The Smug Sanctimony of Joe Lieberman

The MSNBC website has an article dated October 31, 2007 up that shows the smug sanctimony of former Democratic Senator and now Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is shocked, shocked we tell you, that the amendment he drafted with right-wing Senator John Kyl of Arizona is being used to attack Hillary Clinton. He doesn't understand why we don't trust the Bush Administration not to get us into a war with Iran. To quote Smug Joe: "“At some point, we’ve got to get over this distrust and partisanship.”

Well, here is what's so aggravating about Smug Joe: When he makes comments like the one quoted above, he isn't talking about Bush and Republicans getting over being partisan and distrustful, no, the only people that SJ thinks need to change are Democrats. He apparently wants us to overlook the Bush record of lies, coverups, stonewalling, incompetence, and corruption in Iraq and all get behind Bush's plans for Iran.

Now, SJ doesn't want us to think that he is for war with Iran, no siree, he's not for that, but, then again, “I’m not gunning for military conflict with Iran, but if they keep killing our soldiers, you can’t just sit back and let it happen.”
Now what the hell does that sound like if not an excuse for a war with Iran? Is SJ suggesting that if his economic sanctions don't work, he won't be advocating for war with Iran? Is he telling us that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, he won't be calling for military strikes on Iran? If he isn't talking about war, just what in the hell is he talking about?

This is what the new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, thinks about a war with Iran:
"[It]has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it." He went on to say that America should be very, very careful about getting involved in a war with a third Muslim country.

Now see here is the difference between professional military officers like Mullen and people like Cheney, Bush, and Lieberman: he has actually been in war and knows what it is like. He has responsibility for the lives of men and women serving under him. He didn't skip the Vietnam War and then spend the rest of his adult life trying to make up for not going by playing with the lives of other people's children. Wonder if Smug Joe would be so cavalier about a war with Iran if his children were serving in Iraq?

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel Calls for Direct Talks with Iran

The Washington Note, a blog run by Steve Clemons, reports today, October 31, 2007, that Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, R-NB, sent a letter to Bush calling for direct and uncontional talks with Iran. He copied the Secretaries of Defense and State, and the National Security Advisor. He apparently did not copy the Vice-President.

In this letter, which the Washington Note has reprinted on its site and which Cleamons says he did not get from Hagel or his staff, Hagel tells Bubble-Boy that:

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

Of course, this approach is not what The Duck Hunter wants and so we fully expect that Hagel's suggestion will be rejected, if not explicitly, then implicitly. It is a good reminder, though, that not every Republican has drank the Bush Kool-Aid.

Clinton's Caution Leading to Defense Industry Support?

Alternet, which is a website that complies articles from the left side of the cultural and political spectrum, has a story from the Independent newspaper of Great Britain about Hillary Clinton and the defense industry. This article points out that as of the date of the article more money had gone to Democrats from the defense industry than had gone to Republicans. This is a quote from the article:

Employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

This illustrates both the potential and the problem with a Clinton candidacy. The potential is that she may be the one Democrat who can tap into support from groups that traditionally support Republicans. Groups like executives from large corporations, the defense industry, the securities industry, and the insurance industry. The problem is that she gets this support because she doesn't challenge the status quo as far as the economy is concerned.

Somewhere I read that the Clintons who had worked for McGovern and seen him defeated, and who had experience in government in Arkansas are convinced that progressive change in America has to be incremental. This belief was only fortified by their experience during his presidency.

Clinton governed from a centerist position. He signed onto the NAFTA treaty. He restored fiscal discipline to the Federal government. He worked with the Republicans on welfare reform. Yet, for all that, he was hounded by the right-wing and had to fight off impeachment. One can only imagine what the right-wing reaction would have been if he would have tried to expand government programs to benefit the poor or reduce the influence of the rich on our goverment.

You can see the impact of those experiences on Hillary Clinton during her campaign for the presidency. She is very cautious in what she says, she doesn't take positions that are too far from the center, she is determined not to give the right-wing an opening to further distort and demonize her and her record.

