What's Romney got to say to this?

So, in the last 5 years the median net worth of a household in the US has dropped 39%, and median family earnings have dropped nearly 8%.  But the people who need the tax breaks are the really the ones in the top 2% because their investments may possibly, remotely, add a few jobs to the economy.  Increasing the income of those in the middle would have a greater, more immediate, impact as companies try to meet demand.  But again we get the myth of the upper class "job creators" instead of support for the demand creators.  And it's this; contest between demand-side (consumer-created) economics and supply-side (corporation-created) economics; where the ideological battle has been fought, and largely lost, by the middle class since the early 1980s.  Companies don't create the market, consumers do.  And the sooner that consumers learn the power that they have and are encouraged to use their power the sooner the "trickle-down" "voodoo" economics of the right will fall and income and wealth equality will begin to swing back towards the balance that made Americans prosperous in the mid-20th century.

What is wrong with the American voter?

In the wake of the Wisconsin recall, like many on the left, I'd been puzzled as to why so many people would have voted to retain Governor Walker; especially in light of the seeming contradiction of the results of exit polls.  How could the people have wanted to retain a very right-wing governor, yet favor the president over a Republican candidate who stands for nearly everything the retained governor does?

One explanation pointed to the poll question regarding the appropriate use of the recall, with many reserving it for cases of criminal misconduct.  But Governor Walker has been embroiled in an investigation that could lead to criminal charges, and this isn't exactly a secret.  Shouldn't that rise to that level of "criminal misconduct" that would swing voters into the "remove him" category?  Or would charges have to actually be filed first?  Or even a trial be underway?

Another explanation that was put forward related to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett; claiming that since this ended up being for all intents and purposes a rematch of the 2010 race, the people of Wisconsin were no more inclined to turn over the government to a man they'd rejected once already. But given the raw emotions that had been stirred by the recall movement, and prior to that the protests and movement that grew around Governor Walker's attempts to curb the collective bargaining rights of the public employee unions, you would think that some of the right-leaning working-class union laborers would have been willing to give Barrett a shot.  After all, it would have only been half a term, and in 2014 they could bounce him out if they were unhappy with him.  This would seem to make sense given how the AFL-CIO and individual affiliated unions had sought to characterize the legislation stripping the unions of their bargaining rights as the first step down the road to removing such protections from private sector unions and towards enactment of right-to-work legislation.

But could there be something else?  Something that pollsters don't ask about.  Something thing basic and beyond politics.  Something that could shed a light on the stratification found in our society?

It's often said in the analysis following elections such as these that the fight was won in the middle.  The independents, the moderates in either party.  Looking at the exit polling, as reported by CNN, the only income group that supported Barrett were those making less than $30,000 per year.  Walker barely carried the $30,000-$50,000 cohort.  And while each party gave more than 90% support to their candidate, the independent vote went 6-to-5 for Walker and provided the margin of victory to Governor Walker.  But, a further look at the cross-tabs shows that Barrett won self-identified moderates by a similar margin.  Interestingly, the percentage of respondents who identify as Republican and as conservative are very close, where those who identify as "liberal" was 13% lower than those who identify as Democrats.  That means there are a number of moderate Democrats, and they do seem to have supported Barrett, but the Democrats lost many moderate inpendents, many of whom seem to make over $50,000 per year.  This would seem to indicate that the labor-liberal coalition did hold together to an extent.

So the issue would seem to be a group who seems to be often ignored when analysis of voting and elections is done.  These voters tend to be over 30, and especially more so over 40.  They have families, and they identify with a religious affiliation, even if they aren't active weekly attendees.  Numbers did not seem to be swayed one way or the other based on whether or not a voter attended college, and Barrett's "win" among college graduates was within the margin of error.  The telling numbers are in union membership.  Those who are not in unions and do not have a union member in their home strongly supported Walker.  This election, and likely many future elections, will feature a pitting of working-class and middle-income union members against similar voters who are not in unions.

This is Walker's ultimate "divide-and-conquer" move.  And where Governor Kasich failed in this attempt in Ohio with Senate Bill 5/Issue 2, Walker has succeeded in Wisconsin.  He managed to convince non-union Wisconsinites that union members were living high off taxpayer money.  No mention made of teachers who were laid off because their district had to cut budget because less was coming from the state and federal governments.  No attention given to state workers who agreed to wage and benefit concessions even before this fight began.  And a lot of attention was focused on state worker pension funds and trying to draw a connection between these pensions and tax revenues.  But these pensions are only partially funded from the state budgets.  Much like private sector employees pay into their 401(k) plans and their employers provide a match, so operate the state employee funds.

The major difference is that we who work in the private sector without a union that bargains for our benefits, we take the match that our employer offers; state employees have had their matches negotiated in collective bargaining.  And in the end, the government agreed to that match.  And the Republicans line is that the government has had a figurative gun to its head in the form of these collectively bargained contracts; the union will either win their extortionate demands in the form of wages and benefits or they will strike and grind the government to a halt.  And those who do not have personal experience with unions and bargaining against an employer are susceptible to this misrepresentation, if not outright prevarication, about what unions are after in their bargaining.  They are the ones who fall prey to tall tales of "corrupt union bosses" who "get a larger cut" if their unions win big contracts, and of unions who pour dues money into the DNC.  And those are complete falsehoods; unions "bosses" have set salaries and don't get commissions if their locals get more concessions; and contributing dues money to parties and campaigns is a violation of federal elections laws.  The "union money" that candidates get comes from their PAC funds, which are voluntary contributions from their members.

So, the greatest challenge facing the left is to counteract a misinformation campaign that began in 1960s, and was aided by corrupt leaders being pursued by the likes of Bobby Kennedy.  A campaign that picked up a great deal of momentum and public support when President Reagan blamed the private sector manufacturing industry unions such as the UAW and the United Steelworkers for driving wages to levels that made manufacturing unprofitable in the US, rather than protecting our industries through careful and prudent use of tariffs and excise taxes.  A problem that was made worse when dreams of open and expanded international markets were used to sell free-trade deals that sold out US environmental and labor protections to foreign factories that were unfettered by any sort of conscience and were only interested in providing cheap goods to corporations looking to expand their profit margins.  And in demonizing the unions and convincing the American public that unions were holding us back and making our labor cost too much, the GOP has created a non-union working-and-middle class that who support those who promise to tear those unions down further.  And the curious, bitter irony is that wage equity and American prosperity was at its height when union membership was at its highest.

So, the question is how to counteract this trend.  Many employers now threaten their employees with termination if they attempt to unionize.  If they succeed in doing so, the organizers are usually subjected to a subtle retaliation that they cannot prove, such as being repeatedly passed over for promotions or being denied schedules more to their liking.  And labor laws since the 1970s have been amended in such ways to make it much harder for employees to press such charges successfully.  Meanwhile, employers who abuse the rights of even union laborers, most notably with Massey Energy and their repeated ignoring of MSHA citations and fines, culminating in the disaster at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in 2010.  And the decision in the Citizens United v. F.E.C. case has unfairly levered the balance in the campaign finance realm in favor of corporations, who can now bankroll candidates who will favor their interests to an unlimited degree.

The only way to win this fight is through education.  Just as civil rights for racial minorities were won when whites began to know those of other races and understand that they weren't that different.  Just as civil rights for LGBT people are being won as more "come out" to friends and families members and the "otherness" of that community also fades against the reality of "they aren't that different from me".  So too must union members be more open about their membership, and they must take the opportunity to educate those who do not know what unions are, and who do not have experience with collective bargaining, and to bring the reality of unions to their middle income, non-union neighbors.  It's time to hearken back to that time 100 years ago, and teach our "independent" non-union friends that without unions we would not have the 40-hour work week and child labor laws that the corporations are trying to erode and destroy.  Many feel that unions "had a purpose" in those days, but do not see the parallels to today.  Union members need to make them see those parallels, and through that education help them see that the interests of "the 99%" lie with the Democrats and the liberals.

Wake up, America

I've been growing increasingly frustrated with the manufactured controversy of the Not-at-Ground Zero Not-Really-a-Mosque. But the right-wing nutjobs continually tell half-truths or outright lies about the Park51 community center project. Back in the late spring when the permitting process began there was no controversy over this. Then some of the crackpots on the reactionary extreme, like Pamela Gellar, got a hold of the issue and told lies about what exactly was being planned, and for where, and created a controversy.

Fact: Park51 will be two blocks uptown from the northeast corner of the WTC footprint (which actually was a plaza, as that was the side of the footprint that the "South Tower" sat on, so it was actually about a block west or south until you were actually at a building).

Fact: there are strip clubs closer to the "hallowed ground" of the WTC footprint than the Park51 project will be.

Fact: Park51 will have basketball courts, a swimming pool, a culinary institute; very little of the building will be given over to religious purposes. The project is best described as a Muslim YMCA.

Fact: the imam who is one of the people leading the effort to build Park51 was appointed by President Bush 43 as a special envoy to the Muslim world for the purposes of telling people how tolerant of other religions we are.

One of the leading mouthpieces in opposition to this project is Glenn Beck, who belongs to a religion that many right-wing Christians believe to be heretical. In fact, one sect goes so far as to go to Mormon events and pass out literature to people telling them how they're going to burn in Hell because they are Mormons, and therefore, are heretics.

Fact: the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all Americans. If one were to limit building rights on a piece of property based on the religion of group building there, as some have suggested should be done to block Park51, it would violate this principle at a minimum. It would also be a Bill of Attainder, which is also unconstitutional. And it likely could be argued to be a law prohibiting the free exercise of Islam if the restriction were not extended to all religious groups.

