2008: Where the presidential contenders stand on climate and energy issues
The online environmental magazine Grist has created a useful chart that compares the candidates' environmental records and rhetoric: <http://grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html>
2008: Bloomberg's not-so-independent run
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
(Headline, The New York Times, 2007-12-31)
You gotta love it. First Mike Bloomberg was going to run an independent candidacy for president if the Democratic and Republican nominees had "high negatives," i.e., when the conventional wisdom was that it would be Clinton vs Giuliani. Now he's going to jump in if the nominees are "poles apart," i.e., now that it looks like Huckabee vs Edwards or Obama.
So it's safe to say, he wants to run, and he'll find a reason.
The thing is, though, a campaign against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani made some sense; they are divisive figures with stratospheric negatives. An independent candidate in that situation might hope to be more than a spoiler, as Ross Perot was for George H.W. Bush in 1992.
On the other hand, in many ways Mike Huckabee and John Edwards aren't poles apart, aside from that 40-point IQ spread: for example, both have made ending poverty central to their campaigns, and each inclines naturally to positive campaigning. Both are well-liked, and it is difficult to imagine an independent succeeding against attractive red and/or blue party candidates, as Ross Perot found out when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992.
Plus, Barack Obama is a bigger conciliator and compromiser than Bloomberg will ever dream of being, so why oppose him?
Anyway, it looks like the Establishment that was displaced by the Bush radicals intends to use Bloomberg to restore the ancien régime (see below, A disempowered Establishment makes its move).
So much for the principled moderate.
(Headline, The New York Times, 2007-12-31)
You gotta love it. First Mike Bloomberg was going to run an independent candidacy for president if the Democratic and Republican nominees had "high negatives," i.e., when the conventional wisdom was that it would be Clinton vs Giuliani. Now he's going to jump in if the nominees are "poles apart," i.e., now that it looks like Huckabee vs Edwards or Obama.
So it's safe to say, he wants to run, and he'll find a reason.
The thing is, though, a campaign against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani made some sense; they are divisive figures with stratospheric negatives. An independent candidate in that situation might hope to be more than a spoiler, as Ross Perot was for George H.W. Bush in 1992.
On the other hand, in many ways Mike Huckabee and John Edwards aren't poles apart, aside from that 40-point IQ spread: for example, both have made ending poverty central to their campaigns, and each inclines naturally to positive campaigning. Both are well-liked, and it is difficult to imagine an independent succeeding against attractive red and/or blue party candidates, as Ross Perot found out when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992.
Plus, Barack Obama is a bigger conciliator and compromiser than Bloomberg will ever dream of being, so why oppose him?
Anyway, it looks like the Establishment that was displaced by the Bush radicals intends to use Bloomberg to restore the ancien régime (see below, A disempowered Establishment makes its move).
So much for the principled moderate.
2008: A disempowered Establishment makes its move
David Broder, Bloviator-in-Chief at The Washington Post, is reporting that a "bipartisan group" is considering backing an independent run for the White House, possibly by New York City's mayor, the rare politician who could single-handedly fund such an operation.
The question arises whether the threat to unleash an independent challenger is genuine or if the specter of a Bloomberg candidacy is being used to frighten the big party nominees into line behind the restoration of a deposed Establishment after eight years of policy excesses and abuses of power by the Bush-Cheney radicals. The self-described "centrists" may also hope to prevent American voters, revolted by the corruption and incompetence of the current presidency, from "going too far" and electing a populist peace candidate who will not understand that what is needed is not a change of policy but a change of management.
With the possibility that the reliably status quo candidacies of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could be dead as early as next week, the Establishment is waking up to the likelihood that the next president -- be he John Edwards, Barack Obama, Mike Huckebee or Mitt Romney -- may not be as committed as they are to restoring the reins of American power to their dead hands.
How hard these Bush years must have been on them, exiled to endowed chairs on provincial college campuses with nothing to do but watch "Empires Behaving Badly" videos.
As reported by Broder, the group invading Norman next week is notable for its lack of what Bill Clinton might describe as "change agents:"
For his part, Bloomberg, who has been flirting all year with the idea of running as an independent, may see the meeting as an opportunity to use those who would use him. "As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues," said Bloomberg's press secretary, Stu Loeser. "He looks forward to sitting down and discussing this with other leaders."
Nunn and Cohen went out of their way on talk television this morning to say that the meeting is not intended to generate an independent candidacy, but is about the need to rebuild and reconfigure our military forces, about the risks from nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and about restoring U.S. credibility in the world.
Funnily enough, two of the candidates most likely to be the nominees, Edwards and Huckabee, are issues-oriented and unlikely to be particularly partisan as campaigners or as president. I suspect that either one of them will welcome the support of politicians from any party who are willing to sign on to the particulars of their respective programs.
Voters should be suspicious of a call for a "government of national unity" that is devoid of content, as if the only thing that's important is whether we can't all just get along. If Nunn and his comrades want to get behind someone who supports universal health care and reduced military spending, as the majority of the American people do, it might be easier to take them seriously. But power, unfortunately, not the quality of the lives of Americans, is what is behind rhetoric that equates partisan divisions during what they inflate to "a time of national challenge" with the difficulties faced by Great Britain during World War II.
It's difficult not to conclude that Nunn et al will be content to accept as worthy of the office any White House aspirant who indicates his willingness to welcome them back to the table.
The rest of the story: The Washington Post
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.The effort is being led by, among others, former U.S. senators Sam Nunn and David Boren. In a letter sent to those summoned to the Jan. 7 session, the once-powerful solons said that "our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America's power of leadership and example."
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
The question arises whether the threat to unleash an independent challenger is genuine or if the specter of a Bloomberg candidacy is being used to frighten the big party nominees into line behind the restoration of a deposed Establishment after eight years of policy excesses and abuses of power by the Bush-Cheney radicals. The self-described "centrists" may also hope to prevent American voters, revolted by the corruption and incompetence of the current presidency, from "going too far" and electing a populist peace candidate who will not understand that what is needed is not a change of policy but a change of management.
With the possibility that the reliably status quo candidacies of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could be dead as early as next week, the Establishment is waking up to the likelihood that the next president -- be he John Edwards, Barack Obama, Mike Huckebee or Mitt Romney -- may not be as committed as they are to restoring the reins of American power to their dead hands.
How hard these Bush years must have been on them, exiled to endowed chairs on provincial college campuses with nothing to do but watch "Empires Behaving Badly" videos.
As reported by Broder, the group invading Norman next week is notable for its lack of what Bill Clinton might describe as "change agents:"
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.It may be lulling that Boren, who will host the gathering as Sooner president, asserted to Broder that the meet "is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.Honestly, weren't you just as happy when you thought that most of these people were gone for good?
For his part, Bloomberg, who has been flirting all year with the idea of running as an independent, may see the meeting as an opportunity to use those who would use him. "As mayor, he has seen far too often how hyperpartisanship in Washington has gotten in the way of making progress on a host of issues," said Bloomberg's press secretary, Stu Loeser. "He looks forward to sitting down and discussing this with other leaders."
Nunn and Cohen went out of their way on talk television this morning to say that the meeting is not intended to generate an independent candidacy, but is about the need to rebuild and reconfigure our military forces, about the risks from nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and about restoring U.S. credibility in the world.
Funnily enough, two of the candidates most likely to be the nominees, Edwards and Huckabee, are issues-oriented and unlikely to be particularly partisan as campaigners or as president. I suspect that either one of them will welcome the support of politicians from any party who are willing to sign on to the particulars of their respective programs.
Voters should be suspicious of a call for a "government of national unity" that is devoid of content, as if the only thing that's important is whether we can't all just get along. If Nunn and his comrades want to get behind someone who supports universal health care and reduced military spending, as the majority of the American people do, it might be easier to take them seriously. But power, unfortunately, not the quality of the lives of Americans, is what is behind rhetoric that equates partisan divisions during what they inflate to "a time of national challenge" with the difficulties faced by Great Britain during World War II.
"Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time," Boren said. "Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting."The most telling indication of the group's intentions comes from former senator Cohen, however. "The important goal all of us share," he said, "is to get government back to the center." In plain English this means, "we're going to wrest power from the Bushite whackos and take it safely back in our hands, where it belongs."
It's difficult not to conclude that Nunn et al will be content to accept as worthy of the office any White House aspirant who indicates his willingness to welcome them back to the table.
The rest of the story: The Washington Post
Our Battered Constitution: FBI Prepares Vast Database of Biometrics
One billion dollar project to include images of irises and faces.
by Ellen Nakashima (The Washington Post, 2007-12-22)The rest of the story: The Washington Post.
Clarksburg, West Virginia - The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.
Déjà Vu: The return of HUAC
A little over a half century ago, the Feds held hearings around the country in an effort to uncover, expose and punish "disloyal" Americans. The most irresponsible of these vigilantes were the members and staff of the House Un-American Activities Committee. If the current, Democratically controlled House has its way, a similar operation will be at work in 2008.
by Peter ErlinderThe rest of the story: CommonDreams.Org
...Under media radar, the Democrat-sponsored "Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism" bill (H.R. 1955) passed the House at the end of October by a vote of 404 to 6. The bill was tagged as noncontroversial by the House leadership and is pending before the Senate. For those senators and citizens who remember history, the bill should be controversial, indeed.
Promoted as a relatively innocuous public safety measure, the bill directs money to the Department of Homeland Security for research on homegrown terrorist-Americans in our midst. While this may seem to make sense, the way the bill describes the "hidden enemy," and the powers inherent in the 10-member investigative commission it establishes, should raise concerns among Americans who remember history, no matter what their political leanings.
According to the bill, "homegrown terrorists" can be anyone who " intimidate(s) or coerce(s) the United States government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social belief," a definition broad enough to include Americans who organize mass marches on Washington to "coerce" changes in government policy."
2008: Why Ron Paul isn't the Republicans' Mike Gravel
The question is asked, by the same people surprised by the rise of Mike Huckabee, why Ron Paul is still around. He's polling in single digits, he's way outside the GOP mainstream, yet he's raising more money than an internet IPO and there is a handmade "Who Is Ron Paul?" sign on every light pole in the country. Here's why:
1) He opposes the occupation of Iraq in particular and liberal imperialism in general.
2) He energizes those dissatisfied with the sorry quality of the Republican candidates. Unlike his cohort:
4) A $10 contribution via PayPal is a relatively easy way to Stick It to the Man.
