Sunni Insurgents Targeting Iraq Christians

If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read a depressing account of how Iraqi Sunni insurgents are cleaning out Christians from a Baghdad neighbor. How? By telling them they either convert to Islam, pay a tax, or be killed. They are moving out, leaving their houses behind, which are then taken over by Sunni Muslims.

It is pretty apparent that there is no government in Iraq and no security for anyone not connected to a militia. The United States went in, destroyed the existing government, didn't replace it, and now it is stuck in a vicious civil war. Well, here's our question: why is this our problem? Why, if Iraqis are intent on killing each other, do we have troops in Iraq who are caught in the middle?

The presence of Americans in Iraq doesn't necessarily lead to ethnic and sectarian cleansing of Baghdad neighbors. It happens because a substantial number of Iraqis are willing to kill other Iraqis over religion. Now, this is not something unique to Iraqis.

Think about the conflicts between the Protestants and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. There you had a minority of the total population of the island that is Ireland, the Protestants, who had political and eocnomic power over Roman Catholic Irish who were a minority in Northen Ireland. This imbalance of power produced a lot of conflict over several generations. The efforts of the British to contain it were somewhat successful, but it didn't end until the people of Northern Ireland made it clear to their leaders they wanted a resolution of the conflict.

You have a very similar situation in Iraq. A minority who controlled the country both economically and politically lost power when we overthrew Hussein. Now, this minority and majority are settling their differences by violence. It may end soon, it may continue for generations, but until the Iraqis themselves want it to end, it won't end, no matter what we do or don't do.

In this horrible mess we can only control what we do, not what others do. Our government's first obligation is to protect our security, and not waste our military forces by being bogged down in Iraq. It is not our government's obligation to bring democracy to Iraq, or bring peace to its inhabitants, no matter how worthy those goals. It is also not our government's obligation to make sure that American oil companies have access to Iraq's natural resources. And it is definitely not our government's obligation to make sure that the Saudi royal family is happy with us. It is long past time for this government and this President to put Americans first.

Once Again George Voinovich Puts Drug Company Profits Ahead of Ohioans' Pocketbook

Yesterday, the Senate voted 49-40 to adopt an amendment to legislation that prevented consumers from importing cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. You can see how the Senators voted here.

Senator Sherrod Brown voted with consumers and Voinovich didn't. It's really that simple. Oh, sure, George V. is going to say that it was to make sure that consumers are safe because the FDA doesn't regulate or police prescription drugs in foreign countries. Of course, earlier this year he voted against giving the Federal Government the power to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare. You can see that vote here.

If Choice "A" is making drug companies happy, and Choice "B" is making consumers happy, line up George V. on the side of the drug companies.

Pelosi Threatens Legal Action Over Signing Statements

Nancy Pelosi is threatening to sue Bush if he uses a signing statement to get around complying with a future Iraq War spending bill. This is from a report in The Hill newspaper:

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.

This is not going to be easy. Americans are fond of repeating the cliche that the United States has three separate and co-equal branches of government. This is not exactly correct. The judicial branch of government exists to resolve disputes, but before any dispute can be resolved it has to be a dispute that is susceptible to judicial resolution.

Courts have been very reluctant to get involved in struggles between the other two branches of government. This is because courts have very blunt instruments to assert their will.

When a court issues a judgment it is issuing a piece of paper. If the paper isn't followed, then the issuing court can, in appropriate cases, use its contempt to enforce its ruling. In the final analysis the contempt power depends on the willingness of the issuing court to jail someone who doesn't follow its order because putting someone in jail to enforce an order is the ultimate power to get compliance.

Now, put yourself in the position of a Federal Court Judge who is being asked to compel Bush to either follow a congressionally enacted bill or face what??? Is a Federal Judge really going to jail Bush over not following congressional legislation when the Congress can force its will on Bush by either impeachment or cutting off funding totally? Our guess is no, a Federal Judge is not going to put himself or herself in that position. Our guess is that the Federal courts will find a way to avoid the whole situation by either saying that Congress doesn't have standing, or that this controversy is not one capable of judicial resolution.

