Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Fans find reality not reported by Enquirer (2007)•Open Letter to John Pepper about Disney Characters (2006)
•More Lack of Coverage from The Cincinnati Enquirer (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Theme Song! Proportional Representation: Easy as A-B-C!
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
I know… You just have to see the amazing lyrics for yourself:
Vote Yes on Issue 8
Vote Yes on Issue 8You don’t need to go to school girl,
To learn the system that we used before.
With Choice voting ya just simply rank em 1,2,3 &4.
Now, now, now
I’m gonna teach you,
all about voting.
Sit yourself down, take a seat
all you gotta do is repeat after me:A B C, PR’s easy as
1 2 3. It’s simply just
Choice voting, A B C, 1 2 3
Democracy
I double-dog dare Jeff Berding to come up with a song for districts as nifty as that little ditty!
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account 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! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
21 Sep 2008 at 08:32 pm | #
Why won’t the song play?
21 Sep 2008 at 08:50 pm | #
It plays on my computer.
Dean, maybe you should make a video with the lyrics and a bouncing ball.
21 Sep 2008 at 09:15 pm | #
Oh yes!!!!
A video is certainly in order....
22 Sep 2008 at 07:23 am | #
How ignorant is that!
24 Sep 2008 at 10:06 am | #
It’s easy as 1, 2, 3 (million dollars to design a system to count those votes, or the extra number of weeks for results if done by hand)
24 Sep 2008 at 03:59 pm | #
Ugh, can you back up your claims? Does it take an extra number of weeks to count those votes in other cities? No, I didn’t think so.
24 Sep 2008 at 08:10 pm | #
Justin Jeffre, can you back up your claims? What cities does it not take an extra number of weeks to count these votes? Any examples? No, I didn’t think so.
Don’t give us examples of towns that are very small. Do us a favor and tell us some that are comparative to Cincinnati. Remember we usually find out our election results by the next morning, if not that night.
24 Sep 2008 at 08:18 pm | #
Uh, who cares how long it takes to count the votes? They don’t take office the next day. It won’t take that long, in the larger scheme of things - and the wait will be worth it if the outcome is better.
25 Sep 2008 at 11:34 am | #
Yee Haw, when Cincinnati had PR in the 40s and the 50s, it didn’t take multiple weeks to count the votes. All that matters is that we have representative government of, for and by the people instead of the Bengals, for the 5/3’s and by the 3CDC’s. And that all the votes are counted.
If we had better representation council wouldn’t be giving our tax dollars away to all their corporate paymasters in the form of $13 million parking garages etc. Improving our democracy is a great investment that will save us money in the long run.
What cities that use PR have chaos? None!
25 Sep 2008 at 01:53 pm | #
"All that matters is that we have representative government of, for and by the people instead of the Bengals, for the 5/3’s and by the 3CDC’s.”
I don’t think PR resolves this Justin. Under PR, monied interests can just as readily get behind slates of candidates and organize voting blocks. I’m very suspicious of this system, for the same reasons I don’t like caucuses and the Electoral College. I don’t want statistical formulas abstracting direct votes. I also don’t want people who get 1-2% of votes to not get counted. I’m surprised you as a third-party champion would want to see this happen under pr’s formula, as effective third parties can garner so much leverage when they consistently demonstrate a loyal voting block.
The better and more genuine reform, in my view, is public financing. We temporarily achieved this before your good friends at COAST overturned it with a well-financed campaigned from undisclosed sources. Public financing would truly offset the influence of big money and big donors. PR doesn’t address this one bit and, in my view, hurts the cause.
25 Sep 2008 at 07:53 pm | #
greg, I think PR gives third parties the best chance of getting elected in an at large system and I’m not alone. That’s why chicken little-who is the poster child for special interest money-is running around saying this will cause “chaos” and is only being pushed by “a fringe group of people”.
This is the same hype we heard about the jail tax from the Democratic Party, Republican Party, the politicians and their corporate paymasters. They said the buildings were going to fall down, criminals would be running the streets and there would be chaos. Well, our broad citizen coalition worked hard to put it on the ballot and the people proved those in power were really the “fringe” group. And I think we have been vindicated by early releases being down and some of the reforms we pushed have eased the problems like we said they would.
As you know, I support public financing, but that’s not on the ballot. My friend Bill Woods and other proponents of public financing support PR too. So please explain to me how PR hurts that cause one bit. I never said that PR is a silver bullet, but it helps and is an important reform. Public funding isn’t a silver bullet either, just ask Obama.
It seems to me that Obama’s flip flop has done more to hurt public financing than anything else, but where’s your critique of that? Name one thing that has done more to hurt public financing on a national level than this. And would you care to dispute the fact that Obama’s taking more Republican and big business than McCain?
Seriously, please explain how PR could hurt public financing. If anything, if PR passes citizens will be inspired to push for more reforms. That’s what happened when we beat your friends super-sized jail tax, isn’t it?
26 Sep 2008 at 06:37 am | #
Please don’t pretend McCain is doing anything righteous. He gets to wear the mantle of public financing while his party and conservative 527’s--which have no limits--take up his cause. This occurs on the left too, but not near to the effect. The role 527’s played in defeating the Dukakais (swift boats and Willie Horton) and Kerry (swift boats) campaigns all came from monies not even associated with the Bush campaign. Obama would’ve set himself up for failure. Moreover, Obama was sitting on an Internet-driven fundraising campaign fueled by millions of small donations--people like me who donate in $15-25 increments.
When you say Obama takes more from big business, I don’t know what you are talking about. He takes no corporate PAC money, and why would corporations choose him over McCain, who wants to make permanent Bush tax policies largely weighted to the top?
I know Bill Woods very well, Justin. Indeed, he was largely responsible for me getting hired when I directed CCR, we shared an office for many years, and we worked together on the public financing ballot initiative that your friends at COAST helped defeat with undisclosed money from elite sources. Bill, like most good Charterites, supports PR, and I don’t question their motives. I just sincerely disagree that PR represents fundamental reform, and I don’t like in principle a system that erases real votes. For example, you got aprox 1.5% of the vote when you ran for Council in 07. Why shouldn’t your aprox. 7,000 or so voters have counted? Under PR, their votes would have been actuarially realigned towards a candidate who many of your supporters might not have liked? Seems to me utterly undemocratic and disempowering. When I say PR detratcs from the cause of public financing it is becasue I wish this grassroots coalition would get behind something that I beleive would really fundamentally reform city elections and level the playing field. I don’t see that PR would do this. I’d probably support districts before PR.
