Editor's Note: I was just reading an article over at Politics.Ohio.com from conservative friend Ben Keeler, and part of it criticized the windfall profits tax being proposed on the oil companies. I started typing a long comment, and realized I should probably just make this a whole post. So here are my thoughts....
I will agree that a windfall profits tax may not be the best approach. Instead, I think the winning solution (and one that the Dems will eventually adopt) is to quit subsidizing the oil companies! A windfall profits tax will allow the Haneeler Republicans to make their annoying argument about how all Dems do is raise taxes (which is not true...and when they do, it has worked).
So instead, lets jam an argument back up the throats of these oil goons. Lets call them what they are: WELFARE WHORES. It worked for Ronald Reagan (see: attacks on Welfare Queen from Chicago), so it can work for Democrats. The oil industry receives upwards of $50 billion a year in corporate welfare (via subsidies). The Republicans argued against a lady in the Cadillac getting a welfare check, so I am sure Hanneeler would have to be against the most profitable companies in the history of man receiving welfare checks.
So I do hope Obama drops the call for a windfall profits tax and instead calls for an end to Welfare Whores....or maybe Welfare Pimps....or to play right off of Reagan, how about Welfare Kings!
While I am certainly not upset with Laura Bush for involving herself in the crisis in Burma, I can't help but think - where were you in August 2005? I have always thought the the administration could have somewhat redeemed itself if Mrs. Bush had dedicated herself to some aspect of rehabilitating Louisiana or Mississippi. Mrs. Bush has said that the response to the cyclone is the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs. Two of Mrs. Bush's other ironic quotes about the cyclone victims:
I recall that a few days after Hurricane Katrina hit, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin gave a similar speech in which he criticized the Bush Administration for the insufficient reinforcements they provided. I also recall that Bush didn't even call off his vacation until more than a day after the hurricane hit - AND she criticizes another government for failing to show that it "cares" about its citizens?
Mrs. Bush has rightly criticized the Burmese government for impeding relief efforts. I was similarly incensed when I read reports of the impediments to the dispersion of relief supplies to the hurricane victims. You may remember that FEMA was accused of DELIBERATELy slowing down the relief process by (1) interfering with the Astor Hotel's plans to hire 10 buses to carry 500 or so guests to higher ground, (2) turning away 3 Wal-Mart trailers loaded with water, (3) preventing the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, (4) blocking more than 50 civilian aircraft responding to separate requests for evacuations from hospitals and other agencies, and on and on.
I know these two disasters are of vastly different proportions. Nonetheless, I am amazed that she can be so critical of Burma's response without at least giving some sort of caveat such as acknowledging that the Bush Administration "learned a great deal" from its response - or lack thereof - to Hurricane Katrina. The Administration's response was a disaster in itself. Who knows how many Americans died because of our government's ineptness? Does she think we forgot?
Politics aside, I encourage you to consider making a donation to one of the many organizations working to help the families of the thousands of victims and the hundreds of thousands of homeless. You can help the victims by making a donation to one of the agencies listed here which is preparing supplies to be delivered as quickly as possible.
West Virginia is looking very good for Senator Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Senator Clinton at 56% and Senator Obama at 27%. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has been in the Senate a long time. Just about everything in the state is named after him. There are bridges, a telescope (pictured right), a dam, buildings, and tons of other structures built with government money that bear his name. Byrd has yet to endorse a presidential candidate in the Democratic Primary and West Virginia votes next week. I'd imagine both campaigns are heavily courting Byrd's endorsement. It would be a great press bump for Clinton because it would help her shore up her support with West Virginia voters. It is important to note that West Virginia has the lowest percentage of citizens with a bachelor's degree in the United States. If the Clinton campaign is looking to connect with less educated voters, then West Virginia is the place to shine. Byrd's endorsement would also be great for Senator Obama. It would help him limit the damage in West Virginia and show that he can put together a broad coalition. It is also an opportunity for Senator Byrd to use his seniority to influence the outcome of the race.
