Hot News!
• TIF and The Banks: Tax Dollar Boondoggle?
• The 60th Anniversary of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 May 17, 9:30am - 12:30pm The 2008 Day of Dialogue Series- Education and the Common Good: Six Dialogues on Six Critical Issues: Health Care, Economic Development, Education, Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform and Foriegn Policy. Join us at the First Unitiarin Church, 536 Linton Street. All Are Welcome at these free events, reservations requested. |
Monday, May 19th, 6-7pm Cincinnati Progressive United’s 1st planning meeting, Bond Hill Branch Library, 1740 Langdon Farm Rd. at Jordan Crossing
|
June 28, 9am - 5pm Nonviolent Peacemaking Workshop, Presented by the Michigan Peace Team, Peaslee Neighborhood Center, call 579-8547 to sign up |
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Marc Dann would be gone if the Dems had a presidential candidate already
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Does Marc Dann really believe he’s doing either himself or the Democrats a favor by proclaiming—just before the weekend—that he will not resign his post as Attorney General? Or, is he just buying time? Is he putting on a face while the Party tries to balance the risk of losing the seat in a November special election? And what might the Clinton or Obama campaigns have to say about a scandal that could drive voters to the opposition in a swing state like Ohio?
I believe this weekend marks the beginning of some serious strategizing for Ohio Democrats. What’s more important? Maintaining control over the Attorney General’s office, or doing damage maintenance for the upcoming presidential election?
The fact that there is not a clear presidential candidate makes this a bit murkier. It means there are too many variables, perhaps. What will be the status of the Dann scandals when the Democrats have a clear nominee? Will there still be a frenzy calling for his resignation? Will the media still be paying attention to the story? Or will it fade into a memory for all but the hard-core Republicans?
So it seems to me that the real issue here is how long this story can maintain legs, and how that timeline compares with a definitive Democratic nominee. If Dann can wait it out, maybe it will pass. But once either Clinton or Obama is the nominee, if the story is still around, I think it will require Dann’s resignation. And that’s a best case.
For all we know, the Party is making decisions like this right now. It will be interesting to see what Monday brings.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!
03 May 2008 at 06:04 pm | #
~
The Voters are sick of the bed-room probes of politicians. This will have no effect. Dann will unleash a massive corruption prosecution and the opposition party will have nowhere to hide come November.
Where is the beacon probe on the FBI ceasing the property records of Michael Fox ?
.
03 May 2008 at 06:42 pm | #
Democrats gather in Columbus next Saturday for state convention.
Be nice to see a resignation called for, temporary replacement
made, spcial election for November. Strickland has the blue chips but not the other parts to accomplish this. Could we say Subbodh Chandra again?
03 May 2008 at 08:21 pm | #
It doesn’t matter what the party is- Men will be Men! Look at the guy in the DC Madam’s book- GOP! And a few others who have gotten caught with their pants down- GOP- Dems. Power gets to their heads- both of them.
Some of them just can’t handle it. Will it affect anything- I don’t know- I think we are all immune to this crap by now!
04 May 2008 at 03:02 am | #
Here is the perfect answer to solve the political problem:
Dann will announce that he will be resigning effective September 26 th (or whatever date allows Strickland to appoint Chandru (?)) and Chandru will come in almost immediately in as Dann’s aide and to begin the process for transition so that everything will be up and ready and effective the date Chundra takes office.
No political offensives can be made - the story is dead - no special election - no presidential impact - no reasonable republican impeachment process or criminal facilitation can subvert - because it is a done deal.
I really liked Dann but he betrayed my vote by succumbing to the aphrodisiac of power and human frailty. Neither are qualities which can sustain a public office.
Problem fixed.
04 May 2008 at 05:36 am | #
The Dean and the Beacon aren’t interested in Republican scandals, as plentiful as air. If this were a Republican and let’s say for some reason the Beacon could’t avoid commenting, the Dean and JJ would claim it a “bi-partisan” scandal and grab another opportunity to bash the Democrats.
I’d like to know who the Beacon is backing in the Presidential race. For a political blog, they’ve ignored the most interesting and historically signficiant political contest of the century. There’s such interest that even third graders have a pick. Everybody has an opinion on this election BUT the Beacon. But we don’t wonder why, do we?
04 May 2008 at 07:19 am | #
I voted for Obama in the primary. What’s your point?
04 May 2008 at 07:20 am | #
anon #4:
That is a great solution! If you don’t already work for the Democrats, I suggest you forward that to them—just in case! I hadn’t thought about announcing a resignation that wouldn’t be in effect for so long—but I guess there would be nothing to stop such a move…
05 May 2008 at 04:15 pm | #
Cincysuz, I guess you haven’t you seen any of our Heimlich reports, have you?
