Nominating someone from the mainstream sounds like a resonable request. But would the Republicans agree to sign a pledge to do the same thing when their turn to nominate comes up?
We need both liberals and conservatives on the bench to ensure that the system of checks and balances keeps of working.
Whether one is liberal we all must recognognize that if either party were to gain complete and uncontestable dominance of all the branches with the minority party having no strength to oppose whatsoever, then liberty as we know it would cease to exist. The conservatives seem to think that every darn thing the Dems do is Destroying the country.
The most damaging thing the Democrats have done in the past decade was to actually support the Republican administrations bid to go to war with Iraq. If the Dems had been as insolant then as the Republicans are now, we wouldn't be bogged down in the Iraq Quagmire. Say what you may about the the threats we faced at the time, there could have been a better way than invading and occupying Iraq.
There is a reason why we have a system of checks and balances and that is because the nations founder understood that if all the power were to be invested into one single power group,then the individual liberties of those who did not belong to that group would be forever lost, only to be regained through violent revolution or overthrow of the government.
While the holders of power shift back and forth every few years may create some animosity and anger and drive the opposing side further apart, it prevents one party from holding too much power for too long. So the laws and the way we run government shifts in one direction as one party holds power, Eventually the opposing party holds power and changes things towards their way of thinking. But the swinging pendulum of American politics has prevented either party from ever pushing things irreversably one way or the other.
The checks and balance are there to prevent the extremes. Because the extremeists on either side have never been able to have full control of the government, they are frustrated and make alot of noise. But basically, the extremes represent a very small portion of the political spectrum. Nothing can get done because the parties have become hostage to the extreme minority. But were we to embrace the ideals of mainstream middle of the road political views, then each party, instead of pandering to the extremes, they would be pandering to the middle of the road and as a result they will be able to make compromises and pass substantive legislation that actually get things done
As things stand the Repubs are afraid to make compromises and lose the support of right wing extremist and Dems are afraid of losing the support of the far left. Contrary to the untruthfull and totally baised reports that claim that America is generally conservative, the reality is that Americans are generally moderate and understand the concept of compromise and checks and balances. Americans appreciate the freedoms we have and our greatest fear is losing them. The fastest way to lose them is to grant one party to much power.
We allow the President to nominate Supreme Court Justices so that there is a mix of politcal phiosophies represented in the High Court. We wouldn't want it any other way.
I would be wonderful if we could fill the courts with Judges who are completely without political bias, but then we would have a court filled with people with no brains.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Republicans oppose tax cuts and access to credit for small business.
President Obama presented his first State of the Union address last night.The speech he gave is probably a little bit different than one he might have made if Democrat Martha Coakley was the Senator Elect and not Republican Scott Brown. He was treading a thin line, trying to appear strong and resolute, but also trying to appease the Republicans with an effort to reach across the aisle in a spirit of. bipartisanship..
The Republican weren't buying it, or rather, they appearred to have made a pact to not respond possitively to anything Obama said, even if it was something that they supported and argued for.
The most obvious snub came when Obama proposed cutting taxes for small businesses and recovering TARP money from the big banks that were bailed out , and diverting it to make it available for loans to small businesses. There was no response from the Republican side of the chamber. All I saw was the dour crossarmed glare. They seemed agry that Obama actually had a good idea, that he actualy proposed a tax break for someone.
This should come as a loud message to small businesses that the Republicans are not on their side. They seem to be all for bailouts and tax breaks for giant corporations but lack the same support for small businesses. They liked the idea of renewing offshore drilling and nuclear power but were not moved by Obama's enthusiasm for small businesses making solar panels and developing biofuels.
Perhaps they don't understand that small businesses make up a significant portion of business in America . They can also do something that big businesses cannot do; recover from downturns and return to their former levels of earning and employment much faster than big corporations . When a big factory closes down and lays off thousands of people, those jobs are not going to reappear any time soon. It takes years and maybe decades for the giant corporations to grow to their giant size and employ thousands of people. When those companies go bancrupt, there isn't going to be another giant company rising out of the ashes overnight. Granted their are always other established companies that may fill the void, but those companies reap the benefits of a greater market share that do not necessarily translate into new jobs. Even when they choose to expand and build, the process of deciding to expand, getting financing, devloping plans, getting all the necessary permits and approvals, can take years before the first shovel even breaks into the ground. And then maybe a few more years before permanant non contruction jobs appear.
Small businesses on the otherhand, can appear seamingly overnight. Someone gets an idea, puts together a plan, secures financing and finds an existing facility to work out of, hires employees and opens for business in a much shorter time frame than the giant corporations can.
Drive around anywhere in the US and you will find empty storefronts, offices and warehouse and abondoned factories just waiting for some enterprising small businesses to move in. Small businesses can fuel the recovery and rebuild employement and become profitable, taxpaying enterprises much faster than the struggling mega-corporations can.
The naysayers may argue with this and point out the many large comapnies that have already recovered and are making profits again. Off course they are, they received huge bailouts to help them do that while small businesses were left in the shadows to die. They also have fewer employees to pay as they haven't been rehiring people as fast as they laid them off.
Obama is proposing making the money available as loans, not as a bailout or a grant. The small businesses that borrow the money will have to repay it and are not going to reap windfall profits and pay themselves seven figure bonuses.
A small business that had to lay off half it's staff and closed facilites in the past two years could very easily , in a recovering economy, hire as many people back and grow much sooner than a big business can. Multipy that by thousands of small businesses and the nation could see positive job growth much sooner than we would if it were left to big corporations alone.
There are many laid off people who just can't find work so they turn to starting their own business. Some of the small businesses of today will be the giant corporations of tommorrow. It's time to turn our attention to the small businesses for a change. Then instead of the American workers relying on big business to create jobs for them, they can create jobs for themselves, and others along the way.
There are two reason I can think of why the Republicans would oppose tax breaks and loans for small businesses. First is that small businesses cannot afford to make large contributions to politicians or pay for lobbyists to champion their interests. The second is that if small business were given the chance to step up to the plate and were successful in making their contribution to rebuilding the economy, that would make Obama look good. That is something the Republicans must avoid at all costs, even if it means holding back the recovery for working class families. The cause of rebuilding the Republican Party's strength in Washington is far more important to the party than solving the problems that America is struggling with. After all, they all have a steady paycheck and health insurance. They don't feel the urgency that the millions of laid off workers across the country do. They claim that their "rise to power" that came with one single extra vote in the Senate, was fueled by the frustration of independent voters over the way the economy is being handled. But they are willing to delay real substantive solutions for the sake of political ambitions. The same independents who turned against the Dems in Massachusetts and swept Brown into office, could very easily turn against the Republicans before the next elections in November. Turning their backs on support for small businesses could undo the gains they've made.
The Republican weren't buying it, or rather, they appearred to have made a pact to not respond possitively to anything Obama said, even if it was something that they supported and argued for.
The most obvious snub came when Obama proposed cutting taxes for small businesses and recovering TARP money from the big banks that were bailed out , and diverting it to make it available for loans to small businesses. There was no response from the Republican side of the chamber. All I saw was the dour crossarmed glare. They seemed agry that Obama actually had a good idea, that he actualy proposed a tax break for someone.
This should come as a loud message to small businesses that the Republicans are not on their side. They seem to be all for bailouts and tax breaks for giant corporations but lack the same support for small businesses. They liked the idea of renewing offshore drilling and nuclear power but were not moved by Obama's enthusiasm for small businesses making solar panels and developing biofuels.
Perhaps they don't understand that small businesses make up a significant portion of business in America . They can also do something that big businesses cannot do; recover from downturns and return to their former levels of earning and employment much faster than big corporations . When a big factory closes down and lays off thousands of people, those jobs are not going to reappear any time soon. It takes years and maybe decades for the giant corporations to grow to their giant size and employ thousands of people. When those companies go bancrupt, there isn't going to be another giant company rising out of the ashes overnight. Granted their are always other established companies that may fill the void, but those companies reap the benefits of a greater market share that do not necessarily translate into new jobs. Even when they choose to expand and build, the process of deciding to expand, getting financing, devloping plans, getting all the necessary permits and approvals, can take years before the first shovel even breaks into the ground. And then maybe a few more years before permanant non contruction jobs appear.
Small businesses on the otherhand, can appear seamingly overnight. Someone gets an idea, puts together a plan, secures financing and finds an existing facility to work out of, hires employees and opens for business in a much shorter time frame than the giant corporations can.