I think that the reason Obama seems to offer so much hope as a Presidential candidate is the same as why he inspires so much fear from his opposition (and why he so easily gets labelled as a racist, socialist, idealist, etc.). It's because he embodies the promise of a real alternative to the politics as usual of the status quo. Unfortunately, that status quo has been propped up by the failings of the Democratic to position itself as a true opposition party. Let me take a moment to quote from Sheldon Wolin's Politics and Visionin order to make my case:
"Beginning with the Goldwater campaign of 1964 and gathering momentum with the Reagan presidency (1980-1988), the Republicans evolved into a unique phenomenon in American history, a major party that was fervently doctrinal, zealous, ruthless, opportunistically populist, pro-corporate, and successful in winning a popular majority, sometimes by dubious methods. As the Republican party grew more stridently and intolerantly ideological, the Democratic party conceded that the Republicans had succeeded in conservatizing the electorate, thereby setting the ideological parameters for the politics of the new millennium. The Democratic party all but abandoned its critical, reform-minded constituencies to embrace the ideology of the end of ideology...Unlike the Republican part, which, when in the minority, vigorously played the role of an opposition party -criticizing and offering a genuine alternative - the Democrats were ineffectual at both."
As a Democrat, I have furiously watched as Republicans have had a monopoly on setting the terms of political discourse, while Democrats must either be constantly on the defensive or sit idly by while they concede their positions. Even during the 2006 elections, Democrats played the role of centrists, again appealing to "the ideology of the end of ideology," without offering a successful critique of Republican policy positions (apart from the war in Iraq, which has not resulted in much of a change). Obama seems to offer some promise of altering the terms of the debate. "Change" has certainly become the cliche of this election, the question now is whether Obama can really deliver the goods. He has made attempts to alter the terms of political debate, with varying degrees of success. However, I wonder if the Republicans have been so successful in defining away what constitutes legitimate political dialogue that future attempts to reconfigure that rhetoric by Obama will easily be dismissed.
Throughout this campaign I have tried really hard to be pro-Clinton (only). Some of you say that I haven't made a good enough case for her election. I'm not that worried about it. Those of you on that side of the fence are not coming over to mine and I've accepted it. I've put most of my energies into reaching out to undecideds and GOTV.
But what I've tried to avoid is Obama-bashing. I've said on many occasions that I don't dislike him and will vote for him should he be the nominee. But if he wants my support, and the support of other Clinton voters, he has to make some changes.
Now many of you will say that he is perfect the way he is, inspiring hope in the minds of new voters: offering a new kind of politics. But the polls don't lie. 1/2 of Hillary's voters in Indiana yesterday said that they would not vote for Barack in November. If he wants to win the general election, he is going to have to change his tune.
Obama needs to make up his mind about the kind of campaign he wants to run. He could stay on his message of new-politics, determined to reform Washington-- which when going up against McCain may work, especially since he is Bush Jr's Jr. But this means that he will actually have to walk the talk. Don't say you don't take money from lobbyists, when you've accepted $134 million from individuals with special interests. $15 million from lawyers and law firms, $9 million from investment and banking professionals, and over $3 million from healthcare, pharmaceutical, and hospital employees. I don't want to get into a debate about the definition of "registered lobbyist" here, but the statement that he doesn't take special interest money is simply untrue. Everyone has an interest and that's why they donate to political campaigns.
Beyond the money issue, if he truly wants to run a new kind of campaign void of negative advertising and cheap shots, stop this silly crybaby campaign against the American Leadership PAC. They are not purposely going against the FEC by spending issue advocacy money for Hillary or against Barack-- if he wants to be mad at anyone, point fingers at the FEC for not being proactive enough in their rulings against 527 dollars or advocacy of any kind paid for outside the legal hard dollar limits. He is setting a precedent here, asking for trouble from McCain and the RNC the minute an issue advocacy group starts spending money on Obama's behalf for the general.
Please stop this oratory parade of rhetoric and pontification. To get the Hillary Clinton voter on his side, he needs to stop talking about hope and start talking about action. I've heard him talk endlessly about the economy and how people deserve to live the American dream-- sure Hillary's gas tax break is only a measly $30 or so for the summer, but hey-- I could use an extra $30 bucks. I can think of a lot that I'd rather do with it than sink it into my gas tank, and I think most of middle America would agree with me. They need to hear about real solutions, realistic programs, and we want logistics! And if Clinton's are not bold enough for him, than create some new plans. He doesn't have any real results or record, so people need to see a substantive, concrete plan.
