Make Your Own Attack Ad with DNC's Flipper TV

The Democratic National Committee has launched a new project called "Flipper TV." This website features hours of video clips of the Republican presidential candidates. More video will be added over the coming months, including clips from the You Tube Republican debate held on Wednesday, November 28, 2007. This is a really cool idea. So, if you ever wanted to make your own attack ad, now you have the material, courtesy of the DNC.

Clinton Leads in Most SurveyUSA Polls

A SurveyUSA poll done for two television stations in Ohio has Clinton leading all Republicans listed except for John McCain. The poll was taken on November 9, 2007. A November 1, 2007 poll by Survey USA had Clinton leading all Republicans listed in Florida. A SurveyUSA poll has Clinton leading all listed Repulicans in Kentucky.

Thus, in states that were battleground states in 2000 and 2004, Florida and Ohio, Clinton leads and in a state that is usually a safe Republican state, Clinton leads. Yet, constantly from the news media we hear and read stories that question Clinton's electability. This is usually based on the relatively high unfavorables that Clinton has when compared to other Democratic and Republican candidates.

The problem with such analysis, however, is that it overlooks the ability of Republicans, with their allies in the media like Fox News, to drive up the unfavorables of any Democratic candidate who wins the Democratic nomination. Can we say "Swift-boating", children?

What we know about Clinton is that she can take and deliver a punch. We don't know that nearly as well about Obama and Edwards. The question isn't whether the Republicans are going to attack and demonize the Democratic nominee. The question is whether such Democrat will fight back. The ability and willingness to fight back may be a lot more important than the negative ratings of the eventual Democratic nominee.

"Bush Economy" Heading for a Recession?

The economy is heading toward a recession. New home sales are down 8.5% since July. Prices of new homes have fallen 7.5% from a year ago. Credit is increasingly hard to get for consumers and businesses. All of these are signs that the economy is heading towards a recession.

Ever since Bush's reckless, radical tax cuts, we have heard from his supporters and apologists about how they have helped the economy. Actually, and this is something that presidents of both parties don't want to talk about, but the Federal Reserve Board has more control over the economy than any president. If the Fed makes more money available, it helps both consumers and businesses get loans. They use these loans to buy goods and services, thereby creating more jobs for Americans.

Under Greenspan the Fed basically allowed homeowners to turn their homes into ATM units. Americans borrowed on their equity to finance everything from home remodeling to a new vacation for the grandkids.

Naturally, since Greenspan is a Republican and since Bush is an idiotic Republican, no one thought about overseeing the financial institutions making these loans. As a result, we now have a wave of losses in the billions of dollars from risky loans. Consequently, we see financial institutions, who are apparently led by people who are not real bright given their past history, sharply cutting back on new loans.

If there is a recession, look for three things to happen. One is that Republicans like Bush will push for even more tax cuts under the rationale that we need to "pump" up the economy. Two, Democrats will do even better next year than anticipated. Three, illegal immigration will become even more potent as an issue because of economic insecurity among working class Americans.

Gallup Poll Shows Clinton & Obama Lead or Tie GOP Contenders

The Gallup Polling organization released a poll of nationwide voters on November 26, 2007, showing that Clinton and Obama lead all GOP contenders with the exception that Obama ties Guilliani in the poll. What is significant about Clinton's lead is that against all candidates, except Guilliani, she is doing better in her poll numbers than she was doing in a June/July poll. Regarding Guilliani, although Clinton's spread over Guilliani has increased from four per-cent to five per-cent, the numbers for both Guilliani have declined by one point each. Clinton went to 49% from 50% and Guilliani went from 46% to 44%.

Of course, we don't elect presidents in a nationwide contest, we elect them in 50 state elections which result in the selection of electors who make up the electoral college. Therefore, national polling figures are somewhat misleading. While it is probably impossible for a presidential candidate to lose the popular vote by more than five per-cent and still win the 270 electoral votes required to become president, as we saw in 2000, it is possible to lose the popular vote by 500,000 plus votes and still win the electoral college. In such a case, however, it is helpful to have the United States Supreme Court go in the bag for you.

