S-CHIP Incease Less Than 8% of What Bush Has Spent on Iraq

If you look on the right of this blog, you will see that we have installed a counter than provides continuous updates on how much the Iraq War is costing American taxpayers. We obtained this counter from the National Priorities Project. As of this morning, the cost of the S-CHIP funding that Bush vetoed is less than 8% of the cost of the war in Iraq. That means that Bush and his Republican allies are unwilling to spend $.08 cents for children's health insurance for every dollar they have spent so far in Iraq. This is a graphic example of the priorities of the Bush and his Republican allies.

Not only do they not want to spend the money, but as Paul Krugman noted in one of his columns in the New York Times, they make jokes about Bush's veto. According to Krugman, this was Bill Kristol's reaction to Bush's veto of the S-CHIP funding bill: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Bill Kristol is the editor of the conservative newspaper the Weekly Standard and an advocate of the Iraq War.

Of course, it is easy for Kristol to joke about someone else's kids not having health insurance, just as it's easy for Bush to veto the bill. Neither of them have ever had to worry about how they were going to pay for medical bills for their children. Even as Bush was bankrupting businesses down in Texas, you can rest assured that "Poppy" Bush and Barbara made sure than his precious twins had health coverage. Well, we suppose we should be grateful for the fact that at least Bush had the decency not to joke about his veto.

UPDATE: See Nancy Pelosi make the point on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

Rush Limbaugh, Armed Forces Radio, and Civilian Control of the Military

Back in 1993, Les Aspin, first Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton caved in to right-wing pressure and decided that Rush Limbaugh should be on Armed Forces Radio. Apparently Aspin never listened to Limbaugh because if he had he would have wondered why a radio commentator who continuously attacked the Commander in Chief, his wife, and, on at least one occasion, his daughter, was on Armed Forces Radio.

Now, here it is, another election cycle and Rush Limbaugh is attacking the Democratic candidates who are running for President. Let's assume that one of them, say Hillary Clinton, gets elected. We all know that Limbaugh will go crazy if that happens. We can imagine the rants he will engage in on his radio show. Why in the world would Armed Forces Radio allow a person who attacks the civilian in charge of the military access to the one million or so Armed Forces personnel?

The idea of civilian control of the military means that members of the United States Armed Forces have to accept decisions made the by civilians, even if they don't agree with those decisions. Rush Limbaugh telling members of the Armed Forces day after day how corrupt and venal the President is doesn't encourage such acceptance.

Quite frankly, it is not the place of Armed Forces Radio to use taxpayers' money to broadcast anyone's political beliefs to members of the United States military. Armed Forces Radio should stay out of the political realm, no matter is the politics is from the right or the left.

Republican & Democrat Run as Team Against Republican Incumbent Congressman

Okay, this is a novel concept. Two college professors, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, are both running against Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Sensenbrenner is a Republican and until the Democrats took over control of the House, he was the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The Republican is running in the primary against Sensebrenner, and the Democrat is running unopposed in the Democratic Primary. They are promising debates, 100 of them in 300 days, and no negative campaigning. According to the Washington Post article on this, which is linked to above, this idea is so novel that the Federal Elections Commission has no rules or regulations regarding how this should work. If you are interested in oddities of politics, you might want to keep your eye on this race.

Fox News Tries to Stir Up Controversy Over Obama Not Wearing a Lapel Flag Pin

This has got to be, even for Fox News, just a stupid move. Imagine trying to stir up a controversy over Obama's not wearing a flag pin on his lapel. Now, we understand why Fox News is trying to do this. Part of the radical right's campaign against Democrats is to try and make them appear elitist and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans. It is part of the whole social populism thing that conservatives have been doing since 1968. They try to make themselves look like ordinary people so that ordinary people won't realize how bad they are getting screwed over by conservative ideology.

Think about it, though: how many people do you see wear a flag pin during the day? Does your barber, hair stylist, attorney, accountant, sales clerk at the mall, do any of them wear flag pins at work? What Obama should say to the media is that "if you are concerned about whether I wear a flag pin with all the problems this country has, then you are just idiots." Of course, come to think of it, most of them are idiots.

