Rumsfeld's Troop Decisions Come Back to Haunt U.S.

There will be a lot of words written about the U.S. Marines who allegedly murdered civilans at Haditha, Iraq, over the next few weeks. Most of them will concern what allegedly happened between the Iraqis and the Marines. Relatively few of them will concern Rumsfeld's decision to try and fight this war on the cheap. Yet, it is that decision that led to what happened at Haditha.

Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff back in 2002, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand troops would be needed to "put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other." He based his testimony on the American experience in the Kosovo, where there was a ratio of 1 soldier for every 1000 people. That candor led to this rebuke from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who called his estimate "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." Rumsfeld himself was reported to have called Shinseki's testimony "bullshit".

So, where are we at three years and counting since our invasion? We have a ongoing insurgency in Iraq. We have lost many more men since the war "ended" than we did during the war itself, and now we have reports of American Marines murdering Iraqi civilans. If the arrogant idiots who run the Defense Department had listened to a professional military man instead of each other, a lot of the tragedy of the last three years would have been avoided. Putting several hundred thousand troops in Iraq would have reduced the chances of the insurgency and avoided the breakdown of law and order that followed the fall of Hussein.

Of course, that didn't happen in the faith-based presidency of George W. Bush. Because, after all, why would you listen to experts when you are convinced that you are doing God's work?
___________________________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby grants permission to use this work without attribution.

Reform Proposal: Increase Size of the U.S. House

Currently there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. This means that each Representative represents over 685,000 people in Congress. In some cases, such as the Representative from South Dakota, there is only one Representative for the entire state. All of these members have to run every two years, and, because of the size of their districts, they have to raise a lot of money to run competitive campaigns.

Almost every proposal to reform campaigns for Congress involves cutting down contributions, but they are never successful. Here is an idea that hasn't been tried: reduce the cost of campaigns. How? By tripling or even quadrupling the size of the House of Representatives. Go from the present size of 435 Representatives to 1305 or even 1740 Representatives.

By increasing the size of Congress, you would decrease the cost of campaigning. Instead of representing 685,000 people, each member would be representing 228,000 people at 1305 Representatives or 171,000 people at 1740. It is much easier to advertise yourself to 228,000 people or 171,000 people than it is to 685,000.

Cities would pick up more representatives, and so would suburbs, and small towns. It would be much easier for members of Congress to stay in touch with their constituents if they were representing fewer people. It would also be easier to mount challenges to such members because the cost of campaigning would be less.

The present size of the House of Representatives has been at this number since Hawaii and Alaska came into the Union. During the time, the population of the United States has increased dramatically. It is time to bring Congress back in touch with the people by increasing the number of Representatives. In fact, it is overdue.

It's Never Their Children

One thing that you have to admire about the Bush family is their ability to keep their children out of harm's way in Iraq. It takes a lot of nerve to send someone else's child to war while keeping your own safely in the United States. The Bush family is definitely up to the challenge, though. While some of their contemparies are dying in Iraq, the Bush twins are taking spinning classes at an exclusive Washington gym.

This ability to keep their children out of harm's way is not just limited to the Bushes. It is something that both the Congress and the Executive branch do quite well. When the vote was taken to give President Bush the authority to start the Iraqi War, only one Senator, Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, had a child who would be going into combat as a result of his father's vote. To our knowledge the only Bush cabinet member who has had a child serve in Iraq is former Attorney General Ashcroft.

In fact, most of the cheerleaders for this war don't have to worry about their children fighting or dying in Iraq. It's never their children who are maimed, killed, or traumatized by the Iraqi War. It is never their families who receive the news that their child is coming home in a coffin. Here's our question: if the Iraqi War is such a great idea, why aren't the children of its backers volunteering to go fight it? For that matter, why isn't President Bush asking his supporters to encourage their children to enlist to spread democracy in the middle east?
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

People Who Hate Government Shouldn't Run Government

".....the country could, in fact, get very excited again about the opportunity to make government work", Newt Gingrich, April 16, 2006, talking about the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

The above quote illustrates a fundmental problem with Gingrich's logic. The problem is that a lot of conservatives in goverment don't want the government to work. They hate goverment, have contempt for government, and don't think that there is much that government can, and more importantly, should do. The problem is, of course, that the American public doesn't agree. So what happens is that radical conservatives hide their real feelings about government from the voters. They realize that American voters who aren't nearly as driven by ideology as by the desire for results won't accept candidates who come right out and say that they want to be elected so they can dismantle the government.

