Manistee Talks Politics

Harry Tries to Play Poker

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:20:00 +0000

I found this piece in The Huffington Post. I think Jane hits the mark on this one. Two Democratic Senators that Democratic Senators won't seat. A Democratic Senator complaining about the cabinet appointments of a Democratic President after she has rubber stamped the appointments of George Bush. What is going on? I have heard two different reports. One is that it is just Democrats being Democrats. Another is that there continues to be a contaigous strain of rectal glacoma infecting the capital.
Rick

Jane HamsherFounder, FireDogLake.com
Posted January 7, 2009 | 09:25 AM (EST) I Want To Play Poker With Harry Reid

I want to play poker with Harry Reid. Really I do.

Rather than call for a special election in Illinois to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, Reid sends a letter to Rod Blagojevich signed by everyone in the Democratic caucus asking him to step down. They assert that they will not seat anyone he appoints.

Harumph.

Blago wipes his ass with it and appoints Burris anyway.

Burris holds a press conference and announces he will be in D.C. on Tuesday to be sworn in with the rest of the Senate. Bobby Rush plays the race card. Reid does not see the handwriting on the wall.

He counters by calling Secretary of State Jesse White, who has already said he won't sign Burris's certification, and encourages him. What White is doing is most certainly outside his legal authority -- the Secretary of State doesn't have veto power. But Reid not only gives White a high five, he tells him they'll use this to keep Burris from being seated.

Then he smugly chortles about how he'll manipulate Senate procedure and punt to the Rules Committee, and assures everyone that they will drag things out for months if necessary until Blago is impeached and his successor appoints someone else. And he does it in the press.

Upon reading this, Cornyn announces that Franken won't have a signed certification either, and the GOP will use it to keep him from being seated,

Reuters: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yielded to Republican threats and agreed on Monday not to immediately seat fellow Democrat Al Franken."

Blago laughs out loud. This is amateur night in Dixieland. He leaks to the press that he spoke with Reid before the election, and that Reid didn't think any of the African American candidates vying for the seat were "electable," while Tammy Duckworth was. He stirs up the potential jury pool and makes Reid look like an idiot -- the day before Reid is set to appear on Meet the Press.

Reid looks like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs on Meet the Press. Nobody knows how much Fitz has (not even Fitz, who is still trying to transcribe his tapes) or how much he'll need to reveal to prove his case, so Reid says he "doesn't remember" his conversation with Blago, but calls Blago a liar anyway. When asked if he supported Jesse Jackson Jr. for the Senate seat, he says he would support him. And admits that there's "room to negotiate" on Burris.

Burris appears at the Senate on Tuesday. Gets turned away. Could Reid look any worse?

Yes!

Obama stares down DiFi, appoints Panetta to the CIA, and the NYT breaks the story before she's told (but Ron Wyden already knows). DiFi's fuming.

Despite having been one of the 50 Senators who signed Reid's letter saying Burris would never be seated, she announces that as the outgoing head of the Rules Committee she thinks the Senate has no choice but to seat him.

(Good timing, because Charlie Rangel is already complaining about the Rules Committee dragging its feet.)

Reid can't hold his own caucus in line. Blames Rahm. Gives interview saying "I don't work for Barack Obama."

Smooth.

WaPo: "Burris Backs Reid Into a Corner."

A seventy-one year old dude who hasn't held office for 14 years, appointed by a crook, takes the Senate Majority Leader to the cleaners.

Reid is a red state senator, up for re-election in 2010 and under pressure from the right, who is already making noise about appeasing Republicans who aren't going to be appeased. He's a hazard to Obama's agenda, which is why leading Senate Democrats tried to ease him out as Majority Leader last year.

See: Daschle, Tom.

Burris will be seated. He's not gonna deal.

Why should he?

He's playing poker with Harry Reid.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

Two Senate Democrats Locked Out

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:26:00 +0000

As the new Congress begins its work it looks like 2 Democratic Senators will be locked out.

It now appears that Al Franken has prevailed over Norm Coleman in Minnesota. At least that is the ruling of the Board of Canvassers after they did a recount. Coleman, playing the role of sore loser, seems to have settled on a plan of tying up the procress with legal appeals. This could take months. Apparently the philosophy is if he can't be The Man, then nobody will be for the time being. Nothing much can be done about this. Republicans can deny the seat to the duly elected Democrat at a critical stage in the legislative process. It continues a Republican philosophy that believes if you can't win at the ballot box then you win in the courtroom.

The second Democratic Senator to be locked out, at least for awhile, will be Roland Burris. He was legally appointed by the Governor of Illinois to fill the seat left vacant by Barack Obama. The problem is that the Gov. is a crook. For years people in Illinois knew that. Now everyone in the world knows. However, "knowing" the Gov. is a crook is not a valid reason for rejecting his appointment. You actually have to follow the law. That means you have to convict him and remove him as Gov. That has not happened and will not anytime in the near future. The US Senate appears ready to lock Burris out on a technicality. His certification was not signed by the Illinois Sec. of State, Jesse White. This way White takes the heat for the lock out and not Harry Reid.

