Medina County Democratic Party
Paragraph two of The PREAMBLE of the BYLAWS for the Medina County Democratic Party:
“We acknowledge that a political party that wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead; a party that asks for the people's trust must prove that it trusts the people; and a party that hopes to call forth the best our nation can achieve must embody the best of the nation's heritage and traditions. In accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the State of Ohio and the Constitution and Bylaws of the National and Ohio Democratic Parties, we pledge to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of a society of free people.”
So how are we doing? From the perspective of having served for two years as a Precinct person and Central Committee Member, we are doing reasonably well, but we should be doing better, for the following reason.
• Medina County has 151 Precincts but only 63 Precinct persons were elected at the just completed March Primary. This means that 88 (~58%) of the Precincts do not have benefit of an elected Precinct person. If Precinct persons serve a beneficial role, then why are there so many vacancies?
Speaking as a Precinct person who was appointed to the Central Committee in 2006, I have, by my initiative been involved in various activities. However, there has not been a meeting of the Central Committee, to my knowledge, since my appointment. Nor have there been any communications to me about activities of the Executive Committee. This concerned me, so I undertook to try to find out why. A careful review of the BYLAWS received by me shortly after appointment, but only now critically examined, reveals some likely causes that should be changed to achieve possible solutions.
1. Precinct persons are elected on the same four year cycle as the Presidential election in the March primary. The filing petition deadline is 60 days before the primary date, or about 3 January for 2008. This means the candidates will very likely need to secure the petition form from the BOE, and then make contact with at least five registered Democrats, who reside in their Precinct to seek their signatures on the petition, during the busy holiday season which may why many Precincts have not even a single candidate filing for Precinct person. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
2. Once elected, the Precinct persons and now Central Committee Members are called to an organization meeting to elect a fifteen member Executive Committee and four Committee Officers. This is the only meeting of the Central Committee until four years later when the next four year election cycle produces a new group of elected or re-elected Precinct persons. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
3. The fifteen Central Committee Members elected to serve as the Executive Committee participate in Executive Committee meetings, at least six per year, and it is the responsibility of the Secretary to provide access to meeting proceedings or minutes to the Executive Committee Members only. The Executive Committee has no apparent accountability to provide feedback to the Central Committee. Perhaps there is a way to do better than this.
So what might be done in order to try to improve? The BYLAWS can be changed by amendment. The BYLAWS stipulate that the BYLAWS should be reviewed every four years, and any proposed changes are to be voted on at the organization meeting of the Central Committee. With the organization meeting date close upon us, perhaps in early April, now is the time to get the amendments on the agenda, where they can be debated and voted upon. If not done now, it will be 2012 before we will have the next opportunity!
The BYLAWS contains eighteen ARTICLES. It is proposed that seven ARTICLES need to be amended to accomplish the following changes.
1. Change to a two year election cycle from the current four year election cycle for the Central Committee Precinct persons.
• The next election will be in two years, or 2010, which has a later May primary. This moves the petition process until after the busy holiday season for the candidates for the off-Presidential election years at least.
2. Clarify language to reflect that the four officers; Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer serve as officers for both the Central and Executive Committees to be elected by majority vote of the Central Committee at the organizational meeting.
3. Hold the Central Committee organization meeting following the Precinct person elections on a two year cycle.
• This doubles the frequency that the Central Committee will meet.
4. Expand availability of the official proceedings or minutes, of the Executive Committee meetings to both the Executive Committee and Central Committee members to accomplish accountability feedback.
• This increase of communication should facilitate more bottom-up participation, input to party activities, and improve teamwork.
5. Change the cycle for BYLAW review from four years to two years to be acted upon at the organizational Central Committee meeting.
• Enables a more nimble organization, ready to more quickly change process to improve when it is recognized that improvement is needed.
If you are a Precinct person who will be participating in the upcoming organizational meeting, it is requested that the proposed BYLAW amendments be given your serious consideration and ultimately your support.
Thank you,
Bob Simmons, Wadsworth Township Precinct B committee person.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Psychological Damage to Soldiers Caused by Iraq War
There is an excellent article out by Agence France-Presse (AFP) regarding the psychological damage that has been done to members of the American military serving in Iraq. The article is based on the experiences of the 10Th Mountain Division, which the article calls "one of the most deployed brigades in the US Army since the September 11 attacks of 2001."
This is from the article:
Suicides, family breakups, depression and social stigma are just some of the hidden legacies of the Iraq war among the more than one million US troops who have served in the campaign.
While nearly 4,000 American troops have been killed in the war and more than 29,000 have been wounded, those who escape physical injury still stand a high chance of developing psychological scars that may stay with them for life.
The article points out that troops who are experiencing psychological stress caused by repeated combat tours and/or the amount of combat action they are seeing, have to wait months before receiving an appointment to see a mental health professional. This is also from the article:
The study, by the group Veterans for America, found that the mental health care provided for soldiers did not meet the psychological burden they had suffered during repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Sooner or later, and likely sooner, we're going to hit the wall and something will have to change," said Bobby Muller, the founder of Veterans for America and a former Marine paralyzed while serving in Vietnam in 1969.
The report criticized a Pentagon policy of extending tours of duty from 12 to 15 months and insufficient time between deployments to recuperate as key factors in the high level of mental problems among returning US troops.
On its most recent deployment, the 10th Mountain Division's second brigade combat team lost 52 troops killed in action, while a further 270 were wounded, out of a total troop strength of around 3,500 soldiers.
The figures reveal the unit's soldiers to be five times more likely to be killed in action than the average soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to the report -- a major psychological stress on the troops.
The study found troops in the unit reported low morale, spousal abuse and attempted suicides. And yet, troops had to wait up to two months for an appointment with a mental health expert once they returned, it said.
The article also pointed out the rise in the attempted suicide rate among U.S. Army personnel: According to the figures, more than 2,000 soldiers tried to take their own lives or injure themselves in 2006, compared to about 375 in 2002.
This article shows what happens to combat troops when the civilian leadership, ie, the President, send them off on a war that is not well thought out, has no clear purpose other than removing one man from power, and there are no plans to handle what happens after that person is removed from power.
The article is well worth the few minutes it will take to read it. You will find it very enlightening. Of course, since AFP is a French company, it is likely that the right-wing blowhards who support this war will just ignore it. After all, who knows better, Bush or the French?
This is from the article:
Suicides, family breakups, depression and social stigma are just some of the hidden legacies of the Iraq war among the more than one million US troops who have served in the campaign.
While nearly 4,000 American troops have been killed in the war and more than 29,000 have been wounded, those who escape physical injury still stand a high chance of developing psychological scars that may stay with them for life.
The article points out that troops who are experiencing psychological stress caused by repeated combat tours and/or the amount of combat action they are seeing, have to wait months before receiving an appointment to see a mental health professional. This is also from the article:
The study, by the group Veterans for America, found that the mental health care provided for soldiers did not meet the psychological burden they had suffered during repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Sooner or later, and likely sooner, we're going to hit the wall and something will have to change," said Bobby Muller, the founder of Veterans for America and a former Marine paralyzed while serving in Vietnam in 1969.
The report criticized a Pentagon policy of extending tours of duty from 12 to 15 months and insufficient time between deployments to recuperate as key factors in the high level of mental problems among returning US troops.
On its most recent deployment, the 10th Mountain Division's second brigade combat team lost 52 troops killed in action, while a further 270 were wounded, out of a total troop strength of around 3,500 soldiers.
The figures reveal the unit's soldiers to be five times more likely to be killed in action than the average soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to the report -- a major psychological stress on the troops.
The study found troops in the unit reported low morale, spousal abuse and attempted suicides. And yet, troops had to wait up to two months for an appointment with a mental health expert once they returned, it said.
The article also pointed out the rise in the attempted suicide rate among U.S. Army personnel: According to the figures, more than 2,000 soldiers tried to take their own lives or injure themselves in 2006, compared to about 375 in 2002.
This article shows what happens to combat troops when the civilian leadership, ie, the President, send them off on a war that is not well thought out, has no clear purpose other than removing one man from power, and there are no plans to handle what happens after that person is removed from power.
The article is well worth the few minutes it will take to read it. You will find it very enlightening. Of course, since AFP is a French company, it is likely that the right-wing blowhards who support this war will just ignore it. After all, who knows better, Bush or the French?
Wall Street Journal Poll Shows Very Close Race This November
The Wall Street Journal and NBC released a poll on March 13th that shows a very close race for President this November. While the poll shows McCain losing to either Obama or Clinton, the results are very close. Here is a quote from the Christian Science Monitor article that is linked to above:
In the matchups in the NBC/Journal poll, Senator Obama comes in ahead of McCain by 47 to 44 percent. Senator Clinton edges McCain by 47 to 45 percent. Both races fall within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points
Right now Democrats have a fundraising advantage and they need to exploit it. This is also from the article:
Part of the challenge facing the McCain campaign is that Democrats have raised more money than Republicans in the current presidential campaign. "What is of interest to me this cycle is ... the Democrat funding advantage," McInturff said. "I just felt as a Republican we had a God-given right to more money.... Republicans, if they look a little bewildered, it is because they are not used to being outfunded. I think that is a huge story this cycle."
A lot of pressure will be applied to the Democratic candidate to accept public financing, especially from newspaper editorial boards. Why? Because in an environment where both candidates are limited in what they can spend, newspaper editorials have somewhat more significance. Well, their possible editorial support is not a sufficient reasons to give up this advantage.
Democrats who think this will be an easy election aren't in touch with reality. The Democrats will be nominating either a woman or an African-American for President. Such an nominee is going to be a very big change for America, and not all Americans are going to accept such a change. This election will be down and dirty and Democrats have to be prepared for such an election.
In the matchups in the NBC/Journal poll, Senator Obama comes in ahead of McCain by 47 to 44 percent. Senator Clinton edges McCain by 47 to 45 percent. Both races fall within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points
Right now Democrats have a fundraising advantage and they need to exploit it. This is also from the article:
Part of the challenge facing the McCain campaign is that Democrats have raised more money than Republicans in the current presidential campaign. "What is of interest to me this cycle is ... the Democrat funding advantage," McInturff said. "I just felt as a Republican we had a God-given right to more money.... Republicans, if they look a little bewildered, it is because they are not used to being outfunded. I think that is a huge story this cycle."
A lot of pressure will be applied to the Democratic candidate to accept public financing, especially from newspaper editorial boards. Why? Because in an environment where both candidates are limited in what they can spend, newspaper editorials have somewhat more significance. Well, their possible editorial support is not a sufficient reasons to give up this advantage.
Democrats who think this will be an easy election aren't in touch with reality. The Democrats will be nominating either a woman or an African-American for President. Such an nominee is going to be a very big change for America, and not all Americans are going to accept such a change. This election will be down and dirty and Democrats have to be prepared for such an election.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
How Sherrod Brown Took the Senate in 2006
Earlier we posted an entry on why Howard Metzenbaum got elected three times to the U.S. Senate from Ohio. Our point was that Metzenbaum, although a Jewish liberal, got votes from white working class voters, even while, in 1988, Dukasis was losing Ohio to George H.W. Bush. We pointed out that he did it by talking about economic issues first, last, and always.
That post got us wondering how Sherrod Brown did with white working class voters in the 2006 election against Mike DeWine. Now, for purposes of this entry, we are defining working class voters as voters who don't possess a four year college degree.
The CNN Exit Poll for the 2006 Ohio Senate Race shows that Brown carried this demographic group of voters against DeWine in 2006. Here are some numbers from that poll:
Brown beat DeWine among all white voters by a 52% to 48% margin. He took white males by a margin of 51% to 49% and white women by a margin of 53% to 47%. He took non-college educated 57% to 43% and he took college graduates by a margin of 55% to 45%. Among white voters who stated religious preferences, the only group that Brown lost were white Protestants, and he took white Catholics, white Jews, whites of other religions, and whites who don't have any religion.
Among geographical regions, the only areas he lost was Southwestern Ohio, and he won in cities and suburbs, but lost in small towns and in rural areas. He won both among union members and among non-union members.
Whoever comes out of the race for the Democratic nomination should take a long look at Sherrod's 2006 campaign for Senator and use that same approach when campaigning not only in Ohio but all over the United States.
That post got us wondering how Sherrod Brown did with white working class voters in the 2006 election against Mike DeWine. Now, for purposes of this entry, we are defining working class voters as voters who don't possess a four year college degree.