I agree that you have been vindicated on the jail issue. This plan came out of nowhere for most of us. If you recall, I signed your petition to put it on the ballot. I wanted there to be time for more scrutiny and a citizen voice. When I had a chance to learn about the plan, 51% of me decided to support it because I became convinced its focus was on attacking recidivism--the monitored personal re-entry programs for each and every inmate, the fact that new plan would yield a new facility but not actually add many new cells, etc. I believed the plan represented genuine jail reform with its programming while replacing a dehumanizing facility in Queensgate. When non-profits I worked with over the years backed the plan, it gave the plan more credibility for me. In fact, they were far more influencing of my decision than any politician or party. But in hindsight I think what I supported about the plan ($30 million in programming for things like drug rehab, rehabilitation, programs targeting drop-outs, etc.) could have been done without the jail, and if the programming were executed, it would have further reduced the need for a new jail. In the context of 2007 election, I knew my support for the plan would hurt me politically(it’s not like people who underwrote the Issue donated to me or voted for me). In hindsight, I wish I advocated for an alternative that said lets try for comprehensive programming that attacks recidivism, etc., before we try for a new jail. I wish I had had more time to scrutinize the plan and think about it, but in the context of the election I had to take a public stand despite significant personal reservations and resentment about how the plan was sprung upon us. But hey, I got it right in 02 as a congressional candidate when I fiercely advocated against going to war against Iraq despite 90% support. I wish foresight was 20/20.
BTW, I never thought the opposition to the plan was “fringe groups.” This never came out of my mouth. I have always complimented COAST for its effectiveness even while disagreeing with them on most issues. And I certainly didn’t think the jail plan would win at the ballot. I told people privately it would fail by 8-10 points. (I think it failed by more.) When you spring this kind of investment on taxpayers in a post-stadium era, you’d better first set aside a substantial process for engagement and review. This necessary process didn’t occur. In my former work as an organizer, our public interest work was always rooted in direct grassroots outreach (which must include a lot of listening). My anti-sprawl work with CCR, for example, ultimately engaged 4,000 citizens in community meetings in just one-year.
26 Sep 2008 at 06:39 am | #
re. Dukakais, I meant to say quotas & Willie Horton
26 Sep 2008 at 01:26 pm | #
Please don’t pretend I ever said McCain has ever done anything “righteous”. To do so is quite disingenuous. You no damn well I don’t support John McCain so don’t try to use twisted logic that Obama and the Democrats are entitled to my vote. Obama hurt public financing more than anyone else has. You can try and make excuses for him, but it’s a fact. Nader’s and other third party candidates are the only one’s talking about real election reform.
Obama has pushed the small donor fallacy, but it just not true. Now business donors bypass McCain and shower cash on Obama. Michael Moore sent out an email January 3rd asking why he was taking more health industry payola than any other candidate besides Clinton.
As you know, I support public financing and had nothing to do with COAST’s efforts to overturn it. I agreed with the NAACP, COAST and many other groups that the jail tax was unneeded. The people that funded their campaign against public funding were probably the same people that funded your friends super-sized jail tax campaign, don’t you think? The people rejected it and early releases are down. COAST was right on that and so was every other group in our coalition.
I’d be happy to work with you, Bill and my other progressive friends on other election reforms, but they aren’t on the ballot, PR is and I support it. You can oppose it, but I think that third parties do better in cities with PR. I think you would have a better chance under PR Greg. It’s OK if you disagree, but don’t act like you’re surprised I’m working on an electoral reform that many of our friends agree with.
Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry all lost because they run to the right and become Republican lite. Perot saved Clinton. The Republicans don’t run to the left, they play to their base while the Democrats ignore their base.
26 Sep 2008 at 07:54 pm | #
Justin,
I like and respect you, but also disagree with you. These disagreements aren’t so much philosophical as they are rooted in differing approaches to how one can pragmatically effect change and advance agendas.
I very much support Obama’s agenda, and tend to mistrust those who cast Obama as being little different than his opponent when the issues he raises and the way he votes and his very being/background are very much unlike McCain’s.
I don’t understand your point about my twisting your logic. I simply inferred that in faulting Obama for opting out of public financing that you’d conversely prefer that McCain opted in. The fact of one opting out and the other opting in says little about how they are waging their campaigns. And Obama’s primary mode of fundraising, in my view, is very unique and empowering. I wasn’t claiming you like McCain; what bothers me more is that you conflate McCain and Obama.
Read the scorecards of the progressive groups that I’m sure you value--from Sierra Club to AFL-CIO--and you will see that in their view, Obama and McCain are very much non-alike. I’m to ignore what unions, civil/human rights organizations, women’s rights organizations, environmental organizations all say because Ralph Nader tells me to? This is besides the fact that when I hear and read about Obama’s positions, I’m with him in most cases. My support of him on most matters prevents me from screaming “sellout” in the instances when I am not with him.
The fact of the matter is that public finance laws written over three decades ago didn’t account for the role of 527’s (and their forbearers). Obama would be insane to set himself up for their onslaught. I’m sure he anticipates being subjected to the worst kind of smear offensive imaginable, and he wants to be ready. These rightwing groups have used fear and race-baiting effectively in the past (Willie Horton, quotas, the innuendoes that undermined Harold Ford’s TN senate race and even McCain’s 2000 prez campaign, etc). The viral propaganda on the blogsphere and talk radio implying Obama is a Muslim (which shouldn’t be an insult), or a Black Nationalist, etc., is just a preview of things to come. He needs to be armed and ready, and would be a fool not to be. He cannot legally coordinate with progressive 527’s, and I think Obama is right to not leave it to chance that they would come to his defense in an adequate way.
As far as the articles you link, I don’t know what they prove—that is, if you ignore the reporter’s angle. The Post reporter says he cannot verify Obama’s claim that 90 percent of the individuals who contributed to his campaign were small donors, but then admits 65 percent of Obama’s fundraising totals come from “small” donations. This strikes me as a pretty good ratio, and it seems to me that 90% of his donors could well be responsible for 65% of his pot. Moreover, this ratio will presumably improve because the small donors are often repeating donors, while the donors who max out cannot repeat their donations. As for the WSJ, all this reporter is saying is that individuals employed in the “business-sector” gave more to Clinton and Obama than they did McCain. The private sector is pretty vast, and I don’t quite understand the logic behind finding fault that folks employed in the private sector gave more to the Dem’s in the PRIMARY season when the Democrats had a far more active & competitive primary underway (the article you cite is from last April).
I don’t think the Dem’s ignore their base. You look at the scorecards of most civil rights, human rights, environmental and labor org’s, and Dem’s far more frequently score very high on the legislation they track. Ths would indicate that the base that supports Dem’s aren’t a bunch of duped sheep.
