It's been a long time since I've posted here, pretty much since the primaries have heated up and since cooled off. John McCain will be the Republican nominee, a fan of special interests and a good ole boy Republican that despite his actual record still has a closely cultivated reputation as a maverick.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton trails Barack Obama in a surprising turnaround from last Fall, when it looked like they'd sail into the opposite spots that they are in now. I'm going to skip a recap of the stuff that has gone on so far. You've either been paying attention or you haven't. I'm going to skip what would surely be a long rant about how the DNC sucks because they've chosen to arbitrarily kowtow to the early voting states, states that generally don't even go Democratic in the General, and to screw uover two states that are almost fundamentally necessary for a Democratic win in November, real swing states that could lose the election for the Democratic nominee. I'll bring us to the latest grounds of the battle between Clinton and Obama.
When this whole thing started, I was between the two of them, leaning towards Obama. Then I was for Obama but thought, "If I have to vote for Clinton, I will be perfectly happy, there's really no wrong choice here." Now I feel like if I have to vote for Clinton, it'll be with a gun to my head, and that gun will be McCain shaped, as there is no force on Earth that'd get me to vote for him. I'll say before I go any further that Obama has made a lot of mistakes that I'm not happy with. He's done his fair share of pandering, and he's gotten off the "audacity of hope" message a bit from where I first really got hooked and has since taken a more wonkish policy laden view which I suppose is necessary give the fight he is in. But Clinton, whew, she's dipped into a bag of dirty tricks that I thought only Republican had access to.
In the last month, Clinton has accused Obama of being against the democratic rights of Florida and Michigan because he didn't sign off on the revote in those states. Nevermind the fact that no revote would have happened anyway, and that even if it had, it never would have been fair considering the mistakes the DNC made in the first place. But since saying that, she has also said that almsot no pledged votes thus far matter, and that those are really superdelegates who can vote for whoever they want. To clarify: Obama is anti-democratic because he's disenfranchising two states (which isn't even true, but that's a different debate), but Clinton on the other hands says that all 50 states, basically, don't matter, and that the delegates can vote for whoever they want, voters be damned. It takes a special kind of stupidity and gall to think that isn't a far worse crime than the one she is accusing Obama of. And we'll ignore her fabrications about Bosnia and what did and apparently didn't happen there, and the story she made up about the hospital and the dying mother. We'll forget the controversy she tried to create over Obama's connection to Rev. Wright, and for the matter the serious boost the mainstream media tried to give her by seriously misrepresenting the sermons that were plastered all over CNN that he gave. To be sure he's a controversial figure who said some inflammatory things, but those things (well many of them) were tempered by the surrounding portions of his sermons that were largely left off of the sound bites.
And yet surprisingly the American people seemed to have seen through a lot of that, and in a state where no one though even Obama could win, he's polling even with her. In a state where many said that if Obama could lose by five points it'd be a victory, he's polling even and in some cases ahead of Clinton. I think we're seeing a rejection of Clinton's tactics, the sort of tactics that seemed to work in Ohio and Texas to bring Obama down. And it's good, and I think it will both toughen Obama up, and at the same time leave the voters leery of what may come from the Republicans come September.
I have to wonder how Clinton could hope to go on if she loses Pennsylvania, but, she technically lost Texas and still went on, and I don't see her stopping until the last vote is counted, regardless of what the best thing is for the country or the party, she may well be 2008's Ralph Nader (which is ironic, because Nader is running). She might ruin it for the Democrats in what should have been the easiest win they've had in decades. 2004 should have been an easy win, this should have been a lobbed softball, and still they might find a way to hand it over to the Republicans. If they lose this time around, I think the party should start over from scratch. If they can't win with the money, the momentum, and the dislike the country has of the Republicans, well, then what would it take? For now, the primary problem standing in the way of a win seems to be Clinton.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The US Senate and Moveon.org
So you sit down at the end of a long day and you wonder, "I had a long, hard day at work. I wonder what my government did at its long hard day of work?" You flip on the TV to see that their biggest item of a day last week was to vote to "condemn" the ad that Moveon.org placed in the New York Times questioning the (for lack of a better word) trustworthiness of the General. Seriously US Senate? That's the best use of your time? Playing school yard marm to a bunch of squabbling special interest groups? You really don't think that Petreaus has a thick enough skin to not be able to shrug that off?
Oh come on now, let's not be that silly. Of COURSE none of them are worried that he had he feelings hurt. The moment that ad his the presses, no one cared what it really said, and certainly no one cared about how Petreaus felt about the matter. Republicans saw dollar signs. They saw political capital. They saw a way to punish Democrats and divert attention away from a failing war where the majority of the dislike of their party's leader comes from, which they are irrevocably tied to. The General came in to defend them and their actions, and when the Democrats and Democratic affiliated groups questioned whether or not Petreaus was really being up front and entirely honest, backed into a corner they really did the only thing they could do: Play off the public's trust of the military and try to bypass the whole damned argument. Perhaps surprisingly, the one unassailable group in the US are US men and women in uniform. They are treated with respect and honor, not scorn and ridicule as they were during Vietnam. They are almost universally loved and treated with dignity. So I have to wonder why Republicans, seemingly holding the mantle of defenders of the Armed Forces from those wicked Democrats, are using the military as political cannon fodder to run roughshod over Democrats who take issue with their failed policies. Well duh, the answer is easy of course, it's because it's all the Republicans have left! They know they've lost the public's trust, that even though voter confidence in the Congress is below 30%, more than 50% of Americans still think that it's in better hands with the Democrats in charge. Now that is one hell of an insulting number to Republicans.
