April 13, 2008

Speaking the Truth

Filed under: Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 2:28 pm

Barack Obama is a rarity in Washington — an honest politician who tells it like it is. Unfortunately the truth is often painful, as it was when he made the statement to a group of supporters that many working-class voters have been manipulated and used. The manufactured outrage from John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and much of the TV media has been utterly predictable and utterly self-serving, because all of these people know that Obama speaks the truth.

For years, decades in many areas, hard-working Americans have seen their jobs eliminated or shipped overseas for no reason other than the greed of CEOs and corporate boards. It may be called “good economics” or “cutting business costs,” but what it amounts to is greed. If they claim it is to make a product more affordable to consumers, this is also obfuscation, because consumers are forced to buy sweatshop products only when their own wages are stagnant (or falling). This is exactly what is going on now; regular Americans like you and me are unable to stave off a recession because we cannot afford to.

The Republican Party has long invoked the old specter of communism, convincing people that there is a government-sanctioned redistribution of wealth from the top down. This could not be farther from the truth: For years, the redistribution of wealth has been from the middle and working class into the pockets of multimillionaires. It’s been done with our nation’s economic policies, which tax work and reward wealth. It’s been done with the out-of-control cost hikes in healthcare, which have not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in people’s wages. And it’s been done in the war in Iraq, which has seen billions of our tax dollars taken from our paychecks and deposited into the coffers of Blackwater and Halliburton.

People do become bitter when they see everything they ever worked for taken away. But rather than make elections about the real cause of that anger, Republicans and a fair number of Democrats have been playing games with everyone, stirring up unfounded fears that the government will seize guns from law-abiding Americans or outlaw religion. It is a very smart tactic. It was no mere chance that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to self-defense were the very first amendments to our Constitution; these liberties are important to Americans and a perceived threat to them would stir up outrage.

But there is no such threat. The years-long campaign to convince people otherwise has been to give massive coverage to local stories where individual people illegally abused their power, and pretend that it is a formal government policy. It stirs up that outrage and distracts people from the real issue. Can you go to church? Can you talk about God to someone in the mall? Can you keep a gun in your house? Why, yes, and there is no danger that you will be denied these rights. However, there is a very real danger that you could lose your job, and with that, your healthcare, your life savings, your property, and even your house. The government won’t help you, either, despite that you have paid taxes all your life and been an honest American. They will bail out Bear Stearns, but you’re not important enough, in their minds.

THIS is what Barack Obama was referring to. HE is not the elitist. HE is not the one who looks down on voters. To the contrary, Barack Obama wants to address nationwide, systemic, real problems, not fearmongering and lies. Those who are on TV blathering about what Obama said have too much invested in the system to offer a fair assessment of his words. However, the voters have the opportunity to stand with a truly straight-talking politician and prove to the naysayers that they will not have their intelligence insulted and will not be lied to anymore.

February 19, 2008

Come Hill or High Water

Filed under: Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 7:46 am

I’ve avoided blogging for a long time, in part because of some personal issues that have rather soured me on politics, but also because my chosen candidate, John Edwards, wasn’t making the splash I’d hoped he would, and I was actively against Hillary Clinton and indifferent to Barack Obama. I’m all in favor of the “hope-driven Obama nation” and political optimism, but I couldn’t identify with it personally, having been the victim of a blame-shifting opportunist (who, perhaps not coincidentally, ended up supporting Clinton) and becoming rather sour about the general ethics of those in politics. There was nothing, basically, to spark my interest in the primary season.

However, I’ve become so utterly disgusted with the Clinton operation that I’m going to break my silence.

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is a craven, amoral politician who will do ANYTHING to “win.”

There. I said it.
I’m not talking about Bill Clinton’s racial remarks. I’m not talking about the smear campaign against Obama’s real estate deal, a smear that has since been thoroughly debunked. What I am talking about actually has nothing to do with Barack Obama, though I admit I am rooting for him because he is the only candidate in the race whose views I can stomach and who has a shred of integrity.

