Blogcritics: Comments on Campaigning begins at home

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:26:28 EDT

I'm with you on this one, Mike.

Comment by Mike Kole

Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:02:04 EDT

Hal- I think that if the Dems blocked this energy bill, they should be thanked!

Comment by JR

Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:33:00 EDT

The Dems blocked Bush's energy plan. It would have increased domestic energy production, added thousands of high-paying unions jobs, prevented large-scale black-outs by making the power-grid more connected on a national level, and would have offered big-time federal bucks for research on fuel-cell technology. If I remember correctly, those federal bucks would depend on income from ANWR - no drilling, no research funding. If Cheney, et al were so selflessly concerned about our future, why the hitch? And it's the connectedness that causes large-scale blackouts. Preventing blackouts is probably impossible. If the administration was claiming otherwise, they were lying again.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:02:06 EDT

I also found an article on the energy bill that you and several fellow-travelers will probably trust, RJ - it's from the Heritage Foundation:

Energy Bill Still Too Pork-Heavy WASHINGTON, MARCH 18, 2004�"Even trimmed to less than half its original size, the energy legislation moving through Congress remains laden with pork, budget gimmicks, corporate welfare and misguided investments, says a new paper from The Heritage Foundation. Senators cut the 10-year price tag on the bill from the $31.1 billion agreed to in a House-Senate conference committee to $14 billion. But large agribusinesses would continue to profit from lucrative ethanol subsidies, the coal industry still would receive $2 billion in taxpayer money, and unnecessary research�"such as studying ways to convert car trips to bicycle trips and a $50 million project to study transit buses�"still would go forward as usual. "It may be less bloated than the original, but federal spending will continue to increase," says Charli Coon, Heritage energy expert and author of the paper. Worse, Coon argues, the bill fails to take the steps necessary to improve and secure the energy America needs. [Heritage Foundation]

What do you think?

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:29:39 EDT

Kerry did not vote to invade Iraq, and did not say that he would vote to invade "knowing what he knows now." [Bush Flopped On Terrorism And Security, Kerry Didn't Flip] As for the vaunted energy bill:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the energy subsidies a "shameless scam" to benefit the oil and gas industries and other energy interests.

Comment by RJ

Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:37:13 EDT

Kerry has demonized the Bush administration for "going to war because of an over-reliance on foreign oil" even though he says (now) that he supported the war, and even though he voted AGAINST increased oil exploration here in the US. The Dems blocked Bush's energy plan. It would have increased domestic energy production, added thousands of high-paying unions jobs, prevented large-scale black-outs by making the power-grid more connected on a national level, and would have offered big-time federal bucks for research on fuel-cell technology. Democrats, including Kerry, apparently care more about Arctic Caribou than they do Americans...

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:07:29 EDT

I thought I had already told you, Al, but maybe that was in some other threads. Kerry will change foreigh policy, trade policy and tax policy. Check Kerry's site and various press reports over the last few months for details. Keeping ideological blinders on isn't any too smart with this country and the world in the shape they're in. Following an idée fixe isn't going to fix anything.

Comment by Al Barger

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:50:47 EDT

Hal, perhaps the silliest one dumb excuse for an idea that I've heard in politics is voting for "change." Ross Perot, for example, was all about "change," which also apparently meant "cleaning out the barn." What does any of that mean? What exactly do you think that Kerry will do differently and better than Bush? By the way, what's his policy on Iraq this week? I know of no real answers to any of that, good or bad. He's just not Bush. Even if he makes "changes," they might be changes for the worse. Change in itself is no sure virtue.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:32:57 EDT

CLINTON pushed through NAFTA- it was not forced on him, which the Republican presidents previously hadn't been able to. That was probably one of Clinton's couple of most effective policy accomplishments. On this one, you're closer to the truth :-) The truth is that he actually signed a couple of hundred trade deals, all of which weren't necessarily in the best interests of the Democrat's constituency. It becomes clear why he did this when you remember that he was a former chariman of the Democratic Leadership Council. At the time, they were all acting as mini-me-Republicans. They had decided that big business had all the money, and they wanted some - why should the Republicans get all the gelt? - so they reached as far as they could into the pockets of AgriBusiness, Big Pharma and other multi-nationals. Since then, things have fractured somewhat for the DLC and some members are actually starting to remember that they are not Republicans. And even during Clinton's tenure, he was only the president and most legislation was actually created and driven by the Republican majority (think Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott). I agree that both parties carry blame, but still feel that the quickest start on a fix is the change the contents of the White House (I have a bi-partisan list for lesser issues later).