So with Democrats outraising Republicans by unheard of margins, with the Republicans in a dangerously precarious position for the 2008 Senate elections (a perfect storm of bad timing has left them in a position to lose several more seats), with a president who is wholly out of touch with the American people, and with a war stuck in their laps that no one wants anymore, they did the one thing they had left when the opportunity presented itself: Use the last respected government institution as a ploy to attack Democrats. Because Democrats can't attack the military and get away with it, so if Republicans can manage to manufacture an attack on the military where none exists (via the ad), and then attach the moveon.org ad to Democrats, well then Democrats just attacked the military! We must demand apologies from all of them! We have to force a vote in Senate to get them on record as being for or against the military.
Never mind the fact that the moveon.org ad actually asked a good set of questions. It showed what Petreaus actually says, and then presents known facts that seem to conflict with his not-under-oath testimony. Um, last I checked that was called being a good American, it's called citizenship actually, it's called civilian control of the military, and it's called not being an ignorant fool who drinks the kool-aid. But hey, that's not the type of attitude we want here in America is it? No sir! John McCain, in response to the moveon.org ad said they should be "thrown out of the country." Because hey, there's nothing more American than suppressing political dissidents right? I'm only mildly surprised that Democrats didn't take that particular line and demand an apology from McCain, but I guess the first amendment doesn't ge the same respect the military does.
Does the censure from Congress really mean anything? No. It's a non-binding resolution that has no teeth when it really comes down to it. But there is a moral to this story: Free speech in America is only possible if everyone approves of what you are saying. If they don't approve, they'll shout you down, or they'll make sure you can't get your words printed in the paper, or they'll get Congress to condemn you, or they'll get politicians you support and who support you to disavow you, and everyone who was once your friend will be forced through PR handwringing will throw you over the side like unnecessary ballast so they can kowtow to the misinformed, stupid public. We're in a new age now, where false umbrage and political maneuvering forces candidates to jump through hoops and creates prerequisites for what they must say before they can be taken seriously. Welcome to our new democracy. That censure might not do anything, but it says everything.
Oh come on now, let's not be that silly. Of COURSE none of them are worried that he had he feelings hurt. The moment that ad his the presses, no one cared what it really said, and certainly no one cared about how Petreaus felt about the matter. Republicans saw dollar signs. They saw political capital. They saw a way to punish Democrats and divert attention away from a failing war where the majority of the dislike of their party's leader comes from, which they are irrevocably tied to. The General came in to defend them and their actions, and when the Democrats and Democratic affiliated groups questioned whether or not Petreaus was really being up front and entirely honest, backed into a corner they really did the only thing they could do: Play off the public's trust of the military and try to bypass the whole damned argument. Perhaps surprisingly, the one unassailable group in the US are US men and women in uniform. They are treated with respect and honor, not scorn and ridicule as they were during Vietnam. They are almost universally loved and treated with dignity. So I have to wonder why Republicans, seemingly holding the mantle of defenders of the Armed Forces from those wicked Democrats, are using the military as political cannon fodder to run roughshod over Democrats who take issue with their failed policies. Well duh, the answer is easy of course, it's because it's all the Republicans have left! They know they've lost the public's trust, that even though voter confidence in the Congress is below 30%, more than 50% of Americans still think that it's in better hands with the Democrats in charge. Now that is one hell of an insulting number to Republicans.
So with Democrats outraising Republicans by unheard of margins, with the Republicans in a dangerously precarious position for the 2008 Senate elections (a perfect storm of bad timing has left them in a position to lose several more seats), with a president who is wholly out of touch with the American people, and with a war stuck in their laps that no one wants anymore, they did the one thing they had left when the opportunity presented itself: Use the last respected government institution as a ploy to attack Democrats. Because Democrats can't attack the military and get away with it, so if Republicans can manage to manufacture an attack on the military where none exists (via the ad), and then attach the moveon.org ad to Democrats, well then Democrats just attacked the military! We must demand apologies from all of them! We have to force a vote in Senate to get them on record as being for or against the military.
Never mind the fact that the moveon.org ad actually asked a good set of questions. It showed what Petreaus actually says, and then presents known facts that seem to conflict with his not-under-oath testimony. Um, last I checked that was called being a good American, it's called citizenship actually, it's called civilian control of the military, and it's called not being an ignorant fool who drinks the kool-aid. But hey, that's not the type of attitude we want here in America is it? No sir! John McCain, in response to the moveon.org ad said they should be "thrown out of the country." Because hey, there's nothing more American than suppressing political dissidents right? I'm only mildly surprised that Democrats didn't take that particular line and demand an apology from McCain, but I guess the first amendment doesn't ge the same respect the military does.
