Republicans Blowing Smoke on Economy According to Newsweek

In an article in Newsweek's The Gaggle on Press, Politics and Absurdity, Arthur Romano details how the Republican agenda for the economy doesn't hold up when examined. The article is entitled "Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge". Romano examines and calculates the figures based on stated Republican positions and actions they have proposed.

The article notes:

As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

It is good to finally see some response from the media to questioning the absurd pronouncements and posturing by Republicans beyond merely quoting their phony claims. Anyone can repeat the nonsense that many Republicans and Tea Party fanatics have been spouting. It's something else to actually look beyond the heated rhetoric and rantings of the right wing and analyze what putting these folks and their friends back in power would actually mean.

As just one example of why people should read the Newsweek article to understand just how ridiculous the Republican claims are, let's look at the claim that extending the Bush Tax cuts for the very wealthy will help small business create more jobs.

As Newsweek notes:

"...it's unlikely that extending the cuts for the richest Americans would have much of an effect on small-business hiring, which is a claim that Republicans make with some regularity. Why? Because of the taxpayers that report running small businesses on their taxes, only 2 percent fall into the top two income brackets.* The other 98 percent of small-business owners make less than $250,000 a year and wouldn't pay higher taxes under Obama's plan.

History isn't on the GOP's side, either. If keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35 percent—the rate under Bush, and the rate that Republicans are fighting to preserve—spurs so much hiring, why didn't America experience any job growth at all during Bush's time in office? And if a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent—the rate under Bill Clinton, and the rate that Democrats are fighting to restore—is such a job killer, why did payrolls grow by 20 percent during the 1990s?"

I urge you to read the article to get more details and understand better why the Republican economic
rantings are just a lot of smoke obscuring the reality that things would be worse off, not better if Republicans gain control of either House of Congress.  If you thought we had gridlock and weren't getting enough done now, expect nothing to get done if Republicans get back control of either house.

Public Support Growing for Obama's Health Care Law

An article published in today's Seattle Times states that supporters of the the health care legislation supported by President Obama and passed by Democrats in Congress now outnumber opponents The Associated Press-GfK poll showed 45% in favor of the legislation to 42% opposed.

The poll found support increased since May among men (from 36 percent to 46 percent), people in their prime working years (from 35 percent to 49 percent among 30- to 49-year-olds) and Republicans (from 8 percent to 17 percent.) The uptick among Republicans comes even as party leaders are calling for the law's repeal.

The article credits the increased support on the public supporting a number of key provisions of the bill including:

"...coverage for young adults on their parents' plan until they turn 26; a $250 rebate check for older people with high prescription costs; tax credits for some small businesses that cover their employees; and federal money to train more primary-care doctors and nurses"

Significantly the poll found that the public trusts the Democrats to do a better job of handling health care than Republicans by a margin of 51% to 39% That's not surprising considering that no Republicans supported the legislation and they made every effort they could to obstruct reform of health care to try to prevent Obama from passing the legislation and having a significant legislative victory.

Republican obstructionist tactics failed and are a sign of the lack of new ideas or an agenda that appeals to Americans interested in solving our countries problems rather than engaging in partisan politics Obama is developing a track record despite the childish tactics of the Republicans who are more intent on trying to get back into power than on dealing with our problems.  Electing naysayers and do nothings just isn't going to happen. The obstructionist tactics of the Republicans are destined to come back and bite the Republicans at the polls.

The Democrats Failure.

As we await the outcome in the Senate race in Massachusetts, one thing is certain.  The Democrats are failing to articulate their message to voters.  Nationally Democrats have become complacent, allowing right wing Republicans and the so called Tea Party fanatics to define what the Democrats are about. One has to wonder where is the vision, where is the voice articulating a progressive future for America.

Democrats have allowed conservative voices to dominate the airwaves with outrageous claims and make Democrats the issue  rather than the failed conservative policies that contributed to our current recession.  They have allowed the Tea Party rhetoric to switch the blame for failed conservative free market and de-regulation policies to Democrats who are struggling to clean up 8 years of failed fiscal policies under Bush.

EJ Dionne in a commentary yesterday entitled  Mass. Senate raises lessons for Obama  discusses the Democrat's problems:

"...the success of the conservative narrative ought to trouble liberals and the Obama administration. The president has had to "own" the economic catastrophe much earlier than he should have. Most Americans understand that the mess we are in started before Obama got to the White House. Yet many, especially political independents, are upset that the government has had to spend so much and that things have not turned around as fast as they had hoped.

It's also striking that most conservatives, through a method that might be called the audacity of audacity, have acted as if absolutely nothing went wrong with their economic theories. They speak and act as if they had nothing to do with the large deficits they now bemoan and say we will all be saved if only we return to the very policies that should already be discredited. ...

...the truth that liberals and Obama must grapple with is that they have failed so far to dent the right's narrative, especially among those moderates and independents with no strong commitments to either side in this fight."

Just winning the election was only 1 step. It's like scoring a touchdown and then walking off the football field before the game is over. It's like winning the first game of the season and then not showing up for the next game. You can't achieve change if you're not engaged in an ongong matter. And a big part of the game in politics is getting your message out there defining who you are and what you stand for and what you intend to do for the country; it's not by letting the fringe conservatives, with no agenda except being in power, define who you are by outshouting you.

America's free press is disappearing and real political analysis is being lost as polls, yelling and shouting replace political dialogue and serious discussion of the issues. Money exerts an even greater influence in driving politics as an independent press ceases to function and corporate conglomerates consolidate media power. TV, where most people get their news, loves a political circus with controversy. They love car crashes and political scandals more than hard hitting investigations and analysis of policies and programs that affect peoples lives every day. Not enough drama.