The CNN Exit Poll for the 2006 Ohio Senate Race shows that Brown carried this demographic group of voters against DeWine in 2006. Here are some numbers from that poll:
Brown beat DeWine among all white voters by a 52% to 48% margin. He took white males by a margin of 51% to 49% and white women by a margin of 53% to 47%. He took non-college educated 57% to 43% and he took college graduates by a margin of 55% to 45%. Among white voters who stated religious preferences, the only group that Brown lost were white Protestants, and he took white Catholics, white Jews, whites of other religions, and whites who don't have any religion.
Among geographical regions, the only areas he lost was Southwestern Ohio, and he won in cities and suburbs, but lost in small towns and in rural areas. He won both among union members and among non-union members.
Whoever comes out of the race for the Democratic nomination should take a long look at Sherrod's 2006 campaign for Senator and use that same approach when campaigning not only in Ohio but all over the United States.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Rasmussen Reports Running Daily Presidential Primary Tracking Polls
Rasmussen Reports are running daily presidential primary tracking polls and posting them online. The daily poll on the Democratic Presidential primary vote is showing a definite tightening of the race between Clinton and Obama. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wonders if this is the first evidence of the effect that the revelations about the retiring pastor of Barack Obama's church are having on the race.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Media Ignores McCain Not Releasing Tax Returns While Going After Clinton
Media Matters columnist Jamison Foser has a column up about how the media goes after Hillary Clinton for not releasing her tax returns while ignoring that McCain hasn't released his tax returns. Now, this could be just one more example of the double standard that is applied to the Clintons by the national media, or it could reflect the fact that McCain's opponents didn't go after him on this issue during the primaries like Obama went after Clinton.
One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.
Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.
The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.
One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.
Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.
The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.
Same Old Bush _________(You Fill in the Blank)
Today Bubble-Boy told the American public that he realized that the economy was in a "tough time" but that there would be a rebound. Well, yes, there will be eventually be a rebound, but the question isn't if but when. Of course, BB has no way of knowing when, since he seems to have absolutely no knowledge of economics.
His observations about the economy rank up there with his belief that our nation could afford his tax cuts and still have a surplus, his confident assertions about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, Dick Cheney's warnings about Iraq and mushroom clouds, and observations about American troops being greeted as liberators.
On just about every major pronouncement of policy, BB has been proved wrong. To quote Stephen Colbert, "the facts are biased against the President."
His observations about the economy rank up there with his belief that our nation could afford his tax cuts and still have a surplus, his confident assertions about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, Dick Cheney's warnings about Iraq and mushroom clouds, and observations about American troops being greeted as liberators.
On just about every major pronouncement of policy, BB has been proved wrong. To quote Stephen Colbert, "the facts are biased against the President."
Why Howard Metzenbaum Won Elections in Ohio
One of the problems that the Democratic Party has had over the last 42 years is winning votes from white working-class males who don't have a college degree. Supposedly the Democratic Party hasn't won a majority of such votes since 1964. There has been a lot of speculation about why this is so and more speculation about how to get such votes back. Well, here's our suggestion: Look at the career of Howard Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum was Jewish, a businessman, and a liberal from the east side of Cleveland. Yet, he had no trouble winning votes from white, working class males. Why? Because he was an economic populist who consistently stood up for the economic interests of Ohioans. He was tough, combative, and didn't take anything from anybody.
In 1988 he spoke to a group of UAW retirees in Parma. He told them that he was on the hit list of every right-wing group in America. Then, his voice roaring, he told them "I don't mind their hatred, I welcome it." It was classic Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum didn't always win. The first time he won the Democratic nomination for Senate, in 1970, he lost the general election to Robert Taft, the father of Ohio's former governor. The second time he ran, after being appointed in 1973 by John Gilligan, he lost to John Glenn in the Democratic Primary. The third time, in 1976, he won. He went on to serve three terms in the Senate. So that was another trait of Metzenbaum's: persistence.
Liberals who want to know how to win elections should study his career. They should talk about economic inequality, about fighting the power of huge corporations, and about standing up for ordinary Americans. They should never stop fighting, and they should be intellectually and politically tough. If they do, they will be true to the heritage of our party and, like Howard Metzenbaum, they will win their share of elections.
Click here to read the PD articles on Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum was Jewish, a businessman, and a liberal from the east side of Cleveland. Yet, he had no trouble winning votes from white, working class males. Why? Because he was an economic populist who consistently stood up for the economic interests of Ohioans. He was tough, combative, and didn't take anything from anybody.
In 1988 he spoke to a group of UAW retirees in Parma. He told them that he was on the hit list of every right-wing group in America. Then, his voice roaring, he told them "I don't mind their hatred, I welcome it." It was classic Metzenbaum.
Howard Metzenbaum didn't always win. The first time he won the Democratic nomination for Senate, in 1970, he lost the general election to Robert Taft, the father of Ohio's former governor. The second time he ran, after being appointed in 1973 by John Gilligan, he lost to John Glenn in the Democratic Primary. The third time, in 1976, he won. He went on to serve three terms in the Senate. So that was another trait of Metzenbaum's: persistence.
Liberals who want to know how to win elections should study his career. They should talk about economic inequality, about fighting the power of huge corporations, and about standing up for ordinary Americans. They should never stop fighting, and they should be intellectually and politically tough. If they do, they will be true to the heritage of our party and, like Howard Metzenbaum, they will win their share of elections.
Click here to read the PD articles on Metzenbaum.
Bush, History, and the Iraq War
Slavery had been established in the United States for about 240 years when the American Civil War broke out. That war killed over 500,000 Americans and was the worst war in terms of military casualities ever fought by the U.S.
The split between the Shias and the Sunnis in Islam has lasted far longer than 240 years. In Iraq it is compounded by the fact that Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, killed, tortured, or imprisoned thousands of Muslims who were not Sunni. So, it shouldn't come as any surprise to us when Iraqis find it difficult to set aside their differences and work together.
Yet, this administration, from the beginning, has acted like it had absolutely no sense of history when it decided to being Bubble-Boy's horrible adventures. No one in this Administration seemed to consider whether, after we toppled Hussein, the Iraqis would be able to work together and actually form a government.
Now, here we are, 4,000 American dead, 20,000 American wounded, and half a trillion American dollars later, and, lo and behold. the Bushies are discovering that the Iraqis are having trouble working together in post-Hussein Iraq.
The following is from a Washington Post article about General Petraeus's upcoming testimony before the United States Congress in April: Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.
Here's the bottom line: Bubble-Boy and McCain want the decision of how long American troops should stand in harm's way in Iraq to be made by Iraqis because they are willing to keep troops there until there is a so-called political "reconcilation." We have no idea how long that will take, or whether it will ever take place.
America can't control what Iraqis do, it can only control what it does. Yet, Bush and McCain want to cede control over how long our troops are in Iraq to Iraqis. Call us old-fashioned but we believe that American politicians, not Iraqi ones, should decide how long American troops stay in Iraq.
The split between the Shias and the Sunnis in Islam has lasted far longer than 240 years. In Iraq it is compounded by the fact that Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, killed, tortured, or imprisoned thousands of Muslims who were not Sunni. So, it shouldn't come as any surprise to us when Iraqis find it difficult to set aside their differences and work together.
Yet, this administration, from the beginning, has acted like it had absolutely no sense of history when it decided to being Bubble-Boy's horrible adventures. No one in this Administration seemed to consider whether, after we toppled Hussein, the Iraqis would be able to work together and actually form a government.
Now, here we are, 4,000 American dead, 20,000 American wounded, and half a trillion American dollars later, and, lo and behold. the Bushies are discovering that the Iraqis are having trouble working together in post-Hussein Iraq.
The following is from a Washington Post article about General Petraeus's upcoming testimony before the United States Congress in April: Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.
Here's the bottom line: Bubble-Boy and McCain want the decision of how long American troops should stand in harm's way in Iraq to be made by Iraqis because they are willing to keep troops there until there is a so-called political "reconcilation." We have no idea how long that will take, or whether it will ever take place.
America can't control what Iraqis do, it can only control what it does. Yet, Bush and McCain want to cede control over how long our troops are in Iraq to Iraqis. Call us old-fashioned but we believe that American politicians, not Iraqi ones, should decide how long American troops stay in Iraq.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Scenes from Dean Holman's St. Patrick's Day Fundraiser
Medina County Prosecutor held his St. Patrick's Day Fundraiser on Thursday, March 13th, at the Medina Eagles Club on Lafayette Road. Guests included Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, Judge James L. Kimbler, Judge Dale Chase, Judge Eve Belfance, who is running for the Ninth District Court of Appeals, Judge Judith Cross, retired from the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, a representative from Congresswoman Betty Sutton's office, and all three Trustees of York Township.
Prominent Democrats included Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic Chair, Tom Wolfe, former chair of the Medina County Democratic Party, and his wife, Colleen, Joyce Kimbler, Treasurer of the Medina County Democratic Action Committee (MCDAC), Julie Batey, chair of the Wadsworth Democratic Group, and Steve Bailey, one of the founders of MCDAC.
Representatives from several area labor unions, including the Laborers, the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, and the Teamsters, also attended.
Below are some scenes from the Fundraiser:
Prominent Democrats included Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic Chair, Tom Wolfe, former chair of the Medina County Democratic Party, and his wife, Colleen, Joyce Kimbler, Treasurer of the Medina County Democratic Action Committee (MCDAC), Julie Batey, chair of the Wadsworth Democratic Group, and Steve Bailey, one of the founders of MCDAC.
Representatives from several area labor unions, including the Laborers, the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, and the Teamsters, also attended.
Below are some scenes from the Fundraiser:
Representative Betty Sutton Leads Fight for Groundbreaking Ethics Legislation
On March 11, 2008, Congresswoman Betty Sutton led the fight to pass historic legislation to create an Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) as an independent body within the House. The legislation passed the House with a vote of 229-182.
“The formation of this independent ethics entity will help cure many of the inherent structural flaws that restrain our present ethics structure by eliminating the conflicts of interest that are found in our current system,” Sutton said. “The formation of the OCE is an illustration of our commitment to restoring the public’s trust in government and to ensure that any potential abuses in the future will be identified and addressed.”
The independent OCE would be composed of six individuals appointed jointly by the Speaker and Minority leader. Current Members of the House and lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the panel.
After enacting the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since the Watergate era earlier this year, this Democratic Congress continues to deliver on the pledge to end the culture of corruption and restore public trust in government. H.Res.895 is essential to instilling confidence in the ethics process and ensuring Members of Congress who violate the law or rules of the House of Representatives are held accountable for their actions.
“The formation of this independent ethics entity will help cure many of the inherent structural flaws that restrain our present ethics structure by eliminating the conflicts of interest that are found in our current system,” Sutton said. “The formation of the OCE is an illustration of our commitment to restoring the public’s trust in government and to ensure that any potential abuses in the future will be identified and addressed.”
The independent OCE would be composed of six individuals appointed jointly by the Speaker and Minority leader. Current Members of the House and lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the panel.
After enacting the strongest ethics and lobbying reforms since the Watergate era earlier this year, this Democratic Congress continues to deliver on the pledge to end the culture of corruption and restore public trust in government. H.Res.895 is essential to instilling confidence in the ethics process and ensuring Members of Congress who violate the law or rules of the House of Representatives are held accountable for their actions.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Will Anti-War Voters Give Presidency to McCain?
That is the provocative thesis of an article in AlterNet.org. The article is called "Looming Threat for Dems: People Against the War Prefer McCain as President" and was written by Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.
Professor Chernus examines several public opinion polls and finds that McCain is doing relatively well even though most Americans don't believe that the war will be ultimately successful. He also argues that these polls show that McCain is seen as better prepared to protect the nation against terrorists, which is broader than the war in Iraq.
Professor Chernus points out that over the last year the percentage of people who believe that the war is "going well" has increased. This is from the article:
Over the last year, the number who say the war is going well jumped from 30% to 48% in the LAT/B poll. The NYT/CBS poll records a similar jump since last June, from 22% to 43%. In the WP/ABC poll, the number who see "significant progress" jumped from 31% to 43% in just the last three months. That increase tracks very closely with the growing political fortunes of McCain, who was all but counted out last summer.