Brunner Kicks So-Called "Independent" Candidates Off Ballot

Recent actions by Jennifer Brunner show what a difference having a Democratic Secretary of State makes as opposed to having Ken Blackwell. The Akron Beacon Journal's website, www.ohio.com, reported in an entry dated October 5, 2007, that Brunner broke a 2-2 tie on the Summit County Elections Board by ruling that independent candidates, who had ties to the Summit County Republican Party, couldn't appear on the November ballot.

Alex Arshinkoff, the Summit County GOP Chair, was suspected of getting people to run as independents to help GOP candidates defeat Democrats in races for Clerk of Court for the Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court and Barberton Law Director. With regard to the Clerk's race, Brunner ruled that the candidates had handed in their petitions late. With regard to the Barberton Law Director's race, Brunner ruled that Edna Boyle, a Republican who was defeated in the 2006 primary for Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge, wasn't really an independent. All in all a very neat illustration of what a difference a Democratic SOS can make in Ohio politics.

Chris Matthews Claims Cheney Pressured NBC to Silence Him

Chris Matthews was at a 10 year anniversary party for the cast of Hardball, his nightly television show, and when he made some remarks, he claimed that the difference between the Clinton and Bush Administrations was that the Clinton Administration never tired to silence him. This is a quote from an article about the event:

In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.

The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.

He also used the line that the Bush Administration has "finally been caught in their criminality." This is yet one more sign that Washington media types have turned on the Bushies. This is going to be one long year and approximately three months for them. Not as long as it will be for the rest of us, but long nevertheless.

How Can Iraqis Respect Government That Allows Foreigners to Kill Them?

At the hearing that was held by Henry Waxman's committee into the operations by Blackwater in Iraq, every Republican defended Blackwater. One of them brought up the Move-On ad about General Petraeus. Not one Republican seemed bothered by the fact that an American company was allegedly killing Iraqis citizens and not being held accountable.

Now the Washington Post is reporting that the Pentagon report on the Blackwater incident will say that the Blackwater employees were at fault in an incident that took place on September 16, 2007. In that incident at least 11 Iraqis were killed. This is from a Reuters article about the Post article:

Citing a senior U.S. military official, the Post said the military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault.

"It was obviously excessive. It was obviously wrong," a U.S. military official speaking on condition of anonymity told the newspaper.

"The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP (Iraqi police) or any of the local security forces fired back at them," the official was quoted as saying

This report, assuming that the Bush Admnistration doesn't pressure the Pentagon to change it, obviously makes those Republicans who rushed to Blackwater's defense at the Waxman hearing look ridiculous. Just as obviously most of them won't have the self-awareness to understand that it makes them look ridiculous. Here is a question, though: Don't they understand that having a American corporation kill and wound ordinary Iraqis without accountability hurts the American efforts in Iraq?

How would we feel if there was a foreign corporation, say a Chinese corporation, running around the U.S. killing American civilians while protecting Chinese diplomats? Our guess is that we would be really ticked off, and if our government couldn't stop it, we would be angry at our government. If it kept happening, we would lose respect for our government. Why do Republicans assume that Iraqis are any different?

On the one hand they claim to want to create a government in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. On the other hand, they don't want to hold American corporations operating in Iraq accountable for their activities. It just doesn't make any sense, but, of course, this isn't the first time that Republican actions belie Republican words.

Surprise, Surprise, First Energy's CEO Doesn't Like Strickland's Energy Proposals

Well, this should come as no surprise. First Energy's CEO doesn't want anyone or anything to stop Ohio from adopting a system where the so-called "free market" will set electric rates. Of course, in other states that have adopted such systems there have been huge increases in electric bills.

Because of that concern Governor Ted Strickland wants to adopt a new energy policy for Ohio. Strickland's policy would, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer story on First Energy's opposition to Strickland's proposal, undo deregulation, encourage conservation, and mandate renewable energy. First Energy wants to be able to sell electric at the highest price the market will bear.

Although First Energy's CEO is mouthing platitudes about competition lowering electric prices, the PD article notes that for the last two years FE has said that when deregulation arrives rates would go up. The simple fact is that we can't count on First Energy to protect Ohio consumers from sharp price hikes for electricity.

You can link to the PD article by clicking on this entry's title.

