have claimed to be against Bush's escalation. What they are trying to do is have it both ways, that is, they are trying to get public credit for opposing the escalation, but then cozy up to the White House in voting to block the bill from getting to the floor. Quite frankly they count on the public not being aware of what is going on and they count on the news media not telling the public what is going on.
All Republican Senators would include Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, Warner, and Hagel, all Republicans who have claimed to be against Bush's escalation. What they are trying to do is have it both ways, that is, they are trying to get public credit for opposing the escalation, but then cozy up to the White House in voting to block the bill from getting to the floor. Quite frankly they count on the public not being aware of what is going on and they count on the news media not telling the public what is going on.
Governor Strickland's Panel on Judicial Appointments is Seeking Franklin Cty. Muny Ct. Applications
The Ohio Supreme Court' s website has a short announcement on the make-up of the advisory panel that is advising Governor Strickland on applications for a vacancy in the Franklin County Municipal Court. The panel includes both state-wide members and local members from Franklin County. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the Supreme Court announcement. It will give you a good idea on how this procedure will work.
NYT Article on John Edwards Shows Problem & Potential of Media
The New York Times ran an article about John Edwards in the Monday edition that shows both the problem with the media and also its potential. The article focused on several changes it claims that Edwards has undergone in the last two years or so. It does a very good job of explaining Edwards' positions, but then frames all of his policy proposals as changes he has made to get the nomination. The author of the article, John Broder, frames Edwards' positions as positions he is taking to get the nomination and not as heart-felt policy proposals.
This is typical of the news media. They no longer care about policy, to them everything is politics. That's one reason why they loved Karl Rove for so long because. like them, Rove doesn't care about policy, he just cares about politics. Most news media pundits look at political campaigns from a campaign viewpoint while voters look at political campaigns from a governing viewpoint. They want to know what the candidates will do if they are elected, not how they are going to get elected.
That is one thing that the Internet is doing for politicians. It used to be that the only way they had to get their message out without using paid advertising was to depend on the news media to report what they were saying and doing. Now, however, with the advent of tools like You Tube, blogs, and websites they can communicate with millions of people directly, without going through the media. This is one reason why the media resents the rise of blogs and similar Internet tools. They instinctively recognize that such communication tools transfers power from them to the candidates and to the voters. If candidates chose to do so, they can let us know exactly where they stand on various issues without going through the media.
The Internet is also influencing what stories get covered. A good example of this was the media controversy that broke out with former Senator George Allen and his macaca comments. That story wasn't driven by the media, because they didn't report it until the Webb campaign posted the video on You Tube. Once posted it garnered a lot of attention which then led to the mainstream media reporting on the incident. Instead of the media deciding what was a news story, Internet users were deciding what was a news story. That is a very significant power shift in mass communications.
This is typical of the news media. They no longer care about policy, to them everything is politics. That's one reason why they loved Karl Rove for so long because. like them, Rove doesn't care about policy, he just cares about politics. Most news media pundits look at political campaigns from a campaign viewpoint while voters look at political campaigns from a governing viewpoint. They want to know what the candidates will do if they are elected, not how they are going to get elected.
That is one thing that the Internet is doing for politicians. It used to be that the only way they had to get their message out without using paid advertising was to depend on the news media to report what they were saying and doing. Now, however, with the advent of tools like You Tube, blogs, and websites they can communicate with millions of people directly, without going through the media. This is one reason why the media resents the rise of blogs and similar Internet tools. They instinctively recognize that such communication tools transfers power from them to the candidates and to the voters. If candidates chose to do so, they can let us know exactly where they stand on various issues without going through the media.
The Internet is also influencing what stories get covered. A good example of this was the media controversy that broke out with former Senator George Allen and his macaca comments. That story wasn't driven by the media, because they didn't report it until the Webb campaign posted the video on You Tube. Once posted it garnered a lot of attention which then led to the mainstream media reporting on the incident. Instead of the media deciding what was a news story, Internet users were deciding what was a news story. That is a very significant power shift in mass communications.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
John Edwards Proposes Tax Hike on Wealthy to Pay for Health Plan
John Edwards is releasing a health care plan on Monday that will provide for a tax hike mainly on the wealthy to pay for expanded health insurance. He is one of the first politicians to admit that taxes might have to rise to solve America's health care problems. Although he is for raising taxes, his plan apparently doesn't call for a single-payer system. His aim is to bring insurance to the uninsured, lower health care costs and bring competition to the markets. He would expand the Medicaid plan and ask employers to either provide health coverage or buy into what Edwards is calling "health markets." He also called for more focus on collecting taxes that are legally due, but are not now being collected. If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read more about the Edwards plan.