In one respect this makes a lot of sense. There is a reason why she is leading the polls right now among Democrats. Her name recognition is one reason but another is that she is not giving the right-wing attack machine a lot of openings. The problem is, though, that if there is an opportunity to bring about real progressive change over the next four to eight years she may not, if she were president, recognize it.

Pics From Mike Tood for State Senate Tailgate Party

The Mike Todd for State Senate campaign hosted a fundraiser that was a tailgate party before the Cleveland Browns took care of the St. Louis Cardinals. Below are some pictures from the event.


Brunswick Ward Two Councilman Vince Carl and Medina County Dem Ed Haddad discussing politics at the Todd fundraiser.


Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman and his wife Karen
talking to some Medina County Dems.


Medina Township Trustee candidate Rita Holt meeting some voters.


Mike's lovely wife Wendy with Kerry and Kathy Jones.

Contrary to What Rasmussen Seems to Think, HRC Can Win in 2008

On October 29, 2007 we posted an entry that argued for the proposition that historical trends indicate that the election of 2008 will be a very close election. This is because Democrats, even when winning re-election very seldom break 50% of the popular vote. Indeed, Truman was elected in 1948 with less than 50% of the electorate, as was Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. In fact, only two Democratic Presidential nominees have received over 50% of the popular vote: FDR in all four of his elections and LBJ in 1964.

Given that historical record, it's not too surprising that the Rasmussen polling organization reports that Hillary Clinton seems to have both a ceiling and a floor of around 48%. Most Democratic candidates play at the margins with regard to the popular vote. Very seldom are they going to go above 50% and very seldom are they going to go below 40%. Indeed over the last 76 years only George McGovern went below 40% of the popular vote.

Unlike Rasmussen, however, we don't see this as an acute problem for the Democratic Party nor does it make the 2008 election un-winnable by Clinton. That's because of the electoral college, which while it has a small state Republican bias, can also be used by Democrats to win the presidency.

Kennedy, Clinton and Truman all had close popular vote elections, but substantial electoral college victories, with Clinton getting over 68% of the electoral college vote. This is because of the winner take all nature of the electoral college. In presidential elections winning elections by a 100,000 votes is as good as winning by a million votes.

In 2000 we saw Bush barely win, (if indeed you accept the legitimacy of the Florida vote), the electoral college by winning Florida even though he lost the popular vote by about 500K. Although as we pointed out in an entry dated October 29, 2007, we believe that the electoral college has a conservative or small state bias, we also believe that Democrats can use the electoral college to win presidential elections.

Depending on the Republican nominee it is easy to see Hillary winning all 17 states that Kerry carried, the District of Columbia, which Kerry also carried, and one more or possibly more than one more state to win the presidency. The states that will be up for grab are Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. A dark horse state for the Dems will be Virginia. It will be a down and dirty election, but the one thing about the Clintons, they don't run from a fight.

Given Historical Trends 2008 Should Be a Close Election

There is a wonderful site called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections which has a lot of historical data about presidential elections. Just for fun we did some research on what has been the average Democratic vote compared to the average Republican vote over the last 10 presidential elections, starting in 1968.

Over those 10 elections the Democratic percentage of the popular vote has been 44.64 while the average Republican vote has been 49.17. A big reason for the difference are the large Republican victories in 1972, 1980, and 1984. During the last three elections, however, the average Democratic vote has been much higher. Democratic candidates Clinton, Gore, and Kerry averaged 48.63% of the popular vote. During that same period of time Dole, Bush and Bush averaged 46.44% of the popular vote. Those figures indicate a very evenly split American electorate.

Of course, as we saw in both 2000 and 2004, the American system of having voters choose electors who then actually vote for the president helps conservatives. In the lsat two elections George W. Bush averaged 49.3% of the popular vote but averaged 51.77% of the electoral college vote. This bias comes from the fact that each state, no matter what its population, is assured three votes in the electoral college: one for each U.S. Senator and one for a constitutionally guaranteed Congressional representative.