Drive around anywhere in the US and you will find empty storefronts, offices and warehouse and abondoned factories just waiting for some enterprising small businesses to move in. Small businesses can fuel the recovery and rebuild employement and become profitable, taxpaying enterprises much faster than the struggling mega-corporations can.
The naysayers may argue with this and point out the many large comapnies that have already recovered and are making profits again. Off course they are, they received huge bailouts to help them do that while small businesses were left in the shadows to die. They also have fewer employees to pay as they haven't been rehiring people as fast as they laid them off.
Obama is proposing making the money available as loans, not as a bailout or a grant. The small businesses that borrow the money will have to repay it and are not going to reap windfall profits and pay themselves seven figure bonuses.
A small business that had to lay off half it's staff and closed facilites in the past two years could very easily , in a recovering economy, hire as many people back and grow much sooner than a big business can. Multipy that by thousands of small businesses and the nation could see positive job growth much sooner than we would if it were left to big corporations alone.
There are many laid off people who just can't find work so they turn to starting their own business. Some of the small businesses of today will be the giant corporations of tommorrow. It's time to turn our attention to the small businesses for a change. Then instead of the American workers relying on big business to create jobs for them, they can create jobs for themselves, and others along the way.
There are two reason I can think of why the Republicans would oppose tax breaks and loans for small businesses. First is that small businesses cannot afford to make large contributions to politicians or pay for lobbyists to champion their interests. The second is that if small business were given the chance to step up to the plate and were successful in making their contribution to rebuilding the economy, that would make Obama look good. That is something the Republicans must avoid at all costs, even if it means holding back the recovery for working class families. The cause of rebuilding the Republican Party's strength in Washington is far more important to the party than solving the problems that America is struggling with. After all, they all have a steady paycheck and health insurance. They don't feel the urgency that the millions of laid off workers across the country do. They claim that their "rise to power" that came with one single extra vote in the Senate, was fueled by the frustration of independent voters over the way the economy is being handled. But they are willing to delay real substantive solutions for the sake of political ambitions. The same independents who turned against the Dems in Massachusetts and swept Brown into office, could very easily turn against the Republicans before the next elections in November. Turning their backs on support for small businesses could undo the gains they've made.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
AP article about Scott Brown in Milford Daily News, Jan 20, 2010
Please read this article. http://www.milforddailynews.com/features/x1685419092/Brown-record-doesnt-always-match-everyman-image
In the comments page, the Brown supporters are calling this just sour grapes by Democrats.The article is not an op ed, it is just a straightforward presentation of the facts, all of them verifiable. I had heard all of these points before and researched them to confirm that they are true. They are all a matter of public record. Depending on which side of the divide you stand, you will spin them differently.
During the campaign, Brown did not speak much about his voting record, and instead focused upon ideas and promises, carefully worded to appeal to the widest possible audience, which included alot of liberal leaning but frustrated independents. He was an unknown entity, a clean slate. And with a carefully crafted campaign and strong "stage presence" he was able to sway enough independents to eek out a victory.
Before the election, I asked a number of people what they knew of Browns voting record and most of them admitted that they didn't really know anything, other than what Martha Coakleys negative ads claimed. So they wrote those claims off as simply negative campaigning and ignored them. The onslaught of TV ads durung the last two weeks became so overwhelming, that many people simply tuned them out.
I wonder what the outcome of the election might have been if articles such as the one in the Milford Daily News had run before the election instead of being a case of belated Monday Morning Quarterbacking. But that's just me, being a Monday Morning Quarterback.
Now all we can do is wait and see what happens. The far right is already rejoicing about the Brown win and are flocking to his side. And despite the high profile of this election, Brown is still just a freshman Senator, a newbie, and if he wishes to have the continued support of his Republican colleagues, he will have to go along with the Republican agenda, like a good freshman Senator is expected to do.
During the next year or so, Browns voting record will be under great scrutiny by Massachusetts voters from all sides. The fickle Massachusetts Independents who so enthusiastically supported Barak Obama just 14 months ago, could sweep Brown out just as easily as they swept him in.
Because Brown will only be serving the remaining three years of Ted Kennedy's term, and will be facing re-election in 2012, he has the advantage of only having to serve half a term as a freshman Senator. The downside is he will only have a year or so to prove to Massachusetts voters that he's not just another lockstep Republican and really represents the views of independents who supported him. If he fails to do so, it could be three and out for Brown.
In the comments page, the Brown supporters are calling this just sour grapes by Democrats.The article is not an op ed, it is just a straightforward presentation of the facts, all of them verifiable. I had heard all of these points before and researched them to confirm that they are true. They are all a matter of public record. Depending on which side of the divide you stand, you will spin them differently.
During the campaign, Brown did not speak much about his voting record, and instead focused upon ideas and promises, carefully worded to appeal to the widest possible audience, which included alot of liberal leaning but frustrated independents. He was an unknown entity, a clean slate. And with a carefully crafted campaign and strong "stage presence" he was able to sway enough independents to eek out a victory.
Before the election, I asked a number of people what they knew of Browns voting record and most of them admitted that they didn't really know anything, other than what Martha Coakleys negative ads claimed. So they wrote those claims off as simply negative campaigning and ignored them. The onslaught of TV ads durung the last two weeks became so overwhelming, that many people simply tuned them out.
I wonder what the outcome of the election might have been if articles such as the one in the Milford Daily News had run before the election instead of being a case of belated Monday Morning Quarterbacking. But that's just me, being a Monday Morning Quarterback.
Now all we can do is wait and see what happens. The far right is already rejoicing about the Brown win and are flocking to his side. And despite the high profile of this election, Brown is still just a freshman Senator, a newbie, and if he wishes to have the continued support of his Republican colleagues, he will have to go along with the Republican agenda, like a good freshman Senator is expected to do.
During the next year or so, Browns voting record will be under great scrutiny by Massachusetts voters from all sides. The fickle Massachusetts Independents who so enthusiastically supported Barak Obama just 14 months ago, could sweep Brown out just as easily as they swept him in.
Because Brown will only be serving the remaining three years of Ted Kennedy's term, and will be facing re-election in 2012, he has the advantage of only having to serve half a term as a freshman Senator. The downside is he will only have a year or so to prove to Massachusetts voters that he's not just another lockstep Republican and really represents the views of independents who supported him. If he fails to do so, it could be three and out for Brown.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Brown wins. Coakley pulls a Tom Brady
Last year we saw the Beer Sumitt on the White House lawn, this week we are seeing a "cry in your beer" festival put on by Democrats and New England Patriots fans with guests on honer, Martha Coakley and Tom Brady. Tom Brady was abyssmal with several interceptions and a fumble and Martha Coakely took her foot off the gas just as Scott Brown was stomping down on the peddle of his gas guzzling pickup truck.
To be fair, we can't put all the blame on Tom and Martha, their teams performances were equally as lackluster. Can we chaulk it up to overconfidence? Everyone knows that in football and politics, overconfidence is the kiss of death.
Is this the end of the line for Brady and Coakley? Well, for Brady, there's always next year. But after sitting out a season recovering from his 08' injury, that old Brady magic just wasn't there. And neither were a few key players from those old championship teams. One just has to wonder if Brady and the Pats can reclaim their former glory.
The Senate race may have been Marthas one big chance. There aren't many "maybe next years" in politics. Lose an important race like this one and the party is not likely to give you another chance next time around.
So Tom, who has pulled out of the Pro Bowl to nurse his injuries, will be back on the field next year to try to reclaim his edge. If he can't do that next year then one has to wonder if he's seen his best days .Or maybe he can pull off a Favre? We'll see.
At least the Pats have one consulation: the team who knocked them out of the playoffs have themselves been knocked out. But by whom? The Colts! Ouch, that's gotta smart!
Martha is up for relection in November. Perhaps her Senate run has raised her profile, but the Republicans will probably want to finish her off. So she'll have to fight hard to keep her position. Which means she better start right now and not let up til November.
If there's any consulation for the Democrats, it's that Scott Brown has only been elected to fill out the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term, so he'll have to fight to keep the seat in 2012. Considering how things turned around so fast since 2008, voters anger could flip flop again and you can bet that the next Democratic nominee and the Party are going to fight harder than they did for the special election. If Brown turns out to be nothing but the 41st obstructionist vote, voters remorse among Massachusetts independents could put the Senate seat, and the Supermajority, right back into Democratic hands.