Does the censure from Congress really mean anything? No. It's a non-binding resolution that has no teeth when it really comes down to it. But there is a moral to this story: Free speech in America is only possible if everyone approves of what you are saying. If they don't approve, they'll shout you down, or they'll make sure you can't get your words printed in the paper, or they'll get Congress to condemn you, or they'll get politicians you support and who support you to disavow you, and everyone who was once your friend will be forced through PR handwringing will throw you over the side like unnecessary ballast so they can kowtow to the misinformed, stupid public. We're in a new age now, where false umbrage and political maneuvering forces candidates to jump through hoops and creates prerequisites for what they must say before they can be taken seriously. Welcome to our new democracy. That censure might not do anything, but it says everything.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Petreaus, Iraq, and Options
It's hard to even have an opinion on Iraq anymore.
A lot anyone's position will come down to trust. Who do you trust? Do you trust the President? I think given his track record you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to. He has given so much spin to Iraq over the last few years that America is sick, from both the dizzy spell and the cost in lives and money. His speech earlier tonight was meant to inspire, but it didn't, and it didn't because of the track record the President has laid down for himself over the last few years. His speech tonight tried to emphasize the progress we have made since last year. A year ago, he said, we were close to admitting that provinces were lost to Al Qaeda, that we were being hammered by ever more powerful militias, and that there seemed little hope for ever settling the matter peacefully. Well, I'm sorry but, what? A year ago President Bush was extolling the virtues of the war and blaming naysayers for being down on it and ruining the image of all the progress we were making. But now a year a later they were all right but THIS time is different? It's a hard pill to swallow from a man that has a pathological inability to talk straight, despite his so called Texas folksy charm.
So who does that leave us with? The only other government official speaking with that kind of authority is General David Petreaus, leader of all and everything that is going on in Iraq. He and President Bush have said that Anbar province is a posterchild for everything that can go right in Iraq, that local Sheikhs and other tribal leaders came to the US asking for help. And yet reporters on the ground are saying that all we're doing is throwing money at them in return for their help. We give them money, guns, and by promising them a spot in the Iraqi police force, we give them legitimacy. Meanwhile, outside those cities are makeshift cities of refugees, hundreds of thousands of them, pushed out of their homes by sectarian rivalry and fighting fueled by the same people we are now funding and supporting. And we are hearing reports that the Iraqi Police is corrupt, rife with sectarian feuding, hated by the average Iraqi, and many are calling for it to be disbanded entirely.
Crocker and Petreaus didn't even try to sugarcoat the failures of the government. It seems the government is offering up the lack of progress in the government and asserting military success so we'll take that one as a given and he can claim partial success. But while Democrats seem to be falling for it, by attacking the government and leaving the military situation alone, I don't. I don't think the military situation is nearly so rosy, even if the added 30,000 troops have had a positive impact, violence is still ridiculously high, and I don't consider paying off our enemies (which is ironic considering the President previously said he didn't even want to talk to them, let alone pay and arm them) any sort of success. We didn't learn from that lesson with Osama Bin Laden? We trained and armed the man during the war between the USSR and Afghanistan in the 1980's, and now we're seriously doing it again?
Petreaus is saying five of twenty combat brigades in Iraq will be out by July, which means a reduction in forces (post surge) of 25%. That's cool, but what then? If there is never a political fix to the problem, there will never be a stable Iraq like President Bush is promising. And he appears unwilling to really strongarm them into fixing it. So we have to ask ourselves a couple questions: What do we really expect to do over there? What do we think will happen if we suddenly left? Is it worth it?
My opinions have been mixed on this subject for awhile now. I believed, and still believe that I was right from the start, that Iraq was a bad idea, that we never should have gone in, and that if we were going to go in, it was done all wrong, and mismanaged from the start. But now we are there, and wishing makes nothing so. So do we do the honorable thing and fix what we broke? Or do we cut our losses? I think we do both, or at least, we try to be honorable. I've given up expecting honesty or honor from the White House. He says we will only draw down troops from a position of victory, but he ignores the fact that keeping those 30,000 surge troops in Iraq is unsustainable, we just don't have the men for it, which makes his words more lies and smokescreen. So first: We don't abandon Iraq, not yet anyway. What we need to do is issue them warning, stern warnings, that our continued assistance is NOT without strings or limitations. We give them until the end of Bush's presidency to act. It's arbitrary, but I don't care anymore, we've given them YEARS to act, and they have done little to nothing to make the situation better. So we set a date, too bad, you guys had your chance. Don't trumpet that date from the rooftops, in fact, it should be private between President Bush and Maliki and his government. If it leaks out, well, that's a sign of how weak that government is then isn't it? If they fail to meet the standards we set for them, then we do one of two things: 1. We dissolve their government, take over, and set the laws the way we've wanted them to begin with. Yes, it'll destroy the democracy we've already created and will piss a lot of people off, but if they can't do it, we have to, or else: 2. We get out. If they won't fix it, and we won't fix it, it isn't going to be fixed, and if it isn't going to be fixed, what the hell are we still doing there? President Bush likes to make all these fanciful allusions to World War II, and all the great things we did in Germany and Japan after the war. Is he ignoring the fact that there were military governors there for more than a DECADE after the end of the war? In Iraq we handed control over far too fast. They weren't ready for it. They didn't have the support they needed from within to keep it going, and so it is falling down.
