Larry Craig and David Vitter - "two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity" - have named themselves as co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 43, the Marriage Protection Amendment. If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
Craig, who entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, was detained and charged for attempting to engage in sexual activity with a male undercover police officer. His arrest and plea became public two months later. At that time, Craig attempted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea of not guilty. To date, his efforts have been denied by the courts.
In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, commonly known as The DC Madam.
SAN FRANCISCO — Reagan has his highways. Lincoln has his memorial. Washington has the capital (and a state, too). But President Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom.
From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.
If this qualifies for the November ballot in San Francisco, it will almost certainly pass, and we can all take pride in knowing that our state has provided Bush with a tribute second to none.
I have had enough of the disingenuous right wing gong after Michelle Obama for her statement on America. Obama had stated that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America, and the right wing has taken that statement , twisted it, claimed Obama is not a patriot and worse.
I wonder what they will say about McCain who basically has stated the same thing, over and over and over:
Not that we have heard John McCain admit he was not "in love" with our nation before he became a POW, can we just drop this whole issue? What a waste of time when our nation is undergoing some of the worst problems we have ever faced. Of course if you are a Republican calling attention to the mess you created won't help, thus you have to "create" something for your lemmings to grab hold of and play with while their economic situation becomes worse and worse under the Bush administration.
Shame on the GOP for pushing this issue, it came back to bite you.
Obama is hitting the airwaves, and he hit a home run in my opinion. Here is the new ad that is airing in what used to be considered GOP strongholds:
Where is the aid airing? Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
If you haven't yet sent a donation to Obama, please take a moment to do so now, and it does not matter how much you send, $5, 10, whatever you can will help us to win the White House and save our nation.
There is clear evidence that McCain is not aware that his previous remarks on issues can easily be found on video and posted online for anyone to view. Today's example of McCain's complete lack of honesty with voters has to do with Social Security.
On Friday McCain held a "Town Hall" meeting (which was stacked with GOP activists and a handful of independents and Democrats), in which he was asked about privatizing Social Security. Here is the exchange:
Amherst Democratic activist John Mendolusky engaged McCain in a sharp but respectful exchange over Social Security reform.
"You stated you are in favor of private accounts which really is privatization of Social Security," Mendolusky began.
"Why would you have workers risk their nest eggs on the roulette wheels of Wall Street?"
"I am not for quote 'privatization of Social Security.' I never have been, never will be. That is a great buzzword for an attack," McCain shot back.
Watch for yourself what McCain said on Friday:
McCain doesn't even know his OWN POSITION on Social Security, here is what he has said in the past:
March 3, 2008 (yes, but a FEW months ago), from the WSJ:
On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.
And watch what McCain said in 2004:
Make sure you direct people to this post when they say they are considering voting for John McCain, ask them if we can really afford to elect someone to office who DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THEY STAND ON AN ISSUE AS IMPORTANT AS SOCIAL SECURITY!
We can't afford to elect a man who will continue the policies of Bush for another four years. Do your part, spread the truth about McCain, using his own words to show that he is out of touch with America.
McCain is now claiming that he is different then Bush, however when asked this question on Meet the Press in June of 2005, he states that he agrees with Bush far more then he disagrees. Is this really what America wants? A third Bush term? Watch McCain for yourself, and help our Democratic candidate, Obama, by sending this link far and wide.
Four more years of war? Four more years of the Bush economic policies? Four more years of all the things that are slowly destroying our nation?
Don't get mad, get active! Do all you can to show America that McCain is not independent, he is tied at the hip to Bush.
Yesterday Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. To no surprise, most of the media ignored this act, and some have been misrepresenting the articles as a "resolution." You can read the story here and see the articles here.
Should Bush and Cheney be impeached? YES, there is little doubt that they have broken laws, lied to our nation, to the world, and, well, the list is endless. Will these articles of impeachment get very far? Don't hold your breath, but at some point, maybe not now, but in the future, Bush will be held accountable for his acts against our nation. Stay tuned.
McCAIN: Anyone who knows the facts on the ground say that.
Q: If it's working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
McCAIN: No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine.
It doesn't matter if our troops don't come home? Yes, we have troops in Germany, Japan and other nations, however our soldiers are able to move freely about in those nations. In Iraq our troops are targets, they are blown up, they are attacked, and even one death is too many. Are we in Iraq forever? Shouldn't that matter? McCain doesn't think it matters how long our troops are in Iraq. I think it matters, and I would wager that a majority of Americans also think it matters.