I’m not even talking about Hillary’s backstabbing of John Kerry in 2006 when she sided with the Rove noise machine about his ill-delivered joke. Though that incident DOES still rankle. Nor am I talking about the 2004 Election Night backstabbing of the Kerry-Edwards campaign by Clinton crony James Carville, who tipped off the Bush campaign about K/E’s intention to contest Ohio, resulting in lord only knows what ballot-shredding and other machinations that night, but which cleared the way for Hillary to run for office.

I’m talking about HillaryLand’s clear and open contempt for the democratic (and Democratic) process.

It started with her lawsuit in Nevada to prevent easy availability of polling places to casino workers, a demographic group that she apparently felt would not support her. The Clintons lost that suit and ended up winning Nevada anyway, but the point stands: If Hillary thinks you might not support her, she won’t support your right to vote.

Then came her sideswipes at those states that did not vote for her. “They’re just caucus states.” “Those are red states that we won’t win.” (Well, maybe not, but ceding them up front guarantees it.) “Those states have a lot of black voters.” “My opponent’s support was in the upper-middle-class, elite voters.” “The support comes from activists, who don’t represent the electorate.” Hillary denigrated all these groups of voters, making increasingly pitiful and offensive excuses for why she lost, rather than showing one iota of grace.

Then we witnessed her new strategy, which was to persuade party insiders (superdelegates) to vote for her at the Democratic convention, even if such a vote defied the will of the electorate.

Then she did a backflip on her stance on the Florida and Michigan delegates, and decided that those tainted elections should be just as valid as any other primary, because it would mean a delegate gain for her. Now, I’m as annoyed as anyone over the whole mess with those states, but that does not change the fact that they were not valid primaries. The issue is not with who was on the ballot and who wasn’t, or who campaigned and who didn’t. The issue is that the states’ voters were told that any vote they cast for the Democratic primary would not count, and now Hillary Clinton wants to change that, after any number of voters may have stayed home. It’s like a teacher telling a class, “I’m giving a practice test tomorrow. It won’t count for anything. Take it seriously if you like, but no one’s grade will be recorded”… and then, after the test is scored, counting it ANYWAY. It’s unethical.

Then, as if that isn’t enough, we have this. Welcome to the gutter, Hillary. That’s a sure way to endear people to you, strong-arm the delegates who are SUPPOSED to vote as their constituents voted.

Is there anything she won’t do?

At this point I would only be shocked to flip on my TV in August and see Hillary curled up in the fetal position at the Democratic convention, threatening to hold her breath until she is declared the nominee. And if she keeps up with these election-thieving plans, I wouldn’t even be surprised by THAT.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, if you’re clearly losing the nomination and have no respectable way of winning it, then show some dignity and drop out. Because not doing so only improves McCain’s chances of taking the White House. This is bigger, much bigger, than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Between a war, a recession, a government teetering on the edge of becoming autocratic, and the Bill of Rights itself at stake, we need someone who promises NEW policies, not four more years of the very stuff that got us here in the first place.

February 26, 2007

Chip Pickering Casts His Lot with McCain

Filed under: Katrina,Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 12:40 pm

Chip Pickering, Representative from Mississippi, has become Mississippi Chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, and Co-Chair of the southern region.

He gives an explanation for this in the Hill Blog. There’s really nothing new or surprising in it. The issues of importance to him are Staying the Course, stacking the Supreme Court with right-wing judges, and advocacy of Religious Right wedge issues such as marriage.

If Pickering wants to hitch his horse to the dying viewpoint that the war in Iraq is “winnable,” that’s perfectly all right with me. And if John McCain wants to coast on the strength of the Religious Right in the South, that’s fine with me too.

However, the Religious Right should be made aware of Pickering’s ties to Jack Abramoff, particularly some of Abramoff’s dirtier associations that involve drugs, prostitution, and child slavery. (Yes, it really is that sordid.) Quite a curious background for one who talks about government reform. I was planning on getting into some depth about this, and at a later date, I will. For now, I am focusing on Hurricane Katrina and the issues surrounding that.

