pageviewsAlan Simpson, former Republican Senator from Wymoming, contributed a great piece about gays in the military to today's Washington Post.
Simpson rightly points out the sheer ridiculousness of discharging patriotic gays and lesbians from our armed services when we clearly could not need them more.
Check it out...
blog
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
When I first read in the Washington Post about the Walter Reed scandal involving the mistreatment of soldiers returning to Iraq, I should've been surprised. I should be shocked that our President, a man who "supports the troops", would allow such a thing to happen, but after Hurricane Katrina and Iraq, all I can do is simply shake my head and sigh.
In today's NY Times Paul Krugman wrote an article about something that was also not very shocking. To no one's surprise, the veteran's hospitals have, of course, been privatized and care has severely restricted. For those of you who do not pay to see the editorial, here are just a couple points (in my words) that Mr. Krugman makes:
- Many services to our soldiers are no longer free. Now they must pay hundreds of dollars a month just for the food.
- Any soldier who is making over $27,000 and is not facing a combat-related condition or has not been in combat recently will be denied assistance.
This is all of course on top of the neglect of soldiers who have fought virtuously in Iraq only to be repaid with the stupidity of the Bush administration, who once again thought they could contract out the work of the government. The government can be messy and inefficient, but groups like FEMA and the Dept of Veterans' Affairs and THE US MILITARY were (and at least in the military still are) not known for being cold, uncaring, and being all about the dollar. At least under Clinton all three were able to work efficiently without Halliburton (two of the CEOs of the companies given private contracts were former Halliburton employees, go figure).
What this administration doesn't get, and what Walter Reed makes clearly obvious, is that there are some things that are best not to contract out. Outside companies are always looking to fatten their own wallets, and some things are best left to a government which isn't always looking for a profit (not to mention the brain drain at FEMA and Walter Reed caused by privatization). I think it's time we stop handing money over to people who want to get rich and start using it for the people who have needed it, Iraqis, Louisianans, and our soldiers.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
According to the Post, Mark Warner is considering challenging John Warner in a run for the VA Senate in 2008. The popular former governor and one-time presidential prospect is easily the Democrats’ best chance at ousting the admired 5-term incumbent. If this electoral wet dream materializes (and the 80 year old Republican decides he has one more term in him) the race would be a rematch of the 1996 campaign, when John defeated Mark by 5 points. The VA political environment has changed markedly in the past decade, however. By the end of his term as governor, Warner had an approval rating of over 80%, and was succeeded by another Democrat, Tim Kaine. The state continued its steady leftward shift in 2006 when Jim Webb beat Sen. George Allen in one of the closest races in the nation. The prospect of a Warner-Warner match-up presents the Dems with an exciting an unexpected pickup opportunity; without Mark, however, the race won’t even be competitive.
read more...Wednesday, February 28, 2007
According to the BBC and CNN, McCain is in for 2008. In case the exploratory committee didn't generate enough press. Additionally, there will be a formal announcement in "early April."
Damn it, just tell us you're running and let's be on with it.
I hate this ludicrous, multiple-announcement bit. At least Sen. Obama seemed to actually be considering it while his exploratory committee was operational. McCain has a third "official" announcement coming up, apparently, in April.
If you can't get press for something other than an announcement, you aren't worth the time anyway.
Over at CBS News:
Thieves Break Into N.H. Dem Headquarters
No word if G. Gordon Liddy was involved yet, but in all likelihood, this was probably just some stupid kids. But who knows what tomorrow's news cycle will bring?
On the other hand, if this is somehow tied to major Republicans, I still have my doubts. if the Iraq War, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Valerie Plame, Katrina, Gitmo, and a complete lack of accountability aren't enough to bring down this administration, I have a hard time believing that "breaking and entering" is going to ever get the job done.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
I like Al Gore. He's a nice guy, obviously very intelligent, a good politician, very experienced, and pretty funny. He also made a great movie and was smart enough to be against Iraq from the start, and he probably has more domestic, foreign policy, legislative, and executive experience than anyone currently running for President. Hell, he was even elected President already!
But I just can't get excited about him. Maybe it's because while I certainly believe that we need to seriously protect our environment and invest in renewable energy, the environment and global warming is not among the top issues for me.
But on a more important note, why would anyone want Al Gore to be President, not that he wouldn't be a very good one, but what urge do you have for him to run, say over someone like Gary Hart or Mario Cuomo or any of the older, more experienced, smart, and great old hands of the Democratic party who have been out of it for a while. Why Al Gore?
Seriously, tell me.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Finally, it seems as if the Democrats will receive some much needed help in the next election, and ironically, it could come from the conservative right. In an article in Saturday, February 24th edition of the New York Times, a secretive right-wing group called the Council for National Policy is still looking for a promising candidate. The candidates they're looking at are Senator Sam Brownback and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, both which have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination.
While it certainly isn't time to pop champagne corks, the conservative right has become more and more important in the Republican Party in both money and manpower. If someone like McCain or Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee, than their very right-sided view of Iraq will probably split moderates, while their views on social issues (Giuliani) or disdain for the far-right (McCain) could keep the religious republicans home, and the importance of these people in the last presidential election has been stated numerous times. So let's just hope that the in-fighting continues.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
With Vilsack dropping out of the race, the fundamental dynamics of the race for 2008 have changed. Vilsack was never a big player, but the fact that he was from Iowa had a chance of putting one of the three frontrunners in a devastating fourth place finish.
No longer is that possible. With Vilsack out, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards will surely each place in the top three, meaning Iowa is now a less decisive state, since no one will be eliminated or severely weakened by Iowa. The field will merely be sorted.