And of course we continue to hear how McCain isn't running for a third Bush term, yet there are those pesky little things like "facts" that get in the way of McCain trying to make himself appear as something he is not. Watch this GREAT MoveOn video to see the truth:
Tell me, please, how McCain is different in any way from Bush. He isn't, and we need to make sure America knows it as well.
Ok, I just had to post (and comment) on a press conference held Friday by three of the four losers in San Jose City Council District 2. I wanted to link to the article, however the Mercury does not seem to have updated their "Internal Affairs" column, so here is the story, in full:
Defeat is hard, but worse if victor didn't even try
Losing hurts. But sometimes, you just have to move on and vow to do better next time. Otherwise, you run the risk of looking silly.
Three losing candidates for the San Jose City Council District 2 seat called a hastily prepared press conference last week (at 11:55 a.m.) in front of City Hall.
The team of would-be-power brokers - Ted Scarlett, Ram Singh and Bui Thang - wanted to speak out about what they called an "unfair" election. The word "conspiracy" was even tossed out a few times.
The gist? Scarlett, Singh and Thang, but mostly Scarlett, believe last week's election was "tainted" and that voters were "misled."
Scarlett claims that since Jacquelyn Adams' name stayed on the ballot, even though she had dropped out of the race, the election results should be tossed.
"I want the election declared void," he said, "for the fairness to the voters, in an attempt to try and restore faith in our election process."
Ash Kalra came in first, and Adams - who didn't drop out in time for her name to be removed from the ballot - came in second, barely ahead of Singh. Adams later put out a release saying she'd voted for Kalra and has no plans to get back into the race.
Scarlett, who placed fourth, plans to take his case to the city's elections commission and anyone else who will listen. "This is just another sad chapter in the history of the city of San Jose," he said.
Why don't we take a look at the vote total (as of Friday, June 6)
Kalra has 4,667 votes, Adams has 2,066, together giving them 6,733 votes. Given that both Kalra and Adams are Dems, and that it is a safe bet that most, if not all of those who voted for Adams would vote for Kalra, we can safely guess that had Adams NOT been on the ballot Kalra would have received the 50 plus 1 percent he needed to avoid a runoff. (Adams, as the article cites, voted for Kalra).
Singh, Scarlett, Rice-Sanchez and Thang TOGETHER pulled 4,314 votes, not even enough to beat Kalra's total. Singh, Scarlett and Rice-Sanchez are Reps who don't seem to understand how to win elections, nor do they have any support from District 2 residents. Kalra has the support of every community leader, neighborhood group and organization in D2. Singh boasts the support of one vocal person who shall remain nameless. Scarlett has no endorsements, and Rice-Sanchez has a few supporters who went to high school with him (he graduated four years ago).
If anything, Kalra was the one most hurt by Adams remaining on the ballot, as he would have most likely garnered the 50 plus one needed to avoid a runoff in November.
Once again our local Reps look like fools and have no clue about fiscal responsibility. If we were to throw out the election from last Tuesday and hold a "special" election without Adams' name on the ballot, the city would have to fork up over $100,000. The results would ultimately be the same, Kalra would come in first, with the Reps lagging far behind.
Advice to Scarlett: What is sad is how little support you drew in this election, and a do over isn't going to change the fact that you will still lose.
Now that our primary is over, I thought it might be fun to go over some of the local races and take a look at why our Democrats fare so well in elections. First of all we are very lucky as Democrats to have such great candidates, and as the results of the primary show, the voters know how wonderful our office seekers are as well.
In San Jose we had three contested city council races, districts 2, 8 and 10. In district two there were five active candidates and one person who was still on the ballot but had suspended her campaign. Out of the five active candidates, only one was a Democrat, Ash Kalra, and he placed first with 40 percent of the vote. Now comes the interesting part : )
Second place went to.......... Jackie Adams (though barely as of this post she is ahead by 12 votes), another good Democrat. What is interesting here is that Jackie suspended her campaign for personal reasons, and did nothing by way of campaigning, not one thing, yet she ended up in second place, ahead of every Rep who was running. One of the Reps, Ram Singh, actively campaigned, but in his case no amount of campaigning was going to change the fact that he was one of the worse candidates ever to run for office (the very worst being Hon Lien).