The most aggravating part of all this is that the right has used this wedge to agitate the well-meaning 9/11 families and first responders. Their emotions and their senses of loss are being exploited to political advantage by people who have an agenda that centers around dividing moderates and liberals. They ignore the constitutional issues because they are inconvenient, and prefer to appeal to emotion. And it's in a situation such as this where emotion not only needs to be set aside, but demands to be, and that rational analysis of the laws and Constitution of this country MUST prevail. If we do not allow this, and we allow what emotion and "common sense" dictate to prevail, we cease to be the people that our Founders expected us to be.

This is not a Muslim group rubbing anyone's nose in the events of 9/11. It's taking a structurally unsound building that has been empty for 9 years and allowing a group to redevelop the site for the benefit of the community. It's really one of the ultimate goods of the free market, and all of these folks who line up at the alter of the Free Market when it comes to issues that shouldn't be left to the market, like public goods, are suddenly opposed to the market dictating who owns and develops land in a commercial neighborhood. And let's not even get into the desire to stifle the "free marketplace of ideas" in this case, while decrying the limitation of such when a right-wing commentator decides to, of her own free will, stop doing her radio show in the wake of repeatedly spewing racial slurs, without any pressure from advertisers or syndicators.

I'm sure that there are thoughts that I have that I'm not even broaching here, because my anger and outrage at the hypocrisy swirl from issue to issue. Hopefully I can come up with a coherent rant about the governor and senator races here in Ohio before too long. The hypocrisy there is also pretty startling. Especially from former Director of the OMB, Rob Portman. Although the most egregious of the ads isn't from his campaign, but instead from one of those corporately-funded PACs. But this is the issue that is first-and-foremost in my mind, and the one with the most cohesive thoughts.

Dear Robert Gibbs

Dear Mr. Press Secretary,

I know you dismissed the progressive left yesterday. I know that you trotted your deputy out today to take the flak. And to say that we, the people who won you the nomination, and built the momentum for your electoral victory, are not representative of the voters on the left. Sir, we ARE the voters on the left.

I've been a defender of the administration to my friends, on both the progressive left and on the reactionary right. I have made excuses about how the administration is constrained by a Senate that is trying to anchor us in the 20th century (at best) being the reason we can't get what we're after. But, you see, I've made those excuses hoping that it really was the GOP that was holding the administration back.

As a donor to the campaign, I get regular, near-daily, emails from "Organizing for America". And in the last week I received a message asking me for my opinions on the first 18 months (along with the usual donation request). I was brutally honest because, well, I believe in brutal honest when I'm asked for my opinion. I gave lower marks than I would have liked to have given because the administration has given too much away in an effort to get Republican vote which one knew would never come. And I berated the administration for that acquiescence to those who did not, will not and never will support the administration in the handy little "other comments" box at the end. I all but compared the actions of the administration to those of an abused wife trying to hold a doomed marriage together.

Well, Mr. Press Secretary, you slapped me in the face. You have told me that my opinions as a progressive American voter don't count because I'm a progressive American, and I apparently believe that everything would be rainbows and choirs of angels on 12:01 pm of 1/20/09. You know, Hillary's dismissal of what Obama's primary supporters were supposed to believe during the death throes of her campaign? But I never was that naive. I've been involved in politics on an active basis in this country for 20 years. Throw in the years of going to Democratic Party spaghetti dinners and pancake breakfasts in Connecticut in the 1970s (which led me to meet Chris Dodd when he was a representative from Norwalk, and to be offered a ride in Ella Grasso's ANG Huey at her offering when I wasn't even 5 years old), and I have been in the game for 35 of my 38 years. Democratic hayrides. Democratic booths at the "Big T" Fair every September.

Mr. Gibbs, if you didn't become active in politics until your college years, like most people, I dare say that I've been involved in Democratic politics longer than you have been. My parents were acquaintances of our US representative, who had been a Nader Raider. Our state rep was a family friend. My grandfather had been a member of both houses of the Ohio legislature (House 1932-36 and Senate 1944-48) as well as a primary candidate for governor. Democratic politics have run through my veins since I was born, which just happened to be Election Day, 1971.

So, I'd like to know, when a Democrat from the Democratic wing of the party says "stop letting the GOP push you around; you're disillusioning the next generation of Democratic voters", do you think that my nearly 39 years of life experience with the dysfunctional way in which our party leaders treat our party base in the effort to appear "bi-partisan" when the GOP has no interest in true bi-partisan government is off-base? Pollyanna wishing for things we will "never be able to achieve" in this country; things like health care as a fundamental right to all, civil rights protections for everyone, and a bit of judicious use of our military? I say that any individual within the present administration who is not committed to progressive values, and willing to suffer a few "no" votes, or bills that die due to failure to close debate in the Senate; any who is willing allow truly progressive legislation to be continually eroded into laws that George W. Bush would be proud of; I would ask you to resign your job NOW and get out of the way of progress.

Sincerely,

A "Professional Liberal"

British Tories, here's a hankie...sorry for the hurt feelings...

...or not.

Really, are you saying that the anger over here with regards to what your corporation is doing to our environment (and it could be pretty catastrophic if a tropical system comes through the Gulf, sucks up oil droplets due to the dispersants making it lighter and easier to be sucked into the atmosphere, and drops it all over the Southeastern US) is NOT justified? Boris Johnson, you fucking upper-class twit, if your pensioners have to feel a little bit of pain over there in the UK, I assure you it's only a fraction of the pain being felt by shrimpers and fishermen and oyster shuckers who are now without jobs or prospects of work. I so damned sorry that your delicate British sensibilities are so wounded by the president talking tough about BP. Maybe it will make the pensions funds that own a fair chunk of BP think strongly about exerting their influence and outrage by doing as the president suggested, and firing Tony Hayward. After all, he'd like his life back.

2008 presidential election preview

Well, we're a little less than 2 years from the inauguration of a new president, and about a year away from the Iowa Caucuses. Given the way of the world of politics in 2007, this means it's time to start examining the field. I'll be looking at both major parties. I'll start with those that are filed with the FEC, then the ones who have formed exploratory committees, then name those who have expressed interest but not declared. I'm taking them in the order listed on Wikipedia, so there is no chance for me to be accused for favouritism. I was going to run this detailing every candidates issue positions, but that could take hours, so for now I'll stick with their background. As we get closer to the actual primaries, then I'll look at the positions. By that time, hopefully the fields will be a little bit narrower. And I'll link each candidate's website if you want to read more about them.

Democrats

Sen. Christopher Dodd, CT - Connecticut's senior senator, and the liberal Democrat representing the state in the upper chamber. He's been in the Senate since 1981, defying the Reagan coattail effect in the 1980 general elections, replacing another Connecticut liberal firebrand, Abraham Ribicoff. Prior to the Senate, Dodd represented Connecticut's 2nd District for three terms. Senator Dodd is 62 years old. In the interests of full disclosure, I met Sen. Dodd during the 1978 campaign, so I was probably 6 at the time, though I don't remember it very clearly.

Prior to Congress, Dodd served in the Peace Corps, and in the US Army Reserve from the time he got out of the Peace Corps in 1968 until he entered the House in 1975. In that regard, he did as much toward service in Vietnam as the current president. He is the current chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development.

Chris Dodd for President

Fmr. Sen. John Edwards, NC - Former senator from North Carolina, he gave up his seat when running for the presidency in 2004. He finished second in the primaries and was selected by the party for the vice-presidential position on the ticket. Edwards is 53, and therefore among the youngest candidates in the field, despite having already run one national campaign. While serving his one term in the Senate, Edwards was on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees. He supported the Iraq war powers resolution and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Prior to his service in the Senate, Edwards was a private-practice lawyer, specializing in personal injury cases. This has led to criticism of the former senator as being "in the pocket" of the "trial lawyer lobby".

John Edwards '08

Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel, AK - Mike Gravel may be one of the least known candidates in the field. That's because he served two term in the US Senate, representing one of the least populated states, Alaska, from 1969 to 1981. That would mean he began serving in the Senate within 10 years of when Alaska was admitted as a state. He was defeated in his bid for a third term in the primaries, losing to a state representative back by Jerry Falwell and the "Moral Majority"; the seat went to Republican Frank Murkowski in the general election as part of the Reagan landslide.

While in the Senate, Gravel advocated an early form of living-wage legislation, public financing of elections, a progressive income tax with no exemptions or deductions, abolition of the death penalty, universal health care and school vouchers. He entered the 4,000+ pages of the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. He filibustered renewal of the draft until the Republicans and President Nixon agreed in 1973 to allow it to expire.

Since leaving the Senate, Gravel, who is 76 years old, has pushed for a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to voter-initiated legislation similar to state-level initiatives. He supports a national sales tax, abolition of the IRS, immediate withdrawl from Iraq, and single-payer health care.

Mike Gravel for President 2008

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, OH-10 - Dennis Kucinich is making his second run for the presidency, having run in 2004 as Edwards had. Kucinich is now 60 years old, and has been representing his Cleveland-area district since 1997. Prior to the US House, Kucinich had served on Cleveland City Council, as Cleveland mayor (1977-1979), and in the Ohio State Senate.

In the House, Kucinich has opposed the USA PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq. He is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, despite being pro-life, though he has made pro-choice votes when constitutional amendments to ban abortion have been proposed. He instead focuses on measures to make abortion "less necessary", such as support for comprehensive sex education.