So they hide their real intentions. They don't say they want to destroy Social Security, they say they want to "improve it" and "reform it." They pass an education act that imposes mandates on public schools, but doesn't provide enough funding to meet these mandates, and call it the "No Child Left Behind" act. Tax breaks for the wealthy get packaged as "creating jobs."

Why do they resort to such dishonest language? Well, imagine what would happen if they actually used real language to describe what they want. Bush's poll numbers would be down below 30, instead of down below 40, in the "approve of" category.

Ever so often, though, something comes along with strips away the veneer and exposes the real aim of the radical right of the GOP. In September of 2005 it was Hurricane Katrina. Then it becomes very apparent that turning the government over to people who hate government can, literally, kill you.

This is the simple message that Democrats need to carry to the American people: you wouldn't turn your family, your home, or your church over to someone who hated them, why should you do that to your government?___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

Reader Submission: Illegal Immigration

I don't have a problem with "immigration". I do have a problem with the "illegal" part of theequation.

Yes, all of us have immigrants in our ancestry. I married a legal immigrant who is now a naturalizedcitizen.

What is the very first thing an illegal immigrant doeswhen he/she sets foot in the U.S. You got it, breaks our federal immigration laws. He/she starts out not respecting the laws of the land.

Does he think that he can pick and choose the laws he wishes to obey and those he doesn't? Can we citizens do the same and get away with it?Why is there any question about this problem? What else is going on here? Our laws are our laws or they aren't.

What would happen if huge numbers of American citizenscofflaws were to hold rally/demonstrations in ourcities? Like in a sting operation, might they berounded up and dealt with while so convenientlygathered in one place?
____________________________________________________________________
Reader submissions do not necessarily represent the views of MCDAC, its officers, or anyone associated with MCDAC.

Reader Submission: Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice

Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
By AngiePratt - PoliticalPosts.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:“Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.”

George Bush and his administration have obstructed justice. He and Cheney have systematically attempted to mislead not only the American people but also Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Although Bush and Cheney did not testify under oath, due to an inexplicable extension of courtesy, both have still provided information that obfuscated the White House's use of classified information for political gain. In so doing they actually caused the perpetration of a series of crimes by Libby and Karl Rove.

Since Bush and Cheney conveniently declassified the information, Libby and Rove didn't break the law. What they did was attempt to cover up the fact that the White House declassified information for immoral, self-serving purposes. Had this come out prior to the 2004 election, Bush and Cheney would have undoubtedly been out of a job. That, friends and neighbors, is called motive.

This is evidenced by the fact that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby attempted to get the White House to stand up for him by admitting what had occurred. According to R. Jeffrey Smith, of the Washington Post: 'Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."'

In the White House's denial of Libby's request for exoneration, Bush and Cheney created the situation that caused the crimes that Libby is accused of to occur. By refusing to come clean with the American public and Fitzgerald, the President and Vice President of the United States of America committed the crime of obstruction of justice.

The fact is, it isn't against the law for the President and/or Vice President of the United States to lie to the American public. It also isn't against the law for the President to selectively declassify documents. It is, however, against the law to obstruct justice whether or not you live at the White House.
____________________________________________________________________
The author of the above editorial gave MCDAC permission to re-produce it.

Cost of College Education at Ohio's Public Universities

This graph is from the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank's website. It shows how tuition is increasing at every college in Ohio. (If graph doesn't show, click on the rectangle to make it appear.)

MCDAC Rant: Republican Efforts to Cut Off Democratic Funding

Over the past 25 years the national GOP has made a concerted effort to cut off funding for Democratic candidates. They have done this by going after unions, attorneys who represent plaintiffs in personal injury litigation, and public schools. Why public schools, you ask, because historically teachers who teach in public schools back Democrats.

Of course, all of these targets also have enemies in the GOP coalition. Corporations oppose unions and trial attorneys because both of them are a check on corporate power. Elements of the religious right oppose public schools because they believe they are too secular. So by targeting unions, trial attorneys, and public schools, the GOP kills two birds with one stone. It makes its corporate and religious right supporters happy and it weakens Democratic leaning organizations.

How do they do target these organizations? With the case of unions, it is trying to enact legislation that restricts union activities and use of union funds for political purposes. With the case of trial lawyers, it is trying to enact caps on damages that injured people can recover and trying to restrict class-action lawsuits. With the case of public schools, it is supporting charter schools with taxpayer money and putting more and more requirements on public schools while exempting private schools from the same requirements.