Despite your apparent earlier swipes at Berding, you seem to ignore the prominent role that Cecil Thomas and Mayor Mallory played last Sat in urging local Dem’s to not endorse PR. Why?
I might have fun playing the role of an ideological purist who spends all his time claiming everyone else but me is an inauthentic sellout. And I think Nader is pretty audacious to play this role against Obama. I wish he could articulate his own agenda rather than spending so much tearing down someone who really doesn’t deserve such scorn.
27 Sep 2008 at 04:13 pm | #
Greg, I like and respect you, but also disagree with you.
Obama’s a corporate candidate from A to Z. Obama is the same as McCain on major issues like FISA, the Patriot Act (shreds our constitution), NAFTA and free trade (this is bad for unions and the environment), no to a living wage, pay or die health care (bad for workers and businesses), saying yes to Nuclear (bad for the environment), yes to offshore drilling (bad for the environment), yes to corporate welfare, the failed War on Drugs (2.2 million in jail), the War on Terror (good for the military industrial complex), increasing the Pentagon budget, keeping private mercanaries in Iraq, sending more troops to Afghanistan and I can go on.
Again, Obama’s flip flop on public financing hurts public financing. As someone that has worked on this issue, I’m surprised you are making excuses for him on this. He doesn’t need it and groups like MoveOn raise a lot of money too.
The AFL-CIO is supporting Republican Greg Hartman instead of a union member and loyal Democrat, Chris Dole. The Sierra Club gives Tom Brinkman a high rating too, but I think we need to look at the big picture. Nader has a better record on all these issues and has been instrumental in the creation of the EPA, OHSA, and legislation like the Clean Air Act, CLean Water Act and he started over 100 public interest groups to work on all these issues. When you contrast Nader’s record with Obama’s there’s simply no comparison.
The facts are clear. These industries knew who the Republican nominee was. They always hedge their bets with the corporate canididates, but they’re giving more to Obama now.
On the small donor fallacy, 36% is a lot different from 90%. But sure, let’s take Obama’s word on it. Well, maybe not.
The Dems do ignore their base. They’ve opposed all of the NAACP’s petition drives. The support free trade along with big business, not fair trade. They keep funding the war that they voted for. People sent them to Congress with a mandate to end it and they increased the amount of money for it.
I don’t know why I should care that Mallory and Thomas oppose PR. They are in power and support their party. They supported the jail tax too. Thomas pushed the draconian anti-marijuana ordinance that disproportionately locks up black men and he says he’d make it a dry county if he could. They were wrong and haven’t provided any real leadership on important issues.
Nader articulates his own agenda just fine, he just get shut out of the debates by your party and the Republican party because he might offend their corporate paymasters. His agenda is simple, single-payer health care, reduce the bloated Pentagon budget, full military and corporate withdrawal from Iraq, a living wage, election reform, end corporate welfare and personhood, repeal NAFTA, repeal the Patriot Act, aggressive crackdown on corporate crime, fraud and abuse, No to Nuclear and Yes to Solar, a speculation tax, a carbon tax, reversal of foreign policy in the Middle East and the list goes on.
Nader has a strong record of working for the public interest, Obama’s is one of working for the corporate interest. Obama isn’t progressive, he’s a corporate shill and his voting record proves it.
As if Obama and the Democrats don’t try to tear down “somebody that doesn’t deserve such scorn”. Gore-Leiberman ran a crappy campaign where they couldn’t win Gore’s own state or Clinton’s state. They actually won the election and let it be stolen. Instead of standing up for black voters and going after the crooks they choose to scapegoat Nader for standing for all the issues they should have represented, but were too beholden to the corporations to stand up for the public interest.
27 Sep 2008 at 07:48 pm | #
“The Dems do ignore their base. They’ve opposed all of the NAACP’s petition drives.”
Ok, I see. You define the Democratic base as being the NAACP. So last Saturday when the Dem’s followed the recommendations of our mayor--who happens to be black and who happened to have received an overwhelming majority of black votes when elected mayor--in voting against endorsing two NAACP initiatives, we were in turn neglecting our base? If we had gone against the recommendations of Mayor Mallory and Councilman Thomas, then I guess by your logic we would have been truer to our base—as represented by the NAACP members outside the meeting who were all wearing Chabot t-shirts. Crowley, who received the highest score by the NAACP in its recent report card, also spoke against both initiatives. I guess he ignores his base too? Mallory, Thomas, Crowley, et. al., all take for granted the Democratic base, eh? Well, for me they represent the power of our base. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
As for your attack against Obama (who by your logic must also not represent the Dem base, just like Mayor Mallory?), your statements on nuclear energy, healthcare, etc., lack context, and you play simplification to your advantage when the realities of the legislative process and its give and take are far more complex than you allow. Only in your world of absolutisms are any of your statements about him accurate.
For example, because Obama believes we have some moral obligation to the Iraqi people to ensure its institutions (government, legal, military, etc.) are stable and industries and utilities functioning before we draw down, and therefore didn’t support an immediate elimination of funding commitments, you arrive at the conclusion that he supports “the War on Terror (good for the military industrial complex), increasing the Pentagon budget, keeping private mercenaries in Iraq, sending more troops to Afghanistan and I can go on.”
So Nader does not support war on terrorism and sending “more troops to Afghanistan?” Why then that must mean that Nader supports a return to the Taliban regime. The Taliban regime was an undemocratic theocracy that stripped women of any rights and treated them as servants. Hence, Ralph Nader supports oppressive theocracies and brutality against women.
Now obviously my conclusions are illogical and rash. But they directly parallel your manner of thinking and deductive logic when you attack Obama as a “corporate shill” and all other manner of dramatic putdowns. In my view, Obama is so much bigger than your caricatures. So again, let’s just agree to disagree.
28 Sep 2008 at 01:05 pm | #
Yes the NAACP is an important part of the Corporate Democratic Party’s base. Blacks make up almost half of the population in this city and they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, but the party doesn’t make sure their votes are counted or support their issues.
The Corporate Democrats lobbied NAFTA (the job killing trade agreement) along with big business against worker, consumer and environmental rights groups. It sent millions of good jobs overseas.
Yes! The color of the Mayor’s skin doesn’t mean he represents the black community any more than Ken Blackwell. What has the Mayor done for the black community? Cecil Thomas passed a draconian law that is disproportionately locking up black men. And they both went around trying to convince the Black community we need a new regressive jail tax when we clearly didn’t.