Citizens need to demand more from our media and more from our elected officials to engage the public in running our country. Democrats need to wake up and work for the future they want. No one is going to just hand it to them Let's hope the Democrat's in power wake up to this reality before the opportunity for real change passes us by again.

www.WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck - Obama's "Secret" Healthcare Website

The media seems to be working overtime to keep the new Obama "Reality Check" website on health care secret. We're publishing it up front so you can see it for yourself. Its www.WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck .

But read the print edition of the Seattle Times. today. Nowhere does it publish the link. Only if you go online and read the same article can you can find a link to the site. Why is it not published in the print edition? The article is a reprint of an article written by the New York Times.

Go to today's print edition of the New York Times of the same article and it also does not provide a specific link. It mentions that "The White House on Monday started a new website to fight questionable but potentially damaging charges that Presidents Obama's proposed overhaul of the nations health care system would inevitably lead to "socialized medicine", "rationed care" and even forced euthanasia for the elderly." But they only show a small picture of it do do not provide a web address to go to. Only by going to the New York Times article on the web can you find a link.

The Washington Post on line today notes that "On Monday, the White House launched a new online "Reality Check" on its Web site featuring administration officials rebutting critics' claims." But strangely it does not provide a link or website address for the White House website.

Various media outlets seem to be working overtime giving coverage to outrageous poster slogans and deliberate orchestrated efforts by Republicans and conservatives to kill any health care reform. Why does a picture of an absurd slogan or someone yelling to stop debate on discussion on health care deserve more coverage than the simple act of putting up the web address to Obama's rebuttal of the right wing's frantic efforts to prevent health care reform?

The media in this case seems to be more in the business of entertainment than providing the public function of information dissemination. Facts about public policy and fostering discussion lose out to slogans, and yelling and screaming by a vocal minority. How is the media doing the public a service by covering the antics of the right wing which is offering no answer to rising health care costs or lack of adequate health care coverage or loss of health care coverage.

Where's the truth here? Is the media being hoodwinked by the right wing? The right wing's goal is to stop Obama, is to stop anything that gives Obama momentum to bring about change and to re-institute the conservative policies that contributed to our present recession and multitude of problems that were not addressed while the Republicans were in control. Is the media carrying the water for the right wing conservatives by giving them so much coverage when they don't deserve it?

The question here is one the media needs to look at. Is it a circus they should be covering or is it helping to try to resolve health care problems that exist in this country? They can help the public by trying to factually deal with health care issues. They could start by helping to insure that the public has access to the proposals being considered by Congress and the President and doing simple things like providing links and web addresses to what the President is saying. Or just a simple thing like publishing the web address www.WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck .

The website has a number of videos where response is given to criticim of Obama's healthcare reform. Here are some of the areas covered:

CEA Chair Christina Romer details how health insurance reform will impact small businesses.

Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes tackles a nasty rumor about euthanasia and clearly describes how reform helps families.

Matt Flavin, the White House's Director of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy, clears the air about Veteran's benefits.

Kavita Patel, M.D., a doctor serving in the White House's Office of Public Engagement, explains that health care rationing is happening right now and how reform gives control back to patients and doctors.

Bob Kocher, M.D., a doctor serving on the National Economic Council, debunks the myth that health insurance reform will be financed by cutting Medicare benefits.

Let the Republicans Filibuster All They Want

The New York Times has an interesting opinion piece today by David E RePass. RePass is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut.

RePass's opinion piece is entitled "Make my Filibuster" and his thesis is simple. Republicans have been repeatedly threatening to filibuster legislation essentially giving a minority veto power to 40 Senators. Yet actual filibusters he says are extremely rare. He says this threat of a filibuster is preventing government from functioning effectively and is really more appropriately called a "phantom filibuster."

RePass notes that:

"The phantom filibuster is clearly unconstitutional. The founders required a supermajority in only five situations: veto overrides and votes on treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions of impeached officials and expulsions of members of the House or Senate. The Constitution certainly does not call for a
supermajority before debate on any controversial measure can begin.

And fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority’s bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin."

I strongly agree with DePass. He suggests that the Democrats would be politically astute if they called the Republicans bluff. Obama is enjoying much public good will, having inherited a disaster of an economy from the Republicans. The Republican mind set of a free market economy and little or no regulation and oversight brought on this current economic nightmare.

Voters clearly said it's time to change and Republicans still don't get it. Their answer to the problems is to continue the tried and failed Republican free market economy approach, rather than admit that they failed and brought us this mess. It is a Republican mess and if they want to filibuster Obama's proposals to try to fix the problem, let them go ahead.

Let them get on the Senate floor and oppose health care legislation and green jobs legislation and regulation for the financial industry and unemployment compensation for the unemployed and mortgage reform and help for homeowners losing their jobs and solutions to deal with climate change. That's what they've been doing for years.

But the public mood has changed. If they didn't get the message from last November's election of Obama and the loss of formerly Republican seats in the House and Senate, let them see how Americans feel about their trying to stop Congress and the President from working and doing their job by proposing and passing needed solutions to our current problems.

Americans are tried of naysayers and want our problems solved. Republicans botched the economy and Americans want them to get out of the way and let the President and Congress work to clean up the mess they created. They'll soon learn that the filibuster approach to solving problems is not one that going to earn them more votes in the next election. It's time for Reid and the Democrats in the US Senate to call the Republicans bluff on filibustering and move on to working out urgently needed solutions to our pressing problems.