This explains why the Internet freaks out the GOP as a fund-raising tool for Democrats and progressives. It is almost impossible to shut down the Internet for just one group of political donors. Even the Republican dominated U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't stand for that. Which is why, of course, House Republicans are all of a sudden interested in applying McCain-Feingold to 527 organizations that solicit on the web. It's not because of a concern for good government, it is because of a concern that GOP hegemony is threatened.

The next time you hear a GOP candidate talking about attacking unions, trial lawyers, or public schools, just remember that more than philosophy is at work. It's not only the philosophy, it's the money.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

DeWine, Tax Cuts, & Employment

In a statement on the Plain Dealer's blog, OPEN, Senator DeWine claims that he supports tax cuts because they lead to the creation of jobs. This reason is often offered by Republicans to explain why we should keep pouring tax cut upon tax cut on the wealthy while the Federal Goverment runs billions of dollars in deficits.

Although this job creation line is always parroted by tax cuts supporters, they never offer any evidence to back up this claim. Indeed, if job creation is casued by tax cuts, then why have so many jobs left Ohio? Since 2000 we have seen tax cuts at the Federal level and tax cuts at the state level, yet our unemployment rate has barely moved. Between 2003-2005 employment increased in Ohio by .1%, while it increased in the United States as a whole by 2.2%. Shouldn't the Republican tax cuts be kicking in and helping Ohio's economy?

Of course, whether Ohio's employment rate will ever benefit from Republican tax cuts depends on whether the underlying rationale for such tax cuts is sound. Republican rationale for tax cuts is that tax-payers will take their tax cuts and invest them in new jobs. There is, however, a fatal flaw in such reasoning.

The flaw is that employment doesn't depend on how much money the employer has, it depends on what it costs to hire a person versus the money that such person can make his/her employer. If an employer decides that hiring a person makes economic sense in terms of the income generated by such employee outweighing the cost of such employee, then the person is hired. If, however, the cost of such employee is not as great as anticipated revenue, then the employer is not going to make the hire.

Another way that tax cuts could lead to more economic activity would be if taxpayers used the tax cuts to purchase goods and services. There is scant evidence, however, that wealthy taxpayers, who received most of the benefit from Bush's tax cuts are using the money to purchase goods and services they otherwise wouldn't purchase. Indeed, most of the wealthy taxpayers are investing their tax cuts, not spending them.

So, the next time a Republican claims that tax cuts are good for the economy, we think reporters should ask, "Oh yeah? Prove it."
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

DeWine Votes to Privatize Social Security

Last Thursday Senator Mike DeWine voted to privatize Social Security and eliminate Disability Benefits and Survivors' Benefits for widows, widowers and orphans when he voted for an unsuccessful amendment (Senate Amendment 3087) to the budget resolution sponsored by Senator DeMint of South Carolina. The majority of Ohioans do not want Social Security privatized and there is no evidence that they want Survivors' and Disability benefits eliminated. Senator Voinovich also did not stand up for Medina County as he was the only Senator not to vote on the issue.

Why would Senator DeWine cast a vote to eliminate social security benefits? We think it is because he is facing a right-wing challenge in the Republican primary. To fend off that challenge, Senator DeWine is willing to sell out ordinary Ohioans. Senator DeWine has shown that he is not on our side. When you vote in May and November remember that Senator DeWine stands for the elimination of social security benefits.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.

Rant of the Week: Why Dems Should Push Balanced Budget

When Bush took over from Clinton the Federal government was running a surplus. After five complete years of Bush's economic policies the Federal government is running record deficits. Republicans used to describe Democrats as "tax and spend" liberals. The Bush administration is made up of "borrow and spend" conservatives. Given the Bush's administration record, it should be easy for Democrats to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, but we aren't. Why?

For some reason Democrats are afraid to push for a balanced budget. It seems to us that Democrats in the House and Senate are afraid that if they push for a balanced budget, the Republicans will use that as an excuse to do away with social programs. Consequently, while they attack Republicans for the fiscal insanity they have visited on America, they don't have a simple, coherent message for the American people.

The message they should be sending is that we need to balance the budget and quit running up huge deficits. Given the records of the Clinton and Bush administrations regarding fiscal policy, it is a message that we can believably deliver. Delivering this message allows us to talk about reckless tax cuts, the transfer of wealth that takes place when tax revenues are used for interest payments that go to the rich and not programs for the middle class, and about how the Chinese are buying a bigger and bigger share of our national debt.