United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once warned his fellow Supreme Court Justices not to enter a "political thicket" by taking on the issue of gerrymandering, see Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Well, if legislative redistricting is a "thicket", then trying to compel a President to obey a Congressional enactment would be a veritable freaking forest.

Number of Marriages of Republican vs Democratic Presidential Candidates

Next time you hear some wing-nut telling you how "moral" the Republicans are and how much they like families lay this one on them:

Top Five Republicans in Polls

Giuliani
McCain
Thompson
Gingrich
Romney

Top Five Democrats in Polls

Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Gore
Richardson

Number of Republican Marriages

Giuliani-3
McCain-2
Thompson-2
Gingrich-3
Romney-1

Total: 10

Number of Democratic Marriages

Clinton-1
Obama-1
Edwards-1
Gore-1
Richardson-1

Total: 5

As one commentator said, "The Republicans are the most maritally challenged presidential candidates in the history of the Republic."

Ohio State Democratic Party Dinner Tickets Available

Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic County Chair....
I still have a few tickets available for the Ohio Democratic Party State Dinner, this Saturday, with Senator Hillary Clinton. Tickets are $150. Email pamelabmiller@gmail.com or call 330-725-7487.

Why Is the Media Still Calling It A Surge?

Opening paragraphs of article in Washington Post:

The Pentagon announced yesterday that 35,000 soldiers in 10 Army combat brigades will begin deploying to Iraq in August as replacements, making it possible to sustain the increase of U.S. troops there until at least the end of this year.

U.S. commanders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that heightened troop levels, announced by President Bush in January, will need to last into the spring of 2008. The military has said it would assess in September how well its counterinsurgency strategy, intended to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, is working.

Definition of surge from online version of Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Pronunciation:
\ˈsərj\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
surged; surg·ing
1 : to rise and fall actively : toss 2 : to rise and move in waves or billows : swell 3 : to slip around a windlass, capstan, or bitts — used especially of a rope 4 : to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value 5 : to move with a surge or in surges transitive verb : to let go or slacken gradually (as a rope)

Something that takes months to accomplish and is going to last for months is not a "surge" in the most accepted definition of the word. What is really happening is that the Bush Administration is escalating the number of troops in Iraq in hopes of holding things together until the next president is sworn in. Then, Bush can go down to Crawford, play at being a cowboy, and write his memoirs.

We know why the Bushies want to call it a surge. To call it an escalation, when the American public is increasingly soured on Bubble-Boy's foreign adventure, would be political suicide, but why is the media using the same term? Just because the Bush Administration wants to call this troop increase something that it's not doesn't mean that the media has to play along with it.

You can read the whole Post article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.

Ford Repays Union Concessions with Closing of Foundry Plant

This is the opening paragraph in the Cleveland Plain Dealer's story on the closing of the Ford foundry plant in Brook Park, Ohio:

"Barely a year after workers agreed to concessions to guarantee new work at Ford Motor Co.'s foundry in Brook Park, the automaker announced Monday it will close that factory in 2009."

And where are the jobs going? "Joe Hinrichs, Ford's vice president for North American manufacturing, said the company is getting out of the foundry business altogether, sending that work to a series of suppliers in Canada, Europe and South America."

This part of the story explains what happened:

"A year ago, the Brook Park plants were among the first to agree to new work rules that make it easier for Ford to outsource work and move workers between different jobs. In return, the casting plant was supposed to get the engine block for a 6.2-liter V-8 engine to be used in upcoming pickups and SUVs.

"Ford Motor Co. told us if we passed the competitive operating agreement and put ourselves in a more-competitive position, we'd get new work," said UAW Local 1250 President Tim Levandusky.

He said he knew Ford would have trouble keeping that promise a few months after the company made it. Instead of using cast iron, the automaker wanted to make the engine block with a newer graphite technology that would have meant expensive upgrades at the plant."

Oh, one other thing, while Ford and GM are outsourcing casting operations, guess who isn't? "Ford's biggest foreign-owned competitors, Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Co., avoid outsourcing engine components because of the need to guarantee quality on those vital parts". By the way, Toyota is kicking Ford's butt on sales of vehicles.