Oh, speaking of which, my dear Representative has something to say about it:

The federal response to Hurricane Katrina teemed with waste as each layer of bureaucracy siphoned off needed federal funds, until sometimes only half or a quarter of what Congress appropriated reached the victims. John McCain’s dedication to a smaller government through cutting waste and restraining unnecessary spending shows he will not bend in the fight to make the government more effective and more responsive to tax payers.

OK.

While I suspect that, had McCain been at the helm, the response might have been somewhat better (I mean really, how could it have been any worse?), Pickering needs a slap of reality upside his head.

The problem with the recovery was emphatically not that there was too much government. Perhaps he needs to talk to his own constituents on this issue; he seems a bit out of touch. The complaints certainly were not that there was too much government involved with the response.

Secondly, George W. Bush allowed the federal bureaucracy to twiddle its thumbs while he was photographed presenting a birthday cake to John McCain on August 29, 2005.

Funny. You’d think that if McCain were at all interested in Hurricane Katrina victims, he would have told the “Decider” to get off his duff, go back to Washington, and do something about the situation. You’d think that McCain would have used the power he had as a member of the then-Majority and shown some leadership. It was a national crisis, a natural disaster with a death toll the likes of which had not been seen since 1928.

Pickering is just cynically using Hurricane Katrina for his own benefit and McCain’s, name-dropping the storm because he represents part of Mississippi that was impacted by it. We don’t need more of that.

February 13, 2007

Right-wing Group Continues Attack on Edwards. Will Dems Defend Him?

Filed under: Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 11:21 am

Embattled John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte resigned, despite being told by the campaign that she was welcome to remain as a blogging consultant. I don’t particularly blame her; she probably felt that the best thing to do was to remove herself from the auspices of the official campaign, because her effectiveness as a supportive voice had been reduced dramatically.

You thought that would discourage the “religious” group that started all this in the first place? Think again.

They’ve sent letters to the other two front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (warning: both links are PDF), to condemn the bloggers (and, implicitly, the Edwards campaign itself). Some samples:

By taking up this issue publicly, you will be able to distinguish your candidacy from Mr. Edwards[...].

They [a professor and a member of a think tank] believe that Mr. Edwards mishandled this attack on Catholics and Christians, and by permitting Marcotte and McEwan to remain on his staff, it has harmed efforts aimed at building coalitions between Christians, Catholics, and Democrats.

On blogs, there is a term for this: concern trolling. It’s when a complete outsider, often (usually) opposed to the person or group’s aims in the first place, comes forward and expresses concern that some action a person or group took will harm those aims. It’s pure psyops, intended to create self-doubt and weakness among the ranks.

This group, known as Fidelis America, self-identifies as a Republican/Conservative political action committee. Here are the contributions that they made for the past election cycle, from disclosure database Open Secrets:

2006 Cycle:
Burns, Conrad (R-MT) – $100
Ensign, John (R-NV) – $100
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) – $100
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) – $5,100
Talent, James M (R-MO) – $100
Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $0
Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $5,500

And Democrats should cater to the demands of this group why, exactly?

These people will not endorse Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In all likelihood, they’ll endorse Sam Brownback. This is the Religious Right. Democrats have absolutely no obligation nor responsibility to condemn other Democrats at the urging of this group. The group donates to Republicans and does not care one bit about coalitions between Christians and Democrats. It probably shrinks in horror at the thought of the Religious Left becoming a force in politics. The purpose of this action is to create division and doubt among party ranks.

However, the right wing has sensed that the party tends to conduct itself this way — attack each other out of sheer terror. They did it to John Kerry last year in the face of a right-wing onslaught (although, to their credit, Edwards and Obama did not join in the attack — unfortunately, Clinton did). This behavior gives the right wing encouragement to continue with their attacks.

I sincerely hope that the other two front-runners repudiate this.

(Hat tip to Kagro X of the Daily Kos for the blog piece inspiring this entry.)

January 24, 2007

I Endorse…

Filed under: Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 11:29 am

Former Senator John Edwards for the Democratic nomination for President.

I was an early Edwards supporter in 2004 and switched to his running mate largely because of his superior experience. However — despite my misgivings about making too much mention of Hurricane Katrina — as a Gulf Coast native, I deeply appreciate the attention that he has called to it, especially in light of the State of the Union address that made NO mention whatsoever of the problems.

