Medina County Dem News

(Medina County Democratic Action Committee)

MCDAC Newsletter
January 4, 2008
Joyce V. Kimbler,
Editor

Obama Wins Iowa Caucuses

This is from the New York Times:

Democrats Vote %
Obama 37%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 30%
Richardson 2%
Biden 1%
Dodd 0%
Others 0%
92% of precincts reporting

Letters to the Editor

The MCDAC Newsletter would like to print letters from readers and post those letters to the MCDAC blog. To be considered letters have to be no more than 250 words and contain the writer's first and last name. Please send letters to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org and put "Letter to Editor" in the subject line. MCDAC reserves the right to reject any letter without a reason being given to the writer.

MCDAC Blog Entries

T-Shirt Seen by MCDAC Blog Reader

Joyce-

I was at Westfield Park Mall on 12-24-07 with my sons and saw a man wearing a t-shirt that read, "January 20, 2008 – Bush's last day. The reign of terror is over." I gave him a thumbs up.

New York Times Explains the Iowa Caucus System

This may come as a surprise, given all the media attention to the Iowa caucuses, but the caucuses tonight don't actually elect any delegates to the Democratic national convention. No, what they are doing tonight is selecting delegates to a bigger convention which then selects delegates to the state convention which then selects delegates to the national convention. Confused? This graphic spells it out. Needless to say, this is one screwed up system.

Once Again Bush Shows He Doesn't Understand Constitution He Swore to Uphold

The Hill newspaper is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is rejecting a claim by President Bush that he has pocket vetoed the defense authorization bill that was passed in December. The Constitution provides that if a President neither signs or vetoes legislation 10 days after he receives it from Congress, not counting Sundays, and the Congress is not in session, the bill doesn't become law. This provision is sometimes referred to as a "pocket veto" from the idea that the President put the bill in his or her "pocket" as opposed to taking official action.

The problem in this case is that the Congress hasn't been out of session because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been conducting short "pro-forma" sessions to keep Bubble-Boy from making recess appointments. Therefore, according to Pelosi and Reid, the conditions for a pocket veto don't exist. The Bush administration counters with the novel argument that it can avail itself of the pocket veto in this case because the House of Representatives is not in session. According to a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress this argument is, to use a technical term, bunk.

So now the question becomes what is the status of the legislation? Pelosi argues that if the bill is returned by the administration, she will regard it as having been vetoed and will schedule an override vote. The Bush administration argues that the Congress should pass new legislation. Once again Bush's lack of knowledge about what our Constitution does and does not permit him to do is responsible for uncertainity, this time involving funding our nation's defense.

Politico Reporting Thompson Expected to Drop Out After Iowa

Politico, the online political newspaper that tends to lean to the right, is reporting that sources close to the Fred Thompson campaign expect him to drop out if he finishes poorly in the Iowa caucuses. Thompson is also expected to endorse John McCain, who is enjoying a resurgence in New Hampshire. Thompson is one of those candidates who Washington types thought would be a great candidae, but who never caught on with the voters.

Although Thompson seems to be the first major candidate whose aides are talking to the media about dropping out, he certainly won't be the last. It is hard to see how candidates like Dodd and Biden, both of whom would probably make a good president, could continue following a poor showing in Iowa, especially if followed by a poor showing in New Hampshire.

For a lot of these candidates, both Republican and Democratic, there is a vicious cycle at work. They can't be competitive if they don't have donations coming in, but they can't get donations if they aren't getting media attention, and they can't get media attention without showing some movement in the polls. Movement in the polls, of course, depends on getting media attention.

Probably by the weekend after the New Hampshire primary each party will be down to three candidates with realistic chances of continuing until the big round of primaries on February 5. The Republicans will probably be Romney, Huckabee, and McCain. The Democrats will probably be Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. In each party, though, the primary season could go deeper than the media anticipates. Who knows, there may yet be a competitive primary for each party in Ohio on March 4.

NY Times Economic Writer on Clinton/Obama Differences

A New York Times economic writer lays out what he believes is the essential difference between the Clinton and Obama approaches to the economy. He calls them right of John Edwards, but well to the left of the Republican candidates. He summarizes the difference this way:

The easiest way to describe Senator Clinton's philosophy is to say that she believes in the promise of narrowly tailored government policies, like focused tax cuts. She has more faith that government can do what it sets out to do, which is a traditionally liberal view. Yet she also subscribes to the conservative idea that people respond rationally to financial incentives.