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:19:04 EDT

No, Al, I'm not acting as if there were such big differences between the Republicans and Democrats. I'm acting as if we had huge problems and needed to find a way to solve the biggest ones first and fast. At the moment, that seems to be to replace the current White House incumbents. I'd vote for anyone who stood a chance of getting elected irrespective of political party. At the moment, it's Kerry.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:33:19 EDT

That's not true, Al, pay attention: #12: Republican Tom McClintock, a fiscal conservative, would have done a far better job than Schwarzenegger ... but at least it eased the Democrat's grip.

Comment by Dan

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 01:57:20 EDT

"Maybe we just weren't reading close enough." I've heard that if you focus on the part of the constitution that say's "for the common good", relax your eyes a bit, eventually the words "free drugs" pop out at you 3-dimensionally.

Comment by Dan

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 01:32:30 EDT

Also, Clinton got welfare reform. Kennedy was the first to realize tax cuts expanded the economy, and Republicans own civil rights legislation. Those are all positives btw.

Comment by Al Barger

Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:46:13 EDT

Really, you're acting as if there were such big differences between the Republicans and Democrats. They in fact are in about 95% agreement about policy. They both believe in a big, welfare state government, and they're both heavily on the corporate take. The "gridlock" comes not from significant differences between the parties in policy goals mostly, but simply from wanting to be the one holding power, or not wanting to give the opposite party president a win. I'm all with Hal on condemning the Republicans for all kinds of dumb corporate welfare- but of course the Democrats are AT LEAST as bad. For starters, please nail both Massachusetts senators specifically even just for the ridiculous multi-bazillion dollar Big Dig. CLINTON pushed through NAFTA- it was not forced on him, which the Republican presidents previously hadn't been able to. That was probably one of Clinton's couple of most effective policy accomplishments. Of course, there's no Republican going to please Hal. Bush created a HUGE new liberal entitlement program. If Clinton had managed to do this, you'd be proclaiming it a great day for the old folks, and that this proved he was up there with Lincoln and Roosevelt. I, of course, am opposed to the new drug benefit plan for starters on grounds that the federal government has absolutely no legitimate legal authority to create such a thing. Leastways, Ashytyn and I can't find anything in the US Constitution that said that the feds are supposed to be our doctors and pharmacists. Army and cops is definitely there, doctoring in any form doesn't seem to be. Maybe we just weren't reading close enough.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:21:34 EDT

In the broad picture, RJ, the broad picture - don't go berserk on me here. They got NAFTA. They got the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. They got the invasion of Iraq. They got the Medicare Act to pay off their Big Pharma buddies (and made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices). And huge subsidies for AgriBusiness and all kinds of corporate welfare and tax cuts (Wachovia made a $3 billion profit and paid no taxes). And environmental reforms that permit pollution, leave MTBE alone and increase mercury in the air and water. And in the House use the Republican Rules Committee (chaired by "my" representative Richard Dreier) to prevent Democrats from adding amendments to or even debating bills. Etc. Etc. Etc. But do tell me about those "Bush reforms" that were blocked. I've largely being paying attention to those that weren't. Links to sources would be appreciated. Thanks.

Comment by RJ

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:14:52 EDT

"The big problem right now is that we do not even have gridlock, and have not had, in Congress, since the Newt Gingrichians took over in 1994. They have pretty much steam-rolled anything they wanted since then." This is, frankly, insane. The Dems in the Senate have blocked nearly every major reform Bush has proposed. Now, you might disagree with the Bush proposals, and therefore think of this fact as a good thing. But it is hardly indicative of the Republicans being able to "steamrol" whatever the hell they want into law. That simply isn't true.

Comment by RJ

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:07:35 EDT

Well, supporting evidence that it HAPPENED, but also evidence that it still HAPPENS. :)

Comment by RJ

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:06:57 EDT

I meant that as supporting evidence, not as a rebuttal...

Comment by RJ

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:06:04 EDT

"There was a time in US history that the best of the big businesses resented government, and very often it was lesser competitors who sought unnatural advantage who lobbied the Congress most vigorously. That time, of course, is long past." Er...Microsoft vs. its rivals?

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:04:03 EDT

Mike: the one place an incumbent can be turned out is in the Presidency. Turning out the President can send a signal to the Congress that another tone is being set. Do you have any sense that a Kerry Administration will really lead to any kind of substantive change? I'll settle for gridlock as damage control. I think you have to start in a place where you stand a chance to begin change, and at the moment I see that as the presidency. The big problem right now is that we do not even have gridlock, and have not had, in Congress, since the Newt Gingrichians took over in 1994. They have pretty much steam-rolled anything they wanted since then. Clinton may have stopped a few things, but he was sympathetic to the DLC gang (which include Joseph Lieberman, Senator Evan Bayh, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, etc.). They call themselves the "Democratic Leadership Council" but essentially they're really mini-me-Republicans, who happen to support abortion. These guys are as corporation-owned as any Republican, so we need to stay away from them. Kerry is not one of them, so with him we would have a head-start on fixing things like what the Republicans call "free trade" but is execute as protectionism (do a search for 'Zoellich' and 'trade agreement'). Kerry will also get rid of the neoconservatives who have hijacked foreign policy. This will do more to improve American security than all the troops and guns and bombs in Iraq. That unilateralist neocon invasion simply roiled up the hornets' nest and made radical Islamists even more determined to harm America, while wasting resources and lives "there" that could have been used to protect us "here." Think about it, any neocons reading this: if we were to send another 50,000 troops to Iraq, or invade Iran or Syria or Pakistan or North Korea, exactly how would that make us safer at home? Would it provide better inspection of port and plane cargoes? Better control on the Canadian and Mexican borders? More security for reservoirs, chemical factories, nuclear power plants? With Kerry as Command-In-Chief, we will have a chance to disengage "there" and focus on the real problems "here." Additionally, Kerry would attack terrorism in a manner that has a chance of working: cooperatively with the rest of the world. Electing Kerry will certainly not cure all this country's ills, but the above is more than enough for me to support him. Once we get headed in the right direction on trade, terrorism and foreign policy, we can start on the other issues. I have no idea what Nader and Camejo's policies are on anything (aside from "Tax the rich"). They could truly have the best ideas for dealing with everything, but it doesn't matter to me. They won't be elected so they won't be able to make any changes. And we need to make changes. Now.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:12:07 EDT

Hal- I get what you are saying. Ironically, while the so-called campaign finance reform has made it imminently more difficult to turn out an incumbent from the Congress, the one place an incumbent can be turned out is in the Presidency. Turning out the President can send a signal to the Congress that another tone is being set. Do you have any sense that a Kerry Administration will really lead to any kind of substantive change? Will the 'foxes' you refer to really be replaced with others that are not cronies beholden to pet Democratic interests, some of which are corporate, too? I see no good reason to expect anything different. I would love to see this sort of change! Sadly, I have no faith that the American people really want it. If they are against one set of entrenched big interests, they tend to be for another set- Big unions, outright protectionists, the like. Sure, the time is now, but the premises must be challenged, and I don't see that happening with Democratic or Republican voters. I'll settle for gridlock as damage control.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:54:44 EDT

