Santa Fe Vote: March 4th

The Voters of Santa Fe, New Mexico, have an important election ahead of them on the 4th of March. I urge them to back two ballot measures in that election, Amendment 4 and Charter Amendment 5.

Amendment 4 allows for the public financing of campaigns in city elections. Even in a relatively small city like Santa Fe, races are becoming more expensive and taking the dollars of special interests and lobbyists out of the equation is the single best way to keep politicians honest and working for the people. This Amendment has the formal backing of the Santa Fe New Mexican, the American Association of Retired Persons, Common Cause New Mexico, the League of Women Voters of New Mexico, Voting Matters, and the Center for Civic Action.

Charter Amendment 5 would institute so-called "ranked choice voting" in future Santa Fe elections. Like many places, many if not most Santa Fe races are decided by less than a majority of voters. This is not democracy in action. Ranked choice voting allows a voter to rank candidates in order of their preference. Then, a counting process is used that insures that the winner of every race is selected by a majority of the voters. To see an explanation with a diagram of how the process works, follow this link. The organization Voting Matters has a web site up for this amendment and notes its backers as well.

These are honestly steps that we should be taking across the nation at both the state and national levels. Instituting them here in Santa Fe is a start.

Make sure that you vote next Tuesday and please vote in favor of Amendment 4 and Charter Amendment 5. Thank you.

29 February 2008

The Anti-Israel Push

M.J. Rosenberg over at the TPM Cafe has an interesting blog today on the push of "gotcha polititics" to label candidates as being anti-Israel. This is most prominent now against Barack Obama, but it applies to both Clinton and McCain as well. Take a look.

29 February 2008

Local Radio Diversity

From FreePress.net:

Hundreds of activists from around the country are descending upon Washington today to tell Congress that we need better and more diverse local radio.

The Local Community Radio Act (H.R. 2802/ S. 1675) will open up the airwaves to more diverse, independent, Low Power FM (LPFM) radio stations.

This important bill opens the radio dial to more community-driven and locally focused stations, providing news and information often ignored by mainstream radio -- information crucial to healthy communities and a vibrant democracy.

The bipartisan Local Community Radio Act would create hundreds, if not thousands, of new Low Power FM radio stations in towns across the country.

Please contact your Members of Congress -- Congressmen and Senators -- and urge them to support the bill in their chamber. You can find contact information for your leaders here. A possible e-mail would be something like this.

I am writing to ask Representative/Senator [NAME] to support the Local Community Radio Act (HR 2802/ S. 1675). This important new legislation will expand low power FM radio and allow locally produced, community radio to flourish.

Expanding low power FM radio will help restore needed diversity to our airwaves, bringing forth new voices and viewpoints that are often overlooked by large commercial broadcasters. Please support the Local Community Radio Act. Thank you.

Jane Doe

Albuquerque, New Mexico

26 February 2008

McCain Recent Overview

TPM gives a nice wrap-up of recent allegations against John McCain, outlining their weight. You can check out the TPM YouTube video here.

25 February 2008

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader has once again declared his candidacy for the presidency. This is unfortunate on several fronts. Many believe -- rightly so -- that Nader's candidacy insured a Bush victory over Al Gore back in the 2000 race. The questions this time around is whether or not his run will have the same consequences for the eventual Democratic nominee.

There are reasons not to think that this will be the case this time around. First and foremost is that both Democrats and independents know the tragedy that can happen if a Bush-like Republican holds the White House. After eight years of Bush, very few on the left are going to be feeling reckless. For these same reasons, Nader's supposed message will ring much more hollow in the face of reality. This is not to say that even without any real public support that Nader's campaign won't get press coverage. Fox will, of course, cover it for all that it is worth. However, the popular press will do so as well -- in spite of little coverage of other third-party candidates currently or of mainstream party candidates will little following earlier in the race -- in the hope of creating divisiveness in the Democratic campaigns. It is divisiveness that drives ratings and sells newspapers after all.

Ralph Nader has had some accomplishments in his life for which Americans should rightly thank him. Sadly, whatever good that he once did has been overwhelmed by the horrible nature of his actions since as a chief enabler of evil.