Is there a risk to such a strategy? Sure, but we need to change what we are doing to win elections. We need to take definite stands and tell the American people why they should trust us with the national goverment. Balancing the budget is a good place to start.

Reader Rant: Gazette Editorial on Medina Municipal Clerk Election Overlooks Important Details

The recent Medina Gazette Clerk of Courts editorial history lesson was long on history but short on math. There are $26,000 important points that weren’t made in the Gazette’s editorial. Medina County Municipal Clerk of Courts, Lori Henry, performs her job for $64,000 per year. Chuck Calvert and Jane Leaver want the Medina County taxpayers to pay $90.057 per year for exactly the same job, but with one of their friends cashing the paycheck. Remember, incumbent Clerk Henry isn’t asking for a $26,000 raise. Chuck and Jane are. They want you to pay more for the job because their Republican friends like to make $90,057 per year instead of the $64,000 that Ms. Henry agreed to when she accepted the position.

Chuck and Jane undoubtedly assume that one of their very well funded politically astute Republican friends will be able to beat Ms. Henry in an election because Ms. Henry is not a politician and has never run in an election and doesn’t have the fundraising base and lobbyist money that get politicians like Jane and Chuck elected in Ohio. Lori is a Clerk – not a politician. Chuck and Jane may be right in their belief that Lori’s excellent job performance and low cost mean little or nothing to their donor and lobbyist base, but the $26,000 increase may seem important to the voters and to Judge Chase who appointed Lori to the position.

It is true that Chuck and Jane have terribly powerful and extremely wealthy supporters who will fund the campaign of their Republican friend with mountains of money and lots of back-room arm twisting. They probably think it will be like taking candy from a baby; because, after all, all they have to do is beat a Clerk out of her job and the taxpayers out of $26,000.

galishus@yahoo.com
___________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave us permission to run his letter on our blog.

Judge Kovack Educates the Public About Divorce & Finances

Do you know what happens financially if there is a divorce? Most people don't. Medina County Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack is changing that by holding free public seminars sponsored by the Medina County Committee for Informed Citizens.

The first seminar, "Surviving the Chaos: Saving Your Finances From Disaster After Divorce", was held on March 6th. Judge Kovack and her presenters spoke to a near capacity crowd at the County Adminstration Building. They covered topics such as what to expect from the divorce and dissolution process, tax consequences of separation agreements, how to calculate child support, and how businesses are valued in a divorce. The panel then took questions from the audience. Questions were asked about pensions, income for child support, parenting issues, domestic violence, as well as the presented topics.

When asked if she would hold more seminars, Judge Kovack answered: "The tremendous positive response to this seminar tells me that we need to conduct more seminars to give the public the information it needs." Judge Kovack and the CIC have already announced the date for the next seminar.

The next seminar will be held on April 24, 2006, at 7:00 pm at the Medina County Administration Building at 144 North Broadway Street in Medina. "Working 7 to 3: How Working Families Can Survive Divorce." The seminar is free and open to the public. Child-care will be provided. If you know anyone going through a divorce, or thinking about a divorce, this seminar is for you. For more information, call 330-764-1935 or visit the web site: www.judgemarykovack.org .
___________________________________________________________________

Rant of the Week: Dewine is a Bush Enabler

One of the problems Democrats have in this year's election for U.S. Senate is the common perception spread by the media that Mike DeWine is some kind of "moderate." They cite to his joining the so-called "Gang of 14" and his votes against drilling in the Artic Reserve. Since the media seems to love so-called "moderates", they usually stop their analysis at that point. Result" DeWine gets to seem like he is a Senator who is willing to break with his party.

This image, like so much else of the media's analysis, is false. DeWine is really a Bush enabler. Like the family member of an alcoholic who gives the drunk money to buy booze, DeWine gives his vote to Bush when it counts.

Irresponsible tax cuts? DeWine votes with Bush. Huge budget deficits? DeWine votes with Bush. Support for CAFTA? DeWine is there for his man Bush. Voting to authorize the Iraqi War? Check another vote for Bush from DeWine. Helping to cover up Bush's violation of the law in the NSA warrant-less spying scandal? Once again, DeWine is there for Bush.