5) He has a blimp. Who doesn't love a guy with a blimp?
1) He opposes the occupation of Iraq in particular and liberal imperialism in general.
2) He energizes those dissatisfied with the sorry quality of the Republican candidates. Unlike his cohort:
a) He's honest. Wrong on nearly every count, but not disingenuous about where he stands.3) He inspires romantic longings. David. Don Quixote. Robin Hood. The Lone Ranger.
b) He's intelligent. Wrong on nearly every count, but able to make a case for most of his program.
c) He's articulate. Speaks clearly and to the point.
d) He's consistent. Ron Paul of today is Ron Paul of twenty years go.
e) He would actually dismantle the federal government: the revenge of generations of Republicans who voted for smaller government and got bloated bureaucracies and massive deficits instead.
f) (Did I mention?) He's against the war.
4) A $10 contribution via PayPal is a relatively easy way to Stick It to the Man.
5) He has a blimp. Who doesn't love a guy with a blimp?
Media: Skewed political news
Skews is an experiment in political news aggregation. Members submit articles, blogs, podcasts, videos and anything else that qualifies as news. The pieces are submitted from the Left or the Right, and the news is laid out in two columns, one red, one blue. Visitors get to decide how far the news is skewed off center. As a mechanism for evaluating how well the media is doing, the site is pretty useless -- there are no professional standards being applied, just feelings, but it does give you some insight into the mindsets of both sides, and it's a convenient place to turn up news you might otherwise miss, whether it's Huckabee: Gitmo is too nice or PBS Star Bill Moyers Uses She-God To Raise Funds for Leftists.
"...If you want to know what people think about what you read, if you want to know how the same issue is presented by different News sources, even if you want to know how Skewed you are then Skewz is the place for you....."<http://www.skewz.com/>
2008: Huckabee Watch
Keep up with the Mike Huckabee saga with the Huffington Post's Huckabee Watch:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/mike-huckabee>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/mike-huckabee>
2008: GOP Hopes Hang on Huckabee
I have been saying for some months that there is only one likely Republican nominee: the Other Man from Hope.
Christian conservatives are not alone in feeling uncomfortable with the idea of a president who is a practicing Mormon, and Mitt Romney's prospects are not enhanced by the image he has contrived of a man with no ideas or beliefs that aren't fungible, that, as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, there is no there there. And, the polls notwithstanding, the prospect that the ethically challenged, socially moderate, thrice-married, cross-dressing, one-issue Rudy Giuliani would be the GOP candidate, while entertaining, was preposterous. But if not the cult member from Massachusetts nor the whacko from New York, then who? The John McCain of 2000 would have mowed down this year's stunted crop of Republican presidential wannabes, but the latter McCain is too compromised, too burdened by his support of Bush's occupation of Iraq, and probably too old, to seize the prize.
Unlike the Democrats, any one of whom would make a credible candidate, the only Republicans willing to waste their time trying to live down George W. Bush's record are, with one exception, third rate back-benchers (Tom Tancredo) and ideologues (Ron Paul). The exception, of course, is Mike Huckabee, an out-of-work former governor who had everything needed to be a viable candidate -- a modest, unassuming personality, an engaging wit, a natural constituency within his party, a moderate record in office (he actually may be that elusive political Bigfoot, the heretofore chimerical compassionate conservative) -- except money. The inadequacies of the three major candidates encouraged Republicans to forage elsewhere for a leader -- thus the under-amped entrance by Fred Thompson, but there was really nobody else to lead the band than the bass-playing former minister from Arkansas.
Huckabee, despite his new poll numbers, doesn't have a lock on the nomination, though. He's still way behind in the money game, although their are signs that he is enjoying a fund-raising surge. His lack of foreign policy experience is a liability. The party's anti-tax ideologues think he's a closet New Dealer. There are political skeletons in his armoire, including a Willie Horton-ish case of a gubernatorial pardon gone bad (parenthetically, I find it painful to watch progressives gleefully deploying the same techniques against Huckabee that the perfidious George H.W. Bush campaign used to smear the admirable Mike Dukakis -- surely it would be better politics to decry Huckabee's inexperience and discredit his off-the-wall economic ideas -- among other things, he'd replace the progressive income tax with a national sales tax -- than to further legitimize gutter politics). And Romney isn't out of the race -- most of Huckabee's surge has come from Giuliani, whose candidacy has begun to circle the bowl.
But as I argued a couple of months ago (Déjà vu all over again?), this agonizingly protracted and criminally costly nominating process will have been worth enduring if it comes down at last to a contest between John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, with vice presidential candidates of the caliber of, say, Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the voter permitted to choose between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future, both -- surprising in itself -- focused in their way on making the American Dream available to everyone. In contrast, a brawl between Hillary Clinton and Giuliani/Romney, I fear, would be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
An Edwards-Huckabee match would also discourage New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, from declaring (not necessarily a good thing: the mayor in his own way can be relied on to lay a soothing hand on the fevered brow of our politics), since a contest between between candidates of modest mien and low negatives would make it unlikely his independent run could exceed that of a Ross Perot-style spoiler.
Be sure to read Frank Rich's The Republicans Find Their Obama in yesterday's New York Times for a fuller discussion of the Huckabee phenomenon.
See also, New poll shows big shake-up in GOP race (CNN, 2007-12-10)
Christian conservatives are not alone in feeling uncomfortable with the idea of a president who is a practicing Mormon, and Mitt Romney's prospects are not enhanced by the image he has contrived of a man with no ideas or beliefs that aren't fungible, that, as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, there is no there there. And, the polls notwithstanding, the prospect that the ethically challenged, socially moderate, thrice-married, cross-dressing, one-issue Rudy Giuliani would be the GOP candidate, while entertaining, was preposterous. But if not the cult member from Massachusetts nor the whacko from New York, then who? The John McCain of 2000 would have mowed down this year's stunted crop of Republican presidential wannabes, but the latter McCain is too compromised, too burdened by his support of Bush's occupation of Iraq, and probably too old, to seize the prize.
Unlike the Democrats, any one of whom would make a credible candidate, the only Republicans willing to waste their time trying to live down George W. Bush's record are, with one exception, third rate back-benchers (Tom Tancredo) and ideologues (Ron Paul). The exception, of course, is Mike Huckabee, an out-of-work former governor who had everything needed to be a viable candidate -- a modest, unassuming personality, an engaging wit, a natural constituency within his party, a moderate record in office (he actually may be that elusive political Bigfoot, the heretofore chimerical compassionate conservative) -- except money. The inadequacies of the three major candidates encouraged Republicans to forage elsewhere for a leader -- thus the under-amped entrance by Fred Thompson, but there was really nobody else to lead the band than the bass-playing former minister from Arkansas.
Huckabee, despite his new poll numbers, doesn't have a lock on the nomination, though. He's still way behind in the money game, although their are signs that he is enjoying a fund-raising surge. His lack of foreign policy experience is a liability. The party's anti-tax ideologues think he's a closet New Dealer. There are political skeletons in his armoire, including a Willie Horton-ish case of a gubernatorial pardon gone bad (parenthetically, I find it painful to watch progressives gleefully deploying the same techniques against Huckabee that the perfidious George H.W. Bush campaign used to smear the admirable Mike Dukakis -- surely it would be better politics to decry Huckabee's inexperience and discredit his off-the-wall economic ideas -- among other things, he'd replace the progressive income tax with a national sales tax -- than to further legitimize gutter politics). And Romney isn't out of the race -- most of Huckabee's surge has come from Giuliani, whose candidacy has begun to circle the bowl.
But as I argued a couple of months ago (Déjà vu all over again?), this agonizingly protracted and criminally costly nominating process will have been worth enduring if it comes down at last to a contest between John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, with vice presidential candidates of the caliber of, say, Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the voter permitted to choose between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future, both -- surprising in itself -- focused in their way on making the American Dream available to everyone. In contrast, a brawl between Hillary Clinton and Giuliani/Romney, I fear, would be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
An Edwards-Huckabee match would also discourage New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, from declaring (not necessarily a good thing: the mayor in his own way can be relied on to lay a soothing hand on the fevered brow of our politics), since a contest between between candidates of modest mien and low negatives would make it unlikely his independent run could exceed that of a Ross Perot-style spoiler.
Be sure to read Frank Rich's The Republicans Find Their Obama in yesterday's New York Times for a fuller discussion of the Huckabee phenomenon.
See also, New poll shows big shake-up in GOP race (CNN, 2007-12-10)
The Law: the abdication of consitutional responsibility by the judicial branch
Law Is Everywhere (pdf) by Owen Fiss is a remarkable essay from the Yale Law Journal on the ability -- and the necessity -- of the courts to uphold the rule of law in the face of attempted usurpations of power by the executive, based on the experience of Israel, a country far more threatened by terrorism than the United States. <http://yalelawjournal.org/117/2/fiss.html>
Political Action: StandUpCongress.Org
"StandUpCongress.Org is a 'one-stop-shop' for Americans seeking information and tools to move Congress to take a stand to end the war in Iraq and prevent an escalation of war into Iran. The website is organized by the Win Without War coalition and allied groups, and our mission is to help you sort through the political labyrinth on Capitol Hill and give you the information you need to make a difference and move Congress to re-deploy US troops from Iraq." The "take action" button at the top of the homepage links to an "Action ToolKit" of information and opportunities for pressuring legislators, including fact sheets, talking points, how-tos on grassroots organizing and handling the press, and so on. <http://www.StandUpCongress.Org/>
2008: Edwards wins the NPR debate
Too bad the National Public Radio listener makes up such a small percentage of the electorate.
For the first time in this election cycle, the Democratic
presidential candidates held a real debate: there was no studio audience, no television cameras, no Lightning Round -- only three topics: Iran, China and immigration, and no dumbing down. No sound bytes, either. The candidates actually had a thoughtful discussion about serious issues facing the country, and you actually had to listen to get it.
In his coverage on Salon, Walter Shapiro said there "is a wonderful Al Smith-era retro quality to staring at a radio dial for two hours and -- an even bigger bonus -- Anderson Cooper and CNN will not be in charge of the questions."
John Edwards was the clear winner, and not only because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent so much of their time taking potshots at each other -- this might have been a profitable moment for the very junior senator from Illinois to have adopted a Reaganesque there-she-goes-again stance. Edwards stayed above the fray and came off as the more, well, presidential. The Fix at the Washington Post picked Edwards as the winner by "demonstrating that he does indeed have some heft on foreign policy."