A state like South Dakota has three electoral votes and an estimated population of 752,103. This means that each electoral vote represents 250,701 people. In California there are 55 electoral votes and an estimated population of 35,594,342. This means that each electoral vote represents 671,170 people. That is quite a discrepancy and applies to other states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. Those states, combined with South Dakota, have a total electoral college vote of 24, four more than Ohio. Their total population, however, is 7,310,773, or about 64% of Ohio's.

Given the fact that the electorate is pretty evenly divided and given the fact that the electoral college has a small state/conservative bias that helps Republicans, the election of 2008, if historical trends are any indication, will be a very close election.

Media Failing 2008 Campaign Coverage

A report was issued by the Project for Excellence in Journalism along with the Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard regarding campaign coverage for the 2008 presidential campaign. That report shows that the media is failing to address what consumers of political news want addressed.

This is from the www.journalism.org story on the report:

"In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found."
The report noted that this is at odds with what the public says it wants from political news reporting:

"All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates."

Ever wonder why lesser known candidates can't develop any momentum? Here's one reason:

"Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband."

So here it is, another important election, and the media wants to talk about fundraising and polls as opposed to issues and positions. It's just too bad that the public can't sue journalists for malpractice.

The Inspirational Effect of Political Leaders

During the 1930s & 40s the Democratic Party gained a lot of supporters because of Franklin D. Roosevelt. During the 1960s the Party gained a lot of supporters because of John and Robert F. Kennedy. Roosevelt and the Kennedys inspired young people to consider politics and government service as possible careers. If you look back over the resumes of active Democrats in their 50s and 60s you will often find links to the Kennedys.

The Republican Party didn't have a politician with that effect until Barry Goldwater. Although Goldwater was not successful in gaining political power, he did galvanize a generation of young conservative activists. These activists then helped Ronald Reagan gain political power in the 1980s and became the backbone of the Republican Party.

It is this inspirational effect that was one reason why Republicans could not afford to have Bill Clinton become a role-model for young people. If he could be tarnished, then the inspirational effect of his leadership would be seriously hampered. While this may not have been the main reason why Republicans opposed him, I believe it is one reason.

Which leads to the situation in 2007. After all the damage that Bush has done to the Republican "brand" it is obvious that he isn't going to serve as a role model for anyone except right-wing authoritarians. If the Democrats can nominate and elect either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, they can inspire a whole generation of Americans.

Think of the message that we would be sending the world if we elected either a woman or a black man as President. Young people, and young women in particular, would be energized by a Clinton Presidency. Young people, and Afro-Americans in particular, would be energized by a Obama Presidency. This energy would carry the Democratic Party into the future. Since America is becoming a nation of minorities in the sense that no one racial group will be the majority, the election of Clinton or Obama would also position the Democratic Party to appeal to a very diverse electorate.

None of this will happen without a fight, a fight that will be as vicious as it will be important. People don't give up power without a struggle and the right-wing authoritarians who make up the leadership of the Republican Party are no exception.

United States Water Concerns Affect Northeast Ohio

One factor that shaped the history of the United States, particularly the part of the U.S. that is east of the Mississippi River, is our country's supply of fresh water. The rivers and lakes of our country allowed settlers to penetrate the inland, transport goods, and provided water for businesses, farms, and households. Like a lot of other things, though, our country's supply of fresh water is threaten by growth in our population and environmental factors like drought and global warming.

The Akron Beacon Journal had a story on its website dated October 27, 2007, which explores what is happening to our water supply. This is a quote from the story:

An epic drought in Georgia threatens the water supply for millions. Florida doesn't have nearly enough water for its expected population boom. The Great Lakes are shrinking. Upstate New York's reservoirs have dropped to record lows. And in the West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is melting faster each year.

Across America, the picture is critically clear the nation's freshwater supplies can no longer quench its thirst.

The government projects that at least 36 states will face water shortages within five years because of a combination of rising temperatures, drought, population growth, urban sprawl, waste and excess.