Link S-CHIP and Iraq War Funding

Americans want Bush's request for Iraq War funds cut and they want the States Children Health Insurance Program funded. There is an obvious connection here. Democrats should work to cut the funding for the war and transfer the money to the S-CHIP. Obviously Republicans would filibuster this if they could and there are probably not enough votes in the House to override a Bush veto, given the fact that most commentators expect Bush's veto of the S-CHIP bill to be upheld.

It is not enough, however, to just support S-CHIP. Democrats need to drive home the point that Republicans would rather spend money in Iraq than on American kids without insurance. Most Americans don't support that choice and Democrats should make Republicans pay a price for choosing Iraqis over American children.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Voinovich!

Okay, much to no one's suprise, the other United States Senator from Ohio, George "I Help Enable Bush" Voinovich did not sign the letter condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark. This, of course, after he voted to condemn Move-On for its ad about General Petraeus.

Now, we know it is not out of some concern for the First Amendment since he voted to condemn the Move-On ad. We also know it is not out of some concern that the United States Senate shouldn't spend its time on trying to regulate the speech of Americans, again since he voted for the resolution blasting Move-On for its ad. No, we are left with the explanation that once again George Voinovich would rather pander to the right-wing of his party than take a principled stand.

Here are two examples of a principled stand on this issue. One would have been to vote "Nay" on the Move-On resolution on the grounds that the United States Senate has no right trying to stifle the free-speech of Americans, no matter how obnoxious the subject of the speech. The second example would be to vote for the Move-On resolution and then sign the Reid letter on the grounds that neither Move-On or Rush Limbaugh should be criticizing soldiers serving in Iraq, no matter what their rank.

Voinovich didn't do the principled thing, rather, as always, he did the expedient thing by marching in lock-step with his party. That's our Georgie, always ready to break with the Republican right-wing, but never quite having the courage.

General Wesley Clark Calls for Congress to Take Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio

General Wesley Clark wrote a piece for Huffington Post dated October 2, 2007, in which he argues that Congress can remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio. He points out that unlike commercial radio, Armed Forces Radio is taxpayer funded. The political ramifications of such a move would be interesting.

First of all, it would put so-called Republican "moderates" like George Voinovich who voted to condemn the Move On ad about Petraeus in a bind. If they voted to remove funding for Bush, they would tick off the "ditto-heads", not to mention Rush himself. This could lead to primary challengers in 2010. If they voted against removing funding, it would just one more example of how these Bush-enablers are willing to do the bidding of their Party's wing-nut faction, regardless of the hypocrisy involved.

Second, if it were attached to a military funding bill, it would put Bush in a bind. Can you imagine the political hay that could be made out of his vetoing a funding bill for American troops because he wanted to protect Rush? All in all, it is a great idea. If you want to send an email message to Congress, go to this website address: http://ga4.org/campaign/dumprush

Into My Own Asks This Question: What is John Boehner Doing About Rural Poor?

The blog "Into My Own" has a very interesting entry up about rural poverty and the lack of Republican response to such poverty. The entry is based on a report about rural poverty that the Dayton Daily News published. The DDN article used a town in Ohio that suffered a tragic fire. It examined what is happening to that town, Greenville, in terms of job loss, family breakup, and crime. The author of the entry believes that Boehner is doing nothing because people who live in such towns don't give campaign contributions.

That may be one reason, but here is another possibility. The problem of rural poverty doesn't lend itself to market solutions which, since the 1980s, have been the preferred solutions to any social or economic problem. A declining work force, inadequate funding base for schools, and a migration out of such places by young people, means that such areas are not attractive places for private investment. Since they aren't attractive for private investment, it is difficult to attract new businesses to such areas or help the ones that are already there.

It doesn't have to be that way. Here are some ideas: (1) put Ohio's school funding on a equal basis so that quality of education is not so dependent on where a person lives; (2) invest in school buildings and other public infrastructure; (3) put up a system of cheap broadband communication so that all areas of Ohio are accessible to the Internet; and (4) put more money into law enforcement in these areas so that the crime rate is driven down. Come to think of it, those solutions would work well for urban areas too.

Such solutions, however, are dependent on having an activist government. Such a government is not compatible with the philosophy of the Republican Party and its elected officials.

Why Hillary Clinton's Position on Iraq May be Very Smart Politically

On September 29, 2007, we put up an entry on how Clinton's framing of the Iraq War and its handling is becoming the accepted framing by all top three Democratic candidates. (By top three we are referring to their poll numbers, not any subjective rating of their abilities.)