Republican Representative Pushed Through Financial Aid for College for the Rich

Let's say that you were allocating Federal dollars for a student loan program. Would one of your priorities be getting such aid into the hands of parents who run businesses employing less than 100 people? Parents who may have a net worth in the millions of dollars? Well, if you were Republican Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado that's exactly what you would do.

This is from an article on the U.S. News & World Report website dated November 16, 2007:

A little-noticed loophole written into federal college financial aid rules allows the children of wealthy entrepreneurs to collect aid intended for the needy.

In a bill passed last year, Congress decreed that when determining how much each family can afford to contribute to a child's college education, the federal government should not consider the assets of owners of businesses with 100 full-time employees or fewer. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado inserted this exemption, noting at the time that small-business owners should be treated the same as family farmers, who aren't expected to mortgage their property to pay for college. Musgrave, a Republican, did not respond to requests for comment. The federal government will still consider the income of all business owners.

According to the article, financial planners for the rich are already taking advantage of this provision, as this quote shows:

Matt Geherin, a financial consultant in Rochester, N.Y., helped a client move property worth $700,000 into a limited partnership to reduce taxes and improve his children's eligibility for need-based aid. The new exemption could "change our advice profoundly," he says.

Major advantage. Fred Amrein, a fee-only college funding adviser based in Wynnewood, Pa., says the new exemption allowed one client's child to qualify for a federally subsidized student loan this spring even though the parent's business was worth more than $1 million. Previously, the government would have estimated those parents could have paid more than $70,000 a year for tuition and thus would have awarded the child no need-based aid. "This is a major advantage for small-business families," Amrein says, adding, "I believe the size [of the exemption] is too large."

Marilyn Musgrave: She'll fight to the death to help the rich!

Reader Submission: The Kids on my Street

On my street, the kids went to war when they graduated high school. The moms and dads had a party for the boys before they left for basic training and another one before they shipped to Vietnam. The kids on my street all went to Vietnam.

There weren’t many parties when the kid came back. Just having him back in one piece was enough. The moms and dads seemed to sink into themselves and always aged while their child was gone.

When the kid came back he was usually working at Chevy, Ford or Republic Steel before his hair grew over his ears and onto his collar. Most of the boys on my street grew their hair long after they came back from Vietnam.

The people on my street knew that the fortunate sons of privilege were not going to Vietnam. The Batchelders, Bushes and Cheneys lived on avenues, drives and boulevards where all of the children went to college and joined the National Guard or the Army Special Reserve or got themselves elected to a Government position if they ran out of deferments. These children didn’t keep themselves out of the war. Their moms and dads used their power and influence and money to keep their kids out of Vietnam.

The children on the Batchelder’s, Bush’s and Cheney’s avenues and boulevards were already working in Government when the kids on my street came back from Vietnam. The Batchelder, Bush and Cheney children never did grow their hair long and they didn’t learn first-hand about real human justice and injustice and tragedy and corruption and courage and sacrifice, but they did get a big head start in government, which is part of the reason that we are in the situation we are in, in Iraq. These sons of privilege never tested or tempered their own character in the Vietnam crucible and arrived in positions of power without the capability of exercising the thoughtful judgment that they may have possessed had they only gone to war with the kids on my street.

John Galish
Brunswick

Afro-American Evangelical Voters: Personally Conservative but Socially Liberal?

There is an interesting article on the Washington Post website dated November 26, 2007, about Afro-American evangelical voters being torn between the two parties. On the one hand they lean conservative on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, but on the other hand they are liberal in terms of combating racism and on economic issues. This is a quote from the article:

Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge, a member of Jackson's group who supported Bush in 2004. "What we think is moral is not only the defense of marriage, but we also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."