Don't worry, though. Some writer like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who married an heiress from a billionaire's family, will tell us why globalization is good for us and why we should be happy that Ohio has lost hundred of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Of course, he doesn't have to worry about losing his job, or does he? After all, couldn't the NYT find pompous windbags in India who would do his job for a fraction of the cost?

Click on the link in this entry's title to read the whole PD article.

Where Did Mikey Get His Money?

The picture to the left is from www.politicalmoneyline.com and can be viewed here. The information concerns where Richard Michael DeWine got his money. (Did you know that his first name was Richard? Neither did we. We will avoid the obvious in-bad-taste puns.)

According to Political Moneyline, his biggest single source was from what they call "Single-Issue" Groups, followed by people and organizations engaged in "Finance/Insurance", "Health Care", "Communications/Technology", "Business-Retail, Services."

Organized labor gave DeWine $42,500 and public employees gave him $5,000.00.

Interestingly enough organizations and individuals allied with the legal system were 10th on DeWine's list of groups financing his election. We find that interesting because DeWine is an attorney. You think that he would have done better with attorneys and law firms. Makes us feel better about our profession.

The single biggest category of employers listed? Homemakers. Yep, homemakers. Women just staying at home, making brownies, and writing checks to Mike DeWine.

Anyway, that's our report on where Mikey got his money.

Bias at Politico?

If you have ever read the online newspaper Politico, you might find this article by Glen Greenwald in Salon Magazine to be interesting. Greenwald points out that the CEO of Politico is also also the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Not only that, but he worked for Reagan as Assistant to the President. He donated money to George W. Bush. He also works for the company that is financing Politico. Interestingly none of the major mainstream media outlets that reported on the recent Republican Presidential debate that was held last week at the Reagan Library reported on the ties of the Library's Chair to either Politico or to Ronald Reagan.

Now, why wouldn't they report on these facts? Well, maybe because the elephant in the room that readers aren't supposed to comment on is the issue of the political bias of owners of media companies. We are supposed to believe that reporters never worry about what their bosses think and that they will print the truth regardless of the biases of their bosses.

Frankly we don't buy it because reporters, editors, and other people involved in the news business are human. They want to keep their jobs. They know the biases of their supervisors and the owners of the media companies where they work. They know the culture of the organizations where they work. They know how far they can go with their opinions and their writing. This is especially true with organizations where reporters and other staff personnel are not protected by a collective bargaining agreement.

This is not to say that all organizations police the stories of their reporters, but it is to say that such biases are a legitimate subject of discussion. Only that discussion can't take place if news media organizations act as if it doesn't ever happen or demonize those who argue that the media emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

American Foreign Policy Post-WW II

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a very interesting article that appeared online at www.AmericanDiplomacy.org . The author of the article argues that American foreign policy tends to veer between pragmatist and idealistic goals in foreign policy. He also argues that America gets into trouble when its resources, both human and financial, don't match its idealistic goals.

He points out, for example, that initially American foreign policy was to limit the containment of communism to Europe where America had troops stationed and where it had allies for such an effort. Then, after China went communist, Truman began to expand the zone of American resistance to communist expansion. He expanded it to include Southeast Asia. This led to American involvement in the Korean War, and the beginning of assistance to the French, who were fighting communist backed guerrillas in Indochina and assistance to the Filipino government, which was fighting a guerrilla movement of its own.

When Eisenhower was elected, however, it meant that there was a return to a more realistic foreign policy. Eisenhower decided not to try and liberate North Korea; decided not to get involved in the French war in Indochina; and decided not to make any attempts to overthrow the Chinese government. In fact, by stressing nuclear weapons in its defense policy, Eisenhower was trying to cut back on defense spending, which actually went down under Eisenhower.

And on it went, Kennedy-Johnson representing a more idealistic side to American foreign policy, Nixon representing a more realistic side; Carter shifted toward idealistic side with his emphasis on human rights; and Reagan represented the idealistic side with his desire to overthrow communist governments.

Clinton came into office without any foreign policy experience, with a world where the Soviet Union no longer existed, and with apparently no grand vision of how American foreign policy should be conducted. During his administration, however, the neo-cons began to put together a foreign policy based on idealistic goals. Goals that, as we have found out, did not match the resources of the United States.

