LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
Claim: On cap and trade legislation Edwards could have "stood up in several committee sessions and said that we need to not let this get out of committee."
Check: The American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454), was passed by House of Representatives in June of 2009, and has yet to be voted on by the Senate. Before being voted on by the House, HR 2454 was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Education and Labor, Science and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Ways and Means. Congressman Edwards service on the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs, and the House Committee on Budget. HR 2454 was not referred to any of the committees that Edwards is a member of, so it is doubtful that Edwards had any opportunity to object to the cap and trade legislation during a committee hearing.
Claim: He is the only candidate that believes that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations.
Check: According to the campaign literature, none of the other four candidates has made withdrawing the United States from the United Nations an issue. Is criticizing the United States' membership in the United Nations a successful political strategy? According to a recent Gallup poll, only 26% of Americans feel that the UN is doing a "good job" compared to the 65% that believe it is doing a "poor job." However, when asked if the United States should give up its membership in the United Nations only 13% believed that it should. Criticizing the UN might be good politics, but the United States leaving the UN is not a significant issue to most Americans.
Claim: Edwards voted to pull troops out of Iraq "in defeat."
Check: The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, included a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and was passed by Congress but vetoed by the President George W. Bush. The bill included a provision requiring troop redeployment to begin within 120 days of enactment of the legislation and be completed by April 1, 2008. Considering the inability of those who continued to support the war in Iraq to define "victory," the claim that Congressman Edwards voted to pull troops out of Iraq "in defeat" is a purely political claim.
Claim: Edwards voted to keep partial birth abortion legal.
Check: Congressman Edwards voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibits the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, a procedure that is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. This law was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the dissenting opinion that "the absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant-women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk." The Edwards did vote to keep partial birth abortion legal is factual.
Claim: Edwards won reelection "barley by 4 ½ percent."
Check: Congressman Edwards defeated Curnock in the 2008 general election with 52.98% of the vote, and Curnock received 45.50% of the vote. In general the spread in which candidates are defeated is calculated by the determining the spread of the percentage, which in this case would be 7.48%. What Curnock is referring to is the 4.5% below 50% of the vote that he received. It should also be noted that Edwards received 19,011 more votes than Curnock who, in order to win, would have had to received 11,431 more votes than he received. The claim that Edwards won reelection by 4 ½ percent depends on the math, but the claim that Edwards barely won reelection is another purely political claim.
During elections an enormous amount of money is spent on campaigns, and the dollars spent have been increasing during both Presidential and midterm elections. During the Presidential election in 2000 $3,082,340,937 was spent by presidential candidates, senate and house candidates, political parties and independent interest groups trying to influence federal elections, and that number increased to $5,285,680,883 in 2008. During the last midterm election cycle, in 2006, candidates and others groups spent $2,852,658,140, and if the trend continues even more will be spent this year.
Local residents have donated over $118,000 to political candidates and campaign during the current election cycle, and over half of those donations originated from two different zip codes. The largest amount of donations came from south College Station, a total of $39,295 in political donations originated from the 77845 zip code. The second largest amount of donations came from eastern Bryan, at total of $23,741 originated from the 77802 zip code. Residents of College Station have donated $63,429 to political campaigns, while residents of Bryan have donated $54,835.
In local Brazos County campaigns County Commissioner Duane Peters, who is a Republican primary candidate for County Judge, has spent $12,451, the most out of any other candidate. Representative Fred Brown has spent the most out of local Texas legislature candidates, spending $9,404 during the current reporting period. In the local congressional district, Congressman Edwards has already spent more than all of the Republican candidates involved in the primary combined; all five Republican primary candidates have spent a total $268,481 during the current election cycle while Edwards has spent $308,832.
Twitter has become an indispensible part of politics and political campaigning; it is a simple yet effective way to convey an idea to many people at no cost. It has become one of the tools that many upstart and candidates are using during the primaries. Many established politicians use Twitter as a way to convey quick messages without sending or press release. How are candidates in the Brazos Valley using Twitter? I took a look at some of the candidates for Texas Congressional District 17 and found out who tweets, who doesn't, and who doesn't want me to follow them.