This is not just a concern of western and southeastern states, it is also a concern for Ohio. One thing that a lot of Ohioans aren't aware of is that Ohio's use of Lake Erie is controlled by a treaty between the United States and Canada that created the St. Lawrence waterway project. That project opened up the Great Lakes to international shipping, and greatly benefited both the U.S. and Canada, but the treaty creating the Waterway also mandates that water cannot be taken from Lake Erie and pumped over a Continental Divide.

In Ohio there is such a divide that runs through Medina County around the River Styx area. North of that divide water from Lake Erie can be used for municipal water systems. South of that divide, however, the water cannot be used for municipal water systems. This means that water from Lake Erie cannot be used for water systems for cities and villages like Wadsworth, Lodi, and Seville.

Both the U.S. and Ohio need to start looking at this problem and coming up with solutions. If we don't, then our children and grandchildren may end up living in a nation where fresh water is much harder to find.

More Republican BS on SCHIP

So the House Democrats made changes that 38 Republican Representatives said they wanted in the SCHIP bill and, surprise, none of the 38 voted for the bill. The reason this time? They argued that the vote shouldn't take place because of the fires in California. What exactly the fires have to do with SCHIP since most Representatives don't represent areas of wildfire damage wasn't really spelled out, but that's their reason.

It is, of course, BS. The real reason why they don't vote for the bill is that so-called "moderate" Republicans are torn between the Republicans who vote in primaries and the voters who vote in general elections. Therefore, they want to keep saying how they support SCHIP without actually voting to support SCHIP. While such a tactic might have worked in the past, it won't work when Democrats control Congress and can set the agenda.

Another reason why they supposedly voted against the bill is that House Speaker Pelosi wouldn't delay the new vote until next week. This is from a Washington Post article on the vote:

But Republican leaders rallied their wavering troops around a new issue, whether the vote should have taken place when much of Southern California was on fire and nine House members were touring the disaster zone. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted she had no choice but to move forward and give the Senate a chance to send the measure to Bush next week.

"If Republicans believe in SCHIP as they say they do . . . then they won't be looking for an excuse to vote against the bill," Pelosi said.

But when Republicans suggested debating the measure yesterday and voting Monday night, she refused, infuriating even her closest Republican allies on the issue.

"I used to think they cared about the policy. Now I think they care more about the politics," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who had been working for the bill and personally appealed to Pelosi for a delay. "Everything from baptisms to bar mitzvahs, we've put off votes for here. But they won't do it for the people of California."

If the Republicans who supposedly support this bill had been able to assure Pelosi that the delay in voting would actually get more Republican votes, that would be one thing, but there was apparently no such assurance. The only benefit to Pelosi would have been that she would have had even more evidence of the Republican hypocrisy on this issue. She apparently decided that she has quite enough.

Why Republicans Don't Like the Clintons

So why do Republicans hate the Clintons beyond rational thought? Well, no matter what they tell you, its not because of corruption, or because of her personality, or his sexual indiscretions, or the fact that she stay married to Bill. It's none of that. It's because they can win and what policies they advocate.

While Democrats in the netroots castigate Clinton for voting for the Iraq War or for not being sufficiently liberal, conservatives are afraid of her for a much more basic reason: she'll help those who conservatives don't want helped.

This if from an article by Ron Fournier of the Associated Press on how much conservatives can't stand HRC:

"Most of the people who haven't voted — women, the poor — are going to put Hillary Clinton in office," said Rick Morris, 60, while leaning on his white pickup truck outside the Waffle House, "and I'm just hoping that won't be the case."

This guy is typical of a lot of conservatives. They don't want those they consider unworthy running their government. In this guy's case it is women and poor people. Can you imagine it? A country actually led by a woman? Why, this guy might just have a stroke or a heart attack.

Every so often Democrats are reminded why we are Democrats and not Republicans. We don't think that the poor and women, as well as others such as Blacks, Gays, Latinos, and working class folk are somehow unworthy or not as good as we are and conservatives do. It really is that simple.

Bush Administration Seeking Emergency Funds for Bunker-Busting Bombs

Bunker-busting bombs sounds like a Dr. Strangelovian form of alliteration. What they are, however, are bombs capable of going deep into the ground and destroying fortified structures. You know, the kind that we think that Iran has for developing nuclear weapons.