In fact, it is impossible to find a major issue, except for Artic drilling, where DeWine has split with Bush, no matter what the consequences for Ohio. Ohio Democrats need to get the word out: when it comes to voting Bush's way, DeWine is no moderate and Ohio can do better.
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.

Reader Rant: GOP Cuts Social Programs, Gives Break to Big Oil

Okay, who is in favor of giving more money to the oil and gas companies after they just announced the largest profits ever? Who thinks loans (not grants) to help defray education costs should be eliminated? Who thinks our military veterans should have their health insurance premiums rise by 100 or 200%? Who thinks that centers for traumatic brain injuries should cut back operations or close permanently? Who thinks educational programs about Alzheimer's are frivolous and should be eliminated? Who finds no use in a national registry for Lou Gehrig's disease? Who is in favor of terminating the entire budget of the Christopher and Dana Reeve paralysis center? Who thinks it isn't worth it to spend money on screening newborns and training emergency personnel to care for children? Who thinks preventative health projects begun by Ronald Reagan are worthless? Who thinks money spent for child safety seats for indigent children, research on E.coli, identification of West Nile Virus, and cardiovascular health programs are wastes of taxpayers' money?

The answer should be no one. Most likely every one of us has been or will be touched by one or more of the programs above. Every one of us has paid more for gasoline. So who has decided to give the oil companies $7 billion in tax exemptions regarding royalties they would normally pay the federal government?

The answer to all my questions is none other than George W. Bush and the Republican puppy dogs in the Congress and Senate. Our Ohio Republican leaders also favor these cuts.
If you favor all these cuts then by all means re-elect those in Columbus and Washington who feel programs like these have no value. Otherwise, choose carefully when voting and research who really thinks independently like you and me.
dlojackman@alo.com
____________________________________________________________________

Reader Rant: Trust in short supply

It is very disturbing to hear the right-wing parrots as they try to justify the illegalities of George W. Bush by saying that ``we just need to trust our president.'' It is very difficult to trust a president, as well as an administration, that has an unwavering record of deceit and an endless bag of evil tricks to stifle dissent -- from the ``town hall'' meetings that are thoroughly screened to remove any possibility of dissenting voices to retribution against whistle-blowers who simply tell the truth.

In hundreds of known incidents and probably thousands of unknown ones, the president and his cronies have used their position as an opportunity to suppress democracy and to destroy the very principles this country was founded on. At no time in America's history, which has spanned two world wars and decades of the Cold War, has our country been more at risk of losing its freedoms than it is right now. Sad to say, it is not because of Osama bin Laden, but because of Bush, who continues an unprecedented quest to achieve absolute and unquestioned power -- power that he and is minions have usurped with complete disregard for the Constitution.

As the right-wing couch patriots cower in fear of Osama bin Laden, our own president is working tirelessly to undermine our rights. With presidents like George W. Bush, who needs to fear enemies like bin Laden

ozmanian@msn.com
____________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave MCDAC permission to run the letter in our "blog".

Reader Rant: Medina County GOP Supports Troops When It's Convenient

We are fighting in Iraq because a Republican president told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which, it turned out, didn't exist, and a Republican-controlled Congress went along with him.
Now that Medina County Auditor Mike Kovack is called up to service because of this war, a member of the Medina County Republican Party is running against him and claims that because he is overseas serving his country, he isn't providing "leadership" in the auditor's office. A claim, by the way, she doesn't back up with one shred of evidence. Does this make sense to anyone other than die-hard Republican partisans?

Republicans constantly tell us that we should support our troops, and that questioning any aspect of how President Bush is conducting this war is not supporting our troops. Well, the Medina County Republican Party has shown us how much they care for supporting our troops when it interferes with their quest for political dominance in this county.

tlsmda@zoominternet.net
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave us permission to run her letter.

Reader Rant: Bush Administration Helps Friends, Shortchanges Troops

Recently the press reported a Pentagon study that asserted that 80% of American casualties in Iraq could have been avoided had the troops been equipped with the proper body armor. That report immediately reminded me of the young man who, during a staged press conference with Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq, rose and asked Rumsfeld if his promises of the best support possible were true, why were they picking through junk heaps looking for metal to reinforce their vehicles against IED's.