Congressman Chet Edwards, incumbent Democrat, does not advertise a Twitter account on his campaign web site, although Edwards does maintain a Facebook page that is regularly updated. However, Edwards has tended to be a low profile Congressman, and rarely appears in interviews on cable news and has focused most of his campaign on tradition means such as radio advertising and yard signs. While Edwards might be able to provide some interesting tweets it is doubtful that he would say anything overly partisan or controversial in 140 characters.
Republican primary candidate Rob Curnock, who tweets under the name rob4congress, has focused less on specific campaign issues and more on promoting partisan attacks from Congressman Mike Pence to political commentator Dick Morris. Recently Curnock did promote a list to his 229 followers of "10 reasons why 2010 will be a year to celebrate for Central Texans" that his campaign web site published. Curnock's number one reason was a "Consistent, common-sense conservative message of less government, lower taxes and more personal freedom," and that "this campaign is about ideas and message." Which is interesting because that means that the Curnock campaign in 2010 should be completely different that the Curnock campaign in 2008 when its focus was not on ideas but on negative campaigning and saying the words "liberal" and "Edwards" in the same sentence over and over again.
Last night was the deadline to file for the Democratic and Republican primaries, and both Democrat and Republican incumbents are facing challenges from both the left and the right. In Brazos County and throughout the rest of the Brazos Valley there are several notable candidates, and what takes place in March is going to greatly affect the complexion of the election in November.
The campaign for the Republican nomination for Congressional District 17 is much more crowded than it was last year. Last year's Republican nominee, Waco businessman Rob Curnock, is joined by fellow Waco businessman Chuck Wilson, College Station nurse Timothy Delasandro, Houston businessman Bill Flores, and Texas A&M security expert Dave McIntyre. The Republican primary will probably be between Curnock and McIntyre, however, Flores is well funded and will be able to spend more than the other candidates. Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards is going to have a financial advantage over whichever Republican emerges from the primary. How the Republican primary evolves is going to greatly affect the general election in November and whether or not a Republican candidate can serious challenge Edwards.
Texas State Senator Steve Ogden had announced his retirement and State Representative Dan Gattis appeared to be the front runner to receive the Republican nomination for the vacated Senate seat. However, after Gattis withdrew from the campaign for personal reasons Ogden decided to run for reelection and facing a primary challenge from Ben Bius. Ogden will be campaigning as his experience as a State Senator, but the budget and the economy are going to be central issues in the campaign.
Texas State Representative Fred Brown is facing a primary challenge form three candidates; former Brazos County Tax Collector Buddy Winn, former candidate for Brazos County District Attorney Rick Davis, and Blinn College professor Blanche Brick. During the 2008 election Left of College Station reported on the almost unopposed Republican, who only faced a Libertarian opponent in the general election. However, during the primary Brown will face a longtime Brazos County public office holder in Winn, and candidate that will pull no punches during the campaign in Davis. Brown's record as a legislator will be the focus of the primary debate, including the dubious distinction as being named by Texas Monthly as being a piece of furniture.
The Coalition for Life holds an annual fundraiser to finance its anti-choice agenda, and each year the even usually attracts about 1,500 people to hear a pro-life speaker. Last year former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican primary presidential candidate Mike Huckabee spoke at the event. This year it is expected that former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson will speak at the event, but it was announced that the keynote speaker will be former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
According to the Coalition for Life's web site the reason that they have invited the former governor to speak at the event is because "Jeb Bush has been very consistent in keeping a pro-life record." Among the reasons that the Coalition cited for this invitation was also the former governor's "attempted to have the unborn child of a severely disabled woman be appointed a court guardian."