They represent those with power. You know, the corporations and rich CEO’s of 3CDC. If the Democratic Party represented the people we wouldn’t have a third world infant mortality rate or be ranked third most impoverished city in the nation despite the great wealth of all these fortune 500 corporations. The Democratic Party gives away our tax dollars to their corporate paymasters and votes to defund health and human services.
Give me a break Greg! Are you trying to say that Obama doesn’t support keeping a for-profit (pay or die) health care system that allows greedy insurance and pharmaceutical companies to make a profit? If so, please provide context and back up your claim.
Are you saying that Obama doesn’t support nuclear? Again, please explain. A simple yes or no is all that’s needed, but by all means try to justify this position.
All of my statements about Obama are true. If you think they aren’t true please provide some evidence. You can’t just make the man’s platform and voting record disappear by saying I’m in a world of “absolutisms” and using “simplification” to my advantage. Obama’s running for president. We know what his voting record is and what he says his positions are. It’s a matter of public record. You can agree or disagree with his positions, but don’t pretend he doesn’t support those positions.
We have no moral obligation to continue the military and corporate occupation. The bipartisan US occupation has killed over 1 million innocent Iraqi’s. We aren’t creating stability in the country, that’s why the Iraqi people want us out now. We need to call for a full military and corporate withdrawal and pay reparations so the Iraqi people can rebuild their country.
Nader presented a plan for a responsible withdrawal back in 2004, but the undemocratic Democratic War Party shut him out of the debates and launched 23 lawsuits to knock him off of ballots. They also ran a pro-war candidate and got the peace movement (another ignored part of their base)to take a year off so they wouldn’t embarrass John Kerry.
The so called War on Terrorism is a farce. You can’t declare war on a tactic, especially when it is the US that has been engaging in terrorism in the Middle East for over 50 years. The Taliban is in Afghanistan and it is not for the US to decide how the string of tribal provinces known as Afghanistan should be governed. Nobody invited the US military there. It is a brutal foreign occupation.
Greg, your conclusions are illogical and rash. Again please provide some evidence to back up your claims. Obama says he’ll keep private contractors in Iraq. He says he’ll increase the Pentagon budget.
These are the facts Greg. You can pretend that I’m just making these things up, being “illogical and rash”, using “simplification to my advantage”, but what you can’t do is prove me wrong because these are facts that people can research themselves. I assumed you would have a better understanding of your candidate’s position.
28 Sep 2008 at 07:01 pm | #
"We know what his voting record is and what he says his positions are. It’s a matter of public record. You can agree or disagree with his positions, but don’t pretend he doesn’t support those positions.”
Justin, I only need repeat what I said in my prior post: “you play simplification to your advantage when the realities of the legislative process and its give and take are far more complex than you allow.”
Because our legislative bodies aren’t utopist bastions of liberalism, people of various political persuasions need to compromise to cut deals. This may mean, for example, legislation is brokered that allows for nuclear energy in some areas of the country in return for $150 billion in investment in alternative energy over the next 10 years (which is what Obama advocates). You can look at any piece of legislation and cherry pick those elements that don’t complement your purist worldview. But no legislator, no matter how progressive, would pass your test--that is, unless that legislator was an absolutist who voted against everything that didn’t fit his/her ideological agenda to perfection.
“Yes the NAACP is an important part of the Corporate Democratic Party’s base. Blacks make up almost half of the population in this city and they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.”
Justin, you seem to not get that the NAACP does not represent “half of the population in this city.” It is a proud organization that represents its several hundred members. But our community is home to several hundred thousand Africans Americans. The hundreds of thousands of blacks who live in our region declare who will represent them at the ballot box. I almost don’t want to dignify your assertion that “the color of the Mayor’s skin doesn’t mean he represents the black community any more than Ken Blackwell.” In reality, blacks (and whites) quite literally voted for him to represent them as Mayor. Interesting that you as a non-Democrat want to posit how Democrats should behave, and that you as a white guy want to say that Mallory and Obama betray the very blacks that have or will vote for them. Maybe they know what they are doing. And maybe you are over-reaching.
Finally, you provide many links to independent sites and blogs authored by people who I never heard of in order to support your points. With all due respect, I don’t think anyone who owns a computer and starts a site is automatically a credible source of information. In your last post, for example, you provided a link to one such site when even the Beacon’s publisher was unable to verify its claims. Don’t you realize that I could also go online and find support for all my viewpoints too? You “evidence” is mostly just evidence that there are people out there who agree with you.
“The Taliban is in Afghanistan and it is not for the US to decide how the string of tribal provinces known as Afghanistan should be governed.”
Well, I think we have a say when these provinces provide cover to folks who commit terrorist acts against us. Moreover, your logic resembles that of folks who would have us do nothing in areas of the world like Rwanda and Sudan.
Again, lets just agree to disagree. There’s really no point prolonging this debate, as you and I have other things to do.
29 Sep 2008 at 02:02 pm | #
Yes Greg, our legislative bodies are corporatist bastions of neo-liberalism where various political persuasions are prevented from participation through ballot access barriers, corporate controlled debates, gerrymandering and a corrupt campaign finance system. The corporate parties agree on most issue like NAFTA, FISA, the Patriot Act, Military and corporate occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, pay or die health care, corporate welfare and corporate personhood, saying yes to nuclear and more offshore drilling etc.
What a cop out! Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold are good representatives that don’t put the corporate interest above the public interest. I don’t think they are “absolutist” with a “purist” world view that use “simplification to their advantage”. I think they are rare examples of principled and consistent public servants.
Greg, the NAACP led coalition represents people from across the political spectrum and instead of imposing things on voters without public support they give people a chance to vote. The NAACP represents several thousands of members (not hundreds) and had the support of the majority of black and white voters in Hamilton County in putting the jail tax on the ballot and defeating it despite the hype that Mallory and Thomas told them that we needed. They are irrelevant to the issue.
As a taxpaying citizen I have every right to criticize the corporate parties that fail to represent me or the public interest though they claim to. Are you saying that the War on Drugs and the draconian anti-marijuana ordinance which disproportionately lock up black males are good policies that help the black community and are good policies? Do you support these policies? Or are you trying to say that’s not Obama’s position?
The Philadelphia Inquirer is not a “blog”, it’s a newspaper that reported on how 12 people have been indicted for conspiring to knock Nader off of the ballot while working on the taxpayer’s dime.
Obama’s small donor fallacy was from The Washington Post, Business donors bypass McCain was from The Wall Street Journal. My link about Obama’s flip flop that hurts public financing was from Democracy Now! Which is on Pacifica Radio. Amy Goodman is an award winning journalist. She interviewed Massie Ritsch, Communications Director of the Center for Responsive Politics and John Rauh, founder and president of Americans for Campaign Reform, a nonpartisan group that supports public funding for congressional and presidential elections. Obama’s record is part of the public record and the list we ran contains the link where people can cross check it themselves. Thomas.loc.gov. We asked a leader in your party to comment and he ran from it. You all want to run from his record. I’m not scared of my candidates record so why are you?