Edwards intends to address the horrible class war that is dividing America. He opposes the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries for the sake of lower wages and lower (or no) standards.

He is a voice against the Iraq War and plans to bring the troops home.

This endorsement is not a “well I have to go with SOMEONE.” Edwards has been my second choice ever since the 2008 campaign kicked off, and now that the one who was my first is not a candidate, Mr. Edwards has become my first.

I offer him my support and my best wishes.

January 22, 2007

What Does Hillary Bring?

Filed under: Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 8:10 am

In case you were living under a rock, Hillary Clinton officially announced her candidacy for president on Saturday. Despite the buzz it’s generated, I’m going to go out on a limb and posit that her gender is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter.

What exactly is it that Hillary brings to the field of 2008 presidential wannabes? Really?

Let’s see….

Well, as I am a known partisan, the first thing that comes to my mind is how Hillary Clinton not only failed to defend her colleague and party leader John Kerry against the right-wing Bush smear machine, but she joined in the attack. How about this homemade YouTube video I found through the blogs?

Ouch.

But that pretty much sums it up. There’s a pattern to this.
After the blowout election, longtime Clintonista and HRC confidante James Carville went on the offensive against party chairman Dr. Howard Dean, calling his leadership “Rumsfeldian in its competence” and urging his removal from the helm. He suggested former Rep. Harold Ford as his replacement. (It should be strongly noted that, since then, Ford has become the head of the Democratic Leadership Council — DLC — an economically conservative “Third Way” organization whose mission is to distance itself from the party grassroots and elect pro-big business candidates such as the Clintons were).

Hmm….

Then Clinton family friend and former Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who sat at the head of the party during Bush’s first term, wrote a nasty, vicious book attacking John Kerry and his presidential campaign as “the greatest incompetence.”

Funny, but I wouldn’t consider a campaign that went from single digits in the polls to sweeping the primary states to be “incompetent.” The problems started after the national party got involved. It’s been universally acknowledged (well, universally other than the Hillary people) that Dean inherited a broken political party with a decayed infrastructure, and he revitalized it in areas where it counted. You can’t blame the presidential campaign for the failure of the national party to do its part.

Hmm….

Now, Clinton’s pollster has gone extremely negative against members of her own party, including non-candidate and her husband’s VP Al Gore:

Link

In a clear reference to Obama’s lack of political experience on the national stage, Penn wrote: “Some of the commentators look at the ratings of people who have not yet been in the cross-fire, and say they might have a better chance. Recent history shows the opposite.”

He then set his sights on Sen. John Kerry and former Vice President Al Gore, who also might run in 2008. “The last two Democratic presidential candidates started out with high favorable ratings and ended up on Election Day — and today — far more polarizing and disliked nationally,” said the pollster [...]

Yep, since that’s why Al Gore’s book and movie were such duds and critical failures… oh, right.

So this is what Hillary brings to the field, in an America where the people have repeatedly expressed their desire for solutions to the massive problems that have been created. She chooses to offer negativity and potshots at members of her own party.

That’s a winning strategy, all right.

January 10, 2007

Run, Chip, Run — Those Votes Might Bite Ya

Filed under: Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 8:09 am

This race — if it does become a race — will be a frequent topic of discussion on this blog in the coming months.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R) of Mississippi is up for re-election in 2008. If he runs, he’d win in a landslide. However, word has it that he is considering retirement. If that should happen, the Republicans’ likely “anointed successor” is Rep. Charles “Chip” Pickering of the 3rd Congressional District of Mississippi. The son of Judge Charles Pickering.

After the redistricting following the 2000 census, Mississippi lost a congressional seat. The results were that an incumbent Democrat had to run against an incumbent Republican in the new district. Pickering was that Republican, and he won re-election in a fairly tight race in 2002. In 2004 and 2006, he was allowed to cruise to re-election unopposed by a major party candidate.