I'm done with the status quo. The status quo is a mismanaged war, and a country that seems unwilling to commit the troops needed when they are needed to fix this problem correctly. And I refuse to let us half ass it for another decade before we finally say we gave it the old college try, but we just couldn't hack it. They can bleed is dry, just like the Chechnyans are doing to Russia, who wastes their best and most valued military equipment on a tiny nation of people yearning to be free. They did it in Afghanistan too, and then, WE were the Iran supplying weapons secretly. So we either put up NOW, or we get out, NOW. It isn't retreat. WE didn't lose. We won. Iraq lost. The problem with pinning this as a win or lose for the US but leaving the outcome up to Iraq is that we don't actually get to fight anything. We're leaving it up to Iraqi politicians to win or lose the war for us. That's what you get from black and white them or us thinking. Fact of the matter is that militarily, our servicemen have performed splendidly in spite of Administration blunders by the dozens. We declare victory and we come home, because we did what we set out to do, but the Iraqis failed. So they lose, we don't. We rebuild our broken army and we prepare to fight another day, but we don't abandon the fight as a whole, and we don't allow them to beat us in a war of attrition, which is exactly what this is becoming.
Secure victory for the future by leaving before it's too late to win in the future. Give them an ultimatum; it's far past time to do so.
A lot anyone's position will come down to trust. Who do you trust? Do you trust the President? I think given his track record you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to. He has given so much spin to Iraq over the last few years that America is sick, from both the dizzy spell and the cost in lives and money. His speech earlier tonight was meant to inspire, but it didn't, and it didn't because of the track record the President has laid down for himself over the last few years. His speech tonight tried to emphasize the progress we have made since last year. A year ago, he said, we were close to admitting that provinces were lost to Al Qaeda, that we were being hammered by ever more powerful militias, and that there seemed little hope for ever settling the matter peacefully. Well, I'm sorry but, what? A year ago President Bush was extolling the virtues of the war and blaming naysayers for being down on it and ruining the image of all the progress we were making. But now a year a later they were all right but THIS time is different? It's a hard pill to swallow from a man that has a pathological inability to talk straight, despite his so called Texas folksy charm.
So who does that leave us with? The only other government official speaking with that kind of authority is General David Petreaus, leader of all and everything that is going on in Iraq. He and President Bush have said that Anbar province is a posterchild for everything that can go right in Iraq, that local Sheikhs and other tribal leaders came to the US asking for help. And yet reporters on the ground are saying that all we're doing is throwing money at them in return for their help. We give them money, guns, and by promising them a spot in the Iraqi police force, we give them legitimacy. Meanwhile, outside those cities are makeshift cities of refugees, hundreds of thousands of them, pushed out of their homes by sectarian rivalry and fighting fueled by the same people we are now funding and supporting. And we are hearing reports that the Iraqi Police is corrupt, rife with sectarian feuding, hated by the average Iraqi, and many are calling for it to be disbanded entirely.
Crocker and Petreaus didn't even try to sugarcoat the failures of the government. It seems the government is offering up the lack of progress in the government and asserting military success so we'll take that one as a given and he can claim partial success. But while Democrats seem to be falling for it, by attacking the government and leaving the military situation alone, I don't. I don't think the military situation is nearly so rosy, even if the added 30,000 troops have had a positive impact, violence is still ridiculously high, and I don't consider paying off our enemies (which is ironic considering the President previously said he didn't even want to talk to them, let alone pay and arm them) any sort of success. We didn't learn from that lesson with Osama Bin Laden? We trained and armed the man during the war between the USSR and Afghanistan in the 1980's, and now we're seriously doing it again?
Petreaus is saying five of twenty combat brigades in Iraq will be out by July, which means a reduction in forces (post surge) of 25%. That's cool, but what then? If there is never a political fix to the problem, there will never be a stable Iraq like President Bush is promising. And he appears unwilling to really strongarm them into fixing it. So we have to ask ourselves a couple questions: What do we really expect to do over there? What do we think will happen if we suddenly left? Is it worth it?