Greg, you’ve failed to provide any evidence that anything I said about Obama’s record and positions aren’t true. If this was a debate (Democrats are scared of debates) you would have defended Obama’s positions using logic and facts instead of pretending that my links were just bloggers that agree with me and that my views aren’t really valid because they are vaguely “purist”, “absolutist”, and simply a mere “simplification”. That’s not a debate Greg, that’s just a way to side step the issues and the facts.
Your logic resembles that of the Bush doctrine, of unconstitutional and unilateral preemptive strikes. That’s what Obama has said about a strike on Pakistan. I believe in working with the world community and we were not attacked by Afghanistan. It is a poor defenseless country that was ravaged by the US and the Soviet Union. It contains oil rich lands and according to the Carter doctrine that gives us a right to control it. Well that ain’t right.
This isn’t really a debate Greg, this is you simply saying that I’m an “absolutist” with a “purist world view” that uses “simplification to my advantage”. You are pretending that I’m misrepresenting Obama’s record and positions, but you aren’t backing it up. You are also claiming that I don’t understand how government works.
You started off by saying that PR hurts public financing, but failed to make the case. Then you started trying to defend Obama’s flip flop that really did hurt public financing. Then you started trying to say the reporters have an “angle”. Now you’re saying they are just bloggers and my views are too simplistic to debate. If you’re not up for a debate on Obama’s positions and record Greg, can you please find me a Democrat that is?
Thanks!
29 Sep 2008 at 04:09 pm | #
"The corporate parties agree on most issue like NAFTA”
Obama wants to add more worker and environmental protections and will negotiate accordingly with Mexico and Canada. He will leverage his ability to withdraw from the trade agreement if these safeguards and protections are not installed. He will also enact Sherrod Brown’s legislation on workforce development so unskilled workers can get the skills they need to land jobs in high demand occupations in areas such as advanced manufacturing.
“Military and corporate occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan”
Obama wants to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months--contractors and our military. He wants to add 6,000 in Afghanistan to help quell the Taliban resurgence.
“pay or die health care”
Obama will expand access to healthcare by subsidizing access to federal h.c. and making the federal plan available to anyone—thereby making private insurers compete with federal h.c. In my view, the federal plan will increasingly win this competition because most its dollars go towards direct treatment; it’s noit burdened by all the profit-making layers (fleecing) of the private system. He’ll eliminate screening for pre-existing conditions, give credits to small businesses so they can start providing h.c. for employees (federal or private), have the federal gov’t cover catastrophic care which will help drive down the costs of insurance, expand access to Medicaid so more of the poor are insured, expand CHIP so all children are covered, etc. I prefer a system of Medicare for all, but I think Obama’s plan is more likely to pass through congress and will at least help tens of millions to acquire new insurance immediately. McCain will do nothing of the sort.
“corporate welfare and corporate personhood”
Obama will eliminate $300 billion is tax policies weighted towards corporations and those making over $250k and redirect tax relief towards middle class tax payers, $4000 tuition tax credits, $15 billion annually for alternative energy investment, etc. As stated repeatedly in his stump speeches and the debate, Obama will reverse policies of “trickle-down.”
“saying yes to nuclear and more offshore drilling etc.”
Obama will do this if it means winning Republican votes and a filibuster-proof majority in order to get approval for his plan to invest $150 billion in alternative energy
“Obama has said about a strike on Pakistan”
If there’s actionable intelligence that an Al Qaeda target is retreating across the Paki border, Obama will authorize a strike. In this sense, he upholds the aspect of the Bush Doctrine that doesn’t distinguish between terrorism and the countries that provide safe harbor for terrorists. Unlike Bush, Obama will refocus military engagement on Al Qaeda. Yes, we abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet’s left; that doesn’t mean we allow the perpetuators of 911 a free pass. Obama will also dramatically increase foreign aid.
I disagree with Obama on FISA; I’d go about h.c. reform differently. But I don’t need to make the perfect the enemy of the good for someone to win my vote. Obama can win. Nader would be a wasted vote. And even in an imaginary world where Nader could win, I don’t think he’d have the ability to work with the types of poeple you need to work with in order to move legislation. I’ll settle for the guy who I agree with 80-90% of the time.
“You started off by saying that PR hurts public financing, but failed to make the case.”
My case is simply that we are wasting grassroots energy on something that is no solution and, if enacted, quite undemocratic because it will literally eliminate votes. Such initiatives detract from what I believe should be the real fight: measures to lessen or offset the influence of monied interests in politics such as public financing, free airtime, etc. PR is to reform what Patients Bill of Rights is to healthcare, a non-solution solution.
Despite your claims that I haven’t debated you, I have contested many of your points and haven’t just resorted to calling you an ideologue. In these series of exchanges, for ex., I cast doubt in your questioning of Obama’s claim that his supporter is primarily from small donors. Even the so-called article you linked admitted 2/3 of his funds are from small donors. As to your points on energy, I said Obama would allow investment in areas he didn’t nec. agree with if it enabled passage of the sizeable investment he wants to make in alt. energy.
As for NAACP, they don’t represent the Democratic base. It is a non-profit organization. The Democratic base is represented by the folks who elect it. You patronizingly act as though the tens of thousands of blacks who backed Mallory or the tens of millions who will back Obama are somehow sheep who don’t know what’s good for them. Tell me Justin, why are you so much smarter than the legion of African American voters who vote for Af. American candidates?
Finally, in the future can we debate over a cheeseburger or something? This really has taken up more time than nec.
29 Sep 2008 at 04:13 pm | #
It better be a locally grown, organize cheeseburger, or veggie burger. I can’t believe you’d support the agricultural industrial complex!
29 Sep 2008 at 05:50 pm | #
..
V
29 Sep 2008 at 06:10 pm | #
It’s always frustrating dealing with Justin and the Dean on issues that involve the NAACP. Though they make rash accusations against people they claim don’t support the NAACP and call them racists, they actually partner with people that the national NAACP has declared unfriendly to black issues. I’ve cited that evidence from vote-smart.org on this site. Justin claims that Obama and McCain are no different on the issues but their positions are clearly stated on the national NAACP site. Everything from treatment of ex-offenders, racial profiling, affirmative action, judgeships, mandatory minimum sentencing, prison education, disparate handling of juveniles in the justice system and much more. Their positions are very different. But despite so much evidence, the Beacon insists otherwise. In other words, they lie.
http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2008-02-01/Responses.McCain_Obama.FINAL.pdf
You say: “As for NAACP, they don’t represent the Democratic base. It is a non-profit organization. The Democratic base is represented by the folks who elect it. You patronizingly act as though the tens of thousands of blacks who backed Mallory or the tens of millions who will back Obama are somehow sheep who don’t know what’s good for them. Tell me Justin, why are you so much smarter than the legion of African American voters who vote for Af. American candidates?”