This is a scary process. The reality is that the Democratic leadership in the Senate is ready to give the Illinois Sec. of State veto power over seating US Senators without any kind of due process. And they are willing to block appointments they don't like. This is foolishness. It is also a scary, scary precedent. If a Republican Sec. of St. or a Republican Senate Leadership were blocking a Democratic Senator from being seated we Democrats would be up it arms. Maybe it is time to fire Harry Reid.

We need every Democratic vote we can get in the Senate. We can't stop Coleman from being a sore loser. We can expect our own Democratic Leadership to follow the law and seat Roland Burris as the Senator from Illinois. We've had enough political foolishness. It is time to work on the real problems we have in this country.

Presidential Primary Misconceptions

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:53:00 +0000

It is pretty clear that the Obama campaign just doesn't understand how the presidential primary works. They are under the misconception that just because Obama has the largest popular vote and the most delegates that he is winning. That is so silly.

Let me go down the line and list all of the mistakes the Obama camp has made.

Obama folks claimed they won Iowa. Of course we know that Iowa didn't really count. At that time it wasn't about one state. It was about how many delegates you send to the convention. Hillary tried to explain this to him.
Later in the primaries Obama talked about how many delegates he won, but in that phase of the primary season it wasn't about delegates, but which states you win. Obama just doesn't understand.
Obama's next mistake was claiming that winning South Carolina was important, but African-American support really isn't that important for Democrats.
Then Obama won white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, but they don't really count because they won't be competitive in the general election. And white voters really aren't that important to Democrats. Why is this so hard for Obama to understand?
Obama thought that winning Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri was a big deal because they are general election battleground states where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain. Obama is so silly. Those voters were latte-sipping elitists. Latte-sippers don't count either.
Obama is happily pointing out that he won the most delegates in Texas. But who cares about that. He didn't win the most pimary ballot votes so winning the most delegates in Texas doesn't matter. Obama is so dense.

Obama thinks that just because he has more popular votes than Hillary and more delegates than Hillary that he is ahead in this primary race. Obviously he doesn't have the experience to understand how presidential candidates get nominated. Hillary is ready for this nomination NOW. I wish she would explain to him how the process works.

Denny Hastert's seat won by Democrats

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:10:00 +0000

Democrats are celebrating the election of a Democrat to replace Denny Hastert, former Speaker of the House. A win is a win, but Democrats should not get too cocky.

I just returned from a long weekend in the 14th Congressional District. I talked to a lot of voters, including many Republicans. I can tell you that Democrat Bill Foster didn't win. What really happened was that Jim Oberweis lost.

Oberweis is a nasty, dishonest millionaire who tries to buy an election every two years and hasn't succeeded yet. Oberweis ran for US Senator in 2002. He had never held any other elected office, but when you are really rich, why not just start at the top. He started a pattern of being aggressive, vicious, dishonest, and doing it with the force of his personal fortune. And that was against his fellow Republicans in the primary. And then losing.

Oberweis refused to give up. He ran for US Senator in 2004 also. He lost to a wife abuser with some twisted sexual ideas in the primary. When his story came out the Republicans imported Alan Keyes from another state to represent them rather than turning to Jim Oberweis.

In 2006 Oberweis ran in the Republican primary for Gov. Illinois had an incumbent Gov. that is considered stupid, corrupt, and ineffective by most of the Democratic voters. And the Gov. is a Democrat! He was so hated it would have been an automatic win except for the fact that the Republicans spent so much time cutting each others throats that the Dem Gov. was re-elected. Oberweis couldn't even win that primary.

After the Republicans lost the House in the 2006 election Hastert couldn't get out fast enough. The 14th has been a Republican district for decades. It is slowly softening, but is still a strong Republican district. It was an automatic win for the Republicans. Except, Oberweis had enough money to run the table. He savaged the Republican opposition. He finally won a primary. He had also been so hateful that many Republican voters just stayed home. Republican voters numbers where at suprising lows. On the other hand Democrats had a real candidate running a real race and that just doesn't normally happen in the 14th. They came out and voted.

Jim Oberweis spent 9 million dollars of his own money in the four races and still couldn't buy an election. He now joins that elite club of Republican millionaires that includes Mitt Romney and Dick DeVos.

Democrat Bill Foster will fill the seat of former Republican Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, until Jan. of 2009. Many Republicans sent Jim Oberweis a message that they think he is a jerk.

This election was not an indication of how the nation is leaning. It is an indication of the total disarry of the Republican party in Illinois and the ilk that can buy a place on the ballot. If you read anything more into it than that you don't know Jack.

Nominating a President - Post March 4 Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:10:00 +0000

The last few numbers are still coming in from the March 4 primaries and caucus. The are a number of things that seem clear.