My opinions have been mixed on this subject for awhile now. I believed, and still believe that I was right from the start, that Iraq was a bad idea, that we never should have gone in, and that if we were going to go in, it was done all wrong, and mismanaged from the start. But now we are there, and wishing makes nothing so. So do we do the honorable thing and fix what we broke? Or do we cut our losses? I think we do both, or at least, we try to be honorable. I've given up expecting honesty or honor from the White House. He says we will only draw down troops from a position of victory, but he ignores the fact that keeping those 30,000 surge troops in Iraq is unsustainable, we just don't have the men for it, which makes his words more lies and smokescreen. So first: We don't abandon Iraq, not yet anyway. What we need to do is issue them warning, stern warnings, that our continued assistance is NOT without strings or limitations. We give them until the end of Bush's presidency to act. It's arbitrary, but I don't care anymore, we've given them YEARS to act, and they have done little to nothing to make the situation better. So we set a date, too bad, you guys had your chance. Don't trumpet that date from the rooftops, in fact, it should be private between President Bush and Maliki and his government. If it leaks out, well, that's a sign of how weak that government is then isn't it? If they fail to meet the standards we set for them, then we do one of two things: 1. We dissolve their government, take over, and set the laws the way we've wanted them to begin with. Yes, it'll destroy the democracy we've already created and will piss a lot of people off, but if they can't do it, we have to, or else: 2. We get out. If they won't fix it, and we won't fix it, it isn't going to be fixed, and if it isn't going to be fixed, what the hell are we still doing there? President Bush likes to make all these fanciful allusions to World War II, and all the great things we did in Germany and Japan after the war. Is he ignoring the fact that there were military governors there for more than a DECADE after the end of the war? In Iraq we handed control over far too fast. They weren't ready for it. They didn't have the support they needed from within to keep it going, and so it is falling down.
I'm done with the status quo. The status quo is a mismanaged war, and a country that seems unwilling to commit the troops needed when they are needed to fix this problem correctly. And I refuse to let us half ass it for another decade before we finally say we gave it the old college try, but we just couldn't hack it. They can bleed is dry, just like the Chechnyans are doing to Russia, who wastes their best and most valued military equipment on a tiny nation of people yearning to be free. They did it in Afghanistan too, and then, WE were the Iran supplying weapons secretly. So we either put up NOW, or we get out, NOW. It isn't retreat. WE didn't lose. We won. Iraq lost. The problem with pinning this as a win or lose for the US but leaving the outcome up to Iraq is that we don't actually get to fight anything. We're leaving it up to Iraqi politicians to win or lose the war for us. That's what you get from black and white them or us thinking. Fact of the matter is that militarily, our servicemen have performed splendidly in spite of Administration blunders by the dozens. We declare victory and we come home, because we did what we set out to do, but the Iraqis failed. So they lose, we don't. We rebuild our broken army and we prepare to fight another day, but we don't abandon the fight as a whole, and we don't allow them to beat us in a war of attrition, which is exactly what this is becoming.
Secure victory for the future by leaving before it's too late to win in the future. Give them an ultimatum; it's far past time to do so.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Why The Democratic Party Should Change Its Name
A reasonably intelligence person could easily deduce that a political party calling themselves "Democrats" would in fact be supporters of democracy. But recent decisions threaten to remove an element of the democratic rights of Michiganders and Floridians. Howard Dean, in a draconian move, has threatened both states with the removal of their delegates to the nominating convention if they don't adhere to the rule that leaves Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina in control of the early portion of the election.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have mandated that no states other than the ones they handpick will be allowed to hold primaries before February 5th, 2008. States that hold their primaries before that date, such as Michigan, who is very close to approving a January 15th move, and Florida, who has moved theirs to January 29th, risk losing all their delegates to the Democratic nominating committee, and half to the Republican.
This decision is stupid and wrong on multiple fronts. First off, why are Democrats making hay in a state that has at least twice now lost them a national election? Florida has turned into a massive swing state, one the Democrats need to make a play for in 2008, and shutting them down like that is going to piss them off royally. Why alienate them? Michigan isn't exactly a solid blue state either. We could fall on either side of the line, despite recent Democratic gains here. The state is last in economic growth in the nation, as we watch our auto jobs fly every which way around the globe, and we want answers. Shutting down our voice will only force us to look at the candidates who will actually listen to us, which leaves only the Republicans.
Florida is threatening legal action against the Democrats over the issue. But there's something bigger at stake here than just political fallout, it's the biggest issue of all. That issue, is who gets a voice in choosing our national leader. Why do the same two states, who don't represent a true cross section of America, get to be out in front? Why is it only two other states, as olive branches to the southern and western regions get added (South Carolina and Nevada)? And now the Democrats and Republicans have created a system which makes it advantageous to try and have the earliest possible primary, as the earlier the primary, the further ahead you are, and the more campaign stops you get, which increases the power of your voice. Now 30 some states are bunched together on February 5th, four are out in front, all of which are getting major campaign stops and dollars, and a couple might not get anything. Most every Democratic candidate has already pledged to ignore democracy, ahem, I mean to adhere to the Democratic Party by not even campaigning in states that have primaries before February 5th who aren't approved.
So who really wins in this scenario? Americans are being denied the right to vote in their primary because they violate stupid, arbitrary rules that serve a grand minority of voters. The best we Democrats here in Michigan could do I suppose is change party affiliation and all vote for Ron Paul. So long as our votes aren't going to count anyway, we might as well do some damage. But I don't particularly feel like helping the Democrats right now. If there weren't so much riding on this election, I'd almost vote Republican just to spite them, not that the Republicans are much better on this issue, but at least their candidates aren't caving to the pressure by not campaigning here.