Whatever Nader may be, he is not stupid. He is a keen student of politics. He knew what he was doing back in 2000. He knew that he had no shot at the presidency and that his candidacy could doom Gore. I believe, in fact, that he wanted a Bush victory, just as he wants a McCain victory today. You see, Nader's only hope lies in revolution and only through the absolute destruction of America as we know it can that revolution ever hope to come about. He sees -- at least in part correctly -- the evil of the Right as the downfall of America. That being said, his methodology for change is indeed like the proverbial tossing of the baby out with the bath water.

Ultimately, Nader has been reduced to having but a single trait: megalomania. For this sin, he is responsible for so much more. The death of every soldier in Iraq thus far, every wounded soldier who fought in Iraq, and every family member or friend who mourns a soldier who was in Iraq is the responsibility of Nader every bit as much as it is of Bush. The destruction of our Constitution can be laid squarely at his feet. And should McCain be elected to office, these sins will continue to adhere to him.

In saying all of this, I do not claim in even small measure that having a Democrat -- any Democrat -- elected president will bring about enough change to our nation to save it. It may or may not set us on a better path. However, I do know that it will bring hope where there otherwise would only be darkness. Nader is darkness and for that, I hope that the man is swallowed up and punished in the bowels of history.

25 February 2008

More McCain

In an update to my earlier post on John McCain's scandal woes, Lowell Paxson -- the head of Paxson Communications, which is at the heart of the 1999 corruption charges facing the Senator -- has come forth and indicated that McCain's current story is a fabrication.

I told you that there would be more. Stay tuned.

22 February 2008

Edit: You can also see more regarding McCain contradicting his own sworn testimony here.

McCain Two-fer

Presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) is facing two serious issues today. The first involves his attempts to get around public financing rules for his campaign. This is a sticky situation for the candidate for two reasons. The first is because violation of the rules can bring stiff monetary fines and up to five years in prison. The second is because McCain is known as Mr. Campaign Finance Reform in the Congress. Attempting to get around such laws, or even such a perception, may undermine that image.

The second is the New York Times story detailing possible corruption issues with McCain himself. Now, let me start by saying that I think the Times made a mistake by including the possible affair with the lobbyist in this piece. Without a smoking gun, it gave the Right the opening it needed to defend McCain not by refuting the allegations, but by shooting the messenger. (This, by they way, is exactly the tactic that both McCain's campaign and the Right generally has taken.) The allegations of possible corruption, on the other hand, are on much firmer footing.

The Washington Post also wrote a story that followed the Times piece. And here, btw, is the original boondoggle that was at the heart of this whole mess.

Most folks forget -- I had -- that McCain was one of the so-called Keeting Five, a group of Senators who were censured by the Senate for interfering with the investigation of the illegal activities of Charles Keeting by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the S&L collapse of the 1980s. McCains efforts were both immoral and illegal. It was political favors in return for personal and campaign favors. It also certainly blows the lid off of McCain's current statements that he's never acted inappropriately in relation to a lobbyist or to those who hire the lobbyist.

Getting back to the "shooting the messenger" reaction of the Right against the Times for a moment, you should remember that there was very little in the Times article that had not previously been reported elsewhere. The Drudge Report had previously reported the sex angle -- last December, I think -- and the Boston Globe had reported the lobbyist links from 1999 -- the links at the heart of the Times story -- back in 2000. McCain didn't go after those sources because neither is a bugaboo with the Right; The New York Times is. Hell, they are using the story as a rallying cry both for fund raising and to solidify the far-right of the Republican base for McCain. It is astonishing indeed that the allegations are ignored, but the attacks themselves are seen as positive. /boggle

Finally, there have been late additions to this story reflecting that McCain and/or his campaign have put out false information in response to the Times story since it broke. See the following:

1. He did hire a very expensive lawyer to try to kill the same story at the Times last December, although he said his office made not attempt to do so.

2. That he doesn't "do business" with lobbyists, although they are counted among his personal his friends. The Post has a story on McCain's close ties with lobbyists and indeed, several of his top campaign aids ARE lobbiests... who are still doing work from the Straight Talk Express for Pete's sake! (Big-time lobbyist Charlie Black is the best example of this.)