With Iowa and New Hampshire likely to each move up a week, Nevada actually becomes more important, and so do New Hampshire and South Carolina. If any of the top three win in Iowa, it may or may not give them momentum into New Hampshire, which will likely give Obama or Clinton a win. If Clinton were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, I think there is really no chance of preventing her steamroll to the nomination. But if Edwards or Obama wins in Iowa, and Obama wins in New Hampshire, Nevada becomes a contest between Obama and Edwards and South Carolina a contest between all three candidates. Even if Biden or Richardson or Dodd were to win second or third in any of these contests, the sheer number (approaching 20 now) of states with wealthy media markets on February 5th eliminate the chance of any of the second tier candidates winning without coming in first in one of the first four states. With the possibility that Florida could move up to the middle of January, that will probably boost Clinton, and give her a delegate lead heading into February 5th.
February 5th could, if Clinton wins the first four or five contests, be a coronation. If the top three split the first four or five states, I think you are likely to see Clinton emerge with a delegate lead but just barely, with Obama winning a huge chunk of delegates and Edwards taking a number of states himself.
With this split decision, each of the other second tier candidates will drop out and Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will split up the rest of February's winnings until the minnier Super Tuesday on March 6th.
That day will likely see Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland take center stage, and you can expect Obama and Edwards to do better than Clinton in those states.
We are then likely to see no candidate emerging with a majority of delegates and head into the August convention with no clear winner. There will be a convention fight and after one or two ballots, Edwards, who I think will come in third, will throw his support to Obama and give him the nomination over Clinton.
I know this seems biased, but I think that unless Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the situation that will play out. Tell me what you think.
Friday, February 23, 2007
With Tom Vilsack dropping out of the race, I have become dismayed. As a democratic moderate, I have seen candidate after candidate drop out of the race. First I volunteered for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who dropped out of the race for family reasons. Next came Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who dropped out probably because of a bleak future at fundraising. Finally, we've come to Mr. Vilsack, who was not as moderate as the other two, but nonetheless was in my opinion the only one who had sofar taken clear strong stances.
The need for a moderate candidate may not seem so obvious for more liberal-minded people, but this party is a very large part moderate now. We see candidates who regularly tote the party line, but I don't see a declared candidate who can stand a chance in states in the South, the Rockies, or the Prarie States to Republicans like McCain and Giuliani. Being in constant communication with people back home in Ohio (and from a very conservative 2nd district), the only democratic candidate that even sparks any interest is Senator Obama, but I doubt that his amazing rhetorical ability will be able to see him through to election.
As for the future, well, I only see one candidate that even peaks my interest. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be the best moderate candidate available. He's fiscally and economically smart, creating job growth and lowering unemployment, and began turning around a state that chronically lags behind in virtually every category, from health care to teacher's salaries. Even Steve Forbes, President and CEO of Forbes, inc., has lavished praise on Governor Richardson. His amazing foreign policy record doesn't hurt either (4 Nobel Peace Prize nominations and being former US Ambassador to the UN will give him more than enough credibility). But enough of my dreaming. He'll probably drop out too.
Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race for President today.
I was not a fan of Tom Vilsack, he was a good man, and I hear, from my Iowa sources, a good governor. But he was not particularly inspiring, and I never considered lending him my support.
But I do regret his decision to leave the race. Tom Vilsack was the only serious candidate advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of funding for the war by Congress. He was the only one committed to a carbon-neutral campaign for President, and the candidate with probably the most comprehensive understanding of energy policy, his pet policy.
He couldn't continue the race because of money. With more than two-thirds of the state either already moved up or planning to move up their primaries and caucuses to a six week window between January 1st and February 15th, you would need approximately $50 million cash on hand in January 2008 and probably having raised over $100 million by 2008 to be truly competitive for the nomination.
These are absurd amounts of money, and they rise exponentially each cycle, with the money increasingly going into television advertising that has been proven to have less and less effect on fewer and fewer voters each cycle.
This presidential race is a mess. We need to completely reform the way we run campaigns and hold elections in this country, and we need to do it now.
We need to make some new laws that reform our system, but more importantly, we need to have politicans and political professionals change the way they do business. We need to stop using television advertising. We need to spread out the primary calendar, by having both parties agree to a new timeframe. We need to focus more on real debate, about real ideas and policies and stop having useless debates with time limits and rules.
We've lost our politics, and in a lot of ways, the American soul. If good guys like Tom Vilsack can't run for President because they can't raise the money, then we have a problem. McCain-Feingold was a disaster. We need a public financing system that requires candidates to use a limited amount of taxpayer money and reduces the costs of campaigns. If we need to pass a constitutional amendment to do it, then so be it, but we cannot keep doing what we're doing.
Fifty years ago, candidates for Congress could upset long-term incumbents with $50,000 in today's dollars. Now, you need at least $2 million bucks. That's not right.
The internet provides a new, low-cost method for candidates to use to get their message out. Candidates should use it more and rely on it more to promote themselves and use television less, considering that most people, because of TiVo or Cable or just a general tuning out of commercials really won't be affected by TV ads anymore. For God's sake, most people under the age of 30 barely watch actual television anymore, I know that I basically watch all my TV shows on the internet.
And I really hope that the Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden campaigns can mutually agree to raise and spend less than $50 million total over the next year. It's just not a fair fight when Clinton and Obama have $100 million and Edwards has $70 million dollars and Richardson, Biden, and Dodd have only $20 million. That's just not a contest anymore.
Give me your suggestions on how to fix the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