Neither candidate has the enough delegates to win at the convention.
Obama has earned more delegates over the course of the campaign. It looks like it is about 130 delegates.
Obama is well positioned to win Wyoming and Mississippi. That may increase the spread slightly, but the numbers will not be decisive.
The delegate spread will hardly be changed at all after March 4.

Based on the facts we know I have some opinions.

Clinton is claiming a victory with 3 states to Obama's one state victory. I am declaring a tie based a delegate count was essentially a tie. Our system is silly because we don't use popular vote, but that is the way we do it.
Hillary is in trouble. She is behind in delegate count. Her claim to victory is that she didn't fall farther behind. I would suggest that actually a victory would require pulling ahead or even showing good progress moving into the lead.
Hillary out campaigned Barack in the last few weeks. Period.
Barack is the delegate leader. He has the potential to win. Hillary can only win if Obama has a complete melt down. Her real hope is not losing yet. That will throw the contest into overtime where the Super Delegates will make the decision.
Both of the candidates are becoming stronger campaigners. This has been good practice for the general election. It is ok for the contest to continue.
Hillary should stay in through Pennsylvania. There is still a race. There is no reason for her to drop out. It looks impossible for her to win, but it should be her decision based on the voters, not pundits and back room politicians.

Are Politicians Working For You?

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:25:00 +0000

Sometimes we look at how our representatives vote and we just scratch our heads. What were they thinking? Or maybe a better question is, "Who are they working for?" Sometimes looking at who funds their campaigns clears up all your questions.

In the presidential arena Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain have a similar approach. They go after big money people and big money special interest PACs. Then they sprinkle in some small contributors, just for giggles.

Sen. Obama has taken a different approach. No money from federal lobbyists or special interest PACs. He takes money from thousands of small contributors. Obama has broken all records. He has received over 1 million individual contributions.

Mitt Romney had a different approach. Write yourself checks. Personally, if I want a new camera or bike or whatever, I just buy myself one. However, it seems to be increasingly popular for politicians to try to buy themselves an office. In my book, that is going too far.

Our state representative race for Manistee and the 101st district has these same approaches to campaign financing. Our current representative was an ex-lobbyist. His campaigns were funded mostly by out of district rich people and special interest PACs. All contributions can be seen online through the Sec. of State. Look for yourself. Our rep is from Manistee. See how many local people were willing to even give him a buck. They are as rare as hens teeth.

There are 3 Republicans vying for the open state rep. seat. Look at their contributions records. Mike McManus can't find money anywhere. He might as well drop out now. Ray Franz and Janice McCraner have the same approach. About 75% of their campaign funds come from writing themselves a check. The local people willing to support them financially - put together - would fit in my living room.

Dan Scripps is the top fund raiser in our state rep. campaign. And like Obama he is setting new records for contributions from local people he will actually represent. It is not big money, 10 bucks here and 20 bucks there, but it adds up. Scripps had almost 400 contributors by Dec. 31. Nobody in this district has seen anything like it. And it does add up. Dan Scripps raised more money than all three Republicans combined!

For me, where campaigns get their money is important. I don't have much time for people who try to buy themselves a position, or who are willing to sell themselves to special interest PACs. I want to see lots of local voters chipping in whatever they can afford to give. That is a real measure of the support and respect a candidate enjoys.

This is just one reason why I like Scripps and Obama.

William F. Buckley is Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:25:00 +0000

William F. Buckley, a key conservative voice in America for the last half century, has passed away, persumably to the fiery pits of hell.

Ann Coulter emailed me this morning to share some of her thoughts on the passing of this great man. As many of you know, I have a thing for Ann Coulter. I love her skankiness. Where else but in American could you find a woman who dresses like a hooker and uses the language of a sailor on shore leave to speak so articulately about the conservative cause.

Ann wrote me this morning to reflect on the life of William F. Buckley. (OK, for the sake of full disclosure she wrote me and thousands of others who are signed up for a listserv email blast.) I am providing the link to the entire artice. I hope you have a chance to read the whole thing.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25241

Just in case you don't have time for the whole article I am going to quote and summarize some pieces. It is easy to see why Buckley was revered among conservatives. Highlights from Ann Coulter's article.

Ann reminds us that Buckley was a defender of Joe McCarthy. However he didn't like Eisenhower. Too liberal. "National Review did not endorse a candidate for president in 1956, correctly concluding that Dwight Eisenhower was not a conservative, however great a military leader he had been. "

Buckley did support Joe Lieberman when he ran and defeated incumbent Senator Lowel Weicker. In fact he set up a PAC for Lieberman.

"In a famous exchange with Gore Vidal in 1968, Vidal said to Buckley: "As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself."
Buckley replied: "Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."
Years later, in 1985, Buckley said of the incident: "We both acted irresponsibly. I'm not a Nazi, but he is, I suppose, a fag."