What happened after 9-11-2001 was a perfect storm combining a president who didn't have any vision of his own; a public that was traumatized by what happened that day; and a group of influential neo-cons who had a vision of what they wanted to accomplish, especially in the oil rich Middle East. This combination led to the Iraqi War, which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars; over 3,000 American lives; thousands wounded; and a unknown number of Iraqis.

Democrats need to start talking about a "realistic" foreign policy. We need to have a vision of what we indeed to accomplish and how that vision matches up with our resources, both human and financial. Americans are going to be ready for a foreign policy that is based on realistic goals because the foreign policy we have had recently will have left a very sour taste in their mouths.

Voinovich on Iraq: "Everybody got conned."

On May 1, we ran an entry about how George Voinovich likes to criticize Bush but when the chips are down, he is going to back the President. We argued then that one reason why he does this is so he will appear to be a "moderate" Republican. His so-called "moderation" serves him well with the media, as can be seen in this column in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch.

Joe Hallett reveals how Voinovich visited Colin Powell about two weeks ago to urge him to run for President in 2008. Apparently Voinovich believes that handing the American government over to a man who appeared in the United Nations and talked about non-existent weapons of mass destruction will somehow restore America's credibility with the world.

Hallett goes on to say "We all got conned -- everybody," Voinovich said, not blaming Powell or anyone else in particular, but lamenting that the right questions were not asked of the right people in the run-up to war."

Of course, "everybody" didn't get "conned". Sherrod Brown didn't. Dennis Kucinich didn't. A lot of commentators didn't. The "everybody" that Voinovich is referring to does include a lot of Democrats, but to try and pass this disaster off as something that was unforeseen is wrong, and more than wrong. it is dishonest.

Here's why Republicans like Voinovich want to claim that "everybody" got "conned." If everybody was wrong then Republicans can't be fairly blamed for getting us in a war that didn't do one thing to advance American security and has done so much to undermine American security. Claiming "everybody" was wrong is a way of making sure that in 2008, and beyond, Americans don't just blame the Grand Old Party for this Great Big Mess.

The real question isn't why Voinovich is claiming that "everybody" was wrong. The real question is whether the media will let him and other Republicans get away with it. One reason why the "right" questions weren't asked by the "right" people is that the Republicans controlled the Congress and weren't about to let anyone question Bubble-Boy's rationale for taking us into war in Iraq.

Democrats have to be vigilant in making sure that variations of "everybody got conned" don't go unchallenged in 2008. The media, which was complicit in the run up to the Iraqi War, and the Republicans, who wanted this war, each have a vested interest in pushing this narrative. Democrats have a vested interest in making sure this narrative doesn't go unchallenged.

Congresswoman Sutton Making an Impact in DC on Trade

Picture at left: Congresswoman Betty Sutton with Democrats at the Medina County Democratic Party Spring Gala.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer had a story about Congresswoman Betty Sutton, (D-OH13), in last Thursday's edition of the paper. The article talks about how Sutton is making a difference on trade issues in D.C. This is from the article:

Barely two weeks after her swearing-in last January, the freshman Democrat from Copley Township drafted a polite but pointed letter to one of the most powerful committee chairmen in the House. The letter said she and other freshmen wanted to be consulted on a "critically important" issue: President Bush's "misguided trade agenda."
Sutton corralled signatures from 39 of 42 Democratic freshmen. And her work paid off. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel met with the group in March to hear their views on revamping the nation's trade policy.

The article by Elizabeth Auster goes on to note that Sutton believes that many new Democratic Representatives, not only from the midwest, but from other areas of the country, believe that part of the reason for their victories was a belief among Americans that our country is losing out because of unfair trade competition.

Sutton's work is important because there are pending trade deals with several countries and Bush's fast track authority on trade agreements ends on June 30th. Once that fast track authority is gone, it will be significantly harder for this administration to get trade agreements passed in Congress, especially one that is Democratic. If you believe that Sutton is right about trade, contact your local Representative to Congress and tell him or her to support fair trade, not free trade.