ABC News reported on October 24, 2007 that buried deep in the Bush Administration's request for additional funding for the Iraq War is a 88 million dollar request for funds to modify two stealth bombers to carry such bombs. This is the one sentence explanation for the funding request: "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."

As ABC News asks in its report, what urgent operational need? We aren't using stealth bombers in Iraq and wouldn't need to use them in Afghanistan against caves where we believe the Taliban is hidden. We might use such bombers, though, to attack Iran.

If Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off regarding 2008 presidential campaign. As the Washington Post reported in an articlee on its website dated October 25, 2007, both Obama and Edwards have been hitting Clinton over her vote to designate a unit of the Iranian Army as a "terrorist organization."

This quote is from the Post story explaining the Senate vote:

Iran sprang up as a campaign issue on Sept. 26, when the Senate voted 76 to 22 for a defense authorization bill amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). The amendment not only urged the administration to label the IRGC a terrorist organization but also said that the U.S. military presence in Iraq could have a critical impact on Iran's ability to pose a threat to the entire Middle East.

Clinton denies that the Senate vote could be used by the Bush Administration to justify an attack on Iran. Right, and of course, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush only wanted to "reform" Social Security, not destroy it, and "Brownie" did do a heck of a job during Katrina.

It is dangerous to give this administration any authority assuming that it will act rationally with such authority. Passing that resolution may turn out to be as crazy as giving a loaded .45 to a baby.

Rice Admits that U.S. "Mishandled" Case of Tortured Canadian

If you act on wrong information, seize a naturalized Canadian citizen, send him to Syria where he is tortured, isn't that a little more than "mishandling" his case? Yet, that is the term that our Secretary of State used in a Congressional hearing regarding the case of Maher Arar. Arar was seized by the U.S. when U.S. authorities were told, wrongfully, that he had ties to terrorist groups. He was then sent by the U.S. to Syria, where he was tortured and imprisoned for one year.

The U.S. refuses to apologize to Arar and refuses to remove him from a list of people who are not allowed to enter the United States. What's more interesting is that Rice was elusive when she was questioned about what she knew or didn't know about Arar being tortured. Here is a quote from the AP article about the hearing:

Last week U.S. lawmakers from both parties urged the Bush administration to apologize to Arar, a software engineer who is married with two children.

Rice did not apologize in the hearing and avoided directly answering a question from Massachusetts Democrat Rep. William Delahunt who asked if she knew Arar was tortured in Syria.

"You are aware of the fact that he was tortured?" Delahunt asked.

"I am aware of claims that were made," she responded.

But when asked if the United States had received any diplomatic assurances from Syria that Arar would not be tortured, Rice said her memory of the events had faded and she would have to respond later to the question.

There is a belief among foreigners and Americans that the U.S. seizes people who it believes are involved in terrorist activity and sends them to foreign countries where they are tortured to get information. Rice claims this is not true. This is what she told the committee conducting the hearing:

We do absolutely not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured."

Yet, who is going to believe her if she refused to apologize to a Canadian who his government found was tortured in Syria, where we sent him?

Should Plain Dealer Provide More Opportunity for Feedback?

One of the nice things about the Washington Post is that its website allows readers to comment on most, if not all, of the stories that it runs. This means that if you read something you like, or don't like, you can post an online comment. These comments are apparently read by the Post's writers, who don't always like them.

In the past, journalists were protected from reader feedback unless a reader wrote a letter to the editor, which might or might not get published, or called the writer on the telephone. In either case, the feedback was not immediate and was much more edited.

In the case of letters to the editor it was edited by the paper itself and in the case of calls from readers, the editing process was a self-editing process. People aren't usually going to be as honest in a phone call as they are posting online.

Allowing readers to comment on stories they read online engages them with the story they are reading. That's the upside. The downside is, of course, that sometimes a lack of self-editing is a bad thing. It can lead to opinions or reactions that are not well thought out and are driven more by emotion than by intellect.

