Random, Insane Rants

Is anyone else sick of seeing Joe the Plumber talk all day about Joe the Plumber while politicians fawn over Joe the Plumber?

2009-02-26T19:40:00.002-05:00

Really.

Stimulus Away

2009-02-17T20:17:00.007-05:00

It's almost certain that the White House had this timed to coincide with the signing of the stimulus bill by President Obama, but it is refreshing to see at least one promise project actually underway.

Associated Press

Mo. bridge project touted as first under stimulus

TUSCUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — Construction crews have started working on a replacement for a rural Missouri bridge within minutes of President Barack Obama's signing the $787 billion stimulus package.

Officials expected the Missouri bridge project would be the first in the nation to get started under the stimulus plan.

As Obama signed the bill Tuesday in Denver, Missouri transportation officials met at the bridge and quickly approved construction of its replacement.

The 1,000-foot-long bridge being replaced spans a Missouri River tributary about 30 miles southwest of the state Capitol in Jefferson City. It was built in 1933 but was closed to large trucks in 2007 because of structural concerns.

The state also planned to begin work Tuesday on three other highway projects.

It's fantastic political theatre. Hopefully more of the promised projects for needed infrastructure as well as tax relief will be in the pipeline soon as well. After all, it is law now.

However, there still could have been at least 48 hours to review the compromise stimulus package before shoving it through Congress. Was the administration afraid that it would not pass had that been the case?

The pertinent point comes 1:05 from the start.

Do we know what our government is doing?

Obama Hates Struggling Americans!

2009-02-16T20:08:00.003-05:00

If it hasn't been used already, some partisan hack will use it eventually.

But it is funny, that, with the rush to pass the compromise stimulus bill through Congress on Friday, President Obama will not sign it into law until tomorrow.

From The Business Review:

President Barack Obama will sign the $787 billion federal stimulus package into law in Denver on Tuesday.

Obama will sign the bill at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

It sounds like good theatre and a nice political show, especially after nearly every Republican in Congress refused to play ball. However, could we, and Congress, have not gotten the weekend to review the compromise stimulus bill? It would still have been ready for the president on Tuesday.

If we need it right now, without delay, then why the delay?

Hopefully, there is something in this bill that will help. We will find out as we find what's actually in this bill and what the results of these provisions will be. We can view the bill now, and its provisions, but it has already passed and will be signed into law. This kind of review should have come after the release of the compromise and before the votes that passed it through Congress.

Future Generations to US Leadership: Thanks a Trillion

2009-02-14T01:52:00.000-05:00

Whether one thinks the stimulus package is urgently needed or not, there should have been a little extra time for Congress, and the public, to review the bill as it came out of conference committee. No matter how many "shovel-ready" projects and immediate tax cuts there may be, they will not magically be underway in the morning. Surely, a little time to better understand all that is in this massive bill could have been given. The size of this bill alone demands it. The size of the coming deficits on top of the current public debt strengthens that case. After all, were we not promised greater transparency? If not for this bill, then where does it begin?

Even in better times, deficits mounted. While there were some very needed items included, this accumulation of debt has made it harder to take on additional debt, for needed items, for pork projects, for tax cuts, for anything. The additional debt securities that would have to be issued would have to be bought. Even if (or when) that happens, the country will face difficult decisions.

Servicing this debt will become more expensive as the debt increases. This will take more funds away from other priorities. Also, this debt will someday have to be paid. This could be done with the government's revenues or by issuing more debt. Either way, this will further erode resources and maneuverability on the country's other priorities. Combine this with the prospect of exploding entitlement programs and.... The situation in the decades ahead is looking nightmarish.

As the parties in DC form skirmish lines and play the predefined roles assigned to them based on which party is in power, who will foot the bill? Not those presently in power. The toughest decisions will come in the next several decades unless the current leadership chooses to make tough decisions now. After all, as massive and painful as this bill is, it would have been relatively less painful had it not been a cup of salt on a deep and old wound. Whether it would have meant a better and more efficient bill is an entirely other matter, however.

But for painful decisions punted to a future that is drawing ever closer, to the leaders that brought us here, thanks a trillion...or ten.

The Race for in the White House

2008-03-18T18:38:00.001-04:00

Whatever one may think about Barack Obama's decision to address the nation on race in the United States, there is no disputing that such an action had to be done. Throughout the whole campaign, the issue of race was ever present, albeit not on center stage, until his pastor's Sunday Morning Rantings were replayed over and over again on the political talk shows, on television and radio.

Although Obama should have spent time on this sooner to try to quell those background whispers, it is possible that the speech would have been said as pure politicking had he done so while he was still playing second fiddle to Hillary Clinton.

We need an honest discussion about race and an honest discussion about policies directed by race (such as Affirmative Action). We must have this so that they no longer remain the domain of people like Al Sharpton, who only set back progress and keep people suspicious of others. The Obama speech likely will not lead to that honest discussion, since he did not fully confront the issues and problems to the extent that he could have. But if he's all about hope, then we have to hope that this discussion does take place.

We Paid $42 Million and All We Got Was This Lousy Letter

2008-03-15T21:31:00.001-04:00

The government has some fantastic news but the only way to tell you that is to spend $42 million to mail out letters to 130 million households. These letters tell you that the fantastic economy stimulus checks that will be arriving right to your door will be arriving not now but in the late spring.

From the Associated Press:

That works out to about 32 cents to print, process and mail each letter. It doesn't include the tab for another round of mailings planned for those who didn't file tax returns last year but may still qualify for a rebate.

So that $42 million sticker price will not be the final cost.

Keith Hennessey, director of the president's National Economic Council, said the letters are being sent to explain how the tax rebates will work.

"Any time you do something as a government tens of millions of times, there is ample room for people to get confused. And so if you're going to have tens of millions of taxpayers getting checks, you want to get the information out so that you have as few people as possible confused about what's happening, they understand what's coming, and it reduces the number of incoming requests that IRS and Treasury have to figure out how to deal with it," said Hennessey.

"Dear Taxpayer," the letters will begin, going on to say the IRS is pleased to inform the recipient that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a plan that will provide payments of up to $600 for individuals who qualify or $1,200 for married couples filing jointly. The rebates are the centerpiece of a $168 billion economic stimulus package.

The actual rebate checks are scheduled to go out starting in May, after the IRS has finished separately mailing out routine refunds for the 2007 tax year.

Why couldn't the IRS simply send a receipt stating the reasons why the recipient received what they received, according to their tax returns. It would save the cost of an additional mailing and surely setting up a hotline to take questions from the population would not cost $42 million by the end of the summer or even the fall.

Unless this was just the IRS's way of doing their part to stimulate the economy.

Again, from the AP story:

Democrats accused the Bush administration of wasting time and postage.

"There are countless better uses for $42 million than a self-congratulatory mailer that gives the president a pat on the back for an idea that wasn't even his," Sen. Charles Schumer said Friday, arguing the IRS could more effectively spend the money to catch tax cheats.

Considering that the Democrats in the Senate overwhelming shot down the proposed one year moratorium on earmarks, including Senator Schumer, this argument rings quite hollow, especially since those earmarks cost far more than $42 million.

Of course, it may just be that it may be seen as giving credit to President Bush. In which case, don't legislators spend quite large amounts of money when using their franking privileges to tout themselves to their constituents?

This cost is unnecessary, but let's not blind ourselves to the fact that it is far from the only place where belts could be tightened.

Resolving the Democrats' Primary Problem

2008-03-14T23:10:00.000-04:00

The national Democratic Party carried out its threat to strip the delegates of any states that moved their primaries ahead of any of the four approved contests for January. Michigan and Florida tested those waters and the national party acted. The Republican Party, for their part, will accept only half of the delegates from those two states, as part of their own policy.

But, with most of the states having already voted and the Democratic nomination still being contested, there would be a major PR problem if the Democrats go to convention and no delegates from those two states take part.

Although the complaining from Democratic bosses in those states is immensely irritating, there will have to be a plan that leads to delegates from Michigan and Florida sitting in the convention.

Simply put, merely letting the results from the January contests stand can not happen. Barack Obama was not on the Michigan ballot for that vote and did not campaign in Florida (Hillary Clinton did her best to come as close to campaigning in Florida as possible). Further, it would validate those results as the voters expressed in January. If those results are validated and the delegates from that vote are seated, then what exactly was the punishment to those two states?

Having the states pay for new elections only punishes the average voters, whom, even if they were Democrats, had no say in where their elections were placed.

Thus, new votes must be done and paid for by the state Democratic parties. However they get the funds is up to them, but they must pay for it. Surely, people would rally to that cause.