Howard Dean, who I once helped campaign for in 2004, should be ashamed of himself.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have mandated that no states other than the ones they handpick will be allowed to hold primaries before February 5th, 2008. States that hold their primaries before that date, such as Michigan, who is very close to approving a January 15th move, and Florida, who has moved theirs to January 29th, risk losing all their delegates to the Democratic nominating committee, and half to the Republican.
This decision is stupid and wrong on multiple fronts. First off, why are Democrats making hay in a state that has at least twice now lost them a national election? Florida has turned into a massive swing state, one the Democrats need to make a play for in 2008, and shutting them down like that is going to piss them off royally. Why alienate them? Michigan isn't exactly a solid blue state either. We could fall on either side of the line, despite recent Democratic gains here. The state is last in economic growth in the nation, as we watch our auto jobs fly every which way around the globe, and we want answers. Shutting down our voice will only force us to look at the candidates who will actually listen to us, which leaves only the Republicans.
Florida is threatening legal action against the Democrats over the issue. But there's something bigger at stake here than just political fallout, it's the biggest issue of all. That issue, is who gets a voice in choosing our national leader. Why do the same two states, who don't represent a true cross section of America, get to be out in front? Why is it only two other states, as olive branches to the southern and western regions get added (South Carolina and Nevada)? And now the Democrats and Republicans have created a system which makes it advantageous to try and have the earliest possible primary, as the earlier the primary, the further ahead you are, and the more campaign stops you get, which increases the power of your voice. Now 30 some states are bunched together on February 5th, four are out in front, all of which are getting major campaign stops and dollars, and a couple might not get anything. Most every Democratic candidate has already pledged to ignore democracy, ahem, I mean to adhere to the Democratic Party by not even campaigning in states that have primaries before February 5th who aren't approved.
So who really wins in this scenario? Americans are being denied the right to vote in their primary because they violate stupid, arbitrary rules that serve a grand minority of voters. The best we Democrats here in Michigan could do I suppose is change party affiliation and all vote for Ron Paul. So long as our votes aren't going to count anyway, we might as well do some damage. But I don't particularly feel like helping the Democrats right now. If there weren't so much riding on this election, I'd almost vote Republican just to spite them, not that the Republicans are much better on this issue, but at least their candidates aren't caving to the pressure by not campaigning here.
Howard Dean, who I once helped campaign for in 2004, should be ashamed of himself.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Anything New in Politics?
I'm back from a long hiatus, and though I left in the middle of what was to be a 10 part series, I think I'm going to put it on hold. I've actually written most of the 10 parts, and may in the future continue to put them up here, they sadly don't seem relevant at the moment.
Alberto Gonzalez recently quit as the Attorney General of the US. Big deal. President Bush as you can imagine came out to call his treatment totally unfair, even though Gonzalez constantly was unable to answer questions before Congressional hearings. The man was either a liar or incompetent to an unbelievable degree, which I find wholly plausible.
Karl Rove is on the way out too, as if that makes a difference. He'll still consult from afar, and in the mean time he'll join the campaign of a GOP candidate in order to sink his tendrils into fresh meat.
Giuliani and Romney seem to be battling it out for who will win the GOP nomination, and somehow Giuliani seems to be in the lead. I wouldn't have believed it six months ago, and I still can't now. How can this guy be the GOP nominee? I think even I could crush him next fall. He has more negative baggage than any of the candidates in the field, and Democrats are going to have a field day with that.
On the Democratic side, it looks like Hillary is going to coast to victory with Obama hot on her heels. That man is really a force to be reckoned with. Many are saying he's a lock for the VP spot, hell, even Castro is saying that, of all people. He can command a crowd, and command a dollar, if his fund raising skills are any measure of his ability to part people with their money. The two of them would blow any of the GOP candidates out of the water in fundraising, but Hillary will be asking herself if a Democratic ticket, or if any ticket can win with a woman and a black guy running. It's going to scare away a lot of conservative voters, but then with Giuliani on the GOP side, I think a lot of them will just stay home anyway. I personally would rather have Obama on the front side of the ticket, but she's up by 20 points, so I don't see it happening.
It'd be great for Democratic politics to have him be the VP. He'd be a lock for the nomination in 8 years. He'd have the experience he needs combined with the power of incumbency, a magnetic personality and powerful oratory style. I think him stumping for Hillary is going to flood a lot of votes in as well. Between him and Bill Clinton, they'll have the best chance in years of winning, even with Hillary's own negative baggage, she has a great senatorial record she can boast about, and was strong enough on the military for Republicans to not be able to attack her. Meanwhile Giuliani has really no background in national or even state politics. All he has is his legacy as the Mayor of New York, and other than one day of great PR, it wasn't a sterling record. A lot of people now are starting to question even his leadership on that day.