The above quote sums up the problem for some Afro-American evangelical voters. The GOP will never back them on issues such as fighting racial discrimination or equalizing education opportunities. The Democrats won't back them on issues such as abortion gay rights. In 2004 they resolved that dilemma by backing Bush in greater numbers in such states as Ohio where there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot outlawing same-sex marriage.

That year Bush received 16% of the Afro-American vote in Ohio while nationwide he received about 11% of the Afro-American vote. Given the closeness of the race here in Ohio, that extra 5% was very important to Bush and the GOP.

This year, though, such voters are feeling like there is no one for them to support. The Post article ends with a point made by a Afro-American preacher who supported Bush in 2004:

He thinks the GOP pays attention to evangelicals when it needs their votes but has not delivered when it comes to advancing their causes. Jackson said that after the 2004 election, he attended a White House meeting of evangelical leaders and listened as Rove said he didn't think the church vote had won the election for Bush.

Jackson told him: "I am a registered Democrat. The only reason I am here is because I thought you were working on issues of faith and that it would be better for my folks than the promises, promises of the Democratic party."

Democrats, he said, "come to us under the cloak of darkness at the last hour, get what they want and then act like they don't know us the next day."

That got a big laugh from the conservatives, he recalled. Then Jackson said he told Rove: "You all are doing the same thing to the evangelicals."

Politics is About Personal Relationships as Much as About Philosophy

There is a story in the New York Times dated November 24, 2007, about how a former Marine is organizing western Iowa for Barack Obama. The essential point of the story is that he is trying to develop a network of voters who will recruit other Democratic voters to Obama's cause for the upcoming Democratic caucuses. This is a quote from the article:

The outcome of the Iowa caucuses, a set of 1,781 precinct meetings to take place across the state on Jan. 3, hinges on creating a strong and loyal person-to-person network. Mr. Steele is among the hundreds of Democratic and Republican campaign aides stationed in Iowa responsible for building — and sustaining — those networks throughout the state’s 99 counties.

Most local campaigns don't understand this point: In politics relationships are as important, if not more so, as philosophy in winning elections. People don't go out and work for candidates in local elections because they agree with their philosophy, they go out and work for them because they like them. This is not so true on the national and state level, but is very true on the local level.

People who are thinking about running for office need to work on developing a network of personal relationships they can draw on for their campaigns. It is possible to win local political campaigns without such a network, but it is much easier with such a network.

Huckabee Says America is "Enslaved" to Saudi Oil

This kind of language is why we think that Mike Huckabee is the most dangerous potential Republican nominee for President. Here is a quote from his appearance on CNN's Late Edition:

"Every time we put our credit card in the gas pump, we're paying so that the Saudis get rich — filthy, obscenely rich, and that money then ends up going to funding madrassas that train the terrorists. America has allowed itself to become enslaved to Saudi oil. It's absurd. It's embarrassing."

No other candidate of either party is pointing out the obvious: The Saudis aren't our friends, aren't very good allies, and only support us because they want our backing against their own home-grown religious radicals. This is the country that produced 19 of the hijackers that killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. This is the country that produced bin Laden. Most Americans realize the truth of what Huckabee is saying.

Huckabee's blend of social conservatism with populism on issues such as immigration and energy consumption would give Democrats fit in the general election. Hopefully, he won't get the nomination. If he does, look out.

More Voinovich BS from the PD

Is there a law somewhere that says that the Plain Dealer has to describe Voinovich as some sort of Republican "moderate" on Iraq, even though it is obvious he is not such thing? Time and time again the PD tells us that Voinovich is searching for a different policy in Iraq than Bush's even though it is simply not true.

The latest example is a Plain Dealer editorial that appeared on Sunday, November 25, 2007. The editorial included this gem:

You might think that Democratic leaders, having already fallen hard on this path this year, would look to form an alliance with Republicans - including Ohioans Steve LaTourette in the House and George Voinovich in the Senate - who want a new course in Iraq.

Here's a question for the stupid editorial writer who wrote the above: When has George Voinovich proposed a new course for Iraq that is substantially different than George Bush's? Voinovich has supported the President on every vote that has been held this year. He refuses to come out in support of any kind of deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. He supported the so-called "surge." So just what is this new course that Voinovich and LaTourette supposedly want?