Obama Accepts Richardson's Withdrawal as Commerce Secretary Nominee

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has asked Barack Obama to withdraw his nomination to be Commerce Secretary. Obama has accepted his withdrawal..

As reported locally by Ken Camp on the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate Richardson's office released a statement this afternoon announcing his withdrawal. Ken Camp was a strong advocate for Richardson's campaign for President.

As reported by the New Mexican, Richardson's statement was released by his office and noted the following:

"I felt that duty particularly because America is facing such extraordinary economic challenges. The Department of Commerce must play an important role in solving them by helping to grow the new jobs and businesses America so badly needs. It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time. I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months," the governor said."

In a statement by Obama released through Richardson's office, Obama stated:

"It is with deep regret that I accept Governor Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his name for nomination as the next Secretary of Commerce.Governor Richardson is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office. It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time ..."

As noted in the Huffington Post:

"New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson abandoned his nomination to become commerce under pressure of a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors _ an investigation that threatened to embarrass President-elect Barack Obama. ...A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a New Mexico transportation contract worth nearly $1.5 million. Richardson said in a statement issued by the Obama transition office that the investigation could take weeks or months but expressed confidence it will show he and his administration acted properly."

I see two reasons why Richardson was forced by circumstances to withdraw. One certainly was the hint of pay to play politics that dominated the news with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich scandal over the nomination of a replacement Senator for Barack Obama's seat. A second hint of scandal, even if not true, only focused the public's attention more and more on the issue and away from Obama's agenda.

The second reason was timing - Obama needs his cabinet appointments to hit the ground running and the grand jury investigation would only delay Richardson's confirmation. Obama and the country need cabinet members to get busy tackling the problems left by Bush and the economic meltdown right away. Unfortunately Richardson's problems left doubts as to when he would get Senate approval.

Dean to Leave 50 State Legacy

Howard Dean is going to step down as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He is not seeking a second term and will leave in January. He could turn up as a Cabinet member under President Obama - maybe Secretary of Health and Human Services.

As Adam Nagourney on The Caucus blog at the NY Times notes:

"As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Dean pressed the party to expand its efforts and set up offices in all 50 states, arguing that the party was making a mistake in effectively ceding states to the Republican Party. That position led him into some famously pointed clashes with Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who at the time headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign, and who was angry that Mr. Dean was not sending money he had raised to help in Democratic efforts to take back Congress.
Mr. Emanuel was appointed by Mr. Obama last week as the White House chief of staff."

Donna Brazile, a DNC member is quoted on the Huffington Post saying:

"The 50-state-strategy was successful in laying the groundwork for 2006 and 2008, .... Clearly, the strategy has reaped a harvest of new voters for Democrats and the next Chair will no doubt build upon this foundation for 2010 and beyond. Remember, we have some interesting statewide and mayoral elections next year before the all out organizing for redistricting."

Sam Stein in his post suggests that a good replacement for Dean might be a duo combination of Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who was a co-chair of Obama's Presidential campaign and Steve Hildebrand who was deputy campaign manager.

David Corn also on the Huffington Post in a second article suggests that Obama's Campaign Manager David Plouffe might be a better choice noting specifically that:

Job One of the new DNC chair is to win the 2010 congressional elections as a prelude to winning reelection for Barack Obama in 2012. The party doesn't need a visionary or public leader in the position. Obama can handle those tasks. (The party on the outs is the one that requires a posterboy or postergirl who is good on television.) The Democrats need an uber-operative who can simultaneously oversee scores of critical House and Senate races, supervise the early reelection effort, and chart out the overall mission of advancing the party's interests across the country. The next DNC chair should also know a thing or two about fundraising and be able to transform the party into the receptacle for all the grassroots energy and passion that poured into the Obama campaign. Who better than Plouffe to do all this?

Corn notes that Plouffe has communicated that he is not interested yet it is important to note that Obama basically set up an independent campaign organization in his run for President that incorporated fundraising and get out the vote efforts. It obviously worked and from a practical sense the DNC is the logical organization to merge with Obama's structure and focus to look toward the future.

The choice of who chairs the DNC is the perogative of Obama as President. It is as critical a choice as any he makes regarding his future and the future of the Democratic Party. It is important that he makes the right choice.

John W Dean Calls McCain/Palin "archetypical authoritarian conservatives"

John W Dean, the former Nixon White House Counsel, has thrown his support strongly behind the need to elect Barack Obama to the White House and reject McCain/Palin.

Saying that Barack Obama "has shown without any doubt (in my mind anyway) that he is not only qualified to be president, but that he might be a once-in-a-lifetime leader who can forever change the nation and the world for the better.", Dean gives insightful and cogent reasons to end Republican rule in the White House.

The following excerpt is from a column he wrote for FindLaw's Writ entitled "The Evidence Establishes, without Question, that Republican Rule Is Dangerous: Why It Is High Time to Fix This Situation, For the Good of the Nation"

The Republican Approach to Government: Authoritarian Rule

"Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.

Republicans' authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which is to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.

Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however - and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves. "

The column makes interesting reading and puts forward a concise analysis of the current ongoing disaster that has been the Republican Party's approach to governing our country.

I feel the same mentality exists in Washington State. GOP aka Republican candidate Dino Rossi has run a typical authoritarian conservative Republican campaign, such as Dean describes, against Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire. Ads supporting Rossi and opposing Gregoire are full of distortions and misrepresentations of Governor Gregoire's record.