And that’s it in a nutshell. The arrogance.
29 Sep 2008 at 08:46 pm | #
"If you’re not up for a debate on Obama’s positions and record Greg, can you please find me a Democrat that is?”
I just re-read your post and somehow missed this. Am I “up” for debating you? Please.
I make my living in public policy, Justin. I subscribe to legislative tracking services, newsletters, policy journals, capital briefings, etc. I literally have all these tools at my fingertips. If I wanted to, I could pull up every piece of legislation Obama ever voted on and tell you all its variables. Indeed, providing legislative analysis is part of my daily work. I could break your server with article links out your asshole. So please don’t act like you smacked me down or something. Let’s just keep this at the level of causal blog banter.
You remind me of a college kid who just returned from his freshman year at Swarthmore, newly radicalized by his favorite history professor, who spends his Christmas break antagonizing his parents for being such sellouts. How does one even begin to debate against your endless hyperbole? “Corporatist bastions of neo-liberalism” . . . “corporate paymasters” . . . “military industrial complex” . . . sounds like the rhetoric of a retread whose glory years were four decades ago. Telling me I can’t cite the fact of an African American mayor and his legions of voters because, well, that mayor is in power now, so surely would be against any reforms, and well, P & G must own him by now . . . just as big business owns all of us Dem’s.
Obama is raising money from legions of everyday people who are making small donations. They comprise 90% of his donors. They are the new power base. They are transforming the Democratic Party. They are responsible for knocking off a political powerhouse in Hillary Clinton. And they may well win Obama the White House. Go ahead and belittle this. Obama is bringing to fruition what Howard Dean took for a test drive. It’s de facto campaign finance reform powered by Al Gore’s greatest invention.
30 Sep 2008 at 12:06 pm | #
First, that’s what Clinton-Gore said when they lobbied NAFTA with Big Business against labor, consumer and environmental groups. It was after all, Clinton’s signature accomplishment.
Obama was talking real tough about NAFTA while campaigning against Hillary in Ohio saying it was “devastating” and “a big mistake”. But then he won the nomination, flip flopped and said, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,”.
Is that change we can believe in?
Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices.
The problem is American workers can’t compete with child and slave labor from dictatorships. There has to be some protection. The WTO and NAFTA are systems of transnational forms of autocratic governance that subordinates our own courts and regulatory agencies in health, environment, labor and consumer standards.
These are pull down agreements where corporations write the rules. They open doors and create trap doors so we end up with bad food, poisoned toys and no regulation for safety. Clinton-Gore surrendered our territorial soverignty and constitutional principles to global corporations. I thought you would support fair trade and our national soverignty.
That’s not true. He has said he will withdraw “combat troops”, but he has repeatedly said he will keep a residual force and he said he will keep the private contractors there. You can watch the video of him saying this.
At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military and he will increase the Pentagon budget.
Pay or die whealth care
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”
Obama supports corporate welfare and won’t challenge corporate personhood.
That ain’t change we can believe in. his alternative energy plan includes nuclear, more off shore oil drilling and Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow.
Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.
What about his support for the Patriot Act?
Does that mean you support a single-payer system like Nader proposes and a majority of Americans and a majority of Doctors support?
What do we win if Obama wins? More money for the bloated Pentagon budget, more war, more private mercenaries, more bailouts and corporate welfare, more pay or die health care, more constitution shredding (FISA, Patriot Act), more Drug War, more nuclear and off shore oil drilling, more free trade and corporate globalization (where corporations write the rules), status quo on Israel/Palestine and more corporate crime fraud and abuse.
That’s not change, it’s more corporate control and a wasted vote.
Nader’s record as a private citizen:
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Consumer credit disclosure law
Consumer Product Safety Act
Co-Op Bank Bill
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Freedom of Information Act
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency
Medical Devices safety
Mine Health and Safety Act
Mobile home safety
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Nuclear power safety
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Pension protection law
Safe Water Drinking Act
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Whistleblower Protection Act
Wholesome Meat Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
I don’t think so Greg Harris, but I do think this is the first post in this thread where you’ve taken on any real issues instead of just calling me an ideologue. I disagree with you on PR, but I’m happy to work with you on campaign finance reform in the future. Why won’t the Democrats take on election reform? They are so status quo!
This isn’t about African American voters voting for African American candidates. Mallory had his daddies name and rolodex, he was running against David Pepper, but isn’t much different. What’s he done? This is about corporate parties and corporate candidates shutting out people’s choices like the Green Party’s historic all woman of color ticket.
Why do the Corporate Democrats shut them out of debates and create extreme ballot access barriers. Why do they deter democracy at even the local and county level? (Weren’t you a part of that last deal to limit voter choice too?)
Why are black and white voters denied the opportunity to hear from black and white candidates that stand for single-payer health care, ending the war, reducing the Pentagon budget, reprealing NAFTA, repealing the Patriot Act, banning private mercenaries, ending the war, ending the racist drug war and cracking down on corporate crime fraud and abuse?
Because the Democratic and Republican parties (and the corporations that own them) have rigged the “debates”, deterred democracy and are spoiling our country! They are beholden to the corporations and rule by use of fear.
Obama’s getting more Republican money and big business money than McCain. He’s hurt campaign finance reform and you’d admit it if you were dedicated to the issue. The Democratic Party’s function is to suck the wind out of movements for peace (Kerry2004) and justice(2000 &2004). That’s been their role throughout history. And Al Gore didn’t invent the internet silly. Talk about hyperbole!
01 Oct 2008 at 08:40 am | #
Justin, I have absolutely no doubt that you can find any kind of “evidence” you need to say Obama is insincere about everything he says he wants to do. I could play this game, and play it much better than you.
Anyone can play this game. For example, at a time when you say Obama is insincere about wanting to withdraw troops and contractors (although even in the link you cite, Obama says “I want them out in the same way"--the “them” being contractors and military), McCain is literally running ads saying Obama wanted to cut off funding for our troops. I’m sure McCain has “evidence” to support his claim, just as you have eveidence to support your opposite claim about Obama.
