Modern America

Health Care Scare

2009-08-14T15:36:00.002-04:00

Currently, I don't have any form of health care... never have. When I go to the hospital, etc, I have to pay for it out of my own pocket. So, I rarely ever go, even with major illnesses and injuries. So, why the hell wouldn't I want some reform?

.

2008-11-24T11:13:00.001-05:00

The income-disparity is intolerable...

2008-06-16T20:43:00.002-04:00

As many of you scramble to get your taxes done before tomorrow's deadline, Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington-based advocacy group, has released a new report showing just how much love the Bush administration has shown to the richest one percent of Americans... literally at the expense of the rest of us. Not that we didn't already know this, of course, but somehow seeing it all laid out in black and white brings it home all the more clearly.

According to the report, in 2010, when all of the Bush tax cuts will finally have taken effect, the richest one percent of American families—those earning $1.6 million annually—will receive, on average, a $92,000 tax cut. As a share of the population, these families will account for an estimated 53 percent of all tax relief, while the poorest 60 percent will be on the receiving end of just 12-15 percent of tax cuts.

Just what does it take to belong to the richest one percent? Money, of course, and lots of it. According to the report:

In 2008 the best-off one percent will have an estimated average income of almost $1.5 million each. Just to get into this elite group requires an income greater than $462,000. If all of that came from wages, then for single people it would take an average wage of $224 an hour to make it into the top one percent, and $722 an hour to become an average member.

For two-earner couples with both spouses working full time, it would take an average wage for each spouse of $112 an hour to get into the top one percent and $361 an hour each to be an average member of the top one percent.

Yet, however unlikely it may be, membership in this elite club is something many Americans believe to be a realistic prospect. According to a 2000 opinion poll, some 19 percent of us believed we were already members of the top one percent, while another 20 percent said they expected to get there someday. Never let it be said that Americans lack optimism.

But back to the Bush tax cuts... the fact is that nothing in life is free, and as the national debt continues to soar, so does the certainty of troubled times ahead as we struggle to pay it down.

From the report:

Even if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of 2010, as they are schedule to do under current law, interest payments would continue to cost us about $1.5 trillion during the 2011-2020 period. (This is not included in the $5 trillion cost of extending the tax cuts.

These costs should not be written off as some abstract or distant problem. The national debt must be paid off eventually, either in the form of increased taxes or cuts in public services that Americans rely on.

And, finally, to put the tax cuts offered to the richest one percent in some perspective, the report compares them to the annual budget allocations for various federal agencies:

The cost of the Bush tax cuts going to just the richest one percent in 2008 (about $79.5 billion) is more than the entire budget for the Department of Education this year ($68 billion), almost twice as much as the entire budget for the Department of Homeland Security this year ($42.3 billion) and over ten times as much as the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.5 billion).

Blackwater...a danger to our democracy...

2008-06-16T20:28:00.000-04:00

Nader on Lou Dobbs...

2008-06-13T16:39:00.000-04:00

Bush's War....

2008-06-09T17:02:00.001-04:00

Nader - WTO - Obama

2008-06-08T02:06:00.002-04:00

The Obamarama Campaign Express was roaring down a New Hampshire highway near Nashua when an aide spotted the sprawling No Holds Barred Sports Bar. “Let’s stop the bus,” she urged, “and do some random schmoozing.”

Obama and his entourage poured out of the bus and headed for the front door, over which hung a large sign: “HOME OF THE POLI-BEER: WHERE BOOZE, POLITICS AND SPORTS MIX IT UP!”

Inside the packed bar, the guys and gals were gathering for the Big Game to start. Before the game, however, there was an hour for political talk time. Their eyes widened in amazement when they saw Barack, bounding through the doorway with his secret service detail.

The bar had a big pit, with a huge crackling fireplace, where the patrons have their regular give and take. Obama was ready for some of that.

He started: “I stand for change. They said we set our sights too high in Iowa. They said now is not the time. I proved the cynics wrong in corn country and I’ll prove them wrong in the granite state. To show you I mean it, no speech, go at me. Our time for change has come.”

Guy number one-”Ok, Barack, you’re going for the power in the Big House, the big companies already have the power, how ya gonna make us little people powerful?”

Obama-”Stay tuned. One leap at a time. We are one people. Get me there first.”

Gal number one-”You say, CHANGE, well how are you going to cut the bloated military budget full of vast waste, fraud and abuse, when you’ve specifically said you’ll ‘expand and modernize the military?’ Why, it’s already half or more of the government’s operating budget, squeezing programs for children, health and all that. I’m an accountant and I know numbers.”

Obama-”Exactly. Our time for change has come. I’m going to change the old weapons with new weapons and the old soldiers with the new soldiers. That’s real change-at the grass roots.”

Guy number two-”You don’t seem to have any rough edges, Barack.”

Obama-”It’s all about the mood, dude.”

The crowd was getting agitated and the questions came faster and faster.

“Why are you for nuclear power with taxpayer guarantees?”

“Will you oppose Congress getting pay raises, pensions and health insurance until the American people get the same?”

“Do you favor repealing the anti-union nightmare-the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947?”

“How can you talk about change and take gobs of campaign money from the big corporate lawyers and bosses?”

Obama, smiling: “It’s ALL about the mood, dudes. All the rest are details you can look up on my website-obama_is_us.org. We are choosing hope over fear.”

Gal number two-”Ok, answer this one that probably isn’t on your website. When are you going to meet with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and campaign in the black ghettos-say Harlem or Watts?”

Obama-”Whoaa, give that tough lady a Poli-beer on me! We are one nation.”

Guy number three (with an Obama face mask)-”I’m the old Obama, remember me? I was for single-payer, full medicare for everyone. I was strongly for Palestinian rights and for replacing NAFTA and WTO, not for tweaking them. I was for taxing the super-rich and defending class actions. I was for capping credit-card and loan shark interest rates. What happened to me?”

Obama-”Well, didn’t I tell you that I stand for CHANGE?”

Gal number three-”You seem to be for everyone, but not everyone is for everyone. Some are against everyone. Tell me, are the big corporations, the greedy defense contractors, drug, oil and insurance companies, starting to quake in their boots at the thought that you are now the front-runner?”

Obama, lifting his chin-”Well, Ma’am, we haven’t ordered our seismometer yet.”

Oooohs and boos float around the pit. A few start drifting away.

Guy number four-”You’re one of those smart Haavard lawyers, Barack. You were a constitutional law teacher. You were against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, why aren’t you putting two and two together-impeachment of the war criminals in the White House followed by conviction in the Senate?”

Obama-”You don’t understand (testily), impeachment talk is just more of the same old Washington politics. I stand for change. No need to point fingers. We are one people.”

Gal number four-”Hello, Barack. I’m Hermaphrodite and I luv your blended politics of harmony.”

Obama-”Great! Then how about a quick dance around the bar before we have to leave,” he said, humming to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic-”We are choosing unity over division, we’re sending a powerful message, that change is a coming to America, it is all about the mood, dude…”

Flat-Footin'

2008-06-08T01:58:00.002-04:00

Hillary ends her presidential bid...

2008-06-07T21:58:00.002-04:00

I'm a bit tired of watching every presidential candidate I endorse lose. But...what the hell, I'm supporting Ralph Nader at this point, which is a guaranteed defeat. I would rather support a candidate that I know will change America if given the opportunity, rather than sit back and vote for the lesser of two evils. We need serious reform in Washington, not verbal diarrhea.

Cheney Insults West Virginians

2008-06-04T09:54:00.002-04:00

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin has called on Dick Cheney to apologize for remarks he made about the state today at the National Press Club.

And indeed the vice president has apologized.

Cheney had spoken of his family history and said he had Cheneys from both sides of his family. "And we don't even live in West Virginia," Cheney said. "You can say those things when you're not running for re-election."

Cheney's words sparked this response from Manchin, who defended the state:

"I truly cannot believe that any vice president of the United States, regardless of their political affiliation, would make such a derogatory statement about my state or any state for that matter," Manchin said in a statement on his Web site.

"West Virginia is home to some of the most patriotic people in the nation and our sons and daughters have answered the call to duty every time a president has needed their service. They deserve better from the vice president, and so I would simply ask for his apology."

And this evening, the vice president's office said no offense was intended.

"The vice president's off-hand comment was not meant to hurt anyone,'' said Lea Anne McBride, spokeswoman for Cheney. "On reflection, he concluded that it was an inappropriate attempt at humor that he should not have made. The vice president apologizes to the people of West Virginia for the inappropriate remark."

In his remarks, Cheney said that his wife was researching a book, when she noticed that his grandmother was descended from a Richard Cheney.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) blasted Cheney with this response:

"That a man who has ascended to the seat of vice president of the United States would openly display such contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen is an insult to all Americans," Byrd said in a statement. "Now that he or the administration he represents no longer needs their vote, Mr. Cheney apparently feels that he is now free to mock and belittle the people of West Virginia."

During a question-and-answer period following a speech, the vice president said he has distant roots which connect him to Sen. Barack Obama.

Cheney said he would not object to a family reunion with Obama, but that the presidential candidate might not want one before November.

"He'd probably be fearful I might whisper in his ear and change his whole view of the Middle East," Cheney said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Hillary > McCain In National Polls

2008-05-26T15:45:00.004-04:00

Well, quite a bit of political drama has unfolded since my last post, however, I will reserve my comments for a future post (maybe).

Future foreseen

2008-04-12T04:40:00.002-04:00

43g6z52m

All the buzz seems to be surrounding Obama... not good.

In other news, high fuel prices might just take my job from me. I am guessing that within a month, my job will be gone. My current employer has demanded a raise from his contractor, but they have declined his request. So, he gave his one month notice and unless he gets a raise or they pay for his fuel, I am gonna be tossed into the fields of unemployment... and then what ever will I do?

Clinton Vs Obama... Vs McCain?

2008-04-05T11:42:00.004-04:00

Right now, everyone is arguing over which ground breaking headline will top the newspapers after the November elections, "First female president" or "First Black President". Evidently McCain is not even being considered by these folks.

Everyone out there better carefully decide whom the Democratic candidate is going to be to face off against McCain, because the Republican war machine has proven time and time again that they are capable of winning elections based on character assassination. And if "Flip-flopper" was strong enough to destroy Kerry and get Bush elected once again, even after all the horrors he produced, our Democratic nominee is going to face a hell of a fight. I urge you all to ignore the "first black man" or "first woman" president aspect of it. Vote on who will actually be able to save our country.

Wasn't Bill Clinton one of the most beloved presidents? When he was in office the US was very popular, leaders of other nations respected and admired him. He would be one heck of an asset.

thecountydems.org

2008-04-03T20:10:00.002-04:00

Our website's launch is being delayed. But don't worry! =P It'll be coming together soon.

Virgle... voyage to Mars.

2008-04-01T17:02:00.003-04:00

Virgle

Virgin founder Richard Branson and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will be leading/plotting a voyage to the planet Mars in hopes of becoming the first Earthings to settle on mars. Questions... so many questions.

April Fools?!

It is obvious that this Virgle site is an April Fool's joke, but the mass amount of people that responded sincerely isn't. Kinda funny and sad. Although this concept is very well being planned by NASA scientist and others around the world, the Virgle time frame of 20 years is a little unconvincing. Thumbs up on the joke though.

.

2008-03-30T12:10:00.000-04:00

Hillary Clinton: (n) A unit or tool of strength which is used to rectify the errors of past Republicans.

2008-03-30T11:30:00.008-04:00

In reference to the republican-esque college student who asked Chelsea Clinton if the handling of the Monica Lewinski incident revealed weaknesses in Hillary's leadership ability, I feel obligated to say: Shut up!

I am tired of hearing people's opinion that a candidate isn't strong enough to lead, or they do not have enough foreign relations experience or whatever the repetitive verbal sludge is. Look at the current incumbent. Unintelligent, idiotic, misguided, confused, one-track minded, define George W. Bush, and he has gotten the position twice. So, while one might be able to argue that Obama is all of those things that make him not capable of leading, Hillary is far from it.

If anything, the Monica Lewinski incident has shown that Hillary is a strong, capable leader. Most people would have broken down and lost it. Yet, there she is, steadfast and confident in her abilities, making the hard decisions everyday as wife, mother and Senator. Hillary has a vast amount of experience, while Obama has hardly any at all. Hillary has already been in the white house, as first lady, and knows how things operate. This will be a whole new ballgame for Obama.

Obama needs to drop out of the race for the good of the party, for the good of the nation and for the good of himself. He will only get McCain elected. And the media need to be more balanced and end their love affair with Obama. I can't believe they are denying the grand abilities that a Clinton can bring to the White House.

A Clinton can get it done. Vote for Hillary.

"Dr. Death" Kevorkian plans to run for Congress

2008-03-24T23:13:00.008-04:00

Jack Kevorkian, assisted suicide advocate known as "Doctor Death", famous for helping over 100 people end their lives through euthanasia, said on Monday he will run for the U.S. Congress.

The 79-year-old pathologist announced his bid to run as an independent less than a year after being released from prison where he served eight years for second-degree murder.

"I have no ties, no fetters. I am free," Kevorkian told reporters, adding that he planned to run against the "tyranny" of the U.S. Supreme Court which he said has robbed Americans of their rights.

I am not gonna discuss Kevorkian's past and one's right to euthanasia if they so choose. But while thinking about Kevorkian as congressman, I can't help but to shiver.

So, convicted felons can't vote in elections, yet hey can run for office? He hasn't got the 3000 petition signatures needed in order to run, but let's see if he gets them. I don't know what kind of chance he has in Detroit, but I would imagine very low. Interesting nonetheless.

Web

2008-03-22T00:44:00.001-04:00

The County Dems Coming soon!

Texas

2008-03-16T22:14:00.003-04:00

Hmmm...

2008-03-09T00:27:00.001-05:00

What are they really up to? Click me.

Victory in New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton.

2008-01-08T22:51:00.000-05:00

I'm am quite pleased with the results coming out of NH. Most said that it could not be done, early polls contradicted the final results, and the mainstream media was forced to cancel their overnight romance with Barack Obama early. I'll post more later, but right now I'm enjoying the television, and a sense of accomplishment.

Not to mention the fact that my 'What Hillary Needs To Do' post nearly wrote a play by play of the Clinton camp in the past couple of days.

One Debate...Two Parties...

2008-01-06T00:21:00.000-05:00

It was pretty clear during the debate tonight that John Edwards sought to link himself to Barack Obama to draw distant between the two of them, and Hillary. His goal is to establish both himself and Obama as the only two major contenders for the nomination. Hillary responded aggressively and I believe she did excellent tonight in re-establishing herself, breaking down this vague message of 'change,' and giving detailed responses to policy questions.

What Hillary Needs To Do

2008-01-04T23:55:00.001-05:00

*I apologize for any typos or other errors in advance.*

I believe that most people who view Modern America, or know me personally, would assume that I am a supporter of John Edwards. While I admire Senator Edwards, I am a fan of Hillary Clinton. I am confident in the experience that Hillary has, and I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would surround herself with competent and intelligent appointees if given the opportunity to be president of the United States; given these conditions I’m confident in her leadership. Needless to say, after watching the Iowa caucuses unfold and keeping up with recent polling trends leading into the New Hampshire primary, I have some advice for Senator Clinton.

Given the impossible scenario of Brandon Brewster advising Senator Clinton , he would recommend three tactics to help advance her in the Democratic primary.