CQ Politics has the "mosts and bests" and Examiner.com has quoted highlights, so there are quick ways to find out what happened. The entire debate is available as an NPR download, and a transcript of the exchange is available from the New York Times. NPR's coverage is here.
If as many people were paying attention to the issues as are following the horse race, we'd be headed for a far different outcome. There remains one candidate among the leaders who sounds like a Democrat. Let's hope enough voters get to hear exchanges like tonight's before they pull the lever (or push the button or swiss the chard or whatever it is they're going be required to do) on primary day.
See also, Latest Iowa Power Ranking: Edwards On Top Again (Huffington Post, 2007-12-03), Edwards Takes Step Back as Two Others Slug It Out (New York Times, 2007-12-05) and
Edwards sees opportunity in Clinton-Obama spat (CNN, 2007-12-05).
For the first time in this election cycle, the Democratic
presidential candidates held a real debate: there was no studio audience, no television cameras, no Lightning Round -- only three topics: Iran, China and immigration, and no dumbing down. No sound bytes, either. The candidates actually had a thoughtful discussion about serious issues facing the country, and you actually had to listen to get it.In his coverage on Salon, Walter Shapiro said there "is a wonderful Al Smith-era retro quality to staring at a radio dial for two hours and -- an even bigger bonus -- Anderson Cooper and CNN will not be in charge of the questions."
John Edwards was the clear winner, and not only because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent so much of their time taking potshots at each other -- this might have been a profitable moment for the very junior senator from Illinois to have adopted a Reaganesque there-she-goes-again stance. Edwards stayed above the fray and came off as the more, well, presidential. The Fix at the Washington Post picked Edwards as the winner by "demonstrating that he does indeed have some heft on foreign policy."
CQ Politics has the "mosts and bests" and Examiner.com has quoted highlights, so there are quick ways to find out what happened. The entire debate is available as an NPR download, and a transcript of the exchange is available from the New York Times. NPR's coverage is here.
If as many people were paying attention to the issues as are following the horse race, we'd be headed for a far different outcome. There remains one candidate among the leaders who sounds like a Democrat. Let's hope enough voters get to hear exchanges like tonight's before they pull the lever (or push the button or swiss the chard or whatever it is they're going be required to do) on primary day.
See also, Latest Iowa Power Ranking: Edwards On Top Again (Huffington Post, 2007-12-03), Edwards Takes Step Back as Two Others Slug It Out (New York Times, 2007-12-05) and
Edwards sees opportunity in Clinton-Obama spat (CNN, 2007-12-05).
Universal Health: Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care
The single greatest tragedy of our kleptocracy is the needless pain, suffering and deaths inflicted on American citizens by the rapacious health insurance industry. Of the people who presume to lead us as president, only Dennis Kucinich has shown a willingness to take on the insurance companies. A new report by the CDC offers up-to-date testimony to the enormity of the problem.
The full Health, United States: 2007 is available at <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/>.
Money, availability of care and lack of transportation combine to limit access, CDC report findsThe rest of the story: U.S.News
by Steven Reinberg (US News/HealthDay News, 2007-12-03)
Almost 20 percent of Americans, or more than 40 million adults, can't afford or access needed health care, according to a new U.S. government report released Monday.
Access to health care is the focus of this year's Health, United States, 2007 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It shows that one-fifth of Americans couldn't afford one or more of these services: medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses.
"People tend to equate access to care with insurance," said report author Amy Bernstein, chief of the analytic studies branch at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. "But access to care is more than insurance."
"People assume that if you have health insurance of any kind that you're okay, but that's not the case," she added.
Among the other barriers are locales without enough doctors, lack of transportation to doctors and clinics, and shortages of such organs as kidneys for transplants.
That means that even when people "have health insurance there are still disparities," Bernstein said.
In 2005, almost one in 10 people aged 18 to 64 years old reported not being able to afford prescription drugs and almost 10 percent said they postponed getting the medical care they needed.
The full Health, United States: 2007 is available at <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/>.
Blogs: Islamic Law in Today's World
A useful addition to the blogosphere: Islamic Law In Our Times - A Realistic
Assessment of Islamic Law in Today's World by Asst. Prof. Haider Ala Hamoudi of University of Pittsburgh School of Law. <http://muslimlawprof.org/>
Assessment of Islamic Law in Today's World by Asst. Prof. Haider Ala Hamoudi of University of Pittsburgh School of Law. <http://muslimlawprof.org/>
2008: A "surprise" turn in Iowa's Republican race
I don't want to say I told you so...
The rest of the story: The Los Angeles Times
See also, Mike Huckabee, Our Favorite Right-Wing Nut Job by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone, 2007-11-14)
Huckabee suddenly appears poised to challenge Romney to win the first GOP presidential contest. (LATimes, 2007-11-30)But I told you so.
The rest of the story: The Los Angeles Times
See also, Mike Huckabee, Our Favorite Right-Wing Nut Job by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone, 2007-11-14)
Political Action: Taking Unions Out of the Workplace
The AFL-CIO's unconventional — and surprisingly successful — strategy to make American organized labor politically powerful again.
The rest of the story: AlterNet
by Nelson Lichtenstein (AlterNet, 2007-11-29)You know what I think: Unless the victory goes to Edwards, there is zero chance of fundamental change, and even with an Edwards victory, without a powerful movement to counteract the incredible pressure that the corporatist forces will apply to an Edwards administration, reaction will prevail. Is Labor's new activism an early manifestation of such a movement?
Despite all the high-profile sniping between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in advance of the Iowa primary, there seems a good chance - knock on wood - that the Democrats are going to win big in November 2008. But there is a historically consequential issue that remains entirely up for grabs. Will the Democratic party's presumptive electoral success merely represent a "throw the bums out" repudiation of Bush administration excesses? Or are we on the verge of a historic remobilization of American liberalism that will usher in a generation of progressive statecraft?
The answer may come from the ranks of American labour - not just the 12% of all working Americans who are now enrolled in unions, but the vastly larger segment of the working population who support universal healthcare, oppose the war in Iraq and want a voice in their workplace. While de-industrialization and management hostility have slashed union membership during the last three decades, pro-union sentiment has actually increased in the American heartland. More than half of all wage earners have told pollsters that they would like to join a union.
The rest of the story: AlterNet
Labor: Writers' Strike as seen on YouTube
Ask a Ninja explains it all for you:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qabTVV2wqLU>
The Comedy Channel without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBetgXhSPg>
Star Wars without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s04LlhlEIk>
Television without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbOwC0SwSmI>
Hollywood without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtKteRTA-8>
Life without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RW1w2dTVSc>
Writers Strike Dance:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jl3clcLSBY>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qabTVV2wqLU>
The Comedy Channel without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBetgXhSPg>
Star Wars without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s04LlhlEIk>
Television without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbOwC0SwSmI>
Hollywood without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtKteRTA-8>
Life without writers:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RW1w2dTVSc>
Writers Strike Dance:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jl3clcLSBY>
Public Access: NYC's Biggest Hotspot
Just when it seemed like citywide Wi-Fi was kaput, the wireless Internet technology has come to New York City.
On Thursday, CBS announced the creation of a 20-block wireless high-speed network in Manhattan. Dubbed the "CBS Mobile Zone," it stretches from Times Square to the southern portion of Central Park. Within the zone, people with Wi-Fi-enabled cell phones, laptops or PDAs will be able to access the Internet and make calls over the Internet for free. CBS has committed to a six-month trial of the technology.
The experiment should provide hope for boosters of municipal Wi-Fi following the recent bust-up of Wi-Fi projects in Chicago, Houston, San Francisco and St. Louis. EarthLink, once a high-profile backer of the technology, is grappling with a restructuring that has left planned projects in Chicago and Houston in the lurch. Projects in San Francisco and St. Louis have been delayed and downsized, due to technical issues and city politics.
The rest of the story: Forbes
On Thursday, CBS announced the creation of a 20-block wireless high-speed network in Manhattan. Dubbed the "CBS Mobile Zone," it stretches from Times Square to the southern portion of Central Park. Within the zone, people with Wi-Fi-enabled cell phones, laptops or PDAs will be able to access the Internet and make calls over the Internet for free. CBS has committed to a six-month trial of the technology.
The experiment should provide hope for boosters of municipal Wi-Fi following the recent bust-up of Wi-Fi projects in Chicago, Houston, San Francisco and St. Louis. EarthLink, once a high-profile backer of the technology, is grappling with a restructuring that has left planned projects in Chicago and Houston in the lurch. Projects in San Francisco and St. Louis have been delayed and downsized, due to technical issues and city politics.
The rest of the story: Forbes
2008: CNN's Bogus Debate
Hillary Clinton did a great job handling the ridiculous “diamonds or pearls” question that finished the fracas in Las Vegas.
But you won't be entirely surprised to learn that there have been many complaints that the question was frivolous, trivial, stupid and sexist.
And, it turns out, premeditated.
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reported that “Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred ‘diamonds or pearls’ at last night’s debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.” Ambinder writes:
Although CNN may have set the lowest standard yet, it's the Democrats themselves, by putting the debates in the hands of commercial broadcasters, who are to blame for what has turned out to be a nearly unmitigated disaster.
Wolf Blitzer began this round by trying to goad Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama into a slug fest, in the process not only shutting out, for the most part, the other candidates, but also shutting down entirely any serious discussion of issues for the first half hour of the show.
CNN would have been pleased if substance had never been allowed interrupt the proceedings at all. Blitzer announced sternly at the opening that the candidates would not be permitted to stray off the topic of the specific question they were asked, and during the debate it was hard not to see why: Most of the best moments came when the candidates resisted or ignored the rigid attempt to hold them to the network's agenda.
During the first segment, for example, John Edwards veered off from Blitzer's obsession with the Clinton-Obama catfight to talk about what is to be done about poverty. Bill Richardson expressed his annoyance with not being permitted to speak until nearly a half an hour into the evening by taking the opportunity when it came to introduce himself to the audience. Later in the program, Richardson slipped his shackles again, this time to talk about renewable energy. Near the end of the show, Biden got applause for refusing to answer a CNN-crafted question -- by now the audience was siding with the candidates against the network -- and insisting that he would answer an audience query instead.