Look, we have long known that the Plain Dealer carries good old George's water. They did it when he was Cuyahoga County Auditor, when he was Cleveland's Mayor, when he was Governor, and now they are still carrying it when he is a Senator. Instead of insulting the intelligence of their readers by making up stuff, why doesn't PD's editorial staff just come out and admit the obvious: No matter what the facts are, they support whatever Voinovich does.

West Losing the "Other War" Against Taliban in Afghanistan

So, do you remember the Taliban? You know, the Islamist group that took over Afghanistan, provided a safe haven for bin Laden while he attacked the West, and was driven out of power in 2001 by American forces? Well, they are back and on the verge of capturing control of Afghanistan from the government that we are backing. This dreary outlook is being painted by the Guardian, a newspaper in the United Kingdom, in an article on its website dated November, 22, 2007.

Okay, so here is a historical lesson for George W. Bush and his radical right-wing nutjob supporters: You don't start one war until you have finished the first one. Napoleon learned it in Russia, Hitler learned it in Russia, and now Bush is learning it in Afghanistan and Iraq. He started his second war before he had finished the job of pacifying Afghanistan.

Sometimes, as say in WWII, when we were attacked by Japan and then both Germany and Italy declared war on us, you have to fight two wars at one time. But, unless you are forced into that position, this is a very simple concept to learn: DON'T FIGHT TWO WARS AT ONCE.

Government Uses Cellphones to Track Americans, Often Without Showing Probable Cause

One of the ongoing legal issues in the United States is applying the United States Constitution to situations that arise over 200 years after its adoption. When the Constitution was drafted, there weren't telephones, computers, cell phones, email messages, and all the other devices we now use to communicate. So the issue becomes how do you apply the Fourth Amendment, for example, to situations that the drafters of the Constitution never envisioned?

This issue is seen in a story that appeared in the Washington Post dated Friday, November 23, 2007. Apparently, since September 11, 2001, the United States government has required that every cellphone sold in America contain a way that such phone can be tracked used global positioning systems. The idea is that if there is an emergency, and a person is lost, that person can be found if he or she is carrying his or her cell phone.

According to the Post story, this system is now being used by law enforcement agencies to track suspected criminals. In many cases, Federal law enforcement agents are obtaining warrants from Federal Courts without a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or is being planned. The following quote is from the first two paragraphs of the story:

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

Apparently the argument is being made that two Federal statutes, the Stored Communications Act and the Pen Register Statute, authorize the collection of such information on a standard of "specific and articulable factsshowing reasonable grounds to believe the data are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
While some Federal Courts are rejecting this argument, other Federal Courts are accepting it and using warrants for the collection of such data.

One Federal magistrate in New York reasoned that since the government "did not install the "tracking device" and the user chose to carry the phone and permit transmission of its information to a carrier, no warrant was needed." Of course, this argument overlooks the fact that the while the government did not install the tracking device, it required that the tracking device be installed.

In any event, if you are interested in the issue of privcy in an electronic age, you will find this article fascinating. We learned of this article through Talking Points Memo owned and operated by Josh Marshall.

Medina County Off-Year Voting Statistics

According to the Medina County Board of Elections website 37,414 voters voted in the 2007 general election. The BOE also shows the county as having 124,107 voters. Based on those two figures, the turnout was 30.1%. The figure for the total number of voters is misleading, however.

There are 23,040 registered voters in Medina County who didn't vote in either the 2004 or 2006 general elections. There are also 74,247 who voted in either of those two elections. Assuming that voters who have missed voting in both a presidential and gubernatorial elections aren't going to vote in an off-year election, it makes sense to take them out of the equation when figuring the turn-out for 2007.

If you remove the 23,040 "missing" voters from the equation, you get a voter universe of 101,067. Using that figure, the turn-out increases to 37.1%. If you calculate the turn-out based on the voters who actually voted in either the 2004 or 2006 general elections, the turn-out increases to 50.3%.