Kucinich for President

Fmr. Gov. Tom Vilsack, IA - Tom Vilsack recently completed a second term as Iowa governor, deciding against a run for a third term. He was mayor of Mount Pleasant, Iowa, and a state senator prior to his election as governor in 1998. Vilsack is 56 years old. Vilsack was mentioned as a possible vice-presidential nominee in 2004 prior to the selection of John Edwards.

Vilsack is a moderate on the war in Iraq, feeling that the war is being mishandled, but not pushing for immediate withdrawl, instead favouring maintaining a small force in the north of the country.

Tom Vilsack President 2008

Sen. Joe Biden, DE - This will be the second run for Senator Biden, who last attempted to ascend to the presidency in 1988, 20 years ago. He had to pull out of that race after it was discovered he had plagarized a speech previously given by Neil Kinnock, then the leader of the British Labour Party. Biden was first elected to the US Senate in 1972, just before his 30th birthday. He has spent the last 35 years representing the First State in the Senate, serving in various leadership positions such as chair of the Judiciary Committee in the late 80s and early 90s (presiding over the contentious nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court), and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee three times since 2001.

Biden had initially supported the war in Iraq, voting for the war powers resolution, though he had attempted to add an amendment requiring the exhaustion of all diplomatic means to avoid war. He still supports the war effort, but not how it is being executed, advocating for more troops, especially from a wider international pool of nations.

Prior to his time in the Senate, Biden served as a county legislator in Delaware for two years. The 64-year old is a lawyer by profession.

(no website found)

Sen. Barack Obama, IL - As experienced as Sen. Biden is, that's how inexperienced many claim Sen. Obama to be. Only two years into his first term in the Senate, the junior senator from Illinois and former Harvard Law Review president, is running behind only former First Lady and current New York Senator Hillary Clinton in early opinion polls. He has helped to draft an extension of the Nunn-Lugar weapons reduction legislation (called Lugar-Obama), and a federal transparency act that requires organization receiving federal funds to report the source of their funds for posting on the OMB website (called the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act). He also was the primary sponsor of legislation providing aid to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If nominated, Obama would be the first black candidate representing a major party.

Prior to his Senate term, Obama was not only president of the Harvard Law Review, but also a member of the Illinois Senate, first being elected in 1996. He had also run for the US House in 2000, losing the primary to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther. Obama, 45, is a member of the liberal United Church of Christ, though the regularity of his attendance is questioned.

Barack Obama Presidential Exploratory Committee

Gov. Bill Richardson, NM - Richardson, a former UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy under President Clinton, has the executive experience many recent Democratic candidates have lacked. He is also seeking to be the first Hispanic-American nominee from a major party. Richardson spent many years in his youth in Mexico City, where his father was an executive with Citibank. Later, he was a US Representative from the 3rd district of New Mexico from 1983 to 1997, when he moved to his ambassadorial role. The 59-year old governor is also a former pitcher, having played for the baseball team at Tufts University.

Bill Richardson for President

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, NY - Clinton is the junior senator from New York State, and was First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, when her husband, Bill Clinton, served as the last Democratic president. Clinton would be the first female nominee from a major party if she holds on to her front-runner status. Clinton voted for the war powers resolution for Iraq, and has only recently become an opponent of the war as public opinion has turned against it. She also voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.

The history of the Senator as First Lady, and the controversies surrounding the Clinton Administration are well documented. The most important initiative that Senator Clinton undertook during that time was heading up a presidential commission on national health-care coverage, the results of which were rejected by the Congress. The Senator, now 59, was a "Goldwater Girl" during the 1964 campaign, when she was 16, demonstrating her political evolution over the years. During the early 1970s she served as assistant counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, investigating the Nixon Administration during the Watergate hearings.

Hillary for President

Others mentioned as considering runs

Gen. Wesley Clark, (Ret.), AK
Sen. John Kerry, MA
Rev. Al Sharpton, NY

Republicans

Sen. Sam Brownback, KS - Serving since 1996, Brownback, 50, is in his second full term in the Senate. He had been elected in a special election to succeed Fmr. Sen. Bob Dole, who resigned the seat during his unsuccessful 1996 bid for the presidency against incumbent Bill Clinton. Brownback is a darling of the religious right, having referred to the decision in Roe v. Wade as a "holocaust", has sponsored legislation that would limit the ability of the courts to rule in cases dealing with separation of church and state, and is a leading opponent of same-sex marriage.

Prior to election to Dole's unexpired term, Brownback was a one-term US Representative and was Kansas State Secretary of Agriculture. He is a lawyer by profession.

Brownback for President

John H. Cox, IL - John Cox, 51, is a businessman, attorney and former talk-show host from Chicago. He has lost three previous campaigns, including primary races for US House in IL-10, and US Senate. He is pro-life "without exception, from conception to natural death." He also supports the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment that would bar any type of same-sex unions. He opposes the Kyoto Treaty.

John Cox for President

Michael Charles Smith, OR - Smith describes himself as a "zealous moderate", stating that the Republican Party is wasting resources on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. He would cut ties between the party and the religious right. The 45-year old is an Air Force veteran and was a village trustee in Illinois before moving his family to Oregon. His platform, which he calls "traditional Republican values", features many libertarian ideals; small government, fiscal conservatism and support for individual liberties. He believes that the social activism of the religious right steps upon these ideals.

Smith for U.S. President 2008

Fmr. Gov. Jim Gilmore, VA - Governor of Virginia from 1998 to 2002, Gilmore is a former US Army CoIntel agent and is currently a lawyer. The 57-year old from the Richmond area campaigned for governor on a platform of cutting the state's Car Tax and reimbursing local governments for the lost revenue. In fulfilling this promise he ran up the largest deficit in Virginia history. He chaired a congressional advisory panel on counter-terrorism during the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations, and works in the counter-terrorism industry today. He also served as Chair of the Republican National Committee in 2001.

(no website found)

Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, NY - A former US Attorney and Mayor of New York City, Giuliani is most known nationwide for his leadership in the immediate aftermath of the 09/11/01 terrorist attacks. However, the former Hizzoner, aged 62, has considerable baggage as well. Two messy divorces. Support for gay rights (though opposition to gay marriage). Support for abortion rights. All of the things that will get a Republican elected mayor of New York City are the things that will not get him elected to anything nationwide. Giuliani is less-known for his abuse of powers to shut down peep shows on Time Square (leading landowners with little choice but to sell at dramatically undervalued rates to the likes of Disney) and gay bars and drag clubs in Lower Manhattan. As US Attorney, he prosecuted prominent mobsters as well as white-collar criminals Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. His first campaign for mayor, in 1989 against David Dinkins, carried the endorsement of not only the Republicans, but also of the New York Liberal Party, which usually backs the Democratic nominee in most races, a testament to Giuliani's moderate image. He also served as a member of the Iraq Study Group.

Join Rudy 2008

Rep. Duncan Hunter, CA - Hunter has represented the north and east sides of San Diego (currently the 52nd district) since 1981. The 58-year old is a former Army Ranger and represents a very pro-military region. He was one of the beneficiaries of Reagan's coattail effect in 1980, defeating a nine-term Democratic incumbent. During his time in Congress, he has worked to prevent women from being allowed to serve in direct-combat roles in the military, has pushed for a "border fence" along the Mexican border, and has opposed free-trade pacts such as NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO. He is also pro-life.

Duncan Hunter '08

Sen. John McCain, AZ - McCain is a former Vietnam War veteran and POW (having been involved in the Forrestal incident, and later imprisoned in the "Hanoi Hilton"), and in his fourth term as Senator from Arizona. He succeeded legendary conservative icon Barry Goldwater in 1987, and the 70-year old senator has built up a reputation as a bipartisan moderate, whether deserved or not. It is true that he has often reached across the aisle to pass reforms, most notably the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. But he is a hawk on the war in Iraq, though he has opposed the administration's use of torture against prisoners (having been extensively tortured by the North Vietnamese, himself), and falls on the conservative side of many social issues. This is McCain's second campaign, having lost the Republican nomination in 2000 to the current president. McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, calling same-sex marriage a states' rights issue. McCain was one of the "Gang of 14" who united to compromise on judicial filibusters, and is the last of the "Keating Five" Senate members remaining in the Senate.

John McCain 2008

Rep. Ron Paul, TX - Another second-time candidate, Rep. Paul, 71, was the Libertarian Party nominee against George H. Bush and Michael Dukakis in 1988. Paul has served in the House as a Republican before and since that presidential bid, and remains on good terms with the Libertarian Party. He voted against the war powers resolution in 2002, and has been a critic of the adminstration's use of the police powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act. He opposed CAFTA and supports US withdrawl from the UN. Paul supports abolition of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard (Paul has extensive investments in gold and silver). He is in favour of medicinal marijuana use. Paul is pro-life but feels there is no federal role in legislating bans on abortion.

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee

Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney, MA/UT - Romney, 59, is former Governor of Massachusetts and had been the CEO of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee. He is a businessman by profession and the son of former Michigan governor and AMC chair George Romney. Romney is a socially-conservative Mormon, and had worked to attempt to submit a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the voters of Massachusetts since it was due to become legal by judicial fiat in 2004. During his tenure as governor, Romney often travelled outside of the state and spoke of his distaste for the state that he led.

Mitt Romney, The Exploratory Committee 2008

Rep. Tom Tancredo, CO - Representative from Colorado's 6th district, Tancredo, 61, has been in office since 1999. Tancredo has long opposed bilingual education, and he served as a deputy in the Department of Education under President Reagan. He has also served on conservative think tanks. Tancredo had been a leader of the term-limits movement in Colorado, but broke a pledge to limit himself to three terms when he ran for, and won, a fourth term in 2004. Tancredo's major issue is opposition to illegal immigration, couching his immigration reform platform in the language of "national security".