Today, October 1, 2007, there is an article out about how United States military deaths are down in Iraq. The death toll for American military personnel was the lowest it has been all year. You can be sure that the Republicans and their media allies will seize upon stories like this one to push the theme that (1) Bush's "surge", or as they will refer to it, Petraeus's surge, is working and (2) Democrats are just people who want to run when the going gets tough militarily and therefore (3) they can't be trusted on national security issues.

That's where Clinton's position of avoiding firm deadlines for Iraq troop withdrawal comes in and may be politically smart. By saying that she won't commit to having troops out by the end of her first term, she is making it much harder to attack her if she is the Democratic presidential nominee. Next year, if she is the Democratic nominee, she will try to keep the focus on the Republicans' performance in office, especially regarding Iraq. They will try to portray her as weak on national security as well as a host of other things. Her framing of the Iraq War issue will make it much harder to do that with regard to "swing" voters, ie, voters who do not have a strong partisan identification.

Seymour Hersh Believes Bush Getting Ready for Iran Attack

On the New Yorker website is an article by Seymour Hersh that goes into where the Bush Administration is at regarding Iran. Hersh's article points out that the Bush Administration believes that Iran is five years away from developing a nuclear weapon and that the American public is not buying into its fear campaign against the Iranians. Therefore, what Cheney, aka Darth Vadar and Bubble-Boy want to do is attack Iran and justify it by claiming that they are protecting American troops in Iraq.

Here is an interesting quote from the article:

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

We wonder how the Republicans in Congress feel about Dick Cheney and George W. right about now. They have staked their political futures to a man who doesn't give a "rat's ass" about their futures.

UPDATE: Here is a link to www.pollingreport.com's page on polls about Iran. It shows that a strong majority of Americans do not want the Bush Administration to attempt military action against Iran over its nuclear program.

Historical Indicators Point Down for GOP

The Associated Press ran a story on Sunday, September 30, 2007, about how historical indicators for political parties are pointing down for the GOP for 2008. This quote is from the story:

"The Democrats will continue to be the majority party in the House and Senate and Hillary Clinton will make history by being the first woman president" in 2008, predicts Rep. Ray LaHood, one of three Illinois Republicans to announce his retirement so far.

Political coalitions don't last forever in American politics. The FDR coalition of Southern whites, labor union members, intellectuals, northern Afro-Americans, and Roman Catholics lasted to about 1968. Starting then both southern whites began to leave that coalition because of the passage of Civil Rights Acts, notably the Act of 1964. After Roe v. Wade, Roman Catholics began to leave the coalition and a lot of labor union members became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s.

Before it broke up, though, it had a hell of a run. It produced Democratic presidential victories in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960 and 1964. It also produced a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress from 1932-1946, and in the House of Representatives from 1954-1994.

The Republican Party, starting in 1968, began to put together a coalition that consisted of Southern whites, Northern working class whites, small town whites, and Roman Catholics and evangelicals upset with both abortion and social issues, and members of the business community. This coalition produced presidential victories in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, (if you accept that the Florida vote was legitimate), and 2004. It also produced a Congressional majority in both Houses from 1994-2006.

This coalition, however, may be breaking apart because of the internal tension between business supporters and working class whites over social spending, and between business supporters and evangelicals over what stress should be placed on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and controlling sexual activity.

It will be interesting to see which political party puts together a new coalition first. Rove thought he could do it by adding Hispanics to the GOP's coalition, but immigration issues are hurting the GOP with Hispanics. Democrats have an opportunity in 2008 and beyond, but this matter is still very much in flux.

Mitt Romney's Financial Backers Legal Woes

Media Matters' Jamison Foser put out a column on Friday, September 28, 2007, about the difference in the coverage that the legal troubles of one of Hillary Clinton's supporters received compared to Mitt Romney's. In the column he points out the legal troubles of two of Romney's backers.

The first is Alan Fabian. Fabian was indicted for 23 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice. He pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

The second is Robert Litchfield who is being sued for abuses at schools for troubled kids. The newspaper, The Hill, which covers Capitol Hill, had a story with the following quote:

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney's Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were "subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse."