He also points out the results of a Rasmussen Reports poll concerning the famous or infamous 3 a.m. call ad that the Clinton campaign ran against Obama in Ohio and Texas. This is from the article:
Remember the "crisis phone call, 3 AM" commercial that the Clinton campaign used so successfully? Rasmussen Reports was smart enough to ask voters whom they'd rather have answering that phone: Clinton, Obama, or . . . McCain. The two Democrats got only 25% each, while McCain was way ahead with 42%.
None of this is to suggest that McCain will beat either Obama or Clinton. It does mean, though, that this is going to be a very tough race for Democrats. If Obama is the nominee, Republicans will use race to divide Americans. If Clinton is the nominee, then the Republicans will use gender to divide Americans.
It is unfortunate that while our two main nominees are attacking each other as opposed to having a presumptive nominee going after McCain and defining him before he gets a chance to define himself.
Professor Chernus examines several public opinion polls and finds that McCain is doing relatively well even though most Americans don't believe that the war will be ultimately successful. He also argues that these polls show that McCain is seen as better prepared to protect the nation against terrorists, which is broader than the war in Iraq.
Professor Chernus points out that over the last year the percentage of people who believe that the war is "going well" has increased. This is from the article:
Over the last year, the number who say the war is going well jumped from 30% to 48% in the LAT/B poll. The NYT/CBS poll records a similar jump since last June, from 22% to 43%. In the WP/ABC poll, the number who see "significant progress" jumped from 31% to 43% in just the last three months. That increase tracks very closely with the growing political fortunes of McCain, who was all but counted out last summer.
He also points out the results of a Rasmussen Reports poll concerning the famous or infamous 3 a.m. call ad that the Clinton campaign ran against Obama in Ohio and Texas. This is from the article:
Remember the "crisis phone call, 3 AM" commercial that the Clinton campaign used so successfully? Rasmussen Reports was smart enough to ask voters whom they'd rather have answering that phone: Clinton, Obama, or . . . McCain. The two Democrats got only 25% each, while McCain was way ahead with 42%.
None of this is to suggest that McCain will beat either Obama or Clinton. It does mean, though, that this is going to be a very tough race for Democrats. If Obama is the nominee, Republicans will use race to divide Americans. If Clinton is the nominee, then the Republicans will use gender to divide Americans.
It is unfortunate that while our two main nominees are attacking each other as opposed to having a presumptive nominee going after McCain and defining him before he gets a chance to define himself.
Should Medina County Dems Adopt Two Year Terms for Members of the Central Committee?
On March 4, Democratic and Republican voters had the opportunity to elect precinct committee persons. Each precinct has one such official and collectively they make up the Central Committee of each party. One of their duties is to meet shortly after the results of the March primary are certified and select both the officers of the Central Committee and the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee becomes the governing board for the party. There is no legal requirement that the Central Committee meet as a body once the organizational meeting has been held. Although under the by-laws of the Medina County Democratic Party, the Chair of the Central Committee can call such meetings, traditionally there haven't been meetings of the Central Committee once the Executive Committee is chosen.
This year there were 63 Democratic precinct committee persons elected, out of a total of 151 Medina County precincts. This means that only 41.7% of the precincts elected Democratic precinct committee persons. These 63 elected party officials collectively received 8229 votes. This means that while 32,687 voters took Democratic presidential ballots, only 25.1% of potential Democratic voters voted for precinct committee persons.
The reason why there was only 63 Democrats running for the Central Committee was because many of the Democrats who were precinct committee persons as of the end of 2007 didn't file petitions to run for the Central Committee. The reason for that may have been the fact that the presidential primary in Ohio is in March and the petitions for the Central Committee have to be filed in early January, 60 days before the primary. This means that circulating petitions for Central Committee often conflicts with Christmas and holiday obligations. It also means that the weather can hinder the circulation of nominating petitions.
This is not a new problem for the Medina County Democratic Party. Under the Ohio Revised Code, a political party can chose whether the members of the Central Committee serve a two year term or a four year term. Since 1992 the members of the Medina County Democratic Central Committee have served a four year term. It may be time to consider having members of the Central Committee serve a two year term instead.
If the Medina County Central Committee amended the by-laws at the organizational meeting to shorten the term to two years, this means that members of the Central Committee would be elected in 2010, during the May primary. It would probably be much easier to get people to circulate nominating petitions during the spring than in the late fall and early winter. This would lead not only to more members of the Central Committee running for election, but would also lead to more Medina County Democrats voting for the Central Committee. Such an increased vote would give more legitimacy to decisions made by the Central Committee.
Another reason to adopt two year terms is that shorter terms would bring more accountability to the Democratic Party. Right now the opportunity to change the Executive Committee only occurs once every four years. Since the Executive Committee chooses the officers of the party, the opportunity to change those officers only occurs once every four years. Going to two year terms would result in greater accountability.
We are the Democratic Party. We are about accountability. We are about encouraging people to take part in their government by voting. Adopting two year terms for the Central Committee would be consistent with our party's philosophy. It would also lead to greater participation by Medina County Democrats in their party's operation.
This year there were 63 Democratic precinct committee persons elected, out of a total of 151 Medina County precincts. This means that only 41.7% of the precincts elected Democratic precinct committee persons. These 63 elected party officials collectively received 8229 votes. This means that while 32,687 voters took Democratic presidential ballots, only 25.1% of potential Democratic voters voted for precinct committee persons.
The reason why there was only 63 Democrats running for the Central Committee was because many of the Democrats who were precinct committee persons as of the end of 2007 didn't file petitions to run for the Central Committee. The reason for that may have been the fact that the presidential primary in Ohio is in March and the petitions for the Central Committee have to be filed in early January, 60 days before the primary. This means that circulating petitions for Central Committee often conflicts with Christmas and holiday obligations. It also means that the weather can hinder the circulation of nominating petitions.
This is not a new problem for the Medina County Democratic Party. Under the Ohio Revised Code, a political party can chose whether the members of the Central Committee serve a two year term or a four year term. Since 1992 the members of the Medina County Democratic Central Committee have served a four year term. It may be time to consider having members of the Central Committee serve a two year term instead.
If the Medina County Central Committee amended the by-laws at the organizational meeting to shorten the term to two years, this means that members of the Central Committee would be elected in 2010, during the May primary. It would probably be much easier to get people to circulate nominating petitions during the spring than in the late fall and early winter. This would lead not only to more members of the Central Committee running for election, but would also lead to more Medina County Democrats voting for the Central Committee. Such an increased vote would give more legitimacy to decisions made by the Central Committee.
Another reason to adopt two year terms is that shorter terms would bring more accountability to the Democratic Party. Right now the opportunity to change the Executive Committee only occurs once every four years. Since the Executive Committee chooses the officers of the party, the opportunity to change those officers only occurs once every four years. Going to two year terms would result in greater accountability.
We are the Democratic Party. We are about accountability. We are about encouraging people to take part in their government by voting. Adopting two year terms for the Central Committee would be consistent with our party's philosophy. It would also lead to greater participation by Medina County Democrats in their party's operation.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist Makes Case for Clinton Being the Stronger Candidate
Jonathon V. Last is a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who has a column called "One Last Thing" in that paper. A reader recently sent us a link to a column in the Sunday, March 9, 2008 paper in which he makes the argument that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate that Democrats can nominate to run against John McCain.
Here is the essense of his argument:
Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).
Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.
By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.
In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House
Of course, his argument assumes that Clinton holds the African-American vote and the vote from younger voters. It may be that an increasingly bitter primary could erode her support among those two voting blocks. Still, the argument is an interesting one and is well worth the time to read it.
Here is the essense of his argument:
Obama's support comes in large part from reliably Republican states such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio (and Pennsylvania).
Remember, too, that Obama's coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.
By contrast, Clinton's coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn't been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it's unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.
In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House
Of course, his argument assumes that Clinton holds the African-American vote and the vote from younger voters. It may be that an increasingly bitter primary could erode her support among those two voting blocks. Still, the argument is an interesting one and is well worth the time to read it.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Four Things Every Local Democratic Party MUST Do
Every Local Democratic Party's Goal: To Win Elections.
But how do we get to that goal?
Four Things Every Local Party MUST Do:
Before getting started, it is important to do what every business or campaign should do: make a plan. A party should write out a definite, concrete plan that touches on specific goals and sets timelines. Without such a plan, there is no accountability and there is no improvement. By having set goals, it forces the party to work toward solid, achievable results.
It is definitely a good idea to ask your local party what its goals are and if they have them. Otherwise you’re being involved or supporting an organization without any thought being put behind it. It’s exactly like how you feel as a
First things first, make sure you have a written plan.
For every action or potential action that a party is considering, a party should make sure it fits into a category that will help it achieve its ultimate goal:
1. Fundraising:
This key helps a party achieve its goals. It is rarely what people think about when they think about getting involved in politics- but it leads to the things that make the differences. Without it, the rest is not possible. When you complain about a candidate not being able to respond to a message, when you see a television ad, or a newspaper ad, or you wonder about where the yard signs come from- that’s all about money.
Just like when you start up a business, it’s important to budget and get the money to meet that budget. Donors invest money in a business, a candidate, or an organization where they know the money is going toward specific goals.
The most valuable fundraiser for any organization is the organization’s leader. That could mean the CEO, the candidate, or the Chair of the local party. That person is in the best, and sometimes the only, position to ask for money. If the organization’s leader doesn’t believe in what the organization enough to ask for you to take money to support it, then what person will want to give money?
Money gets yours message out, it builds your party, and it helps recruit your candidates. It’s the basic fundamental that drives the rest. Plan out how much money your party needs, how they plan to raise it, and by what time they will raise that amount. If you don’t know, ask! If you like what you hear, you should give money to help them reach their goals.
2. People:
Every local party covers a set amount of physical area that includes a population of people. While this point seems incredibly obvious, what we can conclude from it is not. It means there are only so many people in each area and we can keep track of them household by household and know a little bit about what each voter wants or needs. It takes time, but it’s about ID’ing our potential market. Just like a good marketing campaign, we need to keep track of who wants our product and who will vote for our party.
(Notice that we’re building a party, not a candidate. There will be good and bad candidates, but we’ll always have the Democratic Party. Remember: Crystal Clear Pepsi didn’t sink the entire brand. )
We have to keep track of every person that contacts our party, at a bare minimum. Is there a phone line they can call? Is there an email address? A website? There should be guidelines as to how long it should take for someone who contacts the party to get a return contact. Is there any other business where it is acceptable to ignore people who contact it for months at a time? It’s simple customer service
Remember: Today’s volunteers are tomorrow’s candidates and tomorrow’s donors. If someone wants a yard sign, they should get it right away, that’s a voter. People who work with the party should feel liked, appreciated, and encouraged to return.
Plan for how you want to keep track of, encourage, and nurture the people involved in the party. Most businesses have policies on this- thank you cards, phone calls, prompt contacts. It’s the difference between involvement and apathy.
And the voters who might vote for your party- why waste your time with someone who will never, ever, vote for your party? Focus on the voters who will vote for you, figure out who they are.
3. Candidates:
Easiest way to get candidates? Make a list of the people you have or would like to run. Figure out how to get them involved in the party, the community, and push them to run.
One of the key reasons the Democratic Party never seems to have enough candidates is because we do not push our people to run for every office possible. We don’t control enough school boards, city councils, and local government areas.
What steps is your party taking to develop and create candidates? Far too often parties fall into the trap that candidates magically fall from the sky- that’s not the case. We should be planning during the 2008 cycle for the 2009 and 2010 cycles. Each party should have a list going NOW of the candidates and people they see in the future cycles and for what position. We can’t start over every year hoping that candidates materialize from places we haven’t planned for.
Ask your local party who they plan on running in 2009 and 2010.
4. GOTV:
Get Out The Vote. The party should be responsible for its voters that they know, on election day and in early voting, that will vote for the Democratic Party. We’ve ID’s them and we know how to get a hold of them. The party should provide ways to get people to the polls, to make sure they’ve filled out absentee ballots or early voted.
How can a candidate expect to work on both the I’s and the D’s in the final months leading up to the election? And if a local Democratic party cannot make sure that the Democratic voters are voting… then what exactly are they doing?
Ask your local party what it plans on doing for the 30 days before the election and on election day in 2008. How many votes are they creating for the Democratic Party? Ask for numbers.
What else?:
Everything the party does should work to achieve one of the four things laid out here. If it’s not doing that, it’s not meeting a goal.
There should also be a message- but the message ties to a function. If you issue out a press release- does it help attract people into the party? Does it help a candidate? Does it raise money? Will more people vote on election day for our party?