The Republicans have managed to turn the discussion to be about the size of the government, but I don't think the size is as important as what the government is doing. With this administration, governance in the country has become "of corporations, by corporations, for corporations" far more than ever before. At one time, the 535 in the Senate and House represented the people in their districts. Now, they represent themselves. They need campaign contributions and in most cases that results in selling out your interests to large donors. That's non-partisan, but. The "but" is that this administration is the worst example of stuffing foxes into slots overseeing the henhouse that I've seen in the last 40 years. For instance, they have appointed more than 100 former industry lobbyists and lawyers to oversee the industries they lobbied for, and sure enough - most still act as if they were working for those industries (will blog more details next week). So how do you fix the problem? I would like to replace everyone in the White House, Senate and House (with a few Senate and House exceptions). That's unrealistic, so another approach is to try to see which single action would do the most good. Then look for the remaining "single best move" and do that. Etc. Right now, the single best move - with the most positive potential and highest likelihood of success - is to change the occupants of the White House. With that, we could remove the big business lobbyists and lawyers who have hijacked the country and the neocons who hijacked foreign policy. It could work. Because it may be working in California - Democrat Governor Davis absolutely, positively had to be dumped and he was. Republican Tom McClintock, a fiscal conservative, would have done a far better job than Schwarzenegger (who so far has managed to borrow $15 billion, and will probably have to borrow another $20 billion over the next two years, and in other areas is kind of a "girlie-man"), but at least it eased the Democrat's grip. Now we need to work on getting some balance in the Democrat-controlled state senate (the leader is being term-limited out so we have a chance) and the state assembly. Guys like Nader and Camejo (he ran for Cal. governor, too) are jokes - they don't have a hope in hell of getting elected so it's just a waste of time. (Camejo was particularly so - his solution to every single problem in California was: "Tax the rich.") But we do have to decide if we all want to be subjects of AgriBusiness, Big Pharma and the Faux-Free-Traders. I think the time is now. What do you think?

Comment by Mike Kole

Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:17:05 EDT

I'll take the 'compliment'. Cough. Let me clarify: Republicans and Democrats want big government. If the little guy can't get his word in, look at the elected officials. They are the ones who set the terms of engagement. If I am ever elected to office, I will set the terms of engagement in my office, which means that lobbyists and constituents alike would be welcome to come to me with a conversation at any time, but it doesn't mean they get what they ask for from me. Right now, when lobbyists go to lawmakers, they tend to get what they want. What is the solution? To ban lobbyists? Won't that take us to more outright bribery? I think the solution is to hold our lawmakers to a higher standard. Look, if my 12-year-old son asks for the car keys and an 8-ball of crack, my answer is 'no'. If he counters that he'll be glad to take a six-pack of beer instead and will cut the grass still meets with the response 'no'. In today's Congress, that latter is the responsible approach taken by moderates of both parties. Who gave the store away, the person making the request or the gatekeeper who agreed to the request?

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:46:11 EDT

Mike, in regards to comment 5, I think you might make a good politician too, because you can give an answer that makes sense and doesn't make sense at the same time. IF I'm understanding, then you and Al feel that Republicans and Democrats need big government to pamper to their every whim, (or pinpricked finger), and this is bad, but big business throwing millions of dollars at lawmakers (which at least one of you'd like to be), in order to get laws and agenda's passed in a way that the little guy could never do, is just part of the game and okay.

Comment by Mike Kole

Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:01:23 EDT

Bravo, Shark! Identify the things the average Libertarian actually supports as the things the Libertarian office holder would assail! Missed it by, oh, completely. Libertarians believe in the basics, but the basics include infrastructure and safety and defense services. Let's see: Highways? Infrastructure. Gov't. Dams? Infrastructure. Gov't. Water Systems? Infrastructure. Gov't. CDC? Safety. Gov't. Fire Departments? Safety. Gov't. Libraries? Hey- there's one that could be done better privately. Nice job, Duane Kuiper. You are batting .143! You could, unlike Democrats and Republicans, expect Libertarians to work towards eliminating corporate welfare. You pinkos seem to like corporate welfare just fine, otherwise you would have done something to reduce it yourselves.