Medina County Dem News

(Medina County Democratic Action Committee)MEDINA COUNTY DEM EVENTS

Medina County JJ Dinner on October 6, 2007

The Medina County Democratic Party Executive Committee requests your presence at the Annual Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner & Silent Auction on Satuday, October 6, 2007. State Senator John Boccieri candidate for Congress in the 16th District will be the speaker. The Dinner will be held at:

Sharon Party & Event Center
6600 Ridge Rd (Route 94), Sharon Center, OH

6:30 - Party Time! Cash Bar 7:30 Buffet Dinner $40 per person

Massages to Benefit Wadsworth Democratic Candidates

The Wadsworth Democratic Group will be holding a Trigger Point Chair Massage fundraiser from 9am to 4pm on October 13 in Room B of the Steiner Center, 567 W. School Drive in Wadsworth. A $10 donation to benefit 2007 Wadsworth Democratic candidates is requested. Contact Julie Batey at 330-334-0392 or email juliebatey@neo.rr.com for further information.

SELECTED ITEMS FROM THE MCDAC BLOG

Link S-CHIP and Iraq War Funding

Americans want Bush's request for Iraq War funds cut and they want the States Children Health Insurance Program funded. There is an obvious connection here.
Democrats should work to cut the funding for the war and transfer the money to the S-CHIP. Obviously Republicans would filibuster this if they could and there are probably not enough votes in the House to override a Bush veto, given the fact that most commentators expect Bush's veto of the S-CHIP bill to be upheld.

It is not enough, however, to just support S-CHIP. Democrats need to drive home the point that Republicans would rather spend money in Iraq than on American kids without insurance. Most Americans don't support that choice and Democrats should make Republicans pay a price for choosing Iraqis over American children.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Voinovich!

Okay, much to no one's suprise, the other United States Senator from Ohio, George "I Help Enable Bush" Voinovich did not sign the letter condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark. This, of course, after he voted to condemn Move-On for its ad about General Petraeus.

Now, we know it is not out of some concern for the First Amendment since he voted to condemn the Move-On ad. We also know it is not out of some concern that the United States Senate shouldn't spend its time on trying to regulate the speech of Americans, again since he voted for the resolution blasting Move-On for its ad. No, we are left with the explanation that once again George Voinovich would rather pander to the right-wing of his party than take a principled stand.

Here are two examples of a principled stand on this issue. One would have been to vote "Nay" on the Move-On resolution on the grounds that the United States Senate has no right trying to stifle the free-speech of Americans, no matter how obnoxious the subject of the speech. The second example would be to vote for the Move-On resolution and then sign the Reid letter on the grounds that neither Move-On or Rush Limbaugh should be criticizing soldiers serving in Iraq, no matter what their rank.

Voinovich didn't do the principled thing, rather, as always, he did the expedient thing by marching in lock-step with his party. That's our Georgie, always ready to break with the Republican right-wing, but never quite having the courage.

General Wesley Clark Calls for Congress to Take Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio

General Wesley Clark wrote a piece for Huffington Post dated October 2, 2007, in which he argues that Congress can remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio. He points out that unlike commercial radio, Armed Forces Radio is taxpayer funded. The political ramifications of such a move would be interesting.

First of all, it would put so-called Republican "moderates" like George Voinovich who voted to condemn the Move On ad about Petraeus in a bind. If they voted to remove funding for Bush, they would tick off the "ditto-heads", not to mention Rush himself. This could lead to primary challengers in 2010. If they voted against removing funding, it would just one more example of how these Bush-enablers are willing to do the bidding of their Party's wing-nut faction, regardless of the hypocrisy involved.

Second, if it were attached to a military funding bill, it would put Bush in a bind. Can you imagine the political hay that could be made out of his vetoing a funding bill for American troops because he wanted to protect Rush? All in all, it is a great idea. If you want to send an email message to Congress, go to this website address: http://ga4.org/campaign/dumprush

Into My Own Asks This Question: What is John Boehner Doing About Rural Poor?

The blog "Into My Own" has a very interesting entry up about rural poverty and the lack of Republican response to such poverty. The entry is based on a report about rural poverty that the Dayton Daily News published. The DDN article used a town in Ohio that suffered a tragic fire. It examined what is happening to that town, Greenville, in terms of job loss, family breakup, and crime. The author of the entry believes that Boehner is doing nothing because people who live in such towns don't give campaign contributions.

That may be one reason, but here is another possibility. The problem of rural poverty doesn't lend itself to market solutions which, since the 1980s, have been the preferred solutions to any social or economic problem. A declining work force, inadequate funding base for schools, and a migration out of such places by young people, means that such areas are not attractive places for private investment. Since they aren't attractive for private investment, it is difficult to attract new businesses to such areas or help the ones that are already there.