Parties should also consider basic functions that tie to others. Does your party have a regular, comfortable, meeting place? That helps bring in people, for example.
Each thing that is done by the party must be in support of one of these goals.There’s more to this than I’ve laid out here in this- but it’s a great start for you to start to ask your local party how they are planning to meet their four core functions.
The Happ Legacy in the Medina County Democratic Party
In 1980 a father-son team ran for two offices in Medina County as Democrats. John Happ, the father, ran for Medina County Commissioner and Greg Happ, his son, ran for Medina County Prosecutor. Both were running against Republican incumbents. John was running against Bob Hale, who had been appointed to fill out the unexpired term of Mark Whitfield who had resigned, and Greg was running against Roger Ingraham, who was seeking is third term in office.
Both Happs won their elections. Their victories led to many more Democratic wins, and two officeholders connected with Greg Happ are still in office today, 28 years later. This record is the Happ legacy in the Medina County Democratic Party.
This is a list of Medina County Democrats elected who were connected to the Happs:
Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who has served as Medina County Prosecutor since 1988. Total years in office as of 2008: 20
Judge James Kimbler, who worked as a part-time assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge from 1986 to 1996, and who has served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge since 1996. Total years in office as of 2008:22
Judge Judith Cross, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge from 1986 to 1998. Total years in office: 12
Ferris Brown, whose campaign for Medina County Auditor in 1982 was managed by Dean Holman and who served as Medina County Auditor from 1982 to 1992, and then as Medina County Commissioner from 1992 to 1996. Total years in office: 14
If you add the years that John Happ was in office, (12), and the years that Greg Happ was in office, (4), to the years listed above, you will find that the number of years that these officials served or have served Medina County comes to 84 years. Since Judge Kimbler is unopposed he will serve another six years. If Dean Holman wins re-election, and he is easily the favorite in that race, then he will serve another four years. Adding those years to the 84 means that Democratic officials connected to the Happs will have served 94 years in office since they were elected in 1980.
Both Happs won their elections. Their victories led to many more Democratic wins, and two officeholders connected with Greg Happ are still in office today, 28 years later. This record is the Happ legacy in the Medina County Democratic Party.
This is a list of Medina County Democrats elected who were connected to the Happs:
Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who has served as Medina County Prosecutor since 1988. Total years in office as of 2008: 20
Judge James Kimbler, who worked as a part-time assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge from 1986 to 1996, and who has served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge since 1996. Total years in office as of 2008:22
Judge Judith Cross, who worked as an assistant county prosecutor for Greg Happ and who served as a Medina County Common Pleas Judge from 1986 to 1998. Total years in office: 12
Ferris Brown, whose campaign for Medina County Auditor in 1982 was managed by Dean Holman and who served as Medina County Auditor from 1982 to 1992, and then as Medina County Commissioner from 1992 to 1996. Total years in office: 14
If you add the years that John Happ was in office, (12), and the years that Greg Happ was in office, (4), to the years listed above, you will find that the number of years that these officials served or have served Medina County comes to 84 years. Since Judge Kimbler is unopposed he will serve another six years. If Dean Holman wins re-election, and he is easily the favorite in that race, then he will serve another four years. Adding those years to the 84 means that Democratic officials connected to the Happs will have served 94 years in office since they were elected in 1980.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Are Florida and Michigan Heading Toward New Primaries By Mail?
The Democratic National Committee wants both Michigan and Florida to have new elections so that their delegations can be seated at the Democratic convention. While the Republican Governor of Florida is open to the idea of a new primary, he doesn't think the state of Florida should pay for the primary. Howard Dean, Chair of the DNC, doesn't think that the DNC should foot the bill. One idea that is gaining traction is to have new primaries in each state by mail.
The process would be that every Democratic voter in each state would receive a ballot by mail and would then fill it out and return it to the Democratic Parties of their respective states. This would obviously be expensive, but probably not as expensive as paying for poll workers to cover polling places for 12 hours or more. Oregon votes by mail and reports few problems with the concept.
One interesting aspect to such a procedure would be that Republicans and independents wouldn't be able to participate, as they can in other primaries.
The process would be that every Democratic voter in each state would receive a ballot by mail and would then fill it out and return it to the Democratic Parties of their respective states. This would obviously be expensive, but probably not as expensive as paying for poll workers to cover polling places for 12 hours or more. Oregon votes by mail and reports few problems with the concept.
One interesting aspect to such a procedure would be that Republicans and independents wouldn't be able to participate, as they can in other primaries.
More Evangelical Voters Vote in Ohio Democratic Primary
Faith in Public Life, in conjunction with Sojourners and Center for American Progress, instituted an exit poll that asked both Ohio Democratic and Republican voters in last week's election whether they were evangelical Christians. The poll results showed that 43% of white evangelical voters took part in the Ohio Democratic primary and 57% took part in the Republican primary.
This is from a Reuters news article on the exit poll:
The Tuesday poll also found that 42 percent of Ohio’s white evangelical voters ranked jobs and the economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote versus 14 percent who ranked abortion and same-sex marriage as the most important issue.
Such a finding may not be surprising in a Rust Belt state like Ohio, which has been shedding manufacturing and other jobs. But the poll also found that 54 percent of white evangelical primary voters surveyed wanted a broader agenda such as ending poverty and protecting the environment.
These voters are voters that Democrats can reach by talking about social justice issues and relating those issues to their faith. What Democrats can't do is decide that they aren't going to talk to such voters or try and address their concerns.
This is from a Reuters news article on the exit poll:
The Tuesday poll also found that 42 percent of Ohio’s white evangelical voters ranked jobs and the economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote versus 14 percent who ranked abortion and same-sex marriage as the most important issue.
Such a finding may not be surprising in a Rust Belt state like Ohio, which has been shedding manufacturing and other jobs. But the poll also found that 54 percent of white evangelical primary voters surveyed wanted a broader agenda such as ending poverty and protecting the environment.
These voters are voters that Democrats can reach by talking about social justice issues and relating those issues to their faith. What Democrats can't do is decide that they aren't going to talk to such voters or try and address their concerns.
Where is Iraq's Oil Money Going?
According to CNN that's what two United States Senators, Carl Levin, (D-MI) and John Warner, (R-VA), want to find out. Back in 2003, Americans were told that the Iraqis would be able to pay for the cost of their own reconstruction. So far, though, American taxpayers have paid 47 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. Senator Levin said on Friday that he believes that the Iraqis have billions in non-Iraqi banks worldwide, billions that could be used to help finance Iraq's reconstruction.
Here is a quote from the CNN article:
Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and John Warner, R-Virginia, said in their Friday letter to the Government Accountability Office that Iraq has "tremendous resources" in banks worldwide but is doing little to improve security and reconstruction efforts.
Iraqi officials did not immediately respond to the senators' allegations.
"We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," wrote the senators, who are their party's top members on the Armed Services Committee.
One of the ongoing themes of the last seven years of the Bush Administration has been how the rich and well connected are sticking ordinary Americans with the bills. It has happened with Bush's tax cuts, it has happened with the sub-prime mortgage business, and it is happening now with Iraqi reconstruction.
Here is a quote from the CNN article:
Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and John Warner, R-Virginia, said in their Friday letter to the Government Accountability Office that Iraq has "tremendous resources" in banks worldwide but is doing little to improve security and reconstruction efforts.
Iraqi officials did not immediately respond to the senators' allegations.
"We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," wrote the senators, who are their party's top members on the Armed Services Committee.
One of the ongoing themes of the last seven years of the Bush Administration has been how the rich and well connected are sticking ordinary Americans with the bills. It has happened with Bush's tax cuts, it has happened with the sub-prime mortgage business, and it is happening now with Iraqi reconstruction.
Are Clinton's Attacks on Obama Destroying Dem's Chances if Obama Wins Nomination?
A friend of ours sent this article that appears on the New Republic's website. Entitled "Go Already", the author, Jonathon Chait, makes the argument that the campaign Clinton is waging against Obama will really hurt the Democrats' chances of winning the White House if he is the nominee.
This is from the article:
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
He makes the argument that if she spends seven weeks attacking him in Pennslyvania, a swing state in the fall, it will hurt his chances of winning that state in November. He raises the question of whether the Republican Party could have carried Florida in 2000 if someone had spent seven weeks attacking Bush that spring. Here is how Chait puts it:
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
A problem that Clinton has is that, in the past, the Clintons have appeared willing to jeopardize Democratic chances of winning elections if it meant that they would win themselves. Robert Reich wrote a recent article for AlterNet in which he laid this tendency right at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Here is how he put it:
I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Like Chait, he also points out the harm such a "scorched earth" policy could cause:
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.
The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
There is a tendency among some Clinton supporters to write off any criticism of her, especially if it is made by men. Reich, however, is a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton and Jonathon Chait is no left-wing crazy. When people like Reich and Chait start suggesting that Clinton's campaign style is doing more harm than good, it is time to listen.
All of this is not to say we believe that Clinton should drop out. She has a right to campaign for President up and until Obama gets enough committed delegates to clinch the nomination. What she doesn't have the right to do is damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning in the fall. This election is too important to some of the most vulnerable members of our society for her to take that approach.
This is from the article:
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
He makes the argument that if she spends seven weeks attacking him in Pennslyvania, a swing state in the fall, it will hurt his chances of winning that state in November. He raises the question of whether the Republican Party could have carried Florida in 2000 if someone had spent seven weeks attacking Bush that spring. Here is how Chait puts it:
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
A problem that Clinton has is that, in the past, the Clintons have appeared willing to jeopardize Democratic chances of winning elections if it meant that they would win themselves. Robert Reich wrote a recent article for AlterNet in which he laid this tendency right at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Here is how he put it:
I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Like Chait, he also points out the harm such a "scorched earth" policy could cause:
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.
The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
There is a tendency among some Clinton supporters to write off any criticism of her, especially if it is made by men. Reich, however, is a former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton and Jonathon Chait is no left-wing crazy. When people like Reich and Chait start suggesting that Clinton's campaign style is doing more harm than good, it is time to listen.
All of this is not to say we believe that Clinton should drop out. She has a right to campaign for President up and until Obama gets enough committed delegates to clinch the nomination. What she doesn't have the right to do is damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning in the fall. This election is too important to some of the most vulnerable members of our society for her to take that approach.
Sweet Revenge: Democrats Take Former GOP Speaker Hastert's Seat in Special Election
Dennis Hastert, the former Republican Speaker of the House, who helped turn the House into a lap-dog for George W. Bush, resigned and left the House late in 2007. His resignation meant that there had to be a special election for that seat. The election took place on Saturday, March 8, 2008, and the Democrats won the seat.
While the Republcan National Committee is trying to downplay the significance of the Democrats' win, this is a very good thing for Dems. The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee poured $1,000,000 into the race when it became apparent that the Democrats could take the seat. John McCain campaigned for the Republican nominee and Barack Obama endorsed the Democratic nominee. So, not only does the GOP lose a seat that had gone for George W. Bush in 2004 by a vote of 55% to 45%, its presidential nominee looks like he has zero coattails. All in all, a very good night for Democrats.
While the Republcan National Committee is trying to downplay the significance of the Democrats' win, this is a very good thing for Dems. The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee poured $1,000,000 into the race when it became apparent that the Democrats could take the seat. John McCain campaigned for the Republican nominee and Barack Obama endorsed the Democratic nominee. So, not only does the GOP lose a seat that had gone for George W. Bush in 2004 by a vote of 55% to 45%, its presidential nominee looks like he has zero coattails. All in all, a very good night for Democrats.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Medina County Democratic Party By-Laws
Earlier we posted an entry explaining the structure of local political parties in the State of Ohio. We think it would be helpful to any interested Medina County Democrats to have access to their party's By-Laws. Therefore we have posted them in pdf format at the following page on our website: http://medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org/MedinaDemPartyBy-laws.pdf A pdf reader such as Adobe Reader is necessary to read and print this copy of the By-Laws. You can obtain a free copy of Adobe Reader by going to www.adobe.com.
The Structure of County Political Parties in Ohio
Here is how county political parties are organized in Ohio. We are putting up this entry to explain to our readers how the Medina County Democratic Party is organized, but, since the structure is established by the Ohio Revised Code, basically the same structure is used by county political parties across the state.