3. McCain seems to have contradicted information he gave during sworn testimony in which he was a witness under oath.

More likely to come.

22 February 2008

Gitmo Sham

Evidence that the military tribunals set up to prosecute six detainees at Guantanamo Bay are a sham is mounting. The former prosecutor for Gitmo has spoken out, as has the current chief judge. See this article at TPM for details.

Do we have no shame?

20 February 2008

Contempt for the Law

After months and months and months of yammering about the Rule of Law, the House finally made good on its threat to hold White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers in Contempt of Congress. This was a fine Valentine's Day gift for the American people. You may recall that both Bolten and Miers failed to appear before a House committee after their appearance was demanded. They asserted Executive Privilege. However, unlike most cases of this assertion, where the party appears but refuses to answer certain/all questions, these two refused to come at all. This patently breaks the law. In spite of this, AG Mukasey -- or as I like to call him, Boot-licking Gonzales II -- has said that he will not enforce any such citations of contempt. This will create something of a Constitutional showdown. The resolution included the authority for the Congress to sue the White House in civil court if the citations are not enforced by the Justice Department. What effect that will have is unclear.

The final vote on the resolution was 223-32, with most Republicans staging a walkout and refusing to vote. This is a staggering refusal on their part to: (1) uphold the Constitution; (2) protect the authority of the Congress; and (3) stand up and be counted regardless of their decision. They are contemptible chicken-shits in every way possible.

15 February 2008

FISA: A Foundation Under the House?

Well, it seems that my usual distrust of, and disappointment with, my government may have been temporarily incorrect. The House has recessed with no action on the Bush Administration's demands to reauthorize the ill-named Protect America Act. After the Senate caved, has the House found some gumption? It may be too early to tell, but the early signs are at least more favorable than I'd thought.

15 February 2008

Save the Internet

There has been a massive corporate campaign to change how the Internet works as a business model. The Net has always worked on the principle of "network neutrality." This means that even though a user might be viewing or downloading content that is not that of his or her own Internet provider, the user is not charged more for this content, nor is it downloaded at slower speeds than the content of the user's provider. In other words, there is no "preferred content" on the web. Telecommunications companies want this to change.

Thus, Comcast (for example) wants to charge you more for the content that you view that doesn't come from Comcast. You may actually pay more for that content -- say movies, games, or music -- or this "off-brand" content may just get to you at a much slower rate than Comcast-preferred material... or both.

This is greed pure and simple. It is also anathema to the very concept of the free exchange of ideas that is at the root of the Internet. It must be stopped in its tracks.

The organization SaveTheInternet.com is spearheading this campaign. This organization has information on a new, bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives that would offer significant protections for the Internet, staving off corporate greed. They are asking folks to contact their own Representative, asking for their support for the bill. You can answer this call to action via this secure, private form. [Update: I've been told that the link to the form is down. You can, however, simply go to the organization's home page and then click the link titled "Get Involved." Sorry about that!]

I've written about SaveTheInternet.com before. However, my sister-in-law brought this new campaign to my attention this morning. I thank her for that.

14 February 2008

Love Is Love

The HRC is having a petition drive, asking for signatures in support of marriage equality. Should we not all be able to find the love in our hearts to allow others to express the love in their own? On this Valentine's Day, please consider adding your name to the petition. Thanks.

14 February 2008

The Last FISA Dance

With Senate Democrats folding like a three-legged card table, it is up to the House to block the disastrous FISA bill. You can tell House leaders that you don't want immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the Bush Administration spy illegally on American citizens. Your voice may just turn the tide. You can use this form to help.

14 February 2008

The Rule of Men

Under the headline Senate Votes to Give Retroactive Immunity to Telecoms, Paul Kiel of TPM wrote the following:

Let there be no doubt: a majority of senators, and a large number of Democrats, think the telecoms should not suffer the hazard of accountability for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) took to the floor last night to give a speech asking, "This is our defining question, the question that confronts every generation: The rule of law, or the rule of men?" The resounding answer: the rule of men.

