With Kucinich Leaving Race, We ALL Lose

The blog at the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is dropping out of his bid for the Democratic nomination, abandoning his run for U.S. commander-in-chief in this november's 2008 race. Kucinich stayed in throughout the 2004 race but this time, faced with challenges for his Congressional seat back home (says CPD), the one-of-a-kind presidential candidate says he does not want to risk losing his House of Representatives seat - where he is one of the most truly progressive hearts and minds to be found on Capitol Hill - and I certainly would hate to lose him there as well.

Whether you supported Kucinich or not - and I admit I'm leaning more towards John Edwards - I think we all lose when a man like Dennis is forced out of the race. Why? Because he stands for real issues and stnads up for real people. It is a pitiful, quite obscene statement about what America has become if a person (and in Dennis' case, the best kind of idealist) who wants the United States to actually BE all the positive things we like to say we are (leader of the free world, a democracy, a fair and just society where the "lowliest" of people can achieve their greatest dreams, a beacon of hope, a role model to the rest of the world, to name just a few).

If only those candidates who pander to the most extreme zealots who would rape and plunder the U.S. Constitution - not to mention human rights and global citizenry -with the insane and obscene claim it's "for God's sake" as we have with the right wing, or those who cater to the the wallets and whims of American corporations as we see with the most mainstream Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the more moderate Republicans - who also brown nose the Christian fascists and the richest of the Americans - such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, individual American citizens lose BIG TIME. We see it, too, with the almost rabid minimalization and ostracization of Democrat John Edwards who commits the "heresy" of trying to bravely represent the needs and dreams of even poorer working class Americans rather than the corporate money machine of the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC).

We lose that which we claim to hold most dear when we allow a Dennis Kucinich or a John Edwards - or even a Ron Paul on the GOP side - to be forced out by those who use money and power and fear-mongering to transform our elections from being ABOUT the needs and dreams and votes of real American citizens and voters to what's in the best interests of a General Electric, a Viacom, a Rupert Murdoch, a Halliburton, a Beatrice Foods, et al.

Shame on the media... but shame on us, too.

For more coverage of Dennis Kucinich, go to the Openers blog.

Today's Nevada Caucus: Rules Must ALWAYS Favor the Voters, Not Specific Candidates

With all the talk the last few days of how critical it was that Barack Obama "won" a ruling in Nevada that permits caucuses in the casino areas (now there's something our forefathers probably did not envision) so that workers, like the culinary workers union that threw its support behind Obama, can participate in the caucus process despite the fact the votes are held on a Saturday (today) which has to be a very busy workday on the strip, comes a point too often lost.

The point is this: voting rules and laws should always favor the best interests of all voters. For example, anything that can be done to make it easier - and yet still able to protect the integrity of the votes cast - for voters to cast their ballots can and should be done. Such rules should NOT be designed to favor one candidate or another. In fact, screw the candidates: it's the voter's interest that comes above all else.

The most egregious example we've ever seen - and I pray it will never be repeated - of the system being rigged for a specific candidate rather than the totality of the American voters came in the presidential election of 2000. And no, I'm not talking specifically about the Bush-Cheney subversion of the votes through outright thievery.

When Bush's people, led by constant Bushie savior James Baker III, raced to the U.S. Supreme Court to be sure that the recount of votes in Florida was stopped (lest it was proven that indeed Gore won), Baker took a law designed to protect the voter and turned it magically into an argument that one single voter and candidate, namely our current Moron in Chief, would be irrevocably harmed if the Florida recount was permitted to continue to its logical conclusion.

Somehow (magically, through a packed court roster - though hardly as weighted to the extreme Bushian mindset as it is today), the Supreme Court not only let them get away with a total perversion of the laws, they rewarded Baker and Bush and Grand Evil Emperor Cheney with the presidency in a decision that boils down to "we can't let Florida finish its recount because if it does, it's likely Bush will lose, and that will hurt poor Georgie's feelings and nobody ever says NO to Georgie and Dick(less)."

Thus, regardless of whether the court decision to allow Nevada voters to cast their caucus votes (and the caucus system is really a strange way to go, but that's a whine - without the cheese and crackers - for another day) in a more convenient arena like casinos favors Hillary, Barack, John or Dennis, or hell, even the (choke) McCain-Lieberman ticket, the important issue is not which candidate benefits or is hurt, but that voters get to vote. This is exactly as it should be.