Rossi and his supporters like the BIAW and the Republican Governor's Conference have run a divisive us versus them campaign that is bereft of detail on what he would do which lets the public fill in the details. The problem is that if he wins, what he will do will be very different from what people expect.

Unfortunately voters made a similar mistake years ago when they elected Dixie Lee Ray Governor. She also represented change. She only survived one term after voters finally got to know her.

Don't be fooled by Rossi's smile. He's for change all right, just not what you might think.

For example, if Rossi is elected, he will be appointing a Washington State Supreme Court Justice to replace Judge Gerry Alexander when he reaches the mandatory retirement age. Expect Rossi to reward his big BIAW money backers with a BIAW approved candidate like John Groen that voters previously rejected.

Rep. Jay Inslee May be Next Secretary of Interior

Among the names circulating as possible candidates for positions in an Obama administration is that of Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee for Secretary of the Interior. A second name mentioned is that of Robert F Kennedy, Jr.

You can check out the list of names of potential candidates being discussed for staff and Cabinet positions in an Obama Administration according to a post today by Politico.

As noted by Politico:

"The list is heavy on campaign heavyweights and Washington insiders, many of them from the administration of President Bill Clinton. So while surprises can be expected to crop up — especially on any Republican members of the Cabinet — many of the selections would likely be proven hands who would provoke little controversy. Obama has not communicated his final choice on any of these posts but plans to move very quickly if he is elected, according to the sources. They point to the political price that Clinton paid for dilly-dallying on his appointments and nomination. "

Good for a little diversion and feel good reading at seeing some great names as possible key players in an Obama Administration but don't forget the election isn't over yet. Just a few more reasons to keep working hard to put a great new team in place in Washington DC. Vote Barack Obama for President!

And don't forget the local races to keep Washington moving forward as part of the national change.

Vote Nov. 4, 2008 for:

Chris Gregoire for Governor,
Peter Goldmark for Public Lands Commissioner,
John Ladenburg for Attorney General,
Jason Osgood for Secretary of State,
Jim McIntire for State Treasurer,
Darcy Burner for Congress
George Fearing for Congress.

Republicans Recycle Rovian Rhetoric in Attack Ad on Obama

The Republican Party is out to try to fool the American public again. Remember compassionate conservatism? With John McCain -the Republican Party is trying to sell us more snake oil in the form of an attack ad on Obama that touts McCain's "balanced" energy plan and accuses Obama of "no new solutions". In reality MCCain is the one with no new solutions.

According to the first major ad by the Republican National Committee supposedly done independently of the McCain Campaign, McCain's going to solve our energy problems now with a "balanced" plan that pushes "more production at home". This translates to opening up our beaches and coastline for off shore oil drilling and more nuclear power plants for which there still is no long term solution to dealing with the nuclear waste.

And he's still touting his pandering proposal to suspend the Federal gas tax this summer, which unfortunately would remove money for repairing decaying roads and bridges. Of course such an approach would encourage people to drive more, not less, which is counter to his professed concern about "a climate in crisis" Drilling for more oil and suspending needed gas taxes are retro proposals from the Bush Era that are not real solutions to our energy and climate problems.

Of course the Republican ad campaign slips in the words "alternative energy and conservation" sort of like politicians slip in the words "God bless America" when ever they can but let's look at the record. McCain has offered no new solutions to the energy problem - just a recycling of old Republican campaign tactics of mouthing vague generalities that may have some resonance with the public but which lack specifics to really evaluate.

For example the Detroit Free Press recently reported on McCain"s plan for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. They noted that "the Republican's proposals lacked key details" and that his "comments lead to confusion".

"McCain said that to boost development of hybrids and electric vehicles, he would launch a $300-million award for a battery pack "that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

The senator offered no other details, leaving some observers confused about his intent. There are no commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles today, and the few electric vehicles on the market range from low-power minicars using traditional batteries to the Tesla Roadster, a $100,000 two-seater that uses lithium-ion cells found in computers and other devices.

The McCain campaign said the point of his proposals was to spur change, and that the method for meeting whatever goals he would set for the industry was less important.

"John McCain is not interested in knowing the details of the fuels that go in" to vehicles "and the technologies that process them," said adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin. "What matters is: Do you get effective transportation with low carbon emissions coming out the tailpipe? Let the best technologies, the smartest invention, win."

Sounds like John McCain supports the free market approach - no surprise here, but that's what got us into the mess we're in now. Change just for the sake of change is not what we need. One prime example is that we are now coming to realize that increased ethanol production can come with a lot of other problems, like increased costs for food. We need to understand the consequences of what we do so that we can make better choices. We need a President and Administration that understands that.

The free market approach, like John McCain espouses, works to optimize profits for corporations. Unfortunately corporate interests often conflict with national interests like conservation of fuels and resources for sustainability, reduced dependence on foreign oil and shifting to a carbon free economy that reduces global warming impacts. We need a President that works to promote the interests and well being of all the the citizens of our country, not just the profits of big corporations.

Just as John McCain is no economist he is also not an engineer or a scientist. John McCain's voting record on energy and environmental issues is dismal. While most Democrats assume decisive action needs to be taken to deal with global warming , John McCain is getting a special break with the Press and Media because he is a Republican exposing some of these views.

Yet McCain's voting record really belies this supposed message of someone looking for solutions. John McCain's lifetime voting record with the League of Conservation Voters is just 26%. By contrast Ron Paul's lifetime average is 30%.

Barack Obama's League of Conservation Voter record is 96%. Hillary Clinton's lifetime average was 90%. Dennis Kucinich's was 92%.