"When asked if he had "referred to Jesse Jackson as an ignoramus," Buckley said, "If I didn't, I should have."

I hope you will take time to read Ann's entire article.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25241

Conservatives all agree that Buckley was a great American, a role model for our children. And many thanks to Ann Coulter for her reflections on William F. Buckley. She shows us clearly why conservatives liked him so much.

Money Matters

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:56:00 +0000

We are coming to crunch time in the Democratic presidential nomination process. The delegates are pretty evenly split between the two candidates, but Clinton hasn't won any of the last 10 states. Obama is on a roll.

Texas and Ohio may well be the final battle. That means one thing. Money. Big money. And probably money spent to be nasty.

It really does matter to me where that money is coming from. Clinton has put out a call for 100 contributors. They would each kick in $100,000. They can avoid the normal campaign limit of $2300 by working through a Section 527 "Swift Boat" group. This is the Clinton plan. And it may get ugly.

Where the money comes from matters to me. That is one reason I favor Obama. He doesn't take money from special interest PACs. He takes nickels and dimes from regular people. That makes it real hard to compete with $100,000 from an individual. Yet Obama is the top money raiser. As I write this he is closing in on ONE MILLION contributions. Incredible.

We live in a time when it seems like our government is bought and sold by organizations with money. What happened to the little guy? Apparently he is alive and well, and contributing to Barack Obama.

Two good candidates. But one has a new philosophy on how to finance campaigns. One is showing that business as usual in Washington might come to an end. This looks to me like the real deal. This is hope that I can believe in.

Wisconsin Numbers Should Scare Republicans

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:15:00 +0000

The Wisconsin primary numbers are in and Obama has won decisively over Hillary Clinton. He cut into several of her core constituency areas. She appears to be in real trouble in her attempt to caputure the nomination. Ohio and Texas could bring her campaign to an end.

There are other numbers to compare in Wisconsin that seem more telling to me. If you take votes for John McCain, and Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul and roll them all together in one package they still come up short compared to Hillary Clinton. That's right. The entire Republican party can't combine to beat Hillary and she was the big loser in the vote count tonight.

Wisconsin isn't unique. Republicans are uninspired and Democrats are turning out in droves. The difference in numbers between the two parties are incredible.

I think the scent of change is in the air.

Michigan Presidential Delegates

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:32:00 +0000

It is hard to imagine a bigger mess that we have with two states not having delegates for the Democratic Presidential Convention. With the delegate count so even between Clinton and Obama there is growing disucssion about how we dig ourselves out of this mess.

Yes, the Republicans had the same issue and were way smarter than Democrats in how they handled this. Republicans used a measured response and have easily worked through this. Democrats used the nuclear option on Michigan and Florida and now they have that fallout to deal with. No, it doesn't help to resolve the problem by pointing out that Republicans were smarter than we were.

There seems to be three options being considered.

Use the January Primary results - Hillary broke the rules and stayed on the ballot. With only one viable candidate on the ballot and the word from DNC that NO delegates would be seated the Michigan voters stayed home in droves. It wasn't a real election. Now Hillary supporters want to break the rules again and seat these delegates. That will give her delegates she desperately needs to win the nomination. Gov. Granholm appears to be supporting this option.

Stick with the DNC Rules - According to the DNC we were electing zero delegates in January. January was not a valid or representative election. Michigan sends no delegates to the convention. This option leaves Michiganders voiceless in a hotly contested race.

The "Do Over" Option - Local leaders and activists seem to want a chance to have a real vote. Many are calling for a traditional Michigan caucus which would select delegates for the convention. This is the same process that has been used in Michigan for many years. This will let Michiganders have a say in choosing our next president. It also opens the doors to the idea that if you don't like some election results you just keep redoing the election until it turns out the way you want.

Three Choices. They are all losers.

The first option rewards a rule breaker, asks the DNC to do a flip flop on its own rules, and allocates delegates based on an election that wasn't a real election.

The last option is the fairest in my mind, but will also damage the party the most. Some people predict Obama would win in a do-over. Clinton supporters may argue that to change the rules would cause the election to be stolen from them. This is sometimes know as the "Splitting the Party" option. Our do-over election will also face criticism from all over the country. If you don't like the results of one election just keeping elections until you get the results you want. This sounds more like a third world country than Michigan. Florida had hanging chads in 2000. Michigan can have the "Do-Over" in 2008. It make take a terrible situation and make it worse.

The second option is probably the best. I hate it. It leaves Michiganders voiceless. However, in the name of party unity it may be the best. Everyone plays by the same rules all the way along from the January primary until the July convention. The rules don't get changed in the middle of the game resulting in an advantage to one candidate or the other. This option sucks. It is also the best option as far as I can tell.

2008 is the year of the Democrats. Our nation is ready to put the Republicans behind us. January 2009 should reveal a Democrat being sworn in as President of the United States. The only thing that can stop our success is our ability as Democrats to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Ready... Aim...