Tom Tancredo 2008

Fmr. Gov. Tommy Thompson, WI - Thompson, a former governor of Wisconsin, elected to four consecutive terms (he left in the fourth term to join the G. W. Bush Cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services), pioneered at the state level reforms that would eventually make their way to the national level; welfare-to-work and school vouchers. The 65-year old had also pushed the much-maligned Medicare Prescription plan. He is a fiscal conservative. In the interests of full disclosure, Thompson hails from the same small town in Southwestern Wisconsin where I have family.

Tommy 2008

Others mentioned as considering runs

Fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, GA
Sen. Chuck Hagel, NE - Hagel has hinted that, should he run, it would be as an independent
Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee, AR
Fmr. Gov. George Pataki, NY

An apology

I am working on a post regarding the 2008 presidential field to this blog. When I went to start the post, I had converted the blog over to whatever it is that's associated with its new ownership (Google). I don't manage the account that does the syndicated RSS feed, so I had no way to stop it from reposting all 21 past posts. And, in fact, I didn't even know that would happen with the conversion, so I wouldn't have known to stop it, anyhow. But I apologize for spamming all of your f-lists with the old posts, it shouldn't happen again, and if it does, let me know. If necessary, I'll set up a new feed that I'll be able to manage.

Things to bear in mind as the Electoral Season starts to heat up

Molly Ivins wrote a column on Friday (available at http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304) that details why she can't support Hillary Clinton in 2008 (or ever, for that matter) for president. And it's not for any of the popular reasons; the most often cited being that she's too divisive and would never be able to win a national election. No, instead she withholds her support because Hillary is, in her mind (and quite correctly so, in my opinion), not a liberal.

I've been saying a lot of these things going back to 2002, if not earlier. I got so sick and tired of listening to people talk about how you have to pander to the "center", that "radical hippie" ideas like national health care and environmental protection wouldn't win for the Democrats. That we have to accept mealy-mouthed mushy-middle politicians in the key of bland, like John Kerry, because they're "electable".

And that was the crime of the 2004 campaign; the last two or three weeks leading up to Iowa, when the party establishment trucked in Kerry's swift-boat mates and had them talk about what a great leader Kerry was under fire, while the party's establishment was putting out stories about Dean being "crazy", "unhinged", "too radical" and "unelectable". The kingmakers made the king they wanted, and did it at the last possible moment. The "Scream Heard Everywhere Except In The Room Where It Occured" only cemented the image that the machine was laying out. But sane, deliberate politicians like Tom Harkin don't endorse loose cannons as a matter of course.

In 2002 many Democrats who were up for re-election were faced with a choice in the month before the elections. The choice was whether or not to support the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Of those Democrats who faced re-election to the Senate that fall, only one, Paul Wellstone, voted against the resolution. Senator Wellstone delivered impassioned words in the well in opposition to the resolution. When he cast his vote against, many pundits were calling it "political suicide". But a funny thing happened in the week between that vote and Wellstone's tragic death. He soared in the polls! The people of Minnesota saw their senator taking a strong stand against war in Iraq, and he was being rewarded. Other senators in tightly contested seats who supported the resolution, such as Jean Carnahan of Missouri, lost their chairs. One would think that the clear message of the 2002 election was that when faced with two options that so closely mirror one another, there is no reward in making yourself more like the other guy; instead you should be making yourself more distinct.

Ivins has captured the precise problem with the Democrats; the struggle for the party's soul that has been waged for the last 22 years, since Fritz got trounced by a Reagan who was so capable of mystifying the people with lies about welfare queens popping bonbons while watching their stories and collecting thousands of dollars of government money every month that they are only now awakening to the reality. A reality where now seniors and disabled people are suddenly finding themselves unable to refill their prescriptions for January because the "automatic enrollment" they were promised by the government never happened, or their drug cards don't get delivered because the Medicare computers don't have a proper address for them.

People are dying at home and abroad because of Bush. And we have a faction in the party who believes that the only way to win is to become more like him??? Are you insane? I'd like to think that Americans aren't ready to throw their grandparents under the wheels of the bus just so they can get theirs. I'd like to think that we prize all of our citizens, regardless of ability. And I think that the majority of Americans are nothing like Bush. And that the majority would like to actually have a choice. A choice who inspires hope, and a belief that things will get better for more than just those at the top.

It's unfortunate that we utterly destroyed the one person who provided that vision in 2004, and that we relegated the next best option to a role that would have earned him less than a bucket of warm spit. It's unfortunate that Al Gore waited until 2002 to find the tone and the message that he needed in 2000. It's unfortunate that when Hillary makes her annual radical comment on MLK Day that the right manipulates the media into treating her like she's some unshaven Vassar co-ed rallying for a Marxist-Leninist state in America.

I understand that some of you who read this are truly centrist. That you don't believe in the social agenda of the far right, but don't want the "rampant" taxing and social spending that is supported by the left. And perhaps we need a strong centrist party, though a three-party system will never succeed for long in a system like ours. It's too thoroughly rigged to support only two parties, either fer or agin a particular course. So for those in the centre, that means that you have to make a choice as to what is more distasteful in your mind; government interference in the private lives of private citizens, limiting the contracts they may enter into on the basis of something as silly as sexual orientation (and I'm not just talking marriage here; I'm also talking about renting apartments, getting jobs, adopting children, etc.; all of which have "sexual orientation" as a legitimate grounds for discrimination in some states), or are higher taxes and social spending that may be exploited by 1 in every 10,000 people who receive it? That is the essence of being in the middle, you have to make hard decisions about which of the extremes is least distasteful; the lesser of two evils, if you will.

It was very encouraging to read this morning about Reverend Sharpton speaking to a gathering of black religious leaders and telling them that it's their responsibility to support gay rights. That it is a matter of civil rights, no matter how much they want to hide from that fact. That the erosion of civil rights for one group can lead to the erosion of civil rights for all. It is a shame that Sharpton had hitched his wagon to Tawana Brawley. Certainly he may not have the national public stature he does today if he had not, but too many people are willing to remember that sin against him 20+ years later. He really is the greatest social crusader on the left at this point in time, and most people still hold Tawana against him in the same what that the Right likes to dredge up Sen. Robert Byrd's Klan involvement, and his votes against the Civil Rights Act, even though these things are buried well in his past. It's as if you cannot grow as a person, learn from your mistakes, and be a worthy public service because of your past mistakes. This attitude has cost the Democrats a strong, authoritative voice on the social ills of this country.

With regards to the Democrats, it's long since time that the left took the party back, and the country as well. Unfortunately, I think that the left are too busy working two jobs just to make ends meet. They don't have time for the effort necessary to win the day. And this is the insidious outcome of Reaganism; backing the working class into a position of work-weary inaction.

Disgusted

Wow, what a disappointing Election Day.

I suppose I could blame the 60.3% of Ohioans who couldn't be arsed to actually go to the polls on Tuesday. But even had the turnout been better than the 39.7% who did show, I don't think that it would have made a lick of difference. Issue 1 passed fairly easily, while Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 were soundly defeated by similar margins (ranging from 63%-37% to 69%-31%). Considering the polling numbers of the normally-reliable Dispatch Poll released this weekend (and conducted between October 24 and November 3), there are many questions to be raised.

Issue 2 was up in that poll by 26% (59%-33%) and Issue 3 was up by 36% (61%-25%). Even Issue 5 was polling close to even (41% for, 43% against). Only Issue 4 ended up anywhere near accurate to the polling (31% for, 45% against). Again, this is a normally reliable poll, and one with only a 2.5% +/- margin-of-error. It seemed that Issues 2 and 3 were likely to pass, with Issue 5 in a close battle. Instead, they were all soundly whipped, by similar margins.

My gut instinct wanted to cry "foul". I wanted to call "shenanigans". How could things shift so quickly without fraud being at the root? Especially since 44 counties were using touchscreen voting for the first time. And considering that Issue 5 was going to take control of the elections away from the Republican Secretary of State, why wouldn't he urge his friends at Diebold to ensure that these reform issues would fail?

But then I slept on it, and looked into what was being said in the aftermath. While I wasn't, and am not, happy with the "oh, we just didn't do a good enough job" defeatism I've encountered on other blogs, I'm not so quick to find no other explanation than fraud, either. This isn't to say that I don't think that there isn't some possibility that fraud came into play here. I just don't think it was the only thing that contributed to this wild swing.

First, the packaging of the issues. All of the pro-issue ads refered to them as a group. While we did want all four issues to pass, this may have led voters who were uncertain about one issue to vote against them all, feeling that they were parts of a whole. The only ads that treated any of the issues separately were ads opposing Issue 3 (the one that was passing by the greatest margin in the Dispatch Poll). Given that the pro-issue ads were treating the four issues as a whole, it would be understandable that the four issues would fall by similar margins.

Second, the partisan support. The GOP lined up early to defeat the issue. The Democrats stood aside, in part because the reform advocates did not want it to appear as if there were partisan motives behind the issues. While this is all well and good, and reform ought to be a non-partisan issue, it also ended up biting the pro-reform campaign in the ass. While Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Democratic Party chair Jimmy DiMora lined up with the GOP to defeat the proposals, state party chair Denny White (one of the most inept party chairs I've ever met) refused to support the issues. Perhaps what's most telling in that is that it gave the impression that the Democrats, as a party machine, were no more interested in real reform than the GOP was. Maybe they're hoping to seize the Governor's Mansion and the Secretary of State's chair in 2006, holding them in 2010 and repaying the GOP for what will be the previous 20 years when they get their crack at reapportionment. Of course this is assuming a lot of things, and it's also assuming that Ohio can deal with another 5 years or more of GOP legislative neglect. After all, these are the people who have yet, after nearly 8 years, refused to reform how public schools are funded, despite an order to do so from the State Supreme Court.

Third, where the RON campaign did find political support. By this, I mean the support that came from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Again, I'm all for the idea that reform should be above partisanship, so Arnold's support for the issues, and for Issue 4 in particular (which was nearly identical to California's Proposition 77, which also was defeated), wasn't an issue for me. However, when an Ohio Democrat is being asked by a famous Republican, in robo-calls and radio ads, to support an issue, the knee-jerk reaction will be to oppose them instead. Trying to use Arnold's star power to swing votes to the pro-reform side probably hurt as much, if not more, than it helped. Add in the fact that on progressive talk radio you would encounter individuals (Ed Schultz, I'm looking at you) who would talk up the Ohio reform issues including Issue 4, and talk down Prop 77, only added to partisan feel of the reforms.

Fourth, the campaigning on Sunday. Specifically, the literature that was to be distributed with church bulletins this week, and the sermons from pulpits around the state. I have serious issues with whether or not these actions aren't violating the spirit of non-participation that is supposed to come with the churches tax-exempt status. Regardless, the churches were given literature designed to deceive, which was to be placed in the bulletins on Sunday. These fliers depicted the reforms as "anti-family", the tool of out-of-state interests, and the first step on the road to same-sex marriage and rampant abortion.

Finally, the ballot language. It was ponderous. Sure, some of it couldn't help but be. Issue 3 needed to spell out the contribution limits being proposed. But other issues could have been summarized much more concisely. And who is it that is involved in crafting the ballot language? The Secretary of State, of course. Sure, both the pro and anti campaigns get to review it, and lodge complaints. But in the end, the language is usually that which the Secretary of State's office decides on which ends up on the ballot, though perhaps with minor changes. The sort of changes that would have made these issues more concise would likely have been opposed by the anti-issue campaign, and thus the language would would not have changed much anyhow.

So there were many reasons beyond the voting machines that could account for the sudden change in the support in the last week of the campaign. All the same, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the machines as a cause, either. Some precincts in Lucas County (Toledo) and Wood County (Bowling Green) were apparently having getting their machines up and running yesterday morning and were turning voters away and telling them to come back later. That's never the appropriate way to deal with voters when these problems arise. So there were at least some problems, even if they were minor, with the machines. However, there were many other problems as well.

As for my ward and precinct, we had extremely low precinct turnout (90 voters total, which was at best 1/3 of the turnout in the presidential election last year but probably much closer to 1/10 or less). Among those who bothered to show, all of the statewide issues were favoured except Issue 4, which tied at 43 votes for and against. On a ward-wide basis, Issues 1, 2 and 7 were favoured, while 3, 4, and 5 were not.

My hope for the future of elections reform in Ohio is to get Issues 2 and 3 passed, which will open up voting to more people, and reduce the influence of the special interests. After that, go after the Secretary of State's role (Issue 5), and get the control of elections into a party-neutral body's hands. Then bring in the districting reform. While I feel that is the most important of the reforms, it will be the most difficult to get passed while the interests and the SoS still control the machinery of politics in Ohio. But all of these reforms need to be passed, and the sooner that they are, the better for all Ohioans.

Election Day upcoming

I apologize for the extended absence. I was away from my computer for a week and a half and since I've been back I have slowly been catching myself up. There are elections coming up on Tuesday, and there are five statewide issues that I wanted to mention and give "endorsements" on. Since I can't trust myself to hit them all if I don't do it right now, in one shot, here goes.


Issue 1:

This is a rehash of the "Third Frontier" initiative that the governor had placed on the ballot in either 2002 or 2003 (I forget which). It would authorize the government to issue bonds for the purpose of giving billions of dollars in "incentives" (read: bribes) to corporations to locate in Ohio. These would include tax breaks and other forms of corporate welfare. And rest assured that when these "incentives" have run their course, the corporations will move on to another state willing to "entice" them, if Ohio won't answer their extortionist demands for more money.

The issue is being sold to the public under the "no increase in your taxes" banner. But given that the money will come from bonds, and that bonds are a money-mill where the state can just mint dollars to cover the bonds, the money to repay the bond principle and interest has got to come from somewhere. When dealing with the Taft Administration, covering budget shortfalls without raising taxes has included taking the money from three areas in particular; education, social programs and transportation. What this means to the average voter is higher public-university tuitions, cuts in food stamps, Medicaid/CHIP and ADAMH funding, and more potholes and crumbling bridges.

What's more, if the outcry over the deterioration of the public highways grows loud enough, the transport budget may end up being beefed up by way of another 5-cent per gallon rise in the gasoline tax. Ohio is already among the top five of states in the tax we levy on a gallon of gas. The cost of gasoline does as much to keep manufacturing out of Ohio as anything else, because it has become so costly to transport materials into the state and to truck out the finished goods. But if it keeps the Taxpayers Union happy to not levy the tax on incomes, and keeps the corporations happy to hand them free money, who cares how the working and middle classes will end up being squeezed by the results of this misguided attempt at bringing industry back to Ohio (most of which has been off-shored to China and isn't coming back, anyhow)?

Verdict: NO on Issue 1


Issue 2:

This issue would remove most restrictions on the availability of absentee ballots. Opponents of the issue decry the reform as opening the process to "massive fraud". Supporters see this as a way to decrease the size of lines at the polls on Election Day.

Last fall, on the occasion of the presidential election, Ohioans lined up at the polls, knowing this state would be vital to the fortunes of either of the major candidates. In some cases, "lined up" was more literally true than in others. Some precincts had voters still waiting in their lines until after 2 am, meaning they were in line for up to 8 hours. There is little room to argue that reducing such waits would do anything other than help increase participation, especially among those with jobs who are unable to use "voting" as a valid excuse for missing work or being late. Allowing them to vote early at their county board of elections (a less publicized provision of Issue 2) or by way of absentee ballot would give these people a better chance to participate in our system.

The arguments about "fraud" are easily debunked, as well. Every polling station has an enrollment book, and the voter rolls are all computerized. It would be as simple as using a couple of layers of double-checking to ensure that people do not vote more than once. All absentee and early voters who have voted before Election Day are marked in the precinct books as having already voted. Those who have voted at the polls and sent in an absentee ballot that arrives on Election Day can be cross-checked by matching the names on the statement envelope (in Ohio, there are three envelopes involved in voting absentee; a "secrecy" envelope that wraps around the ballot, a "statement" envelope that the voter signs to verify that this is their vote, and a postal envelope that the entire assembly is returned to the Board of Elections in) against the poll books. If a voter has sent in a valid absentee ballot and voted in person at the polls, they should be charged with elections fraud without any dispute.

In short, the concerns mostly fall on their face when one examines the way elections are conducted in Ohio. The benefits to the public, with greater voter participation, are immeasurable.

Verdict: YES on 2


Issue 3:

This issue is designed to reform the way campaigns are financed in Ohio. The contribution limits in place now would be reduced, and corporate contributions to campaigns would be outlawed. The argument for this issue is that it would make the average contributor's voice more equal to that of a wealthy contributor. The argument against the issue is that it would unconstitutional to limit the contributions and to outlaw corporate contributions. Also it would give "special interests" more say in government.

There isn't much disputing the pro-issue argument. If wealthy contributors are limited to contribution levels that put them on a more equal footing with the rest of the electorate, the propensity to listen to, and seek to please, the wealthy contributors will be reduced. There will be a wider range of "maximum contributors" for candidates to seek to please. This can only help to democratize the process.

The arguments about the constitutionality of the issue are based on specious reasoning, at best. For example, the state of Texas has long outlawed corporate campaign contributions without anyone seeking to have these overturned by the courts. And Ohio has had individual contribution limits in place for a number of years and they've not been found to be unconstitutional, either.

To further the arguments in favour of the issue, there is the financial report that was released in mid-October by the groups backing and opposing Issues 2-5. The pro-reform campaign has raised $1.8 million dollars from roughly 3,000 individuals while the anti-reform campaign has raised $2.2 million dollars from about 120 individuals. The average donor to the pro-reform campaign has given $545, while the average donor to the anti-reform campaign has given $13,000. And further, the top 12 donors to the anti-reform camp are responsible for about $1.5 million, including $500,000 from a single donor.

Verdict: YES on Issue 3


Issue 4:

This issue is an effort to reform the districting process in Ohio. Currently, among Ohio's 18 US House districts there is only one district that has consistently produced races which finished with the top two candidates within 10 percent of the vote of one another. What's more, in a state that has been nearly evenly split in the last two presidential elections, 12 of the 18 US House seats are occupied by Republicans.

The argument for the issue uses these facts to say that the current districting method unfairly favours the party that holds the majority of three statewide offices (Governor, Secretary of State and Auditor), and that the maps are drawn to favour their party. They wish to replace the present Apportionment Board consisting of elected officials with an appointed board that accepts any map submitted to them and scores the map based on a formula that includes criteria such as competitive balance, minority composition and compactness. The commission will also have discretion to pass over the best-scoring map if there is one that makes better geographical sense without excessively affecting the competitive balance gains of the better-scoring map.

The argument against the issue is that it would create districts that snake across the state in a worse manner than they currently do, in order that they grab Democratic strongholds in Northern Ohio and Republican strongholds in Central and Southwestern Ohio. The opposition also plays to the fears of an unelected body being in charge and therefore not directly accountable to the voters, as well as the cost of setting up and running the board in a period of tight economics in Ohio. The first argument can be dismissed by the simple statement that people don't vote for governor, auditor or state representatives based upon whether or not that will affect the partisan balance of the apportionment board; that people have greater concerns when they vote for those positions, and that saying you can vote them out if you're unhappy with the districting is naive and dismissive of reality. The cost position can be refuted by the fact that if costs/economics were of such importance to these opponents, then the same people should not be lining up behind the "Third Frontier" bond issue.

Verdict: YES on Issue 4 (this may be the most important of the reform issues)


Issue 5:

This issue would take the elections-oversight responsibility away from the Secretary of State and vest it in a "non-partisan" State Board of Elections that would be composed of and equal number of Democrats and Republicans, as well as at least one independent. The supporters point to the sitting Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who was co-chair of the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign in Ohio as being the strongest argument in favour of this reform. Opponents again oppose on the basis of the cost of another board and the lack of accountability.

The argument for can be very compelling. There is something that feels slightly off about a person who has a stake in an election being in charge of the machinery of that election. And not only does Blackwell's role last year highlight this problem, but also the role of Katherine Harris in Florida in 2000. And when the Secretary of State runs for re-election, this personal stake becomes even more apparent.

The accountability argument against is a little bit stronger in this case. It has been the primary function of the Secretary of State in Ohio to oversee the elections (though that isn't the offices only function), so it's difficult to argue that people wouldn't vote for the office based upon this responsibility; it's the most visible of the secretary's roles. Again, the cost of the board is a hollow argument for the same reasons with Issue 4; it's hard to express concern about the cost of a board that may run to about $400,000/year when you're advocating giving out a billion dollars in tax incentives to corporations.

This is the issue that gave me the most pause, and it was only after having it clarified for me that the Secretary of State would still hold his authority over commerce and business that I came around to a decision on this issue. In fact, I think that should Issue 5 pass, the Office of Development could be placed under the Secretary, and the position of Director of Development could be phased out. Likewise, the insurance industry could fall under the Secretary's purview and another appointed director could be eliminated. Elimination of those two appointed directorships could save the state enough to offset the cost of the Elections Board. There is much potential to reorganize the executive departments if this issue passes.

Verdict: YES on Issue 5 (though slightly tentative)


Issue 7:

This is a countywide issue in Franklin County. It's a replacement levy for the county ADAMH (Alcohol/Drug Abuse and Mental Health) budget. The old levy, approved about 8 years ago, is expiring. A "no" vote would leave the ADAMH budget at pre-1997 levels in 2006. While the replacement will reflect a slight increase over the levy that is in place, the social benefits gained by funding these programs are greater. This levy funds mental health aid for low-income individuals and drug and alcohol treatment and intervention programs for county residents. The state support for these programs has dwindled over years of Republican neglect. If Issue 1 passes, the state funding may wither to practically nothing. These programs are going to rely increasingly on local funding sources, and this levy is vital to the programs.

Verdict: YES on Issue 7

Summary:

NO on Issue 1
YES on Issues 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7

OH-Senate: Democratic Primary pending...my endorsement

Full Disclosure: I have met Sherrod Brown, the current Democratic representive from the Ohio 13th US House district (OH-13). In fact, before I ever met him, he mailed a short, handwritten note to me based on a Letter to the Editor that I had published in the Akron Beacon-Journal. However, he's not the only politician from Ohio that I've met. My family background being what it is (my grandfather having been a member of the State Assembly 60-plus years ago, among other things), I've met Democratic politicians from both Ohio and Connecticut. Representative Brown is the first that has contacted me personally without any prior contact from my end, and without being introduced to them through family connections.

In the last week, the race for US Senate in Ohio has gotten interesting. Before last week there were no Democrats who had declared themselves as candidates to oppose the weakened Republican incumbent, Mike DeWine, next November. But in fairly rapid succession last week there were two Democrats who expressed, through spokespeople, that they would be seeking the party's nomination.

The first announcement came on Monday afternoon. The candidate to announce was Paul Hackett. Mr. Hackett made a name for himself by losing a very close race in a special election to fill a vacancy in Ohio's 2nd US House district (OH-02). This district is a heavily Republican district; the previous representative (who was appointed by President Bush to the position of US Trade Representative earlier this year) regularly won his races by 2-to-1 margins, and the president won the district by about 20 percentage points. The close result in the special election had marked Mr. Hackett as a rising star for the Democratic Party in Ohio.

The second announcement came later in the week from a somewhat surprising source; Sherrod Brown, representative from OH-13 in Northern Ohio. Representative Brown has been in the Congress since 1993, after having served as Ohio Secretary of State from 1983 to 1991. During his 12 years in Washington, Representative Brown has become known as one of the strongest progressive voices on the House floor. He has been a leader on health care issues, pushing for a national Bill of Patients' Rights and for a rational plan to cut the cost of prescriptions, especially for seniors. He's even organized bus trips to Canada for Cleveland/Akron area seniors so that they can get their prescriptions at a lower cost than they would be able to get them in the United States.

Obviously, we have been given a choice between two strong candidates. Both have their own particular strengths and weaknesses. And before I get down to outlining these and making my endorsement, allow me to state that neither candidate has made a formal announcement, and with the filing deadlines still about 4 months off, anything can change at a moment's notice, and new candidates may enter the race. For example, Jerry Springer has been vacillating between this race and the Governor race for most of 2005, and has announced for neither.

Let's start with the candidates' strengths:

Mr. Hackett is an officer in the Marine Corps Reserves, and in that role has served a tour in Iraq running from last summer to early this year. He was only back in his home town outside of Cincinnati for a short time before filing to run in the special election, moved to do so by his disgust with the way in which the Bush Administration is conducting the war and conducting itself on the world stage. As a veteran of Iraq, his opposition to the current war would carry more weight than the opposition of senators such as John Kerry or Tom Harkin, who are veterans of the Vietnam War.

Also, Mr. Hackett is a supporter of a broad interpretation of the right to bear arms guaranteed in the Second Amendment. He is an avid sportsman, as many people in his district are. He opposes bans on guns and supports promotion of responsible gun ownership. This stance would shelter him from the usual NRA opposition, and would take an issue away from the GOP that they love to harp on.

Finally, Mr. Hackett is from southern Ohio. It's widely believed in some circles that the only way for Democrats to win state-wide in Ohio is to run a candidate from the southern portion of the state. And in some of the most recent head-of-ticket statewide races, the Democrats have lost behind candidates from northern Ohio (Eric Fingerhut for US Senate last year, Tim Hagan for Governor in 2002, Mary Ellen Brown for US Senate in 2000, and Lee Fisher for Governor in 1998). With Mr. Hackett being a centre-leaning Democrat from southern Ohio, it is believed that he would perform very well in the rural southern and western portions of the state.

Representative Brown, as I have pointed out, was a two-term Secretary of State. As a result, he has experience running state-wide, and winning. He is also spearheading a movement called "Reform Ohio Now" (see link on the sidebar, if you're viewing this on the site), which has placed four elections-reform issues on the ballot next month; expansion of absentee voting availability, campaign finance reform, districting reform, and establishment of a state board of elections to assume the elections-oversight functions of the Secretary of State. As a result, he'll be campaigning state-wide in support of these issues.

Representative Brown also has a strong record in the US House. He has been a solid supporter of progressive issues. He recently led the fight against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (expansion of NAFTA to Central America; this is called CAFTA). He has also stood out on the health issues I previously outlined, and voted against the war-powers resolution for the Second Iraq War. He is currently the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee and the Health Care Issues Subcommittee; placing him highly among the House's Democratic leadership.

And now the weaknesses:

Representative Brown was very unreliable on the matter of whether or not he would seek this office. During the summer he strongly stated that he wasn't going to seek the Senate seat, but would instead seek to retain his OH-13 seat. While there are many indications that he was thinking of reversing that decision prior to last Monday's announcement by the Hackett camp, a spokesperson from his office denied that he had reversed himself, though reserved the right to do so, on Monday morning. This gives the appearance that Rep. Brown only decided to get in the race after Mr. Hackett's spokesman announced his intent. This was after Rep. Brown had assured Mr. Hackett that he wasn't interested in the race. Many in the Hackett camp feel that Rep. Brown's reversal is an exercise in ego, and that Rep. Brown is trying to upstage a rising star. And since Rep. Brown is in a "safe district" and has accumulated so much seniority in the House, he shouldn't run and "risk" these things.

Also, Rep. Brown's progressive reputation may not play well with the religious conservatives in Ohio. He is a supporter of gay rights, and has spoken in favour of same-sex "civil unions", prefering that solution to "marriage" rights for gays and lesbians. Some believe that his opposition to the war in Iraq and his support of gun-control measures such as the Brady Bill could help to brand him as a "northern liberal", which would mark him as anathema to most rural voters.

Finally, some have pointed out Rep. Brown's one state-wide loss; his attempt at a third term as Secretary of State against Robert Taft, III; the present-day governor of Ohio, is under a cloud of corruption and ethics investigations as he closes out his last term as governor. Some have said that if he couldn't beat Taft in a state-wide race, albeit fifteen years in the past, how can he possibly hope to defeat a more-popular DeWine?