The votes must also happen after every other primary and caucus has taken place. Therefore, the chances of the votes in these two states would become turning points for the campaign is limited. There would also be no punishments to the other states (and territories) by being placed behind these two states. Additionally, the chances of one candidate or another taking a lead large enough to prevent a disputed convention is greater. With Obama being ahead by approximately 150 pledged delegates, the chances of Clinton catching up are slim, due to the way delegates are apportioned in the Democratic Party.

These last two contests should also take place between one week and two weeks following the final contests, so that campaign attention does not drift too far away from the last contests nor would there be too large a gap exist such that there would be long, intense campaigning in Michigan and Florida.

It would be ideal if both states would only have half the delegates admitted to the convention, as is still the case with the Republicans. However, it might still be too much of a PR problem if that were the case if (or when) there is no clear-cut Democratic winner as there is for the Republican Party.

This deal should be made immediately. Not only so that the state parties could raise the money for the new votes, but also so that this bickering can finally cease. For two months, there has been nothing but griping from these two states. It is even threatening to rival the griping that comes from Holy Iowa and Holy New Hampshire when anyone even thinks that they shouldn't have their divine rights to vote first. This has to be ended.

A Disgrace in the Senate

2008-03-14T14:56:00.001-04:00

The Senate voted overwhelmingly against a proposed moratorium on earmarks for the 2009 budget. It wasn't even close. Seventy-one senators voted against versus twenty-nine that voted for the one-year ban.

If we cannot get the Senate to give up their pork barrel projects for even one year, what hope could we have?

The three Senators still in the running (Clinton, McCain, and Obama) for President voted for this ban. It may be politically calculated, but at this point, should we really care about such political motives so long as they support the ban?

The amendment to the bill was submitted by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) with fifteen cosponsors. Those cosponsors are listed below:

Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 3/13/2008
Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] - 3/13/2008
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 3/13/2008
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 3/13/2008
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 3/13/2008
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 3/13/2008
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 3/13/2008
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 3/13/2008
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 3/13/2008
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 3/13/2008
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 3/13/2008
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] - 3/13/2008
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 3/13/2008
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] - 3/13/2008
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 3/13/2008

The roll call vote shows which senators supported this effort.

YEAs ---29
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Obama (D-IL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)

NAYs ---71
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

What a shock it is that Ted Stevens, the king of the "Bridge to Nowhere" piece of pork is against this. Also a shock that the Senate can unite in a bipartisan fashion, against the ban that lets them take public funds to boost their own future campaigns.

Also of note is that more Republicans (23) than Democrats (6, including Joe Lieberman) voted for this moratorium. Whether it was out of individual stands (after all, more Republicans voted against than for this moratorium in the end) or because they'd like to stick it to the majority party, they should be applauded for their votes.

The 71 Senators that voted against this ban disappointed America, even though we should expect nothing more from them. Yes, this was only a proposal to ban it for one year, but it is a start. It's better than having nothing at all.

A Perfect Plan for 2010?

2008-03-13T19:33:00.000-04:00

The conventional wisdom states that Lieutenant Governor, and, on Monday, New York Governor David Paterson was betting on a Hillary Clinton administration starting in 2009, thus paving the way for Eliot Spitzer to appoint him to the vacancy in the United States Senate.

Although the chances of Mrs. Clinton becoming President, or Vice President, are falling, the timing for Paterson seems to favor him. The current gubernatorial term, which Paterson will serve, will end in 2010. So will the current term for New York's senior Senator, Chuck Schumer. These two men could simultaneously campaign for the other's job.

Of course, there are things that have the potential to derail this plan. These two men do not exist in a bubble and the ambitions of others cannot be ignored. Suppose that Andrew Cuomo would want another opportunity to become Governor in 2010. Or that Tom Suozzi would like to take another shot at the top. Suppose that Michael Bloomberg would like to continue his public life after all. Or that the GOP could recruit a candidate much better than the sacrificial lambs they offered in 2006 (no offense to long shots like Chris Callaghan that truly fought for the offices they sought). Suppose that members of New York's congressional delegation would like a promotion to the Senate.

The potential pitfalls to this switch are many. There is a chance that each man may want to continue in his current job. This could be especially true for Schumer, who has become a big man in the Senate with the opportunity to be included in a potentially larger Democratic caucus after the 2008 elections. But it isn't as if running for Governor would be an idea out of left field for him.

However, both Schumer and Paterson could find themselves in very strong positions by the 2010 campaign. Schumber is very popular in New York. His smashing of Howard Mills in the 2004 Senate race shows it clearly. Paterson could boost his own stock if he performs well as Governor for the next two-plus years. His first tests come quickly as the state budget is due on April 1st and state approval for New York City's congestion pricing plan is needed this month in order to receive federal aid for the program. If he can handle Senate Majority Leader (and to-be-Acting Lt. Gov.) Joe Bruno (R) and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D), his stock can only rise. His gains for the Democratic minority in the State Senate during his tenure as Minority Leader show promise that he can handle Bruno as Governor. If he backs a strong Democratic campaign that yields the party control of the Senate, for the first time in decades, he can boost his cause even more.

There is no reason why this plan would not have a good shot of succeeding, as things stand now. Both Schumer and Paterson have the skills to make it happen. They can certainly raise the funds to campaign, especially if they work together for 2010. And this switcheroo would be much better than another repeat of Al Vann and Annette Robinson swapping seats between the City Council and the State Assembly to get around the term limits on Council members. Schumer and Paterson could benefit immensely. If they are committed to fixing Albany, New Yorkers may benefit as well.

Of course, there is still plenty of time to see what will happen and how these men do. After all, two years ago, "Mr. Clean" was on his way to his coronation as Governor on the promise of fixing Albany starting from Day One. Since then, we've learned quite a lot, haven't we?

Deja Vu All Over Again

2008-03-11T13:59:00.002-04:00

Suddenly there was a flashback to an earlier time.

At this time, there is still no announcement on Governor Spitzer's plans to either resign or fight it out. The Republicans are seeking to put pressure on him to resign, by stating that they will seek to impeach the Governor if he does not resign in approximately 48 hours. I don't know if such a procedure would be able to go through, but it certainly shows Spitzer that there will be a fight if he tries to stay on as Governor. Although sheer determination has helped Spitzer in his career thus far, if he applies it here, it will only damage him and continue to prolong the pain for his family. We do not need another Alan Hevesi-type battle to remain in office.

Eliot Spitzer's Ruined Governorship

2008-03-10T17:20:00.005-04:00

Only fifteen months after he rode a wave of public support as the Sheriff of Wall Street to change Albany for the better on "Day One" as the newly-elected Governor, Eliot Spitzer has fallen so far, so quickly.

The latest scandal broke today, as he admitted his link to a prostitution ring earlier today. He has since apologized, during an announcement this afternoon, to his family and to the public for failing to live up to the standards he set, though he did not discuss the allegations.

Just last week, federal prosecutors arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation. Administration officials would not say that this was the ring with which the governor had become involved.

But a person with knowledge of the governor’s role said that the person believes the governor is one of the men identified as clients in court papers.

The governor’s travel records show that he was in Washington in mid-February. One of the clients described in court papers arranged to meet with a prostitute who was part of the ring, the Emperors Club VIP on the night of Feb. 13.

Mr. Spitzer appeared on a CNBC television show at 7 a.m. the next morning. Later in the morning, he testified before a Congressional committee.

An affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan in connection with that case lists six conversations between the man, identified as Client 9, and a booking agent for the Emperors Club.
-From the New York Times article as posted at around 3 PM thus afternoon

More so than his fighting with Republican leaders over the past year, this will likely shatter any effectiveness he has left in guiding state policy and would render his term, even if he somehow recovers in public opinion, as a lame duck governorship. Therefore, whether it will be proved that he breached the law or not (and forget about the salacious details that will likely be plastered all over the media, since that will distract from the potentially worse details stemming from this investigation), ethics and his usefulness (or lack thereof) in office after this dictate that he should resign and transfer the office to Lieutenant Governor David Paterson.

Eliot Spitzer must resign. For the good of this state.

Why I Hate Iowa

2008-01-03T16:20:00.000-05:00

His biggest pitch to supporters: Be sure to vote, and get others out there with you. "Call your friends," Romney said. "Get 'em out to the caucuses and make that difference. People are going to be listening to what Iowa has to say."

"I'd like to win them," Romney said of the early contests in Iowa and next week in New Hampshire. "But if I don't win, coming in second in these states is a strong statement."

Former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., capping a 36-hour marathon campaign swing, shifted from his stump speech attacking corporate power to urging his supporters to turn out at the caucuses.
Source for above lines

Iowa, Iowa, Iowa.

Can someone remind the candidates and the press that these people are running for the President of the United States and not President of Iowa?

In several hours, we will know the results of the Iowa caucuses, kicking off the first official votes towards selecting presidential nominees this year. In several hours, we will hear from our Iowan overlords who to vote for President.

"Altogether, 120,000 to 150,000 people are expected to come to the Democratic caucuses and 80,000 to 90,000 to the GOP meetings." (USA Today)

More people turn out for some of the contests in New York City than will show up to vote for Presidential nominees tonight in Iowa. And yet, somehow they set the tone for the rest of that. While other states wanted to get in on the action, people in Iowa (and New Hampshire) bitterly complained, as if this was their birthright. And all the meanwhile, candidates looking for national office pander to Iowans for months, up to a year or more.

Aren't the candidates looking to be President of a country "from sea to shining sea," not "from Dubuque to Sioux City," or was I wrong?

The candidates have camped out, even moved their families in with them, for most of the past year and especially the past several months. They may be able to qualify to run for Governor of Iowa, if they really want to stay there that long.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) dared to briefly go to Los Angeles to tape an episode of "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) attacked Huckabee for having the sheer audacity to go to any place out in the other 49 states of the Union!

“Frankly my focus is on the caucuses here in Iowa,” Romney said at a press conference at a middle school here, as he was flanked by about 50 mostly younger supporters. “I think Mike is more concerned about the caucus in Los Angeles.”

- Scott Conroy on the CBS blog "From the Road"

The horror! How dare he disrupt the birthright of Iowa, granted to it by God Himself! That's not America!

Beyond that, the campaigns are providing luxurious services at great cost to their campaigns to entice more Iowans to vote. Everything from car rides to baby-sitting to food, these Iowans get perks nobody else in the nation enjoys just for going to their caucus location. Will a person in New York with two jobs or children to look after be able to get such services in order to go vote in the primary on February 5th? Only perhaps if local organizations provide it. But that won't be money spent from presidential campaign coffers.

The people in Iowa and New Hampshire demand the candidates camp out in their states as if nothing else in this nation of three hundred million matters. They demand that the candidates meet them face-to-face in restaurants, house parties, schools, and more to talk about "Iowan values," as if they're something separate from those in the states surrounding Iowa. What do the rest of us get out of the candidates? Nothing more than an ad or two. If we even want to see them live and in the flesh, we may have to find a rally, but we won't be able to get within the two feet of space that an Iowan can. Can this really be the best way to select presidential candidates?

Luckily there are a few out there that really do see this strange world as a problem. Reuters reports on some of the editorials that call out this bizarre process as just that, bizarre.

Jeff Greenfield, political correspondent for CBS News, wrote in the online magazine Slate.com that the caucuses, in which Iowans gather to discuss and vote for their party's candidate in the November 2008 election, "violate some of the most elemental values of a vibrant and open political process" - the secret ballot and the principle of one person, one vote.

In the Wall Street Journal, Iowa resident and freelance journalist Michael Judge complained that the caucuses encouraged candidates to pander to Iowans, 90 percent of whom were unlikely to show up at caucuses.

"Even if you're a died-in-the-wool (sic) Democrat or Republican, you have to be a certain kind of person to do the caucus thing," he wrote.

The caucuses kick off the state-by-state process by which Democrats and Republicans will select their nominees to face off in the November presidential election. Fewer than 250,000 people are expected to take part in the voting on Thursday.

The winners can expect a tremendous wave of publicity and flood of contributions that can boost their campaigns for the next, crucial stage of the nomination battles.

Those who do badly could be out of the race within days. Both major parties' nominees are expected to be selected by mid-February.

(One note about caucuses: There is no absentee option. So if you're working, have to be elsewhere, have to care for someone, or are in the armed forces deployed elsewhere, too bad. You don't get to have a voice.)

Reuters also reports on a common Iowan rebuttal to all those nasty people wanting to have a crack at their birthright:

Defenders of Iowa say the state's citizens take their role in winnowing the presidential field extremely seriously and force the candidates to do on-the-ground, personal campaigning instead of relying on television advertisements.

"Sorry, but that's not good enough," the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in an editorial. It noted that the state's largest city of Des Moines had a population less than half the size of Oakland, California.

"The system favors enthusiasts with the time to attend a caucus for several hours, a process that screens out those with family duties, conflicting work hours, travel plans or disabilities," the newspaper wrote.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins agreed:

"The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state. Let alone the sliver of that state with the leisure and physical capacity to make a personal appearance tonight at a local caucus that begins at precisely 7 o'clock. Let alone the tiny slice of the small sliver willing to take part in a process that involves standing up in public to show a political preference, while being lobbied and nagged by neighbors."

Washington Post columnist David Broder joined the attack, saying the peculiar procedures in Iowa favored conservative Christian and anti-abortion groups among Republicans and organized labor among Democrats who were best organized and able to get their members to the caucuses.

The result, he wrote, was "a double distortion mirror."

In other words, their defense is that they take their choices seriously, not like the rest of those people elsewhere in the country. Additionally, those candidates only do face-to-face campaigning with people in Iowa and New Hampshire. It can't happen anywhere else because no other place gets to host the candidates for twelve months prior to the vote. So what good is it if candidates do everything possible to get a few thousand Iowans to vote at the expense of millions elsewhere?

Is this jealousy? You bet it is. Having to watch the candidates essentially all become Iowan residents for the year prior to voting in the primaries are justifiable grounds for jealousy. There is no sensible reason why Iowa (and New Hampshire for that matter) must always be the grand filter for the rest of us. Sure, many people would love to have the politicians as far away from them as possible. Yet when it comes to making sure we elect whom we want, having them in some of the other places in this great country would be beneficial. Besides, it's not as if our fantastic filters in Iowa and New Hampshire have given us the best choices.

The results of the caucuses tonight will be, as always, interesting. But they shouldn't be a cue to the rest of us that these are the picks. We must utilize our own power at subsequent primaries and caucuses to inject our own voice into the process. At the end of the day, all Iowans will have done is send a few delegates to the national conventions this summer. That's it. The rest belong to the rest of us. We have to take them back.

The Partisanship Trap

2007-10-14T22:38:00.000-04:00

Throughout this decade, there has been much coverage of the intense partisan fights that have become the standard in Washington, D.C. and in many other places throughout the country. As nearly every single issue becomes a political football for politicians to fight over, observers wonder what happened to those "good old days" where the parties often worked together and even stayed in the capital to meet socially and come to compromises.

However, one must realize why these sides engage in bitter fights at every opportunity. The fact of the matter is that both sides have much to lose if these partisan battles become less frequent.

Consider the massive amounts of money raised for presidential campaigns. Is all this money being donated because the candidates are just that popular? Perhaps some contribute out of sheer admiration for a candidate, but even Hillary Clinton, who is not particularly popular with much of the Democratic base, is making a mint for her campaign every quarter. It is not because so many people out there view her as the ideal candidate but because she has the Clinton brand and is politically smart enough to have a good shot at being at least barely acceptable to 50% of the electorate. Democrats are eager to take back the White House after eight years of George W. Bush, thus they are donating in record numbers. The unpopularity of Bush combined with much anti-Bush rhetoric on the campaign trail leads to massive amounts of money.

Although Republicans have not been raising as much as Democrats, they too are fueled by the motivation of keeping the other side from the Oval Office. Rudy Giuliani's major draw is that he too could be seen as somewhat acceptable to a very slim majority of the electorate. Should Clinton be the Democratic nominee, even more funds would be donated as the prospect of another Clinton presidency will put most Republicans in line with the Republican nominee.

This extends to the outside groups (527's as called by their line in the tax code) that place themselves on the front lines of the partisan battle. This is why such groups (like MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) send out advertisements and announcements proclaiming that those evil bastards on the other side are a threat to your "values" (whatever such "values" may be), so give money to the cause of defeating their attempts.

Besides, what would happen if both sides did get together much more often to hammer out agreements? A sharp rise of criticisms that "those Washington politicians are all the same" would result. This gave rise to candidates that focused their rhetoric on "cleaning out Washington" or ranting about "those Washington insiders," even as they themselves became entrenched Washington insiders. Not surprisingly, such talk quickly went to "those evil Washington insider bastards are a threat to your values."

But even while there is that campaign angle, politicians do often brag about "bipartisan" agreements. Given how rare such things happen, it must surely take a person of unique skill to reach out and get those evil Washington insider bastards to screw their heads on straight and agree to whatever proposal was on the table. If such bipartisanship were the norm rather than the exception, such a statement of pride would be nothing special.

Just like there is the liquidity trap for interest rates that are so low, due to a lack of investment, rates stay low, there is the partisanship trap for politics so entrenched that there would be too much to lose for participants to scrap the partisan fighting. However, as bad as things may seem these days, there are still chances to turn it around, though it may take politically courageous people to call a cease-fire and meet. This is nowhere near as bad as it could be. Intense partisanship prompted violent outbursts in our country's history (such as when Republican Senator Charles Sumner was caned in the Senate chamber by Democratic congressman Preston Brooks after Sumner ridiculed Brooks' uncle, Democratic Senator Andrew Butler, for a speech impediment caused by his heart condition while blasting away proponents of the Fugitive Slave Act, with Brooks being one of the Act's authors) and fueled much of the motivation for Southern states to secede due to irreconcilable differences (no matter how wrong they were in such views concerning slavery), leading to the Civil War. There is not yet evidence to suggest such a thing is likely today. But a bit of peace and quiet every once in a while would be nice. We may even then solve some of the country's biggest persistent issues. Until the next battle, anyway.

The Electoral Vote Scheme that Lets State Legislatures Decide the Presidency

2007-10-14T21:00:00.000-04:00

An effort underway in California would change the way that state would pick its choice for President. The plan would be to scrap the current system that awards all 55 of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner to a system where the winner in each of the state's congressional districts would be awarded one electoral vote for each district carried while the remaining two electoral votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

Forget that this scheme would be a major benefit to the Republicans (who would gain 19 electoral votes from the Democrats if their presidential candidate won the vote in each district that currently has a Republican representative) if only California adopted this plan (though Nebraska and Maine currently employ this way of awarding electoral votes). What would happen if this were the method adopted by all 50 states?

Although many voters cast split ticket votes, with their vote for president being of one party and their vote for the congressional representatives being from the other, as well as votes for "their guy" for Congress regardless of the presidential vote, the probability that the party that takes the congressional district would also take that district's vote for President is fairly high.

The probability of such a thing happening is even greater with the many congressional districts that are gerrymandered into place along partisan lines. Therefore, the battles over redistricting every ten years become even more intense as the prizes, congressional seats and then electoral votes, become greater.

Thus, there is a great chance that the electoral votes for President will be dependent on the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Only 103 (50 statewide winners plus Washington, D.C.'s 3 electoral votes) of the 538 total electoral votes would be independent from the House results and gerrymandering. The House is to only determine the President should no candidate receive the majority of electoral votes and even then, only the existing House decides, not the new one voted in on Election Day. Further, the presidency should be independent of the Congress as the head of the executive branch and not beholden to the House of Representatives nor the state legislatures (which themselves are often gerrymandered) that determine congressional districts.

Additionally, if presidential candidates only mainly focus on swing states currently, what is to happen when candidates focus more on swing districts? Although this will include more time spent in more states with swing districts, the efforts to turn out statewide votes will be diminished as they only win two electoral votes per state instead of all of each state's votes. The presidential election then becomes focused on even fewer potential voters than before. At best, in close elections, swing states and areas with numerous swing districts would be targeted and the far majority of seats that are safe one way or the other would be ignored unless the state's remaining two electoral votes are critically needed.

Simply put, this would be a poor substitute for the current way electoral votes are awarded. Not only would the far majority of electoral votes be dependent on gerrymandering, but the national election would be reduced to certain districts with even less emphasis on certain states as it is today.

The Campaign for President of 9/11 is Underway

2007-10-09T01:11:00.000-04:00

Much has been made about Rudy Giuliani's blatant use of the September 11th attacks in his campaign for the Republican nomination for President. Giuliani has thrown around 9/11 so many times that the satire that is The Onion declared "Giuliani To Run For President of 9/11."

Yet it seems that he will have a tough time ensuring that he has a monopoly on 9/11 as another presidential candidate has laid claim to the title. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton recently released an advertisement to Iowa and New Hampshire that not only establishes that "I was there, too," but does so in a very vivid commercial regarding health care.

"Stand by Us" from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Clinton's commercial shows some footage of the first responders at Ground Zero and also shows a shot of her donning a breathing mask in case the point was not clear enough. This is a clear challenge to Giuliani's supposed ownership of the event.

What ever happened to the promises that politics will change after 9/11? How is this any different from other people trying to profit off the attacks?

Just because Giuliani has spent a campaign reminding us that he happened to be Mayor on that day does not mean that it's right for Clinton to join in. The public should send a message to these candidates that this is not acceptable. The road to the White House should not run through the ashes of Ground Zero.

Yet it's obvious that such tactics work. Perhaps that is a statement about the American electorate.

Debate what should be done with the site in the future, debate over our nation's course in reaction to the attacks, but do not parade all over it. Is it truly that much to ask?

The September 11th Decision: Why a Rebroadcast Should Not be Aired (Plus an Open Rant on Our Behavior)

2007-09-11T00:27:00.000-04:00

The sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 is upon us. Once again, those that were impacted through loss and/or those in the areas near where the attacks took place will have to remember the day and try to go about their lives again. As usual, the networks will have their own special programming on the morning of September 11th.

From personal observation, I have noticed that the NBC network has been running commercials over the past several days announcing their plan for the MSNBC cable news network for this morning. MSNBC will replay the broadcast from NBC's Today that ran on September 11, 2001. The announcement of this replay brings up one very important question: Is this right?

Thankfully, the people that have lost loved ones on that day will most likely be at a memorial or otherwise away from the television as will be most of the rest of us who are heading to work, class, or other engagements (if not a memorial) this morning. However, would the rebroadcast of the September 11, 2001 show be a fitting memorial or would it be disrespectful to those that lived and suffered through that day, regardless of how many may or may not come across the MSNBC replay?

Although any stray viewer will likely come across this rant after MSNBC has already replayed the broadcast, my views and the discussion that should be had over such a decision remain just as relevant for next year and beyond as it does this year. That said, it is my view that this replay definitely should not take place in this fashion on this morning of September 11th.

Such broadcasts are now best left to the history books, history channels, and special programs on networks away from the time slot given to cover the memorials and other news about this anniversary. Not only does each anniversary memorialize the day and the losses (and not just what many people saw through their televisions) as well as how we are moving on with our thoughts and as a society as we still struggle to rebuilt from that day six years ago.

What reason could there be to replay the September 11, 2001 broadcast, complete with some of the images burned into our memories and our hearts? Would it be to memorialize the day by replaying the day and opening wounds that are just beginning to heal? What purpose would it serve to replay that day and continue looking only backward and never forward?

Would the replay serve as a tool to "remind" us all about what happened on that day? How many such reminders would it take and how do we know when people have truly remembered that day?

September 11, 2001 has become such a political football that people routinely use "Have you forgotten?" as a blunt instrument to win an argument and cast their opponent as the type to be asleep at the wheel with a "pre-September 11th" or a "September 10th" mindset, both terms also firmly ensconced in the public mind as a political weapon. Surely there are some that do operate as if nothing changed and the world has not transformed since the fall of the Soviet Union, but is it necessary to throw that charge against any and all opponents?

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why are we still stuck with people using catchphrases about that day as a way to run up the scoreboard in the shouting match "debates" that are a favorite of cable news shows and as a way to capture that perfect sound bite so that it may be played over and over for their advantage?

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why do we rush to label each subsequent horrific and barbaric terrorist attack as "so-and-so country's 9/11?" If we're to claim our loss as devastating and unique, then why do we call other people's tremendous sufferings as "another 9/11" as if 9/11 were a brand to be exported? Not only does it appear that we render the losses of others in such attacks as not significant enough to be remembered for its own day, but it renders our own catastrophic experience as much less unique if we rush to label attacks as "another 9/11," regardless of the scale of the attacks. Or "have we forgotten?"

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why is it still a struggle for places like New York City to get the funding it needs to keep all these vital areas safe? Yet, some elected officials are more concerned about building bridges to nowhere and officials in the Department of Homeland Security (created in the aftermath of September 11, 2001) are concerned with making sure a bean festival is receiving Homeland Security funding.

If on September 11, 2001, "everything changed," then why must we go back and show those scenes again and again, without considering how some people may take to seeing those images over and over. If we were all for supporting those that lost on that day, how could we possibly shove those images of the impacts or the collapses, showing again and again their loved ones perishing in those attacks?

Is it for education? Yes, there are now children in grade school (as well as some older children that were likely too young to grasp the meaning of the day when it happened six years ago) that need to learn this history. However, tapes could be made to show those children all about that day. Not only will they be learning that recent history, but they will also be witnesses to what is happening and what will happen as those who came of age around September 11, 2001 inherit the country and the world's situation.

This generation (and I am a part of that generation, having been 16 years old at the time) will have some monumental tasks ahead of us. We will have to lead the country into this new world and if current leaders end up doing a poor job handling this war and our recovery, those tasks will only be harder. That is the burden placed upon this generation and hopefully we will accept it and work with it for the good of this country and the world.

We "have not forgotten" September 11, 2001 (and yes, there are always exceptions, but hopefully nobody will turn to them to lead). Although we will likely be accused of forgetting by current and near-future leaders (of any and all political parties) that may disagree with us, we must take it in stride and not throw away even more time engaging in such pointless battles. NBC does not need to provide us with a lesson. Not on this.

We've learned more about the world than perhaps any generation had before us by our age (with great thanks to technological advancements). Hopefully, that will mean that we will be able to set a sensible plan that works and works well. Some of us may need to snap out of our youthful political extremism, but there must be a few among this generation that can lead such a path to a better world and victory over those that see the slaughter of civilians as a just cause or politics by other means.

So, who benefits from this replay on MSNBC? It won't serve as much of a "reminder" to the country. It will not be of much use to anyone that's suffered directly or indirectly. It will not serve to educate those that were too young to properly digest the meaning of September 11, 2001 (not in this setting, anyway). And it will not be a useful guide for the generation that has September 11, 2001 burned into our collective conscience.

There is most likely great value in leaving the replays of broadcasts to historical specials. However, there is no value that can be had by playing this as the memorials for that day are underway. However, we must always remain thankful that we do live in a place where we could choose to produce or view such rebroadcasts as we wish and for people to express their opinions to anyone willing to listen. Above all, we must know that we have to maintain such rights or risk losing them for a very long time. With that said, this rant won't make a difference for this morning, but it is definitely worth considering as we move ahead.

Bloomberg's Counting

2007-08-01T02:08:00.000-04:00

Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) once again rejected any notions that he would run for the presidency in 2008. As reported in The Hill, Bloomberg again laid out his publicized plan to remain mayor of New York City until December 31, 2009, when the term ends, then start his journey in philanthropy.

Bloomberg also minced no words in ruling out a bid for the vice presidency. When asked if he would consider running on another candidate’s ticket, Bloomberg flatly replied “No.

“I've got a job and it's a great job. And I'm going to finish this job and then my next career is going to be in philanthropy.”
Bloomberg, a Democrat turned Republican turned Independent, said his recent travels around the country were made to raise awareness on issues about which he cares. He added that many are reading too much into these trips.

“I think it's interesting, people assume you are running for president when you just say, ‘Look, these are issues that I care about. These are issues that are important for my daughters and for the world that I’m going — that they're going to be part of that I'm going to help leave them,’” he said. “Why should only presidential candidates focus on that? I think we all have an obligation.”

Of course, the best line from Bloomberg is one that has been often recycled and is up to the minute every time he says it.

“I have 890 days left in my term, but who's counting?” Bloomberg said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I plan to finish out my term as mayor of the New York City and then go into philanthropy.”

Apparently, Bloomberg's been counting. Ever since his announcement in Los Angeles that he would be a registered Independent, Bloomberg has kept track of how long he has left in his mayoral term, even estimating the time left down to the hour that day in Los Angeles in June.

So why the constant countdown? Is it a reminder that his plans are etched in stone or is he looking for a way out? We'll find out by the end of 2008 which is the case. Until then, Bloomberg will certainly continue to be at the forefront of America's mayors in voicing his opinions and concerns across the country and about the country.

A Foreign Policy Blunder by Barack Obama

2007-07-26T17:43:00.000-04:00

Perhaps one additional positive outcome from the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate on Monday night is the battle between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps regarding the answers that each candidate gave in response to a question asking them if they would meet with the leaders of countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela without preconditions (and this qualifier is key).

From the CNN/YouTube debate:

Note that Obama took a stance that he would expect to gain him the support by taking a somewhat unpopular Bush administration policy (not engaging some of our enemies). The problem was, Clinton pulled the rug out from under him by placing some qualifiers that would have to happen before such high-level meetings were to happen, thereby making Obama look quite foolish in terms of foreign policy by appearing to want to jump right to the table.

Also note that John Edwards piggybacked on Clinton's answer and repeated her response as close to verbatim as one could get during a debate. Whether Edwards had that answer in mind already or shifted to hug Clinton's answer after she knocked that pitch out of the park is uncertain, but it did have the effect of isolating Obama as a person that does not fully understand how a President would deal with certain foreign relations.

Since then, Clinton and Obama have traded words on the issue.

From The Caucus:

Senator Clinton said yesterday that Senator Obama was “irresponsible and naïve” for suggesting during Monday night’s debate that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations. Senator Obama fired back that it was irresponsible and naïve of her to vote to authorize the Iraq war.

After Clinton continued to press the case, Obama had no choice but to fight back, since he could not change his position (at least, not this quickly):

“I think what is irresponsible and naïve is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out — and you know, I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue,” Mr. Obama said today during an NBC News stakeout outside of his Senate office.

...

“We have a difference,” Mr. Obama told our colleague, Jeff Zeleny, as he walked from the Senate floor. “Unless Senator Clinton wants to define what her nuanced perspective is.”

Indeed, Mr. Obama suggested that he had no intention of changing the
subject.

“It goes to the heart of whether or not we’re going to have a fundamental
change in how the Bush administration has conducted foreign policy,” Mr.
Obama said, “or we’re going to have a version of Bush light.”

Of course. Not changing the subject at all. Obama is trying to go to his strong point, his claim that he opposed the Iraq war from the start (never mind that he was not in Congress at the time of the votes, making it much easier for him to say this without having had to face the decision) and attack Clinton's weakness in many eyes within the Democratic Party, her cautious straddling between opposing the war and attempt to look tough on defense by talking tough on Iraq. Additionally, Obama invoked the Bush name in an attempt to at least loosely tie Clinton to the president, something that would cause her support to drop not just in the Democratic Party, but throughout the electorate, if the latest poll numbers on President Bush are to be believed.

Regardless of how wise it might be to go on the attack instead of having to modify one's remarks so soon after the debate, in this case, Senator Clinton is right! If these dictators even want to talk with us, we cannot simply rush in and promise to fly over there on January 21, 2009. If we were to try to construct some kind of dialogue anyway, we would have to start with lower level talks. Merely throwing our leader at theirs is not going to do the trick.

For some additional support:

The campaign also issued a statement from Richard C. Holbrooke, the ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. “As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years,” he said, adding that “she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations.”

Additionally, Obama spoke of "responsibilities" that Iran and Syria would have in Iraq. Should we withdraw (as Obama supports), why would we trust the future of Iraq to these two countries? Pursuing such a strategy could alter the course of the whole Middle East as Iran may gain even more power in the region, sparking a rivalry between Shi'ite Iran and the Sunni countries of Arabia, many of whom have significant Shi'ite minorities by their oil fields. Obama's campaign is smartly not bringing up this point again, as they would exacerbate their current losing streak by doing so.

Barack Obama was simply wrong all around. Hillary Clinton definitely won this round.

Courtesy: Cox & Forkum

Can a Person Really Sue For This?

2007-07-24T15:09:00.000-04:00

Not long after the Con Edison steam pipe explosion at Lexington Avenue and East 41st Street, the New York Post reports that a woman "filed a $400,000 negligence suit against Con Ed yesterday, saying she thought she was going to die - the way her sister did on 9/11."

I think nearly everyone can sympathize with her loss on that terrible day, but the question is: Can she actually sue for this?

Nevermind that anyone could probably file a suit against Con Edison for nearly any reason they want and that it's merely a question of whether it will get thrown out of court or not. But what grounds could she have to sue Con Ed on this basis?

From the Post:

"I can still see death," said Francine Dorf, whose sister, Maria LaVache, died at the World Trade Center. "I believe she was my guardian angel. She was there with me, but it wasn't my time to go.

"I can't sleep, I can't eat," added Dorf, 52, who works at a law firm on East 42nd Street. "I can see the smoke and I can see those people running and I think of my sister over and over again."

LaVache, 60, died at the World Trade Center. Her remains have never been found.

Dorf, who filed her suit in Brooklyn Supreme Court, said she is suffering from posttraumatic-stress disorder because of last Wednesday's blast at East 41st Street and Lexington Avenue.

Ms. Dorf may have a legitimate case against Con Edison if she were hit by debris from the explosion or if she later learned that she inhaled asbestos at the scene. There, she may have a case that Con Edison was negligent in keeping their system in good condition, if it is found that Con Edison had indeed been negligent. However, how could Con Ed possibly realize that someone who had lost a family member at the World Trade Center would be suffering (in her words, so far) PTSD from this accident? How could the coincidence between her loss and her being at the scene that day be Con Edison's fault? Was Con Edison somehow supposed to delay the explosion until she was out of the area?

This is the first of what may be many lawsuits against Con Edison, so surely we will hear more of it in the future. If Con Edison is found to be negligent, how would this impact this case that is based on those grounds? Certainly, we will find out in due time.

However, it seems that if Con Ed was negligent, they would have to worry about those injured by the explosion and the asbestos as well as the businesses affected before trying to determine how responsible Con Ed was in this person's harmful memories.

CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy? Part III

2007-07-24T13:10:00.000-04:00

So now that the actual format of the CNN/YouTube debate has been beaten around in talk shows and on the Internet in the hours since, how did the candidates take advantage of this new format? Did they use this opportunity to make themselves seem more accessible, more down-to-earth?

Well, like the other debates between the Democratic candidates, most of those on the stage again failed to use this opportunity to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack, even when challenged to do so by the selected videos.

A large part of the reason why a candidate wouldn't break out of the pack would be that they dodged the question completely. The most glaring example came at the very end of the debate, when each candidate was given a chance to speak out about the candidate next to them. Aside from Mike Gravel, the other candidates either stated that they could not find one thing they disliked about their competitor (not even on policy) or used the opportunity to make a light-hearted joke (Biden being jealous of Dennis Kucinich's wife, who's approximately half the age of both candidates). What would have been a perfect opportunity to state why the primary voter shouldn't vote for the other guy and seal that statement in the memories of those watching at the very end was passed up.

Another chance to take charge of a subject was presented to Hillary Clinton, though this question was not one of policy.

From the CNN/YouTube debate transcript, Part I:

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I'm from Irvine, California.

I have a question for Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

COOPER: So you wouldn't use the word "liberal," you'd say "progressive."

Unfortunately for Clinton, this is one of the issues that has dragged down her campaign, even as she's taken a solid lead in the horse race. Instead of either telling people that you're going to take the "L-word" back or why she'd be a better "progressive" than anyone else on the stage, she took a pass. The netroots are probably very angry at her for this today.

Next came Joe Biden and John Edwards:

QUESTION: Hello. This question is for all of the candidates. Partisanship played a major role in why nothing can be done in Washington today. All of you say you will be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test. If you had to pick any Republican member of Congress or Republican governor to be your running mate, who would it be?

SEN. JOE BIDEN: At the risk of hurting his reputation -- and it will hurt him -- but I would pick Chuck Hagel, and I'd consider asking Dick Lugar to be secretary of state.

And I do have -- I do have a record of significant accomplishment. The crime bill, which became known as the Clinton crime bill, was written by Joe Biden, the Biden crime bill. That required me to cross over, get everyone together, not -- no one's civil liberties were in any way jeopardized.

We put 100,000 cops on the street. Violent crime came down.

The Violence against Women Act, what we did in Bosnia, and so on. So I have a track record of being able to cross over and get things done.

And by the way, if you want to end all this money, support my effort to pass public financing of all elections.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: All right. Stay on the topic.

Senator Edwards? Any Republicans?

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: Actually, I think Chuck Hagel is a good choice. But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?

And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.

I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.

(APPLAUSE)

And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them.

If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them...

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: ... over and over and over.

It's a very successful hit job on Hagel if he wanted to pursue a future in Republican politics, as perhaps a member of a Republican administration. However, neither candidate answered why they would consider Senator Hagel or Senator Lugar. Yes, the question didn't ask why the candidates would choose who they chose, but neither candidate offered reasons for why working with such a Republican would be beneficial. John Edwards tried to channel the frustration against Republicans in his answer, but did not successfully articulate how he might have to put up with an uncooperative Congress.

And although Bill Richardson has been my frontrunner thus far in the nomination process, here's one from him:

COOPER: Governor Richardson, what are you going to do? Would you commit American troops?

RICHARDSON: I was at that refugee camp. And there was a refugee, a woman who came up to me. She'd been raped, her husband had been killed and she said, "When is America going to start helping?"

This is what I would do: It's diplomacy. It's getting U.N. peacekeeping troops and not African Union troops. It's getting China to pressure Sudan. It's getting the European Union to be part of economic sanctions in Sudan. It's called leadership.

A no-fly zone, I believe, would be an option. But we have to be concerned about humanitarian workers being hurt by planes, being shot.

The answer here is caring about Africa. The answer here is not just thinking of our strategic interests as a country, as oil and Europe and the Middle East. It should be Africa, Asia and Latin America, doing something about poverty, about AIDS, about refugees, about those that have been left behind. That's how we restore American leadership in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: You say U.N. troops. Does that mean American troops?

RICHARDSON: United Nations peacekeeping troops, and that would primarily be Muslim troops. We need a permanent U.N. peacekeeping force, stationed somewhere.

If we get U.N. peacekeeping troops authorized for Darfur, there's some already there, it'll take six months for them to get there. Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region.

America needs to respond with diplomacy, with diplomatic leadership.

First of all, the Muslim janjaweed militias as well as the Arab government in Khartoum are the ones making those advances in Darfur. Thus, putting in more Muslim soldiers, even under UN banners, would not help the situation. However, it could be chalked up as a simple mistake in response.

Richardson waffled on what America's commitment would be in the region. Simple diplomatic gestures to get more African Union and United Nations soldiers in the area without adding in some kind of aid from the United States would likely not get very far. Though Richardson spoke out on the need to help, he declined to state exactly what he thinks he could do as President to help the situation.

One other area where the candidates bogged themselves down during the debate came when it was time to answer how they would withdraw the soldiers from Iraq. Different timetables, ranging from six months to a year, were presented as realistic estimations of how long it would take to withdraw the soldiers from Iraq. Yet, unless they truly believed that the Senate could find the sixty votes needed (and the senators on stage offered no solutions as to how they would try to get those needed votes while on Capitol Hill) to overcome the Republican filibusters, they have to answer what they would do at 12:01 PM on January 20, 2009, since President Bush has said repeatedly that the next President will have to deal with this situation. It's easy to be for withdrawing the soldiers by March 2008 when you're one of 100 Senators. Tell us how you would do it when you become the one President.

Maybe this is just another example of a group of politicians debating very early in the nomination process refusing to take stands on issues or draw differences between themselves and their opponents. However, this format of debate can only be truly useful if the candidates decide to take on the challenges presented to them in several, if not many, of these submitted questions. The Republican candidates may well act the same way on September 17th when it is their turn to tangle with this format, but hopefully they will not.

As for all the attention given to the CNN/YouTube venture, although it may not be on the "historic" proportions claimed by everyone at CNN promoting their own event, but it is potentially another step in the evolution of presidential politics, much the same way that the Internet as a whole brought changes to the 2004 presidential race. If we are to draw more people into the process, as candidates love to declare that they want to do, they have to step up and evolve with these changes. Nobody is expecting them to be perfectly upfront all the time or even half of the time. However, with some of the questions being more direct than those asked by moderators, the candidates do have to paint with broad strokes at this time. Deflecting most of the questions and trying to have the same nuances as everyone else on the stage will not win a whole lot of votes nor will it expand the electorate. Taking the opportunity to engage just might do the trick. Until then, there may just be more of those silly videos up on YouTube for the candidates and then the format would truly become a mockery of democracy. The opportunity is still there to show that it won't.

See you in September, CNN/YouTube.

Part I
Part II

CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy? Part II

2007-07-24T00:20:00.000-04:00

The CNN/YouTube debate between the Democratic candidates for President has ended and more important than analyzing whether there might be a change in the horse race was the performance given by CNN and YouTube for this new format of debate.

The CNN/YouTube format will have another chance to redeem itself when the Republicans enter the arena on September 17th. That said, a lot of work should be done to improve this format if it is to be a serious and viable form of debate in the future.

The biggest fear brought up in the first CNN/YouTube debate post was that a substantial portion of the debate would be devoted to some rather silly or humorous videos for the purposes of entertainment. That was not the case. However, it would be fair to say that there were still some of those kinds of videos that made the cut. As such, one has to wonder whether a viewer was distracted by the entertainment value from these several videos and did not fully pay attention to the subject at hand. Additionally, a couple of those music videos featured people holding up signs to voice their message. Perhaps my eyesight is severely lacking, but those signs were incredibly hard to read on the TV. CNN should find a way to better present such footage if they indeed decide to take more of those videos when the Republicans come to bat in September.

Another problem highlighted by this format was the introduction of a few subjects that perhaps had no business being presented in a presidential debate. One, arguably, was the question asking if the Democratic candidates supported giving reparations to African-Americans. Aside from the merits of this subject (which is a whole other topic, for another time), this topic, even if it were supported by a large portion of the African-American community, is simply a very little issue nationwide. That said, Dennis Kucinich promptly killed his own presidential campaign by coming out in support of reparations.

The other topics brought up by people submitting videos included:

- Whether race was the reason why FEMA messed up dealing with the crisis following Hurricane Katrina.
- If Barack Obama was "black enough" and if Hillary Clinton was "feminine enough" to be acceptable.
- Who the candidates' favorite teachers were.
- Whether the candidates sent their children to public or private school (hopefully knowing full well that no candidate will ever say that they took their child out of public school [or never sent them in the first place] because the public schools in their areas were terrible).
- Whether the attention given to Al Gore hurt the feelings of the other candidates.
- If the candidates would ever work as President for minimum wage (who would ever flat out say "no" without the qualifier "I'm not worth all that much anyway" or "The salary the President gets now is too small for the amount of work involved"?)
- What "In God We Trust" meant to the candidates.
- And, finally, for each candidate to state one thing they liked and one thing they disliked about the guy next to them (only former Senator Mike Gravel took up that challenge and John Edwards made a remark about Hillary's coat, which might well get him slammed by some on the Internet as attacking a woman).

Taxes were not well covered in this debate, as one question was given in the form of some music video and the other was essentially a person stating "Democrats always raise my taxes! Answer that!"

The issue of guns was not discussed in any depth as the person submitting the video was worried about his "baby," which turned out to be an assault rifle.

On the positive side, Anderson Cooper did try to keep things on track (with the challenge of dealing with eight candidates in only slightly over two hours) during the debate and also tried his best to come up with quick follow-ups or his best interpretation of what some of the fantasy moderators tried to ask the candidates.

Also positive was the showing of campaign videos from each of the candidates, even though the lower-tier candidates did not get as much time as the top three (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) and Bill Richardson did not get enough time as the fourth candidate. Additionally, a few of the questions did cut to the heart of a matter, without adding in all kinds of premises or qualifiers, including questions regarding gay rights/marriage, the Iraq war, and a couple of the health care questions.

To the credit of both CNN and YouTube, since not even half of the questions were completely silly in nature (even if there were quite a few that should have nothing to do with the campaign), they did an adequate job of making sure that serious questions and issues were raised in the debate.

The videos used for the debate can be seen at YouTube's website and presumably, the entire debate can be watched from there as well.

So, with everything said, the CNN/YouTube venture probably had enough positive things going for it that it should continue to try its new format when the Republicans walk onto the stage in September. The concerns brought up prior to this debate are still valid for the September episode, however, a couple of the fears have been addressed and the joint venture has its work before them with the upcoming debate. We will see how CNN and YouTube, as well as the candidates for the Republican nomination, will fare in a little under two months.

CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy?

2007-07-23T14:51:00.000-04:00

The eight Democrats currently running for the party's nomination for President meet tonight in South Carolina for a debate hosted by CNN and YouTube. The biggest draw to this debate, according to CNN and YouTube, is that the questions directed to the candidates will be from your average person, via recorded videos submitted to the CNN/YouTube venture.

There is little question that YouTube has already had an impact on American politics. One only needs to ask former Senator George Allen about how much potential clips on YouTube could bring to politics.

However, given the promotions for the debate seen thus far and given the recent performances by moderators at this year's debates, chances are fairly good that there will be a substantial portion of debate time devoted to people acting silly, or asking provocative questions with little value, or asking questions on those little issues that have no real impact on the platform of a candidate or their ability to govern if elected. Simply put, the temptation to go for sheer entertainment value will be greater than never before.

So, will this debate turn out to completely mock the democratic process by providing little or no value to the voters?

Although there will also likely be some very well researched questions that give the candidates the chance to articulate their positions on issues important to America, how could there be a true follow-up to a question if the candidate gives a non-answer answer or to further probe their position if the questioner will not be present? Even if a moderator pounces on the chance to give a follow-up, it may not mesh with the intentions of the person who asked the original question. (Edit: Turns out Anderson Cooper will ask the follow-ups, as stated in Chris Cillizza's column, but the same concern about staying true to the intent of the question remains.)

Still, it's not as if moderators are incapable of asking silly questions. Take the example of Brit Hume during the second Republican debate who essentially asked the candidates if they supported the use of torture on the given premise that only torturing someone would prevent an American city from being blown apart.

Here, YouTube comes to the rescue as someone's montage not only highlights the question, but also shows how Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) falls for mixing entertainment with policy when he said he wants Jack Bauer to save the day.

Furthermore, will this mixture of entertainment and policy harm politics in America? If the electorate begins to expect candidates to answer to someone recording a question while wearing a hockey mask, will this detract from the larger message the candidates try to send to the entire American electorate? Will this encourage more people to vote in the upcoming elections? If they do vote, will they even know what they're voting for?

Maybe it's time to give this CNN/YouTube venture a shot. Either it'll do much better than the recent performances from handpicked moderators or it'll fall flat on its face. We'll know whether this kind of debate format is good for American democracy or makes a mockery of it.

Ethics? Who Needs That? Not Some Democrats

2007-05-25T19:10:00.000-04:00

A couple of key decisions made by Congressional Democrats this week have shed light on where the leadership truly stands on ethics in our government. Though many Democrats campaigned on the case that they would return ethics to Capitol Hill after the Republican leadership had thrown it out, now that the Democrats are in the majority, some are starting to like those ill-gotten perks that Republicans enjoyed for quite a while.

Although some top Democrats are pushing to install ethics reforms in Congress, some members of Congress have said that such reforms go too far. The New York Times outlines the divide that has shown that not all Democrats are eager to tackle ethics reform.

The Democratic leadership was forced to scrap a plan that would extend the length of the ban on former congressmen from lobbying after leaving Congress from one year to two.

One of the congressmen opposed to that reform, Michael Capuano (D-MA), nominated himself for Crybaby of the Month in his defense to keep the ban at one year. Given his language, it looks like he would favor doing away with the one-year ban altogether, greasing the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street.

Others say they do not see the point of doing more. “I didn’t make any of those campaign promises,” said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat who questions the bundling disclosure proposal and also opposed the extension of the so-called “revolving door” ban on lobbying by former members.

“I made a career change 20 years ago to be a full-time elected official,” Mr. Capuano said, explaining his position. “I am no longer qualified to be a tax attorney. It is like saying to people, ‘Please, come into public service, give it your all, and when you are done you are completely unqualified for anything else.’ ”

Surely if Mr. Capuano were able to make that career change 20 years ago, there isn't a reason why he could not make another change now if he were to retire (or be fired) from Congress. Since members of Congress often vote on measures that deal with tax law, there is no reason to believe Congressman Capuano could not re-qualify himself as a tax attorney. Furthermore, leaving Congress does not make a person "completely unqualified for anything else" and the claim that there is no line of work that a former Congressman could enter except for lobbying is patently ridiculous. Congressman that "give it their all" are not supposed to be doing that while salivating at the offices on K Street. If Capuano is "completely unqualified for anything else," one has to wonder how the hell he's qualified to actually be in Congress.

Apparently, Capuano is of the mind that people would only go to Congress to get a crack at becoming a lobbyist down the road. He must be speaking from his own experiences.

From a Boston Globe editorial:

Representative Michael Capuano of Somerville, who is close to Pelosi but opposed the revolving-door prohibition, told a Washington Post reporter in a moment of breathtaking candor that preventing politicians from becoming lobbyists -- even if only for 24 months -- would discourage good people from seeking office. "What you are telling me is I cut off my profession," he said. Funny, we thought Capuano's profession was public servant, not lobbyist-in-training.

Capuano's statement was puzzling because Pelosi is counting on him to deliver on another reform promise; she appointed him to chair a task force aimed at creating an independent new entity to enforce ethics rules on House members. "I love the speaker," Capuano said in an interview yesterday, "but I can respectfully disagree with her."

It's a damn shame that the chair of a task force to create an independent entity to enforce ethics has come out against ethics.

That bundling disclosure proposal did manage to pass the House (and was already passed in the Senate). Now, lobbyists are required to disclose the campaign contributions that they collect and deliver to politicians, and act known as "bundling." Such disclosure would show how much sway the lobbyists have over members of Congress (say, by showing that they're able to collect $500,000 in donations for Congressman X), though this new mandate does not actually curtail such activities.

Opposition to this proposal came from members pressed to meet their fundraising dues for the Democratic Party.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, supported the proposal:

“We laid down a marker and said we want to change the way business is done in Washington,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a main sponsor of the rule requiring disclosure of “bundling” by lobbyists. “Now we need to follow through and take the next step of passing a strong lobbying reform bill.”

However, although Congressman James Moran (D-VA) supported the proposal, he voiced the complaints of those that opposed the measure:

Others grumbled that Mr. Van Hollen, whose Democratic campaign committee duns each member for contributions, was pushing a measure that would make it harder to tap the easiest sources of such money — lobbyists.

“We have dues that we are supposed to raise of several hundred thousand dollars, and in the same breath we are informed that this is something we will have to vote for,” Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said. “I don’t know what we are supposed to do, except cold call all the people in the phone book in our districts.”

Mr. Moran expects to vote for the disclosure rule because, he said, after his party campaigned on ethics reform “we have to be holier than Caesar’s wife.”

There is a solution that could come to that problem uttered by Congressman Moran. However, it would require politicians to not just look tough but to actually be tough. Instead of complaining about the system forcing you to bend the rules of ethics to raise funds, now that you're in the majority, why not try to change the system so that members of Congress don't have to spend half their time downing cocktails with lobbyists to meet the fundraising quotas from the leadership?

As the Times said in its editorial page this morning:

Voters should still keep in mind the House Democrats’ refusal to slow the revolving door by requiring former lawmakers to wait two years — rather than the current one — before they can cut out the middleman and become lobbyists themselves. That self-interested failure is one more reminder of why the House still needs to create an independent agency to help enforce the promised ethics reforms.

There is but one more issue this week that has led to a defeat for ethics in Congress.

From the Times:

Other House rules changes this year appear to have done little to alter business as usual on Capitol Hill. House Democrats voted along party lines on Tuesday to block the censure of one of their most powerful members, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. He was accused of violating a new ethics rule that prohibits lawmakers from swapping pork for votes.

Murtha, well known for having bent ethics rules to the point of breaking them during his long tenure in the House, gained stature as he declared himself in favor of withdrawing from Iraq. He ran, and lost, in the race to be the House Majority Leader against Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer after the 2006 election.

From the Times:

Republicans cited the accusations against Mr. Murtha as evidence that the Democrats were already in breach of their own earmarks rules.

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, filed a motion accusing Mr. Murtha of threatening to punish him for trying to delete a $23 million earmark for a drug intelligence center near Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Murtha’s home base.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. Murtha, chairman of the military spending committee, had tried to intimidate him by promising that he would not receive any military earmarks “now and forever.”

Mr. Murtha did not dispute the accusations but said in a statement that the Appropriations Committee considered all requests fairly. Famous as a political horse trader, he has boasted of his skill at doling out or withholding earmarks to prod lawmakers into passing legislation.

When Republicans ran the House, however, they were just as adept at dispensing federal projects as a tool to keep their members in line. Mr. Rogers has sought and received his share. And on Tuesday even some Republicans wondered at his professed shock at Mr. Murtha’s tactics.

“Earmarks are part of the process around here,” Mr. LaHood, the Illinois Republican, said. “That should be no secret to anyone.”

There is no reason for the Democrats to play the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" card on this matter. At least an investigation on the accusations should have been done, even if Murtha would face no censure. However, the problem facing the Democrats if they took action against Murtha is that he has become a darling for the very liberal wing of the party since he came out forcefully in favor of withdrawal. With the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party at odds with the liberal base over various issues, including how to handle the war in Iraq, taking action against Murtha would only gain them more enemies amongst their own party. It may be politically smart to protect Murtha, but it does not help them look as if they were serious on cracking down on unethical behavior.

The Democrats remain the best hope for reforming Congress and increasing its standards for ethics. Why? Because we've already seen how the Republican leadership behaved in previous years and their attempts to cover up all unethical behavior or even support it in the open. Unless the Republican leadership has fresh faces that could speak credibly on ethics reform, they cannot hope to realistically challenge the Democrats on that platform. Not with their track record. Not with Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, Jack Abramoff, and all the rest. That and the Democrats still have a year and a half in the current 110th Congress, so there will be no change in Congressional control until 2009 at the earliest, so hope can only be placed in the Democrats' hands right now.

The hope in the Democratic Party lies within their newly-elected members, many of whom campaigned fiercely on ethics reform and provided the Democrats with crucial pickups in Republican-held districts that paved the way for the change of control on Capitol Hill.

Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) nails it:

Some newly elected Democrats say they worry about potential perceptions that their party has failed to deliver its promised cleanup. “Many of the freshmen ran on a campaign of, as Speaker Pelosi would say, ‘draining the swamp,’ on ethics and ethics enforcement,” said Representative Ed Perlmutter, a first-term Colorado Democrat.

Although their record on ethics reform is mediocre at best, toothless at worst, it is still more than the Republicans have offered when they enjoyed free reign in Congress. It is extremely disappointing to see the Democrats throw away this opportunity and the comments from some Democratic lawmakers in opposition to ethics reform are just plain outrageous and scandalous. However, the Democrats have approximately 17 months to clean up their act (and the act of Capitol Hill as a whole) before the November 2008 election.

Nancy Pelosi, it is time to support those new representatives that allowed you to become Speaker of the House. Support them with ethics reform. "Drain the swamp."

Soldiers Asked to Pinch Pennies While Serving Our Country

2007-05-18T20:59:00.000-04:00

Although this country has suffered multiple years with hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits adding to our debt burden, a modest request for a pay raise for our soldiers is simply a few pennies too much, according to the Bush administration as reported in the Army Times on May 16th.

According to the article:

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

So the administration is objecting to an addition pay raise of half of one percent yearly.

But that's not all.

In addition to the pay raise, the bill contains other personnel initiatives that are drawing White House opposition, such as a prohibition on further conversions of medical jobs held by military members into civilian positions.

“This will eliminate the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to use civilian medical personnel for jobs away from the battlefield and at the same time use the converted military billets to enhance the strength of operating units,” the policy statement says.

A death gratuity for federal civilian employees who die in support of military operations and new benefits for disabled retirees and the survivors of military retirees also drew complaints.

This includes giving the Veterans Affairs Department control over the Reserve GI Bill, a program now run by the Pentagon. GI Bill supporters say this step is needed to set the stage for increases in reserve benefits that have been kept low by the military because it views the program as a retention incentive rather than a post-service education program.

The White House also complained about lawmakers refusing to approve increases in Tricare fees for many retirees and their families, something administration officials view as an important step in holding down health care costs.

So while the administration has been openly complaining publicly that the Democrats are denying funding to our soldiers as part of the public opinion battle over the war in Iraq, they have been quietly complaining to Congress that they're giving our soldiers too much money.

No matter what one thinks about the war in Iraq or what one's party affiliation is, if any, nearly every single person in this country agrees that soldiers sacrifice their livlihoods and some sacrifice life and limb in service to this country. While they're putting their bodies and lives on the line for this country, their pay is far from ideal for what most of the rest of us would consider before entering into such a career, if ever.

Meanwhile, our soldiers have been called up to fight this war in Iraq, to fight in Afghanistan, and to serve in numerous bases in countries around the world as well as here at home. They've been convenient backdrops every time politicians want to look exceptionally good for the cameras when making some kind of announcement. Their families bear much hardship when their beloved soldiers are called to duty.

Yet the administration has often played up any and all reasons to say that they support the military, that they take care of our soldiers, and that they're the ones holding the line while those vile Democratic congressmen seek to have our soldiers walking around without guns, ammunition, and armor. Yet they've claimed that they will reach to the ends of the earth to give our soldiers their proper due, to ensure them that we're as committed to them as they are to us, and that they stand behind them 110 percent.

There is not even an argument about fiscal responsibility. There is only the claim that a few dollars here and a few dollars there to take care of our soldiers is simply far too much. If our soldiers are really fighting in Iraq to prevent terrorists from attacking us at home, as has been often claimed, then why not commit to provide for them all the benefits and care that defenders of this country deserve?

Or are they just props for political gain? Which is it?

The Democrats would be politically wise to use this to attack the administration with all its might. This combined with the scandal at Walter Reed and reports that VA hospitals are far from decent would only serve their cause in Congress. While it would be beyond reprehensible to use the soldiers as a political football, even on this point, they must do their best to ensure that this bill passes the Congress and forces President Bush to either sign it or veto it. And those in Congress that trip over themselves praising the troops on camera and in campaign literature yet fail to ensure that they are given pay raises only slightly above the rate of raises given to civilians and perhaps give an incentive to boost sluggish recruitment numbers must be called out for their vote against the troops.

This isn't an issue over whether to fund the war, bring the troops home, have them fight on, or anything of a partisan or divisive nature. This is simply about caring for those that stepped forward and volunteered to serve. Many of them have served two, three, four tours of duty and their families haven't seen much of them since 2003. It wouldn't be fair to deny them a slight compensation for those hardships and hopefully to help them keep their households in order.

As it stands now, the administration has voiced an opinion that can only be a slap in the face to our soldiers. This is not a bill for some expensive weapons system. This is for the people that provide us with the manpower needed for our defense. This pay raise must pass.

Given the administration's acceptance for thousands of pet projects, this shouldn't be a problem. If they're really concerned about pinching pennies, then surely a few Bridges to Nowhere could be spared.