Former Rep. Majority Leader Regrets Iraq War Vote
Dick Armey, Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002, regrets voting for the Iraq War Resolution. He also thinks that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. It is a fascinating article and you can read it by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Secretary of State Rice Drawing More Criticism
The New York Times reported on Sunday that with Rumsfeld leaving the administration, more and more people are examining Condi Rice's role in the Iraq diaster and finding her performance wanting. As National Security Adviser and now Secretary of State her fingerprints are all over Iraq policy, but because Rumsfeld and Cheney were so public in their support, her role has often been overlooked. With Rumsfeld gone, however, that changes. Both Republicans and Democrats are complaining about how she handles diplomacy, or rather doesn't handle it, and she is now taking hits from the right as well as the left. Indeed, she may have more problems with Republicans as they try to find someone other than Bush to blame for the mess this administration has made of Iraq. (You can read the NYT article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)
Why Obama and Not Webb?
There has been a lot of praise for Jim Webb's speech given in response to the President's State of the Union speech. (An example of such praise is seen in the column by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post which can be read by clicking on this entry's title.) It was a powerful speech and made the case not only against the war but for a different economic policy, one that is populist and not elitist in approach. Which brings us to this question: why is Barack Obama being hyped for President and not Jim Webb?
Both have made well received speeches that were covered by the national media, Obama in 2004 at the Democratic Convention, Webb's response mentioned above. True, Obama has four years of experience as a Senator while Webb was just elected, but Webb served in the Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy. He actually has more Federal government experience than Obama. He also has the added advantage of having served in combat in Vietnam and being from a state, Virginia, that has voted mostly Republican in presidential elections but is one in which the Democratic Party is making inroads. Obama, on the other hand, comes from a pretty safe "blue" state, Illinois. Webb is also a white Southerner which was also true of the last three Democrats to get elected president since 1960: Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
All of this is not to say that Obama wouldn't make a good Democratic nominee or that Webb should run for president. It is to say that it is odd that while the net roots are really buzzing about Obama there is no comparable buzz for Webb, even though he would have a lot to recommend him.
Both have made well received speeches that were covered by the national media, Obama in 2004 at the Democratic Convention, Webb's response mentioned above. True, Obama has four years of experience as a Senator while Webb was just elected, but Webb served in the Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy. He actually has more Federal government experience than Obama. He also has the added advantage of having served in combat in Vietnam and being from a state, Virginia, that has voted mostly Republican in presidential elections but is one in which the Democratic Party is making inroads. Obama, on the other hand, comes from a pretty safe "blue" state, Illinois. Webb is also a white Southerner which was also true of the last three Democrats to get elected president since 1960: Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
All of this is not to say that Obama wouldn't make a good Democratic nominee or that Webb should run for president. It is to say that it is odd that while the net roots are really buzzing about Obama there is no comparable buzz for Webb, even though he would have a lot to recommend him.
Columbus Dispatch: GOP Sued Brunner, not Strickland in Veto Lawsuit
According to this article in the Columbus Dispatch, http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/02/03/20070203-A1-05.html, the leaders of the General Assembly sued Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and not Governor Strickland over his first day veto of the bill limiting damages in consumer lawsuits. This is a very interesting point that a lot of news organizations are not picking up on in their stories. Our guess is that they are suing Brunner because it is an easier lawsuit legally and because Strickland's popularity is high enough that the GOP doesn't want to go toe to toe with him over this issue. Another reason may be that Jon Husted, the House Speaker, reportedly has state office ambitions and maybe he wants to run against Brunner.
Under Bush Administration Government Contracting Soars
The New York Times ran an article in its Sunday edition about how, under the Bush administration, government contracting with private companies has soared. (A link to the article is in this entry's title.) The trend of using government contractors instead of government employees has long existed. It picked up steam under the Clinton administration when the rules regarding such contracting were streamlined. Under Bush, though, the practice has become much more widespread because of this administration's philosophy that using private contractors is always more efficient than using government employees.