Senator Obama's ideas, on the other hand, draw heavily on behavioral economics, a left-leaning academic movement that has challenged traditional neoclassical economics over the last few decades. Behavioral economists consider an abiding faith in rationality to be wishful thinking. To Mr. Obama, a simpler program — one less likely to confuse people — is often a smarter program.

The article then goes on to point out that the Clinton approach was used by her husband in the nineties in expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. This program was a tailored program aimed at the working poor. It was extremely successful and, because it benefits those who are working, avoids the stigma associated with government welfare programs.

The article also argues, however, that the problems facing America's middle classes such as globalization, the coming collapse of the employer linked health care system, and growing income inequality might not be susceptible to an approach based on tax credits and tailored government programs.

Although we would have preferred an article that would compare Edwards' economic view along with Clinton and Obama's, it is a good article and well worth the time.

Two Year Old Article Shows Problems with Corporate Media

We recently came across an article more than two years old on www.consortiumnews.com called "The Rise of the 'Patriotic Journalist'". If you are looking for an example of what is wrong with the corporate owned media in America, this is the article for you.

The article's author, Robert Parry, who used to work for both Newsweek and the Associated Press, gives example after example of how, starting in the seventies and continuing on in the eighties under Reagan and Bush, the corporate owned media carried water for Bush and Reagan on issues such as Iran-contra, right-wing death squads in El Salvador, and the involvement of the contras in Nicaragua in drug trafficking in America. He gives example after example of how editors and managers in so-called "mainstream" media outlets like the AP and Newsweek either ignored stories of Reagan and Bush misdeeds or, indeed, attacked journalists who revealed such information.

This kid-glove treatment of conservatives and Republicans continued with the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the suppression of stories about how Al Gore would have carried Florida if an honest count had taken place. Then, of course, came Iraq and the so-called weapons of mass destruction. The Washington Post and the New York Times in particular became cheerleaders for George W. Bush's invasion by allowing its reporters, particularly Judith Miller, to basically become in-house reporters for the Bush administration.

It is not surprising that news corporations want Republicans to win because Republicans stand for allowing corporations to do what they want without regulation or oversight. Of course, we are never told that this is the agenda of these organizations. Instead we are told that they are dedicated to giving us vital information that we need to be informed. All while maintaining a profit margin of around 20% or so.

Thankfully the Internet has the promise to change this situation, but only if it does not become dominated by the same corporations that control other news organizations. That's why the battle over access to the 'Net is so important.

Media Elites Don't Share Concerns of Ordinary Americans

Why does Maureen Dowd write crap like this, focusing on the personalities of politicians as opposed to their policies? Well, the first reason is that it is a lot easier. If you write stuff like hers, you don't need to do any research, other than occasional Google searches. Another reason is that it pays well. Maureen Dowd makes a lot of money as a columnist for the Times, and then makes more money selling books and has the opportunity to make even more money appearing as a guest lecturer. The most important reason, though, is that Ms. Dowd, like most members of the media elite don't have the same concerns as other Americans.

She makes a good deal of money, she has health insurance, she probably has a good pension, and, since she doesn't have any children, doesn't have to worry about what happens to America after she is gone. What in the world does she have in common with people who are working at relatively low paying jobs, worried about paying for health insurance, and worried about how they are going to support their children? The answer, of course, is not a damn thing.

This is why Ms. Dowd, and other media elites, can sneer at Democratic candidates and spend a great deal of time analyzing their personalities, or their marriages, or how much they did or didn't spend on an haircut. This is why they can write articles that pretend to reveal deep psychological motives of people they have seldom, if ever, met or talked with.

The best thing that could happen to progressive candidates would be for about 75% of the media to lose their jobs so they could see what it is like for the rest of America. Maybe then they would care more about policies and much less about personalities.

Governor Ted Strickland Pans Iowa Caucus

Governor Ted Strickland told the Columbus Dispatch that he thought the caucus procedure used by Iowa wasn't fair because people who were old, or ill, or who work at night wouldn't necessarily be able to take part. We are glad that Strickland spoke out against the Iowa caucus system. For some reason the media fawns over Iowa and New Hampshire and try mightly to convince the rest of us that a system that will produce less votes than Cuyahoga county has in a presidential primary is a good system. Frankly we just don't buy it.