All of this brings us to the Plain Dealer's website. The Plain Dealer does not provide an opportunity for readers to post reactions to most of its stories. The question is: should it? Would readers on its website feel more engaged if they could post stories? Would it attract readers to the website? Would such a practice force journalists to confront criticism, and would that lead to better reporting?

Most newspaper websites that we have visited seem to be like the PD's and not like the Post's when it comes to allowing reader feedback. It will be interesting to see if more media websites allow greater opportunities for reader feedback in the future.

Will Foreigners No Longer Buy U.S. Debt?

During the Bush Administration the United States government has managed to avoid trouble from Bush's huge deficits by borrowing money, a lot of it from foreigners. That market may be drying up. Bloomberg, a financial news reporting service, ran an article on its website, which reported on a speech that Alan Greenspan recently gave. The following is from the article:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the dollar's depreciation may reflect growing unwillingness among foreigners to buy U.S. debt.

``Obviously there is a limit to the extent that obligations to foreigners can reach,'' Greenspan said in a speech in Washington today. The dollar's decline to its lowest since 1997 may be ``an indication America is approaching this limit.''

Greenspan's warning came after the U.S. Treasury reported last week that international investors sold a record amount of U.S. financial assets in August. Total holdings of equities, notes and bonds fell a net $69.3 billion after an increase of $19.2 billion in July.

The dollar has declined about 8 percent against the euro this year and 4 percent against the yen.

Most Americans aren't aware of how much the Bush Administration has come to depend on foreigners purchasing American debt to finance the government's operations. During Bush's administration the amount of debt held by foreigners has doubled from about one trillon to two trillon, according to information put out by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

During that same period the amount of debt incurred by the United States has gone up from six trillion to over 8 trillion dollars, again according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. This means that almost one-half of the total debt incurred during the Bush Administration was purchased by foreigners.

This deficit spending has allowed Bush to pursue his reckless tax cuts, fight a war costing half a trillion dollars, and still run the Federal government, albeit not very well. If, however, foreigners cut back on purchasing U.S. debt, then the financial house of cards that Bush built may come tumbling down. The U.S. would either have to cut back its spending, raise interest rates to attract more investors, raise taxes, or some combination of all three.

None of this will happen under Bush. He won't be able to cut spending during the last year and a half of his presidency. He won't raise taxes. He doesn't control what the Federal Reserve pays out in interest payments. It will happen under the watch of the next President while Bush is down at his Crawford ranch playing cowboy.

House Kills Move to Censure Rep. Stark but Stark Apologizes

The House of Representatives on Tuesday, by a vote of 196 to 173, voted to "table" a resolution censuring Representative Stark for his comments about Republicans wanting to fund the Iraq War so that Bush could blow kids' heads off for his amusement. For what it's worth, we agree with both decisions.

Stark shouldn't have been censured since the Republicans engage in uncivil behavior all the time and since their outrage was manufactured. On the other hand, Stark's comments were a distraction for the media and was hurting the Democrats' ability to get the media to focus on Bush's veto of SCHIP. All in all a good resolution for Democrats of this whole Republican created and media driven controversy.

Republicans Putting Anti-War Republicans in Their Crosshairs

The L.A. Times ran a story on October 21, 2007 on how Republican Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives are being challenged by pro-war Republicans, some of whom are recruited to run by Republican leaders. According to the article such opposition is one reason why more Republicans aren't breaking with Bush on the Iraq War.

Their dilemma is seen in the following results from a CBS News poll. While all adults polled opposed the way Bush is handling the war by 67% to 27%, among Republicans the numbers are reversed with 58% approving his handling of the war and 35% disapproving. These figures make it difficult for Republicans who are opposed to the war in the House and Senate to actually vote against Bush's positions.

Of course, these numbers among Republicans stay up because Bush hasn't asked anyone other than those serving in the military and their families to sacrifice for his war. Republican supporters aren't asked to pay more in taxes, or to risk being drafted, or to go without things to support the war. All they are asked to do is put a bumper sticker on their cars and talk about how much they support the troops.