Ram Singh, while informed on water issues, had little to no knowledge of any other city issues, procedures or pressing problems. Rumor has it that when Singh was asked about a current land deal in which Lew Wolff would build a soccer stadium in exchange for San Jose rezoning industrial land in Edenvale to housing, Singh reportedly had no knowledge of this issue. Hint to Singh: Read the Mercury once in a while.
According to the San Jose City Attorney, if Jackie Adams remains in second place her name must be on the ballot in November, which means that Kalra will most likely be our D2 city council person! Good job Ash, you worked hard, the voters love you, the Mercury endorsed you and we are looking forward to your leadership on the San Jose City Council.
District 8 is a bit more complicated, however once again Dems rule the results. There were two strong Dems in this race, Craig Mann and Rose Herrera. Mann was our endorsed candidate and he came in third. Rose Herrera came in first, and Pat Waite, a Rep, came in second after spending $60,000 of his own money.
Given that the runoff will be in November, and given that the combined vote total for Mann and Herrera are well above Waite's numbers, I expect to see yet another good Dem elected to San Jose's City Council.
Who is Pat Waite? Well he has been involved in many local organizations, mostly religious, not one city commission, no other elected office, no experience in working with city government, basically someone with a whole lot of money and time looking for a way to inject their agenda in San Jose.
I realize that I didn't touch the Supervisor races, and will take a look at those in a future post, but the bottom line there is that we have runoffs that feature ALL Dems! Not one of the Reps running was able to muster enough votes to even get into the runoff.
I find it hard to believe that McBush somehow hasn't figured out that people will check what he says. Today there are three good examples of just how out of touch McBush is, all presented for your viewing pleasure.
Ooopsssss, seems he didn't read the news today from Iraq:
today AP reported, ''Another suicide bomber driving a police vehicle struck Iraqi commandos earlier Thursday in Mosul, killing three of them and wounding nine other people, according to battalion commander Capt. Aziz Latif.''
''Sen. Obama has been to Iraq once -- a little over two years ago he went and he has never seized the opportunity except in a hearing to meet with Gen. [David] Petraeus,'' McCain said at a campaign event in Reno, Nevada. ''My friends, this is about leadership and learning.''
In his new book, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan charges that the Bush administration manipulated information in a ''propaganda'' campaign before the Iraq war, making the faulty claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Asked about the book today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended the administration’s actions in the run-up to the war, suggesting there was no manipulation involved.
McBush seems to not be experienced enough to know what is going on the world, whether it be the past or present. Make sure to save these tidbits with your friends, make sure that Americans know exactly who McBush is, we can't afford another four years of the nightmare we have lived for the last eight.
There are a number of stories "breaking" today, including a tell all book by Scott McClellan, a McBush adviser being caught lobbying Congress on behalf of financial corporations, and a new poll on gay marriage in CA. Get ready, get set, GO (to the story of your choice):
And I recommend TalkLeft as a good blog to read covering the Clinton campaign from a rational perspective, particularly this post.
And I linked to a great post by Erica Barnett that cites dozens of examples of media misogyny in this post on my personal blog.
Finally, Morra Aarons-Mele over at BlogHer has written a couple of great posts lately about how everyone seems much freer to talk about sexism now that they've counted Hillary out and about how some Obama supporters are making the strategic error of being so vicious they are turning off not only Hillary supporters, but those that aren't as rabidly pro-Obama as they are. In my digerati-laden world I can tell you this last one is true. In the rarified halls of twitter, for example, Obama supporters who are normally rational geeks are behaving like schoolyard bullies.
If/When Clinton loses it will be by a slim margin and after having accomplished some pretty amazing vote tallies in some pretty important states.
I have to agree with the folks who are very worried about the Obama camp under-valuing that and underestimating the passion of Clinton supporters. Everyone talks about the risk of alienating Obama voters should the nomination somehow manage to land in Clinton's lap.
We should also be talking about the risk of alienating Clinton voters should anyone act too dismissive of what she and her supporters accomplished.
I truly believe that most Democrats who turned out for the primaries will, in the end, turn out in the general election and stay Democratic. Especially once they get to know McCain a little better, and as more than that old guy with a sense of humor who goes on the Daily Show.
But why risk it? Eyes on the prize, people. As Hillary says in her Op-ed:
But no matter what happens in this primary, I am committed to unifying this party. Ultimately, what Sen. Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences. And I know that if we come together, as a party and a people, there is no challenge we cannot meet, no barrier we cannot break and no dream we cannot realize.
Can't believe I forgot to post this here last week.
Starting 9 months ago my company, BlogHer, worked with our community of thousands of (mostly) women bloggers to develop a series of non-partisan, policy questions that wanted every presidential candidate to answer if they wanted to earn our votes. We called it the BlogHer Voter Manifesto.
And for 6 months, none of them bit.
We were offering to give them the questions in advance, hell they're public on our web site. We were offering to send a BlogHer rep from their own side of the aisle to do the interview and ask the questions. We were offering to show up wherever and whenever the candidates preferred.
Not a bite.
Some of them offered spouses. Or asked us to promote their online site sections for women. We got a little discouraged, but we asked our community...well, would that be enough. Should we stop there. The community overwhelmingly said "wouldn't mind hearing from spouses, but we definitely do NOT want you to stop badgering the candidates to answer our questions."
So, we didn't. we kept reminding the ever-dwindling number of candidates that our community now reaches over 9 million unique visitors a month. That's a lot. By anyone's measure.
Power to the people! It was bloggers of every ideological stripe, and most of them NOT political bloggers and political junkies, who helped shape these questions.
Some have said the questions are too simple, not visionary enough. But I think it's a pretty clear indication that regular people just want to know what the candidates are going to DO about what they say they believe in,
We hope McCain and Clinton will soon follow.
In the meantime we also did get an exclusive audio itnerview with McCain campaign chair (and former HP CEO) Carly Fiorina, which you can listen to here.
The other day Bush addressed the Israeli parliament and stated, ""that negotiating with 'terrorists and radicals' such as Iran was 'the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'" This remark was clearly aimed at Obama, and of course John McBush jumped right on the bandwagon and repeated this inflammatory remark.
First, let us define appeasement, "giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war." Appeasement is NOT entering into discussions with nations or their leaders. It appears that the far right does not understand the definition of appeasement, nor do they even keep tabs on what their own GOP White House is doing.
Let us hear from James A. Baker, a former Secretary of State to the first Bush:
Then, why not hear how the right defends their pathetic position (and proves the point that they know nothing of what they talk, they merely repeat talking points):
The bottom line is that the GOP has little to offer this country except for empty words and actions that benefit the wealthy as well as destroy our nation's reputation throughout the world. The best they offer us in November is more of the same, McBush, and if you have any doubt, watch this video and cringe:
Yes, one can be both a Democrat and a Catholic, though there are some people who would like to deem anyone who is a Catholic Democrat a "Nazi." Yes, there are some Catholics who seem to think that the Democratic party is the party of death. Funny thing is that most of these "comments" from Catholics are in response to ..... a MASS that is being held this Saturday in San Jose, at St. Joseph's Cathedral, 80 South Market, 7:15 a.m. You can also read about Catholic Democrats at: CatholicDemocrats.org.
This mass is sponsored by the California Catholic Democrats - by sponsored I refer to organizing the mass, getting the church, asking Father Jon Pedigo to celebrate the mass, handing out flyers and taking care of the details involved with holding a mass.
A website called "California Catholic Daily" has posted a story about the mass, and while the story itself is not too extreme, the comments are unbelievable. Remember, the comments I am reposting here are posted to this "Catholic" website. These people call themselves Christians, though there is little Christianity in their comments:
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 6:52 AM By sfcatholic
Who is surprised here. Those in the Church have serious ties to the Nazi (oops I mean Demoncratic ) party. Yes, it is wrong, but we have seen little in any kind of "oversite" from Church leadership and we Catholics are "on our own". It is disgusting.
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 7:44 AM By William C. Meredith
This is a political rally in support of an agenda against the teaching of the Church and should NOT be allowed by the Bishop in the Cathedral, or any parish church.
Let me just state what this mass is not sponsored by the bishop. The mass offered at the request of Catholic members of the Democratic Party. The decision to offer the mass was a pastoral response to a request to have a mass preceding the conference. The mass is not an endorsement of any kind; it is merely a mass for Catholics who are attending the Democratic Convention.
Now, back to these "Christian" comments:
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 8:30 AM By Laurette Elsberry
A special Mass for the Party of Death! Given the far left social agenda of the "peace and justice" faction of Catholic clergy, this is not surprising. Also considering that no Democrat can be elected to a legislative position UNLESS he or she espouses abortion, a Mass for pro-abort politicians in a Cathedral is not unusual. It happens in Sacramento quite often.
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 1:37 PM By Carlos M
They ought to call themselves the Demon-crats! They are certainly following satan's way!
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 3:22 PM By Elizabeth
These people are not 'REAL CATHOLICS'. I don't mean to be unacharitable....... But, if I were the Holy Father they would be EX-COMMUNICATED in a NEW YORK MINUTE!!!!! End of STORY.............
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008 7:35 PM By Miguel
What a crock! The Dems are so shameless they will use the illusion of their christianity to get elected to continue the murderess attack on children in the womb! They hide their real agenda and the press never calls them out. It has to be satan's grand design. There is no other logical explanation.
Once again, yes, you can be a Catholic Democrat. I am, and I know there are many, many more of us out there.
All eyes are on the Presidential primaries, but this year also is shaping up as a good one for Democrats to solidify majorities in the House and Senate. We'll talk more about the House later, but I wanted to pass along the latest exciting news in the Senate. The first good news is that Democrats only have to defend 12 seats, while Republicans have 21 seats up for grabs.
One of the Republican seats is in Virginia, where Democrat Mark Warner is very popular and is almost certain to turn Virginia further blue. The Governor and one Senator are already Democrats in that changing state. Two more open seats, in New Mexico and Colorado, are leaning towards the Democrats, with cousins and current Congressmen Tom (NM) and Mark (Col) Udall leading the way.
Incumbent Republicans in New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Oregon are all facing serious challengers, with John Sununu of NH trailing heavily behind former Governor Jeanne Shaheen. In Minnesota, the path is cleared for Al Franken to win the nomination to face Norm Coleman. And in Oregon, Gordon Smith is facing a serious challenge from state House Speaker Jeff Merkley.
Already, that list would mark 6 Democratic pick-ups. Other states, including Alaska, where Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has announced his intention to run against corrupt GOP dinosaur Ted Stevens, are also going to be in play. Senator John Cornyn of Texas is even facing low ratings in opinion polls.
The best news of all is how Republicans have failed to find candidates to run against Democrats in South Dakota and Arkansas. That frees up Democratic resources to focus on the states mentioned above. The only Democratic seat in danger at this point is in Louisiana, where Mary Landrieu has squeaked by twice before.
All in all, 2008 is shaping up to be a monumental year for Democrats in the Senate. To follow these races and more, go to dscc.org/races.
The year was 2004. My daughter was just a few months old and, since her birth, I had been on fulltime caregiving duty as a stay-at-home dad. Months of little sleep, hours of isolation in the nursery and too much time in front of the television watching DNA testing on "Maury" had taken its toll.
Knowing of my interest in Democratic politics, a friend sent me a note asking me to attend a kickoff for the 2004 "Call to Action" sponsored by the Santa Clara County Democratic Party. My partner, Jim - supportive of my need for greater adult interaction - offered to watch our baby so I could attend this grassroots, community-organizing event designed to ensure a Democratic victory in the November election.
Quietly strolling into the room packed with grassroots Democratic activists, I felt right at home with these like-minded Democrats who shared my passions for good government and reasonable public policy that would improve the quality of life for working families. Almost instantly, I knew that attending this community-wide"Call to Action" was, in fact, a personal call to action that was likely leading me to a brand new world.
Within a few short months, inspired by my new friends with the local Democratic Party, I founded a new Democratic club - the Silicon Valley LGBT Democratic Club. Later that year, with my infant daughter in tow, I organized a weekend bus trip of 80 gays and lesbians traveling to Reno, Nevada to help Senator John Kerry's efforts in this nearby battleground state. Despite the 2004 loss that had driven my interest in local Democratic politics, I was now a valued part of the local Democratic coalition.
In 2004, little did I know that attending that first "Call to Action" would later lead to being chosen for the 2006 Madge Overhouse "Volunteer of the Year" Award, to be elected one of the leaders of the LGBT Caucus of the California Democratic Party or even to my own 2006 bid for elected public office.
On Saturday morning, I attended the first 2008 "Call to Action" and was once again inspired by the boundless energy of so many fellow Democrats determined to win back the White House. No longer a stranger as I was now among so many friends, I couldn't help but wonder what new faces in the crowd might be one of our newest Democratic leaders or a future candidate for public office.