In Ohio, each political party is organized around precinct committee persons. Each precinct has an elected committee person for the Democratic and Republican parties. During the March 4, 2008 primary, each party elected precinct committee persons, either for a four year term or a two year term. In Medina County, for example, the Democratic Party's committee persons serve a four year term while Republican precinct committee persons serve a two year term.
These precinct committee persons will meet at an organizational meeting after the March primary results are certified. Collectively they are referred to as the Central Committee of the county party. They elect a Chair of the Central Committee, a Vice-Chair, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. In Medina County the last two positions are combined.
The members of the Central Committee also elect an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee then elects its own officers. In Medina County the Executive Committee is composed of the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the Secretary, and the Treasurer. Unlike the Central Committee, the last two positions are not combined, but are held separately.
The Central Committee is the only political party organization that is recognized under the Ohio Revised Code for county political parties. (The State Central Committee is comprised of a Committeeman and a Committeewoman elected from each State Senate district. In Medina County's State Senate District the State Central Committee members are Pat Hanek and Michael Todd.) While political action committees like MCDAC can organize to support political candidates of any political party, their existence is not formally recognized under the Ohio Revised Code.
Only elected precinct committee persons get to vote at the organizational meeting of the Central Committee. This means that 61 people elected to precinct committee positions during the March primary will basically decide who governs the party during the next four years. The Ohio Revised Code does not require that there be any more meetings of the Central Committee after the organizational meeting. Traditionally, in Medina County, there have not been such meetings between the organizational meetings held every four years.
The Ohio Revised Code does provide, however, that the names of county party officials be sent to the board of elections for that county. The ORC also requires that the by-laws of the party be filed with the local board of elections.
Consequently, the members of the Executive Committee at their monthly meetings run the party. They control how money is raised, how it is spent, and they plan party functions. Their decisions effect how candidates are recruited, what, if any, financial support they get, and how resources are allocated. They are, for all practical purposes, the Medina County Democratic Party.
One additional power that the Executive Committee has under the Medina County Democratic Party by-laws is that it can appoint people to vacant positions in the Central Committee once its members have been elected by the Central Committee. The by-laws require that the Chair of the Central Committee forward to the Executive Committee the names of people being considered for such appointment and the Executive Committee then makes the appointment.
Medina County Democrats interested in knowing more about their party and its leaders can visit www.medinadems.org to learn more about the leadership and structure of the Medina County Democratic Party.
In Ohio, each political party is organized around precinct committee persons. Each precinct has an elected committee person for the Democratic and Republican parties. During the March 4, 2008 primary, each party elected precinct committee persons, either for a four year term or a two year term. In Medina County, for example, the Democratic Party's committee persons serve a four year term while Republican precinct committee persons serve a two year term.
These precinct committee persons will meet at an organizational meeting after the March primary results are certified. Collectively they are referred to as the Central Committee of the county party. They elect a Chair of the Central Committee, a Vice-Chair, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. In Medina County the last two positions are combined.
The members of the Central Committee also elect an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee then elects its own officers. In Medina County the Executive Committee is composed of the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the Secretary, and the Treasurer. Unlike the Central Committee, the last two positions are not combined, but are held separately.
The Central Committee is the only political party organization that is recognized under the Ohio Revised Code for county political parties. (The State Central Committee is comprised of a Committeeman and a Committeewoman elected from each State Senate district. In Medina County's State Senate District the State Central Committee members are Pat Hanek and Michael Todd.) While political action committees like MCDAC can organize to support political candidates of any political party, their existence is not formally recognized under the Ohio Revised Code.
Only elected precinct committee persons get to vote at the organizational meeting of the Central Committee. This means that 61 people elected to precinct committee positions during the March primary will basically decide who governs the party during the next four years. The Ohio Revised Code does not require that there be any more meetings of the Central Committee after the organizational meeting. Traditionally, in Medina County, there have not been such meetings between the organizational meetings held every four years.
The Ohio Revised Code does provide, however, that the names of county party officials be sent to the board of elections for that county. The ORC also requires that the by-laws of the party be filed with the local board of elections.
Consequently, the members of the Executive Committee at their monthly meetings run the party. They control how money is raised, how it is spent, and they plan party functions. Their decisions effect how candidates are recruited, what, if any, financial support they get, and how resources are allocated. They are, for all practical purposes, the Medina County Democratic Party.
One additional power that the Executive Committee has under the Medina County Democratic Party by-laws is that it can appoint people to vacant positions in the Central Committee once its members have been elected by the Central Committee. The by-laws require that the Chair of the Central Committee forward to the Executive Committee the names of people being considered for such appointment and the Executive Committee then makes the appointment.
Medina County Democrats interested in knowing more about their party and its leaders can visit www.medinadems.org to learn more about the leadership and structure of the Medina County Democratic Party.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Medina Democratic Presidential Primary Vote Goes Up Over 100% Between 04 and 08
Here is an interesting comparison of both the Democratic and Republican Parties Presidential Primary vote in 2004 and 2008:
Total Vote in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-15799
Total Vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-32687
Gain of 16888 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 106.8% from 2004 to 2008
Total vote in the 2004 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-21327
Total vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-23111
Gain of 1784 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 8.3% from 2004 to 2008.
Total Vote in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-15799
Total Vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary in Medina County-32687
Gain of 16888 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 106.8% from 2004 to 2008
Total vote in the 2004 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-21327
Total vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary in Medina County-23111
Gain of 1784 from 2004 to 2008
Percentage gain of 8.3% from 2004 to 2008.
The Irony in David Centner's Loss to Sheriff Hassinger
On Tuesday there were two contested primaries in Medina County, both of them in the Republican primary. One of them involved David Centner's campaign against Sheriff Neil Hassinger. Centner, a former Medina County Sheriff Deputy and a officer in a suburban Cuyahoga County police department, has been running for Medina County Sheriff almost since the last election in 2004. His ability to raise money was often talked about among both Republican and Democratic politicians. He was thought to have a strong campaign organization and was believed to be mounting a challenge to Sheriff Hassinger.
While on the evening of March 4, 2008, Centner's dream of becoming Sheriff, at least in 2009, came to an abrupt end. Centner lost to Hassinger by 5264 to 12504. In percentage terms that was a loss of 29.63% to 70.37%. It is hard to see the Republican Party turning around and nominating Centner in 2012, assuming that Hassinger doesn't seek re-election after such a convincing rejection by Republican voters this year.
The irony referred to in our entry title is that supposedly David Centner was a Democrat, but switched registration several years ago. Had he run for Sheriff as a Democrat he would be the Democratic nominee today, and wouldn't have had to face Neil Hassinger in a contested Republican primary. Would he have won as a Democrat? Who knows, but there is evidence that 2008 is going to be a Democratic year.
To be clear, we haven't verified that Centner was a Democrat and switched parties. We have, though, heard this from more than one person. We have also seen a computerized voting history of Centner, though, showing that he has only voted in one Republican primary since 1998. This means that he skipped the Republican primary in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, before he voted a Republican ballot in 2006. If that computerized history is true, it obviously indicates that Centner wasn't a very committed Republican.
By way of contrast, Neil Hassinger voted in all of the Republican primaries listed above. Centner's voting history suggests that he was not a very partisan Republican. Not a good trait to have in a contested Republican primary when your opponent has been the successful Republican nominee for Sheriff three times prior to the 2008 Republican primary.
These are our parting words: If you are a Democrat, or for that matter a Republican, and want to run for political office, maybe you are better off sticking with your own party, and congratulations to Sheriff Neil Hassinger on a resounding victory.
While on the evening of March 4, 2008, Centner's dream of becoming Sheriff, at least in 2009, came to an abrupt end. Centner lost to Hassinger by 5264 to 12504. In percentage terms that was a loss of 29.63% to 70.37%. It is hard to see the Republican Party turning around and nominating Centner in 2012, assuming that Hassinger doesn't seek re-election after such a convincing rejection by Republican voters this year.
The irony referred to in our entry title is that supposedly David Centner was a Democrat, but switched registration several years ago. Had he run for Sheriff as a Democrat he would be the Democratic nominee today, and wouldn't have had to face Neil Hassinger in a contested Republican primary. Would he have won as a Democrat? Who knows, but there is evidence that 2008 is going to be a Democratic year.
To be clear, we haven't verified that Centner was a Democrat and switched parties. We have, though, heard this from more than one person. We have also seen a computerized voting history of Centner, though, showing that he has only voted in one Republican primary since 1998. This means that he skipped the Republican primary in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, before he voted a Republican ballot in 2006. If that computerized history is true, it obviously indicates that Centner wasn't a very committed Republican.
By way of contrast, Neil Hassinger voted in all of the Republican primaries listed above. Centner's voting history suggests that he was not a very partisan Republican. Not a good trait to have in a contested Republican primary when your opponent has been the successful Republican nominee for Sheriff three times prior to the 2008 Republican primary.
These are our parting words: If you are a Democrat, or for that matter a Republican, and want to run for political office, maybe you are better off sticking with your own party, and congratulations to Sheriff Neil Hassinger on a resounding victory.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
SurveyUSA Has Clinton and Obama Both Beating McCain
Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo posted the following two images from SurveyUSA, which has done pretty good polling in the primaries so far. Note that both Obama and Clinton are beating McCain. Obama carries more states, but Clinton carries bigger states.
Medina County Dem Book Recommendation
U.S. Political History Book – “Electing FDR”
– The New Deal Campaign of 1932, authored by Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie.
Don Ritchie recently appeared on C-Span2’s BookTV to discuss his new book, which can now be viewed as a podcast. The events of this historic campaign have relevance to what is happening, and may happen in the current 2008 campaign. Why should one want to hear this history? Consider the Will Rogers quotation, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes”. There are some rhymes that are in play in 2008. For example, in 1932 the Democratic and Republican campaigns each had a message that could be characterized by a four letter word. Are those words being used in 2008?
Before listening to the podcast, a short review of the conditions in the U.S. in 1932 can be found at: http://www.infoplease.com:80/year/1932.html
Secondly, see a review of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s biography at: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760616.html
Now enjoy an enlightening talk by Don Ritchie at:
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9075&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=Yes
Submitted by:
Bob Simmons
Wadsworth, Ohio
– The New Deal Campaign of 1932, authored by Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie.
Don Ritchie recently appeared on C-Span2’s BookTV to discuss his new book, which can now be viewed as a podcast. The events of this historic campaign have relevance to what is happening, and may happen in the current 2008 campaign. Why should one want to hear this history? Consider the Will Rogers quotation, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes”. There are some rhymes that are in play in 2008. For example, in 1932 the Democratic and Republican campaigns each had a message that could be characterized by a four letter word. Are those words being used in 2008?
Before listening to the podcast, a short review of the conditions in the U.S. in 1932 can be found at: http://www.infoplease.com:80/year/1932.html
Secondly, see a review of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s biography at: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760616.html
Now enjoy an enlightening talk by Don Ritchie at:
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9075&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=Yes
Submitted by:
Bob Simmons
Wadsworth, Ohio
Medina County Democratic Party Won/Loss Record in County Campaigns 1970-2007
Below is information concerning the won/loss record of the Medina County Democratic Party in elections since 1970. Although Medina County is viewed as a Republican strong-hold, it is possible for local Democratic candidates to win elections and successfully defend those offices in re-election campaigns. Indeed, since 1970 only two Democrats have been defeated in re-election bids and one of those, Ferris Brown, had been re-elected twice as county auditor before becoming county commissioner. So while Medina County is seen as a pro-Republican county, it might be more accurate to describe it as a pro-incumbent county.
As the information below shows, the 1980s were the most successful decade for the Medina County Democratic Party since 1970. From 1980 to 1990, the Medina County Democratic Party picked up four county offices and elected three judges.
In the 1990s, however, the Democratic Party lost re-election campaigns involving both seats on the Board of County Commissioners and also lost the Sheriff's office. During the 1990s, the Medina County Democratic Party only picked up one office held by a Republican, a Common Pleas Judgeship won by Judge Kimbler following Judge Baird's retirement. That win, however, was offset by the loss of the Common Pleas Court held by Judge Cross when she retired in 1998.
In 2000, Judge Mary Kovack picked up the Medina County Domestic Relations Judgeship, defeating an appointed Republican incumbent. Since 2000, no Democrat has lost re-election to a county office or as judge, but the Medina County Democratic Party has not defeated an elected Republican incumbent since 1992.