I think Clinton/Obama is a great ticket, and I could vote for it finally not feeling like I was just hoping for everything to work out. I also think that Democrats will pick up more senate and house seats to, though probably still not enough to break a fillibuster. They'd have to get another eight or nine senate seats to do that, which I don't think is achievable at the moment. But Republicans can't stonewall on everything.
We'll find out who the runners will be in January, but Hillary is almost a lock, and only Romney has a real chance of catchng Giuliani after McCain's implosion and only Huckabee nipping at Romney's heels.
Alberto Gonzalez recently quit as the Attorney General of the US. Big deal. President Bush as you can imagine came out to call his treatment totally unfair, even though Gonzalez constantly was unable to answer questions before Congressional hearings. The man was either a liar or incompetent to an unbelievable degree, which I find wholly plausible.
Karl Rove is on the way out too, as if that makes a difference. He'll still consult from afar, and in the mean time he'll join the campaign of a GOP candidate in order to sink his tendrils into fresh meat.
Giuliani and Romney seem to be battling it out for who will win the GOP nomination, and somehow Giuliani seems to be in the lead. I wouldn't have believed it six months ago, and I still can't now. How can this guy be the GOP nominee? I think even I could crush him next fall. He has more negative baggage than any of the candidates in the field, and Democrats are going to have a field day with that.
On the Democratic side, it looks like Hillary is going to coast to victory with Obama hot on her heels. That man is really a force to be reckoned with. Many are saying he's a lock for the VP spot, hell, even Castro is saying that, of all people. He can command a crowd, and command a dollar, if his fund raising skills are any measure of his ability to part people with their money. The two of them would blow any of the GOP candidates out of the water in fundraising, but Hillary will be asking herself if a Democratic ticket, or if any ticket can win with a woman and a black guy running. It's going to scare away a lot of conservative voters, but then with Giuliani on the GOP side, I think a lot of them will just stay home anyway. I personally would rather have Obama on the front side of the ticket, but she's up by 20 points, so I don't see it happening.
It'd be great for Democratic politics to have him be the VP. He'd be a lock for the nomination in 8 years. He'd have the experience he needs combined with the power of incumbency, a magnetic personality and powerful oratory style. I think him stumping for Hillary is going to flood a lot of votes in as well. Between him and Bill Clinton, they'll have the best chance in years of winning, even with Hillary's own negative baggage, she has a great senatorial record she can boast about, and was strong enough on the military for Republicans to not be able to attack her. Meanwhile Giuliani has really no background in national or even state politics. All he has is his legacy as the Mayor of New York, and other than one day of great PR, it wasn't a sterling record. A lot of people now are starting to question even his leadership on that day.
I think Clinton/Obama is a great ticket, and I could vote for it finally not feeling like I was just hoping for everything to work out. I also think that Democrats will pick up more senate and house seats to, though probably still not enough to break a fillibuster. They'd have to get another eight or nine senate seats to do that, which I don't think is achievable at the moment. But Republicans can't stonewall on everything.
We'll find out who the runners will be in January, but Hillary is almost a lock, and only Romney has a real chance of catchng Giuliani after McCain's implosion and only Huckabee nipping at Romney's heels.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Who's Even Paying Attention?
I know I've been away from this blog for awhile, and I left in the middle of a ten part series on Domestic Issues (which I've mostly written by the way, I just haven't put it up yet). But I have to be honest, what is there that's really going on?
Congressional approval right now in this country is in the 30's, as in 30%. Bush's numbers are just as bad. The people of this country don't trust or approve of their government, and the government is doing absolutely nothing to change our perception. They get all worked up over an immigration bill that can't pass. They make an energy bill riddled with giveaways to interest groups and cuts many helpful provisions for consumers, and likely they'll soon pass a 50 billion dollar farm bill that gives more money away to giant agribusinesses.
Elections are 15 months away in this country, and I have only one thing to say: don't vote for the incumbent. You can still vote for your party, just not the guy in office. We need to send a wakeup call that reelection isn't a lock, and they need to spend more time pleasing us and less time sucking up to money spigots so they can brainwash us into electing them. If they want my vote they have to earn it through good governance, not scaring me into believing the other guy is just a little bit worse than he is. Our country fifty years ago had a less than 20% incumbency rate, and not it's above 70%. At what point did we decide that letting these guys stay in office for decades at a time was a good idea?
I think we need to let one party have the reins of government for awhile, and that means electing more Democrats so they won't be stymied by Republicans. We need to elect a Democratic president, and at the moment I'm waffling back and forth between Obama, who has a vigor, charisma and energy that make me excited to be both a Democrat and American, and Hillary, who I think has a lot of great technical solutions for the problems in the country. The other Democrats are fine, well, not Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, but they'll never have the power to get into the White House, and frankly they don't have any sort of awe inspiring qualities.