The Senate voted on the Dodd/Feingold amendment, which would have stripped retroactive immunity from the surveillance bill just now. The final tally was 31-67; crossing over to vote nay were Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Update: Here's the official tally.

Presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) were present for the vote – voting nay and yea, respectively.

One reader noted:

Didn't we elect Democrats into office to stop this sort of thing from happening?

I'd say the reader was correct. However, that for which we voted and what we actually find as our representation are two distinctly different things. Indeed, we can lay the current debacle that is the confirmation of our new do-nothing, pro-torture Attorney General squarely at the feet of Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Charles Schumer (NY).

The Democrats are not the answer. The Republicans are even worse than the Democrats. The question then is this: will the country wake up and find a solution while there is still time to save the Republic? I have my doubts.

12 February 2008

WA State Republicans

Curious as to why the Washington State Republican Party is having such issues with counting their ballots from Saturday's party contest? Well, the primary reason is that the state GOP chair, Luke Esser, simply decided to stop counting ballots with 13% of them still uncounted. Yep, "we'll just stop here and call it a day!" Yikes. This, moreover, with less that 1.5% of the then tally separating McCain and Huckabee in the balloting. How very American, no?

For more on this peach-of-a-fellow Esser, see this article at the horsesass.org. It was brought to my attention at TPM here, where the best passages from the other article are mentioned.

11 February 2008

Another Bush Cover-up of Incompetence

We have news of yet another attempted cover-up of incompetence by the Bush Administration. This time, the focus is on their lack of planning for the aftermath of the fall of Iraq to the initial American push. From Paul Kiel of TPM:

Back in the summer of 2005, just as journalists were toiling to produce the first books on what had gone so horribly wrong in Iraq, the Army was handed a thorough study by the RAND Corporation, its federally-financed research arm.

And it came, as one might expect, to some sharp conclusions. It faulted the President and Condoleezza Rice, Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Colin Powell's State Department, and Gen. Tommy Franks' Central Command for a variety of shortcomings, all essentially for their role in not adequately preparing for securing postwar Iraq. The report provided a strategy for how the Army and the government in general might avoid a similar plight the next time around (the short version: try preparing for the aftermath).

Unclassified versions of RAND reports are regularly made public, and the researchers had hoped a version of this report would be too. But, as The New York Times reports this morning, the Army wasn't happy with the product. So they buried it. The reason, an Army official explains, is that the report was just too gosh darn informative[.]

Of course, "informative" means "too enlightening on the subject of incompetence."

11 February 2008

DOJ: Business as Usual

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is filling in nicely for disgraced former AG Alberto Gonzales. Amazingly, he seems to have as little grasp of the law as did Gonzales and to be just as much of a Bush boot-licker! We are all doomed...

A TPM posting by David Kurtz sums it up nicely:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is back on the Hill today, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee. Paul Kiel is covering it at TPMmuckraker.

So far, he's dropped two big bombshells. DOJ will not be investigating:

(1) whether the waterboarding, now admitted to by the White House, was a crime; or

(2) whether the Administration's warrantless wiretapping was illegal.

His rationale? Both programs had been signed off on in advance as legal by the Justice Department.

Cynics may argue that those aren't bombshells at all, that the Bush Administration would never investigate itself in these matters. Perhaps so. But this is a case where cynicism is itself dangerous.

We have now the Attorney General of the United States telling Congress that it's not against the law for the President to violate the law if his own Department of Justice says it's not.

It is as brazen a defense of the unitary executive as anything put forward by the Administration in the last seven years, and it comes from an attorney general who was supposed to be not just a more professional, but a more moderate, version of Alberto Gonzales (Thanks to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for caving on the Mukasey nomination.).

President Bush has now laid down his most aggressive challenge to the very constitutional authority of Congress. It is a naked assertion of executive power. The founders would have called it tyrannical. His cards are now all on the table. This is no bluff.

A TPM reader responded to that article with the following:

David Kurtz's "Mark This Day" blurb misses the most important point -- it's not just that the Attorney General's position is that a DOJ Order makes the subject activity legal but that, as Nadler brought out, there is now no recourse to a judicial test, either criminal (through refusal to prosecute) or civil (through the state secrets privilege based solely on a DOJ affidavit). The DOJ is entitled to take whatever position it wants, however self-serving and unitary, but now there is no avenue for judicial review and so that is the end of the story. That is the important point here.