It doesn't have to be that way. Here are some ideas: (1) put Ohio's school funding on a equal basis so that quality of education is not so dependent on where a person lives; (2) invest in school buildings and other public infrastructure; (3) put up a system of cheap broadband communication so that all areas of Ohio are accessible to the Internet; and (4) put more money into law enforcement in these areas so that the crime rate is driven down. Come to think of it, those solutions would work well for urban areas too.

Such solutions, however, are dependent on having an activist government. Such a government is not compatible with the philosophy of the Republican Party and its elected officials.

Seymour Hersh Believes Bush Getting Ready for Iran Attack

On the New Yorker website is an article by Seymour Hersh that goes into where the Bush Administration is at regarding Iran. Hersh's article points out that the Bush Administration believes that Iran is five years away from developing a nuclear weapon and that the American public is not buying into its fear campaign against the Iranians. Therefore, what Cheney, aka Darth Vadar and Bubble-Boy want to do is attack Iran and justify it by claiming that they are protecting American troops in Iraq.

Here is an interesting quote from the article:
At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, "Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives." The former intelligence official added, "There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, 'You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we're only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.' But Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President."

We wonder how the Republicans in Congress feel about Dick Cheney and George W. right about now. They have staked their political futures to a man who doesn't give a "rat's ass" about their futures.

Historical Indicators Point Down for GOP

The Associated Press ran a story on Sunday, September 30, 2007, about how historical indicators for political parties are pointing down for the GOP for 2008. This quote is from the story:

"The Democrats will continue to be the majority party in the House and Senate and Hillary Clinton will make history by being the first woman president" in 2008, predicts Rep. Ray LaHood, one of three Illinois Republicans to announce his retirement so far.

Political coalitions don't last forever in American politics. The FDR coalition of Southern whites, labor union members, intellectuals, northern Afro-Americans, and Roman Catholics lasted to about 1968. Starting then both southern whites began to leave that coalition because of the passage of Civil Rights Acts, notably the Act of 1964. After Roe v. Wade, Roman Catholics began to leave the coalition and a lot of labor union members became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s.

Before it broke up, though, it had a hell of a run. It produced Democratic presidential victories in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960 and 1964. It also produced a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress from 1932-1946, and in the House of Representatives from 1954-1994.

The Republican Party, starting in 1968, began to put together a coalition that consisted of Southern whites, Northern working class whites, small town whites, and Roman Catholics and evangelicals upset with both abortion and social issues, and members of the business community. This coalition produced presidential victories in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, (if you accept that the Florida vote was legitimate), and 2004. It also produced a Congressional majority in both Houses from 1994-2006.

This coalition, however, may be breaking apart because of the internal tension between business supporters and working class whites over social spending, and between business supporters and evangelicals over what stress should be placed on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and controlling sexual activity.

It will be interesting to see which political party puts together a new coalition first. Rove thought he could do it by adding Hispanics to the GOP's coalition, but immigration issues are hurting the GOP with Hispanics. Democrats have an opportunity in 2008 and beyond, but this matter is still very much in flux.

Voinovich's BS Idea: Have Iraq Timetable for Withdrawal After Bubble-Boy Leaves Office

Voinovich and some other so-called Republican moderates, otherwise known as "Bush enablers", have come up with a real bright idea: establish guidelines for withdrawal from Iraq which start after BB leaves office. Who else is supposedly backing this lame-brain effort? Well, there is Elizabeth Dole, Norm Coleman, and Lamar Alexander. What do all of them have in common? They are running for re-election in 2008 and they are worried about losing because of BB's War.

Now, this proposal makes a lot of sense for Republicans. Vote to set up guidelines for getting out after Bush leaves so that his wing-nut base won't vote against you in a primary. Stick any negative consequences of withdrawal on the incoming president who will most likely be a Democrat. Avoid having your party held accountability for the diaster that its President and Vice-President have gotten the U.S. into in invading Iraq.

For the rest of us, however, this idea really, really sucks. In a democracy elections are how we hold political parties and politicians accountable for their exercise of power. The Republican Party shouldn't be let off the hook for how Bush and his enablers in the Congress have managed this country since 2000.

Other articles from the MCDAC blog can be read at http://www.mcdac.blogspot.com

The MCDAC Newsletter is published by the
Medina County Democratic Action Committee
Joyce V. Kimbler, Treasurer
P.O. Box 1213
Medina, OH 44258
Email: joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org
On the World Wide Web at http://www.mcdac.org