Democrats who defeated elected Republican incumbents have had a harder time holding the office they won than Democrats who defeated appointed Republican incumbents. Former Sheriff Neil Gray defeated an elected incumbent Republican in 1976, but resigned from office in 1979. Former Greg Happ defeated an elected incumbent Republican in 1980, but was then defeated in 1984. Ferris Brown, who had defeated an elected Republican incumbent for Commissioner, after winning two re-election campaigns for Auditor, was then defeated in 1996, although by a very narrow margin. The only Medina County Democrat who has defeated an elected Republican incumbent and then won re-election is County Prosecutor Dean Holman, who has been re-elected four times, twice without opposition.
Democrats who defeated appointed Republican incumbents, however, have been much more successful at retaining office. Such Democrats are John Happ, who defeated an appointed Republican incumbent and then won re-election twice; Ferris Brown, who defeated an appointed Republican incumbent and then won re-election as County Auditor twice; and Judge Kovack, who defeated an appointed Republican incumbent and then won re-election in 2006.
From all of this, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Democrats who are elected to either a county-wide office or as judge in Medina County can, and usually do, win re-election.
2. Democrats who defeat appointed Republican incumbents have an easier time winning re-election than Democrats who defeat elected Republican incumbents.
3. The hardest offices to retain for Democrats have been County Commissioner and, prior to Dean Holman's election in 1980, County Prosecutor.
4. The easiest office to retain have been judicial offices. Since 1987, no incumbent Democratic judge has been defeated for re-election and one such judge, Judge James Kimbler, has changed courts, going from the Wadsworth Municipal Court to the Medina County Common Pleas Court in 1996.
Democratic Victories for County Offices 1970-1980
County Commissioner-John Oberholtzer in 1970 and re-elected in 1974
County Sheriff-Neil Gray in 1976, but resigned in 1979.
Democratic Controlled County Offices & Courts in 1980
Sheriff-John Ribar who was appointed in 1979 when Neil Gray resigned.
Democratic Victories in County and Judicial Offices 1980-1994
Sheriff-John Ribar in 1980, 1984, 1998, and 1992.
Commissioner-John Happ in 1980, 1984, and 1988.
Commissioner-Ferris Brown in 1992.
Prosecutor-Greg Happ in 1980.
Prosecutor-Dean Holman in 1988 and 1992.
Auditor-Ferris Brown in 1982, 1986, and 1990.
Auditor-Mike Kovack in 1994 and 1998.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge-Judith Cross in 1986 and 1992.
Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge-James Kimbler in 1987 and 1993.
Medina Municipal Court Judge-Dale Chase in 1987 and 1993.
Democratic Controlled Offices Lost 1980-1993
Prosecutor in 1984.
County Commissioner in 1992.
Democratic Controlled Offices Successfully Defended 1980-1993
Medina County Commissioner in 1984 and 1988.
Medina County Sheriff in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Medina County Auditor in 1986 and 1990.
Medina County Prosecutor in 1988.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge in 1992.
Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge in 1987 and 1993.
Medina Municipal Court Judge in 1993.
Democratic Controlled County Offices & Courts in 1993
Commissioner Ferris Brown
Prosecutor Dean Holman
General Division Judge Judith Cross
Auditor Mike Kovack
Sheriff John Ribar
Coroner Neil Grabenstetter
Wadsworth Judge James Kimbler
Medina Judge Dale Chase
Democratic Controlled Offices & Courts in 2007
Prosecutor
Auditor
Coroner
General Division Judge
Domestic Relations Judge
Medina Judge
Democratic Controlled Offices & Judicial Offices Won 1992-2007
Commissioner-1992
DR Court Judge-2000
Common Pleas Court, General Division-1996
Democratic Controlled Offices & Judicial Offices Lost 1992-2007
Commissioner 1992
Commissioner 1996
Sheriff 1996
Wadsworth Judge 1997
Democratic Controlled Offices & Judicial Offices Successfully Defended 1992-2007
Auditor
Prosecutor
Common Pleas General Division Judge
Domestic Relations Judge
Medina Judge
Democratic Elected Officials Who Won Re-Election 1974 to 2008
Medina County Commissioner John Oberholtzer in 1974
Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman-re-elected in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004
Medina County Sheriff John Ribar in 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Medina County Coroner Neil Grabenstetter in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. (Dr. Grabenstetter in running unopposed in 2008.)
Medina County Commissioner John Happ in 1984 and 1988.
Medina County Auditor Ferris Brown in 1986 and 1990.
Medina County Auditor Mike Kovack in 1998, 2002, and 2006.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge Judy Cross in 1992.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler in 2002 and 2008. (Judge Kimbler is unopposed in the 2008 election.)
Medina County Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack in 2006.
Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge James Kimbler in 1993.
Medina Municipal Court Judge Dale Chase in 1993, 1999, and 2005.
Number of times that Democratic officials have been re-elected to county offices and courts: 28.
Democratic County Officials Who Defeated Republican Incumbents in Elections for County Offices & Judicial Offices from 1976 to 2007
Neil Gray-elected Sheriff in 1976.
John Happ-elected Commissioner in 1980.
Greg Happ-elected Prosecutor in 1980.
Ferris Brown-elected Auditor in 1982.
Dean Holman-elected Prosecutor in 1988.
Ferris Brown-elected Commissioner in 1992.
Mary Kovack-elected Domestic Relations Judge in 2000.
As the information below shows, the 1980s were the most successful decade for the Medina County Democratic Party since 1970. From 1980 to 1990, the Medina County Democratic Party picked up four county offices and elected three judges.
In the 1990s, however, the Democratic Party lost re-election campaigns involving both seats on the Board of County Commissioners and also lost the Sheriff's office. During the 1990s, the Medina County Democratic Party only picked up one office held by a Republican, a Common Pleas Judgeship won by Judge Kimbler following Judge Baird's retirement. That win, however, was offset by the loss of the Common Pleas Court held by Judge Cross when she retired in 1998.
In 2000, Judge Mary Kovack picked up the Medina County Domestic Relations Judgeship, defeating an appointed Republican incumbent. Since 2000, no Democrat has lost re-election to a county office or as judge, but the Medina County Democratic Party has not defeated an elected Republican incumbent since 1992.
Democrats who defeated elected Republican incumbents have had a harder time holding the office they won than Democrats who defeated appointed Republican incumbents. Former Sheriff Neil Gray defeated an elected incumbent Republican in 1976, but resigned from office in 1979. Former Greg Happ defeated an elected incumbent Republican in 1980, but was then defeated in 1984. Ferris Brown, who had defeated an elected Republican incumbent for Commissioner, after winning two re-election campaigns for Auditor, was then defeated in 1996, although by a very narrow margin. The only Medina County Democrat who has defeated an elected Republican incumbent and then won re-election is County Prosecutor Dean Holman, who has been re-elected four times, twice without opposition.
Democrats who defeated appointed Republican incumbents, however, have been much more successful at retaining office. Such Democrats are John Happ, who defeated an appointed Republican incumbent and then won re-election twice; Ferris Brown, who defeated an appointed Republican incumbent and then won re-election as County Auditor twice; and Judge Kovack, who defeated an appointed Republican incumbent and then won re-election in 2006.
From all of this, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Democrats who are elected to either a county-wide office or as judge in Medina County can, and usually do, win re-election.
2. Democrats who defeat appointed Republican incumbents have an easier time winning re-election than Democrats who defeat elected Republican incumbents.
3. The hardest offices to retain for Democrats have been County Commissioner and, prior to Dean Holman's election in 1980, County Prosecutor.
4. The easiest office to retain have been judicial offices. Since 1987, no incumbent Democratic judge has been defeated for re-election and one such judge, Judge James Kimbler, has changed courts, going from the Wadsworth Municipal Court to the Medina County Common Pleas Court in 1996.
Democratic Victories for County Offices 1970-1980
County Commissioner-John Oberholtzer in 1970 and re-elected in 1974
County Sheriff-Neil Gray in 1976, but resigned in 1979.
Democratic Controlled County Offices & Courts in 1980
Sheriff-John Ribar who was appointed in 1979 when Neil Gray resigned.
Democratic Victories in County and Judicial Offices 1980-1994
Sheriff-John Ribar in 1980, 1984, 1998, and 1992.
Commissioner-John Happ in 1980, 1984, and 1988.
Commissioner-Ferris Brown in 1992.
Prosecutor-Greg Happ in 1980.
Prosecutor-Dean Holman in 1988 and 1992.
Auditor-Ferris Brown in 1982, 1986, and 1990.
Auditor-Mike Kovack in 1994 and 1998.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge-Judith Cross in 1986 and 1992.
Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge-James Kimbler in 1987 and 1993.
Medina Municipal Court Judge-Dale Chase in 1987 and 1993.
Democratic Controlled Offices Lost 1980-1993
Prosecutor in 1984.
County Commissioner in 1992.
Democratic Controlled Offices Successfully Defended 1980-1993
Medina County Commissioner in 1984 and 1988.
Medina County Sheriff in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Medina County Auditor in 1986 and 1990.
Medina County Prosecutor in 1988.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge in 1992.
Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge in 1987 and 1993.
Medina Municipal Court Judge in 1993.
Democratic Controlled County Offices & Courts in 1993
Commissioner Ferris Brown
Prosecutor Dean Holman
General Division Judge Judith Cross
Auditor Mike Kovack
Sheriff John Ribar
Coroner Neil Grabenstetter
Wadsworth Judge James Kimbler
Medina Judge Dale Chase
Democratic Controlled Offices & Courts in 2007
Prosecutor
Auditor
Coroner
General Division Judge
Domestic Relations Judge
Medina Judge
Democratic Controlled Offices & Judicial Offices Won 1992-2007
Commissioner-1992
DR Court Judge-2000
Common Pleas Court, General Division-1996
Democratic Controlled Offices & Judicial Offices Lost 1992-2007
Commissioner 1992
Commissioner 1996
Sheriff 1996
Wadsworth Judge 1997
Democratic Controlled Offices & Judicial Offices Successfully Defended 1992-2007
Auditor
Prosecutor
Common Pleas General Division Judge
Domestic Relations Judge
Medina Judge
Democratic Elected Officials Who Won Re-Election 1974 to 2008
Medina County Commissioner John Oberholtzer in 1974
Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman-re-elected in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004
Medina County Sheriff John Ribar in 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Medina County Coroner Neil Grabenstetter in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. (Dr. Grabenstetter in running unopposed in 2008.)
Medina County Commissioner John Happ in 1984 and 1988.
Medina County Auditor Ferris Brown in 1986 and 1990.
Medina County Auditor Mike Kovack in 1998, 2002, and 2006.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge Judy Cross in 1992.
Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler in 2002 and 2008. (Judge Kimbler is unopposed in the 2008 election.)
Medina County Domestic Relations Judge Mary Kovack in 2006.
Wadsworth Municipal Court Judge James Kimbler in 1993.
Medina Municipal Court Judge Dale Chase in 1993, 1999, and 2005.
Number of times that Democratic officials have been re-elected to county offices and courts: 28.
Democratic County Officials Who Defeated Republican Incumbents in Elections for County Offices & Judicial Offices from 1976 to 2007
Neil Gray-elected Sheriff in 1976.
John Happ-elected Commissioner in 1980.
Greg Happ-elected Prosecutor in 1980.
Ferris Brown-elected Auditor in 1982.
Dean Holman-elected Prosecutor in 1988.
Ferris Brown-elected Commissioner in 1992.
Mary Kovack-elected Domestic Relations Judge in 2000.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Sutton Co-Sponsors Mental Health Parity Act
On Wednesday, March 5, 2008, Congresswoman Betty Sutton voted in favor of H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. The bill prohibits insurers and group health plans from imposing treatment or financial limitations when they offer mental health benefits that are more restrictive from those applied to medical and surgical services. The bill passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 268-148.
“Health care plans for Members of Congress and 8.5 million other federal employees have included parity coverage for mental health care for the past 8 years, and it is about time this coverage was extended to those who have non-federal group health care plans,” Sutton said. “I am proud that the House was able to pass a responsible piece of legislation that not only tackles the mental health parity issue, but also but also increases the rebates that drug companies must pay to State Medicaid programs, and addresses the problem of physician self-referral to hospitals in which they have an ownership interest.”
“Health care plans for Members of Congress and 8.5 million other federal employees have included parity coverage for mental health care for the past 8 years, and it is about time this coverage was extended to those who have non-federal group health care plans,” Sutton said. “I am proud that the House was able to pass a responsible piece of legislation that not only tackles the mental health parity issue, but also but also increases the rebates that drug companies must pay to State Medicaid programs, and addresses the problem of physician self-referral to hospitals in which they have an ownership interest.”