The question that Foser raises in his column is why the different treatment between the troubles of Clinton's backer, Norman Hsu, and the troubles of Litchfield and Fabian? One explanation is that the media is obsessed with the Clintons. Another explanation is that she is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination while Romney is not the front-runner for the Republican nomination. A third possible explanation is that reporters know that their publishers, owners, editors, etc., want stories on the Clintons and don't want stories on the Republicans.

Whatever the explanation, this is just one more example of why Democrats need their own vehicles of communication with the public. We just can't trust the media to be fair or objective where Democrats are concerned.

Media's Obsession with Hillary's Laugh Shows Why She Laughs

Slate has an article by some idiot named John Dickerson about Hillary Clinton's laugh. Her laugh became the subject of some discussion on the Internet and in the media because she laughed during parts of her interview with Chris Wallace and also during her interview with Bob Schiffer. Here's a clue for the media: she is laughing because she finds you people ridiculous.

Dickerson goes into all sorts of reasons why he thinks she laughs. Apparently it was talked about on some right-wing television shows. Never once, though, does it occur to any of these self-absorbed media types that she is laughing at them. They apparently can't fathom that a politician who is actually interested in solving our country's problems would find their mirth at their antics. Which, of course, proves her point.

Fascinating Framshop Entry on Clinton Shaping Democratic Position on Iraq War

A person named Jeffery Feldman runs a blog called Frameship. In an entry dated September 26, 2007, entitled Frameshop: Field Swings To Clinton Frame On Iraq he argues that all top three Democratic candidates are adopting Senator Hillary Clinton's framing of American options for the war in Iraq. According to Feldman, those options include keeping American troops in Iraq for the entire next presidential term. As he points out, this leaves anti-war Democratic activists in the position of having no candidate in the top three who advocates getting all American troops out of Iraq in the relatively near future.

What's interesting about both Edwards and Obama basically accepting Clinton's position on Iraq is that, according to a CBS poll of the American public, it's not what most Americans want. This is a question asked in the poll and the response:
"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?" .

Less Than A Year 49%
One to Two Years 23%
Two to Five Years 12%
Longer Than Five Years 5%
Other/Unsure 11%

Take a look at those numbers. Seventy-two percent of the American public want withdrawal within two years and only 17% of the American pubic wants American troops longer than two years.

Assuming that both Guiliani and Clinton get their parties respective nomination, neither major party's presidential nominee will be articulating a position on Iraq that is in accordance with what most Americans want in Iraq. That is both remarkable and dangerous for both major political parties.

Congressman Mark Udall to Introduce Resolution Condemning Limbaugh's Remarks About "Phony Soldiers"

Talking Points Memo is reporting that Congressman Mark Udall, D-CO, will introduce a resolution on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh's remarks about soldiers who oppose the Iraq War being "phony soldiers." He is seeking co-sponsors for the resolution.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican and Democratic House members who voted to condemn the Move On ad about General Petreaus will respond to this resolution. Our guess is that Minority Leader John Bohner, aka Bonehead, will find some bs explanation on why when a right-wing hack denounces soldiers for being against the war it is okay. It will, of course, be ridiculous, but what else can he do?

Voinovich's BS Idea: Have Iraq Timetable for Withdrawal After Bubble-Boy Leaves Office

Voinovich and some other so-called Republican moderates, otherwise known as "Bush enablers", have come up with a real bright idea: establish guidelines for withdrawal from Iraq which start after BB leaves office. Who else is supposedly backing this lame-brain effort? Well, there is Elizabeth Dole, Norm Coleman, and Lamar Alexander. What do all of them have in common? They are running for re-election in 2008 and they are worried about losing because of BB's War.

Now, this proposal makes a lot of sense for Republicans. Vote to set up guidelines for getting out after Bush leaves so that his wing-nut base won't vote against you in a primary. Stick any negative consequences of withdrawal on the incoming president who will most likely be a Democrat. Avoid having your party held accountability for the diaster that its President and Vice-President have gotten the U.S. into in invading Iraq.

For the rest of us, however, this idea really, really sucks. In a democracy elections are how we hold political parties and politicians accountable for their exercise of power. The Republican Party shouldn't be let off the hook for how Bush and his enablers in the Congress have managed this country since 2000.