Was New Hampshire's Primary Vote Count ACCURATE? We Need To Know: Here's Why

Last week, I noted that Ohio Congressman - and still Democratic presidential hopeful - Dennis Kucinich (along with a Republican few know) demanded a recount in New Hampshire to carefully recount the votes cast there last Tuesday. But what's gone under the radar is the WHY: that in the Democratic primary alone, whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama won, on the surface, depends on how the votes were counted. Specifically, the hand-counted votes seemed to go to Obama; the electronic machine counted ones seemed to favor Hillary.

I very much applaud Kucinich for making the demand; we NEED to know if there is a problem and, if there is, whether it's willful or a deliberate cheat. While our (already, if not always so fairly or appropriately) elected leaders have already kissed away true voting reform until 2012 at the same time that those in the know indicate that, even if verified voting reform were enacted TODAY, we can't even be sure the 2012 vote will be who we actually elected.

As you might imagine, there is HUGE doubt as to this November's validity of vote. And if you aren't paying attention to this, you may deserve what YOU get, but I don't think the rest of us do.

A Vermonter To Her Neighbors In New Hampshire About To Vote In Tuesday's Primary

Dear New Hampshire Primary Voters:

I write to you as the yin to your yang (VT and NH look like two halves of a whole though so few realize how very different philosophically, politically, and even geologically we are from one another).

Dems: vote your very best; don't vote for the "it" candidate if you truly want another one

GOPs: I'm really so very sorry for you; your candidates are so damned bad anyway but hey, I'd vote Ron Paul myself (especially after his people chased and scared the hell out of Sean Hannity of Fox News this past weekend)

Indies: Hey, do you really want more of the Republican trash in YOUR White House? Take out the garbage so we can start fresh.

And to ALL of you: Do NOT LET ANYONE talk you into playing dirty tricks with anyone's vote, including your own

Say No To Dirty Tricks, Voters Kept From Voting, And "Washington Business As Usual"

With many of the reports, including that provided at All Things Democrat last week by Ricky Shambles, about the dirty tricks that may have been played in the Iowa Caucuses to drive the anti-Hillary/anti-Clinton vote in favor of others, I can't say I'm surprised. But I'm far from happy.

This year, perhaps more than ANY other, we need to combine our commitment to be active, informed citizens who demand the best (and hold them to account when we get less) from our elected leaders at the same time we dearly need to elect a president honestly, fairly, and without any of the nasty stuff we've seen in previous elections, especially that of the Bush-Cheney/Republican-Win-At-Any-Cost Sleaze team (and I do not believe most normal Republicans like this kind of thing anymore than the rest of us) in 2000 and 2004.

From here on, we can't just sit back and let Washington work as it does, because we know that the way it works is pretty corrupt, pretty nasty, and pretty much slanted at billionaires and fatcat/corporate interests rather than in the "Mom and Dad America" politicians like to talk about at election time. So we're going to have to work a great deal harder to get Washington working right again and we have to be pretty damned selective about who we put there. No more "anybody but (this person)" mentality and no more dirty games.

Mind you, Democrats (and others) have pulled nasty tricks, too. But we don't want them from ANYONE. I want the people I elect (and those who help elect them) to operate better than that. You should, too.

Also, every American with the right to vote not only should vote, but should NEVER be kept from voting by dirty tricks like we saw in Florida in 2000 (and ever since) and in Ohio in 2004.

So I ask myself, as I ask you, to do your best to keep dirty tricks away from the process, even at our lowly voter level and, should you see someone kept from voting who has the right to vote, don't just shake your head and walk away. Stand up, speak out. We may not always be able to depend on Washington to behave itself so, until we can force them to do better, WE have to be the better people. It can start one American at a time. And it must.

I'm game. Will you join me?

Iowa, Caucuses, And "There's Got To Be A Better Way"

If you listen to the media focusing on the presidential vote that will happen just over 10 months from now, it's "all Iowa, all the time."

Now, Iowa's voters count as much as any groups, but I still find it rather offensive to see Iowa's voters treated like the real race is almost over once the caucus votes are counted Thursday (tomorrow).

Perhaps it's still the very bitter taste left in my mouth by the way Iowans - and the media reporting on it - treated Democrat (and now DNC chairman) prez candidate Howard Dean in 2004; where one corny "Yeeee-haaaaw" derailed a campaign that got average Americans participating with their money and their letter writing in a way we had never seen before.

The reality is that Iowa is

a) the whitest state in the nation which is increasingly NOT white bread,
b) should have no greater power to decide the race than any other,
c) their voters constitute a hardly whopping 6/100ths of 1 percent of this nation's entire voting population
d) Iowa does NOT have the market cornered on the greatest of American values
e) January is JUST too damned early to decide who the best candidates for each party are

Your opinion?

Don't Let Another Presidential Election Be Stolen

As much as I try to pay attention to what all the 2008 presidential candidates are saying (and yes, even the truly ridiculous ones like Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani), I find I can't just assume that the best (Democrat) candidate will win Election 2008 in less than 11 months. And my fear isn't just vague and unfounded, not when I've watched the last two presidential elections, 2000 in Florida taken from Al Gore and 2004 in Ohio stolen from John Kerry. So have you, whether you accept this truth (as has been confirmed by many sources now) or not.

Nor did my fear lessen when even Democratic lawmakers agreed a few months ago to put back any real voting reform until 2012 - a DOZEN years past the first documented stolen vote.

It doesn't matter WHO the Democrats put up for president if the Republicans have a way to steal and otherwise invalidate winning vote counts. Nor can we wait until Election Day to not just voice our concern but to demand better.

Votes That Don't Count

If you think that just hoping the 2008 presidential election will bring about fair and accurate voting results - and the novelty that the person the actual majority of voters cast ballots for actually will become president, something we did not do in 2000 and 2004 which handed us the fascist regime of Bush & Cheney - you've been supplementing your diet with Konservative Koolaid. Stand up and reverse this foolish and felonious delay for verified voting reform!

And while you're at it, take a gander at this sickening development:

A federal court ruling in June that forces voters to register by party could return Mississippi to the days of racially polarized politics, as many white Democrats warn that thousands of white voters will now opt definitively for the Republican Party.

Republican-leaning voters in Mississippi have long been able to cross party lines in primaries, voting for centrist Democrats in state and local races while staying loyal to Republican candidates in national races. But political experts here say that by limiting these voters — almost all of whom are white — to Republican primaries, the ruling will push centrist Democratic candidates to the other party, simply in order to survive.

Unfair! Fat Old White Republican Men Don't Always Control Everything

As Alec points out in comments here as well as on his blog (Prose Before Hos), it's a dark and pathetic day when fat old white (almost invariably Republican, I may add) men don't get 103% of all the fatcat positions and money and favors and law-making and... well, read for yourself:

Oh no! Old rich white males are being oppressed again! Sound the alarms!

Males - As of the 2006 congress, 83.7% of the Congress is male, while the percentage of males of the voting age population (18 plus) is only 48.4. If this is further evaluated to include the over-representation of white males, the figure is even more staggering: 36.3% of the voting age population are white males, yet there are 79 White Male senators making up the Senate (79%).

Paul Krugman: "Way Off Base"

Belatedly, here's Krugman's April 16th Op/Ed from The New York Times (read the entire thing at Casa Rozius):

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public. You can see that happening right now to the Republicans: to have a chance of winning the party’s nomination, Republican presidential hopefuls have to take far-right positions on Iraq and social issues that will cost them a lot of votes in the general election.

But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions.

Iraq is the most dramatic example. Strange as it may seem, Democratic strategists were initially reluctant to make Iraq a central issue in the midterm election. Even after their stunning victory, which demonstrated that the G.O.P.’s smear-and-fear tactics have stopped working, they were afraid that any attempt to rein in the Bush administration’s expansion of the war would be successfully portrayed as a betrayal of the troops and/or a treasonous undermining of the commander in chief.

Beltway insiders, who still don’t seem to realize how overwhelmingly the public has turned against President Bush, fed that fear. For example, as Democrats began, nervously, to confront the administration over Iraq war funding, David Broder declared that Mr. Bush was “poised for a political comeback.”

It took an angry base to push the Democrats into taking a tough line in the midterm election. And it took further prodding from that base — which was infuriated when Barack Obama seemed to say that he would support a funding bill without a timeline — to push them into confronting Mr. Bush over war funding. (Mr. Obama says that he didn’t mean to suggest that the president be given “carte blanche.”)