Dennis Kucinich was the least intimidated by CNN's bullying, but ignored and diminished as he was by the network, he had little choice but to be aggressive if he was to be heard at all. The congressman was completely blocked out of the opening segment until the very end, when all the candidates were asked whether they would support the party's nominee in the general election. The rest of the panel allowed that, yes, they would, but Kucinich said, "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy." Unusually prolix for a politician who is noted usually for being admirably direct. A simple "no" would have sufficed.
Kucinich was ignored by the moderator throughout most of the evening, it's hard not to think because of his tendency to speak bluntly about real issues. For example, during a run of questions on education, Blitzer asked Kucinich on what issues he disagreed with organized labor, then moved back to education with the next candidate. On the singularly stupid question of licenses for undocumented immigrants, Kucinich shifted the topic to the far more important question of what to do about NAFTA. Kucinich did get a direct question on trade with China, and his answer included the point that maybe the country would do well to elect officials, like himself, who are right on crucial matters such as war and trade from the start, instead of having to clean up mistakes later.
The first question to the panel from the public asked what the candidates would do to prevent an attack on Iran, but CNN let answer only the aspirants who are "reliable" on the issue -- Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden. Not Kucinich, of course, the candidate who is the most forthright on the topic of imperial aggression, but also not Richardson, who has a thoughtful position on dealing with Iran.
Contrast the amount of attention CNN gave to the Clinton-Obama tiff with the network's attempt to limit the debate on Iran.
Best laid plans, though: Joe Biden injected an untoward element into the discussion with an answer that probably surprised even him:
"If Bush takes the country to war in Iran without an act of Congress," Biden said, "then he should be impeached!"
On Iraq, Richardson was allowed to say he would end the occupation by 2010, but Kucinich was not given the opportunity to state his position (he'd get us out before the end of next year). At one point, Blitzer began to address Kucinich: "You were the only one who voted against the Patriot Act..."
"That's because I read it," Kucinich interjected, to huge applause.
After talking about the legislation, the Ohio representative turned to the topic of preventing an attack on Iran. As Blitzer tried to cut him off, Kucinich said, "Impeach them now!," the only time he was permitted to speak during the debate's entire second hour.
Despite CNN's hostility to ideas, the debate in the desert did shed some light on the campaign. Resisting as best she could her inclination to bob-and-weave, Hillary Clinton reestablished herself as the candidate to beat, though when she does answer substantively, as on Iraq, Iran and health care, she raises a question in the mind of a Democrat whether she is a suitable nominee for his party. Obama once again demonstrated that, despite his occasional eloquence, he is not ready for prime time. And Edwards, though he delivered another solid performance in the debates, failed again to show the fiery idealism that inspired so many in 2004. Solid is only a letter away from stolid.
The big winners this time were Richardson and Kucinich. New Mexico's governor continues to give common sense a good name. With his self-deprecating humor, reasonableness, and wealth of experience, you'd want him for vice president if that wouldn't keep him from being secretary of state. Kucinich, who can come off a little self-righteous, was right on the money this time. And it didn't hurt his performance that the audience in the room turned against CNN as the evening wore on. I'm told that when you listen to the debate on the radio, Kucinich wins every time.
Chris Dodd continued to be a solid presence in this campaign, not the lightweight his career as a journeyman Senator might have led you to expect. And Biden, while not living up to his promise in the comic relief department, has delivered some of the best lines of the campaign.
It is to be hoped that the Democrats will learn from this debacle. Against the Republicans, a format that permits "journalists" to confine the candidates to sound bites and "Lightning Rounds" about documents for the undocumented and false choices between freedom and security, the Democrats will lose every time.
On AfterDowningStreet after the debate the other night, anti-war activist David Swanson wrote:
See also, Some debate advice: How to survive the political season by Martin Schram (Capitol Hill Blue, 2007-11-21).
But you won't be entirely surprised to learn that there have been many complaints that the question was frivolous, trivial, stupid and sexist.
And, it turns out, premeditated.
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reported that “Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred ‘diamonds or pearls’ at last night’s debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.” Ambinder writes:
“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.”Why is this a surprise? As a for-profit entertainment company, CNN's mission is to please viewers in an effort to please advertisers. Just as all television news shows are required to conclude on an up note, with a humorous human interest story, an uplifting anecdote or, as Charles Gibson did the other night, a tip o' the hat to God, CNN can't be expected to go into a block of drug commercials after, say, a sour question about the 282,600 Americans who have died since the beginning of Desert Storm because they were denied access to health care.
Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.
“When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understand[ing] is that the [diamond v. pearls] [question] was her other question,” Feist said. “She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate.”
Although CNN may have set the lowest standard yet, it's the Democrats themselves, by putting the debates in the hands of commercial broadcasters, who are to blame for what has turned out to be a nearly unmitigated disaster.
Wolf Blitzer began this round by trying to goad Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama into a slug fest, in the process not only shutting out, for the most part, the other candidates, but also shutting down entirely any serious discussion of issues for the first half hour of the show.
CNN would have been pleased if substance had never been allowed interrupt the proceedings at all. Blitzer announced sternly at the opening that the candidates would not be permitted to stray off the topic of the specific question they were asked, and during the debate it was hard not to see why: Most of the best moments came when the candidates resisted or ignored the rigid attempt to hold them to the network's agenda.
During the first segment, for example, John Edwards veered off from Blitzer's obsession with the Clinton-Obama catfight to talk about what is to be done about poverty. Bill Richardson expressed his annoyance with not being permitted to speak until nearly a half an hour into the evening by taking the opportunity when it came to introduce himself to the audience. Later in the program, Richardson slipped his shackles again, this time to talk about renewable energy. Near the end of the show, Biden got applause for refusing to answer a CNN-crafted question -- by now the audience was siding with the candidates against the network -- and insisting that he would answer an audience query instead.
Dennis Kucinich was the least intimidated by CNN's bullying, but ignored and diminished as he was by the network, he had little choice but to be aggressive if he was to be heard at all. The congressman was completely blocked out of the opening segment until the very end, when all the candidates were asked whether they would support the party's nominee in the general election. The rest of the panel allowed that, yes, they would, but Kucinich said, "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy." Unusually prolix for a politician who is noted usually for being admirably direct. A simple "no" would have sufficed.
Kucinich was ignored by the moderator throughout most of the evening, it's hard not to think because of his tendency to speak bluntly about real issues. For example, during a run of questions on education, Blitzer asked Kucinich on what issues he disagreed with organized labor, then moved back to education with the next candidate. On the singularly stupid question of licenses for undocumented immigrants, Kucinich shifted the topic to the far more important question of what to do about NAFTA. Kucinich did get a direct question on trade with China, and his answer included the point that maybe the country would do well to elect officials, like himself, who are right on crucial matters such as war and trade from the start, instead of having to clean up mistakes later.
The first question to the panel from the public asked what the candidates would do to prevent an attack on Iran, but CNN let answer only the aspirants who are "reliable" on the issue -- Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden. Not Kucinich, of course, the candidate who is the most forthright on the topic of imperial aggression, but also not Richardson, who has a thoughtful position on dealing with Iran.
Contrast the amount of attention CNN gave to the Clinton-Obama tiff with the network's attempt to limit the debate on Iran.
Best laid plans, though: Joe Biden injected an untoward element into the discussion with an answer that probably surprised even him:
"If Bush takes the country to war in Iran without an act of Congress," Biden said, "then he should be impeached!"
On Iraq, Richardson was allowed to say he would end the occupation by 2010, but Kucinich was not given the opportunity to state his position (he'd get us out before the end of next year). At one point, Blitzer began to address Kucinich: "You were the only one who voted against the Patriot Act..."
"That's because I read it," Kucinich interjected, to huge applause.
After talking about the legislation, the Ohio representative turned to the topic of preventing an attack on Iran. As Blitzer tried to cut him off, Kucinich said, "Impeach them now!," the only time he was permitted to speak during the debate's entire second hour.
Despite CNN's hostility to ideas, the debate in the desert did shed some light on the campaign. Resisting as best she could her inclination to bob-and-weave, Hillary Clinton reestablished herself as the candidate to beat, though when she does answer substantively, as on Iraq, Iran and health care, she raises a question in the mind of a Democrat whether she is a suitable nominee for his party. Obama once again demonstrated that, despite his occasional eloquence, he is not ready for prime time. And Edwards, though he delivered another solid performance in the debates, failed again to show the fiery idealism that inspired so many in 2004. Solid is only a letter away from stolid.
The big winners this time were Richardson and Kucinich. New Mexico's governor continues to give common sense a good name. With his self-deprecating humor, reasonableness, and wealth of experience, you'd want him for vice president if that wouldn't keep him from being secretary of state. Kucinich, who can come off a little self-righteous, was right on the money this time. And it didn't hurt his performance that the audience in the room turned against CNN as the evening wore on. I'm told that when you listen to the debate on the radio, Kucinich wins every time.
Chris Dodd continued to be a solid presence in this campaign, not the lightweight his career as a journeyman Senator might have led you to expect. And Biden, while not living up to his promise in the comic relief department, has delivered some of the best lines of the campaign.
It is to be hoped that the Democrats will learn from this debacle. Against the Republicans, a format that permits "journalists" to confine the candidates to sound bites and "Lightning Rounds" about documents for the undocumented and false choices between freedom and security, the Democrats will lose every time.
On AfterDowningStreet after the debate the other night, anti-war activist David Swanson wrote:
A serious debate would begin by asking each candidate (including Mike Gravel, who was locked out of the room) what he or she would do if elected president. Thursday's debate in the opening 30 minutes had me longing for even the level of honesty and substance of the MSNBC debate hosted by Keith Olbermann in Soldier Field some months back, at which Olbermann managed the superhuman feat of asking things like "Would you cancel NAFTA?"Swanson points out that "Biden also said he had a plan to end the war that could begin the day he becomes president, a promise made by most of the candidates on the stage." Any journalist worth his salt might have been moved to ask what that plan is.
If an intelligent moderator were asking the questions at these debates, the fact that the Senate now faces a vote on another $50 billion for the occupation would have come up, and the fact that neither Biden nor Obama nor Clinton nor Dodd is willing to filibuster it would have been brought up. Instead, the entire debate included no mention of Wednesday's vote in the House or the upcoming vote in the Senate. A moderator who loves to catch candidates in even the most trivial contradictions had not one word to say about the topic of funding an occupation they all claim to want to end.Instead, it's "diamond and pearls." The only up side comes from contemplating the staff meeting at which CNN is planning the upcoming debate between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Wouldn't fairness require, someone will argue, that the cross-dressing former New York mayor, who knows more than a little about accessorizing, get the same opportunity as Sen. Clinton to weigh in on this important issue?