Telecom Immunity

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:51:00 +0000

On February 12, 2008 the Senate approved a sweeping measure that would expand the government's clandestine surveillance powers, delivering a key victory to the White House by approving immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that cooperated with intelligence agencies in domestic spying after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Here is how the votes break out:

Supporting Immunity for Telecom Companies
Pres. George Bush (R)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) MI

Opposing Immunity
Sen. Carl Levin (D) MI
Sen. Barack Obama (D) IL

Not bothering to Vote
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) NY

Fortunately the Democrats in the House have more resolve. They seem willing to vote the courage of their convictions in opposition to immunity and in favor of personal freedom.

The Story of Stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:13:00 +0000

Lee Trucks emailed me a video that I really love. It is about the product cycle. Yep, business and production. But it is also about "external costs". It is about environmental costs and social costs.

As Democrats we believe in the stewardship of this earth. We believe in caring about others. These are core Democratic values. They are core American values. This little video does a great job of putting everything in perspective.

I like this video. I hope you take time to watch it.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Pete Hoekstra is irresponsible

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:38:00 +0000

Pete Hoekstra is irresponsible. I don't know any other way to describe him. Americans can't trust Pete Hoekstra with their money. Pete has been US Rep for the 2nd Michigan district for many years. His record speaks for itself. Americans deserve better.

Pete Hoekstra has helped George Bush drive our country deeper and deeper into debt. In just the past seven years of the Bush adminstration Pete has supported new debt to the tune of $3,000,000,000. (Yes, that is billion!) When President Clinton left office we had established a pattern of balancing the budget.

How did we get going so far in the wrong direction? For one thing, we lost our system of checks and balances. Our founding fathers clearly saw the danger of an unchecked powerful executive and their fears were right on target. Our Congress has the responsibility of providing that check and balance. Instead a Republican Congress rubber stamped the excesses of President Bush and President Bush rubber stamped the excesses of a Republican Congress. Pete Hoekstra's failure to do his duty to his country has left American weaker. Americans deserve better.

How could Pete and his Republican friends get us into so much debt so fast. One way was that Pete made sure the millionaires got big tax breaks. We couldn't afford to take care of the millionaires and still balance the budget so the Republicans adopted a credit card mentality. Pete chose to take care of millionaires and leave the bill for our kids.

How could Pete and his friends take us so much deeper into debt so fast? Pete supported President Bush's mismanaged efforts in the war with Iraq. Prewar intelligence was bungled. Pete chaired the House Intelligence Committee. President Bush's arrogant go-it-alone policy sacrificed the opportunity for military and financial support from the rest of the world. Now we dump billions and billions into a war that has been so mismanaged that it may be lost.

What has Pete's irresponsibility cost Americans? We are now so deeply in debt that Republicans say we can't fund 911 Commission recommendations. We are so deeply into debt the Republicans say we can't afford after-school programs or college loans. Republicans say we can't afford health care for all Americans, or even for needy children and their families. Pete Hoekstra's irresponsibility has destroyed the American dream that each generation will make America a better place for the next generation. America deserves better.

The biggest disgrace of Republican fiscal mismanagement is ear marks. Republicans, operating without checks and balances, increased the number and amount of ear marks many many fold. They spent like drunken sailors, in the words of one Republican senator. Ear marks became paybacks to special interests who contributed money to the Republicans. If you didn't join the "pay to play" system the Republicans generally left you out in the cold. "Pay to Play" ear marks supported by Pete Hoekstra and the Republicans were a national disgrace. It was only after Americans demanded more responsible leadersip that a newly elected Democratic Congress brought ear marks under control. Pete Hoekstra failed us. Americans deserve better.

Americans have a chance for someone better in 2008. This year we will see a lively Democratic primary and a real challenge to Hoekstra's reign of irresponsibility. There are 3 candidates at the moment running in the Democratic primary: Scott Killips, Fred Johnson, and Kimon Kotos. They have different views and different strengths. It is time for MI-2 voters to study these candidates carefully. Look at their websites. Talk to them. And then get involved. Pete Hoekstra has failed us. Americans deserve better. Now is the time for change.

I want to encourage a discussion on fiscal responsibility in the federal government. I hope we get comments from voting Americans and from all of our candidates. Yes, I would even like to hear from Pete. Please add your comments.

Dan Scripps: Progressive Voice for a New Generation

noreply@blogger.com (AikoAdam) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:27:00 +0000

As campaign season is upon us, we hear more and more speeches. We are told what we should believe. We are told what will fix all of our troubles by lifelong politicians. But one man has been spreading his message throughout Northwest Michigan for over 3 years now. One man who sees Michigan's best days ahead of us. That man is Dan Scripps.

Last night to a packed ballroom at the Best Western in Beulah, MI, Dan reminded myself and everyone in attendance why we continue to work so hard, year after year. When Dan Scripps speaks you can hear a pin drop. Everyone on the edge of their seats, listening intently to the future voice of our state government.