Mr. Hackett, on the other hand, has his own set of issues. First of all is his opposition to the war in Iraq. It isn't so much a problem that he opposes the war itself, given that he is a veteran and has some authority to speak on the issue in some way. Rather, it is some of comments he made in regards to the conduct of the war, and the people in the government who have supported the war; the kindest of these being the use of the term "chickenhawk" in reference to the president, vice-president and various Pentagon officials.

Another of his issues is his lack of experience. While some may see his "outside of the beltway" perspective as an advantage, it's probably not such an advantage when it comes to Senate races. There are only two Senate seats from each state, and you really want someone who knows how to deal with the culture of the Congress in those seats. Few people with no state or federal government experience get elected directly to the US Senate. And yes, I'm counting Hillary Clinton as having that experience, given her eight years as the First Lady and her lobbying on behalf of President Clinton's national health-care proposal in 1993.

Also, Mr. Hackett has yet to win a race that extends beyond the county level. Sure, he ran a competitive race in a district that is usually not competitive, but moral victories don't count. And if Ohio is so strongly conservative that a progressive Democrat doesn't stand a chance, and a couple of centre-left Democratic presidential candidates can't take the state, why would Mr. Hackett be any better able to win? He hasn't even run a state-wide race. Does he know how to organize a state-wide race? Does he have the stamina to do it?

My analysis and endorsement:

Taking the positives and the negatives into account, I have come to a number of conclusions. The Hackett supporters have really rubbed me the wrong way. So much of the rhetoric that I hear from them sounds like sour grapes. I've even seen some write that they would abandon the Senate race if Mr. Hackett were to lose the primary. I haven't seen similar sentiments from the Brown supporters, but that does not mean that it's not there. However, the overly-emotional response from the Hackett camp has really turned me off. I don't expect the candidates to tear each other apart in the way that the Hackett supporters seem to assume they will. I think that both candidates want to have a clean "fight" and have the best man win, and be strong enough to take out DeWine in November.

While I love the showing that Mr. Hackett had in the special election in August, he didn't win; plain and simple. I'd much prefer that he prove himself as a campaigner before handing him such a big campaign to run. And make no mistake about it, the US Senate seats are huge races. Seven media markets, 11 million people to represent. And the only issue he really has an advantage over Rep. Brown on, in rural Ohio, is gun-control. His position on gay rights isn't known, and short of him coming out strongly against, which would kill him in the primary, he would suffer against DeWine for that. He is also tepidly pro-life, meaning that he throws out the same qualifications that usually gets a Republican labeled "pro-choice" (rape, incest, mother's health); more of an abortion "centrist" than anything else. Senator DeWine, on the other hand, was a leader on the "partial-birth" (late-term) abortion ban.

As a result, the arguments that the Hackett camp uses to support their argument that their candidate is more viable rely on the proposition that the only way to beat a Republican in Ohio is to be more like the Republicans. And really, Hackett isn't much more like the Republicans than Brown is, and he certainly isn't enough like them to make the voters who want a conservative Republican vote for him instead. So it comes down to the independent voters and the Democratic base.

Many of the issues that are currently resonating with independent voters are economic, national security and health-care related. On those issues Rep. Brown has demostrated leadership in the House. He has opposed selling out the American labourer by campaigning against CAFTA. He opposed stretching US military forces too thin by getting into the war in Iraq and relying on our Reserve forces to do the job rather than protecting the homeland. He has been a leader on patients'-rights and national health care issues in the House. He'll be able to speak on these issues with authority on the campaign trail, while Mr. Hackett will still be learning about them.

The argument about Rep. Brown giving up his "safe seat" falls flat with me. If his seat is so "safe" then it should be won by any Democrat running for it. Thus, the seat isn't in danger of being lost to Republicans if Rep. Brown leaves it behind in favour of the US Senate seat. In a best case scenario, with Hackett as the nominee, whether unopposed or in a primary against Rep. Brown, the Democrats hold all of their current seats, with the possible exception of the OH-06 seat (being vacated by Ted Strickland, who is running for Governor -- yet nobody yelped when he joined that race after Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman declared for it), and pick up the Senate seat. If Hackett were to decide to forego the Senate race, and instead were to challenge for the OH-02 seat once again, the best-case would have the Democrats possibly taking the OH-02 seat, which would then offset the loss of OH-06, or be a net gain, while Rep. Brown wins the Senate seat.

So, lets break this down. The Democrats currently have two of the four seats that I've discussed, OH-06 and OH-13. Of those, OH-13 is supposed to be "safe". If Rep. Brown were to reverse himself again and run for his House seat, it would gain the party nothing, as the seat is "safe", meanwhile OH-02 remains with the Republicans, OH-06 could shift over to the Republicans, and the Senate seat could shift to the Democrats. That's a net wash, with the Democrats hold only two of the four seats. If Mr. Hackett were to be the one to withdraw and run for the OH-02 seat again, the OH-13 seat is "safe" and would remain in Democratic hands, while Mr. Hackett could defeat the incumbent in OH-02 in a return match-up, and Rep. Brown could win the Senate seat. Assuming the loss of OH-06, that would leave the Democrats with a net gain of one of the four seats in question, but with the potential to hold all four; something that won't happen without Mr. Hackett running in OH-02.

Therefore, the Democrats have the most to gain with the candidate who has the strongest background and the experience to hit the ground running in the Senate; Rep. Sherrod Brown.

Just because the New Republic is whining doesn't mean I'm celebrating

The first working day of the new month means it must be time for another Supreme Court nomination. And it does. And this time it's Harriet Miers, George W. Bush's personal lawyer for roughly the last 25 years.

The conservative establishment are moaning. The religious right groups are wailing. They're going on and on about how they hope that Bush doesn't get another vacancy to fill, because he's thrown two people onto the Court, and neither is to their liking.

I've heard it suggested that the moaning and wailing is all just carefully-crafted strategy; fool the liberals into thinking the nominees aren't as conservative as they had feared, and fool the moderates into thinking that if neither side is happy, then the person must be moderate and ergo "objective". I wouldn't doubt this strategy in the least. In fact, I think it's very likely what is in evidence here. All I know is that for all of the gnashing of teeth on the right, I'm not full of glee at getting one past them.

First of all, did any hard-right ideologue think that a known hard-right judge would stand a chance with a president whose approval is hovering around 40%, and polls indicating that a vast majority of Americans disagree with the hard-right agenda? Did they think that with the majority leaders in both the House and the Senate being investigated for being corrupt SOBs that getting a known hard-right candidate through the Congress would be remotely possible? If they were thinking that, they're smoking the stuff that they want poor people prosecuted for smoking.

Secondly, what exactly does anyone know about the judicial philosophy of Harriet Miers? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Why? Because she's never been a judge. Not even on something as insignificant as traffic court. At least with Chief Justice Roberts (and it rankles me to have to associate that title with him) we had two years of work on the bench to go on. Miers is the ultimate judicial tabula rasa. There is absolutely no "paper trail", no history of decisions, no rulings, nothing to be used against her. Add in that she was the "first female" for many different Dallas and Texas legal achievements (managing partner, president of the state bar, etc.) to provide the veneer of feminism, and you have the recipe for "non-threatening", or for "disaster waiting to happen".

And it's this complete lack of judicial experience that bothers me. It's been pointed out that Rehnquist had no federal judicial experience prior to his appointment in 1972. What's not being pointed out is that Rehnquist's appointment was also a very controversial appointment in a period when Supreme Court appointments weren't nearly as contentious as they have been since Roe v. Wade. In fact, the only recent appointment that was more in doubt, aside from Bork, was Clarence Thomas. Even Scalia skated by in relative ease. And Rehnquist's elevation to Chief Justice was a closer vote than Roberts, his protege, faced. So making a comparison of Miers to Rehnquist is truly a damnation by faint praise.

As I stated 4 weeks ago in "We divert you from your regularly schedule hurricane-related kvetching", this is yet another nomination that demonstrates complete and utter contempt on the part of the president and his administration for the Judicial Branch. First he nominates a marginally-qualified federal justice for an associate justice position. But that was somewhat acceptable. The elevation of that nominee to the Chief Justice's position was not. And now filling the pending associate's seat with someone who has never sat on a bench? It's complete disdain for the importance of our most important judicial institution. It mocks the gravity of the Court. It's like flinging poo at a wall and seeing what will stick; if just any old nominee will get passed on, no matter how awful, just because he figures he doesn't need to put up the most qualified, anyone will do. What's more, the nominee was the chair of the search committee; just as Cheney was the chair of the vice-presidential search committee.

It's disgusting that when people are going to bitch about this nomination (and as I pointed out, it's already started on the right), they'll bitch about it on ideological bases. They really need to get indignant his nominating people with no history, no experience, not a fucking clue what they're going to be facing on the bench. Heck, at least Roberts clerked on the Court, and had some idea of what to expect. Miers is Michael Brown, but on the Supreme Court, not at the head of FEMA. When Brown stepped down after the Katrina mess, people asked how the heck someone with that utter lack of qualification could end up at the head of FEMA. I think we're seeing it replayed now. Someone with an utter lack of qualifications is being appointed the Supreme Court. We cannot allow the Senate to make these mistakes over and over and over again. Doing so only proves the Republican Senate to be the rubber stamp that the GOP cried for decades about the Democratic Congress being. If they're unwilling to take up their role as a check on the power of the Executive, they need to be defeated in the elections.