You can find motions that Obama voted against to say he’s insincere about fair trade, and I could respond by saying he voted against CAFTA, Columbia, and other free trade agreements, and pledged to amend existing ones to ensure better environmental and worker protections. He also proposed a plan called the “Patriot Employers Act” to incentivize against offshoring by lowering the corporate tax rate for global companies that maintain their headquarters in the U.S., hold a neutral (as opposed to oppositional) position in union drives among their employees and provide decent healthcare. But of course, you would then respond by citing one of your sources “proving” he’s not sincere about this.
We can go back and forth all day.
But in the end, Obama will never pass your far left ideological purity test because you live in the self-satisfied Naderite world that enjoys the luxury of its opinions without ever having to broker compromise with those whose opinions are opposite your own.
So yeah, you and Michael Moore and Ralph Nader can decry Obama’s healthcare plan. And I may ever share your sentiments. But I also know that even FDR and Truman couldn’t pass universal healthcare in a depression. And you, Ralph and Michael don’t have to pass a filibuster-proof plan through a Congress divided 50/50.
And this goes for all major issues. Obama is determined to advance legislation to expand healthcare coverage, revise our trade agreements, withdraw our troops for Iraq , etc. But in most cases he has to advance these issues in a way that brings along a filibuster proof, politically divided congress. This is why I think the Naderites are irresponsible. You guys just want to engage in ideological trench warfare.
I think Nader’s track record as a consumer advocate is stupendous, and I wish he were running for Attorney General in some state somewhere. But instead he gets to be the eccentric millionaire who never experienced the obligations of an officeholder or of a family and instead always gets to do whatever the hell he wants to do and say whatever he wants to say while traveling the country with his merry band of enablers. I will in the mean time devote my energy to a guy who actually has a chance of winning and who I think has the ability to move the country in a more progressive direction despite having to work with powerful folks who aren’t as progressive as he is.
Finally, I said a lot in my earlier posts about PR and why I think it’s ultimately undemocratic; about Obama’s reasons for a phased withdraw from Iraq; about his stances on trade, healthcare, etc. You ignore all these points and say instead that all I do is call you an ideologue. Well, okay, lets just leave it at that then. You are an ideologue. Enjoy the trench warfare. You’ll gain little ground.
As I said in one of my earlier posts (which apprently were all empty by your standards), our “disagreements aren’t so much philosophical as they are rooted in differing approaches to how one can pragmatically effect change and advance agendas.” I can readily advocate my most pure vision for America, and naysay everyone who doesn’t fit that vision to a tee. But I beleive that would serve no cause beyond the cause of my own self-righteousness.
At the level of presidential politics, you do it your way, I’ll do it mine. That said, at the level of local and state politics, I think we would find a good deal of common ground. I think the power of the ballot initiative could really yield reforms like universal healthcare (state level), living wages, campaign finance reform, etc. The trick is finding the means of support to offset the counter-force of very well-heeled interests who could defeat reforms in a smiliar manner to what your good friends at COAST employed to defeat public financing of elections in Cincinnati.
01 Oct 2008 at 10:53 am | #
Greg, you can try to pretend that Obama doesn’t support keeping private contractors in Iraq, but people can watch him saying it on line. They can also read award winning investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill’s reports in the Nation, Democracy Now! or his award winning book on Blackwater. Jeremy Scahill has won awards for his reporting, but go ahead and just campare his reporting to a McCain ad.
There’s a difference Greg. I’m not playing any games and I’m not trying to marginalize your views by talking about what I think about your world view.
As far as Obama’s insincerity on NAFTA, he’s the one that said “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,”. The bottom line is he was talking tough on the campaign trail in Ohio and did a huge flip flop afterwards. He also told the Canadian government that he was going to be hitting NAFTA hard in the primaries, but it was just rhetoric.
There you go again. You can excuse any kind of bad policies with that kind of rhetoric. It’s sad you have to go back over 50 years to find Democratic President that pushed for single-payer. There are law makers that stand for principles and push for single-payer.
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Isn’t Obama supposed to be a leader giving us hope for change?
Obama’s own statements contradict what you’re saying on NAFTA. He’s for free trade and says he’s always been for free trade. Free trade isn’t fair trade and you can’t have it both ways.
Obama is advancing legislation that keeps those greedy insurance companies in the system and he has the nerve to call it Universal health care. You are either pushing the obvious solution which is single-payer (or at least support it when others are pushing it) or you push more of the same and deceptively call it Universal health care. The public is for single payer and so are a majority of doctors. Obama’s not.
And as Jeremy Scahill reports Obama will keep a mercenary army and troops in Iraq. He wants to expand the Pentagon budget and the war in Afghanistan. Obama voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion except for one. He is not a peace canididate. He voted to confirm Condi Rice as SOS. He went out of his way in 2006 to campaign for (Gore’s running mate) Joe Leiberman against Ned Lamont calling Leiberman “his mentor”.
Although he’s a civil rights lawyer he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He was critical of it, but voted for it. Same as with FISA. How do you explain that away? (Am I using simplification to my advantage or is that just my purist world view that expects way to much out of the Democratic candidate by expecting him not to shred our constitutional rights?)
Greg, you are a political bigot. Ralph Nader has spent his life working for the public interest and accomplished more than any modern president and certainly more than Obama and McCain. His work has saved millions of lives, he made our cars safer, made our food and water safer. He has traveled the country his whole life telling people the truth and he is today. God bless those that “enable” Ralph Nader to continue to speak for those issues that are ignored by the corrupt corporate parties.
Obama isn’t moving the country in a progressive direction. He’s supporting more militarism, more pay or die health care, more Patriot Act and FISA, more NAFTA, more nuclear and off shore drilling. If the Democrats and Republicans didn’t rig the system by shutting Independent candidates out of the debates and creating huge ballot access barriers they wouldn’t stand a chance. They allow big money to nullify honest elections and you pretend it’s “de facto campaign finance reform”. You’re an enabler and an ideologue.
Our campaign is pushing single-payer, living wages and campaign finance reform at the national level in the electoral arena. You call this “irresponsible” and accuse us of being self righteous. It will have to be done by petitioning because we can expect that there won’t be any support or push from the Corporate Democratic Party though they certainly have some power to bring these things about.
Greg, the trick is you would have us believe that the Democratic Party supports these things and that they don’t represent the corporations over the people. You won’t even criticize Obama for being the first Presidential candidate in decades to opt out of public finance, which hurts the system.
It is your party that has opposed our petition drives to give voters more choices. The Democrats were imposing a huge jail tax that we didn’t need. You went out and supported it too. You’ve worked as a loyal pawn for your corporate party to deter democracy and limit voter choice. You must be proud of that deal, huh?