As I know so well, the collective "Call to Action" can also be a personal call to action that will forever change your life. I urge you to attend a future meeting of the 2008 "Call to Action" and join me and so many of your Democratic neighbors in working collectively to take back the White House!
People are just a bit too squeamish about "negative" campaigning and "attack" ads for my taste Seriously, I think everyone needs to get a grip.
I forget now if it was on Twitter, or on BlogHer, or on someone's own blog, but I recently saw a discussion where someone was incensed over what she perceived to be Hillary Clinton's negative campaigning.
And we all know there are lots of discussions going on about how Hillary should drop out because it will just perpetuate all of this fighting between the Democrats instead of focusing on the real issue of beating John McCain.
I myself have been extremely annoyed by the rather arrogant and, I think, subtly sexist tone Obama is taking every chance he gets.
But when I think more about it I really have to say: we all need to check our overreactions at the door and ask ourselves: Exactly what horrible, terrible, vicious attacking are we talking about?
That "phone call at 3AM" Hillary ad that has some people so steamed? Harmless. Doesn't say a word about her opponent. Harps on her experience as she's been doing for months and months.
Obama's comments about Hillary getting "desperate" and lashing out when she's "feeling down". Ok, I agree with Jon Stewart, seems like he'd be a dickish boyfriend, but this is an old political put-down...think Ronald Reagan and "There You Go Again."
Both of them having their staffs get worked up in a lather over comments from various opposing campaign workers and supporters? Getting campaign workers and supporters to step down, resign, back off, apologize?
I don't know. They're both doing it. And none of it, frankly, seems incredibly awful.
It's OK for Hillary to question Obama's experience, and for her to imply that he's all hat, no cattle. All inspiration, no perspiration. Even if you think it sounds a bit patronizing. Yes, I do think she'd be taking the same tack with anyone else who was 15 years her junior and had a similar resume.
It's OK for Obama to question Hillary's electability, "establishment" position and reputation as a polarizing figure. Even if you think he's basically spouting Republican talking points. He'd be talking about change no matter who he was running against.
I actually do not buy the media talking point that this race has been or is getting ever-more nasty. It actually hasn't...at least as far as I've paid attention. And for all you political junkies out there who are obsessed with every single detail of this race: I may pay less attention than you do, but I pay closer attention than about 99% of the electorate. So I'm betting that if I haven't noticed any actual egregious nastiness, then most other voters haven't either.
We don't need to perpetuate this Republican and Mainstream Media talking point that having Obama and Hillary continue to run is bad for the Democrats. I don't buy it.
We do need to stop expecting this to be a tea party and let the candidates make their damn case.
So, let me have it. What are the examples of campaigning that you think are incredibly nasty? Educate me.
First of all, no that was not a typo in the title. From now on, or at least until the Repug Party can learn to say "Democratic," I will resort to calling them "Repug(s)," short for repugnant, which is what their party has become.
Repugs want you to hear what they say and ignore their deeds. For instance, Repugs are always talking about "fiscal responsibility" and how they are just so much better stewards of "our" tax payer money. Really? The facts show otherwise.
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of thousands of dollars are missing and presumed stolen from the chief fund-raising arm of House Republicans, according to party officials who described the findings of emergency internal audits.
The financial records of the group, the National Republican Congressional Committee, may also have been falsified for several years, Republican officials said. The campaign committees of several Republican lawmakers may also have been victims of a scam that is now under criminal investigation by the F.B.I.
The audits were ordered after the abrupt departure several weeks ago of Christopher J. Ward, who had been treasurer of the committee. Lawmakers said that Mr. Ward, who served a similar role for dozens of individual members of Congress and their political committees, is the focus of the F.B.I.’s criminal investigation.
The Repugs can't even keep track of their own money, let alone ours. When given the opportunity to steal, they steal, when given the opportunity to lie, they lie, and when given the opportunity to lead they fail.
So, here we have the National Repugs not being able to manage money, and locally? Well, CA Repugs are bankrupt (morally as well as financially):
The current balance sheet shows that the California Republican Party is operating in the red - with $3.2 million in cash and $3.4 million in unpaid bills. The party's federal accounts, which are used for congressional campaigns, list $460,000 in debts.