Reporters Can Dish It Out, But Can They Take It?

Deborah Howell is the ombudsman for the Washington Post. She has a column in which she writes about readers' concerns over articles and editorials that appear in the Post. This last week, she had a column discussing the comments section that appears at the end of Post articles that appear online. This quote is from her column: Complaints first came from the newsroom. Reporters don't appreciate the often rude feedback, which I get, too. (A sample reader comment on my column last week: "I think we can all agree after reading Howell's lame comments week after week that the Post should save money by eliminating her position entirely. She is worse than a dupe.")

No one likes to receive criticism, not reporters, not politicians, so the reaction of reporters is a common human reaction. Here's the thing, though, in the past, reporters were insulated from readers' reaction to a much greater degree than today. As Howell notes at the start of her column: Not so long ago, the only way to talk back to The Post was to write a civil letter to the editor, with a verifiable name and address, or to contact the ombudsman. This meant that a person had to sit down, write or type the letter, mail it, and hope that someone in the paper actually read it. Further, there was no way to know if the person who read it was going to actually show it to the reporter who wrote the article.

Now, however, not only can readers post comments at the end of Post articles, but they can also send emails to the reporters who wrote the article. This is because the Post, like most newspapers with websites post the email addresses of the reporter writing the article. Like in so many areas, this means that the Internet is changing the relationship between reporters and their readers. No longer do readers have to be passive in their relationship with a newspaper. Now, like with blogs, they can be interactive with the newspaper.

Reporters are not used to reader accountability. They are used to employer accountability, but not reader accountability. A lot of them tend to be people who are much better at dishing out criticism than receiving it. Maybe they will come to have more appreciation for the people they write about. Maybe they will realize how hurtful a thoughtless comment can be, whether it appears in the comments section of a newspaper posted by a reader, or in an article written by a reporter.

In any event, the next time you read an article online that you disagree with, or one that you like, take an extra minute to see if there is a comments section or an email address for the writer. If there is, then leave a comment or write an email. Refrain from vulgar, obscene, or threatening language, but don't be afraid to give the writer your reaction. If Howell's column is any indication, reporters apparently read them.

Clinton Appealing More to Women Donors While Obama Targets Younger Professionals

The Washington Post has an interesting story today about Clinton stepping up her appeals to women donors. The Clinton campaign has decided that women donors are an untapped resource for political contributions. The Clinton campaign is developing explicit strategies to solicit donations from women, different from those used to solicit from men.

Meanwhile the Obama campaign is targeting what it calls "Generation O" for political donations. While the campaign believes that such donors can't always give the maximum donations, they can give donations in the $500 range. The Obama campaign, two days after announcing its first-quarter fundraising totals, announced that it had received contributions from another 40,000 people via the internet. If those contributions averaged just $25.00 per donation, that would be another $1,000,000.00 raised via the internet.

All of this is good for both the Democratic Party in particular and progressives in general. Once people get active politically a lot of them stay active. People who get involved in presidential campaigns in 2008 will be people that can be motivated for future campaigns. Not all of them, to be sure, but enough of them to make a difference in future campaigns. What is sometimes overlooked is that campaigning is like any other activity, the more you do it, the better you become at it. Volunteers who participate next year in the 2008 presidential campaign will be more experienced when they help out in future campaigns.

Further, since presidential campaigns have to list their donors, local party and progressive organizations will have the ability to access these donors for other campaigns. People who make political donations in 2008 will be people who might make such donations in the future.

You can click on the link in this entry's title to read the Washington Post article.

Bob Woodward Covering for the Bushies?

This is from the opening paragraphs of Bob Woodward's review of the new book of memoirs by George Tenet in the Washington Post:

In his remarkable, important and often unintentionally damning memoir, George Tenet, the former CIA chief, describes a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, two months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In much more vivid and emotional detail than previously reported, Tenet writes that he had received intelligence that day, July 10, 2001, about the threat from al-Qaeda that "literally made my hair stand on end."

According to At the Center of the Storm, Tenet picked up the phone, insisted on meeting with Rice about the threat from al-Qaeda, and raced to the White House with his counter-terrorism deputy, Cofer Black, and a briefer known only as "Rich B."