Neither state has a large minority population, either of Afro-Americans or Hispanic voters. Frankly the absence of such voters means that candidates who manage to win those two contests aren't going to necessarily do well in the general election. Further, New Hampshire allows independents to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries, which means that the Democratic winner doesn't necessarily represent the majority of registered New Hampshire Democrats.

In the past, winners of the New Hampshire primary have included John Kerry, who lost the general election; Michael Dukasis, who lost the general election; and Paul Tsongas, who didn't even get to the general election. The last Democratic president came in second in New Hampshire, but went on to win two elections, becoming the first Democrat since FDR to win two consecutive elections for president, and only the third Democrat since the Civil War to do so.

Strickland is right: Get rid of the Iowa caucus and while we are at it, throw out the New Hampshire primary, or, at least, stop penalizing larger states that jump in front of these two states.

Fox News Won't Invite Ron Paul to Televised Debate

Just in case you thought that Fox News only screws over Democrats, check this out: Fox News is sponsoring a debate right before the New Hampshire primary. It didn't invite Ron Paul, but did invite Fred Thompson. The kicker? Ron Paul is polling ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. So why isn't the Fox letting Ron into its henhouse?

Paul told the Boston Globe that it was because they support the war, he opposes it, and they are "scared" of him. We think that it is more likely that Fox News is ticked off at Paul because he isn't afraid to criticize Bubble-Boy Bush.

Fox News isn't so much pro-Republican as it is pro-corporation, which usually, but not always translates into being pro-Republican. Our guess is that they aren't real happy about Mike Huckabee either, since he is running a populist campaign that talks about policies that helps working class families as opposed to helping corporations. Fox News, as the official network of the obscenely wealthy, isn't going to get on that bandwagon.

The New Hampshire Republican Party has called on Fox News to allow Ron Paul into the debate. It will be interesting to see if Faux News relents or decides to say screw it and drop all pretense of being a legitimate news organization.

What's Behind So-Called "Unity Movement"? Fear of Economic Populism.

Okay, so this is what happening: A bunch of conservative Democrats like Georgia's Sam Nunn and Oklahoma's David Boren are teaming up with a bunch of disaffected Republicans to push for a national unity government. And, of course, D.C. establishment types like David Broder are acting like this is a good thing. Well, here's our position: like the little boy in the New Yorker cartoon when told by his mother to eat his broccoli, we say it's spinach and we say to hell with it.

Make no mistake this is a plot to make sure that an economic populist Democrat doesn't take the White House and try to take back all the goodies that the Bushies gave the rich in America. Things like cutting the top income tax rates, taxing unearned income at obscenely low levels, helping corporations pollute the environment, and making sure that free trade agreements are signed so that American workers can be intimidated into making sure they work for lower and lower wages.

If these people were so interested in bi-partisan government, why didn't they pressure Bush and Co. to include Democrats after the United States Supreme Court gave Bubble-Boy the presidency in a black-robed coup? Why didn't they pressure Bush to stop demonizing Democrats during the 2002 and 2004 general election? Why is it that we start hearing from these corporate apologists and billionaires only after Democrats take control of Congress and not before?

This is nothing more than a political shell game designed to make sure that the top 5% of America controls the political agenda now that the Republican Party has been shown to be corrupt and incompetent. Real Democrats will recognize this for what it is and they won't have any of it.

UPDATE: The populist commentator David Sirota comes to the same conclusion, but says it better. Click here to read his analysis: http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2007/12/gauging_the_fear_inside_the_pa.html

John Edwards Fighting Hard in Iowa

The Washington Post has an interesting article dated December 30, 2007, about John Edwards and his campaign in Iowa. The writer apparently finds Edwards's talking about corporate greed and income inequality in America surprising. That makes sense because most candidates, including most Democrats don't talk about such matters. They are apparently too afraid of being told by the radical right-wing media machine that they are preaching "class warfare." "Class warfare" is the term that wingnuts like Limbaugh use when a politician tells working Americans how much they are getting screwed over by the rich.

This is a quote from the article:

But it is his message that is most remarkable. No thought here of finishing on a sunny and positive note, as he did four years ago. His "America Rising" theme is not a variation of "Morning in America."