What's interesting about off-year elections is that both political parties aren't seeing a very large percentage of their voters voting in them, if 2005 is any guide. In 2004 Democratic voters in Medina County numbered 16,195 while Republican voters numbered 16,416. In 2006 Democratic voters numbered 15,207 and Republican voters numbered 15,555.

In 2005, however, the turn-out for Democratic voters dropped to 4019 and the turn-out for Republican voters dropped to 3258. If either or both political parties had turned out their voters anywhere close the 2004 or 2006 general elections, the results would probably have been dramatically different.

Republican, Democrat Tied in Seville Council Race After Official Count

James Lovejoy, a Democrat, and Leslie Miller, a Republican, were tied after the official count in their race for Seville, Ohio Village Council. Each of them has 291 votes. There will now be a recount by hand, and if they are still tied after the hand recount, a coin flip will determine the winner.

Lovejoy ran a very aggressive campaign for Village Council while Miller, an incumbent council member, was not nearly as visible. There were three people running to fill two spots on the Council.

This is the only race in the county in which a recount will be conducted. You can read the story about it in the Medina County Gazette.

NLRB Gives Workers the Shaft

Harold Myerson, who has a column that appears in the Washington Post, wrote on November 21, 2007 about some recent rulings by the NLRB. The NLRB was established during the Franklin Roosevelt administration to protect the rights of workers to organize unions. Unfortunately, since Bush as been president and controlled the appointment process, it has become, to use Myerson's phrase, "The National Labor Ruination Board."

As Myerson points out, there are two recent rulings that show just how far the Board will bend logic and reasoning to arrive at employer friendly decisions. In one case the Board ruled that even if 51% of employees sign union cards saying they want representation, the employer must post a notice informing the employees that if 30% of them sign a petition saying they don't want a union, the wishes of the 51% will be ignored and an election will take place. The Board reasoned that the cards might have been the result of "group pressure."

In another case, however, the Broad ruled that if there is a union in place, and 51% of the workers sign cards saying they don't want the union to represent them any longer, that is fine, and no election has to be held. In other words, cards that help unions are bad, but cards that help employers are good.

Most social liberals deplore the conservative attempts to pack the courts because of what it will do to the Roe v. Wade decision. Roe, however, is not the real reason why conservatives are trying to pack the courts. The real reasons are to help corporations avoid laws that hamper their freedom of action and to help the Federal government increase its ability to monitor and control people. Roe is just the excuse that conservatives give to the religious right to get their help.

2008 Primary & Caucus Schedule

A blogger named "Connecticut Bob" has taken the time to put together the primary and caucus schedule for both the Democratic and Republican Parties. It is an interesting document. The caucuses apparently start on January 3rd with Iowa, but might be the 14th, and the primaries apparently start on January 15th with Michigan, but might actually start on January 22nd with New Hampshire.

New Poll on Character Traits of 2008 Presidential Candidates

The AP and Yahoo have a new poll out in which respondents were asked to rate presidential candidates from each party in terms of character traits such being decisive, honest, experienced, ethical, and strong. In each of these traits, Clinton and Giuliani lead their respective parties. What is interesting about this poll is that the two leading candidates for their parties in terms of being likeable are Obama and Giuliani. Between those two, Obama was viewed as more likeable than Giuliani by a 54% to 46% spread.

The article about the poll points out, though, that likeability, if there is such a word, ranks relatively low on a list of character traits that voters consider important for a presidential candidate. Interestingly in this election year, according to the article, Democrats are concentrating more on personal characteristics and Republicans more on policy.

Back in 2000 we were told by a lot of supposedly knowlegeable people in the media that Bush would beat Gore because people liked him better than Gore. According to this article, and this poll, that is just one more example of how wrong the media can be when it comes to analyzing politics. Too often, what is supposedly objective reporting is nothing more than the reporter's own biases disguised as the opinion of others.