In 2003 22-year-old woman living in a group home in Florida was raped, the woman was mentally disabled and had the cognitive and emotional capacity of a 1-year-old child. In addition to this she also suffered from cerebral palsy, autism and was prone to violent seizures. These conditions would make it very difficult for a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, in fact death is a real possibility if a woman with these conditions where to attempt to deliver the baby. Despite these facts then Governor Bush decided that it was more important to ensure that the pregnancy was carried to term, and that the abortion that could save the mother's life should be prevented from happening. Because of the ensuing legal battle the woman was forced to carry the pregnancy to term despite the risk, but a Florida appeals court panel later ruled that the action could not be taken by the state.
It seems that it would be essential to attract young people and people of color to a political party, especially if you want to grow a political party in a rapidly demographically changing state like Texas. However, the McLennan County Republican Party seems to believe that there is no need to adapt to these demographic changes because of the success they have enjoyed in the past. Latina Lista posted a blog that summed up the situation in McLennan County:
"The big question since the GOP lost the Latino vote in the 2008 presidential election has been: How serious are Republicans about including Latinos in the GOP? The answer, fresh from the heart of GOP country...is not at all!"
According to an article in the Waco Tribune-Herald, conservative activists created the Hispanic Republican Club of McLennan County to reach out to Latino, African-American, and young voters. Part of the clubs stated mission would be to fill the vacancies in the 40 out of 92 precincts that lack precinct chairs. Many of the precincts that have vacancies are in predominately minority areas. However, the McLennan County Republican Party chairman M.A. Taylor does not consider it important to fill those vacancies, and apparently does not think that minorities hold conservative views.
"They think because there are 92 precincts in McLennan County, we need to have 92 precinct chairs. What they fail to understand is about half of those precincts are minority precincts, and you're not going to find any Republicans in them."
As the filing deadline approaches the political maneuvering is increasing and it appears that there is significant maneuvering revolving around Texas State Senate District Five. State Representative Dan Gattis announced this weekend that he will not be seeking the Republican nomination for Senate District Five, and according to a report by the Bryan College-Station Eagle, Gattis will also not be running for reelection citing personal reasons. Senator Steve Ogden announced this year that he was not running for reelection, but according to Gattis, Ogden's "willingness to return to the senate" was one of the reasons he decided to step aside.
According to an article in the Eagle, Senator Ogden's office made a statement that there will be an announcement later this week about the upcoming election. Currently Ogden's campaign web site displays the Senator's statement from earlier this year in regards to not seeking reelection. Ben Bius, the only other Republican seeking the nomination for Senate District Five, made a statement in the Eagle article that the speculation about Ogden running for reelection is "completely unfounded and baseless."
Could it be a question of fundraising? According to Texas Ethics Commission records, Senator Ogden reported $737,578 cash on hand as of the July Semiannual campaign finance report, while Representative Gattis reported only $81,039 on hand as of the July Semiannual campaign finance report. However, according to the latest campaign finance report, Ben Bius has reported no campaign contributions. Even if Gattis is having a difficult time raising money before the primary it does not mean that he would have a difficult time raising money for a general election, and the likelihood that he would face a serious Democratic opponent is low.
Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will "definitely not vote" in 2010 than are Republicans.
I can't find any numbers specifically for Texas, but if the Governor's race heats up with Bill White entering for the Dems, I suspect we will get much better statewide numbers.
The conclusion that DailyKos draws from these numbers is the importance of a viable Heath Care bill being passed. I agree. Having spent this much energy on this policy, we damn well better be able to have something positive to show for it.
The poll also included this bad news: a -17 in the right versus wrong direction for the country question.
Anybody in the dark as to why all the lying and manufactured outrage on the other side? I thought not.
So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.
What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?
Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
It seems that John and his Repug talk show masters are so desperate that this statement form the White House has set off a lying frenzy about, well lets just lay out the data and let you decide....
This is the original statement , put out by the White House as part of the push back against Right Wing Lying Squads, I blogged about it here
Wonkette There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an "enemies list," has asked President Barack Obama to stop an effort to collect "fishy" information Americans see about a health care overhaul.