I don’t call things bipartisan unless they are. For instance there’s the bipartisan war, Patriot Act, War on Drugs, job killing trade agreements like NAFTA, corporate welfare, jail taxes, backroom dealing and draconian drug laws. Are you pretending your corporate Democrats don’t support those policies?
It’s no secret who I’m supporting for President, but I’ll give you one guess.
He’s the Independent Presidential candidate that’s calling for a full military and corporate withdrawal from Iraq, a reduction of the huge, bloated and wasteful military budget. He wants to reverse US foreign policy in the Middle East and get rid of the private mercenaries like Blackwater. He’s also calling for Impeachment for Bush and Cheney.
He’s calling for single-payer health care and end to the Drug War. He wants an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime, fraud and abuse as well as corporate welfare. He will work to end corporate personhood, adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax and adopt a carbon pollution tax.
He will repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law and NAFTA. He will put an end to ballot access obstructionism and open up the Presidential debates. He will say no to nuclear power and put solar energy first on the agenda.
These are just some of the issues that he is putting back on the table because the Republicrats won’t address them. I have written about the race, I just haven’t lately. I assume you will be voting for another pro-war Corporate Democrat again.
05 May 2008 at 08:10 pm | #
I guess a big NEVERMIND is in order. All the Dems in the state want him to step down, and this guy still puffs up his chest…
05 May 2008 at 08:36 pm | #
So like I expected, you’re supporting McCain JJ? And you’re certainly not after Heimlich because he’s a Republican. He just happens to be a Republican. You go after Democrats because they’re Democrats. When you attack Portune you always bring in his party affiliation. You never say Republican Phil Heimlich.
And I think the Dean is intimated by your fame, wealth and the always noted, multi-platinum recording artist reputation. You’ve stifled him on his own blog. Kind of sad. You say--and very strongly I might add--who you support (though you say it’s Nadar and I say it’s McCain) but the Dean is all but mum, afraid on his own blog to come out for his candidate. It’s always disgusting and embarrassing to see people kow-towing to the rich. Stand up Dean. You’re the brains of this operation. Say it loud! Obama in ‘08!
06 May 2008 at 05:39 am | #
Gosh, Justin… Why do you have to be so scary?
cincysuz, I have almost always supported third party candidates. I voted for Kerry in 2004 because, well, after being in line with likely Kerry voters for over an hour, it just seemed like the right thing to do. I should have stuck with third party voting, like I have done in every other presidential ballot I’ve had.
Only you doubt that people like me (and Justin) are “liberals.” So the Democratic party should be a natural ally. That’s why, when the Democrats do things they shouldn’t, it is so irritating to us—they are the party that acts like it knows better. But when it’s COAST standing up with the NAACP, and not the Democrats, well, something strange is happening…
I support Obama over Hillary, but that does not mean I’d vote for him in the general. I’m still totally undecided on that front.
06 May 2008 at 05:39 am | #
(Oh, but McCain is definitely not getting my vote.)
06 May 2008 at 12:12 pm | #
Dean, sorry if I “intimated” and “stifled” you on your blog.
If cincysuz actually believed her own BS she must also believe that Libertarians secretly want to elect Democrats. It’s really an upsurd argument, but one the Corporate Democrats and their little brainwashed anonymous hacks must cling to because they can’t defend their records and stands on the issues.
Only the Corporate Democrats can trick you into voting for a pro-war candidate like Kerry. Kerry-like Clinton and most Democrats- voted for NAFTA, the job killing trade deal. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and supported the gay marriage ban in Missouri. According to right-wing NY TIMES columnist William Saffire, Kerry was to the right of Bush on Iraq and on Israel/Palestine.
Kerry won the election in Ohio and wouldn’t stand up and demand a recount and prosecution of those that disenfranchised tens of thousands of Ohio voters. (What’s more pathetic than a party that allows two stolen elections in a row and still says nothing about election reform?)
The Corporate Democrats use people’s fear of the Republicans to scare people into voting for what they claim is supposed to be the lesser evil, but who got the part-time progressives to support a regressive jail tax? Who pushed the draconian drug laws to fill our jails? Who pushes the big corporate welfare projects? The Corporate Democrats.
The Corporate Democrats (like their Republican partners in crime) like to do backroom deals that limit the choices of the people they’re supposed to serve with unchallenged seats, Gerry-mandering and excessive ballot access barriers for independents. They have taken control of the Presidential debates because they can’t win a real debate on the issues.
Both wings of the corporate-duopoly deter democracy and limit debate in order to create the necessary illusions that manufacture consent for empire and its corporate agenda.
06 May 2008 at 03:18 pm | #
Barak Obama is a bum, but he is best candidate!