Sandusky Register Story on Finding Docs Who Accept Medicaid

The Sandusky Register ran a story dated Sunday, October 21, 2007 about the difficulty Medicaid recipients are having finding both doctors and dentists. This is a quote from the article:

Health care providers say what the government is willing to pay falls far short of the actual cost.

In 2006, government payments to Firelands Regional Medical Center for Medicare and Medicaid patients fell $15.5 million short of actual costs, according to a hospital brochure.

Earlier this week we ran an entry from a column in the Houston Chronicle by Froma Harrop which contained the following quote:

Note how Bush does this big "compassionate conservative" thing about very much wanting SCHIP for poor people. Programs for the poor are fine, because you can always cut the living daylights out of them. Politicians who mess with middle class benefits find their heads in the return mail.

This article by the Sandusky Register is a reflection of that attitude. Note that it is Medicaid recipients and not Medicare recipients that are having problems finding medical providers. Why? Because Medicare is better funded because the people who receive Medicare vote and politicians know that they vote.

The real genius of the social welfare programs enacted during the New Deal were that they benefited everyone because they weren't means tested. The result is a constituency that puts pressure on politicians to keep such programs going. If you want to help the poor, include the middle class in the program. That's the lesson from the New Deal and Democrats and progressives need to remember it.

To End the Curse Chief Wahoo Has to GO

Cleveland.com is ran an article about whether fans think that Cleveland sports teams are cursed. While the article goes over what happened in the Boston series that has fans wondering if Cleveland sports teams are cursed, it doesn't go into why they are cursed. Well, here's our take on the reason why: Chief Wahoo.

Now in the past complaints about Chief Wahoo from Native Americans have been treated with amusement and regarded as political correctness gone crazy, but consider these facts:

1. According to Wikipedia, the Cleveland Indians baseball team didn't adopt a caricature of an American Indian until 1947. The present version of Chief Wahoo wasn't adopted until the 1950s.

2. Since the adoption of the Indian caricature as a symbol, only one Cleveland Indian baseball team has won a World Series and that in 1948 when they beat the Boston Braves.

3. Since then we have lost either the World Series or games in the American League playoffs. All of those losses, except to the Atlanta Braves in 1995, have come at the hands of teams that don't mock out Native Americans.

4. The Atlanta Braves from the 1950s until 1986 had an Native American symbol named "Chief Noc-A-Homa". Note that they beat us after they got rid of that symbol.

Now, many baseball fans in Northeast Ohio will see this argument as just one more example of political correctness. We understand that position, but at this point, what do we have to lose by getting rid of the caricature of Chief Wahoo and just using a big red "I" as our symbol? Or maybe even changing the name of the team to something that goes with Cleveland like Cougars, get some alliteration going. Anything to break the Wahoo curse.

What Baseball & Politics Have in Common

Now what do baseball and politics have in common? In both of them organizations that have a lot of money have an inherent advantage over those that do not. A political organization that can outspend its competitors by 2.5 to 1 has an advantage. Likewise a baseball team that can outspend its main competitor by 2.5 to 1 has an advantage.

In 2007 the Boston Red Sox had a payroll of $143,026,214 while the Cleveland Indians had a payroll of 61,673,267, according to a report from KFAN radio. This means that for every dollar Boston spent of payroll Cleveland was spending approximately 43 cents. Unless the team executives spending the money are complete morons, which Boston's are not, this gives Boston a tremendous advantage in assembling a team.

If you look at the report referred to above, you will find that of the four teams that made the 2007 American League playoffs, three of them ranked 1,2,3 in money spent on payrolls. The exception was, of course, the Cleveland Indians. It shouldn't come as any surprise that teams that can go out on the free agency market and purchase good players have an advantage over those that cannot.

Likewise, if you look at the front-runners for the Democratic nomination all three of the leaders have raised more money than the candidates who trail them. Candidates who can go out and purchase advertising time and spend money to build an organization have an advantage over those who cannot.

Given free agency in baseball and the lack of any effective fundraising limits and/or expenditure limits in political campaigns, this state of affairs can be expected to continue.