Cornyn, who leads the Republicans' Senate campaign effort, said Wednesday in a letter to Obama that he's concerned that citizen engagement on the issue could be "chilled." He also expressed alarm that the White House could end up collecting electronic information on its critics.
"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn wrote.
Thus, the question in the title of this posting: Lunatic or Tool? If he honestly believes that the paragraph I first quote is the functional equivalent of Nixon's "enemies list" he is delusional. Notice please that the first posting says NOTHING ABOUT SENDING NAMES. A fair question would be, what is the White House supposed to do John in order to counter the lies and fear mongering your side is deploying?
I do understand your concern, if we aren't careful, the White House could follow the slippery slope and do something really offensive, like warrantless wire tapping or something.
Clearly, it is within the rights of anyone to participate in a public event in any fashion they wish. When, however , there is an corporate and partisanly orchestrated effort to disrupt those meetings, to distort perceptions about the will of the constituents in communicating with their representatives, a line has been crossed.
The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:
But wait, you say all they are doing is old fashioned hard ball politics. Well, not quite.
This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by "angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior" at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.
[UPDATE : Cancellations of Townhall meetings? Spinning TeaBaggers as "angry constituents"?
"There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation," Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO after making a decision to suspend town hall events that have been frequently swarmed with members of local TEA Party groups
Here in Texas, a friend put out the word via an email I received that Lloyd Doggett's meeting with his staff at his Bastrop office was harassed by a large crowd of teabaggers. The game is on....]
UPDATE 2Over at meansrachel , there is a first hand account of what we are facing and some further comments on Healthcare reform. Take a look.
Less than a year ago it was reported that the presumptive Republican nominee for President, Senator John McCain, had chosen Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his nominee for Vice President; the first thought I had after reading those reports was that John McCain had just lost the presidential election. As I watch the press conference in which Palin announced her intention to resign as governor of Alaska the only thought that I had was that this was the second worst political move that I had witness in the last year. However, the difference in my thoughts was that I understood the logic and the thought process behind the McCain campaign nominating Palin as Vice President, but I did not comprehend what the logic or thought process was behind Palin's resignation.
Palin touted her accomplishments as Governor: the promotion of private energy projects, ethics reform, and fiscal conservatism. Of course she took time to mention the cutting of the perks of the executive office such as the plane and the chef. She proudly took credit for all of the successes that where achieved in two years as governor, and how she protected Alaska from the "immoral" stimulus funds.
I have been paying close attention to the role of the Religious Right in politics for over 10 years . I know a little of its history and so I find nothing unusual in having front groups like The Family Research Council and CRAVE (Christians Reviving America's Values) decide that opposing Health Care for all is somehow a family values issue upon which they can pass Biblical judgment. But the fountain of illogic which spews from these sources still takes my breath away:
America Cannot Afford Health Care [the group's president, Don Swarthout is speaking:] What have the uninsured people been doing for health care all of these years? The answer is simple. They have been going to Emergency Rooms to be treated because our laws and the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors say that they must be treated. . . .
Let's remember that hospitals are in business to make money. They cannot continue to stay in business unless somebody, you and I, pay for those who cannot pay for themselves. So the hospitals figure the cost of treating the uninsured into the costs of treating responsible people who can pay. Therefore, you and I are ALREADY paying for people who cannot pay for themselves.
Now the Government wants to run our Health Care Program. Never mind the fact that the Government has stolen our Social Security money and has replaced it with worthless IOU's. The government is broke and cannot pay us back what they stole from us in the form of Social Security money. Of course the government does not say anything about that fact. Besides we already have a $12,000,000,000 dollar deficit. Swarthout concluded, "Health Care for everyone would be nice...if we could afford it. However, for America Health Care is just another good idea that we cannot afford."
Texas has decided to steer clear of a national effort - involving 46 states - to develop uniform standards for English and math instruction in public schools.
State Education Commissioner Robert Scott, with the backing of Gov. Rick Perry, has turned down an invitation to work with the other states in drafting "common core" standards for English and math classes, spelling out what students at all grade levels should be taught in those subjects.