06 May 2008 at 06:08 pm | #
So you’re both falling for the okie-doke yet again. Amazing. “Fool me once” seems lost on you two. But then again. I don’t think you guys are that dumb. You know that your vote is wasted supporting a third party candidate. I believe it’s just your way of getting your Republican candidates in and at the same time avoid taking the heat for it so you can continue to perpeturate the myth that you’re progressives. That’s the Republican way.
Dean you seem to love to teach your boys, or at least the older one, life’s lessons. And this would be a golden opportunity. They’ll have a scant few positive images to point to that will look like them. So it seems like you’d jump at the opportunity to show your sons that they too could strive to got to the top just like Obama, instead of the only choices being the same-ole, same-ole white men--McCain or Nadar.
06 May 2008 at 06:57 pm | #
Really? I should vote Obama, not because of what’s best for my country or my planet, but because of the color of my kids?
If Obama wanted to be the real “people’s candidate” he would take the golden opportunity to attack the million ways the Republican’s have screwed up the country and spell out exactly how he would do things differently. I don’t see him differentiating himself at all. Americans DO want to hear that. Of course Republicans don’t and he wants so much to appeal to them, that he’s just going for the “America has great potential, we can do anything we set our mind to” patriotic, nationalistic, whip ‘em into an emotional frenzy message. He wants to create a bunch of Republicans for Obama, like the Democrats for Reagan bunch.
07 May 2008 at 05:31 am | #
Once he gets the nomination, he’ll have the opportunity to attack the Republicans. Right now he has to devote all of his energy to repelling the racist attacks that come from all fronts. I haven’t been following the Greens, Independents or Libertarians but wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve gotten their licks in too. But then the father of a two children that may very well face that scenario in this racist land isn’t concerned about “color.” Funny how white people always say color doesn’t matter but will find every flimsy excuse not to support a black man when the rubber meets the road. And it’s a laugh hearing you, who have treated all Republicans with kid gloves, extended every possible courtesy to your brethren, that someone else is weak on attacking Republicans. But I don’t think you and JJ and MEP in partnership with the rest of the Republicans will be successful this time in your efforts to install another Republican administration!
07 May 2008 at 05:50 am | #
Obama and Clinton are one in the same. The only difference is that Obama names a Republican, Ronald Reagan, as his inspiration. Some choice.
08 May 2008 at 07:37 pm | #
cincysuz,
Aren’t you going to respond to my latest comment (#18), much like do did for my comment #16?
I really am eager to read your response.
09 May 2008 at 11:28 am | #
Oh really? Well first why don’t you explain why you continue to bash the only viable non-Republican candidate for president? Sure, he’s not as progressive as I’d like, but the other choice is Clinton or the McCain/Nadar ticket. I think that like many white people, your motives are race based. You’re looking for an excuse not to support a black male presidential candidate and everything you say on this blog supports that. That would threaten the superiority of you and the other Beacon boys so you choose to support either the old white male that has decade after decade been rejected (you guys always love to say that Gore lost his own state when Nadar never takes anything) but like the ever ready bunny keeps on running, or the other old white male war mongering Republican. The choice would be clear to anyone BUT a hard core conservative. And I’m really eager to read YOUR response. But I don’t expect it.
09 May 2008 at 04:33 pm | #
No Dean, she will ignore you. The democrats haven’t come up with a candidate that’s worth shit. cincysuz knows this, but just likes to give us a hard time.
cincysuz, you should break free from the two-party prison and vote against the war and for reducing the Pentagon budget. You should vote for single-payer health care. Clinton and Obama have taken more health industry payola than even McCain has.
Please provide some evidence to support this slanderous drivel. You won’t because you’re a lying coward, no wonder you’re a corporate Democrat. Actually, if Nader wasn’t running I would vote for Cynthia McKinney.
Gore was an incumbent and couldn’t win his own state or Arkansas and that wasn’t Nader’s fault. 250,000 Florida Democrats voted for the bumbling Governor with a horrible record because Gore ran a crappy campaign. Gore won the election and failed to stand up for African American voters that had been disenfranchised, just like Kerry.
And didn’t you vote for Nader in 2000 or were you just lying when you said that? Everyone that voted for Nader wanted to and the corporate Democrats weren’t entitled to their votes, they failed to earn them. Just think how many people voted for Gore, but really wanted to vote for Nader, but they got punked. Even though he won, he still lost. How pathetic is that?
Please explain how Obama’s not as progressive as you’d like. Nader is as progressive as I’d like. I agree with him on all the issues and it would be foolish to vote out of fear for a candidate that doesn’t represent the issues that I support.
McCain would probably take Leiberman as a running mate. Not much different from Al Bore.