You can also view a comparison of Obama's and McCains positions on energy done by Bob Deans of the Cox News Service at the Dayton Daily News. While John McCain proposes reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, Barack Obama proposes reducing them by 80%. While Barack Obama proposes a target of 25% of our electricity needs being met by renewable energy by 2025, John McCain would rather we commit to building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030.

Another way of viewing McCain and Obama's commitment to energy and environmental issues is to view how they responded to votes in Congress, including missed votes while they were campaigning. As the Center for American Progress's Action Fund notes, John McCain has a poor record on Energy and Global Warming issues. They note that on numerous occasions McCain voted for legislation supporting big oil companies and against renewable energy and increased efficiency standards.

McCain for example had an opportunity to cast a decisive vote in 2007 for renewable energy legislation but sided with Big Oil. As the Center for American Progress notes:

In 2007, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a motion to invoke
cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Energy Independence and Security Act. This
vote was about whether to close $13 billion in tax breaks for major oil and gas
companies to invest in new clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and
efficiency. Sixty votes were required for passage. The motion was rejected
59-40. [CQ.com; HR 6, Vote #425

One needs only to look at the record to realize McCain's spoken word of wanting energy security and energy independence and conservation and on and on is only hot air and lacks substance. His actual voting record and missed opportunities to make a difference speak louder than anything else. McCain is at heart a Republican and Republicans as a whole are beholden to big corporations and big oil.

The only change McCain is doing is running away from previous positions like opposing off shore oil drilling which gave him some independence from most other conservative Republicans. To win the election he believes he has to cater to traditional Republican conservative voters. As such he is giving up his name brand maverick positions.

McCain is becoming just another conservative, knee jerk reacting to the problems facing America and uttering platitudes. We need fresh ideas and a new vision and leadership to solve our energy problems and respond to global warming. McCain unfortunately will take us back to the past when it is the future we need to deal with.

McCain and Clinton Pandering to Voters

Give Barack Obama credit for the straight talk, not John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Obama has refused to climb aboard the crazy train of his opponents in both parties suggesting that cutting the Federal tax on gasoline this summer makes sense. It doesn't.

Gasoline usage is price sensitive. Cutting the cost for the summer by suspending the Federal tax of 18.4 cents will not lower the price because the same fixed amount will be available and oil companies will merely raise the price to take advantage of customer demand. Any decrease in prices will be very short term.

The oil companies have no qualms about raising prices. They continue to rake in record profits at the expense of American car and truck users. Republicans in Congress, and President Bush with his threatened veto power, continue to support the oil companies making record profits at the expense of the American economy and American consumers.

And the bulk of the profits raked in don't even go for producing more oil or alternative energy. For example, as Yahoo.news reports:

"Exxon posted record earnings of $40.6 billion in 2007, with revenue higher than the gross domestic profit of Turkey, the world's 17th-largest economy....
The company has been criticized by some analysts and investors for laying back on capital spending while going full bore on share buybacks.
Exxon spent $31.8 billion to buy back shares in 2007 while shelling out $20.9 billion for capital expenditures."

Exxon Mobil reported today that they raked in another $10.89 billion in first quarter profits this year.

So American consumers are shelling out their cash so that companies like Exxon can but back their stock. It's absurd. At least Hillary Clinton proposes that the oil companies be hit with an excess profits tax to pay for her proposed summer tax cut. John McCain does not even support that and says he would cut elsewhere.

Democrats tried to pass legislation to end special subsidies to oil companies but Republicans held fast and stopped legislation passing. Democrats wanted the subsidies to go for funding alternative energy programs like wind and solar, which would help to reduce global warming impacts from carbon fuels. Instead we are left with no approval of existing incentives for solar and wind energy which expire at the end of this year.

And where was John McCain when votes were taking place to pass an energy policy to reduce dependence on carbon fuels and reduce global warming. AWOL - see excellent article by Grist on McCain's missed votes in Congress, rightly pointing out McCain's professed concern about climate change action is more hot air than anything else.

see also
Dumb as we Wanna Be - New York Times
The Gas-Guzzler Gambit - New York Times editorial
Summer Fuel-ishness - Seattle Times editorial
Clinton Gas Tax Proposal Criticized - Washington Post

If Obama or Clinton Said That, They'd be Toast

John McCain continues to get the soft touch by the media. As Frank Rich points out his Sunday New York Times piece entitled "The Republican Resurrection"

... As if to emulate Dick Cheney, who arrived in Baghdad a day behind him, he (McCain) embraced the vice president’s habit of manufacturing false links in the war on terror: Mr. McCain told reporters that Iran is training Al Qaeda operatives and sending them into Iraq.
His Sancho Panza, Joe Lieberman, whispered in his ear that a correction was in order. But this wasn’t a one-time slip, like Gerald Ford’s debate gaffe about Poland in 1976. Mr. McCain has said this repeatedly. Troubling as it is that he conflates Shiite Iran with Sunni terrorists, it’s even more bizarre that he doesn’t acknowledge the identity of Iran’s actual ally in Iraq — the American-sponsored Shiite government led by Nuri al-Maliki. Only two weeks before the Iraqi prime minister welcomed Mr. McCain to Baghdad, he played host to a bubbly state visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Whatever Mrs. Clinton’s or Mr. Obama’s inconsistencies about how to wind down the war, they are both models of coherence next to Mr. McCain. He keeps saying the surge is a “success,” but he can’t explain why that success keeps us trapped in Iraq indefinitely. He never says precisely what constitutes that “victory” he keeps seeing around the corner. His repeated declaration that he will only bring home the troops “with honor” is a Vietnam acid flashback recycled as a non sequitur. Our troops have already piled up more than enough honor in their five years of service under horrific circumstances. Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda proliferates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a survey by Foreign Policy magazine of 3,400 active and retired American officers finds that 88 percent believe that the Iraq war has “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.”