One: Barack Obama has did an excellent to near perfect job of getting the mainstream media to adopt his message. David Axelrod, Obama’s media consultant, must have assembled one hell of a media spin department, and a quick of study of both Carville and Begala’s tactics will tell you that framing the debate is everything. (Change vs. More of the Same?) Obama has successfully framed the debate in such a way that nearly every candidate from Republican to Democrat have adopted the ‘change’ philosophy in their message. Now, granted Edwards has been preaching the class-warfare, change the corporate greed in Washington theme for quite sometime, he in no way made the practice of using it popular during this campaign, Obama did this when he dramatically increased in the Iowa polls. Huckabee jumped on this ‘change’ bandwagon early and this led to both Obama and Huckabee gaining an ‘originality’ boost in support, esp. from those young liberals and hungry-youthful Republicans whom have been burnt by the current Republican establishment. This ‘change’ tactic forced many caucus goers against these well-financed, entrenched machines that both Romney and Hillary Clinton had. (Conservative Christians played a role in the Romney revolt as well) You won’t see this often, but I have to give it to Dick Morris, he called it pretty early: Democrats should not run on static platforms, and they should never run on experience; Democrats and in particular the liberal wing of the party, love CHANGE. Hillary by simply running on experience alienated herself from the liberal wing of the Democrat Party whom traditionally wants to change the status quo, she also failed to calculate the fact that during times of very unpopular wars the independent voters tend to reach out and embrace fringe elements of either political party. What can she do to correct her message mistake and slow Obama down? She needs to be more specific on how her experience has been linked to change in Washington. It’s not enough to state that experience is a vehicle for change, she needs to be the candidate that can honestly state a proven record of change, unlike her rival. I would drive it through the heads of voters that change has already occurred during Clinton leadership. So many years of experience is no good unless you can highlight what you’ve did during that time. Not to take anything away from President Bill Clinton, but I would advise Hillary to reach back to those eight prosperous years and take credit for those positive ( The economy, foreign policy accomplishments, welfare reform, smaller government, the containment of anti-Americanism, etc) things that came out of Washington during that time, and leave the negative (NAFTA, Free Trade with China, Waco, etc.) for Bill to clean up. President Bill Clinton is at a point where Hillary can use his record in both negative and positive ways without affecting public opinion in relation to their feelings toward him; to sum up that point, people have made up their minds about Bill. Hillary needs to merge both experience and change; my message new message for Hillary would be: Proven Experience. Proven Change.

Two: Now that Hillary has as a ’proven record of change ‘ she needs to attack Obama on his message of hope and change. Obama has consistently said that when he gets to Washington things are going to change for the better, and that his policies will right the wrongs of the Bush administration and correct the problems that had existed even before Mr. Bush came to Washington. This is where Hillary needs to attack; she needs to make pointed attacks in her stump speeches, and direct her communications department to drive through this message “ Barack Obama has consistently referred to changing Washington, yet he has failed to provide the public with any comprehensive details of these proposed changes.” Regardless of whether or not these details exist, she needs to bait Obama into a discussion of proposed policies, once this has been accomplished she needs to go in for the kill. I believe that Hillary has far superior policy advisors and she has spent more time networking with individuals whom could really pick apart any proposed policy that Obama would provide details on, this would allow for Hillary to run attack ads (Now that we’re out of Iowa) on the policies that Obama would propose. This would give her the ability to claim the political high ground; she made no open personal attacks, she did not attack his previous voting record, and she is simply comparing and contrasting opposing policies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not believe Obama nor Hillary have engaged in these types of advertisements at this point, and it would provide an opening for Hillary to seize the ‘change’ philosophy. Her theme: lack of experience equals inadequate policies.

*Her Advertisement*
- Obama’s Proposal (Negative) -
- Hillary’s Proposal (Positive) -
- Proven Experience. Proven Change. -

Three: I certainly believe that there is a media bias at work; I’ve given credit to Obama’s communications team, they’re good, but not that good. From mainstream networks to individuals blogs, everyone seems to be on board with the Hillary bashing. The most liberal bloggers of our party seem to regard her as an intolerable evil, comparable to Roger Ailes and Lee ‘Darth Vader’ Atwater. The mainstream media seem to love the fact that the presumed invincibility of the Clinton machine is now meeting its demise by political new-comers whom have just stepped up to the plate. Whatever the case I’ve been trying to realistically analyze why these overwhelming and misguided views exist. For example, a common phrase that you might here is that “Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate.” Honestly, that statement isn’t entirely true; the Democratic Party is a very diverse party in which many constituents struggle for control, it just so happens that the constituency that Hillary Clinton represents is a minority in the Democratic Party, the corporate Democrats. Bill confounded and headed the organization known as the Democratic Leadership Council (they also drafted the ‘Super Tuesday‘ to balance the liberal sway over the Democratic Presidential primary system during the 80‘s) which advocated the abandonment of populism, in favor of a more corporate, pro-business philosophy for the Democratic Party. Democrats whom adopt this banner go by the title ‘New Democrat’ (Governor Manchin is a New Democrat), and they are a minority in our party, don’t believe me? The DLC has had a very difficult time winning and recruiting influence within the Democratic Party, for example, the DLC hand picked (with the Clinton machine) Wesley Clark (who I think would be an excellent running mate for Hillary if nominated) as their candidate in 2004 to defeat George W Bush, but there was one problem, he couldn’t get through the Democratic primary. By all means Wesley Clark is an appealing Democrat, whom I think could have beaten Bush in 2004 despite what some say. Retired four-star military general, former Nixon Republican (a nice time to deploy “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.” Could still be used by Senator Webb of Virginia?), proven leadership abilities, a Clinton machine directed by the DLC, and well versed in policy issues by the Progressive Policy Institute (The sister organization to the DLC, founded by Clinton White House staffer John Podesta), yet he could not defeat Senator Kerry. Want another example? Here’s one, Harold Ickes (now a political strategist for Hillary’s campaign) whom served in the White House as a deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton was the DLC’s hand picked candidate for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, however we all know he was defeated by newcomer Howard Dean, of whom was backed by liberal interests within the party who despise the DLC and hate triangulation.

So, is Hillary Clinton the establishment candidate? No. She may have been the mainstream candidate who was predicted to win big in 2008, but clearly she is not the ‘Democratic Party’s’ hand picked candidate. So why is the media, who clearly knows the truth continuing to drive falsehoods? I do not know; perhaps the mainstream media is being sold this anti-Clintonism by liberal bloggers and well financed political action committees whom hate the New Democrats? Is it the underdog effect on a whole new level? (We all know why Fox News has Dick Morris and other pundits attacking Hillary day in and day out) For sometime now Ann Coulter and other Conservative spinsters have stated that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, perhaps this liberal bias that is supposed to inherently exist in the media is turning against Hillary for the injustices that her husband committed while in office?

I do not know, but what I do know is that Hillary needs to go on the offensive. She needs to move massive amounts of political capital through back-channel type connections to drive forward the fact that the media is sheltering Barack Obama. It would be politically unhealthy for her to appear as a victim, she needs to make it appear that the media is clearly neglecting their responsibility to ask the tough questions of Obama, and are deliberately sheltering him from critical points that question the durability of his leadership, and most clearly, his electability during a general election. She could win this fight, but she needs to do it strategically and quickly, behind the scenes and most likely over the internet where she can unleash this spawn without a connection to her campaign. Publicly she can point out that the media, will only begin to ask these much needed questions of electability after the nomination process is over, which is wrong. These questions need to be raised and asked now as a mechanism to determine whom the best candidate is going into the general election to face whomever the Republican nominee is. The only thing left to determine is whether or not there is enough time for implementation? Although the hour is late, I believe that she could implement my three point plan and hope for the best; a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire is not the end, nor is a loss in South Carolina, but beyond that she needs to draw a very thick line in the sand.

Now, about that consulting fee we spoke of.

Realization...Purpose...Observations

2007-12-29T02:18:00.000-05:00

I've recently viewed many many blogs operated West Virginia, and I have come to the realization that the majority of these blogs endorse the Republican Party. This blog at one time effectively (IMO) provided the West Virginia Democratic Party with some type of presence in the blogsphere, but we have been silent for quite some time now. I would love to return to the days of old where I could sit on my ass and post things frequently, but that time has come and gone, and for those of you whom consider yourselves West Virginia Democrats, I am happy to report to you that I will now commit myself to at least a monthly or biweekly post. These posts will not contain short comments regarding news articles, etc. I will deliver a more in depth analysis of any political piece that catches my eye, usually an attack piece on a right-wing operative or corrupt Republican politician.

I would like to touch upon my observation that many Republicans are flocking to blogs in West Virginia to vent on the Democratic party, and our state and national leaders. Why you ask? Why are they attracted to blogs? I'm asking the same question, and although I have not spoken with these misguided souls about their decision, I have rendered my best guess: as a result of their failures, their mis-managed party, their lack of qualified candidates, and their poor execution of campaign strategy, they have taken to the Internet, in particular the blogsphere, as a place to vent and attack the Democratic Party which they cannot defeat in the state of West Virginia. Perhaps they believe that their contributions to the blogsphere may land them a job writing for Red State, perhaps they want to be comforted by the fact that West Virginia Republicans 'really' exist; it must be difficult having to operate in the minority of political discourse constantly.

Another observation that I've made is the fact that Gary Abernathy, head of the consulting joke 'Abernathy Strategies,' is now offering Web Development and website maintenance to Republican candidates who purchase his services. I find this to be very funny considering that the Abernathy Strategies website looks like a twelve-year old girl developed the site on Geocities.. Seriously, who uses animated GIFs on professional websites these days, esp. those which are planning to offer services to potential leaders of state and local government?

50 most powerful West Virginians

2007-08-16T00:48:00.000-04:00

Just an interesting list that we may refer back to in the future.

http://www.wvexecutive.com/featured/summer06/50-most-powerful/page1.php

A few Things...

2007-08-14T01:37:00.000-04:00

* First, I would like to comment on the pattern of posts and contributor activity of Modern America.

* ► 2007 (4)

* ► 2006 (3)

* ► 2005 (168)

* ► 2004 (70)

-Post activity by years since Modern America began.

As you can see, Modern America began in (late) 2004, in the heat of the 2004 presidential/local elections. And during that that time, MA contributors pumped out 70 posts. However, once Bush and others had taken office in 2005, we were provided with so many interesting topics, we had pumped out 168 posts. This was when the majority of MA contributors were in College and were following the political scene like watch dogs. Unlike other bloggers who post 3-10 posts a day, we had other aspects of our lives that demanded attention, otherwise we probably would have produced 500-1000 posts.

Then, in 2006, I had dropped out of college and explored job opportunities in a different field. Other MA contributors had also began filling up their plates with more personal things, thus leaving MA vacant. And sadly, only 3 posts had managed to find a permanent home on MA.

It would seem that 2007 has found the same fate as 2006, but since it isn't 2008 yet, I would like to think otherwise. As of now, we have 5 posts for 2007. If the pattern of the previous years continue, MA's activity will boost during the 2008 elections, and will then double its activity in 2009.

Although work consumes around 14 hours of my day, 5-6 days a week, I will still try to contribute to this great blog which stood up for Traditional Southern Democrats everywhere in the previous years. Let's get 2007 rolling before it ends.

* Secondly, I would like get things going with Ol' Don "Massey Maniac" Blankenship.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - A mine company executive sued the state Democratic Party over a TV ad that he claims defamed him by quoting him as saying the deaths of 14 miners last year were statistically insignificant.

Evidently, Don isn't gonna give up with West Virginia. He does not want to be forgotten and some even think he has deeper, darker interests with West Virginia, after all, why else would he sink his teeth so deep into our politics... for the sake of the kids? I think not.

Don Blankenship is a ruthless, take-no-prisoners, fighter. He does not want to accept defeat and is continuing his personal battle with WV Democrats. Why else would we just now be hearing about something that occurred back in Feb. 19, 2006? I'm not sure on how such a case can pan out, but I will be following it, hoping for another defeat for Blankenship. He has already gotten his way numerous times at the cost of WV citizens, we can't afford for him to do it again.

Independents - WV Democratic Primary

2007-06-08T14:07:00.000-04:00

Members of the West Virginia State Democratic Executive Committee voted
overwhelmingly to amend its party rules to allow non-affiliated voters to request and vote a Democratic ballot in primary elections. The change, which was initially approved at the state committee’s December 2006 meeting, will affect all offices ranging from the federal to the local level, and will be effective April 1, 2007. “The state committee’s action comes on years of healthy discussion and debate,” said Nick Casey, Chairman of the West Virginia Democratic Party. “It is the will of the state committee to move forward and allow non-affiliated voters to participate in Democratic primary elections.” The change affects Rule 4, Section B of the West Virginia Democratic Party’s governing rules. The adopted rule now states, “For the purpose of nominating candidates for any federal, state, district, county, municipal, or other public office in any primary election held in West Virginia on or after April 1, 2007, the State Democratic Party will allow individuals who are not affiliated with any existing recognized party to participate in the election process by receiving and voting a Democratic ballot if they so request.”

At one point in time, when I was young and dumb, I argued with the Governor of our great state about this issue. Now, as I am still learning but more enlightened, I have come to realize what an excellent reform this is. While independents are not necessarily a large voting bloc in our state, it may potentially produce more moderate candidates coming out of the primary system, and increase voter turnout in the general.

Free Will - Draft

2007-06-07T23:31:00.001-04:00

Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that in the state of nature, man was differentiated from other entities by his capacity to know of death. It is in this state that man is most free because of his capacity to fulfill simple desires. Man is simply controlled by his own “present existence, without any idea of the future.” (Rousseau, 46) In a time where there is no societal obligations, no reasoning, no moral directive, there is relatively nothing that can prevent man from fulfilling his basic human instincts. Rousseau put it best when he stated “In instinct alone man had everything he needed in order to live in the state of nature; in cultivated reason, he has only what he needs to live in society.” (Rousseau, 52) The noble savage that exists in this state is a creature that has more potential to maximize his free will or capacity for freedom because he is unrestrained by societal rules and regulations. Rousseau is quick to mention that in this state man’s free will is not dominated by the right of the strongest, there is no such right; Rousseau envisioned a noble creature with ‘natural pity’ for his fellow man. With an element like natural pity applied to the noble savage we have a relatively peaceful state, where one is free to pursue there own interests, without the slightest concept of greed. (Rousseau, 56) It is only through the adoption of society that we find ourselves in a situation where we are less likely to maximize our potential for free will. There can be no absolute freedom, no interests without greed in a state where so much is demanded, and chains are placed on us. After man began to implement early stages of a society we have a period of war, and of conflict, this is where Hobbes’ state of nature would have been envisioned. (Rousseau, 68) Rousseau goes on to mention the importance of societies wrong-doings, and how such an institution was a forced convention, one that was conceived by the most powerful in those early times, and established an illegitimate form of representation. (Rousseau, 69) How can man expect to exercise free will when the capacity to do so has been removed? Rousseau mentions that we cannot go back into the wild, we can never go back to this ideal state of nature; Rousseau states that although man has lost much, his ability to have freedom is not lost. Man can never willingly give up his liberty. (Rousseau, 144) The Social Contract that Rousseau envisions would at least create a convention where we can exercise some level of free will in a society. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau, 141) This is the opening sentence for the first chapter really highlights what restraints Rousseau sees society placing upon men. Rousseau asks the question, “What can render it (society) legitimate?” (Rousseau, 141) He goes on to say that man must recover the liberty that he once lost, and that through the implementation of a just government, we can achieve such an accord. If it is believed that government is the controlling element of society, we must mend the wrongs of society by instituting the Social Contract. The Social Contract calls for social order on the basis of deriving power from the masses, rather than those that originally forced their rule; it is also worth noting that with the assistance of the ‘general will,’ such liberties in partial, can be restored to the masses. (Rousseau, 147, 150)

Friedrich Nietzsche was also concerned with man’s free will, this was the predominate theme of our selected readings by Nietzsche. He believed that a person who really expressed their free will was a person who acted rather than reacted. The ability for one to express their true freedom was to act, to display their internal resolve, their convictions. Society in Nietzsche’s mind has placed many burdens upon man, burdens that include morality, and other restraints; these conditions force men into positions where they have no free thought. We as men simply react; we do not have the capacity to act because we are restrained. Nietzsche does not believe that these moral rules that are established have been created as absolute truths; rather they were created and implemented by man. This is best highlighted by Nietzsche’s analogy of the slave-master morality conflict. (Nietzsche, 25) We have the master who is an active person; he defines his actions as good, and thus defines the actions of others as being bad. (Nietzsche, 28) This is the perfect analogy because we have a person who has at least taken a stand on where they believe their morality, or the truth to their actions, rest. The reactive slave is an individual who deems something evil, and says that since that is evil, we must be good. (Nietzsche, 39) Through their envy, those that resent the noble/master define them as evil, and those that remain are good. “While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No…” (Nietzsche, 36) Nietzsche calls the ability to be active the ‘will to power,’ the concept that you can control your future, and maximize your potential to not be restrained by civil society. (Nietzsche, 77, 79) The active person possesses the noble morality, and chooses his path by exercising his will to power. Even the ability to make promises is an exercise of the will to power; you are creating a future, rather than reacting to your environment and allowing your future to be determined. It is through the internalization of our natural inclinations, our free will, that we have weakened man. (Nietzsche, 84) All hope is not lost; one can still choose to enact his free will, by just simply exercising his will to power. Nietzsche refers to this person as the ‘Ubermensch,’ or the super-man. This person is the individual who sets examples, embraces the noble lifestyle, acts rather than reacts, makes promises, refuses to accept societal restraints, disciplines himself to overcome his flaws, and maximizes liberty. (Nietzsche, 96) Although not a requirement in our readings, the hermit ‘Zarathustra’ is the personification of the ideal man, the man of the future, and he is mentioned several times throughout our readings. (Nietzsche, 96)

In conclusion, both Rousseau and Nietzsche believe that we can exercise free will, although it has been stripped from us. Rousseau chooses to believe that through contract and convention we can best maximize our potential to exercise our liberty. This is an approach that involves changing the structure. Nietzsche does not care about the structure, although he believes it should be reevaluated, he believes that even within a restrictive society man can exercise his free will by electing to engage in his will to power. Through the adoption of an active behavior, and having little regard for societal rules, we have the key to enact free will. I have obviously missed some critical material, but due to limitations on time I do not have the ability to cover everything. I hope this summary addresses the question as much as possible. On a final note, I have enjoyed this class very much, and I thank you for such a diverse, eye-opening curriculum.

The Move From The State of Nature to Civil Society - Draft

2007-06-07T23:08:00.000-04:00

Political Theory II
B. Brewster
Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Introduction

The aim of this essay is to define two ways in which man shifts away from the State of Nature, and moves toward civil society. I will be examining the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes. I will use notes developed from lectures, and the actual writings of the theorists themselves (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Leviathan) to examine their theories. I have chosen to use Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, rather than The Social Contract. I have chosen to examine what Rousseau believes to be a realistic shift from the State of Nature to civil society, a natural social contract, rather than an idealistic perspective of such an occurrence.

My charge is to present the realistic advancement in the theorist's mind as to how we arrived at the point at which we moved out of the State of Nature.

Part I
Rousseau

"In instinct alone, man had everything he needed in order to live in the state of nature; in a cultivated reason, he has only what he needs to live in society." (Rousseau, 52)

Rousseau was of the opinion that the State of Nature, the pre-societal condition that mankind once lived in, is a very peaceful and simple period. Man in this 'State of Nature' is not hindered in any way from satisfying what Rousseau considers to be his natural sentiments/traits; these traits are self preservation and pity. (The true nature of man is to satisfy his natural sentiments.) Population was limited and the means to fulfill one's basic needs such as food, water, and rest, were in abundance due to the vast wealth of needful things that were required to survive. In such a state, the possibility of conflict was small and such a conflict only occurred for a short period of time, due to the absence of pride. Men were usually strong and independent; men truly lacked self-consciousness and lived from moment to moment. Inequality existed strictly as result of natural causes, "I conceive of two kinds of inequality in the human species: one which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature and consists in the difference of age, health, bodily strength, and qualities of mind or soul." (Rousseau, 37, 38) The other type of inequality that exists is one that is created through convention, through society, something we will concern ourselves with at a later time.

As stated earlier men have two traits in a pre-social condition: self preservation and natural pity. To Rousseau natural pity is the adhesive force that binds human beings together, such as laws do in civil states, pity serves as 'moral compass' so to speak when directing the actions of man in this condition. "It is therefore quite certain that pity is a natural sentiment, which, by moderating in each individual the activity of the love of oneself, contributes to the mutual preservation of the entire species..... Pity is what in the State of Nature, takes the place of laws, mores, and virtue..." (Rousseau, 55) Thus self-preservation is the root of natural pity, which enables the human species to have some primitive means of pre-contractual solidarity.

It is with the advancement of reasoning (which I consider to be one of the two 'great evils' that Rousseau mentions in his work) that man turns away from this State of Nature; as man’s ability to reason becomes greater, it dramatically shifts these fundamental traits that man abides by. As man begins to reason his need to preserve himself becomes tainted with what Rousseau called "amour propre," which is translated into pride. As the self-preservation factor in man's behavior slowly changes, the force that drives his natural pity shifts as well, allowing him to justify actions that deny his pity in seeing his fellow man suffer. "Reason is what engenders egocentrism, and reflection strengthens it. Reason is what turns man in upon himself. Reason is what separates him from all that troubles him and afflicts him." (Rousseau, 54)

As man’s use of reason increased, and the populations increased, we see a dramatic shift in the advancements of technology and the habit of man living with a female. These advancements are extremely important; out of this we see the development of conjugal and paternal love. As this love developed we see the family as a basic pillar and representation of a small society. This development brought with it the very first distinctions made between the sexes and their expected functions to the small society that we call a family; this could be viewed as incremental steps in the division of labor. These small social units were to be united with other families and units as a result of natural conditions; these natural conditions could be more commonly viewed as climate circumstances, weather conditions, food/water accessibility, etc. These small families united, become collectively stronger, creating communities and small nations. "Having previously wandered about the forests and having assumed a more fixed situation, men slowly came together and united into different bands, eventually forming in each country a particular nation, united by mores and characteristic features, not by regulations and laws, but by the same kind of life and foods and by the common influence of the climate." (Rousseau, 63) After these collectives became unified a much more defined division of labor occurs.

Now that man has united in these small communities he is forced him to make comparisons (what I call the second 'great evil' following reason). The increase in technology and ease of survival, provide man with the ability to have leisure time, this leisure time most certainly gives him the opportunity to make comparisons. These comparisons that man makes have profound ramifications on love, our needs and wants, fear of vengeance served as the law holding such emerging societies together, and man became a savage beast. "Each one began to look at the others and to want to be looked at himself, and public esteem had value." (Rousseau, 64) The human species became dependent on one another, this created spiral that slowly forced man into a civilized state.

"From the cultivation of land, there necessarily followed the division of land; and from property once recognized the first rules of justice." (Rousseau, 66) As property rights were developed and talents not equally distributed among men, we see the development of what Rousseau calls “political inequality," one that is created by a pre-societal convention, one developed out of the division of labor, and of properties/goods. All of these slow erosions of true independence and freedom result in the total development of our un-natural faculties: egocentrism, greed, possessive imaginations, "reason rendered active." Property and inheritance systems were developed which slowly created a divide between those who had and those who did not have, more commonly: those rich, and those that are poor. These individuals who were considered poor, who had a profound addiction to an irreversible dependency on man, were forced to steal and usurp primitive property/inheritance rights to maintain themselves. This pre-societal chaos was what some consider a “state of war" or, to appease those Hobbesian loyalists, Hobbes' true State of Nature.

"The rich in particular must have soon felt how disadvantageous to them it was to have a perpetual war in which they alone paid all the costs, and in which the risk of losing one's life was common to all and the risk of losing one's goods was personal." (Rousseau, 69) Fearing a loss of inheritance and realizing that a state of war was not beneficial to the preservation of his status. The rich developed a plan that would unite both rich and poor, on the grounds of mutual preservation of private property, for both. Thus even the poor would be guaranteed their right, to possess private property, and have that property protected. By convention, these emerging societies would create an association, through contract, which would serve to mutually protect all those within the association, from common enemies, both domestic and foreign. To administer such an association, a magistrate was chosen. "The magistrate, for his part, obligates himself to use the power entrusted to him only in accordance with the intention of the constituents, to maintain each one in the peaceful enjoyment of what belongs to him, and to prefer on every occasion the public utility to his own interest." (Rousseau, 75)

Finally, blind ambition and the prospects of dominating those below your 'economic' status became a major element in keeping poor men of this newly oppressive society from determining the actual causes of their plight. "they consent to wear chains in order to be able to give them in turn to others." (Rousseau, 77) Power that was once perceived as legitimate is slowly becoming arbitrary, and man fails to realize that the natural Social Contract that he has committed himself to is the source of his despair.

"I have tried to set forth the origin and progress of inequality, the establishment and abuse of political societies....It follows from this presentation that, since inequality is practically non-existent in the state of nature, it derives its force and growth from the development of our faculties and the progress of the human mind, and eventually becomes stable and legitimate through the establishment of property and laws." (Rousseau, 81)

Part II
Hobbes

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Hobbes, 186)

In pre-societal times (past or present), where there is absence of government, there exists a State of Nature. In this particular state there exists a constant potential for war. There is no justice, no moral direction, and no laws to protect one man's entitlement to everything. Every man is entitled to everything. It is in the State of Nature that man's true trait is given the ability to act freely: self-serving actions. Hobbes at the most basic level, argues that man simply reacts to the external world around him, through motions. It is these very motions that he uses to interact with the world around him that create his wants for the world in which he lives; it is this collective drive for these wants that creates the State of Nature by pitting man against man.

Man is naturally self-interested, and out of this primary instinct that man possesses we see the most fundamental causes of our disputes with other human beings: competition, mistrust, and glory. These three fundamentally damaging elements are the primary reasons that create the true State of Nature. Hobbes characterized this state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Hobbes, 186) The only logical way for man to move out of such a dreadful state is to "be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. " (Hobbes, 190)

"The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby.." (Hobbes, 223) As a result of man's love for himself, he finds it necessary to create a more civilized system in which he can protect himself from threat and the constant reality that war can occur at any moment. Thus man decides to freely engage in what is referred to as the Commonwealth (Leviathan).

"I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner." (Hobbes, 227) This departure from the State of Nature is the greatest step that man has ever taken, and such an agreement vests power into the society to protect those who wish to engage in it. The true nature of man is to fulfill his self-interested needs, this need is transformed into goals that can be obtained through the development of the Commonwealth, thus this opportunity provides protection from violent death, and also guarantees an institution through which his primary needs may be fulfilled. When such a Social Contract is implemented to create a Commonwealth there are various types of administration through which the Commonwealth must meet its obligations, there must be sovereign authority. “…covenants without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” (Hobbes, 223) Hobbes lists three: monarchy, aristocracy, democracy. Hobbes believes that the monarchy is the most practical of the three. Man has always chosen his private interests rather than public interests; the monarchy unites both public and private interests, generally acting in the best interest of the greater good. The monarchy enables the Commonwealth to have secret sessions where important decisions can be made, and the monarchy offers a more consistent means of governance where less parties are involved in the decision making process. Regardless of which type of Commonwealth has been selected, there can be no turning back to replace the current Commonwealth, unless consent to do such a thing is expressed by the Commonwealth currently in power.

Part III
Discussion

After reading the works that both Rousseau and Hobbes have contributed to social science, I most certainly believe that Rousseau has much more to offer than Hobbes. Both books were certainly an interesting read, but I believe that common sense and intelligent thought throws itself to Rousseau. The development of advanced reasoning, the creation of pride, these are things that I find to be common sense mechanisms used to explain a complex topic. While there is no proven way to explain the psychological or social conditions that existed to foster civilization in its earliest stages, I believe that most can say with some certainty that Rousseau paints a reasonable picture for these early developments, despite the fact that he had no scientific means to prove such developments, nor access to the modern developments and information we have on the topic of history. I find it interesting that theorists such as Karl Marx do not adequately acknowledge the contributions that Rousseau has made to the concept of elite theory / conflict theory. Prior to taking political theory I had never heard of Rousseau, which is sad, a theorist of this quality who has made excellent contributions to social science, deserves more attention.

Mills - Draft

2007-06-07T23:07:00.001-04:00

Social Theory
B. Brewster
Monday, April 30, 2007

Part I

“The powers of ordinary men are circumscribed by the everyday worlds in which they live, yet even in these rounds of job, family, and neighborhood they often seem driven by forces they can neither understand nor govern.” (Mills, 3)

The Power Elite is perhaps one of the most influential books that I have ever had the privilege of reading. C. Wright Mills has made profound contributions to not only sociology, but more broadly, to the entire realm of social science. The Power Elite is a contemporary look at the fundamental shifts in authority and decision making in our society, despite the fact that the book was written nearly fifty years ago. Since World War II a growing trend has emerged in the United States, one which creates a state of never ending war, and one which consolidates power into three domains: the political domain, the economic domain, and the military domain. The basic structures that dictate our life, such as our church, family, small businesses, local politics, etc., these are minor roles in comparison to those dominated by the leaders of the big three. “As the means of information and of power are centralized, some men come to occupy positions in American society from which they can look down upon, so to speak, and by their decisions mightily affect, the everyday worlds of ordinary men and women.” (Mills, 3) The elite which control these “top command posts” are those that manage and direct international corporations, control the powers of government, and direct the energies of the military to their ends. These elites are assisted in this process by the increasing importance of political consultants, PR advisors, financial advisors, and spokesmen. The level of control that this select group possess is even above that of the Congress itself (the peoples branch of government), our elected representatives have for sometime now abdicated constitutional powers and responsibilities to the more centralized executive branch; this forfeiting of power usually occurs during times of war, and are irreversible. Those whom control these three institutions have an affect on the civic, educational, and cultural aspects of our society as well.

These three institutions have interrelated operations which often times foster the interchangeability of these individuals within these different institutions (Eisenhower, Dick Cheney, Al Gore) The CEOs of major corporations often find it easy to move into the realm of politics because of large business contracts or frequent contact through shared social clubs and associations; a general of the United States Armed Forces may find it to be logical extension of his career to move into the domain of politics because he has won a major war boosting his popularity, or advised the President of the United States on foreign affairs; a successful politician may retire and move into the private sector because of his previous business relations with a major corporation. Mills goes on to point out that the ability to usurp power while commanding one of these institutions is entirely possible; structure based upon convention or tradition in no way hinder these elites (Hitler, FDR, etc.). Each of the big three live in similar neighborhoods (if they decide to settle down, more or less the nation is their home, traveling the majority of the time), attended the same wealthy universities and private schools, belong to the same fraternal organizations, and share similar experiences making their professional involvement with one another more likely to occur. Throughout the book it is evident that Mills believes that those consisting of the power elite possess a “class conscience -ness.” The idea of the class consciousness arises from Marxist theory of classes struggle and the awareness that is required before the maximum potential of a specific class can occur. Marx believed that those in power have predominantly possessed this awareness that other classes lack, Mills believes that the ruling elite in American society is no different; Mills states that such an elite is aware that they are the makers and the shakers of modern affairs, and they are aware that their lifestyle is profoundly different from that of the average American.

Part II

To understand the consolidation of command which has occurred to create the power elite in American society we must first analyze the many institutional shifts which fostered this environment. Our economic institutions have seen an immense level of mergers occur, which, removes the element of competition, drives centralization upward, and gives decision-making powers to fewer individuals. As more and more corporations lobby to protect their corporate interests, they always find themselves advocating for class oriented goals; the two are one in the same. “They move from the industrial point of interest and outlook to the interests and outlook of the class of all big corporate property as a whole.” (Mills, 121) As these corporations collectively advocate for their institutional interests, they also lobby on behalf of current class structure, which always results in the development of reinforced political involvement and the inclusion of smaller businessmen whom share different, but closely related goals. These corporate leaders control the major materials used in economic development, this includes access to raw materials, access to new technology, and advanced legal departments.

The second important shift that has created our current structure is the increased role of the military in terms of their institutional power. This shift has been on the rise since the American Civil War, and the industrial revolution. World War I and World War II served as the final turning point in solidifying the institutional role that the military played in our modern American structure of the elite. Military generals played an increased role in the development of foreign policy in the aftermath of these great wars because we had now identified a permanent enemy to which we could direct our efforts against, the expansion of Communism. This created the scenario with which we have our permanent war, one that justified massive government spending on military applications, and served as a mechanism to allow for greater military input in domestic and foreign affairs. This also justified massive federal contracts to be handed out to private industry, to develop military weapons, under the direction of the armed forces.

Within the military we see that they have their own socialization and bureaucracy to advance through to obtain requisite power. The armed forces from the beginning choose who will lead their institution into the future, in light of these new responsibilities and increased expansion in structure. “West Point and Annapolis are the beginning points of the warlords, and, although many other sources of recruitment and ways of training have had to be used in the emergencies of expansion, they are still the training grounds of the elite of the armed forces. Most of the top generals and all of the admirals of today are of West Point or of The Academy, and they definitely feel it. In fact, if no such caste feeling existed among them, these character-selecting and character-forming institutions would have to be called failures.” (Mills, 193)
Conditioning of those inside the military is that which defines their perspective on reality, and more importantly the way they view the world around them, or as Mills states, the “military reality.” This shared worldview is one that deduces even domestic issues into the militaristic response; their definition of reality is egocentric, and focused. Our permanent war economy is one that invites the military to play a gigantic role in the domain of even diplomacy, which they often view as unnecessary, especially to those nations which may have a different worldview.

The most dramatic shift which has allowed for such a consolidation to occur happened in the domain of government/politics. The ‘opinion-makers’ of the nation have slowly eroded the once democratic process of having the sovereign masses govern our society. As technology and the means of communication grow, and as media expansion is increased, the elite have had the ability to manipulate the public into adopting policies that benefit the elite rather than the masses. Another interesting point to be made is that Mills believes our public educational systems were once used to create a more informed electorate, one that is capable of providing much needed input into public affairs and political issues; Mills has noticed a shift in the original intent, it has now slowly become a mechanism used for economic training. Public education in the United States serves to create an evolving workforce for our economic system; this is only natural seeing as how capitalism is constantly redefining the ‘forced labor’ standards that Marx speaks of. Logical movements within capitalist system is that eventually the government, controlled by those who wish to further advance themselves within the system, will adopt policy that best expands our economic role on a global scale. The limitations of the elite are too few, and this is what makes for bad public policy, a dominating military, and a pervasive economic class.

Part III

The conditions that foster such a controlling environment are ultimately the blame for the structure that we now deal with. When faced with these gigantic problems it may be easy to adopt an opinion that the elite creating policy and making the big decisions are those individuals best suited for the position; as a result of their power, they must be more knowledgeable than those not in a position to make these decisions. Such a view is flawed in Mill’s opinion; Mills believes that men of knowledge, those that possess the ability to fully understand the ramifications of bad public policy and flawed opinion making are individuals hired as consultants, advisors, and counsel. Decisions to be made concerning the fate of average Americans are not justly resting upon a representative - democratic system with our best interests in mind, rather, it rests with those that consider our interest to be second rate. “Commanders of power unequaled in human history, they have succeeded within the American system of organized irresponsibility.” (Mills, 361)

Works Cited

1. Mills, Wright C. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press, Inc., 1956

Still Active.

2006-12-08T12:01:00.000-05:00

Modern America has been sleeping, but is still alive.

Our main writers have jobs that take up most of our time. I'm on the road 26 days of the month and just haven't found the time to blog. I'll be back as soon as I get a new laptop, then I can blog from any state I am in.

2006-07-11T10:44:00.000-04:00

Robert C. Byrd

Erma Byrd...

2006-03-27T18:34:00.000-05:00

I'll be praying for Senator Byrd and his family....

Jay Exposes Administration Lies About Domestic Spying

2005-12-20T07:39:00.000-05:00

The Charleston Gazette
December 20, 2005

Jay expressed concerns in 2003
By Paul J. NydenStaff writer

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., released a letter Monday that he wrote to Vice President Dick Cheney in the summer of 2003, expressing concern over the domestic eavesdropping program conducted by the National Security Agency at the behest of the Bush administration.

In a press release accompanying the letter, Rockefeller said, “For the last few days, I have witnessed the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the attorney general repeatedly misrepresent the facts.

“The record needs to be set clear that the [Bush] administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program.”
In the two-page handwritten letter, dated July 17, 2003, Rockefeller told Cheney he was writing “to reiterate my concerns regarding the sensitive intelligence issues,” which he had first learned about earlier that day.

During a private briefing with a handful of top Senate and House intelligence committee members, Bush administration officials had revealed the National Security Agency was spying on American citizens without asking for, or obtaining, court-ordered warrants.

The program was revealed last week in a New York Times story, which identified Rockefeller as one of the people who expressed reservations about the program. Rockefeller is the vice chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He had declined to comment on the program before Monday.

“Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues,” Rockefeller wrote in the letter to Cheney.

“Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities,” Rockefeller wrote.

“Without more information and the ability to draw on any legal, independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.”
In the letter, Rockefeller also told the vice president he was keeping a copy of the letter in a sealed envelope in the “secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee,” to keep a safe record of the correspondence.

Rockefeller said in the press release Monday that the few members of Congress who were briefed on the program were prohibited from talking about it with anyone else, including other members of the Senate or House intelligence committees.

http://sundaygazettemail.com/section/News/2005121917

No President Is Above the Law - by Senator Robert C. Byrd

2005-12-19T19:34:00.000-05:00

On the floor of the Senate today.Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country’s law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.
We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the Administration’s flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this Administration as “domestic terrorists.”
We now know that the F.B.I.’s use of National Security Letters on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order.
Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA’s practice of rendition, and the so-called “black sites,” secret locations in foreign countries, where abuse and interrogation have been exported, to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.
We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God his pleas have been rejected by this Congress.
Read the rest here: http://byrd.senate.gov/newsroom/news_dec/law_for_all.html

Byrd and Rahall deliver...

2005-11-29T15:34:00.000-05:00

U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) teamed up with Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) to deliver millions of dollars for important southern West Virginia water and flood protection projects.

"Communities throughout southern West Virginia will benefit from flood protection projects and increased federal investment in sewer and water projects," Rahall said. "The bill includes federal investments for the Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure Program, which I created, as well as much-needed funding to help with floods around Island Creek in Logan County.

"And thanks to the efforts of Senator Byrd, the communities in and around Marlinton and Milton will see increased investment in flood protection programs. These investments would not have been possible without the support of Senator Byrd," Rahall added.

The Conference Report passed the House of Representatives with wide bipartisan support. Rahall worked diligently to ensure the bill included $305,000 for a flood warning system at Island Creek in Logan County and $2.75 million for Rahall's Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure Program, which assists communities with water and wastewater needs.

"I am pleased the $305,000 for Island Creek will go to continue the flood protection project we began years ago," said Rahall. "Over the past several years, a need has been recognized for flood protection around Island Creek and, with assistance from local and state officials, we are addressing that need. It is an important project to folks in Logan County and I'm happy to help provide to needed funding to keep the ball rolling."

Rahall has either secured or helped secure more than $2.5 million to alleviate flooding problems around Island Creek.

Rahall's Environmental Infrastructure Program remains a positive force in southern West Virginia for water and wastewater projects. The program was put in place by Rahall years ago and has brought $21.75 million in federal investment to the southern part of the State.

"The $2.75 million in federal investment will be used to ensure southern West Virginia communities have suitable drinking water and wastewater facilities through a variety of projects across the area," Rahall said. In addition to the projects explained above, additional investments will be made in the amount of $914,000 for the Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dam and $1.364 million for work at the R.D. Bailey Lake.

"Senator Byrd and I have made a commitment to bring important federal investments to southern West Virginia in the form of flood control and improved water and wastewater treatment facilities. We will continue to work diligently to address the issues important to everyone in southern West Virginia," Rahall added.

Once approved by the Senate, the Conference Report will be sent to the President to be signed into law.

Source.

Appeals court reinstates Corps of Engineers permits for mountaintop removal coal mining

2005-11-24T05:16:00.000-05:00

A federal appeals court Wednesday reinstated a streamlined Army Corps of Engineers process for granting permits for mountaintop-removal coal mining in West Virginia.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overruled a lower-court judge, finding that the corps complied with the Clean Water Act.

In mountaintop mining, hilltops are blasted away to uncover coal seams, and the leftover rock and dirt are dumped into adjacent valleys, burying streams.