7 February 2008

The Unfriendly Skies

Very soon, United Airlines will start charging travelers $25 for the second piece of luggage that they check during flights on the airline. The first piece of checked luggage will remain free, as long as it meets weight restrictions. No doubt, other airlines will be watching this closely to see if they should follow suit. Flying continues to appeal to me less and less.

4 February 2008

Brokered Democratic Convention?

In a very interesting article today at OpenLeft.com, Chris Bowers outlines how the Democratic nominee for the presidency could very likely be chosen at a brokered party convention. The pledged delegate count, the number of "open" so-called super delegates, and the rules currently governing how this political soup will finally be mixed all indicate that the Democratic party may be in line for a brokered convention. This would likely undermine the eventual nominee and hurt the party -- perhaps significantly -- in the general election.

Bowers indicates that the two main options for the Democrats to avoid such a fate are:

1. To have one of the candidates drop out of the race prior to the convention. (At this point in time, this seems unlikely.)

2. To have all -- or a significant majority -- of the super delegates pledge themselves to whomever has the majority of pledged delegates after the primary season. This would have to be true no matter how slim this majority might be.

All in all, it is an ugly system that the Decocratic party has created for itself and this system may come back and bite the party in the ass.

4 February 2008

Final FISA Push - Act Now!

Once again, word from Michael Kieschnick of CREDO from Working Assets:

Late last week the Senate agreed to consider a series of amendments that could improve the bad wiretapping bill reported from the Senate Intelligence Committee. While there will be a number of provisions designed to limit warrantless wiretapping and protect our civil liberties, the most important vote will be on the amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Feingold to strip retroactive immunity for telecom companies from the bill.

The good news is that the Dodd-Feingold amendment just needs a simple majority to pass.

Will you contact your senators today and ask them to vote to strip retroactive immunity from the Intelligence bill?

George Bush and Dick Cheney are pulling out all the stops to give their friends at Verizon and AT&T immunity. Retroactive immunity would prevent us from finding out what the Bush administration asked these companies to do and who asked them to act outside of the law.

It would also prevent the big telecoms from ever being held accountable for violating the privacy and rights of millions of Americans.

We can stop retroactive immunity, but we need you to ask your senators to vote for the Dodd-Feingold amendment.

Click here to take action.

Our country is at its strongest when we are governed by the rule of law, not the rule of rightwing ideologues and authoritarian presidents in bed with our largest corporations. Stripping retroactive immunity from the current bill would ensure that the Senate preserves the rule of law in America.

We've fought hard to get to this point. Now we need 51 votes. The Senate will vote this week, possibly as early as Monday night. Can you take action and then get a few friends involved too?

Click here to tell your senators: uphold the rule of law.

Thank you for everything you've done to defend the rule of law.

Michael Kieschnick, President and Co-Founder
CREDO Mobile

You can answer this call for action by using the web form found here. The vote could come as early as today, so please don't delay in getting your voice heard.

4 February 2008

Super Tuesday Voting

Are you a registered Democrat? Do you know where you should vote in tomorrow's Super Tuesday contests? If not -- and remember that your Super Tuesday polling place may not match your normal general election polling place -- you can find your voting location here.

Vote Obama!

4 February 2008

Afghanistan, Pakistan, & the Taliban

Just how bad are things in Afganistan and Pakistan for the United States? Pretty gosh darn bad! McClatchy has a good article on the subject.

Bush fumbles the ball -- huge! -- yet again.

4 February 2008

Obama in Santa Fe

Barack Obama spoke in both Albuquerque and Santa Fe yesterday. I chose to attend the speech in Santa Fe. The turnout was stunning. We waited outside for two hours to get into the facility and another two hours to get out of the parking lot after the rally. It is estimated that as many people listened to Obama outside on speakers as there were who were much warmer with me in the building. That it was in the 20s and so many people who could not get in chose to wait and hear him speak speaks volumes about the man and the passion that he is building among the electorate.