Brown has got to do more than deliver the 41st vote. He also has to live up to the 'free thinking independent" ideals that catipulted him to victory and not cowtow to the ultra conservatives of the Republican Party. If he marches lockstep with the Republican agenda, then he will have only proven that Martha' Coakleys charactorization of him was correct. If the 41st vote leads to an era of Republican Obstructionism and nothing gets done, then he could be a one term Senator. What he really needs to do to satisfy the anger of the electorate, is use the 41st vote to usher in an era of biparitsan cooperation that can actually solve the problems facing the nation .
Brown owes his victory to angry independent voters who want to see something actually get done. They did not elect him so he could bolster the stregnth of the Republican Party. They elected him to work towards building a better America.
Several high profile reporters in the political media have stated that they have never seen a special Senate election get so much national attention as this one has. All eyes will be on Scott Brown and how he uses the 41st vote . He has to satisfy the 'freethinking independent" voters who put them there, or his stay in Washington will be a short one.
To be fair, we can't put all the blame on Tom and Martha, their teams performances were equally as lackluster. Can we chaulk it up to overconfidence? Everyone knows that in football and politics, overconfidence is the kiss of death.
Is this the end of the line for Brady and Coakley? Well, for Brady, there's always next year. But after sitting out a season recovering from his 08' injury, that old Brady magic just wasn't there. And neither were a few key players from those old championship teams. One just has to wonder if Brady and the Pats can reclaim their former glory.
The Senate race may have been Marthas one big chance. There aren't many "maybe next years" in politics. Lose an important race like this one and the party is not likely to give you another chance next time around.
So Tom, who has pulled out of the Pro Bowl to nurse his injuries, will be back on the field next year to try to reclaim his edge. If he can't do that next year then one has to wonder if he's seen his best days .Or maybe he can pull off a Favre? We'll see.
At least the Pats have one consulation: the team who knocked them out of the playoffs have themselves been knocked out. But by whom? The Colts! Ouch, that's gotta smart!
Martha is up for relection in November. Perhaps her Senate run has raised her profile, but the Republicans will probably want to finish her off. So she'll have to fight hard to keep her position. Which means she better start right now and not let up til November.
If there's any consulation for the Democrats, it's that Scott Brown has only been elected to fill out the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term, so he'll have to fight to keep the seat in 2012. Considering how things turned around so fast since 2008, voters anger could flip flop again and you can bet that the next Democratic nominee and the Party are going to fight harder than they did for the special election. If Brown turns out to be nothing but the 41st obstructionist vote, voters remorse among Massachusetts independents could put the Senate seat, and the Supermajority, right back into Democratic hands.
Brown has got to do more than deliver the 41st vote. He also has to live up to the 'free thinking independent" ideals that catipulted him to victory and not cowtow to the ultra conservatives of the Republican Party. If he marches lockstep with the Republican agenda, then he will have only proven that Martha' Coakleys charactorization of him was correct. If the 41st vote leads to an era of Republican Obstructionism and nothing gets done, then he could be a one term Senator. What he really needs to do to satisfy the anger of the electorate, is use the 41st vote to usher in an era of biparitsan cooperation that can actually solve the problems facing the nation .
Brown owes his victory to angry independent voters who want to see something actually get done. They did not elect him so he could bolster the stregnth of the Republican Party. They elected him to work towards building a better America.
Several high profile reporters in the political media have stated that they have never seen a special Senate election get so much national attention as this one has. All eyes will be on Scott Brown and how he uses the 41st vote . He has to satisfy the 'freethinking independent" voters who put them there, or his stay in Washington will be a short one.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Wake up call for the Democratic Party.
Scott Brown may be the best thing that could have happened to the Democratic Party.
The sudden surge by Scott Brown in polls for the upcoming special election has served as a wake up call for Democrats.Had this special election to fill Ted Kennedys Senate seat, not been taking place at this time, the Democrats might have rested on their laurels untill November. To be caught by surprise in November 2010 would have been devestating to the Democrats, but this wake up call puts them on alert.
The recent Republican gubinatorial victories were just the beginning but not really enough of a shock to the Democrats into action. But to face the loss of a critical seat, a seat that was assumed to be unwinnable by Republicans, is a real kick in the pants to the Democrats.
For the Democrats, it's better that they're getting this message now and not in November. We can expect that every one of the Senate seats up for election in 2010 will be hottly defended by the Democrats.
Scott Brown may be the 41st vote that will undermine the Democrats efforts at healthcare reform, banking reform, and the many other changes that the Democrats had hoped to accomplish. Brown's success is just the thing the Republicans need to continue their obstructionist policies but his assault on the Democratic Supermajority might be a bit premature.
While Republicans may be dancing in the streets over the possiblity of Kennedy's seat falling into their hands, their jubilation is angering Democrats.
Whether he wins or not, Brown's surge has given the Democrats advance notice so they can better prepare themselves for November.
Brown might get his chance to be the 41st vote to undermine the Democratic agenda, but in the long run, he might have undermined the Republicans chances in November.
No matter what the outcome on January 18th, the Republicans are still the minority party, will continue to be for some time to come.
If they are successful at filibustering the Senate to death and blocking legisation, all they will have accomplished is to make the Congress ineffective at solving the problems that America faces now, problems that need to be addressed now , not latter if and when the Republicans gain control. And should that ever happen, then they would face the same kind of obstructionism from the Democrats and the effectiveness of government in America will be forever compromised.
They claim that if they get the 41st vote, then Democrats will be forced to compromise in order to get legislation passed. But to Republicans, the only compromise they will accept is complete capitulation to the Republican agenda. As the minority party, it is up to them to be willing to compromise, compromise that is workable for the majority party. To not accept that reality would not only undermine the Democratic agenda, it would undermine the basic principle of Democracy: majority rule.
So Scott Brown might deliver them their 41st vote, but ultimately Scott Brown could also rile up the liberals to a degree we've never seen before. The election isn't even over and that has already begun to happen.
A Brown victory could ultimately do the Republican party more harm than good.
The sudden surge by Scott Brown in polls for the upcoming special election has served as a wake up call for Democrats.Had this special election to fill Ted Kennedys Senate seat, not been taking place at this time, the Democrats might have rested on their laurels untill November. To be caught by surprise in November 2010 would have been devestating to the Democrats, but this wake up call puts them on alert.
The recent Republican gubinatorial victories were just the beginning but not really enough of a shock to the Democrats into action. But to face the loss of a critical seat, a seat that was assumed to be unwinnable by Republicans, is a real kick in the pants to the Democrats.
For the Democrats, it's better that they're getting this message now and not in November. We can expect that every one of the Senate seats up for election in 2010 will be hottly defended by the Democrats.
Scott Brown may be the 41st vote that will undermine the Democrats efforts at healthcare reform, banking reform, and the many other changes that the Democrats had hoped to accomplish. Brown's success is just the thing the Republicans need to continue their obstructionist policies but his assault on the Democratic Supermajority might be a bit premature.
While Republicans may be dancing in the streets over the possiblity of Kennedy's seat falling into their hands, their jubilation is angering Democrats.
Whether he wins or not, Brown's surge has given the Democrats advance notice so they can better prepare themselves for November.
Brown might get his chance to be the 41st vote to undermine the Democratic agenda, but in the long run, he might have undermined the Republicans chances in November.
No matter what the outcome on January 18th, the Republicans are still the minority party, will continue to be for some time to come.
If they are successful at filibustering the Senate to death and blocking legisation, all they will have accomplished is to make the Congress ineffective at solving the problems that America faces now, problems that need to be addressed now , not latter if and when the Republicans gain control. And should that ever happen, then they would face the same kind of obstructionism from the Democrats and the effectiveness of government in America will be forever compromised.
They claim that if they get the 41st vote, then Democrats will be forced to compromise in order to get legislation passed. But to Republicans, the only compromise they will accept is complete capitulation to the Republican agenda. As the minority party, it is up to them to be willing to compromise, compromise that is workable for the majority party. To not accept that reality would not only undermine the Democratic agenda, it would undermine the basic principle of Democracy: majority rule.
So Scott Brown might deliver them their 41st vote, but ultimately Scott Brown could also rile up the liberals to a degree we've never seen before. The election isn't even over and that has already begun to happen.
A Brown victory could ultimately do the Republican party more harm than good.
Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010
Bob Bennett - Utah
Richard Burr - North Carolina
Tom Coburn - Oklahoma
Mike Crapo - Idaho
Jim DeMint- South Carolina
Chuck Grassley - Iowa
Johnny Isakson - Georgia
John McCain - Arizona
Lisa Murkowski - Alaska
Richard Shelby - Alabama
John Thume - South Dakota
David Vitter - Louisiana
Richard Burr - North Carolina
Tom Coburn - Oklahoma
Mike Crapo - Idaho
Jim DeMint- South Carolina
Chuck Grassley - Iowa
Johnny Isakson - Georgia
John McCain - Arizona
Lisa Murkowski - Alaska
Richard Shelby - Alabama
John Thume - South Dakota
David Vitter - Louisiana
Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2010
Ted Kaufman of Delaware....(appointed to replace Joe Biden)
Roland Burris Illinois...(appointed to replace Barack Obama)
Evan Bayh - Indiana
Michael Bennet - Colorado
Babara Boxer - California
Russ Feingold - Wisconsin
Kirsten Gillibrand - New York
Daniel Inouye - Hawaii
Patrick Leahy - Vermont
Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas
Barbara Mikulski - Maryland
Harry reid - Nevada
Chuck Schumer - New York
Arlen Spector - Pennsylvania
Ron Wyden Oregon
Roland Burris Illinois...(appointed to replace Barack Obama)
Evan Bayh - Indiana
Michael Bennet - Colorado
Babara Boxer - California
Russ Feingold - Wisconsin
Kirsten Gillibrand - New York
Daniel Inouye - Hawaii
Patrick Leahy - Vermont
Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas
Barbara Mikulski - Maryland
Harry reid - Nevada
Chuck Schumer - New York
Arlen Spector - Pennsylvania
Ron Wyden Oregon
Two Democrat and Six Republican Senators to retire
In the heat of the special election in Massachusetts to fill the Senate seat held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, interest has grown in the other seats that will be up for grabs in 2010.
Annoucing they will not seek re-election are:
Democrats
Criss Dodd - Connecticut
Byron L.Durgan - North Dakota
Republicans
George Voinovich - Ohio
Kit Bond - Missouri
George LeMieux - Florida
Sam Brownback - Kansas
Judd Gregg - New Hampshire
Jim Dunning - Kentucky
Missouri,Ohio and New Hampshire are tossups and in races in which there is no incumbant, Florida could go either way. In Kansas, former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius could be a strong contender for the Democrats. Connecticut seems secure for the the Dems. but they could lose North Dakota.
The net result in these elections could go either way but there is a good possiblity that if Democrats can quell voters disatisfaction before November, they could possibly pick up five of these seats while losing only one.
With the sudden surge in the pols by Republican Scott Brown in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, the Democrats have been given a wake up call and should be expected to fight hard, even in the states that would normally be considered easy wins.
In this respect, a victory by Scott Brown could be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats. They won't be by suprised again. Frustrated and angry Democrats from Massachusetts will take a greater interest in the Connecticut and New Hampshire races and will cross the border to campaign for and donate to the Democratic candidates.
Annoucing they will not seek re-election are:
Democrats
Criss Dodd - Connecticut
Byron L.Durgan - North Dakota
Republicans
George Voinovich - Ohio
Kit Bond - Missouri
George LeMieux - Florida
Sam Brownback - Kansas
Judd Gregg - New Hampshire
Jim Dunning - Kentucky
Missouri,Ohio and New Hampshire are tossups and in races in which there is no incumbant, Florida could go either way. In Kansas, former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius could be a strong contender for the Democrats. Connecticut seems secure for the the Dems. but they could lose North Dakota.
The net result in these elections could go either way but there is a good possiblity that if Democrats can quell voters disatisfaction before November, they could possibly pick up five of these seats while losing only one.
With the sudden surge in the pols by Republican Scott Brown in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, the Democrats have been given a wake up call and should be expected to fight hard, even in the states that would normally be considered easy wins.
In this respect, a victory by Scott Brown could be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats. They won't be by suprised again. Frustrated and angry Democrats from Massachusetts will take a greater interest in the Connecticut and New Hampshire races and will cross the border to campaign for and donate to the Democratic candidates.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
What happened to Capuano, Khazei and Pagliuca?
After Martha Coakley won the primary to become the Democratic Candidate for Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat, the other Democratic candidates graciously vowed their support for Coakley in the upocoming special election, went home for the holidays and haven't come out since. Their absence is notable. And while it might be construed to demostrate a general lack of support for Coakley, it speaks to a greater issue..the lack of solidarity in the Democratic party.
The Republicans, which seemed to be falling apart after the presidential election, have regrouped and found solidarity in this race. A victory would further emboldened Republicans and would be a slap in the face of Democrats who just recently gained the Presidency and a Supermajority in the Senate.
But before the conservatives get too cocky with themselves, all this gives them at best is the ability to tie things up in Washington. There will still be the minority party, there will still be a Democrat in the White House and the Democrats have just been given the Mother of All Wake Up Calls.
In the next few years we will see the retirements of several Senators, two Democrats and six Republicans.
Senator Dodd of Connecticut. saw the writting on the wall, but leading the pack for his seat is the very popular Attorney General of Connecticut, a Democrat. You can bet your bottom dollar that theAG and the Conn. Democratic Party are taking note of this election and will not rest on their early lead and let the Republicans steal the election. The Conn. voters are already frustrated with Joe Leibermans love affair with the Republicans and his joining in their obstructionist agenda.
The Republicans have more to worry about. They have six Senators retiring and it is less likely that they will be able to hold onto all six of those seats than it is the Democrats will lose another one of theirs.
But with this special election coming in ahead of those regular ones, the Republicans got a extra early shot to gain a pivitol seat and play the spoilers in the Senate untill the next election comes.
We could see the balance in the Senate shift back and forth over the next few elections, but unless the Republicans can pull off a major coup in the next few years, they will continue to be the minority party and their role will be limited to being obstructionist spoilers and not movers and shakers in Washington.
Even of Obama turns out to be a one term President, and the Republicans regain the White House in 2012, there is going to be alot of partisan bickering and obstructionism and nothings going to get done.
Perhaps if Capuano, Khazei and Pagliuca had lived up to their pledges to support Coakley, this election wouldn't be so tight. Perhaps one of them could have taken Coakley aside and said "Hey Martha, what are you doing? Get out there there campaign till you drop!"
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the other Democratic contenders is right now saying to himself "If I were the nominee, this wouldn't be happening." But they are not doing anything to help either, so if Brown losses, it will not only be Martha's fault, but the fault of the entire Massachusetts Democratic organization.
The Republicans, which seemed to be falling apart after the presidential election, have regrouped and found solidarity in this race. A victory would further emboldened Republicans and would be a slap in the face of Democrats who just recently gained the Presidency and a Supermajority in the Senate.
But before the conservatives get too cocky with themselves, all this gives them at best is the ability to tie things up in Washington. There will still be the minority party, there will still be a Democrat in the White House and the Democrats have just been given the Mother of All Wake Up Calls.
In the next few years we will see the retirements of several Senators, two Democrats and six Republicans.
Senator Dodd of Connecticut. saw the writting on the wall, but leading the pack for his seat is the very popular Attorney General of Connecticut, a Democrat. You can bet your bottom dollar that theAG and the Conn. Democratic Party are taking note of this election and will not rest on their early lead and let the Republicans steal the election. The Conn. voters are already frustrated with Joe Leibermans love affair with the Republicans and his joining in their obstructionist agenda.
The Republicans have more to worry about. They have six Senators retiring and it is less likely that they will be able to hold onto all six of those seats than it is the Democrats will lose another one of theirs.
But with this special election coming in ahead of those regular ones, the Republicans got a extra early shot to gain a pivitol seat and play the spoilers in the Senate untill the next election comes.
We could see the balance in the Senate shift back and forth over the next few elections, but unless the Republicans can pull off a major coup in the next few years, they will continue to be the minority party and their role will be limited to being obstructionist spoilers and not movers and shakers in Washington.
Even of Obama turns out to be a one term President, and the Republicans regain the White House in 2012, there is going to be alot of partisan bickering and obstructionism and nothings going to get done.
Perhaps if Capuano, Khazei and Pagliuca had lived up to their pledges to support Coakley, this election wouldn't be so tight. Perhaps one of them could have taken Coakley aside and said "Hey Martha, what are you doing? Get out there there campaign till you drop!"
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the other Democratic contenders is right now saying to himself "If I were the nominee, this wouldn't be happening." But they are not doing anything to help either, so if Brown losses, it will not only be Martha's fault, but the fault of the entire Massachusetts Democratic organization.
Martha Coakley on Afghanistan
Scott Brown has blasted Martha Coakley for being naive and uniformed about the situation in Afghanistan and has extrapolated that to mean she's soft on terrorism and isn't concerned about protecting America from terrorists. The recent death of several CIA operatives in a "terrorist" bombing is sited as proof of that, but is it really?
Coakley is actaully spot on correct, but could should have been more specific in her wording. What she was really refering to was Al Qaeda who export terorism around the Globe and not the terrorists who operate strictly within Afghamistan, and that makes a big difference.
Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan at this time if greatly reduced. They have moved on to other base of operations, like Yemen and Somalia. We went into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, not the Taliban. Taliban is the main enemy in Afghanistan and does not pose a direct threat to the US. Their interest is in wresting back control of the country, not on exporting terrorists to attack America directly.
It has been suggested that if the US were to abandon Afghaniston, and the "Taliban" were to take over again, knowing that Al Qaeda was the reason why we invaded Afghanistan, they would be reluctant to allow them back into the country. Furthermore, even thought they might want to get retribution against the US, they would know that to do so would result in a renewed assault upon Afghanistan.
Taliban does not pose a direct threat to America but does engage in terrorist attacks against American troops( and CIA operatives) in Afghanistan. They are part of the insurgency against the occupying forces there.
The Taliban itself is not the organization that it once was. Even while there may be as many fighters as ever, many of these fighters are not actually dedicated to the Taliban cause. Many fighters are just the regional warlords fighting to regain and maintain control over their villages. Many others are fighting for the Taliban against their will, their families and villages threatened with death if they don't fight with the Taliban. Others are just desperate. They have no way of making a living, cannot survive in Taliban controled areas, so they forced to join the fight. They are in the battle but are not actually "Taliban."
Many of the insurgents in Afghanistan may engage in acts of terrorism in their fight against the occupiers, but do not actually represent a threat against America. Their mission is not to destroy America, their mission is to drive us out of their country.
So Martha Coakley was right. It is Scott Brown who seems to me missinformed and naive.
Coakley is actaully spot on correct, but could should have been more specific in her wording. What she was really refering to was Al Qaeda who export terorism around the Globe and not the terrorists who operate strictly within Afghamistan, and that makes a big difference.
Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan at this time if greatly reduced. They have moved on to other base of operations, like Yemen and Somalia. We went into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, not the Taliban. Taliban is the main enemy in Afghanistan and does not pose a direct threat to the US. Their interest is in wresting back control of the country, not on exporting terrorists to attack America directly.
It has been suggested that if the US were to abandon Afghaniston, and the "Taliban" were to take over again, knowing that Al Qaeda was the reason why we invaded Afghanistan, they would be reluctant to allow them back into the country. Furthermore, even thought they might want to get retribution against the US, they would know that to do so would result in a renewed assault upon Afghanistan.
Taliban does not pose a direct threat to America but does engage in terrorist attacks against American troops( and CIA operatives) in Afghanistan. They are part of the insurgency against the occupying forces there.
The Taliban itself is not the organization that it once was. Even while there may be as many fighters as ever, many of these fighters are not actually dedicated to the Taliban cause. Many fighters are just the regional warlords fighting to regain and maintain control over their villages. Many others are fighting for the Taliban against their will, their families and villages threatened with death if they don't fight with the Taliban. Others are just desperate. They have no way of making a living, cannot survive in Taliban controled areas, so they forced to join the fight. They are in the battle but are not actually "Taliban."
Many of the insurgents in Afghanistan may engage in acts of terrorism in their fight against the occupiers, but do not actually represent a threat against America. Their mission is not to destroy America, their mission is to drive us out of their country.
So Martha Coakley was right. It is Scott Brown who seems to me missinformed and naive.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Scott Brown pinky swears "No New Taxes."
Scott Brown has claimed that he has signed a No New Taxes pledge and has challenged his opponants to do the same.
Well I haven't received a signed copy of that pledge from Scott, so as far as I'm concerned, it's no better than a pinky swear.
The no new taxes pledge is really just a ploy to sway voters and is not realistic in practice. There are just situations that warrent new taxes and the signing of a pledge only means that the politician will ultimately be forced to either break the pledge, or find some other creative means of coming up with the funds to pay for whatever it was that would warrent a tax increase. So which is worse, breaking the pledge or using some sneaky roundabout way to finance the program?
One commonly employed method it to take funds away from one program to pay for another. That means cutting back on the funding of a program that had been previously debated and approved. This is how the Iraq war supplimental funding has been paid for. We hear our Congressmen and Senators proudly declaring that they can somehow approve a 75 billion dollar expenditure, without new taxes. Really?
The money has to come from somewhere and the taxpayers are less likely to notice if they just gut already approved programs. When the cuttbacks hit the ground level, we never hear the explanation that the cuttback was made to fund the war. They separate the two and the taxpayers happily go along thinking that they are not somehow paying for it. The people who would have been the beneficiaries of the programs end up paying the price.
The no new taxes pledge is meaningless, especially if it not accompanied with a pledge to not cutback already existing programs in order to fund new ones.
That is just as unrealistic as the no new tax pledge. There will always be the need for new programs and there will always be wastefull or overly expensive programs that need to be trimmed or eliminated.
To improve governement programs and get things done , there needs to be the flexiblity to add taxes when needed and to preserve programs that already exist.
In the past few days, the United States Governement has been ramping up a response to the devestating earthquake in Haiti. This is right in our backyard and the US is going to play the leading role in the emergency response and long term recovery of Haiti. No one with any humanity would argue against that, but it's going to cost a lot of money. How are we going to pay for it? Which programs are going to be gutted to fund humanitarian aid to Haiti?
The no new taxes pledge is an unrealistic meaningless gesture and nothing more than a campaign ploy. But it might get votes from those who really haven't thought things out.
When a candidate uses such a ploy, I see it as such and I really have to question the sincerity of a candidate who uses such ploys to get votes.
Well I haven't received a signed copy of that pledge from Scott, so as far as I'm concerned, it's no better than a pinky swear.
The no new taxes pledge is really just a ploy to sway voters and is not realistic in practice. There are just situations that warrent new taxes and the signing of a pledge only means that the politician will ultimately be forced to either break the pledge, or find some other creative means of coming up with the funds to pay for whatever it was that would warrent a tax increase. So which is worse, breaking the pledge or using some sneaky roundabout way to finance the program?
One commonly employed method it to take funds away from one program to pay for another. That means cutting back on the funding of a program that had been previously debated and approved. This is how the Iraq war supplimental funding has been paid for. We hear our Congressmen and Senators proudly declaring that they can somehow approve a 75 billion dollar expenditure, without new taxes. Really?
The money has to come from somewhere and the taxpayers are less likely to notice if they just gut already approved programs. When the cuttbacks hit the ground level, we never hear the explanation that the cuttback was made to fund the war. They separate the two and the taxpayers happily go along thinking that they are not somehow paying for it. The people who would have been the beneficiaries of the programs end up paying the price.
The no new taxes pledge is meaningless, especially if it not accompanied with a pledge to not cutback already existing programs in order to fund new ones.
That is just as unrealistic as the no new tax pledge. There will always be the need for new programs and there will always be wastefull or overly expensive programs that need to be trimmed or eliminated.
To improve governement programs and get things done , there needs to be the flexiblity to add taxes when needed and to preserve programs that already exist.
In the past few days, the United States Governement has been ramping up a response to the devestating earthquake in Haiti. This is right in our backyard and the US is going to play the leading role in the emergency response and long term recovery of Haiti. No one with any humanity would argue against that, but it's going to cost a lot of money. How are we going to pay for it? Which programs are going to be gutted to fund humanitarian aid to Haiti?
The no new taxes pledge is an unrealistic meaningless gesture and nothing more than a campaign ploy. But it might get votes from those who really haven't thought things out.
When a candidate uses such a ploy, I see it as such and I really have to question the sincerity of a candidate who uses such ploys to get votes.
Scott Brown reaches out to independent voters
In highly Democratic Massachusetts, Scott Brown reaches out to independent voters looking for support. On the surface this appears to be a sound strategy, considering that in Mass, registered independents actually outnumber registered Democrats. The assumption being that registered "independents" are politically middle of the road and can be easily swayed from supporting the candidate of one party towards the candidate of the other. But that's isn't really the case.
First,to clarify, in Massachusetts, one does not register as an "independent", but rather, someone who is not registered as a Democrat, Republican or some other minor party affiliation, is simply listed as "unenrolled."
Unenrolled voters may be very liberal or very conservative, but simply do not wish to be associated with the party for some other reason.
One very common reason why voters in Mass may choose to be unenrolled is that they may participate in the primary elections of either parties. And sometimes, liberal voters might vote in the Republican primary and vote for the candidate they deem less likely to win in the general election, and conversely, unenrolled conservatives might vote in the Democtratic primary with the same end in mind.
Then there are the truly open minded and free thinking voters who want to see the best possible candidates from both parties in the general election, so they might not vote in the primary in which a certain party's candidate is the shoe in, and instead use their vote to support the candidate they would like to see running against the shoe in. Such voters, I'm afraid, seem to be in the minority.
Many unenrolled voters are not happy with the policies of either party. They are very skeptical but generally speaking, they still lean one way or the other. Getting them to sway may be just as difficult as convincing a Democrat to vote Republican,(and visa versa).
There of course is another type of indendendent voter. They are the wishy washy voters, not terribly interested or informed about politics, although they think they are. They don't have enough interest in any one party to become a registered voter. They're politically unspohisticated, don't really have in depth understanding of the issues or the candidates and are easily manipulated by the buzzwords, catchphrases, soundbites and media blitzes of the political campaigns.
And there are, unfortunatley, far too many of these kinds of voters. Enough to turn the tide of the election. As a result the candidates that win are not necessarily the best candidates for the office, instead they are the candidates that run the best political campaigns.
These are the independent voters that Scott Brown has been courting, and he's been quite successfull at it thus far. The Coakley campaign rested on it's early lead and now finds itself playing catchup.Brown has not said anything new to suddenly sway the voters, if anything he looks less middle of the road and more in lockstep with the national Republican party than he did at the beginning of the campaign. What he's done is launch a succesful advertising camapaign and got a headstart on the negative ads.
But Coakleys back in the game with a barrage of television ads, fighting to win back those voters who can be swayed.
In my household, the advertizements are mutted out. We hate the negative advertizing of either candidate and are not effected by them at all. It concerns me that the outcome of this election may lay in the hands of those who would be so easily swayed.
If the polls hold true, in the end we in Massachusetts could be suffering from a very bad case of voter remorse. And because of the effect this election will have on national politics, the voters could be doing the nation a very bad disservice.
It's really unfortunate that it is in the hands of the lowest common demoninator.
First,to clarify, in Massachusetts, one does not register as an "independent", but rather, someone who is not registered as a Democrat, Republican or some other minor party affiliation, is simply listed as "unenrolled."
Unenrolled voters may be very liberal or very conservative, but simply do not wish to be associated with the party for some other reason.
One very common reason why voters in Mass may choose to be unenrolled is that they may participate in the primary elections of either parties. And sometimes, liberal voters might vote in the Republican primary and vote for the candidate they deem less likely to win in the general election, and conversely, unenrolled conservatives might vote in the Democtratic primary with the same end in mind.
Then there are the truly open minded and free thinking voters who want to see the best possible candidates from both parties in the general election, so they might not vote in the primary in which a certain party's candidate is the shoe in, and instead use their vote to support the candidate they would like to see running against the shoe in. Such voters, I'm afraid, seem to be in the minority.
Many unenrolled voters are not happy with the policies of either party. They are very skeptical but generally speaking, they still lean one way or the other. Getting them to sway may be just as difficult as convincing a Democrat to vote Republican,(and visa versa).
There of course is another type of indendendent voter. They are the wishy washy voters, not terribly interested or informed about politics, although they think they are. They don't have enough interest in any one party to become a registered voter. They're politically unspohisticated, don't really have in depth understanding of the issues or the candidates and are easily manipulated by the buzzwords, catchphrases, soundbites and media blitzes of the political campaigns.
And there are, unfortunatley, far too many of these kinds of voters. Enough to turn the tide of the election. As a result the candidates that win are not necessarily the best candidates for the office, instead they are the candidates that run the best political campaigns.
These are the independent voters that Scott Brown has been courting, and he's been quite successfull at it thus far. The Coakley campaign rested on it's early lead and now finds itself playing catchup.Brown has not said anything new to suddenly sway the voters, if anything he looks less middle of the road and more in lockstep with the national Republican party than he did at the beginning of the campaign. What he's done is launch a succesful advertising camapaign and got a headstart on the negative ads.
But Coakleys back in the game with a barrage of television ads, fighting to win back those voters who can be swayed.
In my household, the advertizements are mutted out. We hate the negative advertizing of either candidate and are not effected by them at all. It concerns me that the outcome of this election may lay in the hands of those who would be so easily swayed.
If the polls hold true, in the end we in Massachusetts could be suffering from a very bad case of voter remorse. And because of the effect this election will have on national politics, the voters could be doing the nation a very bad disservice.
It's really unfortunate that it is in the hands of the lowest common demoninator.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Trying to look like Average Joe, Scott Brown takes his gas guzzling truck on the road to meet the voters.
Or so he claims.
Well I can't really comment weather he actually did drive around talking to the regular people of Massachusetts. I live just a few miles from Brown and he never came to my neighborhood.
But I can't help but notice that in his ad, he tried to connect with the average Joe by driving around in his pickup truck. I find it demeaning that portraying himself as a regular guy in a pickup truck is his way of connecting with the average voter.
The average voter in Massachusetts actually believes that Global Warming is real and that it has been caused by human activity...like driving gas guzzling pickup trucks.
I would have been much more impressed if he had portrayed himself driving around in a Prius, as if he actually cared about one of the most important issues of the day. But he has clearly stated that he is not sure that human activity has contributed to Global Warming, or that Global Warming itself is a reality.
To Mr. Brown I say this: Unless you are absolutley 100% certain that human activity has not contributed to Global Warming, how can you possibly not support efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses? How are you going to feel if you oppose actions to reduce greenhouse carbon emmissions and then twenty years down the road, the horrible consequences of climate change are causing political turmoil and dramatic ecomonic losses throughout the world? Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Can't you see the ecomonic opportunities that this presents?
But I understand why you hold this position. You hold this position because that is the official position of the Republican party and you don't want to rock the boat.
Please, Scott Brown, take your head out of the sand, acknowledge that Global Warming is real, roll up your sleeves and get to work to solve this problem before it become a disaster.
You can start by trading in your gas guzzling pickup truck for fuel efficient vehicle. If you were really listening to those people you met while driving around, then you'd know that this is what Massachusetts voters want. Listen to what they say, not to just want you want to hear.
And anyway, what do you need a truck for? Your a politician, not a carpenter! Set an example. When Arnold Swarzenegger got a Hummer, everyone wanted a Hummer. Show your leadership and buy a hybrid.
Well I can't really comment weather he actually did drive around talking to the regular people of Massachusetts. I live just a few miles from Brown and he never came to my neighborhood.
But I can't help but notice that in his ad, he tried to connect with the average Joe by driving around in his pickup truck. I find it demeaning that portraying himself as a regular guy in a pickup truck is his way of connecting with the average voter.
The average voter in Massachusetts actually believes that Global Warming is real and that it has been caused by human activity...like driving gas guzzling pickup trucks.
I would have been much more impressed if he had portrayed himself driving around in a Prius, as if he actually cared about one of the most important issues of the day. But he has clearly stated that he is not sure that human activity has contributed to Global Warming, or that Global Warming itself is a reality.
To Mr. Brown I say this: Unless you are absolutley 100% certain that human activity has not contributed to Global Warming, how can you possibly not support efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses? How are you going to feel if you oppose actions to reduce greenhouse carbon emmissions and then twenty years down the road, the horrible consequences of climate change are causing political turmoil and dramatic ecomonic losses throughout the world? Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Can't you see the ecomonic opportunities that this presents?
But I understand why you hold this position. You hold this position because that is the official position of the Republican party and you don't want to rock the boat.
Please, Scott Brown, take your head out of the sand, acknowledge that Global Warming is real, roll up your sleeves and get to work to solve this problem before it become a disaster.