Every time I hear Dan Scripps speak, I have renewed hope for Democrats in Northern Michigan and the state. He brings a positive message of progress, change and prosperity. He brings a message of environmental stewardship to a region that base their economies on their surroundings. Dan speaks of the importance of "green" technology and power sources, not only for the impact to our environment, but also the boost it will lend to our economy and seemingly endless race to the very bottom of the unemployment ladder. Dan speaks about the underfunded school system and how proper attention to our educational system is what will serve as a base for the future of our state.

In 2006 Dan won 48% of the vote against incumbent David Palsrok in his first run for political office. In 2008 the 101st is an open seat. The republicans are scrambling to find someone to run and infighting is destroying their chances for a "credible" candidate. The 101st seat in the State House is crucial to both the region and the State of Michigan.

Dan Scripps is the hardest working candidate I have ever seen. He has true integrity, ideals, and a commitment to the people of Michigan. But Dan needs our help. The filing deadline is fast approaching and early money will be key to securing this seat in 2008. With our help, Dan can lead the way for a New Generation. A generation of Representatives that care about the people they serve. That care about the place we all work, live and raise not only our families, but future generations. Dan is a true Progressive voice fighting for all of us. Please visit Dan Scripp's website and find out how you can donate, volunteer, and contact Northern Michigan's Progressive Voice for a New Generation.

Central America Free Trade Agreement

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:47:00 +0000

Check out this excellent article of the Central America Free Trade Agreement. Thanks, Sally, for passing it on to me.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/10/19/no_cheers_for_cafta.php

Just Say NO to Kids

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:59:00 +0000

Today, my US Representative, Peter Hoekstra, voted no on the S-Chip veto override. For me this vote boils down to one thing - VALUES. It sure looks like Pete values Blackwater and the defense industry. He values President Bush, even when his mismanagement of the Iraq War kills our American service people every day. It is also clear that Pete values needy children much less.

Pete and his followers can come off being pretty pious at times. They talk a lot about Christian values. I hope he takes the time to reread the words of Jesus Christ. "What you do for the least of these, you do for me."

It is time for our Congressional leaders to do more than mouth words about values while their hand is out for special interest contributions. It is time for us to elect people with real values.

I'm impressed with Scott Killips.
www.killipsforcongress.com

Night of the Living Republicans

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:37:00 +0000

Democrats Bad - The Video "The Night of the Living Republicans"

http://www.jibjab.com/starring_you/receipt/1594107

Republicans and Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:08:00 +0000

I found this survey information on Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/

National Journal has released a new “Congressional Insiders Poll,” which surveyed 113 members of Congress — 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans — about their positions on global warming.

The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.

Al Gore just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with global warming. At the same time Republicans persist in their opposition to science.

I remember a time when the two parties debated ideas like the size of government and the role it plays in the lives of ordinary citizens. Now it seems the two parties debate whether science is real or not.

It is time to repent and be forgiven

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:23:00 +0000

When the first settlers came to this country we were ruled by a king. That king was responsible for running the entire British Empire. Blame for wrong doing fell on his shoulders.

The great American experiment changed the way we are governed. Now we rule ourselves. The power resides with the people. Mr. Bush says he is the Decider. But he says a lot of things that are not true. The truth is that we, the American people, are responsible for what America does. We, the people, are the Deciders.

Before I headed off to church this morning I sent some time enjoying coffee and reading the paper. It is a quieting, relaxing time, and a wonderful way to start Sunday morning. I read an article about Blackwater in the Traverse City Record Eagle. It was a first hand accounting of a reporter who was in Iraq and her experiences with Blackwater contractors. What started as a sense of security slowly deteriorated as she watched tough young men emerge into American cowboys, drinking, chasing women, and shooting civilians to “get the job done”. They are mercenaries operating without the code of conduct our military forces live by. Their ruthless and indiscriminate ways of operating causes terror and hatred among the people they came to save and protect.

The other thing that has been popping up in the news lately is torture sanctioned by the American government. Even while claiming Americans don’t torture, secret memos are coming to light that the Bush administration used to justify torture.
Tens years ago we could not have imagined our America, the country we love, being involved in torture, fielding a huge mercenary army living outside of normal rules of conduct, or America loosing the respect the world because of its new found preference for military invasion over diplomacy.

We are to blame. Not George Bush. Or Cheney. Not Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice or any of the others. They just work for us. We, the American people, must accept the blame.

Where is our outcry? Where is the relentless insistence that America will not torture and will not field mercenary forces? Where is the demand that America must act with honor and compassion even while we act to protect ourselves and our neighbors?

Isn’t it time that we repent and ask for forgiveness?

The Pres Primary Mess

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:11:00 +0000

Recent article from the Washington Post.