09 May 2008 at 06:07 pm | #
You’ve explained nothing. Cynthia McKinney is a good politician, visible at all the right events in recent years, above average speaker and has become an outspoken progressive. Why is it again that you aren’t choosing her as your candidate? She has the right party affiliation. More of a chance than an Independent. She is a black woman though. And you sure dumped the Green Party at the drop of a hat. You’ve got some strong convictions there. Speaking of progessives, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are as progressive as I’d like, why don’t I write one of them in? Why? Because there’s no chance of either becoming president so it would be a silly, useless game. That vote would be a vote for McCain. And neither does your candidate have a chance. Er, I mean your play candidate, Nadar.
You say Gore is pathetic because he lost? Then what is Nadar? So your selective measure of success is numbers? Kind of wacky for a Green, uh, Independent, uh, Libertarian, uh, Republican. Greendepenlibpublican. Say it three times and click your heals Dorothy. You continue to get punked.
09 May 2008 at 08:20 pm | #
Obama AND Clinton BOTH talked about invading Pakistan. Invading Pakistan. More war. More saber rattling. More commitment to wasting and devaluing human life. More American domination of the world.
The democrats haven’t come up with a candidate that’s worth shit.
12 May 2008 at 04:04 pm | #
Obama and Clinton are one in the same. The only difference is that Obama names a Republican, Ronald Reagan, as his inspiration. Some choice.
Didn’t Ronald Reagan often name Harry S. Truman as an inspiration?
But you are right Dean of Cincinnati in that Obama and Hillary are one in the same.
OBAMA has been supplied with data that confirms the revenue generated from the current 15% capital gains tax is greater than revenue from the 30% capital gains tax that Obama so desparatedly wants. Obama has replied that he wants everyone to pay their fair share. Yet when one person saves $30,000 in capital gains taxes in one year, that $30k goes right back into the economy and generates even more revenue. But Obama does not get it. 70% of those who pay capital gains taxes earn less than $100k per year.
I’M WAITING FOR THE VERY FIRST PERSON TO CHALLENGE OBAMA OR HILLARY on the matter of ECONOMICALLY TARGETED INVESTMENTS. Dean of Cincinnati, I do not know if you recall during the Clinton years when after his hefty tax increase (one of the largest in history) Clinton floated ideas for even more revenue. President Clinton sent Secty of Labor Robert Reich out and about the country promoting ETIs, a program that would require EVERY STATE,FEDERAL AND CORPORATE pension fund to invest as much as 10% of its portfolio into government programs.
Robert Reich gave the following testimony before the Joint Economic Congress Committee on 6-22-94.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/congress/062294rr.htm
Reich concluded the testimony with the following:
I encourage plans to consider such investments when they make their investment decisions. America’s pension funds—$4.6 trillion and still growing—are the stewards of our economic future.
STEWARDS OF OUR ECONOMIC FUTURE? ? ? ?
WHAT HE REALLY MEANT WAS: Stewards of redistribution of wealth..Secretary of Labor Reich made an appearance on McConnell (700WLW) promoting this idea. What a fast-talking weazel!
The City of Cincinnati maintains its own pension fund, currently about $2.3 billion. Imagine the fund taking 10% and placing $230 million into a government program that would not grow at the current rate that some of its investments currently realize. Then there is the Ohio State Teacher Retirment Fund, the Public Employees Retirment System, the SERS, and then take each of the 50 states with each of their funds, plus all of the corporate funds, and then the amount held was $4.9trillion. Now it may be $10 trillion.
If either Obama or Hillary intend to return to this idea - they should it announce it as part of their platform.
Some retirment funds provide health insurance to retirees. In my wife’s recent newsletter from her fund it was made clear that providing health benefits becomes costlier every year for employees as well as the pensioners. I think a 10% hit to its investment portfolio would be devestating.
Plus, this would be a dangerous pescedent for the government to confiscate funds from the nest eggs of millions of U.S. taxpaying citizens.
DO YOU RECALL THAT CLINTON RAN ON A PROMISE TO GIVE A MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT?
Then he rammed through one of the largest tax increases in history.
Then he looked to the private pensions for more.
DO YOU REMEMBER?
There are numerous references to the Clinton attempts to raid the private pension funds in the U.S. Thank God for the Republican takeover in 1995.
GOOGLE SEARCH
Clinton Pension Grab
Economically Targeted Investments
Alicia Munnell
RE: Alicia Munnell: She was an economist with the Boston Federal Resrerve and in 1992 she wrote that the United States has the ability to tax private pensions and the time has come to do it.
In 1993 she was appointed to an economic advisory position in the Clinton Administration:
She called for:
A one time 15% tax on all private pensions including IRA and 401k plan.s
A tax on gains made within your plans.
A tax on employer contributions.
Again, thank God for the Republican takeover of the Senate and Congress in 1995.
Here one time 15% tax would have generated a windfall of possibly $1 trillion to the U.S. Government and Clinton in addition to his tax increases passed in ‘93.
SOURCE: NEW ENGLAND ECONOMIC REVIEW, AUTHOR ALICIA MUNNELL.
: