ThinkingLiberal

Those Damned Useless Democrats... By A Democrat

Almost one year to the day ago, I wrote the following on my blog.

“Now that the Democrats have the Senate as well as the House, we can expect a tectonic shift in American politics. We can expect oversight of the executive branch - particularly with regard to human rights and civil liberties, which this Administration has thrown to the dogs. We can expect a re-evaluation of our foreign policy.

We can expect a shift in tax priorities to moderate the excessive cuts given to the extremely wealthy. We can expect more money for healthcare and education. More money for police and firefighters. A raise in the minimum wage. A focus on small business rather than Big Oil.”

So what happened? Why have the Democrats failed on almost every count to do anything useful for this country over the last year?

Because the Dems have failed. They’ve failed to do anything about the war. Failed on healthcare. Failed on stem cell research. Failed on foreign policy. In fact, I can’t see much of a success anywhere.

Just look at the litany of discarded (or wallowing in committee) bills:

The Clean Air Act (notice an alternative title, Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007’)  is still pending after a year – and it’s bound to lose its bite, since four Democratic Senators oppose it.

The Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007 has gone nowhere, and in fact we’re funding the war at a higher rate than ever. What a disappointment to the millions whose primary agenda in electing Democrats was to get us the hell out of that hellhole.

The Medicare Price Negotiation Act of 2007 has sat in committee since January and – as expected – seems to be destined to remain there.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program which Bush vetoed, and which was a huge priority that has failed to garner enough Republican votes to overcome Bush’s objection to looking after disadvantaged kids.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. The Dems have not built any bipartisanship, and have, it seems, been content on the whole to just let things be.

Bush is a lame duck President, and he and his cronies have managed to ensure that the Democrats’ 110th Congress has no legs at all. Sure, it’s easy to blame him – and we should, to some extent – but it’s the Democrats I really blame, for reneging on their promises and allowing the country to continue to flounder in the mess that the Republicans created in the first place.

Pure Self Interest: For Once It Makes Me Happy

Forget the polls. If you really want to know who’s going to win the next Presidential election, just follow the business dollars.

Back in 1992, when it was becoming clear that Bill Clinton was about to become President, and our bicameral legislature was controlled by Democrats, the business lobby was tripping over itself to throw money at them. Admittedly, the percentages of the top 68 corporate donors were fairly even – 51% to Democrats, 49% to the GOP – but let’s face it, given the overwhelming majority of dollars that come with union support, the Democrats will never entirely break into big business.

But look at what happened next. That’s what is so telling. In 1996, the year after the Republicans captured both the Senate and the House, the Democrats’ share of business dollars plummeted to from 51% to 35%. That’s an incredible turnaround over four years. In fact, over $65 million went to the Republicans that year, compared to $35 million to the Dems. And the trend continued as the Republican years wore (tediously) on.

They lost a couple of percentage points when it seemed that Al Gore might get in, but on the whole the large majority of dollars stayed in Republican hands. It’s clear that business was backing the winning elephant.

But suddenly there’s a wholesale change in the prevailing wind (and I’m not just talking the hot air that comes out of John McCain’s mouth) as we approach the 2008 election. Business is giving more money to the Democrats, for the first time in 15 years.

Look at health: in 2006 it was strongly for the Republicans (62% - 37%) but now that advantage has gone, and the Democrats lead by 54% to 47%. Even oil and gas has gone from 82% to 72% in favor of the Republicans, and if that isn’t a sign of things to come, I don’t know what is. In fact, so far they have a 56% - 44% lead in fundraising in the corporate world.

Add that to their strong union support and you have a massive discrepancy in cash-on-hand between the parties. Ideological causes and union support don’t waver much. They’re solidly blue. But business donations tell a clear story: a strong majority of industries now believe that the Democrats will win the White House as well as retain both the Senate and House.

Like I say, pure self-interest… but for once, I really don’t care. Go corporate America!

Help Us, Obama-One Kenobi... You're Our Only Hope

A USA-Today / Gallup poll published a couple of days back sees Hillary Clinton rapidly increasing her lead among Democrats. The poll shows her at 48% compared to Obama’s 26%. This is a huge disparity, and questions are beginning to be asked about whether Barack can really win the Democratic nomination.

The trouble is – he has to. Looking further into the poll results we see that Giuliani is ahead of any Republican contender by 12%. Big deal for the Democrats – well, yes.

Asked to express a favorable/unfavorable opinion of Clinton, 48% of respondents were favorable, 49% unfavorable. Only 3% had no opinion. This is a staggering statistic, if only because it shows just how little wiggle room she has with the undecided voter. She has often been talked about as a polarizing candidate, and this clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that this is so. Compare this to Giuliani – 55% of the population have a positive opinion, just 32% unfavorable. In addition, 6% had no opinion and another 7% had never heard of him. (The number of people who hadn’t heard of Clinton seems to have been small enough to be statistically irrelevant.)

That leaves him with the possibility of a 13% boost to his campaign. Obama has just tanked somewhat after his controversial foreign policy speech, but he had previously been trending at a positive rating in the low fifties, and a negative opinion in the mid twenties. Potential swing votes were at 25% before his speech, giving him by far the most opportunity to woo new voters.

The conclusions I draw from this poll are reflective of the general feeling among Democrats of my acquaintance. Hillary can’t go any further – she’s peaked already. With hardly any additional votes to win, and the depth of dislike among voters of both parties, the only way for her to go is down.

Obama, on the other hand, has the least baggage of any Democrat. And that’s why we need him. A Washington insider isn’t going to win this race. (Despite my admiration for John Edwards, he doesn’t currently seem to have a snowball’s chance in hell.)

That’s going to be the defining characteristic of this campaign: fresh blood. Giuliani comes in on the back of some careful leadership and few outspoken views. He’s outside the beltway in more ways than one – he doesn’t seem too tangled in party affairs and has little contact with the scandals that have beset the Republicans. Obama has the same going for him (assuming he keeps quiet on politically sensitive topics such as amiable chats with Iran). Clinton does not.

If we don’t nominate Edwards or Obama, we can consider the race for the White House to be won at a trot by a Republican.

God Help The Atheist Politician

There was a time, not so long ago, when the USA pondered the idea of a Catholic in the White House. Would Kennedy take his orders from Rome? That was the question on the lips of the populace. He won, and he didn’t.

Now 95% of Americans say they’d vote for an ‘appropriately qualified’ candidate of the Catholic persuasion. And 92% say they’d vote in a Jew. 72% of the population, according to Gallup’s poll, would even vote a Mormon into the White House – and Mormons have some pretty weird ideas, not just about underwear. (Did you know, for example, that the word ‘Mormon’ has been trademarked by a front company for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?)

Religious tolerance has obviously come a long way.

In fact, a majority of Americans would support almost ANY candidate from any background. Hispanic? Sure, 87% in favor! A woman? Absolutely, 88% in favor. Three times divorced? Come on in! 67% in favor! A homosexual? Well… ok, we guess: 55% in favor!

How about an atheist?

No. You see, irreligious intolerance is increasing.

Gallup says that 53% of Americans would not vote for a qualified candidate for the White House who was an atheist. According to Newsweek figures in 2006, only 37% would vote for an atheist – down from 49% in 1999.

We have religious folks by the dozen in the Congress… Roman Catholic (28.8%), Baptist (14.1%), Methodist (11.4%) Presbyterian (9.7%), Episcopalian (7.9%) and Jewish (6.9%). We’ve got Mormons, Lutherans… we have a Sikh… two Buddhists… a Muslim… and we even have a freakin’ Scientologist, for crying out loud. (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.)

But there is only one self-identified atheist in the entire Legislative branch of our government, Rep. Pete Stark of CA. That’s one atheist, out of 535 legislative members. (Obviously there are none in the highest echelons of the Executive branch – Mr. Bush, who has been quoted by Mahmoud Abbas as saying that God told him to go to war in Iraq, would hardly condone that.)

Atheists, therefore, make up approximate 0.2% of our bicameral legislature, and approximately 0% of the highest levels of our executive branch. The Supreme Court, with five Catholics, two Jews, an Episcopalian and a Protestant, has zero representation for the atheist population.

Now, many of you people of faith out there will think this is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. After all, the majority of the population is in some manner theistic.

But atheists are, in fact, the most under-represented minority in modern American history.

Look at the stats: 7% of the adult population does not believe in God or any kind of universal spirit, (Gallup) and the US Census (quoted in Wiki here) claims that 15% of Americans are either atheist or agnostic. That’s 29.4 million people.

But every one of the Republican and Democratic contenders for the White House is, naturally, religious – and their piety is evidently increasing daily, as exemplified by Hillary Clinton’s revelation (pun intended) that only her ‘faith’ got her through her marriage difficulties, and the almost daily proclamations of religious fervor by every major candidate.

We are presented every election with a choice: the religious candidate, or the religious candidate. At the Federal level, there is one atheist to represent the views of my 15 million fellow non-believers. There are virtually no atheists at the state level, either – no great surprise, since Arkansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas all include language in their constitutions proclaiming that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being”.

We are 15 million people without representation, without a legislative, judicial or policy-shaping voice.

And this is more than an ‘issue’ like gun control, gay marriage, the environment or abortion. Each of those issues has its advocates, its opponents, its successes and its failures.

No, this is a fundamental worldview. And there is nobody out there representing it. The entire triumvirate of legislature, executive and judiciary is – with the exception of one man – utterly at odds with my personal understanding of the universe, and is out of step with 15 million of my compatriots.

Were this any other group, the country would be in uproar. No blacks in the executive branch?? Get some in there, quick! No women in the Supreme Court? Get on that, right away!! No atheists in the legislature? Bleh… whatever.

So I for one will find myself constantly cringing during this long, long election campaign as candidate after candidate tries to outdo his or her fellows by wearing their religion ever-more prominently on their sleeve. I will shudder at their proclamations of guidance from their invisible friend (my five-year old has one, but she’ll outgrow hers). I will grit my teeth as the candidates who seem to have some kind of moral or ethical relevance attribute it not to their own integrity, but to some spirit or series of fables whose instructions they are to follow.

Watch out, America. We fifteen million may be meek now. But you know what the Bible says about the meek.

Education: Kryptonite To Republicans?

The dumber we are, the more likely we are to vote Republican. That’s a fact. Indisputable and irrefutable. Ok, Im being deliberately provocative and I fully recognize that the country has many, many smart Republicans. But the figures don’t lie - voters in blue states (2004 Presidential election) are on the whole smarter than voters in red states. So I pose the question at the end of this analysis: why?

The following chart is derived from the 2004 Census Report On Educational Attainment. The full report, from which I stripped this data, is here. I added to that report the way the state voted in the Presidential election of 2004, and I then calculated the number of people per state with the level of education specified. (This information came from the 2004 Census - I divided the over-25 population in each state by the percentage of graduates to come up with the numbers.)

I then tallied the numbers of people with the specified level of education and divided by the total red or blue population to derive an overall percentage of people with either a college or high school education across the country, broken down by party.

The result, as you will see below, is very telling. In states that voted for Kerry, the average percentage of college graduates is 30.177%. In states that voted for Bush, the average percentage of college graduates is 24.932%. If we assume that a college education is an indicator of intelligence, we can then hypothesize that the average voter in a blue state is 21% smarter than the average voter in a red state. (24.932 x 121% = 30.168).

Ok, that's silly. I retract. The disparity between Republican states and Democratic ones is smaller when one analyzes the High School results. Red states had an average of 83.145% High School graduates, compared to the blue states’ 85.903% average graduate rate. It is interesting also to note that red states occupy the bottom 10 places in the state ranking, and only 2 of the top 10. (Colorado, of course, bucked the national trend by voting for Democratic control of both its House and Senate, while still inexplicably voting for Bush - and Colorado has by far the largest percentage of graduates, at 45.7%, some 9% ahead of Hawaii at #2.)

Seriously for a moment, do you think that this does, to some extent, explain why education suffers major cuts under Republican administrations? Are the Republicans afraid of a more educated populace? Again, my question is WHY is this dichotomy so clear... my conclusions will not be yours, and quite rightly so - it's intelligent debate on this subject that interests me.

RED STATES: Total Number Over 25 – 97,180,000 Total Number H/S Grads – 80,801,000 Total Percentage H/S Grads – 83.145% Total Number College Grads – 24,229,000 Total Percentage College Grads – 24.932% BLUE STATES Total Number Over 25 – 91,201,000 Total Number H/S Grads – 78,345,000 Total Percentage H/S Grads – 85.903% Total Number College Grads – 27,522,000 Total Percentage College Grads – 30.177%

Is Bush Really Controlling Oil Prices?

I mentioned to a friend the other day that I blame the Republicans for current gas prices, which are now at the highest level ever (even taking into account inflation since the 1982 spike). He laughed at me, saying he didn’t see how it could possibly be in their best interests to be irritating the general public to this extent. So I laid down some arguments showing just how much the current situation fits with the Republican agenda.

1.Arctic drilling. This has been a mainstay of Republican policy for years. Bills to open up the wildlife reserves to the big oil companies have been repeatedly defeated: but the longer gas prices stay high, the more willing the public will be to accept such a measure. Even though drilling there has been widely condemned for environmental reasons, such concerns have never swayed Republicans. (Think Gale Norton and her 'free-market' environmentalism, essentially a code-term for letting the business lobby do exactly as they pleased with our natural resources without fear of Federal regulation.)

2.The Saudi factor. George Bush and Prince Bandar of the House of Saud, ambassador to the USA for many years and now National Security Chief in his home country, are best of friends. Bush used to call him 'Bandar Bush' and he was a frequent visitor to Crawford. Now, we all know that OPEC operates as a cartel, and that the Saudi oilfields only account for around 10% of world oil production, or 30% within OPEC. However, within that cartel Saudi Arabia has been operating rather strangely. While most of the other members have been increasing production, the Saudis have reduced by 8% their total output.

The interesting thing here is that overall OPEC oil revenues have increased from $128 billion in 1998 to $522 billion in 2006. Meanwhile, Saudi revenues have gone from $36.9 billion to $159.1 billion over the same period.

Conclusion? Saudi Arabia is earning more money – a LOT more money – by cutting production. As the country's biggest customer, you might think that the USA had more sway over crude oil prices (remember, we're talking OPEC revenues and crude oil, not refineries). And especially considering Bush's close relationship with the House of Saud. In particular, given that oil accounts for a third of the budget deficit, you might also think that the party of 'fiscal responsibility' might be putting huge pressure on the Saudis to rein in prices and profits.

3.Political instability. The Bush regime has systematically alienated friend and foe alike. (To alienate a foe may seem an odd statement; but consider the legacy of Reagan, the Republicans' most revered figure of recent history, who managed to make a friend of the biggest foe of all.)

We are seen as arrogant, warmongering, nation-builders. We are seen as a nation of zealots. Our allies have deserted our cause in Iraq (remember Poland?) and we find ourselves shunned and reprimanded by millions upon millions of Muslims, who feel that our war is against their faith, and not against the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban.

The Bushies have mismanaged foreign policy in a breathtaking fashion. Our relations with Russia are at the lowest ebb since the Cold War, we've antagonized Iran, bullied Venezuela and failed to support Nigeria. Interesting that those four countries are massive oil producers, isn't it? Creating instability in these areas leaves plenty of room for the Sauds to clean up on the back of restricted oil supply.

I'm not saying that those countries aren't antagonistic themselves – but with better management, our relations with them could have been significantly eased.

4. Money. Pure and simple. In the last six election cycles, the oil and gas lobby has contributed $119,477,000 to the Republican Party. In the same period, the Democrats have benefited by $31,428,000. That $80 million difference must have looked pretty darned good to the Republicans. The top 20 recipients of money from the oil and gas industry were all Republican. ... and this will surely have 'inspired' their domestic and foreign policies on oil.

In conclusion, the blanket statement that Bush is controlling oil prices is dismissed easily. But the underlying trends in the ever-spiraling price of gas can be traced definitively to Republican policy, and the extraordinary influence of the oil lobby and the Saudis on Bush and his chums.

Of course there are other factors. Not least a couple of wars, and Chinese growth. But these smaller, less obvious influences are inextricably intertwined with the Republican agenda.

Seventy-One Failures, Plus One, Equals Seventy-Two

Alberto Gonzales is back on the stand today, once again 'failing to recall' dozens of conversations, emails, meetings and directives that led to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for what were, ostensibly, political reasons.

Three weeks ago he couldn't remember much of anything (indeed, he said so no less than seventy-one times) – but you would think that in the intervening time, having reviewed carefully the allegations against him and his department, his memory might have been refreshed to some degree.

Apparently not. “My feelings and recollections about this matter have not changed," Gonzales told a Congressional panel earlier today.

Now this means one of two things. Either he's a lousy attorney, or he's lying.

An attorney doesn't conveniently forget entire tracts of their tenure. And in the unlikely event that they were called to account for claiming exactly that, they would rigorously pursue avenues that would lead them to truth and justice (and especially, exoneration). Mr. Gonzales has failed to do that. In three weeks, he has evidently failed to turn up any new information whatsoever regarding this case. Nothing. Nada.

This is a typical tactic of the Bush administration – fail to recall, and nobody can call you a liar. (Think Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, absent-mindedly dropping Valerie Plame's name into a few conversations here and there. Think Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld forgetting all about the dire warnings George Tenet gave them just a few weeks before 9/11 that Al Qaeda planned a massive attack within the USA.)

However, it's not so easy for an attorney. They are expected to research, to uncover, to discover. They are expected to show some degree of proactivity when it comes to finding the truth. Gonzales has failed dismally in his duty to figure out what he hadn't remembered. A simple investigation should have made it more clear to him what had transpired... but as a lousy attorney, he discovered nothing.

Of course that might not be the case at all. Despite suggesting that the Geneva Conventions were outdated and irrelevant, despite his assertion in January that the U.S. Constitution conveyed no right of Habeas Corpus to our citizens, perhaps he's not a wholly incompetent attorney, but simply a bare-faced liar.

Either way, Bush's intractability and defiance in the face of the will of the people and Congress is once again clearly demonstrating that Bush's priorities lie not with the country, but with his friends.

Mr. Gonzales may be a liar. Or he may be a sub-standard attorney. Either way, he does not deserve to be counsel to the President. Seventy-one failures to recall, plus one of two good reasons to quit, equals seventy-two abject disappointments in our Attorney General.

Why Do Women Even THINK Of Voting Republican?

Today the Supreme Court began the long, slow, and possibly irreversible process of turning America into the only westernized country in the world to prevent women from choosing whether to take their pregnancy to term or not.

It was on the cards, of course. Ever since O’Connor left and Alito joined the Court, it has been clear that an abortion case would come before them. Indeed, South Dakota’s lawmakers deliberately legislated a particularly vicious bill designed specifically to be challenged in the Supreme Court, with the intention of giving Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas the chance to ‘legislate from the bench’, as our Republican friends like to characterize any decision handed down by a member of the judiciary with whom they disagree.

Today’s ruling may have covered only a small percentage of pregnancies, but the echoes of the decision will be heard throughout hospital wards across the country.

The key element of the ruling was whether a bill with no exception for the health of the mother could be lawful. Three Federal courts said no; the Supreme Court said yes.

So yes, if you are pregnant and in danger, you and any physician attending who makes a decision to save your health can be prosecuted. In essence, what the Supreme Court is saying is that a fetus now has more right to live than its mother.

This baffles me. After all, fetuses can’t vote; women can. Are women so unconcerned with their rights that they can listen to this statement from George Bush, and agree with it?

“Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America.”

Compassion and humanity? Where is the compassion for the endangered mother? Or for the doctor whose Hippocratic oath compels him to operate to save her, at the risk of going to jail?

From here the path is clear: over time, the federal protection of Roe vs Wade will erode and the states will take on responsibility for abortion law. And some of those states will create ever more draconian laws that will eventually – and I believe this fervently – prosecute mothers who terminate their pregnancy for a "crime" no less than murder.

Republican women, why would you vote for an administration that supports this? And that has facilitated this decision through deliberately stacking the Supreme Court deck with jokers like Alito?

Homeownership - Now A Liberal Issue?

The Bush administration is a big fan of self-regulation. Oil companies? Let market forces dictate their profits! Utilities? Let market forces curb their pollution! Credit card predators? Let... well, you get the picture.

But by allowing mortgage companies and brokers free rein to cash in on the erstwhile housing boom, and by failing to anticipate that all would not be roses and petals forever, the Republicans may have made a fatal mistake.

Consider: RealtyTrac advises that 3.33% of all Colorado households, 54,747 in total, were in some stage of the foreclosure process during 2006. One family in every thirty-three, unable to pay their mortgage and about to lose their home. (If you live in Colorado, there's probably someone on your street who could use a plate of cookies right about now.)

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2.15 million Coloradans voted in the 2004 Presidential Election. 1,101,255 of those people voted for G.W.Bush, while 1,001,732 voted for John Kerry.

Traditionally home ownership is a strong indicator of whether an individual will vote or not. In 2004, once again according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 67.7% of homeowners voted, vs. 48.3% of renters.

Now, apply the political test: Howard R. Ernst of the University of Virginia wrote a fascinating report on Home Ownership and political affiliation (http://centerforpolitics.org/downloads/pub_housing_3.pdf) which clearly demonstrates that 88% of US voters who vote Republican own their own homes, compared to just 76% of Democrats. Furthermore, only 17% of homeowners describe themselves as 'liberal' compared to 42% who describe themselves as 'conservative'.

'Self-regulation' of the mortgage industry has led to record foreclosure levels; homeowners tend to vote Republican; so what happens to voting in Colorado now that its people are losing their homes?

(Warning: assumptions ahead.)

Suppose there are 1.5 voters in each foreclosure, a reasonably well-educated guess. That's 82,120 voters, with a 67.7% likelihood of voting. Now suppose that 65% of them voted Republican in the last presidential election – but that their combined anguish and newly-found status as renters reverses that trend in 2008. That would be a swing of nearly 17,000 votes from 36,136 Republican votes to just 19,458, which, while not enough on its own to have given Kerry victory, would nevertheless have narrowed the margin of victory to just 80,000 votes or so. And of course, it doesn't take into effect the people who simply watch in horror while their neighbors are forced to pack up and leave.

Now apply that rule to some of the tighter and more populous states, like Ohio, where foreclosures are also high. Suddenly you're seeing swings that could give the Democrat the edge.

Foreclosure is a liberal issue now, because it is taking votes away from the Republicans and reapportioning them to the Democrats. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama need to look seriously at how this issue can affect their campaigns, and at how best to illustrate to angry and disillusioned voters that the Republicans' failed policies of self-regulation have led to this sad state of affairs.

Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics (That Lie).

Buried deep in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's report is a quite incredible assertion.

"U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush Administration's goals."

"Systematically underreported" means "lied about".

Why is this not being covered? (In fact, more to the point, why is it virtually being covered up?) Another example of the liberal media?

It is extraordinary to me that the panel can illustrate its point by referring to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

Perhaps that estimate of 650,000 dead that was 'not credible' according to the White House was, in fact, a hell of a lot more credible that their own numbers.

And perhaps if our country was made aware of that remarkable figure, we would be pulling out of Iraq right now.