And this elitist bullshit has got to stop. One reason I loved John Edwards is that he continually talked about the gap between the haves and the have nots and made me feel like he really understood the plight of the have nots-- even though he was a major have (this is of course, up til the $400 haircut episode, and such). For some reason, when Barack talks about his mother and father and his humble roots, it just doesn't sit well with me; it comes across as phony. Show me who Barry is.
I've never seen BHO speak in person, and usually I get wrapped up in the excitement in the room with a big timer, but watching him on tv is painful. He needs to look directly into the camera when he's making a speech-- every time he looks to the side like he's gazing off into the sunset, I feel like I'm watching a cheesy made for tv political movie. It also turns my stomach every time he points his finger to emphasize his points. Didn't his mother teach him that to do so is rude? He also goes for way too long. Get to the point, make it, emphasize it, motivate the masses, then go away. I can't bear to listen to the long list of anecdotals (from either candidate) any longer. One or two is more than sufficient. More is just excessive.
Please don't misread this message: I am still supporting Hillary Clinton and will until the end. I still believe that she is the right choice for president and the right choice for this nation. I believe in her, I trust her, and I think her plan is better. I also think she has a better shot of winning in November.
Which is why Obama should listen to some Hillary fans. Like me.
Obama suprised everyone, winning North Carolina by 15%, and finally the media is declaring Hillary is done. I am quite annoyed I let so many people waste my time with silly arguments that Hillary still had a chance. I felt like it was 2006 and I was talking to delusional Ken Blackwell supporters. As I have been saying, she has been done since February 12, but now everyone living on planet Earth has come to the reality: Barack Obama, against all odds just a year ago, has won the Democratic Party Nomination.
Now it is on to months more of silly arguments with those claiming McCain has a chance. Well, here's the thing: Obama will definitely beat McCain. McCain agrees with George Bush on every major issue, and I am confident America does not want more George Bush. Meanwhile, Obama has not only been on the right side of vital issues, but also has a unique capacity to unite Americans. Accordingly, Obama will handily defeat McCain.
Congratulations to Barack Obama and all that have worked in support of him. Check this great highlight of the victory that started it all.
Ben and I are using a new program over at the Politics.Ohio.com to host a live chat from 9:00pm - 10:00pm EST to discuss tonight's primary results. Join us and check it out.
Every once in awhile I just like to check up on my legislators to make sure they are doing their jobs and check out their agendas. Cursed with the representation that I have, I am generally unpleasantly surprised. You see, John Widowfield is my Ohio state representative-- voted on by his peers in the legislature and colleagues in the lobbying world to be Ohio's laziest legislator.
Here's a quick run down of his activities this term in the general assembly:
1= Sponsored legislation (HB 311) regarding the definition of "dependent" for unemployement benefits
16 = Cosponsored bills
1/3 = of these cosponsored bills deal with the renaming of portions of Ohio's highways and bridges
144 = the bill that would make May Ohio's official Nurses' Month
2 = the number of new species (alpacas and llamas) that would be considered "agricultural animals or livestock" in HB 352
As you can see, Representative Widowfield has been awfully effective in the 07-08 cycle. *** Insert bold sarcasm here*** The only time you'll ever hear this out of me: "thank goodness for term limits!"
That's why we need Mike Moran; he will be a fabulous new 42nd District Rep. Donate to his campaign today!
You can add my name to the growing list of Ohioans calling for Marc Dann's resignation. The Attorney General is the highest ranking law enforcement official in the State of Ohio and should be held to a high standard. But, it doesn't take a very high standard to find Dann's behavior while in office to be unacceptable. It also says a lot about Dann's character that he has fired so many top people in his office, but has not yet resigned himself. The State of Ohio has a lot of work to do and Governor Strickland, Lieutenant Governor Fisher, Secretary of State Brunner, Treasurer Cordray, and Auditor Taylor (R) are working hard to move our state forward. Dann needs to step down immediately for the good of our state. Friends and fellow Ohio Democrat bloggers over at Plunderbund have set up a petition calling for Dann's resignation. This is a non-partisan call for Dann to resign.