It seems that these two events in themselves would reveal the utter cynicism and deceitfulness of this Republican administration. Contrast this serious, factual, and uncontested lack of support for our troops with the rhetoric of the administration. They portray our fighting men and women as heroes. They try to convince the country that they are fighting to keep us safe, bring democracy to the Middle East, bring freedom to the Iraqui people and defeat terrorism. As their polls sink their rhetoric rises. However, consider the following:

Beginning with Ronald Reagan the Republicans established as part of their firm beliefs and principles that "privatization" is the direction the federal government should seek. Everyone knows the rhetoric; 'private industry is more efficient, cost effective, etc., than big government.' In reality it means giving huge government contracts to repay people who have contributed to your treasury and put you in office. It means huge profits for friends of politicians.

Based on this principle, the Bush administration allows the lives of our fighting men and women to be exposed to deadly force - all for the sake of profit. Instead of properly preparing for the war to make sure everyone is armed as best possible, or immediately opening government plants (as happened in WWII) to quickly produce the best armor, they have allowed our men and women to fight with substandard armor, allowed limited capacity of production, and given the market entirely to their friends in private industry so that they can have handsome wartime profits.

Parents, children, spouses, etc. have had to order this armor from private companies and send it to their loved ones. Is it not the height of cynicism, sending your own troops into battle knowing full well that they are poorly protected simply because "privatization" financially benefits a few friends? Is it not the height of deceitfulness and dishonesty for this administration to make critics of the war look unpatriotic and non-supportive of the troops when they knowingly deprive our troops of proper protection for the sake of profits? I wonder what that 80% thought when they read the report of their own leadership in the Pentagon. This simply shows that for the sake of profit the Republican Party will do anything.

cwpfeiffer@zoominternet.net

Reader Rant: Republican Off Target Attacking Mike Kovack

Medina County’s Auditor, Michael Kovack, was called up to active duty by the Navy Reserves. He has filed for re-election. His opponent, Republican Holly Goodyear, stated in Friday’s (2/17/2006) Gazette that the auditor’s office is “without a leader.”

Well, I’ve been a Medina County resident for almost two years now, and I believe I’ve never lived anywhere else where the auditor’s office did such a good job of communicating with the public. I received a postcard after the first of the year notifying me of the changes to my taxes that were on the horizon, so I could prepare for the bill in February. I have had occasion to do numerous searches of the auditor’s website, and have always been able to find the necessary information. I was even able to renew my dog’s license on-line. In short, the quality of service from the auditor’s office does not seem to have suffered one bit with the physical absence of Mr. Kovack. If the Gazette was able to reach him by phone, he is clearly not out of touch.

I find it disturbing and disrespectful that the Republican candidate, the candidate of the party that is responsible for our armed forces being stretched to the breaking point, is giving the Democratic candidate a difficult time about his service to our country.

karlasrobinson@zoominternet.net
__________________________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave us permission to reprint her letter.

Rant of the Week: GOP Congress says Oral Sex is Bad, Violating the Constitution is Okay

GOP Congress: Oral Sex is Bad, Violating the Constitution is Okay

Every Republican member of the House of Representatives, which includes Congressman Ralph Regula of Canton, and every Republican Senator, which includes both Mike DeWine and George Voinovich should be asked this question: how do you justify impeaching a president who lied in a civil lawsuit deposition about oral sex, but then refuse to back hearings about the NSA warrant-less spying that could violate the U.S. Constitution?

Let's see: Clinton's lies about oral sex potentially prejudiced one person, Paula Jones, who was suing him in a civil lawsuit that was eventually settled. Bush's NSA warrant-less spying potentially violated the rights of thousands of Americans. One warrants an impeachment and the other doesn't even warrant a hearing? Does that make any sense?

This Bush NSA spying program, and the Republican Congress's failure to oversee this program, shows the attitude of the Republican Party that drives people nuts. The attitude is that "The rules don't apply to us. They apply to you, but not to us." Whether it is warrant-less spying, holding votes open in the House of Representatives for hours so members can be cajoled, bribed, or threatened, or not buying a hunting stamp in Texas, the motivation is the same: "We don't have to play by the rules."

Now, while that is the motivation of the GOP, there is no reason why Democrats have to go along. Democratic politicians and candidates should constantly point out to the media, and to voters, when Republicans refuse to follow the rules. We should put it in simple language such as "You believed that a president should be impeached for lying about oral sex, but you don't think that a president should be investigated for violating the Constitution?" We should keep asking this, and other questions, over and over again until the media finally starts demanding that Republicans play by the rules they delight in imposing on others.
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the reprinting of the above without attribution.