His rally speech, although I'm sure simply a regional variation on his normal stump speech, was amazing. He is such an accomplished speaker and easily moves a crowd. If you ever get the chance to see him, regardless of your political proclivities, I recommend it.

I saw former President Clinton speak in Albuquerque the day prior. He was good, but did not fire the crowd like Obama. Also, it is interesting to note that there were fewer folks at the Clinton event in spite of the fact that it was held on the campus of the University of New Mexico. I would have thought that the former president would have drawn more spectators than he did.

Vote Obama!

2 February 2008

NM Democratic Caucus Info

Are you are a registered Democrat in New Mexico and don't know where to go to cast your vote this coming Tuesday? You can find your polling place here. Remember, your place to vote in the caucus may not match your voting place in general elections. The caucus is run by the party, not the government.

Vote Obama!

2 February 2008

The Clinton Experience

I just found a fascinating reader submission on a blog by a poster known as "Jerry Tsai." It is in response to three noted questions posted by another reader of the blog.

Answering Chuck from NY's question on a related post.

Chuck asked:
1) Why do you see your candidate being better suited to be President if elected?
2) What makes you think your candidate has what it takes to successfully lead our country?
3) Why do you think your candidate can beat the GOP nominee in November?


All right, Chuck, you asked, I'll give you my personal answer. I am sure other supporters of Senator Obama could do better. Hopefully, they will respond to you.

After eight years of an administration that has been deceptive and ruined the trust Americans (and friends of America) have in the U.S. government, we need a President with integrity, good judgment, and leadership ability.

INTEGRITY
Senator Obama clearly outshines his opponent here. He has campaigned cleanly and honestly. He does not misrepresent his opponents' records for political gain. Rather, he spends his time convincing voters to suport his candidacy because he realizes that to succeed in office he will need the popular will of the people to accomplish the substantive changes in policy that we need. You can only get such a popular mandate only by appealing to the best in people, gaining their collective and determined commitment.

Obama co-wrote landmark ethics bills that have passed in Illinois and in Washington, DC, to reduce the influence of corporate money in shaping our policies. He recognizes that too many decisions made by government have been influenced by (selfish) corporations.

EXPERIENCE
For all the chatter about "experience" and "inspiration", please note that Clinton has been in elected office for 7 years, while Obama has been in elected office for 11 years. Thus he's been writing and sponsoring legislation and working with both Parties longer than she has.

For that matter, the value of experience may be suspect, given what Clinton has posited. She has claimed on several occasions that she has "35 years of experience". That would mathematically mean, however, that she had 20 years of experience when she embarked on the 1993 plan now termed "HillaryCare", which basically died on arrival, and that she had 29 years of experience in 2002 when she voted to give W the authorization to start the Iraq War.

These two issues are the ones for which she is best known. Despite her stated years of experience, both were terrible mistakes that have hurt our troops, our economic situation, and our reputation.

Meanwhile, Obama has co-sponsored several bills that have passed in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate, addressing issues from health care, crime, immigration, ethics, etc.-- he's covered a great deal of policy ground. He may be rightly painted as the candidate with lesser experience, but he certainly has sufficient experience, and that is what matters.

JUDGMENT and LEADERSHIP
More importantly, he has exhibited superior judgment, both on the Iraq War, and on what really matters to the American people. That is why he has been so successful in combating the Clinton incumbency. I attribute his skillful campaign to his life experience and political savvy. Hillary Clinton was way, way ahead in December, with leads in the teens and twenties in every state but Illinois. Just one month later, Obama has done rather well. He beat Clinton in IA by 9%, narrowly lost to her in NH by 2%, lost to her in NV by 6%, and trounced her in SC by 28%, receiving more than double her votes in the most recent contested primary. His ability to command the respect of voters in such a short timeframe demonstrates his leadership.

True leaders inspire. Obama is a true leader.

WINNING the GENERAL ELECTION

Which brings us to the notion of electability. It is unquestioned that Clinton and her husband are polarizing figures. For all the good feelings that the Clinton administration engenders among Democrats, we should remember that the shenanigans in Clinton's second term (scandals galore) hobbled Al Gore in 2000. He had to run away from the taint (yes, unfortunately, it's true) of the Clinton administration, and as a consequence voters elected W. Yes, voters voted for W to "clean up" after the Clintons.