As a Democrat, I am aware that if Dann resigns before September 24th that there will be a special election this November to replace him. It is the right thing to do and the price we pay for Dann's contempt for the trust placed in him by the people of Ohio. Drawing this process out until after September 24th may allow Governor Strickland to appoint a successor, but would be too expensive politically and just isn't the right thing to do. It is likely that Betty Montgomery, who Dann barely beat, would be the candidate we would have to face. Democrats will be in a much better position if Dann resigns quickly. The longer this takes, the worse it gets for the entire party. Marc, it is time to stop being so selfish and step down.
Letter sent to Marc Dann from Ohio's leading Democrats yesterday:
Dear Attorney General Dann,
We write to you tonight to ask that you resign your position as Attorney General of the State of Ohio.
We believe that your actions have irreparably harmed your ability to effectively serve the people of our great state.
The work of the Office of the Attorney General matters more, and is far more important, than any one person. In many, many cases it is all that stands between the people and the powerful. Sadly, we no longer have even the most remote hope that you can continue to effectively serve as Attorney General and that is why we are asking for your resignation.
We also want to make you aware that if you do not choose to resign, Democratic members of the Ohio House of Representatives will immediately introduce a resolution seeking your impeachment. We sincerely hope that this action will not be necessary and that you will act in the best interest of the people of Ohio by tendering your resignation Monday morning. Ted Strickland Governor
All, Last night, I received a call from Governor Strickland advising me that he and the other statewide Democratic office holders along with the minority leaders of the House and Senate were planning to ask me to resign today.
That letter has been sent.
I wanted to share with you what I told the Governor.
I told him that he and the other officeholders, as well as the members of the legislature, should continue to expect that we will continue to provide high-quality legal services to all of them. I told the Governor that we will continue to make our law enforcement partnerships work to protect the people of the State of Ohio.
I told him that our consumer protection and environmental protection and civil rights work will continue on behalf of the State of Oho
That is exactly what I am doing today. I am in the office, have rolled up my sleeves and am working on behalf of the people of State of Ohio.
I hope all of you will do the same.
I think that there is a great chance that we can continue to do great work for the people of the State.
I know that this is difficult, and I am truly sorry to have put all of you in this position.
But our work is too important to do anything but our jobs today.
Since everyone seems to think guilt-by-association is fair game in 2008, it's time to focus on McCain's friends. Here someone the mouthfoamers (this the term I give to those that are irrationally outraged by the Obama's ties to Rev. Wright, all despite Obama doing nothing but denouncing Wright's out-there statements) keep ignoring: RICHARD QUINN.
Among Richard Quinn's many insane endeavors, he has published racist writings opposing Martin Luther King Jr (did you know: King is why blacks are lazy?), he rooted for KKK presidential candidate David Duke (who Quinn calls the original maverick), and seems to celebrate the murder of President Lincoln (you know, because he let all those slaves get free). Worse, those are just his words; his magazine the "Southern Confederate" supposedly has way more racist stuff (imagine that, a magazine called the Southern Confederate having racist stuff in it).
So here's the thing: all of Quinn's racism was public knowledge (reported by the New Republic, NYT and Newsday) back in 2000. This never stopped McCain. In fact, back in 2000, as this was started to filter out, this scumbag and some racist buddies got dressed up in Confederacy military uniforms to pass out literature in South Carolina, explaining McCain was all for the confederate flag (of course, the sleazeball McCain has flip-flopped on that position, since losing that election). Now that is dedication; someone McCain can truly call "my friend."
Okay, but that was back in 2000. McCain, with the heightened media scrutiny, couldn't possibly have a nut like this as part of his campaign, right? I mean, the media would have trashed him by now if he had not disowned this guy, right? WRONG! In 2008, McCain is still paying Richard Quinn's consulting firm thousands of dollars.
So here's a guess: prior to this, nobody had heard of this racist that John McCain describes as a "fine man" and pays to help his campaign, right?
Way to go liberal media! Maybe when they get over Rev. Wright we will hear more about Richard Quinn, Rod Parsley, John Haggee (okay, I did hear him brought up like twice), Charles Keeting, Terry Nelson and the rest of the goons that McCain considers "my friends."
,
West Virginia is looking very good for Senator Clinton. The