New Hampshire may move its primary up to Decemeber. Or it may stick to a date in early January. Gardner is still playing coy, though increasingly less so, with his open hints about December.In recent weeks, "What Is Bill Gardner Thinking?" has become the major political parlor game in presidential politics. He is, unfortunately, brilliantly obtuse. He has the gift of genial obfuscation. Exploring his thinking process is like trying to stab an olive with a plastic cocktail sword.Ask him a direct question -- and The Post did just that this week over the course of seven hours and a long drive in Gardner's Volvo from Concord to Keene and back, with dinner in between -- and he'll answer with a series of sentence fragments, digressions, anecdotes and ambiguities. His elusiveness is strategic: He wants to keep all his options open.The result is that professional political pundits scrutinize his words with Talmudic intensity. New Hampshire may be famously small-d democratic, a place where it seems as if every third person is in the state legislature, but Gardner is the state's answer to the chairman of the Federal Reserve: The political market can shudder from the impact of a single provocative verb.One person who may know what Gardner is thinking is Jim Splaine, who was along for the ride to Keene and back. Splaine, 60, is a Democratic state legislator who wrote the 1975 law giving the secretary of state power to set the primary date. Splaine also wrote subsequent amendments extending that power. During the ride, Gardner gave interviews by cellphone from the back seat while the reporter drove and Splaine gave the lowdown on New Hampshire politics."I talk about the unpredictability of the date and the person setting it as our secret weapon," Splaine said.Gardner sees it that way, too."Every time I answer, I limit," Gardner said. As in, limits his maneuverability."You're a coy guy," Splaine told him.Splaine has been pushing the Dec. 11 date on a blog called Blue Hampshire."A NH Primary on or around December 11th would encourage the Presidential candidates and their campaigns to spend intensive, quality time here for all of November into the first week or two of December. We could ask for nothing better for democracy than having some concentrated time with the candidates -- face to face, eye to eye, one-on-one, New Hampshire-style," he wrote earlier this week.It's impossible to know whether Splaine is out ahead of Gardner's thinking or is in fact channeling Gardner. At times they clearly echo each other, as when Splaine, in his blog item touting Dec. 11, says that an earlier date might allow a candidate who did poorly to regroup ("No state, whether Iowa or New Hampshire or any other, should be able to by itself render the knock-out punch to a candidate"). Gardner made several similar comments, including: "Certainly the process should not end here. And we don't want it to end here. This is just the beginning."A December primary might shock a lot of candidates and their staffers, as well as journalists, all of whom have been tromping around the country with the presumption that the actual voting will begin next year. The balloting has seemed a long way off -- but may actually be less than two months away.The uncertain date of the primary has befuddled not only the campaigns and the news media but also the hotels and restaurants and all the other supporting players in what has become a quadrennial political circus. Gardner said he will announce his decision soon after the Nov. 2 close of the filing period for presidential candidates. He said the state will need only about two weeks to print and distribute ballots. They don't have to have dates on them, he said.The belief earlier this year had been that Iowa would hold its caucuses on Jan. 14, followed by the Nevada caucuses Jan. 19 and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 22. But in recent months that calendar has been scrambled as officials and party leaders in Michigan and Florida, covetous of a early role in the nominating process, voted to hold primaries in January. Gardner has been watching the maneuvering with a keen eye."I'm watching Michigan. I'm watching Nevada," he said.During the drive back from Keene, through a rainstorm that darkened the rolling hills of southwestern New Hampshire, Gardner and Splaine chewed over all the possible options.The law tells Gardner to put New Hampshire at least a week before any "similar election." This week, four Democrats pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, saying they would honor a pledge to campaign only in New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina before the rush of primaries on Feb. 5. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd kept their names on the ballot in Michigan but vowed not to campaign there. But the Republicans are competing and that's all that matters, Gardner said. New Hampshire would be no later than Jan. 8.Iowa is another issue. Gardner said he'd like to choose "a date that would allow Iowa to have its eight days." Here's where it gets really complicated.If New Hampshire goes Jan. 8, Iowa couldn't plausibly hold caucuses on New Year's Eve. There is talk that Iowa might hold caucuses on Jan. 3 or Jan. 5, but that would encroach dramatically on the time for candidates to decamp to New Hampshire and make the Granite State the center of the political cosmos.South Carolina Republicans, meanwhile, moved their primary to Jan. 19, which might uproot Nevada, Gardner said. Meanwhile, he said, there's Wyoming.Wyoming?Yes: Wyoming has some kind of delegate-selection caucus-primary thing scheduled for Jan. 5, Gardner said. He's not sure what to think of that.He talked about the news coverage out of Iowa, and Howard Dean's "scream," and how quickly Dean's campaign tanked. He indicated that if the votes are scheduled too closely, there's not enough time for people to digest what's happening."Is it right for me to put that into the equation?" he asked aloud.There remain more questions than answers.As Bill Gardner sat in the back seat of his Volvo, peering ahead at the rain-slicked country road and the enveloping darkness, he continued to talk of dates, and states, and his many options.And only he knew what he was really thinking.