And he just happens to be my Representative, at least for the time being. So I have a vested interest in seeing him out of office, and I certainly have no desire to ever have to refer to him as “Senator.”

Still…. Family name, political fixture in the state, Republican in a conservative state, (possibly) running for an open seat vacated by a Republican… looks good for Chip, right?

Not necessarily.
Chip has some skeletons in his closet, but I will be getting into those at a later date if circumstances warrant it. For the time being, he’s already begun to amass a nice record of voting against bills with broad popular support and the potential to do great good for America. As far as I can tell, it’s for no reason other than partisan spite.

Two particularly egregious examples are the “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act” and the “Fair Minimum Wage Act.” The 9/11 bill passed yesterday, January 9, and the minimum wage bill passed today. Chip saw fit to vote against both, even while many from his own party crossed over and supported them.

Here are links to the roll call votes from the House of Representatives.

9/11 Commission

Minimum Wage

As the links in the last paragraph will show, the minimum wage bill raises minimum wage to $7.25 an hour within a little over 2 years following its enactment.

Perhaps we should ask Chip why he doesn’t want his constituents to get a raise?

The 9/11 Commission bill implements the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission to help prevent further terrorist attacks upon the U.S.

Perhaps we should ask Chip why he voted against a bill to help secure America?

Or, considering how his party has been conducting business in recent years, maybe we should ask him if he supports the enemy.

Oh, of course it’s nothing more than — as I said — partisan spite. He voted against these bills because Democrats introduced them and Democrats voted absolutely 100% solidly for them. There were, for each bill, dozens of Republicans who voted for them as well.

If Cochran retires and Chip wants his seat, he should be aware that people are watching him and will hold him accountable for what he does. Even if Cochran does not retire, Chip will be up for re-election again in 2008. And he just might have an opponent this time.

December 16, 2006

Edwards In, Bayh Out

Filed under: Politics — PolitiCalypso @ 12:10 pm

One unsurprising (Edwards), the other a bit of a stunner — although not as big of a surprise as hearing that Mark Warner was out.

John Edwards plans to announce his candidacy for the presidency in New Orleans, apparently before the end of the year.

Personally I think it’s kind of tacky to announce from the Lower 9th Ward, which is where it’s supposed to occur, but I am probably over-sensitive to Katrina issues and imagery. I was also offended by those Chevrolet commercials during the World Series that showed New Orleans underwater.

It’s just that Edwards making his announcement from a still-decimated disaster zone reminds me slightly of the 2004 Republican convention in New York City — as a blatantly political move. That said, it’s mitigated somewhat by the fact that Edwards does actually care about New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, and announcing from there could bring a much-needed media spotlight back to the Crescent City.

I think it should be patently obvious by now where my 2008 loyalties lie, but I’m glad that Edwards is in. I’ve liked him for awhile, and my slight disappointment over his choice of location from which to announce a presidential bid doesn’t change that. But even if I were ambivalent, I’d be glad for another person to enter the field. The Hillary Clinton people seem to want to “coronate” her, and I am deeply against the idea of coronations. That’s how the Republicans acted in 2000 with Dubya. The more legitimate contenders in it (and Edwards is definitely a legitimate contender), the more ideas will be floating around. People are likely to decide based on the debates this time. I think they’re sick of “personality politics.”
Bayh’s dropping out is a bit of a shocker. I really expected him to make a go for it. Perhaps he was intimidated by the MSNBC/Wall Street Journal poll (warning: PDF document) that ranked him below the likes of Joe Biden. I don’t know. I think he realized, though, that he couldn’t win, and didn’t want to put himself and his family through that.

And it’s not because I say he couldn’t have won. He was pulling in a fair amount of cash from his donors, but it wasn’t buoying him any in the polls. The problem was that his voting base would have had to have a very good reason to choose him. Bayh is a centrist Democrat with ties to big business. The voters most likely to support him would need a good reason to choose him over others such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, and Tom Vilsack, who would appeal to the same group.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress. This theme is a heavy modification of the WordPress Classic theme planned to match the layout of ErinThead.com. Because of its very specific and personalized nature, it is not available for public download. Content copyright ©2005-2009.