What was an 8.5% gap in registration in the last general election is now a 10 point gap, with Democrats holding a 43% to 33% advantage. On top of that, Democrats are turning out at the polls like never before in recent memory, excited about electing a Democrat to the White House. And the growing independent (or Decline-to State) voters in California side with Democrats on key issues. Polls from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and the California Field Poll show this—and there is the potential for a Democratic blowout in November.
We have eight months until our nation goes to the polls and elects a new President and congress. With McBush as their candidate, the Repug party is going to have a hard time convincing the voters that eight more years of their leadership is good for our nation (checked the stock market lately? The other day Bush didn't even know that gas was headed towards $4 a gallon).
Don't get mad, get even, get involved with our local Democratic Party, join us on Saturday at our "Call to Action," learn what you can do locally to take our nation back from the failure of the Repug Party.
If you have not yet heard the story of former Alabama Governor Don Siegleman, then please watch the 60 minute story that aired recently:
Governor Siegelman is a political prisoner, he was prosecuted not for criminal reasons, but for political reasons, and the national GOP is involved with this miscarriage of justice.
If you so desire, you can send Governor Siegelman a letter of support, let him know that as Americans we will fight for his freedom and seek to bring to justice those who would so abuse their power that they would make a mockery of our judicial system.
Don Siegelman
24775-001
FPC PO Box 5010
Oakdale, LA 71463
We cannot afford another four years of GOP corruption, and it is with your help that we will take back the White House in 2008, for Governor Siegelman, for all Americans who care about the rule of law over politics.
I'm honestly loathe to say too much this morning as I learn this news, because I try to keep a civil tongue in my head.
What I will say is that Nader continues his arrogance of thinking he knows what the American people want and need, despite there being little sign that what they want or need has anything to do with him.
The Republicans like to think Hillary and Obama's neck and neck race to the nomination means the Democratic Party is split. I hope they keep thinking that, because it will lead them down an errant path. The truth is, I think, that the Democratic Party hasn't had two such strong and inspiring candidates to choose between in a long time, and we're excited about it. The vast majority of each candidate's supporters will end up supporting the other if their person doesn't make it. Every poll says so.
Nowhere do they say that we've all been missing the presence of Ralph Nader in the race. I'm sure the Republicans are thrilled, but they should remember this little stat:
Though he won 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate in 2000, his percentage dropped to just 0.3 percent as an independent in 2004, when he appeared on the ballot in only 34 states.
I'm not too worried. In fact, I feel a little sorry for Ralph.
We have all heard the talking heads discuss who is the front runner, who is gaining, who is losing support. We have heard these same talking heads go on about how much of a problem Democrats will face if we don't have a nominee right away. Well, the real story is something beyond what the talking heads are bringing up, and it gives us all something to think about, and it does not bode well for the Gopers.
Let us take a moment and look at the number of voters who are turning out to vote in 2008. For instance, in Santa Clara County:
Completed Precincts 929 of 929
Total Registration 689,052
Percent
Votes
Vote by Mail Reporting Turnout
40.61%
279,813
Precinct Reporting Turnout
21.63%
149,047
62.24%
428,860
So, we had 62 percent of voters turn out. Now, let us take a closer look and see who those voters were:
Democratic Registration & Turnout
Completed Precincts 929 of 929
Percent
Votes
Vote by Mail Reporting Turnout
62.06%
163,358
Precinct Reporting Turnout
37.94%
99,849
Republican Registration & Turnout
Completed Precincts 929 of 929
Percent
Votes
Vote by Mail Reporting Turnout
67.66%
80,196
Precinct Reporting Turnout
32.34%
38,330
Non Partisan Registration & Turnout
Completed Precincts 929 of 929
Percent
Votes
Vote by Mail Reporting Turnout
79.86%
28,587
Precinct Reporting Turnout
20.14%
7,208
Democrats had a total of 263,201 voters turn out, and the local GOP? A grand total of 118,526. 100,000 more Democratic votes in our county, actually the Democratic turnout was more then DOUBLE the number of GOP voters.
And this disparity is not unique to our county, these types of numbers are being seen all over our nation, Democratic turnout beating the GOP turnout out by record numbers, even in the "red" states.
The people of our nation are waking up to the reality of a failed presidency, of a failed party, and they are coming home to support Democrats in 2008. We still have work to do, we still have a hard and long campaign ahead of us, but as the numbers show, it is clearly within our grasp to win back the White House this year, and even gain seats in both houses of Congress.