Republican Praise for Democratic Medina County Auditor Kovack

Mike Morse, former president of Medina City Council, and a Republican, wrote a letter to the editor of the Medina County Gazette praising Mike Kovack, the Democratic Auditor of Medina County. You can view the letter here.

How Iraq War Has Hurt U.S. Diplomatically

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post is a columnist who seems to be somewhat sympathetic to the Bush Administration. Therefore, we were struck by a column that appears in the Post dated Tuesday, November 20, 2007, in which she points out the ways in which the Iraq War has damaged the diplomatic efforts of the U.S. She starts off by noting that militarily things seem better in Iraq, but she then goes on to state that most Americans don't realize what this war has done to our standing in the world. This is a quote from her column:

Though I don't especially want to perpetuate any stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren't improving in Iraq -- it seems they are, at least for the moment -- but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn't just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What's worse is the fact that -- however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now -- our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we've paid is too high.

When America was first formed and for about a hundred years thereafter we pretty much tried to influence the rest of the world by example, not by military force. Even after we began to emerge as a world power, and fought the war against the Spanish in the 1890s, we were usually reluctant to throw our weight around. We only got into WWI when a ship was attacked and Americans were killed. Then, after that war, we ignored the League of Nations and concentrated on ourselves. We only got into WWII after Pearl Harbor, and might not have even declared war on Germany and Italy except they declared war on us.

After WWII, though, we became convinced that we had to be involved with the rest of the world. So we took the lead in establishing the United Nations, helped rebuild Europe with the Marshall Plan, conducted on the most benign occupations by a conquering power in world history in Japan, and helped form N.A.T.O. to counteract Soviet expansionism. In most of those efforts, however, we worked in concert with others and didn't try to go it alone.

Bush decided on a different approach. Unlike his own father in the first Gulf War, and unlike Clinton in Kosovo. he decided, along with Tony Blair, to pretty much go it alone in fighting the Iraqis. He pressured the U.N. and Congress to support him and invaded a country that had done nothing to the U.S.

His approach has been a disaster. We have alienated our natural allies. We have appeared hypocritical to the rest of the world. We have violated our own ideals. We have sacrificed priceless lives and over half a trillion dollars in the sands of Iraq. We find ourselves in a situation which has no easy way out, and in which no matter what we do, our own self-interest will be jeopardized.

Meanwhile Bush and his supporters will see columns like Applebaum's as weak and her arguments as meritless. They will continue to see what Bush has done as being both right and necessary. They will continue to enable him to drag down America's standing in the world.

Will Clinton be Electable in Ohio?

That's the title of a column that appeared in the Sunday, November 18, 2007 edition of the Columbus Dispatch. The column appears to have its impetus from a poll that was released by A Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio voters. The poll showed that 44% of Ohioans had a favorable view of Clinton and 44% had an unfavorable view of her. The poll also showed that 56% would either definitely vote for her or might vote for her, while 41% said they would never vote for her.

There were significant differences between Democrats and Republicans, as might be expected, and some differences between men and women, which might also be expected. What is somewhat unexpected is that 35% of independents polled said that they would never vote for her. The reason that this is unexpected is that in most national polls independents are expressing attitudes much closer to Democatic ideals than to Republican ideals.

Another unexpected result, this one more pleasing to Clinton, is that only 52% of white, born-again evangelicals say that they would never vote for her while 45% of the same group would either definitely vote for her, (24%) or might vote for her, (21%). The reason why this is unexpected is that in 2004 CNN Exit poll this group favored Bush over Kerry by 78% to 21% and constitued 23% of the poll sample. If Clinton can improve on Kerry's percentage with this group by 24% points or anything close to it, then she will win Ohio, and win it comfortably.

Here's something else to consider when analyzing this whole favorable-unfavorable view thing about Clinton. In 2004, again according to the CNN exit poll, Bush, who carried the state had 47% of the electorate viewing him unfavorably. Again, if Clinton keeps her unfavorable rating in the low 40s, she will do just fine.