So what's the deal with the rest of the media? Not much was said critically of McCain. McCain doesn't deserve special treatment - either he knows what he's talking about or he doesn't. And it appears he doesn't. McCain is a recipe for diasaster. We can't afford a Bush clone in the White House after 8 years of Bush/Cheney.

Obama Wins 7 Wyoming Delegates, Clinton Wins 5

Obama gained 2 more national delegates over Clinton as a result of the Wyoming caucuses. A total of 12 delegates were at stake.

Several places report the results as votes. The Green Papers reports that Obama received 5378 votes (61.43%) to Clinton's 1313 (37.84%) to 64 (.73%) for others. If these are actual votes and not delegates as other states have reported at the precinct caucus level this would only represent a turnout of 13% of the 2006 registered Democratic voters.

Wyoming is not a state Democrats are likely to win. A look at the last 2 Presidential elections in Wyoming show that by more than 2 to 1, the state voted Republican.

2000 Bush 147,947 Gore 64,481 other 5298
2004 Bush 167,629 Kerry 70,778 other 4543

In 1992 Bill Clinton received 68,160 votes to 131,724 votes cast for the Republican and independent candidates. In 1996 Bill Clinton got 77,934 votes to 163,637 for his opponents.

In 2004 only 60,385 Wyoming voters were registered as Democrats, 162,952 were registered as Republicans and 32,885 were independent or other. In 2006 67,246 voters were registered as Democrats and 152,952 were Republicans. Wyoming does allow same day registration for voters. Current registration figures were not available on the Secretary of State's website.

Caucuses are a reflection of enthusiasm for a candidate by hard core supporters more than any reflection of actual general election voter support. If you can not physically be present at the caucus site at the appointed time you have no vote in the process. Many potential voters wind up being excluded, weather for example was a factor in Wyoming.

If you are an active duty military person, or have to work, or are sick or are out of state, you have no vote in the caucus process. Primary voting with absentee ballots are the most democratic and inclusive. That is why the majority of states have primaries rather than caucuses. More people participate.

Hillary Clinton Wins Both Texas and Ohio to Surprise of Many

Senator Hillary Clinton decisively won Ohio's primary 55% to 43% and has been declared the winner in Texas but by a smaller margin of 51% to 47% with 90% of the vote counted. As the Washington Post reports on Clinton's comeback:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) roared back into contention for the Democratic presidential primary race Tuesday night after claiming primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. These win ensure that her challenge to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) will continue through Pennsylvania's primary on April 22.

Clinton's popular vote margin in Ohio was larger than expected, while she appeared to eke out a very narrow win in Texas. Earlier in the night, Obama won an easy victory in Vermont while Clinton cruised to a triumph in Rhode Island.

As the New York Times notes, voters are not yet ready to write Senator Clinton off:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday night not only shook off the vapors of impending defeat, but also showed that — in spite of his delegate lead — Senator Barack Obama was still losing to her in the big states.

Those two states were the battlegrounds where Mr. Obama was going to bury the last opponent to his history-making nomination, finally delivering on his message of hope while dashing the hopes of a Clinton presidential dynasty.

Yet then the excited, divided American electorate weighed in once more, throwing Mrs. Clinton the sort of political lifeline that New Hampshire did in early January after her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Barrack Obama still leads in delegate counts - some 1466 to 1376 by one estimate Votes in Mississippi and Wyoming are coming up in the next week which favor Obama. Even with the large number of delegates at stake in Pennyslvania, and Clinton being currently favored there, Clinton is in a difficult position trying to overtake Obama.

The battle now is going to shift to the undemocratic process of superdelegates committing and the question of what to do about Michigan and Florida whose delegates are not currently being counted because they broke party rules and moved their primaries to January.

The irony here is that Clinton won both of these states when the candidates agreed not to campaign there. With all their names on the ballot in Florida, Clinton won Florida. In Michigan Clinton's name was on the ballot but Obama's was not. People had to vote uncommitted if they didn't want Clinton and wanted Obama. Clinton still won. Both Michigan and Florida are states the Democrats want and need to win in November.

While Clinton has not won as many states as Obama has, the delegate and vote count is close. Unlike the electoral college which is winner take all, the Democratic primaries and caucuses assign delegates to the Democratic National Convention based on the proportion of the vote each candidate won.

As the New York Times notes:

The nomination is not determined by the number of states won, but Mr. Obama’s inability to win major battleground states beyond Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and his home state, Illinois, is a concern of some Democrats — especially since Ohio and Florida have become must-wins in presidential elections.

Quoting Clinton according to the NY Times:

"If we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states, just like Ohio,” she said. “We’ve won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee"

There is plenty for Democrats to think about. The hope is that a resolution can be reached and a nominee selected without splitting and losing the combined passions of the Clinton and Obama camps. The last thing the Democrats need is to enter the fall campaign split and angry at each other rather than united in working to defeat the Republicans and John McCain.

One thing for sure - the Democrats need to come up with a better plan and timing and spacing of primaries for the next party contested Presidential election. Reform of the process should include making the elections fairer by going to an all primary system where voters can see how their votes count and maximum voter participation is ensured - something the caucus system doesn't do.