Presidential candidates withdrawl from Michigan primary

noreply@blogger.com (AikoAdam) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:26:00 +0000

Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson and Joe Biden filed paperwork today to have their names removed from the primary ballot in Michigan. Now I have read and heard people on both sides of this issue. But the way I see it is that moving our primary has only hurt our state in relevance to the election. If the MDP goes through with the primary, it really amounts to a beauty contest for Senator Clinton (as Dodd is the only other candidate staying on the ballot). We also risk the chance of losing our delegates to the National Convention. Don't get me wrong...I do not think Iowa and New Hampshire fully represent the nation in regards to it's demographics and have an unfair leverage on the nominee process. But the problem instead is that the entire system is broken. A parliamentary system would work so much better, and would make candidates work harder for our votes and run more on issues. That's just my take....talk amongst yourselves.

Update: Kucinich withdraws as well.

Preparing for Victory

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:45:00 +0000

It was great to see so many Democrats attending our Dist. 2 training session put on by the Michigan Democratic Party. We had great participation as we came together to be more skillful in our election efforts. This seems typical for this election cycle. We are energized and impatient to get started as we work to turn around Republican policies that hurt our state and country. We all see the energy that is out there.

Clearly the hot race of this election cycle will be for State Rep. Dan Scripps brings to the race name recognition, proven fund raising and campaigning skills, and a host of volunteers who smell blood in this election. The Republicans are spending their time duking it out with each other in a three way primary race. The Dec. 31 reporting deadline for fundraising may be a pivotal day for them. The field may shrink if a candidate does not have adequate money coming in.

Democrats are fortunate in this race because we have have a candidate who has earned the respect of many people in the Republican party as well as our own. Many in our district view the Republican contenders as second tier. Probably this is happening because it looks more likely that Republicans will lose this seat after controlling it for several years.

This upcoming election will see a great deal of passion from Democrats who are crying out for change. For Republicans it seems to be a season of embarrassment and frustration. From the top of the ticket on down their choices are just not that exciting. And sometimes they are disgraceful.

Will this be the year that the radical religious right pushes the Republican Party to the brink of collaspe? Maybe that has to happen before the Republicans can turn to a more moderate middle.

It will be an interesting year. Our MDP training session was just the start. Next month we have Camp Millie. Democrats are planning to work hard and also work smart. This is our year. The excitement builds.

Military families increase support to Democrats

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:51:00 +0000

Where are military families putting their money when they decide to contribute to political campaigns? This article in the Boston Globe breaks down the numbers. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/09/military_shifti.html

Military families usually give more to the Republicans. However, since the incredible bungling of this war by Bush, former House Intelligence Chair Pete Hoekstra, and others, military families are taking their dollars away from Republicans and giving them to Democrats. It is not surprising to see more of them supporting Obama than Clinton.

Why SCHIP is good for Michigan

noreply@blogger.com (AikoAdam) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:42:00 +0000

SCHIP is known as MIChild and Healthy Kids here in Michigan. In 2006 the programs covered 118,501 children. There are still approximately 171,000 children without health care in our state. With the $50 billion additional proposed for the SCHIP reauthorization, Michigan could get $1.32 billion in funding for it's programs over the next five years.That amounts to three times the current federal funding. Funding to provide care for children who have it and cover the 171,000 who do not. In Michigan, children who's family's income is 200% above poverty ($34,340 for a three person family in 2007) are covered. According to a report by Families USA the funding would also create $528.5 million in increased business activity, $198.7 million in increased wages, and 5,941 additional jobs for Michigan from a ripple effect of spending called "economic multiplier effect".

Our Congressman Pete Hoekstra voted no on SCHIP stating in a press release that " It would be a step toward a massive expansion of government-run health care."

Maybe Pete hasn't been paying attention, but that's what most Americans want. There are 9 million children without health coverage in the United States. The SCHIP program has reduced uninsured children by 2.7 million from 1998-2005. SCHIP funding is a step in the right direction toward a goal of all children receiving health care and the ultimate goal of Universal Health Care for all.

An Analysis of Bill Richardson

noreply@blogger.com (Rick) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:39:00 +0000

I like Bill Richardson. I believe his brings a lot richer resume to the table than Hillary. And I like his philosophy. He takes a little different approach than some Democrats and I like the way he thinks. I also likes the way he delivers on some traditional Democratic goals. Talking philosophy is nice, but I really appreciate a person who actually delivers the goods.

Obama is my choice for President. He is a leader with the right values and the ability to inspire people to take action. More and more I believe Richardson would make a great VP on his ticket. I think they compliment each other very well. Right now I would say they are my dream team.

I also like http://www.reason.com/ They offer some analysis without all the emotion and hype. They get me to look at things in new ways. You don't have to agree with them, but consider what they are saying.

Here is an article on Richardson that I found thought provoking. See what you think.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120758.html

Rick