The article notes that these companies are contributing millions to politicians running for Federal office. Which leads to this question: why don't Democrats advocate for a law that would prohibit an employee of any company, or his or her spouse, from making certain political contributions? Such a law would help ensure that contractors are chosen for competence and not political influence.
The article notes that these companies are contributing millions to politicians running for Federal office. Which leads to this question: why don't Democrats advocate for a law that would prohibit an employee of any company, or his or her spouse, from making certain political contributions? Such a law would help ensure that contractors are chosen for competence and not political influence.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
McCain Hires Political Advisers He Once Said Were Too Negative
John McCain has hired Republican operatives who are experienced in creating negative attack ads. His campaign has taken on people who helped develop the "Swift-Boat" ads against John Kerry and the infamous "Bimbo" ad against Harold Ford. In that past McCain has condemned such ads, but now is putting their developers on his payroll. What is interesting about this is not that he is hiring such advisers, but that the New York Times is calling him on it. The article, which you can read by clicking on the link in this entry's title, refers to McCain 'as a "one-time maverick". This article may signal an end to the media's slavish devotion to McCain and the beginning of treating him like any other candidate.
Cheney's Mid-East Views & U.S. Policy
Reed Hundt, a contributor to Josh Marshall's www.talkingpointsmemo.com, has posted a very interesting article on how Dick Cheney sees the U.S. role in the Mid-East. According to Hundt Cheney believes that for the next 60-80 years America will be dependent on imported oil, mainly from the Mid-East. During that same period America will be at war with Islamic fundamentalists. Therefore, America withdrawing militarily from the Mid-East is dangerous to our economic security and we have to keep on pouring troops and money into that region. Cheney also believes that withdrawing from that region would imperil Israel, a point of view also espoused by Lieberman.
Hundt also argues that at some point Democratic candidates for president have to confront and debate Cheney's views, especially since they are also being articulated by McCain and Romney. All this leads to a another point and that is that while Democrats are very good at challenging Republicans on particular policy choices, we need to do a better job of attacking the philosophy that underlies what Republicans advocate. This means in debates over domestic policy attacking the Republicans' market fundamentalism. It means in debates over foreign policy, attacking the Republicans' belief in a go-it-alone approach to foreign policy. If we don't attack the underlying philosophy, then we are allowing them to set the terms of the debate. Ceding to them the power to set the terms of the debate weakens our ability to win the debate.
Hundt also argues that at some point Democratic candidates for president have to confront and debate Cheney's views, especially since they are also being articulated by McCain and Romney. All this leads to a another point and that is that while Democrats are very good at challenging Republicans on particular policy choices, we need to do a better job of attacking the philosophy that underlies what Republicans advocate. This means in debates over domestic policy attacking the Republicans' market fundamentalism. It means in debates over foreign policy, attacking the Republicans' belief in a go-it-alone approach to foreign policy. If we don't attack the underlying philosophy, then we are allowing them to set the terms of the debate. Ceding to them the power to set the terms of the debate weakens our ability to win the debate.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Is Bush Protecting the Saudis?
On September 11, 2001, 21 terrorists killed over 3,000 Americans. Nineteen of those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Osma bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. According to the article linked in this entry's title from December of 2006, Saudi Arabians are supplying money to Sunni fighters in Iraq, including money for anti-aircraft missiles that are portable. In the last month there has been a dramatic rise in the number of U.S. military and civilian helicopters that have been downed by insurgents. The Bush response? Blame the Iranians. Why? Because the Bush family and their fix-it man, James Baker, have long standing business ties withe the Saudis.
It is convenient for the Bushies to blame the Iranians, just like it was convenient to blame Hussein and imply that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were supported by Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia. Hopefully the U.S. electorate will have learned its lesson and not elect more oil men in the future.
It is convenient for the Bushies to blame the Iranians, just like it was convenient to blame Hussein and imply that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were supported by Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia. Hopefully the U.S. electorate will have learned its lesson and not elect more oil men in the future.