Although the standards will be voluntary.....[snip]
Texas officials are wary of getting involved, largely because of the cost to the state of implementing new standards.
[snip]
"Texas historically has never been supportive of the idea of national standards for our schools," said Debbie Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the commissioner and the Texas Education Agency. "We believe most Texans want to see our standards developed in Texas."
State Board of Education member Don McLeroy, the former chairman of the panel, noted that the education board now has responsibility to approve curriculum standards and there is no reason to surrender that authority to a national panel. [snip]
The MSM could not or chose not , to comment on the irony of the defense mounted by Texas officials in rejecting this voluntary initiative and the potential funds it could bring to the state. Frist, we rank at the bottom of any and all educational performance ratings and have for years. Thanks heavens for Louisiana and Mississippi , without them we would rank at the very bottom.
[ Norte Dame is asking President Obama to deliver its commencement address ] This is despite the fact that Obama has distinguished himself as the most militantly anti-life president in American history. In fact, his support of abortion extends to the point of infanticide [1], and I speak of his, at best, indifference to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In opposing the Illinois version of this legislation - thereby signaling his willingness to allow newborn babies to die in soiled store rooms - he showed his true colors. That is to say, it's not so much that the matter of when a baby gets human rights is above his pay grade; it's that he is morally degraded.
[snip]
But it isn't just on life issues that Obama is found wanting. He also supports special rights for homosexuals (euphemistically called "gay rights"). Additionally, he apparently was a member of Chicago's socialist New Party in the 1990s, an association he has never adequately disowned. This is relevant because socialism seems incongruent with Catholic teaching. As Pope Pius XI said plainly in 1931, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." (In fact, the Church has long condemned socialism - here [2] and here [3], for instance).
Don't you love how they tie together being anti-abortion, anti-socialist, and being truly Catholic or Christian or whatever? This cutting is, of course, seeped in moral absolutism. Everything in politics, in life , is either 100% right or 100% wrong. This kind of absolutism has made Democrats cringe and allowed Republicans to fraudulently steal the Moral high ground for a very long time.
Until Obama. Is there anything Texas Progressives/Democrats can learn about attracting rural, "values voters" from the Obama victory? I am not sure, but I try to work out my thoughts in this posting. I invite your ideas as well.
So if you're like me, you have been wondering just exactly what all this "tea party" stuff is about. There's going to be some sort of protest, that we know; but beyond that the whole thing seems a little...vague.
Alternatively, it's possible that you were unaware that "tea party" has recently become a word reborn in conservative political circles.
Well, whether you knew it or not, April 15th was indeed a day of protest, with citizens gathering for what were reported to be a series of grassroots events across the nation that was intended to invoke the spirit of the Boston Tea Party.
In an effort to find out exactly what is motivating these folks, and to find out what they are trying to accomplish, I took my handy recorder and captured a conversation with a "tea bag" protester.
We will review that conversation, and we will follow it up with a few thoughts about how this group of voters might impact electoral politics going forward.
I was recently having a conversation with a fellow student, and we were talking about the debate in Texas about whether or not students should be allowed to carry concealed guns on campus. This student and I happen to share the same view that concealed guns should not be allowed on campus, and this view happens to be one of the few that we have in common. I am a liberal, and he is a conservative. I vote Democrat, and he votes Republican.
This fellow student then recounted a story to me about a conversation he had with one of his professors on the subject of concealed guns on campus. When he told this professor that he was against allowing students to carry concealed guns on college campuses the professor asked him if he was a liberal. The student told the professor that he was a conservative and a Republican, but that he was pro gun control and pro choice. "You're a conservative Democrat."
, "Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2][3] to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term "beast" refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.
This little gem of responsible policy making has its origins in the make-believe budgets of the Reagan years. David Stockman was Reagan's budget director and Richard Darman was a key advisor during the era of the first Reagan supply-side budget schemes. Check out their comments from 1986...