Clinton's campaign has tried to diminish the importance of Clinton's electability, but here again is a huge contrast between her and Senator Obama. Republicans will be engaged if she is the nominee and will be able to raise large sums of money from people, threatening the Democrats' chances in the general election.

Meanwhile, it is well-known that independents and (moderate) Republicans have been flocking to Obama's campaign. I know this is true from talking with people, and you can confirm, if you wish, by checking polls. Obama is not simply obtaining support from Democrats, he's getting support from everybody. Witness that 650,000 of us hoi polloi have donated to his campaign. This presages well for his winning in November.

It should have been easy for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, etc. to back Clinton-- she should have been a shoe-in. Instead they decided to support the future of the Party.

So, Chuck, the question is not whether you should pick Obama or Clinton, but only at what time will you decide that Obama is the right choice for you and for the American people.

Sincerely,

Jerry


PS: I have tried my best to give you correct facts. Feel free to respond if you have any questions.

Nicely done, Mr. Tsai.

1 February 2008

Obama & Jefferson

I came across a quote by Thomas Jefferson this morning that reminded me of Barack Obama and why I'm supporting him.

I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.

1 February 2008

ACLU 2008

The ACLU has released its plan of action for 2008. Essentially, it is a blueprint for what this treasured organization thinks is important and where it will focus its resources in the year to come. They have posted it on-line as a PDF and it is a most interesting look at the deplorable state of our union today.

There is probably no better organization to support in the United States than the ACLU. What could be more valuable than a body that has the sole purpose of defending the Bill of Rights? This is especially true after a daily battle has been waged against them -- and against each of us as citizens -- by our president and his administration for the past seven-plus years.

1 February 2008

More Impeachment Fodder

I just posted my monthly call for your help in convincing the House of Representatives to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I'd like to note two additional reasons why Bush should face this punishment from that nation's government.

First up is the current situation over the FISA law. Bush has threatened to veto any FISA legislation that doesn't provide retroactive immunity for anything illegal that telecommunications companies did at his behest. He has stated that having the FISA law expireis unacceptable. He has stated that having it lapse will put Americans at risk. And yet... he is willing to allow it to lapse and to thereby put Americans at risk... to protect corporations... and to protect himself. It is immoral. It is criminal. It is poor leadership. And it is poor policy.

Second is Bush's use of so-called "signing statements" when he signs legislation into law. For the first 200+ years of our country's existence, presidents have used them to offer their opinion on the legislation that they are signing. Usually, it is to note when they don't agree with a part of the bill. Sometimes, it is to express their satisfaction with the bill in whole or in part. They were never used as a way to thwart the law itself, nor to place the Office of the President outside of the scope of the rule of law. Bush has changed this and in doing so, has undermined not only the Constitution, but the very notion of the rule of law.

Bush has added signing statements to over 1,100 -- yes, eleven-hundred! -- laws since he took office. These were not mere comments, however. Rather, using them he reserved himself the right to ignore pieces of the signed legislation as he saw fit. Yes, once the law was signed, it became law and applied every bit as much to the president as it did to anyone else... except in Bush World. Unfortunately, the Congress, the press, and the public has allowed him to get away with this. It is a travesty, it is patently illegal, and it undermines the very foundation of our government.

You can add these two reasons to the list justifying why President Bush deserves to be impeached.

1 February 2008

February Impeachment Reminder

Last August, I called for the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. At that time, I asked you to join me in writing letters to several members of the House of Representatives. I noted that I would continue to send such letters until such time as my call was heeded or these men left office. I have made good on my claim by again sending my letters. This is simply a reminder in the hope that you will do the same. For information on the entire matter, as well as sample letters and recipient contact information, see my original blog post here.

1 February 2008

Super Tuesday Road Map

TPM Election Central has a very interesting "road map" of how the race for the Democratic nomination looks right now for states that will be voting next Tuesday. It is worth a look.

Vote Obama!

1 February 2008