Clinton Wins Rhode Island, Obama Wins Vermont, McCain to Win Republican Nomination

The Associated Press according to the Washington Post has projected Hillary Clinton as the winner in Rhode Island. Barack Obama has been declared the winner in Vermont where the Iraq War was listed in exit polls as the major issue.

Meanwhile polls in Ohio have closed. Clinton has a small lead in early results. Weather has been terrible in Ohio with snow in northern Ohio and rains and flooding in southern Ohio. Some polls in Cleveland were kept open later as they ran out of Democratic ballots. Ohio recently changed to all paper ballots that are then optically scanned after problems were assessed with their touch screen machines.

Ohio's election results in 2004 were rife with problems. Robert Kennedy Jr, among others called into question the election results in Ohio in 2004.

Meanwhile Texas is also currently having some problems. Sixty-five percent of Texas 193 delegates are determined by a primary vote and 35% are determined by a separate caucus vote this evening. The Clinton campaign is reporting problems with being excluded from some of their supporters being excluded from the caucuses.

Because of the nature and complexity of the Texas voting process a final tally of delegate allocation may actually take several days.

Overall some 370 Democratic delegates are being determined today. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton the results will probably not significantly change the delegate lead that Obama has. Unfortunately for Obama if the results are mixed it is likely that Hillary Clinton will continue her campaign which will make John McCain happy.

While some Democrats may lament the lack of a knockout punch, the Democrats continuing to battle will get the two candidates before more voters and allow a further Democratic organizational effort in more states including a key battle in the Pennsylvania primary.

Meanwhile John McCain is the projected winner of all four states - Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont and has gained enough delegates to win the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee has announced he is withdrawing from the race.

John McCain Gets Zero Rating from League of Conservation Voters

John McCain missed so many votes last year in Congress that he scored a zero on the League of Conservation Voters 2007 ratings. He was the only Senator to miss all of the key environmental votes used in the scoring.

As LCV noted in their recent press release:

"The presidential candidates' scores all suffered from the occupational hazard of absenteeism. Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) missed four votes each in 2007, although both made a point of being on hand for the key vote that would have allowed a version of the energy bill to move forward that included a provision to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil and put that money toward clean energy programs.

Clinton’s score in 2007 was 73 percent (87 percent lifetime); Obama’s was 67 percent (86 percent lifetime). * Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) scored 0 percent in 2007 (24 percent lifetime) due to missing all 15 votes scored, including the key vote on repealing tax giveaways to big oil – a measure that failed by only one vote."

McCain's LCV ratings:
0 (2007), 41 (2005-2006), 56 (2003-2004), 36 (2001-2002), 6 (1999-2000)

Obama's LCV ratings:
67 (2007), 96 (2005-2006)

Clinton's LCV ratings
73 (2007), 89 (2005-2006), 92 (2003-2004), 88 (2001-2002)

Of the other Presidential candidates who have dropped out of the race Joe Biden missed 4 of the environmental votes used in the rating in 2007 and received a score of 67. Christopher Dodd missed 6 of the environmental votes in 2007 and received a score of 60. Dennis Kucinich missed 3 of the environmental votes in the House and received a score of 80.

Obama Tops Clinton in Wisconsin

Senator Clinton was not able to turn around Wisconsin and stop voters going to Obama. It seems that mistakes made by the Clinton campaign are getting harder to turn around as Obama's organizing effort is paying off. He has now won contests in 9 states in a row.

As reported by the NY Times, "With 83 percent of the electoral precincts in Wisconsin reporting, Mr. Obama had 58 percent of the vote to Mrs. Clinton’s 41 percent."

Obama is using skills drawn from community organizing to win. He has invested in working the grassroots which can be effective particularly in caucus states.

When Clinton came to Seattle to speak, her campaign had a few people in the back trying half heartedly to get people to sign up. They did not work the crowd which waited for over an hour for Hillary to come to speak.

Obama's people worked the crowd and someone told me that they got an email from the campaign the next day. Now that's turn around and obviously builds the mailing and contributor base aggressively.

A number of years ago when Senator Bill Bradley came to the Pike Place Market to speak I noticed the same half hearted effort by his supporters to get people signed up. It was a tell tale sign that he did not know how to build a campaign at the grassroots level and his campaign did not build momentum.

The word is that the Clinton campaign took too much for granted and besides ignoring grassroots efforts to build a campaign in caucus and other states, they thought it would all be over on Feb 5, 2008 and did not put into place aggressive campaigns for states after Feb 5, 2008.

It's kind of funny, people are criticizing Hillary for her attempts to confront Obama head on. Actually she is still throwing him softballs. McCain and the Republicans are not going to be so nice and it remains to be seen if Senator Obama, if he emerges victorious from Ohio and Texas, will be up for hardball with McCain.

It would be a tactical mistake for either him or Clinton to not be emotionally prepared for a vigerous onslaught from the Republicans. The Republicans are not going to quietly leave the stage. Republican have a knack even when they disagree of eventually seeing the value of closing ranks and working as one voice.

The Republicans in Congress, when they were in power did that. And even in the minority now, they have closed ranks, particularly in the US Senate, to limit the legislation Democrats have been able to pass so far.

You can expect McCain to accuse the Democrats of abandoning our soldiers and American honor with the Democrat's plans to pull out of Iraq if they take over the Presidency.

We need to remember that the real battle is not between Hillary and Barack, but between McCain and the Democratic nominee. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to have to bring the Democratic Party together and remind them that the difference between Hillary and Barack is miniscule compared to that with McCain.