MCDAC Democratic Newsletter for 2.2.2007
MCDAC Democratic Newsletter for February 2, 2007
Turn MEDINA COUNTY BLUE: The Next Project
Repeat Item
Medina County Democrats helped to take back Congress and our state. Now we need your help to end one party rule in our county, cities, villages and townships.
If you want to know what you can do to help or if you are, or are thinking about being, a candidate, please join Democratic officeholders and operatives for a nuts and bolts conversation and training seminar --
TURN MEDINA COUNTY BLUE: The Next Project
9:00 am to noon
February 10, 2007
The Grace Drake Center for the Arts, 222 S. Broadway, Medina, OH.
For more information or to reserve your spot, contact the Medina County Democratic Party at 330-722-6655, or Pam Miller at 330-725-7487 or Pam450@bright.net.
Uncle Sam Needs YOU!
Repeat Item
You are needed to run for office in Medina County. The Medina County Democratic Party's Committee of Informed Citizens wants to make sure that there are Democrats running for every office this year.
Township Trustee, Township Clerk, Council, Mayor, and School Board positions are up for election in 2007. If you want to see a list of the positions that are not currently held by Democrats that are to be elected this year in a pdf file, please go to http://www.medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org/MedinaCountyLocalRepublicans.pdf
Please consider running for an elected position in 2007 or convince your Democratic friends to run. The deadline for filing for Brunswick and Wadsworth city offices is soon. If you are interested please contact Pam Miller, Chair of the Medina County Democratic Party at pam450@bright.net
Subscribe to MCDAC's Blog
Repeat Item
You can subscribe to receive daily digests by email from the MCDAC Blog. These digests have the title of the entry and then a link to click so you can read the whole entry. They only appear when we post a new blog item. To subscribe, go to http://www.mcdac.blogspot.com and fill out the form on the right hand side of the page.
MCDAC Blog Entries
This past week we posted entries on the following topics:
The Bush Economy: Great for those at the top.
Governor Strickland Sets Up New Judicial Appointing System
Dems Have to Challenge "Market Fundamentalism"
Hillary Clinton Drives the Washington Media Nuts
Representative Betty Sutton Named to Budget Committee
Newsweek Poll: 58% of Americans Wish Bush Presidency was Over
Gov. Strickland Reviews Minimum Wage Exclusion
Columbus Dispatch Reports 2006 Manufacturing Job Losses
Secretary of State Brunner Has New Ideas for Ohio Elections
Rep. Betty Sutton Signs on as Co-Sponsor for Education Bill
Congressman Regula Backs Five of Six Dem Bills in Start of 110th Congress
Ford Posts Record Losses, Considers Bonuses for Top Executives
All of these entries can be read at http://www.mcdac.blogspot.com
We are always looking for short postings by Democrats and links to interesting articles. If you would like to submit an article or a link for our 'blog, please send them to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
Correction
Last week's newsletter contained a link to an entry on our blog that claimed that Senator George Voinovich had voted against ending the Republican filibuster on the minimum wage. That was incorrect. Sen. Voinovich voted for ending the filibuster. We regret any inconvenience caused by our mistake.
MCDAC
Joyce Kimbler, Treasurer
P.O. Box 1213
Medina, OH 44258
Turn MEDINA COUNTY BLUE: The Next Project
Repeat Item
Medina County Democrats helped to take back Congress and our state. Now we need your help to end one party rule in our county, cities, villages and townships.
If you want to know what you can do to help or if you are, or are thinking about being, a candidate, please join Democratic officeholders and operatives for a nuts and bolts conversation and training seminar --
TURN MEDINA COUNTY BLUE: The Next Project
9:00 am to noon
February 10, 2007
The Grace Drake Center for the Arts, 222 S. Broadway, Medina, OH.
For more information or to reserve your spot, contact the Medina County Democratic Party at 330-722-6655, or Pam Miller at 330-725-7487 or Pam450@bright.net.
Uncle Sam Needs YOU!
Repeat Item
You are needed to run for office in Medina County. The Medina County Democratic Party's Committee of Informed Citizens wants to make sure that there are Democrats running for every office this year.