See also, Some debate advice: How to survive the political season by Martin Schram (Capitol Hill Blue, 2007-11-21).
Activism: Our Tattered Bill of Rights
Here is a timely new action:
The Campaign for Our Constitution is a coalition of Southern Californians working to bring attention to our country’s Constitutional crisis and restore America’s values....
What We Want:Revive habeas corpus, the basic right to hear the charges against youRead more about our goals
Restore FISA, the check on warrantless wiretapping
Close Guantanamo
Bring back checks and balances
How We'll Get ItExpand the Community: Meet others online and at eventsRead more about our strategy -- from the website.
Refine the Message: Talk strategy with other activists, bloggers and
Constitutional experts
Make Some Noise: Get the word out to local media
Take Direct Action: Put pressure on California’s members of
Congress to restore our civil liberties
<http://aclu-sc.org/ourconstitution/>
Hot Air: Which walnut shell hides the pea?
Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer are so strongly opposed to torture they plan to consume weeks of Senate time making it illegaler.
Electoral Reform: Instant Runoff Wins by a Landslide
Proportional representation and instant runoffs would go a long way toward making our electoral system more democratic. See Election Reform: Instant Runoffs (Impractical Proposals, 2004-12-29) and It's ba-a-a-a-ck: New Life for Conservative Initiative to Apportion Electoral Vote (Impractical Proposals, 2004-11-03). Proportional representation may be a hard concept for voters who have no experience other than with winner-takes-all ballots, but instant runoffs are so clearly superior to the method used in most U.S. elections, according to FairVote.org, that the alternative is gaining support across the country.
Many newly elected candidates are no doubt celebrating today, basking in the glow of their fresh victories. But they were not the only winners from Election Day 2007.
Instant runoff voting earned landslide support on ballots across the country. A whopping 77% of voters in Aspen (CO) voted to move to instant runoff voting. Sarasota (FL) voters topped that margin, voting 78% for IRV and prompting the Sarasota Herald Tribune to call the city "a model of election reform." In a particularly important election for next year, 65% of voters in Pierce County (WA) voted on a charter amendment to keep IRV on track for the hotly contested 2008 county executive race. In rural western Washington, voters in Clallam County narrowly rejected establishing IRV as an option in their charter.
Several cities also held ranked voting elections.
* San Francisco held its fourth IRV election overall, and its first for mayor, with first-round winners in three citywide races.
* Takoma Park (MD) smoothly held its first IRV election for mayor, with nary a single spoiled ballot out of more than 1,000 cast.
* The city of Hendersonville (NC), following in the footsteps of Cary (NC) in using IRV this fall, had a strong first IRV election for two city council seats. As one voter put it, "There's nothing to it."
* As a bonus, a graduate student in Cambridge (MA) won a city council seat in an upset victory under the choice voting system of proportional voting, now
in its seventh decade of use.
From FairVote.org
It's ba-a-a-a-ck: New Life for Conservative Initiative to Apportion Electoral Vote
Although it is being pushed by the Republicans in the hope that, in a close election, at least some of California's 55 electoral votes will go to the GOP candidate and tip the balance in the electoral college in the party's favor, progressives will need to think long and hard before jumping in on the side of the state's majority party. Winner-take-all is an anti-democratic method of tallying votes; it routinely disenfranchises millions of citizens and makes organizing alternative party challenges to the RepubliCrats nearly impossible. The Greens, the Peace and Freedom Party, and progressives interested in challenging the status quo should seize the opportunity of this argument between the dominant parties to widen the debate to a consideration of the advantages of proportional representation and instant run-offs.
Ironically, though they're angling for a short term advantage, the apparatchiks of the extreme Right who ripped open this can of worms may have inadvertently also unlocked the door to a more democratic electoral process. While, to protect their current advantage, the Democrats mount their challenge to this initiative in the courts, electoral reformers can ride the publicity wave to educate voters about proportional representation and/or instant runoffs and take the opportunity to devise an effective campaign of their own to democratize our system of voting. If the law of unintended consequences lives up to its reputation and the Republican initiative actually brings about electoral college reform, progressives may face a difficult choice: voting yes to a more democratic selection process, and possibly handing the Republicans a short term bonus, or voting no and missing a chance for genuine reform.
If the measure is approved by the voters in June, and the Green/Peace & Freedom alliance (should it come to pass) is unified behind attractive independent candidates for president and vice-president, their appeal to voters looking for an alternative would be greatly enhanced. It is not impossible to imagine a situation in a very close race, where , even with a handful of votes, the progressive parties could hold the margin of victory in the electoral college, and thus be in a position to extract real policy concessions in exchange for their support.
Ironically, though they're angling for a short term advantage, the apparatchiks of the extreme Right who ripped open this can of worms may have inadvertently also unlocked the door to a more democratic electoral process. While, to protect their current advantage, the Democrats mount their challenge to this initiative in the courts, electoral reformers can ride the publicity wave to educate voters about proportional representation and/or instant runoffs and take the opportunity to devise an effective campaign of their own to democratize our system of voting. If the law of unintended consequences lives up to its reputation and the Republican initiative actually brings about electoral college reform, progressives may face a difficult choice: voting yes to a more democratic selection process, and possibly handing the Republicans a short term bonus, or voting no and missing a chance for genuine reform.
If the measure is approved by the voters in June, and the Green/Peace & Freedom alliance (should it come to pass) is unified behind attractive independent candidates for president and vice-president, their appeal to voters looking for an alternative would be greatly enhanced. It is not impossible to imagine a situation in a very close race, where , even with a handful of votes, the progressive parties could hold the margin of victory in the electoral college, and thus be in a position to extract real policy concessions in exchange for their support.
by Jennifer Steinhauer (The New York Times, 2007-11-03)See also: Legal challenge on electoral change: Democrats say initiative violates U.S. Constitution and vow a suit to fight it. (SacBee, 2007-11-02); 2008: California Proposal Could Sway Outcome of Race (Impractical Proposals Santa Monica, 2007-07-31); Election Reform: Instant Runoffs (Impractical Proposals, 2004-12-29); 2006: In California, it's the year to vote third party (Impractical Proposals2006-11-04)
Republican donors are pumping new life into a proposed ballot initiative, considered all but dead by Democrats a month ago, that would alter the way electoral votes are apportioned in California to the benefit of Republican presidential candidates.
Though the financing remains uncertain, the measure’s leaders said Friday that they were confident they would get the signatures required by the Nov. 29 deadline to qualify the initiative for a statewide vote next June. The effort, begun in the summer by a prominent Republican lawyer, lay in peril in October after its top proponents quit over questions about its financing.
Last week, a new organization began raising the roughly $2 million thought to be needed to get the initiative on the ballot. The new effort is being spearheaded by David Gilliard, a Republican consultant in Sacramento, aided by Anne Dunsmore, a prolific fund-raiser who recently resigned from the presidential campaign of Rudolph W. Giuliani....
The initiative would ask voters to replace California’s winner-take-all system of allocating its 55 electoral college votes with one that parses the votes by Congressional district. It has attracted strong opposition from Democrats because it would transform California from a reliably Democratic state in presidential elections by handing the Republican nominee roughly 20 votes from safe Republican districts.
If the initiative qualifies for the ballot, Art Torres, the head of the California Democratic Party, has promised a constitutional challenge, arguing that only state legislatures can determine how electoral votes are allocated.
The rest of the story: The New York Times
Bush Prods Congress to Impeach **
In a surprisingly cogent lecture yesterday, the noted historian George W. Bush compared Democratic Party leaders in Congress to politicians who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler nearly a century ago, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today. Bush did not quite conclude that the inability of the U.S. legislature to rein in an out-of-control executive exactly mirrors the failure of democratic forces to act when the Bolsheviks and Nazis manipulated democratic institutions to establish totalitarian regimes in Russia and Germany, but he did say that, in his words, "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake." With the current administration assaulting democracy at home and pursuing an imperial agenda abroad, to paraphrase the president, Bush, Cheney and their "allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"
** All quotes real
** All quotes real
The Debate: Edwards
John Edwards: Rises to the occasion.
Barack Obama: Fails to live up to expectations. Again.
Hillary Clinton: Stumbles.
Questions:
Why are Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden entitled to participate in this argument, but Mike Gravel is not? Are they any more likely to win than he is? Have they had any more impact on the campaign than he has? Are their comments any more material than his? If we're going to start getting serious about these matches, shouldn't the arena be closed to all but Clinton, Edwards and Obama?*
Why was Tim Russert pimping for the Bush/Cheney policy on Iran? And kudos to the Dems for not falling for it.
Lighting Round?** No wonder the networks are losing ground; who can take them seriously? And why does someone aspiring to be the leader of the world submit to this kind of humiliation?
* Maybe we should keep Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson on the program, so we can get to know our vice president.
** If we are going to use the game show as the model for attracting ADD-hobbled viewers, why not go all the way? At the end of each episode, you phone a 900 number (at $.99 a call, the election could end up turning a profit) in the name of the contestant you least want to see again. No voting for candidates, because then the outcome would pretty much reflect the polls, with the more financially endowed campaigns paying organizers to turn out the vote. Debate 1: Biden - gone. Debate 2: Gravel - gone. Debate 3: Kucinich - gone. Debate 4: Dodd - gone. Debate 5- Richardson - gone. Now it gets interesting. Debate 6: Where will the fans of the palookas already eliminated land? Do you try to motivate your supporters to call in against your stronger rival? How do you do that without attracting negative calls yourself? And who really is your strongest competitor, anyway? Finally, Debate 7: One contestant goes home in tears with a bouquet of roses; the other moves on to the next round, bound to be a highlight of the fall 2008 tv viewing season. It would be better than Big Brother.
Barack Obama: Fails to live up to expectations. Again.
Hillary Clinton: Stumbles.
Questions:
Why are Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden entitled to participate in this argument, but Mike Gravel is not? Are they any more likely to win than he is? Have they had any more impact on the campaign than he has? Are their comments any more material than his? If we're going to start getting serious about these matches, shouldn't the arena be closed to all but Clinton, Edwards and Obama?*
Why was Tim Russert pimping for the Bush/Cheney policy on Iran? And kudos to the Dems for not falling for it.
Lighting Round?** No wonder the networks are losing ground; who can take them seriously? And why does someone aspiring to be the leader of the world submit to this kind of humiliation?
* Maybe we should keep Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson on the program, so we can get to know our vice president.
** If we are going to use the game show as the model for attracting ADD-hobbled viewers, why not go all the way? At the end of each episode, you phone a 900 number (at $.99 a call, the election could end up turning a profit) in the name of the contestant you least want to see again. No voting for candidates, because then the outcome would pretty much reflect the polls, with the more financially endowed campaigns paying organizers to turn out the vote. Debate 1: Biden - gone. Debate 2: Gravel - gone. Debate 3: Kucinich - gone. Debate 4: Dodd - gone. Debate 5- Richardson - gone. Now it gets interesting. Debate 6: Where will the fans of the palookas already eliminated land? Do you try to motivate your supporters to call in against your stronger rival? How do you do that without attracting negative calls yourself? And who really is your strongest competitor, anyway? Finally, Debate 7: One contestant goes home in tears with a bouquet of roses; the other moves on to the next round, bound to be a highlight of the fall 2008 tv viewing season. It would be better than Big Brother.
2008: John Kerry was "inevitable," too
"I want to see if John Edwards will say to Hillary Clinton in front of everyone: 'You're not electable, and you know it, and you're going to hurt people down the ballot.' It's time to stop whispering. It's getting to be midnight." -- Democratic strategist Donna Brazille.
The rest of the story: The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The rest of the story: The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Red Cross volunteer information
The American Red Cross of Santa Monica has responded to the brush fires in Malibu and other Southern California communities by making training available for new disaster workers, among other activities. It has already placed staff and volunteers in fire-struck areas, but more help is needed throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Volunteers who have had no formal American Red Cross disaster training must take two 3-hour classes, in Mass Care and Shelter Operations, before they can take part in a relief operation. Classes will be held Thursday, October 25; Tuesday, Saturday, October 27; Tuesday, October 30 and Thursday, Nov 1st at the Santa Monica chapter at 1450 11th Street in Santa Monica. Call 310-394-6571 for the class schedules, times, registration and other information.
Persons who have taken these classes previously, such as after Hurricane Katrina, are still eligible for "disaster duty." Those wishing to go out to a brush fire location and volunteer should call the Santa Monica chapter at 310-394-3773 and ask to sign up.
The Santa Monica chapter is located at 1450 11th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; 310-394-3773.
Persons who have taken these classes previously, such as after Hurricane Katrina, are still eligible for "disaster duty." Those wishing to go out to a brush fire location and volunteer should call the Santa Monica chapter at 310-394-3773 and ask to sign up.
The Santa Monica chapter is located at 1450 11th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; 310-394-3773.
Why isn't John Edwards standing higher in the polls?
As I travel about the country, I ask nearly everyone I meet whom they support for president. Nearly universally, the answer is John Edwards. Admittedly, though it includes cab drivers and baggage handlers and bank tellers and real estate agents and baristas and people in queues of every kind, this sample is small and unscientific. Still, as you look at the polls, you have to wonder why the former U.S. Senator and vice-presidential candidate isn't the favorite. I think there are at least eight reasons.
1) His narrative doesn't suit the needs of the media: "John Edwards To Be 44th White Male President" can't match the "Hillary Clinton To Be First Woman President" and "Barack Obama To Be First Black President" story lines.
2) Barack Obama's presence has altered the dynamics of the campaign in Clinton's favor. His vaporous politics has offered Clinton cloud cover. If the Illinois senator weren't in the race, the contrasting visions of America's future being offered -- New Deal populism vs corporations über Alles -- would stand in clearer contrast; the media narrative would be "can idealism and bold ideas beat money;" the romantics in the party would have to make some hard choices, instead of patting themselves on the back for backing the black guy; and Clinton would be unable to position herself above the fray -- she must feel as lucky as Mary Chapin Carpenter: "Hey, Lyle. Hey, Dwight. C'mon, boys, you don't have to fight" -- and would be subjected to tougher scrutiny.
3) And partly as a corollary to 2), Edwards has a fraction of the money available to his two rivals, reducing his ability to present his case and making it harder to compete everywhere.
4) The front-loading of the primaries has given the moneyed candidates an even bigger edge than they already had (a similar dynamic on the GOP side hurts Mike Huckabee's dark-horse strategy).
5) As the only liberal with a chance of being president, when Edwards does get attention from the corporate media, he is frequently treated negatively.
6) Edwards has run a solid, issues-oriented campaign, but he hasn't played sufficiently to his strengths, especially "the only real Democrat" and "the Happy Warrior." Also, and this is ironic, with enough money, he could have made his "log cabin" narrative as compelling as the "first woman" and "first black" fairy tales.
7) Hillary Clinton has run a disciplined campaign, so far, undistracted by boldness or originality.
8) Most important: the fix is in. In 1992, the corporations wanted Bill Clinton. The big money poured into his campaign, and the media helped him ignore or mitigate a series of scandals and embarrassments, while they diminished his Democratic opponents in the primaries and ridiculed and belittled George the First in the general election. The same is happening now: it is clear from the pattern of contributions that the corporate interests see Hillary Clinton as the most reliable aspirant for the job, and from her speeches and policy proposals it is evident that she is happy to be their champion.
The odds are pretty long on an Edwards victory today, but politics is a volatile game. There is a lot of good will towards him in the party; party activists vote in the primaries out of all proportion to their numbers; Clinton could stumble; the peace movement could wake up to the fact that the New York senator is another run-of-the-mill politician in service to the empire; the unions could decide that another Democratic retainer on the payroll of capital might not be the best advocate for the interests of labor; and the demand for change could overwhelm the battlements of the status quo, at last.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady votes.
[For comments on this post, visit John Edwards Blog.]
1) His narrative doesn't suit the needs of the media: "John Edwards To Be 44th White Male President" can't match the "Hillary Clinton To Be First Woman President" and "Barack Obama To Be First Black President" story lines.
2) Barack Obama's presence has altered the dynamics of the campaign in Clinton's favor. His vaporous politics has offered Clinton cloud cover. If the Illinois senator weren't in the race, the contrasting visions of America's future being offered -- New Deal populism vs corporations über Alles -- would stand in clearer contrast; the media narrative would be "can idealism and bold ideas beat money;" the romantics in the party would have to make some hard choices, instead of patting themselves on the back for backing the black guy; and Clinton would be unable to position herself above the fray -- she must feel as lucky as Mary Chapin Carpenter: "Hey, Lyle. Hey, Dwight. C'mon, boys, you don't have to fight" -- and would be subjected to tougher scrutiny.
3) And partly as a corollary to 2), Edwards has a fraction of the money available to his two rivals, reducing his ability to present his case and making it harder to compete everywhere.
4) The front-loading of the primaries has given the moneyed candidates an even bigger edge than they already had (a similar dynamic on the GOP side hurts Mike Huckabee's dark-horse strategy).
5) As the only liberal with a chance of being president, when Edwards does get attention from the corporate media, he is frequently treated negatively.
6) Edwards has run a solid, issues-oriented campaign, but he hasn't played sufficiently to his strengths, especially "the only real Democrat" and "the Happy Warrior." Also, and this is ironic, with enough money, he could have made his "log cabin" narrative as compelling as the "first woman" and "first black" fairy tales.
7) Hillary Clinton has run a disciplined campaign, so far, undistracted by boldness or originality.
8) Most important: the fix is in. In 1992, the corporations wanted Bill Clinton. The big money poured into his campaign, and the media helped him ignore or mitigate a series of scandals and embarrassments, while they diminished his Democratic opponents in the primaries and ridiculed and belittled George the First in the general election. The same is happening now: it is clear from the pattern of contributions that the corporate interests see Hillary Clinton as the most reliable aspirant for the job, and from her speeches and policy proposals it is evident that she is happy to be their champion.
The odds are pretty long on an Edwards victory today, but politics is a volatile game. There is a lot of good will towards him in the party; party activists vote in the primaries out of all proportion to their numbers; Clinton could stumble; the peace movement could wake up to the fact that the New York senator is another run-of-the-mill politician in service to the empire; the unions could decide that another Democratic retainer on the payroll of capital might not be the best advocate for the interests of labor; and the demand for change could overwhelm the battlements of the status quo, at last.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady votes.
[For comments on this post, visit John Edwards Blog.]
2008: Giuliani -- Cynical...Or Nuts?
Not being able to tell where pandering leaves off and self-parody begins, Rudy Giuliani, who only days ago promised to keep us safe from space invaders, has now advocated that blind people be allowed to carry guns. What's next, drivers' licenses? Found on Gun Guys ("Where everybody's a straight shooter"): Giuliani: Blind should be able to carry guns
Links: Southern California Wildfire Resources
Senator Barbara Boxer has put together links to Southern California Wildfire Resources:
<http://boxer.senate.gov/calfire.cfm>
<http://boxer.senate.gov/calfire.cfm>
2008: Déjà vu all over again?
This agonizingly protracted and criminally costly nominating process might have been worth enduring if 
it came down at last to a contest between John Edwards-Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee-Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the American voter getting to decide between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future. 
Instead, we appear to be headed for another race between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, played this political season by Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, and we can expect the campaign to be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
it came down at last to a contest between John Edwards-Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee-Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the American voter getting to decide between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future. Instead, we appear to be headed for another race between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, played this political season by Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, and we can expect the campaign to be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
Social Contract: Income-Inequality Gap Widens; Highest Since 1920's
Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal reports, "The richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market, and underlining the divergence of economic fortunes blamed for fueling anxiety among American workers."
The rest of the story: The Wall Street Journal
See also, "As Logging Fades, Rich Carve Up Open Land in West": The New York Times
See also, "new gilded age": Google
The rest of the story: The Wall Street Journal
See also, "As Logging Fades, Rich Carve Up Open Land in West": The New York Times
See also, "new gilded age": Google
quote unquote: Aristotle on the last refuge of scoundrels
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider God-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, wrongly believing that he has the Gods on his side. -- Aristotle: Politica
2008: Romney, Clinton health care plans similar, say the experts
Those of us who argue that the Hillary Clinton administration, should it come to be, will be a continuation of the Reagan-Bush I-Clinton I policies -- militarist, corporatist, anti-middle class -- have new evidence in Hillary's vaunted "universal" health insurance plan, like the proposal she backed during Bill Clinton's term, essentially health care for insurance companies.
