Offshore Drilling Is NOT a Quick Fix

Don't believe me? Even Cramer knows it.

"Right now there are no available rigs until 2012, particularly deepwater rigs. There just aren't any."

The reason for the backlog on drilling rigs is because there's been huge demand by Brazil, West Africa and Southeast Asia. Why is Brazil is so consumed with drilling for oil? After all, don't ethanol proponents point to them as being the shiny beacon of oil-free supplier of automotive fuel? Brazil isn't stupid. Oil's been over a $100/barrel for several months now. They're just looking to cash in.

A funny thing that seems to be overlooked is that we're still drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off of Texas and Louisiana. "Later this month, the U.S. government is offering for lease, as part of a regularly scheduled sale, 18 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that are open for oil and natural gas drilling. The tracts could potentially yield as much as 400 million barrels of oil. The lease auction is just one example of how much oil exploration is currently occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. But the sale also reveals the limits of new drilling, as 400 million barrels is barely enough to meet the nation's oil needs for 19 days (Source)." And it's far from being a stagnant enterprise.

"Today, the Gulf of Mexico, which produces more than a quarter of the country's domestic crude oil, is actually in the midst of a resurgence. New technology is allowing companies to push farther into deeper water, and oil production there is up.

A bidding war for rights to millions of acres in the Gulf is quietly building. In 2007, the number of leases issued to oil companies there jumped by about 25 percent, and the average bid price for a single tract has soared this year by 50 percent to nearly $6 million, according to GOMExplorer, which gathers data on the Gulf's oil and gas industry."

Surely, a compromise is in the works, though it's not like this Congress has been idle.

"In 2006, for example, Congress opened up several million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for new leasing and drilling, of which a large portion had been previously off-limits. Because of the necessary planning work, many of these tracts won't come up for bidding until next year. (And even if these tracts receive bids, and an oil company chooses to develop them, it usually takes about seven to ten years for oil to start flowing, according the Energy Information Administration.)"

Source.

In fact, a bipartisan group of ten senators has offered a plan that allows drilling in the eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean off of Georgia, Virginia and the Carolinas (source). In this proposal, state legislatures would have final say. Meanwhile, tourism dependent Florida has been buying up oil leases off its shores.

It might all be moot however. There's only an estimated 3.8 billion barrels predicted to be found along the eastern seaboard. California is suspected of having 10 billion. As of 2006, the US consumed an average 20.5 million barrels of oil per day. Put them together and that's roughly 2 years worth of oil. If combined with current domestic production, that could possibly make us energy independent for 4 years. Not exactly something to bank on.

As I mentioned earlier, a compromise is sure to happen and the Republicans will be there to cash in on it. They're having a field day with accusing Democrats of doing nothing while America suffers. And now that talk has arisen of a compromise, Republicans will make use of this election cycle to accuse Democrats of flip-flopping. Oh yes, it's already happened!

But first, a little background. My congressman is Chris Murphy. He won election in 2006, defeating Nancy Johnson, a long time moderate Republican, who went too negative with her campaign ads and was a bit too cozy with the more insidious members of her party. Anyway, Republicans want the seat back. Anyway, the Republican Party wants the seat back. They've drafted another moderate, and popular, state senator, David Cappiello. But they've transformed him from someone I respected into another mouthpiece for partisan politics.

"It has become clear that without a compromise on some increased, sensible offshore drilling, we will not be able to move forward on ideas that will make us truly energy independent," Murphy said. "We have to work together to negotiate a common-sense solution to help consumers, who can't afford the bickering."

He added expanded offshore drilling won't solve the energy crisis, but the issue shouldn't bar Congress from passing energy legislation.

State Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury, who is challenging Murphy for the 5th District congressional seat, issued his own press statement Thursday, calling out the congressman for flip flopping on the issue.

"Murphy's election-year conversion on offshore drilling is a day late, a dollar short, and totally disingenuous," Cappiello said. "His latest flip flop proves he cannot be trusted to address America's energy crisis unless he is dragged kicking and screaming to do so."

Democrats need to explain that compromise isn't flip-flopping and it's essential in getting things done. The "you're with us or against us" mentality of the last 8 years hasn't accomplished anything other than alienating allies and dividing the country. But they'll say anything to get elected now, won't they.

\_/
DED

The Politics of Offshore Drilling

This clip from The Daily Show sums it up.



\_/
DED

Behind the Surge

No doubt that you've heard that "the surge is working." And you'll be sure to hear it for the rest of this presidential campaign. Yes, violence is down, though it hasn't been eradicated by any stretch of the imagination. Daily attacks during the past two months have averaged about 25 to 30, down from about 160 to 170 a little more than a year ago. In Baghdad's West Rasheed area murders fell from 553 in January 2007 to 20 in January 2008. IED attacks fell from 178 in February 2007 to 5 in February 2008 (source). A glance at this chart shows that US troop deaths in Iraq have been trending downward. 510 Iraqis were killed in July, including civilians and security force members, a 75% drop from the 2,021 deaths recorded by the same method in July 2007 (source).

While the increase in troop levels may have played a role in bringing about a less violent Iraq, there's more going on here than meets the eye. If merely throwing more troops at a war zone were enough to achieve victory, then wouldn't the Vietnam War have been won?

Here's what I believe is responsible for the decrease in violence:

1. The Iraqi army has stepped up.


2. The Sunni's are accepting their new role in Iraq.


3. General Petraeus has focused on winning "hearts and minds" having realized that "we cannot kill our way out of this endeavor."


4. A treasure trove of al Qaeda documents were seized (read on).

Al Qaeda has been likened to a peer-to-peer network, a mutant supply chain, and a franchise. As such, somewhere along the way it ceased being one of these nimble forms (at least the branch in Iraq). It became a bureaucracy. Yes, the world's foremost terrorist organization is more like your local branch of the DMV. While this is no less a scary beast to face, it ceases being a swift slasher and is instead a lumbering thug.

Late last year, several hundred al Qaeda documents were captured in Iraq. They turned out to be personnel files. It seems that if you wanted to martyr yourself you had to fill out the requisite paperwork.

The personnel records are unusually formal, typed on letterhead that reads "Islamic State of Iraq," one of the aliases for al Qaeda in Iraq.

Foreign fighters were asked to provide basic biographical details, such as birth date, address, and telephone number, as well as questions aimed at double-checking who referred them to the organization. One Algerian fighter named Aydir describes three coordinators he met in Syria before he was smuggled into Iraq. The first was "tall and strong," the second was "tall and hunchbacked," and the other was "tan and weak."

Part of it is simply about logistics. "When you're moving people across international borders, you want to make sure you're keeping track of them," says Hoffman. "But it is also part of a hubris that this is more of an organization than it actually is and to impress the recruits in this martyrdom pipeline that they really are part of something bigger than they are."

There is also an aspect of quality control. One question asks recruits: "How did the coordinator treat you in Syria?" Most of the fighters replied, "Well." One even enthuses, "Very excellent." But a few complain of being locked up in an apartment in Syria. One Saudi who arrived in Syria with $1,000 writes, "Not good. Loua'aie took all the money and we are not happy and [he] give us back $200."

For Al Qaeda in Iraq, which relies on a loose network of operatives in Syria to help funnel fighters into Iraq, the forms allow leaders to monitor the reliability of their network. "You have the leadership who may be highly committed, but when you get to the handlers, it may be more criminal networks," says Lt. Col. Joseph Felter, who runs the Combating Terrorism Center. "They might be putting in some safeguards to try to identify those individuals who are less ideologically committed down the chain."

I don't know how many of these would-be martyrs were captured before they killed themselves. But if our military has the names of the recruiters, then capturing these guys severely cuts into the supply chain. Maybe that's why the number of women suicide bombers has increased.

I wish that these developments had occurred the first year we were in Iraq. We could've been spared 4,000 deaths, our military's readiness, and hundreds of billions of dollars. The Iraqi's could've been spared untold tens of thousands of deaths, the destruction of homes, towns, and their healthcare infrastructure. Then again, maybe we would've just invaded Iran that much sooner.

Withdrawal certainly won't happen now, even if the Iraqi's tell us to leave. The decrease in violence only strengthens his position. We all know that W intended to keep us in Iraq no matter what, in order to push the neocon fantasy of a American Oil Company Empire under the guise of a democratic Middle East. "Oh sweet Osama! You have provided us with the opportunity of a lifetime!"

Congress has abdicated its Constitutional authority so they're no help. The question is, are the American people tired of this vision of perpetual war for the sake of fattening up no bid contract corporations that lap at the trough of tax dollars or are they so addicted to oil that they'll believe every OPEC member had a hand in 9/11 and every square mile of this country needs to be drilled for the black gold that keeps their Escalade, Expedition, Yukon, Tahoe and Hummer singing along in materialistic bliss? I guess we'll find out in about 3 months.

\_/
DED

Chuck Hagel on The Daily Show

Chuck Hagel, another Vietnam Veteran serving in the Senate as a Republican, was on The Daily Show Monday night to promote his new book, America: Our Next Chapter.



It's a shame that Senator Hagel has opted not to run for re-election. While Democrats may be chomping at the bit to get his seat, there's no guarantee that they'll get it. Senator Hagel hails from Nebraska, not the bluest of states. While Nebraska's other senator is a Democrat, he's been described as one of the most conservative of Democrats and has been slow in coming around to Hagel's POV on Iraq.

Hagel's opposition to the war in Iraq is probably the most prominent issue that got him into the national spotlight. He refuses to toe the party line and has called the Iraq War one of the greatest blunders in US history (see video). For a Republican to take a stand against the Iraq war in this political climate is nothing short of brave. We've seen the depths of depravity this administration can resort to when reality-based dissent is uttered.

It is this courage, to pick conscience over politics, that will be sorely missed. It's something sorely lacking in the Republican party these days. If the party is to save itself from the three headed hydra of the fundamentalist Christian agenda, corporate profiteering, and neoconservative imperialism, it needs people willing to stand up to these groups and say, "No!"

The Democrats need more Republicans like him. Yes, Hagel gets along fine with W on other issues and he gets high marks from the American Conservative Union. Democrats may think that they'll be enjoying politically brighter times come November, but complacency has undone them before. The shouldn't forget the 90's, when people got fed up with Democrats and voted in Newt Gingrich and his "Contract With America." The Karl Rove era followed and, well, you know the rest. Democrats need sane opponents, not a party so consumed with partisan rancor that it's willing to destroy the Constitution and the country in order to achieve its goals.

\_/
DED

Harrassing Hannity

Ron Paul and Fox News don't get along. Paul wasn't invited to the New Hampshire Republican debate hosted by Fox. I don't recall if they gave the excuse that his poll numbers weren't there. Of course that ignores the fact that Paul trounced Fox anointed candidate Rudy Giuliani in Iowa. Anyway, an angry mob of Ron Paul supporters tracked down Fox mouthpiece and avid Ron Paul hater, Sean Hannity, and heckled him as walked to his hotel. There isn't much to see until you're a quarter or so away from the end.

It's not earth shattering, just nice to see. :)

\_/
DED

Root For Ron Paul

Anyone who's talked about politics with me in person, or read this blog for a long time, know that I'm a fan of Ron Paul. So, it should come as no surprise that he's my choice for the Republican nominee for President. I'm not under any illusions he'll win it, but that's not going to stop me from rooting for him. And my Democrat, liberal, and progressive (DLP from here out) friends should be rooting for him as well. I'm not insisting they vote for him. I know his social conservative views and philosophy of government's role in our lives runs contrary to theirs. They should just hope that he wins the Republican nomination.

Now why am I making this recommendation? Because I think that DLP's should hedge their bets. I'm sure that the thinking is, "We can't lose in '08. It's in the bag." To which I counter, "Really? Wasn't 2004 in the bag too?" I don't write this to rub Kerry's loss in anyone's face. I was rooting for the guy to beat W even though I didn't think he was the right choice. And it doesn't matter who's to blame. The point is that the Democrats lost the 2004 election when they should've won.

And what happened in 2000? Gore should've been able to ride Clinton's coattails to victory. With experience and 90's prosperity on his side, Gore should've made mincemeat out of the Doofus from Crawford. Bush the Elder got elected in 88 thanks to Reagan so why didn't Gore do the same if it was a sure thing? Doesn't matter. Supreme Court shenanigans handed the Presidency to W. While Gore won the popular vote, the margin of victory should've been much greater so as to render the conservative opinion of the Surpreme Court moot.

Which brings me back to my point: rooting for Ron Paul. Out of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul is the one guy that's ok to lose to. Here's why:

He wants to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. While he supported the retaliatory attacks on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, he's clearly been against the war in Iraq. Not too many of the other candidates can say that they voted against the war from the start. Rather than buckle under, he stuck to his principles. Clearly, if the Democrats were to lose to him in November, they'd be safe in the knowledge that Iran wouldn't be invaded on Day 1 of his administration. Meanwhile, Chicken Hawk McCain and Rudy 9/11 have shamefully likened Paul to Hitler's appeasers in the days preceding WW2. Do the DLP's really want to risk running against either of these guys and losing?

He voted against the Patriot Act. While many in Congress were strong armed into supporting this measure, he voted against it. Not too many candidates can say that either. They were probably afraid of losing their seats in Congress by looking weak on terrorism. Amazingly, Ron Paul, a Texan, kept his. While the federal government continues to expand its powers, Ron Paul fights back. A repeal of the Patriot Act, termination of the domestic spying program, and a restoration of the 4th Amendment and Habeas Corpus would certainly occur in Paul's administration. There aren't any other Republican candidates that you can say that about.

He supports States Rights. While he often uses States' Rights as his excuse for trying to wrest control of abortion rights away from the Fed and towards the States, he's at least consistent. He's also against the War on Drugs. California and other states that have medical marijuana laws would be free from federal prosecution. It also means that states that wanted to keep abortion safe and legal would be free to do so. Don't believe him? Well, if W and a Republican controlled Congress couldn't banish a woman's right to choose in six years on a national level, then I don't see how it would change with a states' rights advocate in the White House with Democrats in control of Congress (assuming the 2006 results continue in their favor).

I hope my DLP friends see my point. With someone other than Ron Paul as the Republican candidate, a loss in this year's Presidential election would be a continuation of the same crap they've had to endure for the past eight years. More war. More encroachment on civil liberties. More subversion of the Constitution. The more smug among the DLP-ers might continue to dismiss my arguments, proudly proclaiming that the White House is locked up. It's just a matter of which Democrat. But this self-confidence is unjustified after the last two Presidential elections. Ever since 9/11, the neocons have been superb at playing the fear card. All it takes is one terrorist threat, real or imaginary, to sway people. And do you think that this administration wouldn't stoop that low to help out a fellow Republican in the polls? Well, they wouldn't if it was Ron Paul.

Root for Ron Paul.

\_/
DED

If you want to read up on Ron Paul, the Wikipedia entry strikes me as fair.

Homeland Insecurity

I've noticed that Discover magazine has broadened its coverage to include politics, at least where it treads upon science. The 2004 presidential election seemed to be the official start of said coverage. Discover compared the records of W and Kerry on science. I thought that it was a fair and non-partisan look at the two. Not everyone agreed and a few, blind idiots in my opinion, canceled their subscriptions. How many? No idea. The magazine's still here so it couldn't have been that bad.

Earlier this year, they focused on Iraq. "Dead Men Walking" highlighted the dramatic increase in traumatic brain injuries among our soldiers while "Iraq's Medical Meltdown" revealed how deplorable health care is for Iraqis.

The latest foray, "Homeland Insecurity", delves into our response to the threat of terrorism here at home in our post 9/11 world. It recounts tales of pork that would make even the most modest of financial conservatives sick. Primarily, it shoots down the fear mongering and hysteria that nearly everyone either purports or has fallen victim to with facts. Dirty bombs and bioterrorism are shot down as being impractical when simpler and safer (for the terrorists to deliver) methods abound. Some fears are supported, like chemical attacks, and Tom Ridge's suggestion to have plastic tarps and duct tape on hand is even lauded.

If there's one thing that we should be doing it's bolstering our healthcare system. Hospitals are ill equipped to handle day-to-day crises now. In the event of a natural catastrophe or a chemical warfare strike, hospitals would quickly find themselves overwhelmed. After what we saw with Katrina, perhaps all that talk that preparedness starts at home has something to it after all.

\_/
DED

Strange Bedfellows

When I heard about Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani for President I, like so many other people who follow politics, said, "What?" Giuliani's socially liberal views run diametrically opposed to Robertson's so what's with the endorsement?

Theories run rampant. Here's two:

The mighty coalition of Evangelical Christians is fragmenting. Its leaders are old and a new generation is on the rise and it doesn't quite see eye to eye with its elders (see article). Also, some of the old guard have threatened to abandon the Republican party if a pro-choice candidate was the nominee. Hmmmm, who could they be talking about?

Robertson, whose failed predictions of destruction would render him laughable if it wasn't for his scary political views (see Wiki), has lost clout within the ranks. This could be his attempt to side with a winner and ride his coattails to glory. In polls, Rudy is seen as the only candidate who can beat Hillary, someone who the religious right can't abide the thought of being President whatsoever. But if Hillary and Rudy share some of the same views on abortion, gay marriage, evolution what other pressing social issues matter to the religious right?

Another possibility is that Pat wants the war with Islamic countries to continue. Rudy has been unflinching in his support for the Iraq war and I'm sure wouldn't flinch from lending BushCheney a hand in rattling a few sabers at Iran. But that would mean ol' Pat's bloodlust is stronger than his revulsion to Rudy's social positions, or perhaps he thinks he can sway him a bit.

Another odd endorsement was Sam Brownback endorsing John McCain for president. Brownback's views are much closer to Huckabee's so his supporters are probably wondering why he went with McCain. I have no idea. Maybe McCain promised him a cabinet position if he threw some good ol' Kansas Conservative support behind him. It's a repugnant thought to me, but I wouldn't put it past the desperate McCain.

Only another 12 more months of this. Woo hoo!

\_/
DED

When Will America Heal Itself?

Sorry for my absence. I've been busy with various projects, chores, and other activities that suck up all of my time. I've even canceled my annual football pool because I've got so much to do before winter kicks in.

Alot has happened in the world since my last post. There's probably a dozen things I want to blog about but don't have the time. So today's entry will be brief.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard that Karl Rove is resigning at the end of the month. Now that the applause and cheers have subsided, people are wondering what he's up to. Well, he gave us all a hint on Sunday as he hit all the talk shows and blathered on about how Hilary Clinton has such a high unfavorable rating among voters. Yes, he's firing up the ol' evil campaign machine and launching the smears.

While I'm one of those people who has an unfavorable opinion of her, I don't need, or want, to hear the crap that assholes like him are going to spew all over us this greatly extended election cycle. His trashing of American politics has tainted all Republicans, good and bad (I know some of you are saying, "There are good Republicans?" Well, since they're all covered in Rove's shit, they're impossible to pick out). His divisiveness has set us against each other while this administration, with help from Congress, takes the Constitution apart piece by piece.

Will Rove take an active role in the '08 campaign? His resignation and recent chatter makes me think that it's very possible. But I also see him saving himself for the '12 election. Let the Democrats win now, blame them for their inability to clean up W's toxic mess, and re-take the White House and Congress in '12.

Short of him getting hit by a bus, we haven't seen the last of him.

So how do we neuter him? Explain to those who would be swayed by him, how he, Bush, Cheney and the neocons have betrayed conservative principles. Don't try to convert them to liberalism or the progressive movement. That'll just set off alarms and red flags and they'll slip into knee jerk reactionary defensive rhetoric. Author David Brin explains how to do it.

Me? I gotta get back to work.

\_/
DED

Hoping For Resignation, Waiting For Election, Resisting Rebellion

On Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann had another one of his "special comments" in wake of Scooter Libby's sentence commutation. This link will bring you to the transcript, but a link to the video resides there as well. Once again, Olbermann leads the ranks of news anchors in holding this administration accountable for its crimes. He calls on Bush and Cheney to follow Nixon's example and resign for the good of the nation. Neither he nor I believe that that will happen, but at least it's been said.

I've been wondering how much abuse my fellow Americans are willing to put up with from this administration. The abuses (take your pick) that have been carried out under its leadership are far worse than any conducted by any of its predecessors and its likely that, decades from now, we will still be learning of new abuses as future generations invoke the Freedom of Information Act to discover the truth. But what will we do today? Congress and the Courts have been neutered or stymied by political machinations and bullying and, as evidenced by Libby's sentence commutation, defeated in their attempts to use the rule of law to achieve any sort of justice. What are we to do?

We have roughly 18 months before a new president takes over. Whether or not he/she will be showing up with a can of Lysol or fertilizer remains to be seen. The electorate seems willing to wait it out, assuming that there aren't any further abuses of power. A great many would support impeachment, though Democratic leaders in Congress have long stated that they won't go that route. Apparently they don't wish to appear that they're going "tit for tat" over Clinton. I don't share their reluctance. We needed regime change years ago.

With the number of retired generals who have come out against the war in Iraq, I've often wondered if there's a more widespread level of dissatisfaction within the military's ranks. Is a military coup out of the question? It would be an unprecedented action, but is it unfathomable? Since W has no intention of pulling troops out of Iraq so long as he's president, the army will have to endure another 18 months worth of casualties, not to mention the collateral damage of worn out equipment and declining enlistment. Would not a military coup, with the promise to hold elections on an advanced timeline be acceptable? Scary, yes. But I feel like this country is spiraling down the drain and another 18 months may be too late.

Do we need to take things into our own hands? If we wait for some Orwellian nightmare to arise, it will be too late.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 218 years after its ratification, there are alot of people who think that the 2nd should be amended out of the Constitution; that somehow we've progressed beyond it. I think these people have lost sight of its intent. The Founding Fathers did not include this right to ensure that future generations of Americans could hunt quail with M-16's. They included it as the people's penultimate check on their government. An armed populace would surely discourage a would be tyrant from hijacking the Constitution and usurping the young Republic. But even though the Republic is old, I would argue that we need this right more than ever.

No? Well, how far are you willing to let this administration go? What Constitutional rights do you hold dear enough that you'd cry "Revolution!" if they were taken away? Not worried? Well, I guess you'll be fine so long as you're not declared an "enemy combatant." Once that happens, poof, there goes your right to habeus corpus.

With popularity over the Iraq war in decline, it would seem that Karl Rove would have to come up with some serious scheme to get the public back on W's side and let him make things worse than they already are. Considering his Machiavellian maneuvers in the past, and the public's willingness to sacrifice freedom for security, I'm not ruling him out yet.

I'm really hoping that we can ride out these 18 months and that whoever wins the election will at least try to right the wrongs done over these last 6 1/2 years. But if someone in Congress suggests that we should follow Hugo Chavez' example and abolish the 22nd amendment (presidential term limits), then I think we should all be very afraid, and make use of the 2nd while we still can.

\_/
DED

Politics At The Barbershop

My son and I were in desperate need of haircuts, so we went downtown for a buzz. Unfortunately, The View was on.

"Ever watch this show?" my barber asked in her mid-30's Italian American accent, with just a tinge of tar in her throat and lungs.
"Never," I replied.
"It's pretty good."
I made sure not to roll my eyes.
"It's better without Rosie."
"Yeah, she can be opinionated."
"Oh being opinionated is ok. It's when a person gets obnoxious about it that's wrong."
"She is that."

Thanks to Countdown, I knew about the blow up between Rosie O'Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselback, but I deliberately didn't give a shit enough to learn the details.

"I mean, it's like she's a terrorist in her own country."

I don't give a fuck about Rosie O'Donnell so I made no effort to defend her. But a terrorist?

"You just can't go against your own country. We had an election. You'll just have to wait until the next one. There's nothing you can do."

So apparently we should all shut the fuck up about the shit that's gone wrong the last 6 1/2 years.

I would've loved to spoken up at this point, but for three reasons:
1) I didn't want to appear like I was defending Rosie O'Donnell,
2) This woman was cutting my hair and made my already bad hair worse
3) My latest poison ivy rash was flaring up again and I just wanted to go

"Invading Iraq was a mistake, but we just can't leave those people. I don't know what the solution is."
"I don't think there is one."
"It's not like Bush is a bad person. He just made a bad decision and he's going to have to live with it for the rest of his life. It's not like what Clinton did. I can't believe he did that. What an example to set for our kids. Not that I have any, but I'm a values voter. That's what's wrong with this country. Morality's gone out the window."

Wow, I actually met one of the much ballyhooed "values voters" from 2004, right here in Connecticut. And she's willing to give W a pass on his Iraq mistake but Clinton should be drawn and quartered for his oral sex infidelity. I was dying to say, "Well, at least no one died from the blow job," but the snip snip of the scissors, the twitching of my forearms as blisters yearned to pop, and my son being right there too, kept me quiet.

Shame on me for my cowardice. I should've worn a butchered hair cut with pride.

Keep it up Karl. The propaganda is still working.

\_/
DED

Olbermann Rips The Cave-In

If the Democrats thought that the American public was going to give them a pass on their cave-in to W's demands, they've got another thing coming. The troops are get to die some more in order to secure a victory at the polls in 2008. Well, that seems to be the rationale anyway. Maybe Americans will finally wake up and consider other political parties to represent them. Neither Republicans nor Democrats seem capable of leading this country. They're too concerned about retaining political office than doing the right thing. With Iran threatening Israel again and China reminding us that they have us by the balls, and Osama bin Laden (remember him Mr. Bush?) still on the loose, America's military needs to bring the troops home to heal and repair its sand and IED blasted equipment. If Shiite and Sunni wish to slaughter one another in a civil war, so be it. If you're willing to hold grudges after several hundred years, then far be it for the West to intervene. If Britain or France had intervened in our own Civil War, would we have forgiven them to come to their aid during both World Wars?

Ok, I'm getting sidetracked. Keith Olbermann ripped the Democrats and then W in his "special comment" last night. He, for one, is not going to let our elected officials get a pass on this one. And neither should the rest of us.



\_/
DED

Thoughts on the 1st Republican Debate

Well, I can't say that I thought that there was a clear "winner" in the debate, though there were a few losers. The evening would've made for a brutal drinking game though. Since the debate was held in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, the memory of Reagan was symbolically represented by the retired Air Force 1, a Boeing 707, which loomed over the stage and the audience like a massive prehistoric god. As such, almost every candidate (I don't think Ron Paul did) felt compelled to invoke Reagan, comparing his stance on an issue to the Gipper's. If you had to drink every time someone said "Reagan" during the 90 minute worshipfest, there's no way there'd be a sober person in the room.

Here are a few of my thoughts on the debate:

Although Bush couldn't get Roe v Wade overturned with Republican control of Congress and a culturally conservative Supreme Court, women who want to be anything more than baby machines (not that there's anything wrong with that, so long as it's their choice), should consider stockpiling birth control pills if one of them wins. Actually, there were a couple of guys who were willing to let states decide.

The Governator was there. When asked if they were willing to amend the Constitution to let foreigners run for President (no conditions of the change were given other than removing the native born requisite), all but two said No (Huckabee was one). Good luck getting Arnold's support guys.

Nancy Reagan was there. When asked if they were willing to support funding for embryonic stem cell research to possibly treat Alzheimer's and other diseases, I think all that replied said No. Some suggested using adult stem cells, others said that there was enough private funding going on that the federal government didn't need to get involved.

Nancy and Arnold sat next to one another. Any time the camera showed them, neither smiled.

Sam Brownback, a senator from Kansas was scary. If he gets elected, expect more W stuff, possibly worse. Cultural conservative with neocon ideologies.

I didn't like Jim Gilmore, the governor of Virginia during 9/11. Another cultural conservative, he and Brownback jockeyed for the position of "the only true conservative."

Rudy Giuliani struggled a little bit on abortion, but held his own relatively well. While he was the leader in the polls before the debate, I'm not sure he still will be.

Duncan Hunter is another cultural conservative asshole. He's good on trade, but its his only redeeming quality. Read his Wiki entry. I don't need to say anything more.

I still like Mike Huckabee. I don't agree with him on a fair amount of his positions, but he doesn't come across as a dickhead like so many of these other guys. He's got at least a little bit of Constitutional conservatism in him, wanting to give the states back some of their rights that the federal government has usurped over the last few decades.

What the fuck was up with John McCain? I thought that I was watching the Looney Tunes' Henery Hawk. You know him as the chicken hawk that was always trying to catch and eat Foghorn Leghorn. Well, that was John McCain tonight. I didn't recognize him.

Ron Paul lacked the charisma needed to really win the crowd (and party) over. He stuck to his libertarian principles, but I really felt like what he was saying fell on deaf ears. But he didn't do anything to embarrass himself and he was the one candidate who really, really distanced himself from W on Iraq, domestic spying, and fiscal policy.

Mitt Romney did better than I expected but he seemed to calculated. I don't know if he'll hold up. He might though.

Tom Tancredo was a clear loser tonight. He seemed ill prepared to speak on his feet in the format. He's a one issue candidate: illegal immigration. Yeah, he's a cultural conservative too.

Tommy Thompson came off ok-ish. Kind of a much lower quality Huckabee.

I didn't hear any questions about the Virginia Tech massacre, but I was out of the room from time to time tending to kids and laundry.

Terri Schiavo and Scooter Libby both came up at the end. Not everyone got to answer both. Of the few people who got to address Congress' involvement, McCain barely came down against it but Giuliani said that it should never have left Florida. Most guys wanted to give Libby a pardon or wouldn't talk about an ongoing court case.

At the end, I'm not too encouraged. If I had to rate them for votability (for me, not the public), I'd go Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and... well, that's about it. They're fighting for the support of the base right now. Maybe next year at this time some of the lower quality but better financed candidates will moderate their views a bit to capture the independent voters.

\_/
DED

John McCain

A couple weeks ago I posted my disappointment over John McCain's change of course over in Mike's Neighborhood. After watching The Daily Show Tuesday night, I'm sticking by it.

John McCain has made so many appearences on The Daily Show that I've lost count. His disarmingly honest explanations on how DC worked, and self-deprecating style, won over Jon Stewart and the staff. He got such great accolades from the audience that he was a shoe in for the young, moderate vote in '08. But Stewart and the writers over at The Daily Show have been watching McCain drift over the past year, just as I have, and have even lampooned him for his change in position. So last night's show was a bit awkward, almost sad. It was like watching a man try to save his friend from his self-destructive behavior before it was too late.

See for yourself:

Part 1



Part 2



So unless Ron Paul makes a big hit at the Republican debates, or Chuck Hagel decides to run, the Republicans don't have a chance of getting my vote in 2008.

\_/
DED

The Man That Could Save The Republican Party

I'm under no illusions that this will happen. There's no way the entrenched power elite of the Republican Party will wake up and realize that in order to save the party it needs to remember Constitutional Conservatism, better known as libertarianism. It means abandoning the work done by this administration to create an Orwellian state that claims it is protecting us by invading our privacy, ignoring habeus corpus, starting wars to protect corporate hegemony overseas, imposing a witch hunt upon those who don't share their so called "moral values", ignoring the fact that there are three equal branches of government, and bankrupting the country.

The only man capable of that task is Ron Paul, ex-Libertarian Party presidential candidate and current Republican congressman from Texas. On March 18th, he announced his candidacy for president. Check him out. You may not like some of the things he has to say or his stance of some issues, but I don't believe that you'll find a candidate from either party more willing to roll back the damage the Constitution has suffered at the hands of this administration and has the voting record to back it up.

\_/
DED

How It All Turned Out

Well, you all know that Lieberman retained his Senate seat by approximately 100,000 votes (10%). Not only do we have 6 more years of that smug, arrogant asshole, but he's got more clout than ever. Both sides will try to woo him with offers of committee chairs. The only thing that will prevent that from happening is if the remaining contested Senate seats go one way or the other. Then both parties might just ignore him.

Rell won the right to stay as governor for a full term. Apparently CT voters don't blame her for Rowland's corruption. My choice, Cliff Thornton finished 3rd with 0.85% of the vote, not much better than the Concerned Citizens (Constitutional Theocracy) Party with 0.5%.

The big surprise was that Chris Murphy beat 12-term champ Nancy Johnson by a respectable margin (approx. 55%-45%). Will the 71-year old Johnson retire to a quiet life of grandmotherhood? Will the 33-year old Congressman-elect not suck? I don't know the answer to these questions but I'll be watching.

In the state races, Judith Freedman won re-election to her Senate seat by a 56-44 margin. No surprise there.

The surprise came in the House. Bartlett beat Gallagher, 54%-46% (588 votes), so now the seat swings to the Democrats. It's amazing to me because Gallagher won the lawn sign race by at least a 2:1 margin. I'm happy for Bartlett as he's a nice guy. Although I didn't vote for him, it was because of his party, not anything about him personally. I hope that his presence in Hartford will be a positive one, though being a freshman, I'm not sure if he'll have much pull.

In the national races, the Democrats made big gains in the House and the Senate is too close to call. While I'm glad that Hastert will no longer be the SotH, I really hope that Pelosi doesn't get the nod to be the next one, though everyone says she will. I'm not sold on her effectiveness as a leader (though Californians are) and I worry that her reign will be marked by a backlash in '08 that'll send us back to the right. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

\_/
DED

Who I Voted For

Senate: Ned Lamont (D).

Anyone who's read my blog, or my comments on other blogs, or listens to me rant about politics, knows that I've always hated Lieberman for reasons I don't wish to repeat for the millionth time. I wanted to vote for Ralph Ferucci of the Green Party but since we don't have instant runoff elections, I had to give my vote to Ned.

Representative: Chris Murphy (D).

With no third party candidate to choose from in this race, I had to choose either a taxing Democrat or a Constitution usurping Republican. It's a shame, but I had to run the risk of higher taxes. Johnson is normally a moderate Republican, but her support of W on Iraq and voting in support of the Domestic Spying Program and the Military Commissions Act makes me ill.

Governor: Cliff Thornton (Green Party).

If we had instant runoff elections, Rell (R), the incumbent, would've received my second vote. I realize that Cliff doesn't stand a chance, but I like his platform the most. Rell has a huge lead in the polls so she doesn't need my vote. While I hope that she beats her main challenger, DeStefano, I don't see Rell doing that much better a job than him so I'm not compelled to vote for her as I was Ned in the Senate.

State Senator: Judith Freedman (R).

Her opponent wasn't that bad. Her previous opponent was great, but lost. Freedman got my vote because CT's legislature already has too many Democrats and is almost veto proof.

State Representative: Phil Gallagher (R).

It was a tough choice between him and Jason Bartlett. A letter to the editor by one of the local PTA psychos in favor of Bartlett turned my stomach so I cast my vote for Gallagher. As in the state senate, CT already has too many Democrats. I met Bartlett and found him to be a nice guy. Gallagher came around to visit but my wife and I were in the middle of hanging a cabinet in our bathroom so neither one of us could answer the door.

I won't bore you with the other positions.

Notice a pattern to my voting? I voted for Democrats at the national level because I felt that DC was too far to the right. I voted for Republicans at the state level (except for Cliff) because Hartford, our capitol, is too far to the left. I guess we'll find out tomorrow how it all turned out.

\_/
DED

The Connecticut Campaign Trail - UGLY

I can't answer my phone anymore. The charities have been displaced by PAC's disguised as surveys and automated attack ads. Normally mild-mannered Republicans (I'm talking about the ones from my state) are spewing party line drivel while Democrats, sensing blood in the water, launch wave after wave of attacks.

Down in the 4th Congressional District, Connecticut's "Gold Coast" where the state's wealthy citizens live (along with some of the poorest), Christopher Shays (R) has been under attack by Democratic challenger Diane Farrell. In 2004, he defeated her but ran a clean campaign, no negative attack ads. He won by 5 percentage points. This time, he eschewed the high road.

When Senator Ted Kennedy stopped by to support Diane Farrell, he was miffed. So he retaliated by defending House Speaker Dennis Hastert over the Foley scandal. "Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody." Obviously a jab at Kennedy over his infamous Chappaquiddick incident back in 1969. I've been to that bridge. It's a narrow creaky thing, with no guardrails or lights. I'm not going to make excuses for Kennedy, but it's not something that I'd attempt unless I was completely sober. Anyway, I digress.

Farrell, who was the First Selectman of Westport, had portrayed Shays as being a Bush patsy. Shays recent reference to Abu Ghraib as "more about pornography than torture" hasn't helped his cause. Shays' supporters have pointed out that Westport's debt increased 600% during her administration.

In Shays defense, he's pro-environment, pro-choice, and supports stem cell research.

But here in the 5th, it's become really ugly.

Nancy Johnson (R) hold CT's record for longest tenured representative. She's been in DC for 24 years. When CT lost a congressional district due to the latest census, her district was merged with another and she had to fight that incumbent (James Maloney) for the seat. Needless to say, she won. At 71, you might think that she's a little old lady, but that would be a mistake. She's feisty.

Johnson's challenger is Chris Murphy, a former state senator. Johnson has all but called him a "tax and spend liberal." He voted to raise taxes 27 times and stands accused of wanting to pass a $70 billion tax increase that would affect the middle class and small businesses. He's soft on terrorism because he's against the Domestic Surveillance program (He wants the gov't to utilize the FISA court system). He wants amnesty for illegal aliens (a claim that I haven't found evidence for yet). He was apparently fined by the Election Commission for improper campaign contributions. And his ad claiming that a woman seeking facial reconstructive surgery for her child was ignored by Johnson is false (the woman in the ad says its true).

On the other side, Johnson supports the Domestic (spying) Surveillance program. She co-authored the gross Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). She's received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, who are the real benefactors from MMA. She voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act which grants the President the power to deem anyone he wants an enemy combatant and thus they lose the right of habeus corpus, one of the oldest rights in Western civilization. Her support of Bush over his Iraq policy has also been subject to attack.

In Johnson's defense, there are issues where she splits from party line. She's been a chief opponent to drilling in ANWR (the Sierra Club loves her), pro-choice, helped to get uninsured children healthcare, and brought home plenty of lean pork (actually useful stuff like money for firehouse repairs instead of bridges to nowhere).

Unfortunately, I can't find any 3rd party candidates running in the 5th district. The 4th is lucky. They've got Libertarian candidate, Phil Maynim. At least he got to join in the debate, unlike the minor party gubernatorial candidates. Even the Green Party has a candidate running in the 4th as well as for senator (could steal my Lamont vote). But I can't find any minor party candidates for the 5th. That's going to make for a tough choice.

For the record, my sources for the above material about the candidates comes from their own websites, Wikipedia, various flyers that come in the mail, and annoying phone calls that I get all day. I think that the only ones that truly win in election season are those who get paid to print up all this junk, call you on the phone, and create the TV & Web ads. 2008 should be brutal.

\_/
DED

The Connecticut Campaign Trail - Governor

The first debate among the top two candidates for governor happened Monday night. I didn't even know it was on. How sad is that? I knew it was coming up, because of arguments over format and who was permitted to debate, but I didn't see any mention of it in Sunday's paper. I wonder if it was even televised.

Anyway, for those of you unfamiliar with CT politics, the debate was between incumbent Jodi Rell (R) and challenger John DeStefano (D), mayor of New Haven. Left out of the debate were Cliff Thornton of the Green Party and Joe Zdonczyk of the Concerned Citizens Party. While Thornton met all of the qualifications of the League of Women Voters, The Day of New London stymied his appearence. I bet those assholes have a stake in either one of the top two contenders. Hell, they probably sided with the government in that infamous eminent domain battle that took place in their city. Did you notice that with all of the outrage, the CT legislature didn't do shit about reforming the state's eminent domain laws?

Rell has a tough job running a state with a Democrat controlled legislature. While her cabinet works well with her, despite being Democrats, she can't seem to get much cooperation from the legislature, who view her as tainted from her predecessor's administration. Although Rell cleaned house, the Democrats said that it wasn't enough. No matter. Rell has sought tax relief for CT's citizens through elimination (she later tried for reduction) of the property tax on cars.

DeStefano has proposed having a windfall tax on profits made by the utilities and plans on giving that money to ratepayers, conservation funds, and business energy conservation efforts. I thought that I heard on NPR that he accused Rell of covering up a 50% rate hike due to hit us in 2007. I can't confirm this though. Since we're already paying 15 cents per kilowatt-hour (10.14 cents power generation and 5.21 cents for transmission of said power), that would be rough. We just had a 40% rate hike in our power generation charges this January. How much more can we take? It certainly makes the ROI for a wind turbine or solar panels happen that much sooner.

When asked which senate candidate Rell thinks would be best for CT, she gave a long winded explanation which was summarized somewhere along the lines of "they all bring something to the table." DeStefano jabbed her on it. "I pray that I'll never be in politics so long as to give an answer like that."

From what I've read, it seems like DeStefano won the debate. But he's down 30 points in the polls so his is an uphill climb. Democrats want universal health care for CT citizens, which is a wonderful idea, but how are we going to pay for it? I can't endorse him. If the entire state government were to be controlled by Democrats, I'd be bleeding taxes out my eyes. The "tax and spend liberal" tag holds true in my state. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I'm no card-carrying Republican. We've got car taxes (does anyone else have one?), sales tax, property taxes on our homes, the highest gasoline tax in the country, and a state income tax. We've been running a budget surplus for a couple of years now and that surplus is being put into the "rainy day fund", which currently stands at $1 billion. Can't we cut taxes? We don't seem to be doing anything about the fact that we have the highest per capita debt service in the country.

I might vote for Rell. She's done a good job keeping her nose clean and doesn't play dirty politics. She also doesn't take any money from special interest groups. How rare is that? I also think that so long as CT's legislature is dominated by Democrats, we need to have a check on their agenda. Gee. That sounds like there's a system of checks and balances to prevent one form of government from taking over. Wish we had that on the national level.

I might even vote for Cliff Thornton of the Green Party, although he's even more of a long shot than DeStefano. I like where he stands on alot of the issues and he's actually got plans for solving some of the state's problems that sound more libertarian than liberal.

\_/
DED

The Connecticut Campaign Trail

As far as Connecticut's state legislature is considered, I live in the 2nd district. With the retirement of 2-term incumbent, Hank Bielawa (R), an opportunity is at hand for a new face to represent the district.

The Republican candidate is Phil Gallagher. From what I read about him on his website, he seems like he comes from the same mold as his predecessor. Not that that's a bad thing. In Connecticut, Republicans still pay lip service to fiscal conservatism, unlike their brethren in D.C. He's a long term resident of the area, who's served in town government, and is a retired teacher.

The Democratic candidate is Jason Bartlett, a local businessman who ran twice against Bielawa and lost. The second time the margin was only 80 votes. Recently, there was a letter to the editor in which someone praised him for various reasons, pertaining to character and leadership skills. But then the writer went negative on Gallagher saying that he'll "accomplish little in Hartford because he is a member of the minority and he does not work well with others." While I have no idea if the latter is true, being a member of the minority party is hardly an argument one can use here. Does the author plan on voting for Nancy Johnson, a Republican, to be our rep in Congress because hers is the party of the majority? Somehow, I don't think so.

Bartlett has also enjoyed the support of the local education factions. This troubles me as these groups use fear tactics to push their causes. It's always, "Our children will suffer if the budget doesn't pass." And when budgets don't pass, they never cut the administrative part of the school budget. Nor do they seek alternative sources of revenue. It's always property tax increases. And since I'm paying $5400/year on my house (a raised ranch, nothing special), I'm sick of it.

I got to meet Bartlett one Saturday afternoon. He was going door-to-door trying to drum up support. I don't know if the Democratic party hasn't got its act together or what but all I see are Republican signs. I know my part of the state leans to the right but this is something more. I'm not seeing any Democrat signs and I know that there are plenty of them in this town.

Anyway, he was all alone so I got to pick his brain on two local issues: property taxes and rampant increases in health insurance costs (did you notice that healthcare stocks are up over 600% since 2000). I asked if he had any ideas for finding new sources of tax revenue for the town, like encouraging more businesses to move in and shoulder some of the burden (When Duracell was here, that's how they managed it). He talked about incentives for businesses to move in to the industrial park.

I'm not so sure that there's going to be enough tax revenue to come in from businesses. I'm thinking that the schools are going to need corporate sponsors. If they can do it for sports stadiums why not schools? "Bethel-United Technologies High School"? Maybe it won't work, but I think that we need to start discussing this now.

As for health insurance, he foresaw CT adopting a plan similar to what Massachusettes enacted. He also rolled off importing prescription drugs from Canada and investing in Federal Qualified Health Clinics, which are federally subsidized.

I'm not familiar with the Mass plan so I can't say whether or not this is a good idea. Something drastic needs to be done. My wife works in HR so I hear all the time about rates going up. It doesn't matter whether it's a big company or small company, they're getting screwed because the health insurance companies care more about shareholder value than the people they insure. And I used to work for Oxford Health Plans so I have some experience here. Forgive me for sounding like a socialist, but this is a situation where capitalism seems to be failing. I don't know how many tens of millions of Americans don't have insurance, but the mere fact that one can say "millions" here speaks volumes. How can the wealthiest nation on the planet function this way?

Jason Bartlett didn't strike me as a politician. There was no greasy smile or robotic repetition of sound bites. And he didn't look like he was putting on an act. Amazingly enough, he's a human being. I wish him well either way.

I haven't met Gallagher so I don't know what he's like. On the issues, he comes across (through his website) as a reasonable constitutional and fiscal conservative. Keep in mind that Connecticut is a blue state, our Republicans have to be moderate if they want to have a shot at winning an election.

I haven't decided which of these guys I'm going to vote for. The Democratic controlled legislature is too far to the left for my taste. We have a state income tax, a sales tax, high property taxes (homes and cars), and the highest gasoline tax in the country, but yet keeping the budget in the black remains a problem. The interstates are gridlocked. We've got big defense contractors and major financial and insurance companies here so why can't we come up with the money? It's high time that the state's incomes and expenditures be examined to find out what's gone wrong.

\_/
DED

The Connecticut Campaign Trail

Rather than focus on any candidates in this installment, I'd like to discuss how the two majors are getting the word out.... at least to me.

Earlier in the year, the Democrats (or so I thought) were going after incumbent representative, Nancy Johnson (R). I received several phone calls that consisted of nothing more that automated messages. Being familiar with Johnson's record, I noted that what was said in these messages stretched the truth or was just wrong. This strategy backfired as it made me more sympathetic towards Johnson and increasingly negative towards whoever was going to run (at the time I had no idea who was running for the Dems).

Johnson's campaign was slow to respond. I believe that it's because Congress was in session and Johnson was busy attending to her job. Once Congress adjourned, the campaign literature came out. In one recent piece, she directly addressed the calls, which were done "by a special-interest group based in Washington D.C. The shadowy group behind this smear campaign was just exposed making false and untrue automated calls against Nancy."

So, this anti-Nancy (and pro-Democrat I assume) group shot the Democratic candidate in the foot.

The other tactic being used by both of the major parties is "propaganda disguised as survey." First off, you're given some neutral questions about how you feel about various candidates and nationally recognized political figures (like W). Then you're given statements that portray one candidate in a negative light and the other in a positive light. You're then asked if said statements make you more or less inclined to vote for said candidate. If you listen carefully, you can hear the truth distort and the propaganda blossom. I take them just to see how long it takes me to figure out which party is behind the "survey." I've had surveys against and for Johnson. And last night I had one for DeStefano, the Democratic candidate for governor.

I'm sure that my answers confused the hell out of them.

\_/
DED

The Connecticut Campaign Trail

First in a series of bloggings about the electoral races which directly affect me this year.

Well, you all know by now that Lamont beat Lieberman for the Democratic party nomination for Lieberman's senate seat. Even if you don't follow politics, there was no way you could avoid the story. And Lieberman has made it quite clear that he will now run as an independent. The 52%-48% voter margin should give Joe plenty of incentive that he can still win it.

I have no objection to Lieberman running as an independent, per se. He complains that the Democratic party has been hijacked by extremists and that his devotion to the state of Connecticut demands that he run. On the surface, these sound like admirable ideals to an independent voter like myself, but Joe's either fooling himself, or trying to fool us.

The Philadelphia Inquirer does a bang up job analyzing the situation.

Issues aside, Lieberman also lost because he had too few friends at the street level. Tip O'Neill, the late House speaker, famously said that "all politics is local," and this race proved it. Local political leaders went years without hearing from him; earlier this summer, top Democrats in the town of Southbury complained - into an open mike at the state convention - that they had phoned Lieberman in January, and were still waiting for him to return the call.

Doesn't sound like dedication to the state of Connecticut to me. More likely, Joe thinks that after 18 years in the Senate, the seat is his until the day he dies. In my opinion, he's a pompous, self-serving ass. He's so full of himself, he can't imagine the people of Connecticut surviving without him. I've never liked Lieberman and never voted for him. While I don't condemn him for his choice to go into Iraq (unlike alot of Democrats), his other political views have grated me. He's out of touch with a great many of the people in this state, including me, as exemplified by his socially conservative stance.

For years, Democrats here have groused about, among other things, Lieberman's alliances with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Lynne Cheney on conservative values; his frequent guest shots on Sean Hannity's Fox show; his pro-GOP vote to keep Terri Schiavo alive; his belief that hospitals should not be required to provide emergency contraception to rape victims; his opposition, as a '70s state senator, to the legality of living wills; his skeptical views on affirmative action; his failure, during his 2000 vice presidential debate, to get tough with Dick Cheney.

The White House had this to say (from the Hartford Courant):

White House spokesman Tony Snow, meanwhile, called the primary "a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you."

But that simply isn't true. Just ask Cynthia McKinney (D), Georgia's first black congresswoman. She's berated W for her entire political career, but she lost the party nomination for her seat. She blames the media, of course.

No, this looks like what I, and fellow blogger, Mike, have been calling for since we started: Voting out the incumbents, no matter what their party affiliation, if they're not representing you. Other incumbents have fallen: Cunningham, Delay, Ney. Many more may follow. I hope so.

So now I have to figure out where Lamont stands on all the other issues. Iraq was the one that got him the nod. Is he more than that?

Schlesinger, the Republican candidate, doesn't have much hope as his gambling problems have led to mild mannered governor Rell (R) to ask him to step aside.

And I can't figure out if the Libertarian Party is even trying to field a candidate this year. Their website sucks and doesn't appear to have been updated since Harry Browne died in March. Not very reassuring.

You know, I was going to call this segment, "A Connecticut Citizen's Conundrum", but it seemed too wordy and too long. But, given my choices for the Senate, I'd say that it was accurate nonetheless.

\_/
DED

The Defender of the Constitution

Ron Paul did not abandon his Libertarian principles when he joined the Republican party. The good people of the 14th District of Texas didn't hold it against him either. He doesn't march in step with the party line just because the President (or Karl Rove) says to. He rises above the name calling and questions why Congress would surrender its Constitutionally granted powers and cave in to a man that would be King of Democracy. With authoritarianism on the rise, all in the name of security, freedom as we know it may be gone. Not because of some foreign invader, but because Americans are ignorant of their rights under the Constitution.

So read his speech and ask yourself, "Does my Congressman represent me or his/her own aspirations for power?"

Thanks to Mike for bringing this speech to my attention.

\_/
DED

Memorial Day

Memorial Day Weekend is the time when we're supposed to honor the brave men and women who have died in war, though it's often just treated as the unofficial start of summer. Whether or not us civilians have always agreed with the reasons our leaders gave for sending these souls off to war, we should honor the fact that they died to preserve our freedoms and liberties (at least we hope so), and so that criminals, in the form of CEO's and Congressmen, could plunder the nation's coffers from within and leave the rest of us holding the tab.

In towns and cities across the country, there will be parades to honor our fallen soldiers (maybe we should add firemen and policemen too). My town has its parade a week early. I don't know why. We began attending a couple of years ago, not because of any sense of patriotic duty or love of parades, but because our son loves fire trucks and military vehicles.

It rained, again. As we sat there, huddled under an umbrella, we watched as the veterans marched and drove by, and the school bands played. Along came the town's elected officials and, as usual, the applause died down. It doesn't matter who's running the town, people don't seem to cheer them. Perhaps, because it's budget season and we're all angry that the town always gives us bigger budgets each year, which means raising our taxes. But this year, walking by herself in the rain, was our congresswoman, Nancy Johnson (R).

Ahhh yes, the elections are just over five months away. It's time to get out there and press the flesh. If any of you attend a parade this weekend, don't be surprised if your congressman makes an appearence. At a time when Washington is rampant with scandal, and approval of Congress really low, our politicians will desperately try to make themselves look clean. "I'm on your side. I'm marching in this parade to show you that I care about you and not some lobbyist who offered me round trip airfare to play golf in Scotland."

I was surprised to see Mrs. Johnson walking along in the rain in Bethel. We're a small town. Sure it was the week before Memorial Day, but she hasn't been there in either of the two previous parades we attended. Is she sweating re-election too? I don't even know who's running against her and I consider myself politically aware.

For the last few months, I've received several automated phone calls playing recorded messages that are all anti-Nancy. Nancy did this. Nancy did that. Nancy supports the President on this issue. I typically hang up. I hate negative ads. They tend to elicit the opposite reaction out of me than the caller intended. There was one survey that, if you listened to how the caller phrased the questions, was obviously funded by either the Democrats or their allies. It obviously wasn't neutral. They also never mentioned any of the good stuff that Johnson has done.

I've never voted for Nancy Johnson before, but I just might this year. Why? She's a moderate. The Republican party certainly needs their moderate members to take back control of the party. Nancy Johnson's environmental record has been impeccable. Even the Sierra Club likes her. She recognizes that drilling in ANWR is not the answer to our country's energy problem.

I don't agree with her on everything. The whole Medicare Prescription Drug plan was something that she pushed through and that's just a huge fiscal pit. It could've been alot better and will certainly need to be revisited before the Boomers sign up. She also defended Delay a few years ago, though I haven't seen her do so