In fact, it's time that people stopped voting for "likeable" people. It's time they started voting for qualified. It's time that this country turned off Two and a Half Men long enough to get a frickin' clue about what their government is doing to them. Otherwise, they're going to come to 2010 with the same salary they had in 2005, and scraping to get by as gas and energy prices have shot upwards. Farmers are getting hit very hard now. Corn farmers in Ohio are only going to be able to produce the minimum-quality in seed corn this season because the fuel costs to dry the corn beyond the minimum standard would mean selling at a loss. Instead, they'll break even. And they can't just increase their price to the market to compensate because of the price controls set by the government and the Board of Trade so that we don't have to pay more at the grocery. And the last I knew, wasn't it price controls that capitalists railed against communism for? And it's family farms that are most hurt by the price controls, since they can't get the economies of scale for fuel like conglomerates like Cargill and ADM can get.

The average American is being squeezed. But when it comes to the elections, they are lured in with charisma and talk about God and Jesus and tax cuts, and they are hooked. Then the squeeze is applied a little more, and they wonder why they're being squeezed. And the cycle continues every two years. It's time to rebel against the squeeze. The rebellion needs to be at the ballot boxes. People need to be willing to take a slight hit in the form of a tax raise in order to get this country back on the road to wellness. In 1993, the Clinton Administration pushed through a tax increase that mostly affected those making over $75,000/year, and this was followed by unparalleled prosperity. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and with those cuts have come record deficits and stagnation in our economy. Which is better for the economy in general?

If you want to see me celebrate, I'll wait until the people making $25,000 to $75,000 per year aren't feeling the squeeze anymore. It takes more than a few conservatives whining to make me celebrate, however. It takes respect for my country, my government, the institutions of that government, and for those whose consent is the source of the powers of that government. No respect means no joy. And insider trading, gerrymandering every two years, squeezing the compensation of the working and professional classes, and cronyism do not equate to respect.

While the piggies are at the trough...

So, the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi were up in Washington, DC today. They were testifying before Congress about the response to Hurricane Katrina, and specifically the federal government's response.

They talked about the devastation, they talked about how the hurricane will impact their states' economies for years to come. They asked for money to help encourage corporations to return to Louisiana and Mississippi after the clean-up is finished.

You knew it was only a matter of time before non-recovery funding was sought. But financial incentives to try and retain the companies forced to leave the area are one thing. And they're almost acceptable. It's other things that they want money for that's a bit more troubling. Money for alligator farms. Price supports for the sugar industry. Carnival Cruise Lines got a no-bid contract to lease a ship to FEMA. And the oil companies want a bailout similar to that which the airlines received in the wake of 11 September 2001.

I knew at the time that the airline bailout was a bad idea because of how it was going to encourage other industries to seek similiar bailouts like the oil companies (who have made record profits as a result of the price spikes, no matter what they'll tell Congress in trying to get the bailouts) are currently doing. But that's another rant from 4 years in the past.

So, we have all of these people going to Washington to tell the Congress what went wrong in response to Katrina. And while they're near the trough, they're asking for a chance to gorge themselves on the public's money. Sweet, sweet pork, just like the Bridge to Nowhere, which is supposed to be acceptable now, because it's Katrina-stricken areas that are after the bacon.

Pork is pork, no matter who's eating it. Alligator farms are no better of a use of public funds than a Bridge to Nowhere.

---

And there's been a new development in the prisoner abuse cases. A captain, who graduated from West Point and is the winner of two Bronze Stars, is going public with allegations that he attempted to make the Pentagon aware of systemic prisoner abuse. He's claiming that it wasn't limited to "a few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib, but that it carried out by most of the guards, and at multiple prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After taking his concerns to the Pentagon, he claims that no actions were taken and at least some of the abuses were approved of, and condoned by, the chain of command. He's now taking his concerns to groups such as Human Rights Watch, and to senators, in an effort to bring them to light.

We'll see how far his allegations get, or if they'll simply be swept under the rug as similar allegations in the past have been.

"But he seems like a nice fella!"

The cost of "nice":

A $230 billion budgetary surplus in 2000 is now a $412.6 billion deficit.

An ignored briefing while on vacation leads to over 3,217 dead in terrorist attacks on the US and the subsequent military action. The financial costs are over $100 billion in clean-up and reconstruction costs, plus military funding.

A birthday party in Arizona and appearances in California lead to ignoring a natural disaster developing in the Gulf of Mexico region. Over 1,069 dead (as of 21 September 2005), over 2,576 missing and $ 60 billion pledged to clean-up a situation that could have been mitigated by not cutting funding for levee improvements.

A family score to settle leads to 2,107 dead coalition troops and at least 10,000 citizens of Iraq. Over $275 billion in military spending.

"Nice" has cost the US, and the world.

Electing a guy that you could see as "a drinking buddy" or "a good neighbour" has led to nearly 16,500 dead people and over $400 billion in extra spending, in addition to another $640 billion lost from federal coffers.

The cost of "nice" is a small suburb's worth of people and a trillion dollars. And that's not so "nice".

I know that many of the Christians among you aren't going to like this...

...but Michael Newdow is in the right.

Yes, I know that this throws me in the vast minority in this country. Yes, I realize that if you polled the American public on whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is "constitutional" about 80% would say that it is. I am aware that this is a nation where the majority of the public are Christian. But let us get one thing straight from from the outset; the United States of America is not a federation of Christian states. That's right, this is not a Christian nation. If you have any difficulty in understanding why this is not a Christian nation (nor is it a Jewish nation, a Moslem nation, a Buddhist nation nor a Sikh nation, and so on), I suggest you find a copy of the Constitution, with its amendments, and read that first amendment.

Do you see that bit about "mak(ing) no law respecting the establishment of religion"? We see that, right? Well, when you make a law in 1954 which alters the existing Pledge of Allegiance to read that we're "one nation, under God," this means that the Congress has declared a particular religious bent that is over this nation. This would be a monotheistic religious tradition that refers to their deity as "God". It could be Christian, it could be Judaism, possibly even Islam. However, that means the flag isn't a symbol of a nation under Zeus, under Shiva, under Osirus; but under God. This is a very specific religion or group of religions.

Let's go further, to the specific case in question. It deals with a law in the state of California that requires school children to recite this promise to ally themselves to the flag this nation that is under God. Now this is not the law in Ohio, appearant, as I had Jehovah's Witness classmates who were not required to recite the Pledge, though they were required to stand for it. But the point is that you're asking kids who do not believe in God to make an oath to the flag of a Christian nation (as defined by the words that Congress added into the Pledge in 1954).

Yes, these children, and their families, are a vast minority in this country. However, and this is very important, our country was designed to protect the rights of the minority. When the Pilgrims loaded up onto the Mayflower in the summer of 1620 and embarked on their journey across the Atlantic, they did so because they were a religious minority in England. They believed that the Church of England was a corrupt body headed by a corrupt monarch. They wanted to "purify" the church by removing the hierarchical control that went from priest to bishop to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the King/Queen of England. This is why they were called "Puritans". And to ensure that this group remained a vast minority in England, the monarchs stated that any heresy (meaning any worship that was not Church of England rite) was punishable by death. This minority had to worship in secret, and they had to move their meeting places around in order to avoid detection. Finally they were able to pool the money needed to flee England in search of religious freedom.

And the Puritans/Pilgrims were not the only religious minority that fled from England for religious freedom. There were also the English Catholics, who lost any chance that Catholicism would be re-established in England with the establishment of the Stuart dynasty. Later, there were the Quakers, who fled to Penn's colony. Scottish Calvinist and Knoxists fled to Virginia. French Protestants fled to South Carolina in the wake of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. These minorities came to the British colonies in the Americas because the monarch didn't care about their heresies being committed over here; it was so much "out of sight, out of mind." And when the colonies achieved their independence 150 years later, they realized that it was because of their ancestors being in the minority, and their ancestors' persecution, that the rights of the religious minorities needed to be protected.

Sure, in 1788 the "Founding Fathers" may not have anticipated Chinese Buddhists or Indian Hindis living within their nation. There were Jews who were here, however. Some of them helped to finance the Revolution, even. And even though though they could have created a nation that respected God as the ultimate authority in this nation without stepping on the toes of any of the colonists, Christians or Jews, they chose not to. And these were people who believed that their belief in a single God separated them from the "savage" native Americans. Yet they protected their rights to be polytheists by not establishing the United States as a monotheist nation "under God".

The ultimate irony in this all is that when Iraq wanted to include language in their constitution that would recognize Islam as the basis of their laws, many Americans bristled at the thought. Many US citizens (rightly) oppose the establishment of Sharia law in Iraq and elsewhere. Yet when it comes to supporting something that clearly proclaims the United States as "one nation, under God," they have no problem dragging out the "but we're a Christian nation," argument; as if that is any different from recognizing Islam as the basis of your nation's laws in your constitution. It's yet another case of US citizens asking the world to do one thing (not establish Islam as the state religion, nor recognize the influence of Islam on the laws of the nation) and doing the opposite (recognizing the US as "one nation, under God").

Michael Newdow isn't just standing up for the rights of atheists to be free of religion in the public sphere. He's also standing up for the rights of Hindis, Buddhists, and believers in a multitude of other religious traditions from making a declaration that they are allied to a flag and a nation under a God in whom they do not believe. Some of us who hold different beliefs do not mind making such a declaration because we don't believe that our dieties will hold these false declarations against us, while others feel that their deities will, and it is for their protection that those two words added in 1954 must be struck down. Otherwise we may as well hang a sign on the nation that reads, "only Christians need apply" and alter the words of Emma Lazarus to read, "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled Christian masses, yearning to breathe free of godlessness."