Mitt Romney loves to take swipes at Democratic front-runner Clinton, Reuters says, calling her plan, which would require every American to have health insurance, "European-style socialized medicine" inspired by "European bureaucracies."
But experts say Clinton's plan borrows heavily from one Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts, making the state the first in the nation with near-universal health insurance.
"Hillary's plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There's not a whole lot of difference," says Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state's health care reform law.
And, what do you know, as it did with the Bill Clinton campaign, corporate money is flooding Senator Clinton's coffers. Perhaps it won't come as a complete surprise to the Hillary-the-inevitable crowd, then, when progressives, labor activists and the peace movement start shopping around for a third party alternative a year from now.
The rest of the story: Reuters
See, also: Are Clinton, Obama, Edwards All The Same?: Despite What Fans Say, Differences Between Top Three Dems Aren't Clear by Katha Pollitt
Mitt Romney loves to take swipes at Democratic front-runner Clinton, Reuters says, calling her plan, which would require every American to have health insurance, "European-style socialized medicine" inspired by "European bureaucracies."
But experts say Clinton's plan borrows heavily from one Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts, making the state the first in the nation with near-universal health insurance.
"Hillary's plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There's not a whole lot of difference," says Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state's health care reform law.
And, what do you know, as it did with the Bill Clinton campaign, corporate money is flooding Senator Clinton's coffers. Perhaps it won't come as a complete surprise to the Hillary-the-inevitable crowd, then, when progressives, labor activists and the peace movement start shopping around for a third party alternative a year from now.
The rest of the story: Reuters
See, also: Are Clinton, Obama, Edwards All The Same?: Despite What Fans Say, Differences Between Top Three Dems Aren't Clear by Katha Pollitt
2008: Another Bullet Dodged -- Gingrich Won’t Run
Plus, Clinton votes for another war
The Speaker has chickened out after all. Good for the republic if not for the Republicans. With the GOP bench so shallow and his ego so wide, it must be breaking his heart not to be in the race. Probably thinks he can afford to wait four years, then run as the antiwar candidate against President Clinton.
So is that it?: Fred Thompson vs Hillary Clinton? Oy.
At least the Mike Huckabee-Bill Richardson vice presidential debate will be fun.
Although she has run an obsessively controlled campaign so far, there is still plenty of time for Sen. Clinton to stumble, especially if she is as close to lunacy as she appears in the clips The Daily Show pieced together last Tuesday of her wildly inappropriate cackling during her talk show marathon the weekend before. Apparently, her handlers think a laugh track will make her appear more human. Maybe it would have gone better if they hadn't given her that Chucky doll to practice with.
Ever the advocate of executive power, the junior senator from New York voted this week for the mischievous Lieberman-Kyle amendment -- the dybbuk from Connecticut must be feeling especially clever right now -- that Sen. Jim Webb characterized as "Cheney’s fondest pipe dream" and "a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action" against Iran (see, Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure by Gareth Porter, Huffington Post 2007-09-27).
Just for the record, Lieberman-Kyle passed by a disheartening 76-22 (go here for the roll call of dysfunction). Barack Obama conveniently was MIA on this tally, so he'll be off the hook no matter how it all turns out: he can criticize Clinton if things go badly in Iran; or knock Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who voted no -- along with Richardson and John Edwards, who came out strongly against the resolution -- in the unlikely event that the contretemps somehow ends well for the United States. The very junior senator from Illinois has advocated missile attacks on Iran and Pakistan in the past, but since the idea of another preemptive war can't be sitting too well with his Hollywood funders, he's showing good sense in not dwelling on the issue now (he did release a post-facto statement saying he would have voted against the amendment had he troubled himself to be there).
Also, while we're on the subject, Sen. Diane Feinstein voted aye, too. Probably hopes another war will be good for topping off hubby's already bulging coffers. Those people who decry earmarks should reconsider: they are far less costly -- in lives, capital and national reputation -- than military action at privatizing tax dollars. (If you're in the mood, call Feinstein and Clinton and let them know how you feel about their enabling another war: Feinstein 202-224-3841 and Clinton 202-224-4451.)
The "movement" is particularly smug about the vote, thinking it's responsible for softening the language in the amendment, but textual subtleties won't stop Bush or his successor from using the legislation as authorization for another Mideast war.
But I digress.
About the Speaker, I am pleased to have been wrong:
The rest of the story: The New York Times
The Speaker has chickened out after all. Good for the republic if not for the Republicans. With the GOP bench so shallow and his ego so wide, it must be breaking his heart not to be in the race. Probably thinks he can afford to wait four years, then run as the antiwar candidate against President Clinton.
So is that it?: Fred Thompson vs Hillary Clinton? Oy.
At least the Mike Huckabee-Bill Richardson vice presidential debate will be fun.
Although she has run an obsessively controlled campaign so far, there is still plenty of time for Sen. Clinton to stumble, especially if she is as close to lunacy as she appears in the clips The Daily Show pieced together last Tuesday of her wildly inappropriate cackling during her talk show marathon the weekend before. Apparently, her handlers think a laugh track will make her appear more human. Maybe it would have gone better if they hadn't given her that Chucky doll to practice with.
Ever the advocate of executive power, the junior senator from New York voted this week for the mischievous Lieberman-Kyle amendment -- the dybbuk from Connecticut must be feeling especially clever right now -- that Sen. Jim Webb characterized as "Cheney’s fondest pipe dream" and "a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action" against Iran (see, Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure by Gareth Porter, Huffington Post 2007-09-27).
Just for the record, Lieberman-Kyle passed by a disheartening 76-22 (go here for the roll call of dysfunction). Barack Obama conveniently was MIA on this tally, so he'll be off the hook no matter how it all turns out: he can criticize Clinton if things go badly in Iran; or knock Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who voted no -- along with Richardson and John Edwards, who came out strongly against the resolution -- in the unlikely event that the contretemps somehow ends well for the United States. The very junior senator from Illinois has advocated missile attacks on Iran and Pakistan in the past, but since the idea of another preemptive war can't be sitting too well with his Hollywood funders, he's showing good sense in not dwelling on the issue now (he did release a post-facto statement saying he would have voted against the amendment had he troubled himself to be there).
Also, while we're on the subject, Sen. Diane Feinstein voted aye, too. Probably hopes another war will be good for topping off hubby's already bulging coffers. Those people who decry earmarks should reconsider: they are far less costly -- in lives, capital and national reputation -- than military action at privatizing tax dollars. (If you're in the mood, call Feinstein and Clinton and let them know how you feel about their enabling another war: Feinstein 202-224-3841 and Clinton 202-224-4451.)
The "movement" is particularly smug about the vote, thinking it's responsible for softening the language in the amendment, but textual subtleties won't stop Bush or his successor from using the legislation as authorization for another Mideast war.
But I digress.
About the Speaker, I am pleased to have been wrong:
by Sarah Wheaton (NYTimes, 2007- 09-29)Citizen activist. Love it.
Newt Gingrich has sent so many hints pointing in so many different directions that we’re dizzy trying to follow them all. But now, it appears, he’s made up his mind.
Rick Tyler, Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman, confirmed today that the former Republican House speaker has decided against a presidential run in 2008.
Mr. Gingrich was “presented with legal advice this morning,” said Mr. Tyler in a quick phone interview. “There was a choice presented.”
The choice was to remain chairman of his political action committee, American Solutions, or to allow advisers to move forward with an exploratory committee. But he could not, legally, do both, Mr. Tyler explained.
“So Mr. Gingrich made a choice to remain a citizen activist,” he said.
The rest of the story: The New York Times
Politics: One legislator, one vote?
Here's a fun video of the Texas ledge in action. The issue of proxy voting is more complex and probably less sinister than this breathless local CBS "expose" makes it sound, of course, but it's fun to watch nonetheless.
Although, it does raise a question: how many representatives would need to be present to hold a vote of the full body?
One?
Although, it does raise a question: how many representatives would need to be present to hold a vote of the full body?
One?
The Coast: In Beach Enclave, Affluent Are Split Over Effluent
By Regan Morris (New York Times, 2007-09-25)
RINCON POINT, Calif. — Septic tanks or sewers? The question of how to treat wastewater in this exclusive beachfront community is pitting neighbors, surfers and environmentalists against one another.
Sewers would cost residents like Brook Harvey-Taylor and her husband, Billy, who oppose them, about $80,000 per home.
Surfers have long complained about getting sick at the world-class surf break here that straddles Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. And blame for the pollution has long been laid on the septic tanks of the multimillion-dollar homes in the gated enclave of Rincon Point.
After nine years of debate and several lawsuits, homeowners are to vote next month on whether to convert from the tanks to a sewer system. While most residents appear to back the conversion, a vocal group of residents is questioning its wisdom, with several saying they feel bullied into paying for an expensive system that would only encourage more development and more pollution.
“There is no evidence that our septic tanks are polluting anything,” said a homeowner, Billy Taylor, who with his wife, Brook Harvey-Taylor, is a surfer and an outspoken opponent. “Are we cleaning up the ocean? Or are we just moving our waste into another part of the ocean?”
The rest of the story: The New York Times.
RINCON POINT, Calif. — Septic tanks or sewers? The question of how to treat wastewater in this exclusive beachfront community is pitting neighbors, surfers and environmentalists against one another.
Sewers would cost residents like Brook Harvey-Taylor and her husband, Billy, who oppose them, about $80,000 per home.
Surfers have long complained about getting sick at the world-class surf break here that straddles Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. And blame for the pollution has long been laid on the septic tanks of the multimillion-dollar homes in the gated enclave of Rincon Point.
After nine years of debate and several lawsuits, homeowners are to vote next month on whether to convert from the tanks to a sewer system. While most residents appear to back the conversion, a vocal group of residents is questioning its wisdom, with several saying they feel bullied into paying for an expensive system that would only encourage more development and more pollution.
“There is no evidence that our septic tanks are polluting anything,” said a homeowner, Billy Taylor, who with his wife, Brook Harvey-Taylor, is a surfer and an outspoken opponent. “Are we cleaning up the ocean? Or are we just moving our waste into another part of the ocean?”
The rest of the story: The New York Times.
Will the Democrats Betray Us?
"...no confidence.
"Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood - are we safer? - was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate." -- Frank Rich, Will the Democrats Betray Us? (New York Times, 2007-09-16)
"Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood - are we safer? - was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate." -- Frank Rich, Will the Democrats Betray Us? (New York Times, 2007-09-16)
Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair
The romance of the Obama campaign has muddied the waters somewhat, but finally the primaries come down to this: the cult of personality vs issues politics, "winning" vs governing, business as usual vs progressive policy, the corporatist "centrism" of the DNC vs Democratic (and democratic) values, the status quo vs a "new deal" for the American people: Hillary Clinton vs John Edwards. -- JG
John Edwards, Standing up to corruption, cronyism and modern day money changers.
by Karita Hummer
Among the most inspiring elements in the John Edwards campaign is his insistence on the reigning in of Lobbyist influence and putting the brakes on corruption, cronyism and insider influence and unfair bottom line practices by some corporations to the detriment of the common good (such as outsourcing, tax shelters, unfair loans. bankruptcy, pollution, etc.)
When I heard him speak last December in Santa Clara, before he declared his candidacy, John Edwards rightly said that it wouldn't due to trade unfair Republican election practices with Democratic election practices that kept the status quo. In other words, in all things, be as principled in our own matters as we expect of the Republicans in theirs.
The corruption, cronyism and rampant favoritism to certain corporations in the Bush Administration is almost without parallel in the history of our national politics. The Bush/Cheney/Rovian political machine has been incomparably efficient in only two areas, putting cronies in place and keeping Republican criticism and nay defection to a bare minimum, and they have been mean-spirited and ruthless. It's as if the ghost of old Tammany Hall (New York City) descended in the White House and took hold throughout government on a national level.
But, if we really want reform, if we really want the common good to be the new bottom line for America, like John Edwards says, we can not trade their corrupt machine for ours. We must rid the Democratic Party of its own tendencies toward machine politics, corruption, cronyism, and the money changers in our government - including no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for high rollers orchestrated by Republican or Democratic machines.
Enough is enough - of the lobbyists and campaign finance high rollers/money changers in our government. Squeaky clean, fair and transparent is the way to go.
This is how Wikipedia describes a political machine:
"A political machine is an unofficial system of a political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines sometimes have a boss, and always have a long-term corps of dedicated workers who depend on the patronage generated by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many United States cities, especially between about 1875 and 1950, but continuing in some cases down to the present day. It is also common (under the name clientelism or political clientelism) in Latin America, especially in rural areas, and also in some African states and other emerging democracies, like postcommunist Eastern European countries. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power in suburban and rural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies. (American Journey, 2005)
The key to a political machine is patronage: holding public office implies the ability to do favors (and also the ability to profit from graft). Political machines generally steer away from issue-based politics, favoring a quid pro quo (something for something) with certain aspects of a barter economy or gift economy: the patron or "boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_m achine>
While political machine approaches do have their admirers (it gets work done efficiently, so some say), by and large, the systems are stifling, reduce creativity and increase a sense of dis-empowerment in the governed. Such systems are usually antithetical to participatory democracy.
I grew up as a child in Pittsburgh,PA. Machine politics was part and parcel of the political fare for the community. It felt oppressive and authoritarian and corrupt. It wasn't until Pete Flaherty was elected Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA, in 1969 did one feel a sense of real citizen empowerment and potential.
And get this, about Pete Flaherty, now deceased, who stood up to the Democratic machine of the city of that era:
"Mr. Flaherty, though outspent by a margin of more than 4 to 1, nonetheless cruised to a landslide victory in the 1969 election, launching an administration that would permanently transform Pittsburgh government." By James O'Toole, "Obituary: Pete Flaherty dies at 80, Former mayor and county commissioner", Tuesday, April 19, 2005 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05109/490 421.stm>.
So, did you catch that number, outspent by a margin of 4 to 1. (OK, everyone, remember those numbers and take heart!)
So, what am I getting at. I guess it's quite obvious that I am concerned about the seemingly machine like approach to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which would seem to translate in to the type of governance one could expect from her (if she could even get elected which I highly do doubt). The feeling I have about this is based on her attitude toward lobbyist campaign money and other high roller money (even from Murdoch), her seeming inability listen to people and her sense of entitlement to the presidency, based on her insider status.
Altogether, it gives me a feeling of authoritarianism and elitism, that feels antithetical to our best principles in the Party.
We don't need Machine Politics, from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We do need a Democrat who can stand up to the corrupting influences in our government today and say, "No, we aren't going to do business that way anymore. We are going to have a new bottom line, which is the common good - and there is no compromising on that."
That Democrat is John Edwards.
Defense of Lobbyists is old politics and throwing the money changers out is new politics. We need reform for our Country and reform for our Party. The old way doesn't work.
Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
Reposted from John Edwards Blog:
Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair
The Dems and Iraq: Confusing "can't" with "won't"
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting makes the point that, "Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May, major media outlets continued to 'explain' the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways....Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq - it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41....the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War - if they choose to do so."
The rest of the story: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The rest of the story: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
2008: Just the Facts
FactCheck.org has done yeoman work in service of the idea of an informed voting public. Now, it will no longer need to soldier on alone. PolitiFact.com has announced that it also will pan for truth in the stream of 2008 presidential rhetoric. The St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly have teamed to produce the new site, offering among other services a "truth-o-meter" that rates statements by the candidates for president on a scale from "true" through "half true" to "pants on fire." The site is organized well, the writing is crisp and to the point, and sources are hyperlinked where appropriate. Users can browse the commentaries by candidate or ad sponsor, by issue, by truth-o-meter ruling and, in the case of attack ads, by who is attacking whom. Twenty-one researchers, writers and editors from the periodicals have been assigned to the project. Both companies are affiliates of the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, a center for journalism education in St. Pete.
quote unquote: Hume on Patriotism and Tyranny
Mankind are, in all ages, caught by the same baits: 
The same tricks, played over and over again, still trepan them. The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy. – David Hume, “Of Public Credit,” Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1754)
The same tricks, played over and over again, still trepan them. The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy. – David Hume, “Of Public Credit,” Essays Moral, Political and Literary (1754)
Politics: Emanuel and Schumer protected the conservative domination of Congress in 2006
Progressive complaints about the failure of the Democratic majority to end the occupation of Iraq are based on a misunderstanding of what happened in the 2006 elections. A majority of Americans did not vote to end the war. As an article on Truthout makes clear, they were never given that choice (Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives by Matt Renner; 2007-09-06).
But on Iraq, there has been no sellout by anti-war Democrats. In fact, considering the conservative makeup of the Congress, Pelosi, Reid, et al, have done a remarkable job of moving the peace process along. The peace movement needs to keep up the pressure to bring more members of Congress to its side. Charges of "betrayal" and "cowardice" against potential Democratic allies are not only inaccurate, they also make putting together a Congressional majority in favor of getting out of Iraq more difficult.
The rest of the story: Truthout.Org
According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.If the Democrats have a clear mandate, it is to put an end to the corruption that became pervasive in the legislature and the executive under Republican control. And in so far as the expectation of a cleanup in Washington has gone largely unfulfilled, the voters are right to be angry and disillusioned.
Appointed as head of the DCCC by then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel spearheaded the Democratic Party effort to regain control of the House of Representatives during the 2006 election cycle. Emanuel claimed credit for the Democratic takeover and was promoted to chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in the House. But his election tactics have been criticized by progressive activists and former Congressional candidates.
According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries....
How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff....But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
But on Iraq, there has been no sellout by anti-war Democrats. In fact, considering the conservative makeup of the Congress, Pelosi, Reid, et al, have done a remarkable job of moving the peace process along. The peace movement needs to keep up the pressure to bring more members of Congress to its side. Charges of "betrayal" and "cowardice" against potential Democratic allies are not only inaccurate, they also make putting together a Congressional majority in favor of getting out of Iraq more difficult.
The rest of the story: Truthout.Org
Our diminished realm: A few belated thoughts about Max Roach
I was in New York when Max Roach died, and both the local jazz stations -- imagine, a locale with two legitimate jazz outlets -- both stations spent the following week offering tributes that consisted largely of playing samples from the master's remarkable output: Roach was a teacher and civil rights activist, but he was in the end the most remarkable artist ever to choose the drums to express himself.
He was a driving force in the founding of bebop, and it is hard to
think of an artist who was more important in the last half of the 20th century. My own favorite records are those he cut in the 50s with the peerless trumpet player Clifford Brown -- I'd guess the music you encounter when you are a sophomore is always the best, but I can't think of a single instance of hearing Roach play in my adult life that didn't grab my attention.
And that's just as he intended. He once told Stanley Crouch that he worked so hard at the lucidity of his solos -- and every artist will recognize the truth of this -- in pursuit of two things: to teach the audience to follow his mind as he played, and to attract the interest of the ladies in the house.
I hope you spent the last week immersed in the music of Max Roach; there will never be a time when he won't entertain and enlighten us. But for an epitaph, I leave you with his own words: "I am an American and the drum set is one of the few instruments native to this country. This is a democratic nation and jazz is a democratic music in which we all express ourselves as individuals and cooperate for the overall good. That's good enough for the bandstand and it is good enough for the world. In music, you can make a dream come to life as a reality of design and feeling. Democracy is a dream of being able to do it better someday. I have never stopped dreaming."
Max Roach and Clifford Brown
He was a driving force in the founding of bebop, and it is hard to
think of an artist who was more important in the last half of the 20th century. My own favorite records are those he cut in the 50s with the peerless trumpet player Clifford Brown -- I'd guess the music you encounter when you are a sophomore is always the best, but I can't think of a single instance of hearing Roach play in my adult life that didn't grab my attention. And that's just as he intended. He once told Stanley Crouch that he worked so hard at the lucidity of his solos -- and every artist will recognize the truth of this -- in pursuit of two things: to teach the audience to follow his mind as he played, and to attract the interest of the ladies in the house.
I hope you spent the last week immersed in the music of Max Roach; there will never be a time when he won't entertain and enlighten us. But for an epitaph, I leave you with his own words: "I am an American and the drum set is one of the few instruments native to this country. This is a democratic nation and jazz is a democratic music in which we all express ourselves as individuals and cooperate for the overall good. That's good enough for the bandstand and it is good enough for the world. In music, you can make a dream come to life as a reality of design and feeling. Democracy is a dream of being able to do it better someday. I have never stopped dreaming."
Max Roach and Clifford Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