You can start by trading in your gas guzzling pickup truck for fuel efficient vehicle. If you were really listening to those people you met while driving around, then you'd know that this is what Massachusetts voters want. Listen to what they say, not to just want you want to hear.
And anyway, what do you need a truck for? Your a politician, not a carpenter! Set an example. When Arnold Swarzenegger got a Hummer, everyone wanted a Hummer. Show your leadership and buy a hybrid.
Polls indicate a tight race between Brown and Coakley for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
A few weeks ago Martha Coakley held a substantial lead in the polls and it was a foregone conclusions that she would succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate. The Coakley campaign eased up while Brown put on the pressure. Now it seems Coakley has woken up and the campaign has become an all out slugfest of negative ads, fingerpointing and namecalling.
The national politcal organizations have taken notice. The Republican party, which itself seemed to have conceded the race, has suddenly taken interest and big name Democrats are stepping forward to endorse Coakley.
Massachusetts Senior Senator and former Democratic Presidential Nomminee, John Kerry has endorsed Coakley and Teds widow, Vicky Kennedy, has reitterated her endorsement of Coakley.
The Boston Globe has endorsed Coakley and the Boston Herald has endorsed Brown.
Folks we have a race!
What started out as simply a reflection of the polical makeup of the state, which is decidedly liberal, has become a war of personalities.
Brown is handsome, well spoken and is married to a local TV newsreporter. His daughter was a runner up on American Idol. He comes off well on camera and on the campaign trail. He's posed nude for a national magazine. But he comes from an entertainment family. They know how to work the camera, how to yield a microphone.
Coakley's biggest disadvantage is that on TV and on the trail, she comes off as being cool and aloof, not very warm and fuzzy.
But those of us who know her , know she is actually a very warm and carring person.
As a Massachusetts voter, what I know Brown for is standing behind his party on the floor of the Massachusetts Senate. His voting record has been more along party lines than the independant free thinking politician he wants us to think he is.
I do have personal experience with Martha Coakley, when my elderly mother contacted her office to get help with an unscrupulous debt collector that was hounding her. It was really a small deal but Martha got on the phone herself and set up a three way call with my Mother and the collector. She read them the riot act and they backed down. Thank you Martha.
She could have passed this on to somebody else on her staff, but she took care of it herself...and got results.
This is the sort of action that Ted Kennedy has been known to do...stand up for the little guy and get things done. And I expect that as Senator, Martha Coakley will continue with that tradition.
The national politcal organizations have taken notice. The Republican party, which itself seemed to have conceded the race, has suddenly taken interest and big name Democrats are stepping forward to endorse Coakley.
Massachusetts Senior Senator and former Democratic Presidential Nomminee, John Kerry has endorsed Coakley and Teds widow, Vicky Kennedy, has reitterated her endorsement of Coakley.
The Boston Globe has endorsed Coakley and the Boston Herald has endorsed Brown.
Folks we have a race!
What started out as simply a reflection of the polical makeup of the state, which is decidedly liberal, has become a war of personalities.
Brown is handsome, well spoken and is married to a local TV newsreporter. His daughter was a runner up on American Idol. He comes off well on camera and on the campaign trail. He's posed nude for a national magazine. But he comes from an entertainment family. They know how to work the camera, how to yield a microphone.
Coakley's biggest disadvantage is that on TV and on the trail, she comes off as being cool and aloof, not very warm and fuzzy.
But those of us who know her , know she is actually a very warm and carring person.
As a Massachusetts voter, what I know Brown for is standing behind his party on the floor of the Massachusetts Senate. His voting record has been more along party lines than the independant free thinking politician he wants us to think he is.
I do have personal experience with Martha Coakley, when my elderly mother contacted her office to get help with an unscrupulous debt collector that was hounding her. It was really a small deal but Martha got on the phone herself and set up a three way call with my Mother and the collector. She read them the riot act and they backed down. Thank you Martha.
She could have passed this on to somebody else on her staff, but she took care of it herself...and got results.
This is the sort of action that Ted Kennedy has been known to do...stand up for the little guy and get things done. And I expect that as Senator, Martha Coakley will continue with that tradition.
Scott Brown, you sir, are no Jack Kennedy.Jack Bauer, maybe? But not Kennedy
How long did it take Scott Browns campaign machine to dig up this clip of JFK voicing a common idea with him? It must have taken quite awhile to find that one little commonality that Brown could exploit in his effort to connect with Massachusetts voters. He certainly wouldn't be getting any endorsments from the Kennedy clan as Democratic opponant Martha Coakley has. So he had to find some other way to connect himself with the Kennedy name in order to win the hearts of the electorate in Kennedy Country.
But lets face it, even with Democrats and Republicans being so bitterly divided, as Americans, members of both parties share many common ideals. Taxes aren't just an issue for Republicans. There are many Democrats who are loath to raise taxes and believe that taxes ought to be lowered. What differs is their belief as to how and when to raise or lower taxes. And for whom. In that regard Kennedy and Brown couldn't be further apart.
Democrats recognize that there are times and situations when it is necessary to raise taxes. Republicans think that any taxes are evil and that the cure all for all of Americas problem is lower taxes.Especially for the rich.
In finding this clip of Kennedy supporting lower tazes, taken out of context and with no regard for the ideals that JFK stood for, Brown has found that one tiny little speck of a connection with Kennedy that he could exploit.
Martha Coakley could have just as easily found some sort of commonality with Ronald Reagan, to which I would have responded Martha Coakley, you Madame are no Ronald Reagan. But she doesn't need to. She has the endorsement of the Kennedys and is the obvious choice to continue to carry the banner of the ideals that Ted Kennedy supported, the ideals that Massachusetts voters have stood behind all those years that Ted held that seat.
To be true to his ideals and beliefs, it would have been more appropriate if Scott Brown had invoked the ideals of another Jack....Jack Bauer of Foxes "24" TV series. Jack Bauer who wouldn't think twice about beating the crap out of a captured terrorist in order to extract some tidbit of information.
Scott Brown does not consider waterboarding to be torture and supports is use on terrost detainees. Perhaps Brown has not read the reports that indicated that such torturing does not actually yield usable and credible information. While there are some reports that detainees being subjected to high pressure interrogation techniques have given up usefull information, they are the exception rather than the rule.
Many third world countries, like Iran, will use torture to force false confessions out of their political prisoners. They make the confessions because they want the torture to stop . Likewise, detainees may provide false information just to make the torture stop. In fact, new terrorist in training are being trained to endure torture and are also being trained to give out false information to lead Amercan intelligence agents on a wild goose chase.
Even Republican John McCain understood that and opposed the use of torture. McCain also understood one of the most important principles of the ban on torture, and that is, if we torture the prisoners we hold, then our enemies will be more likely to torture Americans that they hold prisoner. If on the otherhand, we treat all prisoners humanely, then our enemies are less likely to be inhumane to Americans held captive.
Just because A.Q, the Taliban and other terrorist groups have no regard for the humane treatment of captives, does not give us the justification to stoop down to their level. America needs to stand behind a higher ideal and not be known as a nation that resorts to torture.
But Scott Brown doesn't believe that. In that regard Scott Brown looks more like Jack Bauer than Jack Kennedy.
And that scares me.
But lets face it, even with Democrats and Republicans being so bitterly divided, as Americans, members of both parties share many common ideals. Taxes aren't just an issue for Republicans. There are many Democrats who are loath to raise taxes and believe that taxes ought to be lowered. What differs is their belief as to how and when to raise or lower taxes. And for whom. In that regard Kennedy and Brown couldn't be further apart.
Democrats recognize that there are times and situations when it is necessary to raise taxes. Republicans think that any taxes are evil and that the cure all for all of Americas problem is lower taxes.Especially for the rich.
In finding this clip of Kennedy supporting lower tazes, taken out of context and with no regard for the ideals that JFK stood for, Brown has found that one tiny little speck of a connection with Kennedy that he could exploit.
Martha Coakley could have just as easily found some sort of commonality with Ronald Reagan, to which I would have responded Martha Coakley, you Madame are no Ronald Reagan. But she doesn't need to. She has the endorsement of the Kennedys and is the obvious choice to continue to carry the banner of the ideals that Ted Kennedy supported, the ideals that Massachusetts voters have stood behind all those years that Ted held that seat.
To be true to his ideals and beliefs, it would have been more appropriate if Scott Brown had invoked the ideals of another Jack....Jack Bauer of Foxes "24" TV series. Jack Bauer who wouldn't think twice about beating the crap out of a captured terrorist in order to extract some tidbit of information.