There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months," Rich B. told Rice, and the attack would be "spectacular." Black added, "This country needs to go on a war footing now." He said that President Bush should give the CIA new covert action authorities to go after Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. After the meeting, Tenet's briefer and deputy "congratulated each other," Tenet writes. "At last, they felt, we had gotten the full attention of the administration."

Though Tenet was meeting almost daily with President Bush to give him an intelligence briefing and an update on threat reports -- "extraordinary access," he labels it -- by his own account he did not take the request for action "now" directly to the president.

Do you notice what's missing from the quotes above? What exactly did Rice do with this information? She was the National Security Adviser. It was her duty to take this information to the President and to make sure that the national security of the United States was protected. No doubt that the U.S. would have been better served if Tenet had taken his concerns directly to Bush, but the fact that he didn't doesn't in any way excuse Rice if she didn't. So what does Tenet say Rice did with the information Tenet gave her? We don't know because Woodward doesn't tell us that part of Tenet's story.

Woodward goes on in that vein for the rest of the review. According to him, the problem wasn't that Bush, Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld either misused or didn't use the information that they were given. The problem is that Tenet didn't make his case clearer and/or didn't make it directly to Bush.

This is how Woodward sees as Tenet's failure concerning Iraq:

But the other critical intelligence assessment he didn't carry to the Oval Office -- surely the most critical of his career -- was his misgivings about invading Iraq. As I reported in my third book on Bush, State of Denial, in the months before the invasion in the fall of 2002, Tenet confided to one of his top aides, John O. Brennan, that he thought it was not the right thing to do. "This is a mistake," Tenet told Brennan.

But he never said as much to the commander in chief. And he doesn't say it to readers of his memoir. *

There is no doubt that in a lot of ways, George Tenet screwed up concerning how he handled this administration. In no way, however, do his mistakes excuse the mistakes of the Bush Administration. The real problem wasn't Tenet, the real problem was Bush.

Newsweek Poll Shows that George W. Bush is a Drag on GOP

This is from an article on the Newsweek website:

May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Here is some interesting observations about the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls from the poll:

While the poll has some high marks for Clinton, it’s not all good news. Though the New York senator and former first lady aims to project an aura of inevitability that she will win the Democratic nomination, Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent.

Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll’s margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney.

According to the poll, where Clinton does well is among Democrats:

Where Clinton remains the undisputed champ is among Democrats. When matched against her main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is the choice of 51 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters over Obama’s 39 percent; and she defeats Edwards 57 percent to 38 percent. Obama has not substantially narrowed Clinton’s lead since the early March NEWSWEEK poll, where he trailed Clinton by 14 points. Edwards has narrowed Clinton’s lead over him though. Back in March Edwards trailed Clinton by 31 points; now her lead is down to 19 points.

On the Republican side, McCain is cutting into Giuliani's lead:

Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner, might want to look over his shoulder too. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, Giuliani leads McCain 56 percent to 41 percent (15 points). But two months ago in the NEWSWEEK Poll, Giuliani held a 25-point lead. Both candidates trounce Romney, despite his placing first in the first-quarter fundraising sweepstakes. Giuliani holds a staggering 51-point lead over Romney and McCain holds a 41-point lead over the former Massachusetts governor.

The poll also shows that 60% of the Democrats surveyed would like to see former VP Al Gore enter the race, but only 32% of Republicans would like to see Newt Gingrich enter the race. Democrats survey were satisfied with their party's presidential candidates by a 77% to 14% margin but Republicans were only satisfied with their choices by a 52% to 38% margin. This could mean that if any one of the Republican nominees could be running in an environment where a substantial minority of Republicans aren't happy with their party's nominee.

You can see the actual poll results here and you can read the article here.

MCDAC Blog Visits by Month

MCDAC Visits Up 435% in Eight Months

The graph to the left shows the increase in the number of visitors to our blog as measured by a company called Sitemeter.com. We started tracking our visitors in August when we had 100 visitors. In April we had 2100 visitors. We aren't so good at math, but we believe that is an increase of 431% over an eight month period.