Supporters of both candidates are passionate and will be tempted to be bitter if their candidate loses. The first task of the eventual nominee will be to bring Democrats together reminding them of their common goals.

Democrats are making history in their choosing a nominee, but the real prize is the Presidency, not the Democratic nomination. There's still a long ways to go before we can change America for the better.

Obama Wins Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska and Virgin Islands

Obama gained 67.5% of the delegate vote in the Washington State caucuses on Saturday to Clinton's 31.2% and 1.2% uncommitted. Individual delegate counts by county can be seen on the Washington State Democratic website. The caucus system will ultimately select 78 delegates to the national convention with an additional 19 Super Delegates of party officials and elected Democrats.

Obama also won 67.5% of the delegates in Nebraska's caucuses to Clinton's 32.2%. Nebraska will select 24 pledged delegates from the caucus system plus 7 Super Delegates will also go to the National Convention.

Obama won the Louisiana Presidential Primary with 57% of the vote to Clinton's 36%. Louisiana has 56 pledged delegates and 10 Super Delegates.

Obama received 90% of the vote in the Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands have 3 pledged delegates and 6 Super Delegates.

Hillary Clinton, Barrack and Michelle Obama To Visit Washington State.

Saturday Feb. 9, 2008 at 1 P.M. is caucus day in Washington state. Hillary Clinton is coming to Washington State tomorrow, Thursday Feb 7, 2008. Barack and Michele Obama are coming Friday Feb. 8, 2008 . And Bill Clinton is going to Maine which has a caucus on Sunday.

Neil Modie at the Seattle PI has a good roundup of the frantic scheduling that is going on now that the Presidential race is focusing on Washington State which has the largest block of delegates of the states that vote or caucus on Saturday.

Washington State has 97 Democratic delegates to be selected. Nebraska with 31 Democratic delegates also caucuses on Saturday. Louisiana with 67 Democratic delegates and the Virgin Islands with 9 Democratic delegates will have presidential primaries.

Hillary Clinton will have a free event open to the public at Pier 60 on the Seattle Waterfront starting at 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. The address is 2431 E Marginal Way S.

Modie's article says her tentative plans include being in Tacoma on Friday morning and also Spokane.

Barack Obama has scheduled a free rally for Friday at 11:00 AM at Seattle's Key Arena.

His wife, Michelle Obama, will be speaking at a free event in Spokane at 4 P.M. at the FOX Theater, 1001 Sprague St. Doors open at 3 P.M.

Republicans will select half of their delegates on Saturday at caucuses and half based on the results of the Presidential Primary scheduled for Tuesday Feb. 19, 2008. The Democrats will use the precinct caucuses on Saturday to select delegates and ignore the Primary results.

To find where your caucus meets on Saturday go to:

Democratic caucus: http://www.wa-democrats.org/; (206) 583-4345.
Republican caucus: http://www.wsrp.org/; (206) 575-2900.

Democrats Clinton and Obama Battle to a Draw on Super Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama split the spoils of Super Tuesday down the middle. Out of some 11 million votes cast and reported as of 10 PM Pacific Time they were only 5000 votes apart.

In projected delegate count they also split, 451 for Clinton to 438 for Obama. These are not the final counts and are only projected totals for the day. Missouri is still too close to call as is New Mexico.

A good place to go to see the final results are posted at the Seattle Times and the New York Times elections pages.

Clinton has won the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. These are all primary states.

Obama won primaries in Alabama , Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, and Illinois. He won all of the caucus states - Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah and is leading in Alaska. This makes sense in that caucuses work well for a candidate with a dedicated, passonate and committed grassroots presence.

The problem remains that a caucus vote, while winning delegates, does not accuartely reflect the actual vote total because the Democrats are only reporting delegates selected. This is misleading in determining the actual voting strength of a candidate and also does not reflect the candidates actual appeal among the broader voting population that will be voting in November. The delegate count is more accurartely a reflection of grassroots organization strength than it is of voter appeal. And caucus rules vary from state to state.

We have written previously about how reporting delegates selected in a caucus and actual vote counts are different and that we believe the Democrats should report both numbers. The New York Times for example in their reporting of percentage of vote for each state on Feb 5th do not make a distiction in their reporting of caucus delegate votes and primary voter counts.

After I wrote about how the Democrats are not releasing actual voter sign in numbers for caucus attendees but only number of delegates chosen for each candidate I came across an op ed written in Dec 2007 for the New York Times entitled Iowa's Undemocratic Caucuses.

The piece notes that "Iowa Democrats shun public disclosure of voter preferences at their caucuses — something not generally reported by the press or understood by the public."

In a separate post I found by The Next Harrah posted on Jan 13, 2008 and entitled "Newfound Transparency in Iowa [..someday]" there is a link to vote totals after people made their final choice in the caucus. It was posted by the gazetteonline but sometime after the election and not widely known.

As The Next Harrah notes we urge all caucus states to release vote totals for both the initial sign-in and after caucuses make any final vote changes before delegates are selected, so the public can better understand what is happening and how the delegate number is arrived at.
The Democratic Party should select delegates by a transparent process and not keep secret preliminary votes and final votes.

The next states up for a vote are on Saturday Feb 9, 2007 when Louisiana (67 delegates), Nebraska (caucus)(31 delegates), Virgin Islands (9 delegates) and Washington State (caucus) (97 delegates)vote. Maine (34 delegates) holds a caucus on Feb 10, 2008. Obama has an advantage, based on past results, in the three upcoming caucus states.