It seems like everywhere you look these days, someone's trying to spread...The Fear.
All around us...in every town...on every corner...a massive Army Of Fear is standing by, according to the Messengers, ready at a moment's notice to obey the dictates of some unappointed Czar or another.
Just ask Glenn Beck: concentration camps for the white people, jackbooted stormtroopers ready to snatch the guns from your cold dead fingers...Socialist Government-Controlled Healthcare That Threatens Your Not Socialist Medicare...it's all coming, my friends-and unless we organize, as a community, to return to the values of the Founding Fathers, The Government, meaning that awful Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and George Soros and all the other Evil Community Organizers, will win.
There's no government, we're told, like no government.
You know who would find all of this fear of self-government just entirely bizarre?
The Founding Fathers.
In today's conversation we'll consider the fundamentals of American patriotism, we'll ask one of those Founding Fathers how he saw the role of Government-and we'll toss in a few words from Abraham Lincoln, just for good measure.
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.
(This is the industry that Conservadems are trying to protect with inaction. - promoted by boadicea)
I was supposed to begin the long-delayed series of PTSD stories I've been planning, but before we begin, I need to tell y'all about something that just happened in my house.
For us it wasn't a matter of life or death, but it is the kind of story that explains, perfectly, why we need to reform the health care system we have today-and for that matter, it's also a great explanation of why a single-payer system would be a giant step forward for everyone in this country, whether you're insured today or not.
It's also hilarious and sad and frustrating, all at the same time-which makes today's story a pretty good allegory for the current American way of doing health care.
So follow along, have a good laugh...and at the same time, take a minute to consider what could be, and how much less irritating things should be.
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.
This week on Information Underground our guest is Boadicea, the Managing Editor of progressive blog the Texas Kaos. Our topics of conversation will include include the progressive blogosphere in Texas and the upcoming 2010 political campaigns and elections.
As a result of a recent event involving an aircraft and underpants Representative Peter King (R-Not From Iowa), the senior Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, has again come forth to bring his expertise on questions of international terrorism to the national debate.
King, a Congressman who represents a district that straddles New York's Long Island (NY-3), previously served as the Comptroller of Nassau County and a member of Hempstead, New York's Town Council, which wouldn't seem to be the kind of résumé that would give you much credibility in this arena-but Mr. King is a special case.
You see, Mr. King knows a great deal about terrorism...from the inside...because for many years the personal cause that drove his life was to be an active and public supporter of a terrorist group.
And that's why, today, we'll be connecting the dots between Congressman King and the Irish Republican Army.
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.
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.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.
The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.
The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.
At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.
It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.
Over the past few days we have been talking about Washington State's Referendum 71, which was voted on this week. If passed, the Referendum will codify in law certain protections for same-sex couples.
In the first story of our three-part series we discussed Washington's unusual vote-by-mail system; in the second we examined the pre-election polling.
Today we talk about what happened Election Night at the R-71 event and where the vote count stands today...and where it might end up when we're all done.
We have lots of geeky electoral analysis ahead-and as a special bonus, we have video of the event, including an exclusive interview with Charlene Strong, the woman who became one of the icons of the pro-71 campaign.
It's a lot to cover, so we better get right to it.
The Texas A&M Chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas is a group of the most conservatives students on the most conservative college campus in the nation. However, the YCT contends that Texas A&M is not as conservative as it is portrayed. The mission of the YCT, as articulated by the Chairman, is to "turn a passive, silent, oblivious majority of conservatives into an active, vocal, aware majority" and to "defend and revive conservatism among the American people...before we lose what has made Texas and this country great and blessed." So how exactly are they going to accomplish their mission? By fighting "liberalism wherever it may be."
A new tool being used by conservative activist is CampusReform.org, which was created by The Leadership Institute, a Virginia based training organization for potential conservative political leaders. The Leadership Instituted, which labels itself as a "a non-partisan educational organization," includes such notable "non-partisan" alumni as Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican Congressman Joe Wilson, President of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist, and the "non-partisan" Karl Rove.
As Campus Progress reported, the Leadership Instituted launched a social networking site CampusReform.org so students can report and organize against professors that they view as politically biased. One of the main features of the site is the ability of students to rate professors anonymously, using a scale ranging from liberal to conservative.
There where five faculty members of Texas A&M University that where listed: Antoin Schwab, Ben Harper, Kimberly Brown, Tanya Weathers, and Terence Lamb. Besides being labeled as liberals they all have one thing else in common: all of them are African-American. According to the Office of Diversity, of 2609 faculty members at Texas A&M 93 are African-American (3.5%). The probably of choosing five African American faculty at random is 5x10^-6%, or one in 19,000,000. This gives the perception of racism because it insinuates that African-American professors are "not like the real A&M", and "not like us".
It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.
Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.
So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?
By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.
Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
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.
If you get a phone call tonight it could be from your Congressman. Chet Edwards is holding a telephone town hall meeting tonight between 6:30-7:00pm, and will call over 200,000 households throughout the twelve counties of Texas' 17th Congressional District. It should be expected that those phone calls will be filled with questions about the Obama Administration's health care reform plan. Many of the people that Edwards will talk to tonight will be critical of the plan to reform health care. It is evident from reading the internet forums, the comment sections of local media, and the letters to the editor that conservative constituents, that comprise a significant portion of this district, are critical of Edwards and have expressed their disapproval. However, in reality the people that should be expressing their disapproval are Progressives. While Edwards may not be conservative enough for some of his constituents, who would never vote for a Democrat, he may be losing support from the very people that help him get elected. While conservatives may have the loudest concerns with Edwards, progressives have the most legitimate concerns with Edwards.
Health care is one of the most important issues facing Americans today, and perhaps the most significant problem in the health care system is the number of uninsured people in America. The National Coalition on Health Care notes that "nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007." According to Health Affairs, due to the economic recession the number of uninsured people in America will increase by 6.9 million by 2010. Bloomberg reports that health-insurance premiums for families have risen 119 % since 1999, and in the last fifteen years America has increased the amount it spends on health care from $912 billion to $2.5 trillion and the amount of uninsured has only increased.
Edwards states that his goals are "lowering costs, maintaining competition and choice, and preserving quality health care." However, the most significant way to lower cost is to provide a public option, without a public option it is unlikely that health care reform will actually be able to significantly lower the cost of health care. Also, the idea that Edwards supports maintaining competition and choice suggests that there is current competition and choice, while for many Americans that only competition is the choice they have to make on whether or not they will actually be able to afford health insurance. It is obvious that "preserving the quality of health care" is important, but the real goal should be expanding access to the quality health care that is currently not available to many Americans. It is often said that the best quality health care can be found in the United States, however, who is that health care actually available to?
(The successful tactics used in this meeting seem well worth noting. - promoted by boadicea)
We've all been hearing the "Town Hall Meeting" stories the past few days, and the images presented have been of gatherings where you might see some current or former official "death panel" for the benefit of the crowd, where the few people who shout the loudest bully the rest into silence, and where threats of physical intimidation are part of the debate.
I attended one of these meetings, and based on what I saw I'm here to tell you that it is possible to hold an event that features none of the images previously described.
Instead, what I say was an event where people asked their questions, the Congressman answered-and from time to time the angry members of the audience got their shout on, too...but not in a way that was able to ever take control of the venue.
There were helpful lessons that can be applied by others who want to have these meetings, and today's conversation examines what can be done to make them work for you, too.