We would like to thank all of our visitors for coming to our blog. We hope that you enjoy your visits. We are always looking for contributors to our blog. Please send any articles to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.

Brownback Breaks with the Bush Administration Line on Iraq

Sen. Brownback, a very conservative Republican from Kansas, is advocating a three-state solution for Iraq. He joins Sen. Biden in pushing for this solution to the Iraqi mess. A three-state solution would create a Shia, a Sunni, and a Kurdish region. Each region would have their own government and would take care of developing their own educational, religious, and legal system. This is a break from the Bush Administration which doesn't favor this approach.

What is interesting is that Brownback is trying to put some distance between himself and the Bushies without agreeing to any deadline for troop withdrawal. He apparently realizes that appearing to agree with a policy that a large majority of the American public rejects is not the way to win the White House. It will be interesting to see how the Republican base reacts to this proposal. You can read the whole story about Brownback's proposal by clicking on the link in this entry's title.

Presidential Candidate "Branding"

If you click here, you will go to a website that is studying the various presidential candidates both Democratic and Republican from a "branding" viewpoint. It is a website created by two companies that have joined up on this project. This is from the home page of the site:

Branding. It’s nothing new. In fact, “branding” is a clear example of business jargon that has penetrated popular culture. From package goods to pop stars, everything and everyone has a unique brand. However, understanding the nuances of a brand is first recognizing that a brand isn’t just a collection of logos or slogans or trademarks.

A brand is all about consumer experience represented by a collection of images and ideas that help to uniquely differentiate products or services that appear to be identical.

Brand preferences and other reactions are created by the accumulation of encounters, both directly relating to its use, and through the influence of messaging, advertising, design and public relations.

What could this mean for American politics? Arguably, candidates no longer run as themselves, they run as an extension of who the American public perceives them to be.

One of the areas in which Republicans have been ahead of Democrats is applying marketing principles to political campaigns and political communications. "Branding" is one such concept. We need to make sure that our candidates "brand" themselves before Republicans "brand" them.

What Karl Rove tries to do is to convince voters that his candidates' opponents are not acceptable alternatives to his candidates. Thus, even if voters don't like his candidates, they will still vote for them, or, perhaps not vote. Either way, his candidate is in a better position. So, while he is trying to build a positive brand for his candidate he is busy trying to tarnish the brand of the opponent.

This is why talk radio and Fox News have been so important for the Republicans. They are media institutions that both build up the Republicans' brand and tear down the Democrats' brand. What we need to do with blogs is the same thing, that is, tear down the Republican "brand" and build up the Democratic "brand."

Was U.S. Attorney in Seattle Fired Because He Pushed for Murder Investigation of Pro-Gun Control Prosecutor

John McKay was one of eight U.S. Attorneys ordered to resign their positions with the Justice Department. Previously he was first thought to be on the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired in September of 2006. It has come out during hearings on the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, however, that his name was on a list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired in March of 2005. Now here is where it gets very interesting.

According to this story in the Seattle Times, McKay was pushing for the U.S. Department of Justice to devote more resources to investigating the murder of one of his assistants, Tom Wales. Wales was murdered in October 0f 2001, shortly before McKay assumed office. Wales was known as a person who was in favor of strong gun control. Because Wales worked as an attorney in the Seattle office, that office was recused from any involvement in the investigation of his death.

At a hearing on this scandal in Washington, Representative Mel Watt, (D-NC), raised the possibility that McKay's pushing for action on the Wales investigation led to his firing. This quote is from the Times article: "It was suggested that Mr. Sampson had concerns or that concerns had been raised ... relating to the murder of an assistant U.S. attorney named Thomas Wales, in which Mr. McKay had requested some action by the department."

So here's where we are with McKay: In March of 2005, he was pushing for this investigation and he was also in trouble with the White House because he didn't push for a bogus voter fraud investigation in the Washington state elections of 2004. So which is it? Was he put on the list because he thought that the murder of a pro-gun control Assistant U.S. Attorney should be investigated or because he wouldn't investigate bogus claims of voter fraud? Either way, it is another example of the perversion of the Justice Department under Gonzales.