Judge Kimbler Leads Medina County Dems and Republicans in County Voting
Medina County Common Pleas Court Judge James L. Kimbler led all Medina County Democrats and Republicans in number of votes received in the March 4th, 2008 primary. The results for those Democrats who ran in the entire county are listed below. The results for Medina County Republicans can be found at http://www.boe.co.medina.oh.us:2000/results-1.htm by scrolling down the page.
Candidate/ Office/ Vote
James Kimbler/ Common Pleas Judge/ 23140
Neil Grabenstetter/ Coroner/ 21656
Dean Holman/ Prosecutor/ 21575
Joseph Russo/ Ohio Supreme Court/ 20874
Hillary Clinton/ President/ 19845
Michael Todd/ Treasurer/ 19608
Larry Courtney/ Recorder/ 19294
Eve Belfance/ Court of Appeals/ 19145
Peter Sikora/ Ohio Supreme Court/ 18999
Pat Hanek/ State Central Committee/18551
Michael Todd/ State Central Committee/18439
John Sharkey II/ Commissioner/ 17455
Brian Feron/ Commissioner/ 17302
Barack Obama/ President/ 12319
Candidate/ Office/ Vote
James Kimbler/ Common Pleas Judge/ 23140
Neil Grabenstetter/ Coroner/ 21656
Dean Holman/ Prosecutor/ 21575
Joseph Russo/ Ohio Supreme Court/ 20874
Hillary Clinton/ President/ 19845
Michael Todd/ Treasurer/ 19608
Larry Courtney/ Recorder/ 19294
Eve Belfance/ Court of Appeals/ 19145
Peter Sikora/ Ohio Supreme Court/ 18999
Pat Hanek/ State Central Committee/18551
Michael Todd/ State Central Committee/18439
John Sharkey II/ Commissioner/ 17455
Brian Feron/ Commissioner/ 17302
Barack Obama/ President/ 12319
The MCDAC Record
The Medina County Democratic Action Committee was formed in 2003 by Joyce Kimbler, Steve Bailey, and Ferris Brown. All three had been candidates in Medina County. All three believed there was a need for an organization that would serve as a communication vehicle to deliver the Democratic message to the grassroots.
Since 2003 MCDAC has published 11 issues of Common Sense, Medina County's first and only Democratic newspaper. Publishing Common Sense involves raising the money for publication, overseeing the writing and editing of stories, and arranging for the distribution of the newspaper. The number of copies that came out each year were three in 2004; three in 2005; four in 2006; and one in 2007.
Since 2003 MCDAC has distributed weekly email newsletters to Democrats in Medina County and beyond. This email newsletter serves as a way for Democratic candidates and organizations to let interested Democrats know what they are doing and how they can get involved in Democratic campaigns.
Since 2003 MCDAC has allowed its account with Campaigner, the email marketing company that it uses for the newsletter, to be used by the Medina County Democratic Party, allied organizations, and Democratic candidates to email announcements of events and fundraisers to Medina County Democrats.
MCDAC established two blogs to help communicate with Democrats in Medina County and beyond. These blogs are this MCDAC blog and Dem TV, which used video clips posted on You Tube to promote Democratic candidates in 2006 and which will be available for use by Democratic candidates in 2008.
None of this would have been possible without the work of dedicated Democrats. Common Sense, for example, is now produced by a committee made up of approximately 30 Medina County residents and chaired by Julie Batey. In 2006, when MCDAC targeted Common Sense distribution in selected precincts, over 90 volunteers assisted in this effort.
It also wouldn't have been possible without the support of our donors. As mentioned above, the Medina County Democratic Party has supported MCDAC in the past by giving between $1000.00 and $1500.00 for each issue of Common Sense. While this money has been important, such donations don't even equal half the cost of producing each issue of Common Sense. The rest of the money has come from Medina County Democrats.
We are looking for volunteers to help MCDAC take the Democratic message to the grassroots in this important election year of 2008. If you are interested in helping MCDAC, go to www.mcdac.org and fill out the form. We will then contact you and put you on our email newsletter distribution list.
Since 2003 MCDAC has published 11 issues of Common Sense, Medina County's first and only Democratic newspaper. Publishing Common Sense involves raising the money for publication, overseeing the writing and editing of stories, and arranging for the distribution of the newspaper. The number of copies that came out each year were three in 2004; three in 2005; four in 2006; and one in 2007.
Since 2003 MCDAC has distributed weekly email newsletters to Democrats in Medina County and beyond. This email newsletter serves as a way for Democratic candidates and organizations to let interested Democrats know what they are doing and how they can get involved in Democratic campaigns.
Since 2003 MCDAC has allowed its account with Campaigner, the email marketing company that it uses for the newsletter, to be used by the Medina County Democratic Party, allied organizations, and Democratic candidates to email announcements of events and fundraisers to Medina County Democrats.
MCDAC established two blogs to help communicate with Democrats in Medina County and beyond. These blogs are this MCDAC blog and Dem TV, which used video clips posted on You Tube to promote Democratic candidates in 2006 and which will be available for use by Democratic candidates in 2008.
None of this would have been possible without the work of dedicated Democrats. Common Sense, for example, is now produced by a committee made up of approximately 30 Medina County residents and chaired by Julie Batey. In 2006, when MCDAC targeted Common Sense distribution in selected precincts, over 90 volunteers assisted in this effort.
It also wouldn't have been possible without the support of our donors. As mentioned above, the Medina County Democratic Party has supported MCDAC in the past by giving between $1000.00 and $1500.00 for each issue of Common Sense. While this money has been important, such donations don't even equal half the cost of producing each issue of Common Sense. The rest of the money has come from Medina County Democrats.
We are looking for volunteers to help MCDAC take the Democratic message to the grassroots in this important election year of 2008. If you are interested in helping MCDAC, go to www.mcdac.org and fill out the form. We will then contact you and put you on our email newsletter distribution list.
John Boccieri Easily Wins Medina County
State Senator John Boccieri easily won Medina County in his contested race for the Democratic nomination for Representative from the 16th Congressional District. Boccieri carried Medina County by a margin of 10,692 votes to 5,921 votes. This vote translated into a margin of 64.36% to 35.64%. When looking at the State Senator's results, it should be kept in mind that the not all of Medina County is in the 16th Congressional District. The county is split between two Congressional Districts, the 13th and the 16th.
State Senator Boccieri has been working hard in Medina County ever since he announced that he was running for the seat. His primary opponent, Mary M. Cirelli, on the other hand, to our knowledge never appeared in the county.
MCDAC congratulates State Senator Boccieri on his impressive Medina County showing!
State Senator Boccieri has been working hard in Medina County ever since he announced that he was running for the seat. His primary opponent, Mary M. Cirelli, on the other hand, to our knowledge never appeared in the county.
MCDAC congratulates State Senator Boccieri on his impressive Medina County showing!
Medina County Dems Elect More Precinct Committeepersons Than GOP
Last night Medina County Democrats elected 62 precinct committeepersons while Medina County Republicans elected 51 such officials. Under Ohio law, any political party that has status as a "major political party" must have an elected precinct committeeperson in each precinct. These officials are supposed to be the building blocks of political parties. Their jobs are to help campaign for nominees of their parties in their respective precincts.
While Medina County Democrats elected more such officials, both parties didn't elect such officials in a majority of Medina County precincts. There are 151 precincts in Medina County. This means that Medina County Democrats had candidates for precinct committeepersons running in 41.05% of the precincts while Republicans had candidates running for precinct committeepersons in 33.77% of the precincts.
In Ohio precinct committeepersons serve either four year or two year terms. The local parties could to decide what the terms will be. In Medina County Democratic precinct committeepersons serve a four year term while Republican precinct committeepersons serve a two year term.
Sometime after the official results of the March primary are certified, each party will have an organizational meeting. At that meeting, the precinct committeepersons who are present will elect county party officials. It is our understanding that the Medina County Democratic Executive Committee has tenatively selected April 5, 2008, as the date for the organizational meeting.
Although there can be contested elections for precinct committeepersons, neither Medina County party had any contested elections for precinct committeepersons.
While Medina County Democrats elected more such officials, both parties didn't elect such officials in a majority of Medina County precincts. There are 151 precincts in Medina County. This means that Medina County Democrats had candidates for precinct committeepersons running in 41.05% of the precincts while Republicans had candidates running for precinct committeepersons in 33.77% of the precincts.
In Ohio precinct committeepersons serve either four year or two year terms. The local parties could to decide what the terms will be. In Medina County Democratic precinct committeepersons serve a four year term while Republican precinct committeepersons serve a two year term.
Sometime after the official results of the March primary are certified, each party will have an organizational meeting. At that meeting, the precinct committeepersons who are present will elect county party officials. It is our understanding that the Medina County Democratic Executive Committee has tenatively selected April 5, 2008, as the date for the organizational meeting.
Although there can be contested elections for precinct committeepersons, neither Medina County party had any contested elections for precinct committeepersons.
Clinton Wins Medina County in Primary
Hillary Clinton took Medina County last night, winning the country by a margin of 19845 to 12319. In percentage terms, as between Obama and Clinton, Clinton won the county by a margin of 61.6% to 38.4%.
Medina County is in two Congressional districts, the 13th and the 16th. The 13th district part of Medina County is composed of Hinckley, Brunswick, Brunswick Hills Township, and Liverpool Township. Clinton won that part of the county by a vote of 64.61% to 33.95%. She won the 16th district part of the county by a margin of 58.59% to 39.72%. (The Medina County Board of Elections counted votes for John Edwards in both parts of the county.)
This is a pretty impressive win for Clinton in Medina County considering that in two presidential campaigns her husband never carried Medina County.
Medina County is in two Congressional districts, the 13th and the 16th. The 13th district part of Medina County is composed of Hinckley, Brunswick, Brunswick Hills Township, and Liverpool Township. Clinton won that part of the county by a vote of 64.61% to 33.95%. She won the 16th district part of the county by a margin of 58.59% to 39.72%. (The Medina County Board of Elections counted votes for John Edwards in both parts of the county.)
This is a pretty impressive win for Clinton in Medina County considering that in two presidential campaigns her husband never carried Medina County.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Medina County Dem Vote for President Way Ahead of GOP Vote
The results are in for the Medina County Democratic and Republican primaries. The results are not good for the GOP.
In the Democratic primary for President the total number of Democrats voting was 32,687. The vote in the Republican primary for President was 18764. This means that almost 14,000 more voters took Democratic ballots than took Republican ballots.
Another way to look at it is that of the 44,809 voters who voted in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, almost 64% of them voted in the Democratic primary. This bodes well for the Democratic nominee in November.
In the Democratic primary for President the total number of Democrats voting was 32,687. The vote in the Republican primary for President was 18764. This means that almost 14,000 more voters took Democratic ballots than took Republican ballots.
Another way to look at it is that of the 44,809 voters who voted in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, almost 64% of them voted in the Democratic primary. This bodes well for the Democratic nominee in November.
Is Bush Administration Planning to Bring a Lot of Troops Home Right Before Election?
One of the interesting things going on is the fact that the Bush Administration is most likely going to stop bringing troops home this summer, but then bring more home in the fall. Here is a quote from a Newsweek article:
Fallon's cautious optimism could help lay the groundwork for a halt in troop reductions in Iraq this summer. Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, is expected to ask President Bush to wait until as late as September to decide whether to bring home more troops than already scheduled.
Gee, why do you suppose that could be? Could it be that the probable Republican nominee is a big supporter of the surge and the Bushies want to help him out by showing tangible evidence of the surge's supposed "success" right before the election?
Fallon's cautious optimism could help lay the groundwork for a halt in troop reductions in Iraq this summer. Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, is expected to ask President Bush to wait until as late as September to decide whether to bring home more troops than already scheduled.
Gee, why do you suppose that could be? Could it be that the probable Republican nominee is a big supporter of the surge and the Bushies want to help him out by showing tangible evidence of the surge's supposed "success" right before the election?
Different Media Treatment of Hagee/McCain Compared to Obama/Farrakhan
If you go to Google.com's news section and put in the search words "McCain Hagee" you will get 483 hits as of 4:00 am on 3.4.2008. If you put in the words "Obama Farrakhan" you will get 1869 hits as of the same time. Now, of course, the McCain-Hagee story has not been around as long, but the fact that the story is not getting the play that the other story is getting is interesting.