I think Bush and the Republicans had six years to be good at government and they showed us for six years that they suck at it. I think Democrats were voted into power to change things, and they still aren't able to because their majority is too slim and the President too thick headed and stubborn to compromise. So I want them to have control of both houses, and I want new guys in those seats. We need to set the reset switch in Washington and get this country back on the right track. I'm sick to death of partisan sniping, and yes, I sometimes participate in it myself, but I don't hate Republicans, I don't even dislike them, I just don't like their ideas, their policies, or their dogma. I'm not a huge fan of Democrats these days either, but I at least have faith that they will not only NOT run us more into the ground, they might even help dig us out of this hole we're in.
Whatever you do, don't vote for the status quo. And even if it is hard, with all the same ole same ole crap that is going on there right now (from failed legislation to Cheney breaking the law again, to Bush pardoning a loyal ally), try your hardest to pay attention to what is going on right now. The angrier you get with every curve ball they try and throw you, the more charged you will be with November 7, 2008 rolls around.
Congressional approval right now in this country is in the 30's, as in 30%. Bush's numbers are just as bad. The people of this country don't trust or approve of their government, and the government is doing absolutely nothing to change our perception. They get all worked up over an immigration bill that can't pass. They make an energy bill riddled with giveaways to interest groups and cuts many helpful provisions for consumers, and likely they'll soon pass a 50 billion dollar farm bill that gives more money away to giant agribusinesses.
Elections are 15 months away in this country, and I have only one thing to say: don't vote for the incumbent. You can still vote for your party, just not the guy in office. We need to send a wakeup call that reelection isn't a lock, and they need to spend more time pleasing us and less time sucking up to money spigots so they can brainwash us into electing them. If they want my vote they have to earn it through good governance, not scaring me into believing the other guy is just a little bit worse than he is. Our country fifty years ago had a less than 20% incumbency rate, and not it's above 70%. At what point did we decide that letting these guys stay in office for decades at a time was a good idea?
I think we need to let one party have the reins of government for awhile, and that means electing more Democrats so they won't be stymied by Republicans. We need to elect a Democratic president, and at the moment I'm waffling back and forth between Obama, who has a vigor, charisma and energy that make me excited to be both a Democrat and American, and Hillary, who I think has a lot of great technical solutions for the problems in the country. The other Democrats are fine, well, not Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, but they'll never have the power to get into the White House, and frankly they don't have any sort of awe inspiring qualities.
I think Bush and the Republicans had six years to be good at government and they showed us for six years that they suck at it. I think Democrats were voted into power to change things, and they still aren't able to because their majority is too slim and the President too thick headed and stubborn to compromise. So I want them to have control of both houses, and I want new guys in those seats. We need to set the reset switch in Washington and get this country back on the right track. I'm sick to death of partisan sniping, and yes, I sometimes participate in it myself, but I don't hate Republicans, I don't even dislike them, I just don't like their ideas, their policies, or their dogma. I'm not a huge fan of Democrats these days either, but I at least have faith that they will not only NOT run us more into the ground, they might even help dig us out of this hole we're in.
Whatever you do, don't vote for the status quo. And even if it is hard, with all the same ole same ole crap that is going on there right now (from failed legislation to Cheney breaking the law again, to Bush pardoning a loyal ally), try your hardest to pay attention to what is going on right now. The angrier you get with every curve ball they try and throw you, the more charged you will be with November 7, 2008 rolls around.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Domestics - Part Three: Taxes
Taxes
It’s high time we simplified the tax code. We spend millions every year just paying people to try and make sense of it. Literally billions of dollars of money that should be returned to our citizens is lost because they don’t claim it. That’s money stolen from the hands of the people. Further, the difficult tax code stifles foreign investment. It might just be that America already is an inviting place for investment, but companies that have to spend thousands of dollars just to understand the ground rules before they even invest in America will look elsewhere for somewhere easier to break into. It also works against the small business owner. I think it’s time to experiment with, and possibly slowly phase in a national sales tax, and get rid of all payroll taxes and corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are an illusion anyway. Costs from corporate taxes are passed down to the consumer through price increases, which effectively leaves consumers paying twice, once out of their paychecks and once at the cash register. Cut those taxes and make American companies more competitive. At the same time this will bring in more income as all purchases made in the US will bring in tax money, which means a consumer driven economy can only enrich the coffers, and further, non-US citizens will be contributing as well with every purchase they make. It’s the ultimate way to make sure Americans have total control over what taxes they pay, with every purchase they make. If we simplify the tax code, we can make the country more efficient, give the people more control over their lives, and make America more competitive in the world economy. If it turns out it isn’t a good enough replacement for payroll taxes, then we lose nothing in trying, but the system as it stands is too convoluted and weighs down on our economy and our lives. We earn our money, we work our whole lives, work ourselves to death sometimes, and we should have more control of the money we make. Government spends too much, and it takes too much, and it’s time for a change. I fear that a sales tax would become a burden on the poor, who already pay next to nothing in taxes. This only makes sense if, like proponents of the national sales tax say, the price of all goods drops and the national sales taxes rises, equaling out to nearly the same price things currently stand at. Should this fail, I suggest just simplifying the tax code in general, and looking at other ways of coming up with a fair way to fund the government.
This one is short, but the next one, on Energy, will be the longest yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)