Township Trustee, Township Clerk, Council, Mayor, and School Board positions are up for election in 2007. If you want to see a list of the positions that are not currently held by Democrats that are to be elected this year in a pdf file, please go to http://www.medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org/MedinaCountyLocalRepublicans.pdf
Please consider running for an elected position in 2007 or convince your Democratic friends to run. The deadline for filing for Brunswick and Wadsworth city offices is soon. If you are interested please contact Pam Miller, Chair of the Medina County Democratic Party at pam450@bright.net
Subscribe to MCDAC's Blog
Repeat Item
You can subscribe to receive daily digests by email from the MCDAC Blog. These digests have the title of the entry and then a link to click so you can read the whole entry. They only appear when we post a new blog item. To subscribe, go to http://www.mcdac.blogspot.com and fill out the form on the right hand side of the page.
MCDAC Blog Entries
This past week we posted entries on the following topics:
The Bush Economy: Great for those at the top.
Governor Strickland Sets Up New Judicial Appointing System
Dems Have to Challenge "Market Fundamentalism"
Hillary Clinton Drives the Washington Media Nuts
Representative Betty Sutton Named to Budget Committee
Newsweek Poll: 58% of Americans Wish Bush Presidency was Over
Gov. Strickland Reviews Minimum Wage Exclusion
Columbus Dispatch Reports 2006 Manufacturing Job Losses
Secretary of State Brunner Has New Ideas for Ohio Elections
Rep. Betty Sutton Signs on as Co-Sponsor for Education Bill
Congressman Regula Backs Five of Six Dem Bills in Start of 110th Congress
Ford Posts Record Losses, Considers Bonuses for Top Executives
All of these entries can be read at http://www.mcdac.blogspot.com
We are always looking for short postings by Democrats and links to interesting articles. If you would like to submit an article or a link for our 'blog, please send them to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.
Correction
Last week's newsletter contained a link to an entry on our blog that claimed that Senator George Voinovich had voted against ending the Republican filibuster on the minimum wage. That was incorrect. Sen. Voinovich voted for ending the filibuster. We regret any inconvenience caused by our mistake.
MCDAC
Joyce Kimbler, Treasurer
P.O. Box 1213
Medina, OH 44258
Thursday, February 01, 2007
The Bush Economy: Great for those at the top
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an article about how Bush and Democrats look at the economy. To Republicans like Bush the economy is doing great. To Democrats like John Edwards, Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown, the economy is not doing well at all.
Why the difference? Because Bush looks at the economy from the perspective of a person born into the upper class in America. The stock market is doing well, unemployment seems to be going down, and new jobs are being created. Of course, millions have lost their jobs, house foreclosures are way up, millions don't have health insurance, the new jobs don't pay near what the lost jobs pay, but Bush doesn't see that because that is not his personal experience.
Edwards and Webb do see it. People like Sherrod Brown see it. This is because their personal experiences are different. They weren't born into the upper class. They have seen people struggle and know what it means to struggle financially. They can empathize with the working family that has seen its standard of living decline because of the loss of a good job, or a catastrophic illness not covered by insurance.
The problem with Republicans on economic issues is that they can't understand what they haven't experienced. Since a lot of them have never experienced economic difficulties, they just don't understand them. Democrats need to point this simple fact out to voters. When they do a lot of the media, whose executives also come from the upper class, won't like it. They will say that Democrats are practicing "class warfare." That's okay. Democrats should just keep on saying it. It doesn't matter what the media says, it matters what the voters say.
Why the difference? Because Bush looks at the economy from the perspective of a person born into the upper class in America. The stock market is doing well, unemployment seems to be going down, and new jobs are being created. Of course, millions have lost their jobs, house foreclosures are way up, millions don't have health insurance, the new jobs don't pay near what the lost jobs pay, but Bush doesn't see that because that is not his personal experience.
Edwards and Webb do see it. People like Sherrod Brown see it. This is because their personal experiences are different. They weren't born into the upper class. They have seen people struggle and know what it means to struggle financially. They can empathize with the working family that has seen its standard of living decline because of the loss of a good job, or a catastrophic illness not covered by insurance.
The problem with Republicans on economic issues is that they can't understand what they haven't experienced. Since a lot of them have never experienced economic difficulties, they just don't understand them. Democrats need to point this simple fact out to voters. When they do a lot of the media, whose executives also come from the upper class, won't like it. They will say that Democrats are practicing "class warfare." That's okay. Democrats should just keep on saying it. It doesn't matter what the media says, it matters what the voters say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)