There are a lot of reasons, but one reason may be that the media is scared to point out the extremism of some "Christian" ministers because of backlash from the right-wing noise machine. After all, such ministers support the neo-con's idea of a war with Iran; they have often come out in favor of extending Bush's tax cuts; and they are help stoke up the base on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Consequently, attacks on nut-jobs like Hagee for his anti-Catholic remarks and bigotry carry more risk of backlash from readers and viewers as the noise machine revs up in support of such characters.
Attacking Farrakhan, however, doesn't carry the same risk. There is no one on the left that is going to defend Louis Farrakhan and his attacks on the Jewish faith, or at least, not very many. Thus, no one is going to be out there telling readers and viewers that media stories on Farrakhan are somehow unfair.
The book The Way to Win talks about the "Freak Show." The Freak Show is the way the media covers politics and how it favors the right. The Freak Show helped elect George Bush and almost brought down the Clinton Presidency. The Freak Show focuses on personality, not policy, and magnifies every supposed "character" flaw of Democrats while ignoring such "character" flaws of Republicans.
The difference in coverage so far of the Hagee endorsement of McCain, which McCain sought out, compared to the endorsement of Obama by Farrakhan, which he Obama didn't seek out and didn't want, is an example of the Freak Show in action.
There are a lot of reasons, but one reason may be that the media is scared to point out the extremism of some "Christian" ministers because of backlash from the right-wing noise machine. After all, such ministers support the neo-con's idea of a war with Iran; they have often come out in favor of extending Bush's tax cuts; and they are help stoke up the base on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Consequently, attacks on nut-jobs like Hagee for his anti-Catholic remarks and bigotry carry more risk of backlash from readers and viewers as the noise machine revs up in support of such characters.
Attacking Farrakhan, however, doesn't carry the same risk. There is no one on the left that is going to defend Louis Farrakhan and his attacks on the Jewish faith, or at least, not very many. Thus, no one is going to be out there telling readers and viewers that media stories on Farrakhan are somehow unfair.
The book The Way to Win talks about the "Freak Show." The Freak Show is the way the media covers politics and how it favors the right. The Freak Show helped elect George Bush and almost brought down the Clinton Presidency. The Freak Show focuses on personality, not policy, and magnifies every supposed "character" flaw of Democrats while ignoring such "character" flaws of Republicans.
The difference in coverage so far of the Hagee endorsement of McCain, which McCain sought out, compared to the endorsement of Obama by Farrakhan, which he Obama didn't seek out and didn't want, is an example of the Freak Show in action.
McCain Supports Bush's Plans for Social Security
Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security is back. McCain told the Wall Street Journal that he favors Bubble-Boy's approach to "fixing" Social Security. This approach calls for privatizing Social Security and was so unpopular with the public that the Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't even have the legislation introduced.
This is from the Wall Street Journal article:
On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.
He also came out in favor of extending BB's reckless tax cuts to the rich and lowering the corporate tax rate. This means, of course, that the United States would face even more deficit spending. This is also from the WSJ article:
Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain's tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.
In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign. The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term.
So let's see what the McCain record is:
1. Doesn't care if the U.S. is in Iraq for a 100 years;
2. Makes jokes about bombing Iran;
3. Has flip-flopped on Bubble-Boy's tax cuts, being against them in 2001 and now for them in 2008;
4. Wants to privatize Social Security; and
5. Wants to cut taxes for corporations.
This is from the Wall Street Journal article:
On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.
He also came out in favor of extending BB's reckless tax cuts to the rich and lowering the corporate tax rate. This means, of course, that the United States would face even more deficit spending. This is also from the WSJ article:
Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain's tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.
In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign. The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term.
So let's see what the McCain record is:
1. Doesn't care if the U.S. is in Iraq for a 100 years;
2. Makes jokes about bombing Iran;
3. Has flip-flopped on Bubble-Boy's tax cuts, being against them in 2001 and now for them in 2008;
4. Wants to privatize Social Security; and
5. Wants to cut taxes for corporations.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Medina Dem Explains Why He Supports Hillary Clinton
It is now 12 hours until the polls open in Ohio , and have I made up my mind who I will vote for in the primary? Finally, yes. Also, I am grateful that at long last the people of Ohio will play a role in choosing the nominees for a change!
I will take a Democratic ballot for President, and this choice is easy. Either Dem will end the war in Iraq : how fast is an unknown, but, McCain would keep us there “100 years, if necessary.” Now, this is to be taken seriously, as we now will begin the 6th year of occupation in a foreign land. While one can find good qualities about John Mc, I am further upset in the matter of his whoring (as a classmate on the east coast describes his behavior of the past 4+ years) for the Bush adm. for more than that period. I believe they bought him off without $$ to keep him out of the race in ’04. Further, the fact that he spent a long 6+ years as a POW does NOT qualify him, nor aid him, in this quest for the presidency.
I am ignoring Huckleberry, who doesn’t appear to even believe in gravity. Ron Paul? I agree with his Iraq policy, and other military policies which, simply stated, (as Paul simply states everything) involved uninvolving ourselves militarily in near every other foreign country, some of his finance positions, and some of his positions on making the federal government smaller, but most of his positions are so simplistic that he must be dismissed out-of-hand.
Positions of Obama and Clinton are similar, other than the fact that Obama has promised everyone a little bit of everything, and he cannot deliver all that he has stated even if Congress gave him the green light, which they will not. Little bears arguing about in that matter, so it will come down to a difference of experience or a fresh approach: Does a new face such as Obama overcome his lack of experience? Does ‘same old’ politics make for a “same old” policy? There have been many “fresh faces” in DC, if you mean outside the beltway, which Obama is only part way out there. He will have the people behind him, clamoring for change. And Clinton ’s partisanship, pettiness couple with anger, stubbornness and lack of compromise could derail anything good should she be elected.
Obama has the momentum, as I write this. And, we know that momentum and timing can be everything in politics. And, as the campaign goes on, he becomes more and more knowledgeable about the world at large, not to mention the good old USA . But, as I age more, I know in my heart that experience is the deciding factor. And, believe me, there will be change.
I will cast my ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bryan Adams
I will take a Democratic ballot for President, and this choice is easy. Either Dem will end the war in Iraq : how fast is an unknown, but, McCain would keep us there “100 years, if necessary.” Now, this is to be taken seriously, as we now will begin the 6th year of occupation in a foreign land. While one can find good qualities about John Mc, I am further upset in the matter of his whoring (as a classmate on the east coast describes his behavior of the past 4+ years) for the Bush adm. for more than that period. I believe they bought him off without $$ to keep him out of the race in ’04. Further, the fact that he spent a long 6+ years as a POW does NOT qualify him, nor aid him, in this quest for the presidency.
I am ignoring Huckleberry, who doesn’t appear to even believe in gravity. Ron Paul? I agree with his Iraq policy, and other military policies which, simply stated, (as Paul simply states everything) involved uninvolving ourselves militarily in near every other foreign country, some of his finance positions, and some of his positions on making the federal government smaller, but most of his positions are so simplistic that he must be dismissed out-of-hand.
Positions of Obama and Clinton are similar, other than the fact that Obama has promised everyone a little bit of everything, and he cannot deliver all that he has stated even if Congress gave him the green light, which they will not. Little bears arguing about in that matter, so it will come down to a difference of experience or a fresh approach: Does a new face such as Obama overcome his lack of experience? Does ‘same old’ politics make for a “same old” policy? There have been many “fresh faces” in DC, if you mean outside the beltway, which Obama is only part way out there. He will have the people behind him, clamoring for change. And Clinton ’s partisanship, pettiness couple with anger, stubbornness and lack of compromise could derail anything good should she be elected.
Obama has the momentum, as I write this. And, we know that momentum and timing can be everything in politics. And, as the campaign goes on, he becomes more and more knowledgeable about the world at large, not to mention the good old USA . But, as I age more, I know in my heart that experience is the deciding factor. And, believe me, there will be change.
I will cast my ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bryan Adams
MCDAC Blog Sets Record in February
Our blog had over 4,000 visitors in February, which was a record. We realize that our traffic is small compared to blogs like Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos, but we are happy that more and more visitors are coming here to read about Democratic politics. Our thanks to those people who visit our blog and we hope to see you in the future.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Jack Nicholson Ad for Hillary Clinton
Here is a video ad that Jack Nicholson appears in on behalf of Hillary Clinton:
Question for Bubble-Boy and His Supporters: If the Surge is Going so Well, Why Will There be More Troops in Iraq After it is Over than Before
Bubble-Boy had a statement to the press and that was that he won't promise that more troops will be coming home from Iraq this summer. This means that there will probably be around 8,000 more American troops in Iraq at the end of the "surge" than there were when the surge started. How, in any context, can this be called a success?
Maybe we are just being picky here, but wouldn't a success mean that more American troops could leave Iraq? What is success? Is success being measured by Iraqi standards or by American standards? That is, is the surge a success if it prevents Iraqi deaths or leads to American troops being withdrawn?
Maybe it is just us, but we believe that American troops should be dying for American interests, not Iraqi interests, not oil company interests, not neo-con interests, but American interests. You know, the interests of the American people as a whole.
If you look at the surge from that standpoint, then can you say it is a "success"?
Maybe we are just being picky here, but wouldn't a success mean that more American troops could leave Iraq? What is success? Is success being measured by Iraqi standards or by American standards? That is, is the surge a success if it prevents Iraqi deaths or leads to American troops being withdrawn?
Maybe it is just us, but we believe that American troops should be dying for American interests, not Iraqi interests, not oil company interests, not neo-con interests, but American interests. You know, the interests of the American people as a whole.
If you look at the surge from that standpoint, then can you say it is a "success"?
Does Tim Russert Treat Black Politicans Different Than White Politicians?
Media Matters has a very interesting piece by Jamison Foser up comparing Tim Russert's questioning of Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's support of his candidacy to his questioning of white, Republican politicians of support for their candidacies by people like Pat Robertson.
This is from Foser's article:
The double standard couldn't be clearer. The only question is, what it is about Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani that makes Tim Russert treat them so differently?
Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama and Colin Powell are uniquely required and qualified to talk about Harry Belafonte? Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama has to explain praise from Louis Farrakhan that he did not accept, but Rudy Giuliani doesn't have to explain an endorsement from Pat Robertson that he did accept?
Foser doesn't answer the question he poses, but we will: Obama is a black, Democratic politician and Guiliani is a white, Republican politician. Now, maybe we are doing Russert a disservice. Maybe he would answer that Robertson is not as inflammatory as Farrakhan.
Well, here is a simple test for Russert. John McCain sought and got the support of John Hagee, a white, evangelical preacher from Texas. Now Hagee says some very interesting things about the Roman Catholic church. This is from a CBS News story about Hagee:
He has also denounced the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore of Babylon" and "a cult." He blames it for the Holocaust and predicts its imminent demise.
"This is the apostate church," Hagee said. " … this false religious system is going to be totally devoured by the anti-Christ."
So when Russert has McCain on Meet the Press in the near future, will he pressure McCain to renounce and reject Hagee, or, once again, will he treat a white, Republican politican different than he treats Barack Obama?
This is from Foser's article:
The double standard couldn't be clearer. The only question is, what it is about Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani that makes Tim Russert treat them so differently?
Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama and Colin Powell are uniquely required and qualified to talk about Harry Belafonte? Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama has to explain praise from Louis Farrakhan that he did not accept, but Rudy Giuliani doesn't have to explain an endorsement from Pat Robertson that he did accept?
Foser doesn't answer the question he poses, but we will: Obama is a black, Democratic politician and Guiliani is a white, Republican politician. Now, maybe we are doing Russert a disservice. Maybe he would answer that Robertson is not as inflammatory as Farrakhan.
Well, here is a simple test for Russert. John McCain sought and got the support of John Hagee, a white, evangelical preacher from Texas. Now Hagee says some very interesting things about the Roman Catholic church. This is from a CBS News story about Hagee:
He has also denounced the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore of Babylon" and "a cult." He blames it for the Holocaust and predicts its imminent demise.
"This is the apostate church," Hagee said. " … this false religious system is going to be totally devoured by the anti-Christ."
So when Russert has McCain on Meet the Press in the near future, will he pressure McCain to renounce and reject Hagee, or, once again, will he treat a white, Republican politican different than he treats Barack Obama?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)