It is a call to arms that is raw and angry, populist and pugnacious. It is a message that is as exhausting and is it confrontational. It is a message makes Al Gore's "people versus the powerful" seem tame and timid in comparison.

One Edwards supporter, departing after a big rally in Des Moines on Saturday night, said he hasn't heard a message as passionate or strong since Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign.

It is interesting that a Washington Post reporter would find it "remarkable" that a Democratic politician would be talking about such issues in such a tone. Well, it wouldn't have been remarkable back in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s. It wouldn't have been remarkable when Hubert Humphrey or Bobby Kennedy were alive. The fact that it is "remarkable" in 2007 shows how far from our roots the Democratic party has strayed. Both the United States and the Democratic Party could use some of what John Edwards is selling.

UPDATE: ABC News is reporting in a story dated December 29, 2007, that John Edwards is going to pull a 36 hour all-nighter as he tries to meet as many Iowans as possible. This campaign trip is titled "Marathon for the Middle Class". Edwards plans to introduce 36 policy ideas to help the middle class over the 36 hour all-nighter.

Does Slowdown in Home Construction Mean a Recession is Coming?

The Cleveland Plain Dealer had some stories during the last week about the slowdown in new home construction. One article dealt with the fact that new home starts in 2007 were the lowest in the last 12 years. Another article dealt with the fact that every county in the Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area has seen a significant reduction in new home sales since 2000. In northeast Ohio, the rate of new home construction has fallen by 31% during the first nine months of 2007 compared to the first nine months of 2006 and by 45% when compared to the first nine months of 2005.

In a graphic accompanying the article in the print edition, there was a chart showing the number of building permits issued for new homes in seven counties, including Medina County. According to the chart, in 2000 there were 1509 new homes built in Medina County. This year there have been only 559 new homes constructed, a drop of 62.9%. Medina County ranked ahead of Geauga, Lake, and Portgage counties, but behind Lorain, Cuyahoga, and Summit, all of which are appreciably bigger than Medina County. This slowdown is very unusual for Medina County that usually ranks in the top five counties of the state for new home construction.

Given the fact that home construction employs a lot of people, this drop in new home construction will be felt by all of us in Northeast Ohio, not just workers in the building trades. Car dealers, applicance dealers, furniture dealers, and others who sell goods to the owners of new homes or to the workers who build new homes will be affected by this slowdown in new home construction. Of course, the GOP answer will be to cut taxes and drive up the deficit even higher.

NY Times Profile on Mike Huckabee

As readers of this blog know, we have been saying for some time that Mike Huckabee could be the best Republican candidate to run for President in 2008 and, consequently, the worst Republican candidate for the Democrats. This is because of his populist message that blends social conservatism with economic populism. This message is one that could appeal to voters who are conservative on issues such as abortion and gay rights, but back programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and increases in the minimum wage.

In the past a lot of these voters voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, but many of them voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996 because of economic issues. They voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but voted for Strickland and other state-wide Democrats in 2006. In particular these voters are important for Democrats in the southeastern part of the state, an area that is socially conservative, but needs economic help. It is no cocidence that Governor Ted Stricland comes from that part of the state. Because he came from the part of the state, working class voters who support Democrats on economic issues but disagree with the party's liberal orthodoxy on social issues felt comfortable voting for him.

The New York Times has an article up about Mike Huckabee in which Huckabee is depicted as roiling the Republican establishment by running a populist campaign. Interestingly his principal advisor is Ed Rollins who worked on the Perot campaign in 1992. That campaign, especially in Ohio, was very successful for a third party campaign. Its appeal was built on getting votes from "angry white males" and other so-called Reagan Democrats.

What is ticking off parts of the GOP is that Huckabee is not afraid of attacking the Bush adminisration on foreign policy or how it handled the war in Iraq. He is not afraid of saying that he raised taxes to pay for goverment services such as roads, schools, etc. He is described by Rick Santorum, the former right-wing Senator from Pennslyvania, as a "pairie populist" who would appeal to working class voters in the southwestern part of his state. In short, after years of using such voters to gain power and then screwing them over in favor of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, the Republican establishment is worried that they are now deciding they want to drive the bus, not just sit in the back. In will be interesting to see what Huckabee does in the Republican primaries.

Newsletter prepared by:
Medina County Democratic Action Committee
Joyce Kimbler, Treasurer
P.O. Box 1213
Medina, OH 44258
MCDAC Website