Scott Brown does not consider waterboarding to be torture and supports is use on terrost detainees. Perhaps Brown has not read the reports that indicated that such torturing does not actually yield usable and credible information. While there are some reports that detainees being subjected to high pressure interrogation techniques have given up usefull information, they are the exception rather than the rule.
Many third world countries, like Iran, will use torture to force false confessions out of their political prisoners. They make the confessions because they want the torture to stop . Likewise, detainees may provide false information just to make the torture stop. In fact, new terrorist in training are being trained to endure torture and are also being trained to give out false information to lead Amercan intelligence agents on a wild goose chase.
Even Republican John McCain understood that and opposed the use of torture. McCain also understood one of the most important principles of the ban on torture, and that is, if we torture the prisoners we hold, then our enemies will be more likely to torture Americans that they hold prisoner. If on the otherhand, we treat all prisoners humanely, then our enemies are less likely to be inhumane to Americans held captive.
Just because A.Q, the Taliban and other terrorist groups have no regard for the humane treatment of captives, does not give us the justification to stoop down to their level. America needs to stand behind a higher ideal and not be known as a nation that resorts to torture.
But Scott Brown doesn't believe that. In that regard Scott Brown looks more like Jack Bauer than Jack Kennedy.
And that scares me.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Three days after Massachusetts Senate primary, campaign falls off the radar.
Scan the Boston Globe today and you won't find any reference to either of the candidates for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat until you reach the op ed page. There you'll see an article about women in Congress and another about Scott Browns chances of becoming next Gov. of Massachusetts. I suppose it's an already a foregone conclusion that Brown has little chance of winning the Senate seat and all his candidacy does is elevate his position for a run for Governor. According to the commentary, even there, Brown has little chance of winning and in fact his ambition is for a position in Congress.
How well he does in a Congressional race might hinge on how well he runs his Senatorial campaign. While it may give him a substantial lead over any other Republican candidates in his district, any misteps in his Senatorial campaign could just as easily lower his chances.
As things stand, Coakley is the front runner and Brown has yet to make any moves to tighten the race. Yesterday Brown signed a "no new taxes" pledge, which is really just a meaningless ploy that Republicans use to highlight their distaste of taxes. For Brown , who call himself an independant thinker and accuses Coakley of being just another Democratic party liner, the pledge just labels him as a typical Republican party liner. He also opposes the public option on the health care bill and opposes same sex marriage, which is legal in Massachusetts. Only his Pro Choice stance makes him any less typical a Republican than he claims to be.
Essentailly, given the positions of both candidates, it's really just a typical Democrat vs a typical Republican race and the voters will be voting for the party more than the individual candidates. Massachusetts voters, are open to Republicans on the local and state level, but will vote in favor of the Democrats on the national level. Both Massachusttes Democrats and Independants support a more liberal agenda on national issues.
With that being the case, should Brown use his Senatorial candidacy to secure the Republican nomination for Congress, he will still face an uphill battle to go to Washington and might serve himself better by running for State Attorney General to fill the seat that Coakley will leave vacant when she goes to Washington to become the junior Senator from Massachusetts.
How well he does in a Congressional race might hinge on how well he runs his Senatorial campaign. While it may give him a substantial lead over any other Republican candidates in his district, any misteps in his Senatorial campaign could just as easily lower his chances.
As things stand, Coakley is the front runner and Brown has yet to make any moves to tighten the race. Yesterday Brown signed a "no new taxes" pledge, which is really just a meaningless ploy that Republicans use to highlight their distaste of taxes. For Brown , who call himself an independant thinker and accuses Coakley of being just another Democratic party liner, the pledge just labels him as a typical Republican party liner. He also opposes the public option on the health care bill and opposes same sex marriage, which is legal in Massachusetts. Only his Pro Choice stance makes him any less typical a Republican than he claims to be.
Essentailly, given the positions of both candidates, it's really just a typical Democrat vs a typical Republican race and the voters will be voting for the party more than the individual candidates. Massachusetts voters, are open to Republicans on the local and state level, but will vote in favor of the Democrats on the national level. Both Massachusttes Democrats and Independants support a more liberal agenda on national issues.
With that being the case, should Brown use his Senatorial candidacy to secure the Republican nomination for Congress, he will still face an uphill battle to go to Washington and might serve himself better by running for State Attorney General to fill the seat that Coakley will leave vacant when she goes to Washington to become the junior Senator from Massachusetts.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Low voter turnout sends Martha Coakley and Scott Brown to special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.
Senator Ted Kennedy left behind some big shoes to fill and one would think there would have been some high profile names vying for the honor of being his successor. Teds nephew Joe declined and Congressman Barney Frank chose to stay in place in the House. Former Massachusetts Governor and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney moved his official state of residency for his Presidential run, making him ineligable for the Massachusetts seat. Romney had previously run for Senator in Massachusetts, and lost.
Martha Coakley got a head start by declaring her intent to seek the Senate seat before Kennedy had died and had more name recognition than the other Democratic candidates. The idea of a woman filling Kennedy's seat also has some added appeal. The other Democratic candidates had an uphill battle to get their names and messages out and the short campaign did not allow enough time for them to overcome Coakley's early lead.
On the Republican side, there was a surprisingly low lack of interest for the seat. Scott Brown, is known more for being married to WCVB news reporter Gail Huff and father of American Idol finalist Ayla Brown than for his political career. Latecomer to the Campaign, Jack E. Robinson curried more interest for having the name of a famous ballplayer than anything else.
I think it would have been interesting to see Robinson as the nominee as this would have been another major electoral battle between a white woman and an African American man like we saw in the Democratic Presidential Primaries and the last Massachusetts Gubernatorial race.
Massachusetts has already had an African American Senator and a Republican at that, so seating Robinson would not be as ground breaking as seating a woman would be. Robinson never posed any serious challenge to Brown and recieived a meager 17% of the vote against Browns 89%. However, Browns overwhelming victory over Robinson does not really indicate such great support for Brown. Robinson was never really a credible candidate and for all intents and purposes, Brown ran unopposed. Browns 89% (~145,000) represents less than half of Coakley's 47% (310,000+) and slightly less than the Democratic runner up Mike Capuoano's 28% (~185,000). He has a nearly insurmountable challenge to win in heavily Democratic Massachusetts.
Now that the candidates have been determined the real battle begins and we'll learn more about Coakley and Brown. But most likely, the only impact Brown will have on the race will be to challange Coakley to define her positions. What Brown has most to gain is an increase in his own profile to better position himself for other political offices, like Governor or Congressman, or maybe even Coakley's seat as State Attorney General.
Martha Coakley got a head start by declaring her intent to seek the Senate seat before Kennedy had died and had more name recognition than the other Democratic candidates. The idea of a woman filling Kennedy's seat also has some added appeal. The other Democratic candidates had an uphill battle to get their names and messages out and the short campaign did not allow enough time for them to overcome Coakley's early lead.
On the Republican side, there was a surprisingly low lack of interest for the seat. Scott Brown, is known more for being married to WCVB news reporter Gail Huff and father of American Idol finalist Ayla Brown than for his political career. Latecomer to the Campaign, Jack E. Robinson curried more interest for having the name of a famous ballplayer than anything else.
I think it would have been interesting to see Robinson as the nominee as this would have been another major electoral battle between a white woman and an African American man like we saw in the Democratic Presidential Primaries and the last Massachusetts Gubernatorial race.
Massachusetts has already had an African American Senator and a Republican at that, so seating Robinson would not be as ground breaking as seating a woman would be. Robinson never posed any serious challenge to Brown and recieived a meager 17% of the vote against Browns 89%. However, Browns overwhelming victory over Robinson does not really indicate such great support for Brown. Robinson was never really a credible candidate and for all intents and purposes, Brown ran unopposed. Browns 89% (~145,000) represents less than half of Coakley's 47% (310,000+) and slightly less than the Democratic runner up Mike Capuoano's 28% (~185,000). He has a nearly insurmountable challenge to win in heavily Democratic Massachusetts.
Now that the candidates have been determined the real battle begins and we'll learn more about Coakley and Brown. But most likely, the only impact Brown will have on the race will be to challange Coakley to define her positions. What Brown has most to gain is an increase in his own profile to better position himself for other political offices, like Governor or Congressman, or maybe even Coakley's seat as State Attorney General.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)