Though I vehemently oppose COAST on many issues, at least I know where they stand. The Democrats are the ones that pretend to be progressive and are more entrenched in corporate power than small groups like COAST. The Democrats try to sell progressives, jails, wars, draconian drug laws, free trade, weath care for insurance companies, corporate welfare, $700 billion dollar bail outs, constitution shredding legislation and it’s all based on fear.
You’re a bunch of fearmongers! The only thing we have to fear is fear itself and fear mongering corporate parties and their part-time (campaign trail only) progressive candidates.
01 Oct 2008 at 11:57 am | #
Universal healthcare means universal coverage. Single-payer is not the only option for getting there. I happen to support single-payer, and advocated for making Medicare universal in my campaigns for Congress (a plan supported by the Journal of the AMA and endorsed by tens of thousands of doctors). I supported Edwards early on in large part because he came out for single-payer and said he’d raise taxes to phase it in (over time, it pays for itself). The problem we face is that single payer won’t pass a divided congress. It didn’t even win as a ballot initiative in progressive California. I think its time will come because I think the employer-based system will implode and employers, ironically, will eventually lead the charge. But I don’t think you do nothing in the mean time. Obama wants to get at universal healthcare by way of a patchwork quilt of existing programs (like CHIP), systems efficiencies and purchasing agreements that will drive down the costs of premiums by offering the federal plan as competition against private plans and having the federal gov’t take up catastrophic care. I think Obama is pursuing this strategy because he thinks it will win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I also think offering federal insurance as competition is a bit of a Trojan horse. More employers and individuals will opt for the federal plan, and I think that will build a critical mass of support that will reach a tipping point.
You say it’s not true in response to my statement, “Obama wants to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months--contractors and our military.” But look at what he says in the very link you cite: “we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw—I want them out in the same way.” So even in this hurried interview where a reporter is asking Obama questions while he’s in transit, Obama makes clear: “I want them out in the same way.” The “them” is contractors and U.S. military. So his 16 month phase-out applies to both.
Obama says he will keep a residual force somewhere in the region, possibly in Kuwait. I think this is needed because there are delicate balances in place. The Iranians, who are Shiite, could easily re-engage in war with Iraq, and the Iraqi Shiite majority could easily join in. We don’t want a situation where ethnic cleansing occurs against the Sunni’s, and we don’t want the Kurds vulnerable to Turkish annexation. I think our presence there is necessary in order to preserve these delicate balances while Iraq continues to rebuild. This is what we are doing in the former Yugoslavia. But I would hope a UN peacekeeping force would eventually fill in. Earlier you cited our follies in not helping with the rebuilding of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdraw. Let’s not repeat this folly. Obama would not have taken us to Iraq in the first place. But I think he’s being very deliberate about how we’ll withdraw from Iraq.
Obama voted against CAFTA. He opposed several new free trade agreements, including with Columbia. I like his thinking behind the “Patriot Employers Act.” I know Free Trade isn’t Fair Trade, but also know the trade agreements can be renegotiated to have fair trade principles. (I recently debated the head of Rob Portman’s PAC as an advocate for Fair Trade and renegotiating NAFTA and halting new agreements until we apply fair Trade principles.) As stated in the very link you cite, Obama says he will work to amend NAFTA to include more worker and environmental protections. He toned down his anti-NAFTA rhetoric at the bequest of Canadian and Mexican leaders.
I don’t know what it means to be a “political bigot.” If opposing certain candidates makes me bigoted against them, so be it. I’m not anti- independent parties. (I was a charter member of the New Party mnay years ago.) Nader has a great track record on civil liberties and consumer protections. He has filled an incredible niche in this country. But I think he has crossed a tipping point into a land of conspiracy. As I said in an earlier posts--all of which you disrespectfully dismissed--I think his major accomplishments are primarily from decades ago and he has lost his ability to sway people who are not like him. I think even Bono has been more effective than Nader over the past 10 years in bringing the “other side” along.
I personally oppose the marijuana ordinance, but those who supported it weren’t so much interested in criminalizing marijuana as they were in reducing drug trafficking in our inner-cities. The pot, much of it from Kentucky, was brought and sold in our city because the punishments if caught were far less stiff. Decriminalization probably needs to occur on scale if it is to be effective. I don’t like the ordinance, but I don’t think those who supported it had punishing marijuana users as their primary goal. But let me clear, while I understand their thinking, I would have voted differently.
No, I wasn’t proud of “the deal.” As quoted in the Enquirer the day after, I said a principle was being lost. The dealmakers on the Dem side, whomever they may be, thought if Portune’s seat was made safer, it would not only assure a commission majority for at least two more years, but also help the party focus resources on winning some down-ticket countywide races and some judicial seats. What’s overlooked is that often time these down ticket seats (Recorder, Clerk of Courts, etc.) and several judicial seats went uncontested in years past. They are now more frequently contested, and this year the Dem’s have competition in all of them. Steve Brinker, for ex., very narrowly got elected Treasurer last time, and could win this time. So there was strategic thinking on the Democratic side, and that thinking held that the deal at the commission level could help ensure seats at other levels were made more competitive. And this happens every election (for example, many deals were made in the past to ensure minorities occupied judgeships). It’s weird logic to not contest one seat so you can better contest others. But in politics, there’s strategy, and if you don’t agree with the strategy makers, then you oust them.
Now I’m off to the BOE to early vote for Obama before my lunch break ends. I think fromthis point forward we shoudl email directly because I highly doubt there’s an audience for these exchanges anymore, and I feel all this business could have been accomplished over a cheeseburger.
02 Oct 2008 at 05:56 am | #
You must be very thick skinned Harris. Justin has slung insult after insult, attacking your character--his standard MO. And you haven’t responded in kind. He would never treat a say, Tom Brinkman or Chris Finney so disrespectfully. You’re still willing to have a cheeseburger? That’s another difference between a Democrat and a Republican.
02 Oct 2008 at 12:10 pm | #
Greg, thanks for not breaking my server with article links out my asshole. That’s very respectful of you. In fact, you’re so humble you never seem to use links despite this tremendous super power of yours.
I know what Universal health care is and Obama isn’t going to bring it. His plan is very wasteful because it fails to cut out the problem which is greedy insurance companies and and big pharma. Obama wouldn’t even vote for single payer when others were putting it out there. It’s clear that the people and doctors want it, but we won’t see any leadership on the issue from Democrats like Obama. He’s getting more health industry payola than McCain.
No Greg, Obama said he won’t put a ban on keeping contractors because he will keep them (the contractors) there in Iraq and a residual force of troops (50,000 according to his ad