As Democrats we must not lose sight of our goals, we should remember that we are stronger when we work together, and to win the White House we will need to come together after this primary is over. While I support Obama, if Hillary wins the nomination I will be there in full force to support her and my party and country.
It is an honor to be a Democrat this year, as we create history in so many ways. Obama, the first African American to have a real chance to become president, Hillary, the first woman to be a viable candidate for president. I can't ever remember a year when being a Democrat was so filled with awe, with respect, with amazement and excitement.
*The following statement is offensive, and please be aware that the writer of this post is repeating this as a means to expose the person who made this statement.
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."
So, who do you think made this statement? As a bit of background, this statement was made at a GOP fund raising dinner in 1998, this was not an spur of the moment joke, it was presented as part of a prepared speech.
Who, who would be so rude, so vile, so absolutely without any concern for the feelings of a child, who would this person be? If you guess Rush Limbaugh, you are wrong. And no, it wasn't Hannity. No, it wasn't any of the right wing talking heads, nope.
In 1998 Chelsea Clinton was 18 years old, a young adult who had endured horrific, vile attacks from the far right before, but this, this is different. The person who uttered these words wants Americans to trust him to be president, he wants people to elect him based on his ability to make decisions. If there is ANY example of why this man has no ability to make good decisions, let this be the prime example.
McCain read this statement from a prepared speech, he knew the joke was in there, he thought it was perfectly fine, funny even, to make this statement. McCain had the opportunity to remove this statement, to show that he did have good judgment, but instead he choose to utter those absolutely vile words.
Chelsea Clinton is a beautiful young woman, she is smart, vivacious, she is self assured, a great communicator (like her father and mother), and she is a shinning example to all of the young adults in our nation.
If you haven't already guessed, I am outraged beyond words. And I can tell you this, I will do all I can to make sure that our Democratic nominee becomes the next President of the United States.
In California, registered domestic partners have now been granted greater equal rights including the responsibility to file joint state tax returns. However, since the federal government still offers no legal recognition of gay and lesbian families (including my own family that includes my longtime partner and our 4-year old daughter), completing this joint state return has put many California families in a tax quandry.
Nonetheless, we're doing everything we can to comply with the new state law. As I can't wait to get my hands on our expected tax rebate, I dutifully completed our tax returns as TurboTax recommends: - complete and file the individual federal returns and then create a faux married federal return for the sole purpose of completing the state tax return.
After spending hours in completing a "married" federal return that I had no intention of filing, I was shocked to learn that my family was being severely penalized by the federal tax code. You see, if we were allowed to file a federal return as a legally married couple, we would be paying $7,000 LESS in federal taxes. That's right - we're being penalized $7,000 by the federal government even though the state of California has affirmed our family status as registered domestic partners.
I always assumed that LGBT American families were paying more in taxes than legally married people but I had no idea that the penalties were so great. Clearly, LGBT families are being punished by the federal tax code. All Americans who believe in tax fairness ought to be aware of this violation of the 14th amendment and join with the Democratic Party in fighting for equal rights for all Americans.
The Democratic nomination process is, well, complicated. First of all we are not really voting for a candidate on Tuesday, rather we are electing delegates to go to the convention to vote for the candidate we have asked them to vote for. Now, these "delegates" are awarded based on percentages of the vote and the number of delegates alloted for the district these delegates are in. Got it? Clear as mud ; )
To complicate things further there are super delegates which are not "elected" in the primary, they are elected officials and members of the DNC (which are also elected by party members.)
What this all means....is, well, we could see our nomination go until the convention, something I have never seen in my lifetime. Basically there would have to be wheeling and dealing for one candidate to garner enough votes to become our nominee. And you thought politics were boring?
Here is a link that will explain the process much better then I did.
Another interesting article from MSNBC makes a rather interesting point, for the first time in the history of our nation two sitting senators will be running against each other:
More astonishing and profound is this: It is likely two members of Congress will be running against each other for president – the first time this has happened in the history of the United State. (According to my colleagues at the Newsweek Library, we’ve had many senators as nominees, but never two simultaneously, and no members of the House at all.)
I can't wait for tomorrow, if you are a political junkie like I am, then this something that comes but once in a lifetime. So, hang onto your hats and tune in for what is sure to be one hell of a night tomorrow.