But the public hates this war, no longer has any trust in Mr. Bush’s leadership and doesn’t believe anything the administration says. Iraq was a big factor in the Democrats’ midterm victory. And far from being a risky political move, the confrontation over funding has overwhelming popular support: according to a new CBS News poll, only 29 percent of voters believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit, while 67 percent either want to cut off funding or impose a time limit.

Health care is another example of the base being more in touch with what the country wants than the politicians. Except for John Edwards, who has explicitly called for a universal health insurance system financed with a rollback of high-income tax cuts, most leading Democratic politicians, still intimidated by the failure of the Clinton health care plan, have been cautious and cagey about presenting plans to cover the uninsured.

But the Democratic presidential candidates — Mr. Obama in particular — have been facing a lot of pressure from the base to get specific about what they’re proposing. And the base is doing them a favor.

The fact is that a long time has passed since the defeat of the Clinton plan, and the public is now demanding that something be done. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed overwhelming support for a government guarantee of health insurance for all, even if that guarantee required higher taxes. Even self-identified Republicans were almost evenly split on the question!

Read the rest!

Vermont Senate: Impeach Bush Administration

Here's the details of today's vote in the Vermont state senate, echoing resolutions already passed in many of the Green Mountain state's communities on Town Meeting day last month.

A Note About Vermont's Impeachment Vote

There are two things I want to call your attention to in the Vermont impeachment vote on Tuesday.

First, notice that our resolutions called for impeachment of BOTH Bush and Cheney.

Second, while I hear voters in other areas who don't go vote in even presidential elections because they don't have the time, it's raining or cold or "why bother?"... name any other lame ass excuse, Vermont voters came out on a day where the daytime HIGH was around -10 degrees Fahrenheit with a wind chill in the negative 28-40 range. And town meeting day isn't a quite in-out voting affair; in many towns, it's an ALL DAY affair, where lunch is served and the kids attend. In most, you vote by show of hands, which makes you accountable to everyone in the room.

Town meeting day represents one of the last vestiges of true participatory democracy. Where residents go through the budgets, weigh options aloud in discussions with neighbors, hear committee members talk about different programs, how the local schools run, and so on.

It's an amazing process; towns throughout America should do it.

On Reconsidering The "Myth of the Middle"

Steve at The Carpetbagger Report brings up an excellent discussion today:

It’s one of those political truths that “everybody knows” — the party that wins the elusive middle wins the election. It’s all about the “center,” where most Americans are and where campaigns are decided. This seemed particularly true in 2006, when, the conventional wisdom tells us, the middle expressed its disgust with the status quo and backed a divided government so that both sides would govern from the center.

But is any of this true? Political scientist Alan Abramowitz and journalist Bill Bishop suggested this week that we may want to reconsider the “myth of the middle.”

The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) surveyed more than 24,000 Americans who voted in 2006. The Internet-based survey compiled by researchers at 30 universities produced a sample that almost perfectly matched the national House election results: 54 percent of the respondents reported voting for a Democrat, while 46 percent said they voted for a Republican. The demographic characteristics of the voters surveyed also closely matched those in the 2006 national exit poll. If anything, the CCES respondents claimed they were more “independent” than those in the exit poll.

The CCES survey asked about 14 national issues: the war in Iraq (the invasion and the troops), abortion (and partial birth abortion), stem cell research, global warming, health insurance, immigration, the minimum wage, liberalism and conservatism, same-sex marriage, privatizing Social Security, affirmative action, and capital gains taxes. Not surprisingly, some of the largest differences between Democrats and Republicans were over the Iraq war. Fully 85 percent of those who voted for Democratic House candidates felt that it had been a mistake to invade Iraq, compared with only 18 percent of voters who cast ballots for Republicans.

But the divisions between the parties weren’t limited to Iraq. They extended to every issue in the survey. For example, 69 percent of Democratic voters chose the most strongly pro-choice position on the issue of abortion, compared with 20 percent of Republican voters; only 16 percent of Democratic voters supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, while 80 percent of Republican voters did; and 91 percent of Democratic voters favored governmental action to reduce global warming, compared with 27 percent of Republican voters.

When we combined voters’ answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation’s voters isn’t a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It’s a sharp V.

OK, if this is true, and Abramowitz and Bishop certainly make a compelling case, what does this tell us about how the political process should work?

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure I "buy" that there is so little "middle". But I also wonder if those most willing to participate in surveys are those with strong ideological viewpoints compared with others who may not be willing to discuss national issues.