Last year, in a victory for environmental groups, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin last year revoked 11 permits issued by the Corps. Among other things, he said the Corps had not followed the proper procedures under environmental protection laws.

Judges responsible for this decision are:

Paul V Niemeyer *Bush 41
J Michael Luttig *Bush 41
Robert J Conrad Jr *Bush 43

Paul V Niemeyer attended five-day seminars on property rights and the environment at resorts in Montana, sessions underwritten by conservative foundations that are also funding a wave of litigation on those issues in the federal courts.

Funding for the seminars, run by a group called the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), also comes from foundations run by companies with a significant interest in property rights and environmental law issues, Internal Revenue Service records show.

J Michael Luttig assisted Bush Admin in gaining Senate confirmation of Souter and Thomas. Luttig, a Scalia protege, is admired by many conservatives in and out of the legal profession and is considered by many liberals to be a potential threat to such causes as abortion rights.

"I think there is no question that he is the most conservative judge on the most conservative court of appeals in the country," said John H. Blume, a professor at the Cornell University School of Law who has represented condemned inmates before the 4th Circuit.

Pirro's ignorance....

2005-11-16T10:47:00.000-05:00

ALBANY - Republican Senate hopeful Jeanine Pirro's campaign slammed Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday for helping out at a birthday bash for West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, who was briefly a Ku Klux Klan member more than 60 years ago.

"Any person who has made racially insensitive comments and participated in groups that promote ethnic prejudice - Republican or Democrat - do not deserve support from a United States senator, especially the senator from New York," Pirro campaign spokeswoman Andrea Tantaros said.

The broadside came after The Washington Post reported that Clinton co-chaired a birthday party for the 88-year-old Democrat at the home of 19th century civil rights crusader Frederick Douglass.

But Democrats called the blast "another Pirro misfire," noting the leading political patron of the Westchester district attorney, Gov. Pataki, has himself praised Byrd for his work in the Senate.

"I am grateful for your strong leadership and commitment to New York in the wake of this disaster," Pataki wrote Byrd after 9/11.

Senate Democratic Campaign Committee spokesman Phil Singer scoffed, "This is more sloppy work from a campaign lost at sea."

Byrd has voiced regret for his decades-old participation in the klan, once calling it the "most egregious mistake I have ever made."

Source.

Pataki is a smart man.

Byrd works to stop hostile immigration...

2005-11-03T10:28:00.000-05:00

Washington, DC (HNN) – U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., is leading a bipartisan group of Senators in an effort to stop a vast increase in immigration visa permits.

"Immigration is an issue that demands the attention of the Congress, and, regretfully, we have been told that tougher enforcement actions will have to wait until next year. And so, imagine the surprise of Senators to find provisions buried deep, deep in this budget bill that would authorize the U.S. Government to issue more than 350,000 additional immigrant visas each year to foreign laborers seeking to live and work permanently in the United States," Byrd said during debate on Wednesday.

The government grants permanent residency to approximately 1 million immigrants each year. Byrd is working to block provisions that would raise that number by one third -- a massive destabilizing increase.

"It is baffling. If we don’t have the time to address the illegal immigration that threatens our national security, then how do we explain to the American people that we somehow found the time to raise the level of imported labor each year?" Byrd asked.

Byrd offered an amendment that would strike the escalation in visa permits. Many have expressed concern that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration and border security issues, is not in a position to handle the increased H-1B visas that Senator Byrd is trying to stop. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that the Department of Homeland Security cannot estimate how many people are already in the United States on H-1B visas because of inadequate tracking systems. The Byrd amendment has garnered the support of many labor unions, which are concerned that such a flood of new visas would mean fewer jobs for American workers.

"It’s bad enough that so many American jobs are moving overseas, and wages and benefits here at home are being curtailed to compete with third-world labor and unfair trade practices. Now, these provisions would make it more likely that working Americans will find themselves in competition with foreign labor for work in their own country," Byrd said.

In a letter to all Senators, the group "United for a Secure America" urged support for the Byrd amendment.

"United to Secure America, representing our nation’s leading immigration reform organizations with hundreds of thousands of members and supporters throughout the country, strongly urges you to support the amendment to the Reconciliation bill expected to be offered today by Senator Byrd to delete provisions that would in effect sell over 368,000 American jobs annually to foreign workers and their families who would be allowed to move permanently to the United States and take Americans’ jobs," the letter said.

A vote on the Byrd amendment is expected Thursday, Nov. 3, 2005.

The amendment is another step in Byrd’s efforts to try to ensure that America’s immigration system is not overwhelmed and that the government is able to enforce the laws on the books. Five hundred new agents are guarding America’s borders because of legislation that Byrd and Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho guided through the Congress in May.

Source.

I'm in favor of immigration reform. I believe that as of right now we have a hostile policy that encourages immigrants to come to our nation and exploit jobs that hard-working Americans deserve. It is true that we have lost a vast amount of blue-collar jobs to outsourcing and cheap foreign labor, it is not a wise policy for our Congress to encourage more immigrants to come to our country to seek employeement. Thank God for Senator Byrd.

Better Supreme Court Justice...

2005-11-02T09:37:00.000-05:00

Ito

Or

Alito

Senator Rockefeller Stands up for America

2005-11-02T09:05:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Jay Rockefeller delivered a powerful speech on the US Senate floor. Here are excerpts:
"At its core, this is about accountability -- Congressional accountability and White House accountability.
"Congress has a fundamental, constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight -- that's what checks and balances are all about – and we have utterly failed.
"My colleagues and I have tried for two years to do our oversight work, and for two years we have been undermined, avoided, put off, and vilified by the other side. Any line of questioning that has brought us too close to the White House has been thwarted.
"At some point the majority needs to understand that we are willing to bring the Senate to a halt until they will join us in conducting the kind of investigation this situation demands.
"The American people still want to know -- now more than ever -- why the United States went to war, whether they were misled, and whether our intelligence was misused.
"Whether these actions amount to crimes is not the litmus test for congressional oversight. Mr. Fitzgerald is investigating possible criminal activity by senior White House officials, and we won't and shouldn't get in the way of his work.
"But the American people deserve to know not just whether this Administration committed crimes, but whether this Administration told the truth -- the full truth, the straight story.
"And if they didn't -- if they misled about the war and if they misused intelligence, then the American people need to know that the Congress will do everything in its power the make sure that it never happens again."
For more than two years, Senate Democrats have pressed Republicans to address the misuse of intelligence. At every turn, Republicans have blocked efforts to investigate how intelligence was used in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Below details the long record established by Democrats to investigatethis matter.
March 14, 2003 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Mueller requesting an investigation into the origin of the Niger documents.
May 23, 2003 Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to the CIA and State Department Inspectors General to review issues related to the Niger documents.
June 2, 2003 Senator Rockefeller issued a press release endorsing a statement made of the previous weekend by Senator Warner calling for a joint SSCI/SASC investigation.
June 4, 2003 Senator Rockefeller issued a press release saying he would push for an investigation. Senator Roberts issued a press release saying calls for an investigation are premature.
June 10, 2003 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts asking for an investigation.
June 11, 2003 All Committee Democrats signed a letter to Senator Roberts asking for a meeting of the Committee to discuss the question of authorizing an inquiry into the intelligence that formed the basis for going to war.
June 11, 2003 Senator Roberts issued a press release saying this is routine committee oversight, and that criticism of the intelligence community is unwarranted. Senator Rockefeller issued a press release calling the ongoing review inadequate.
June 20, 2003 Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release laying out the scope of the inquiry.
August 13, 2003 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts making 14 points about the investigation, asking to expand the inquiry to address the "use of intelligence by policy makers" and asking for several other actions.
September 9, 2003 After press reports quoting Senator Roberts as saying the investigation was almost over, Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts urging him not to rush to complete the investigation prematurely.
October 29, 2003 Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet expressing in strong terms that he should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.
October 30, 2003 Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent letters to Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice expressing in strong terms that they should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.
October 31, 2003 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for documents related to the interaction between intelligence and policy makers, including the documents from the Vice President's officerelated to the Powell speech.
November 2, 2003 Senator Roberts made statements during a joint television appearance with Senator Rockefeller claiming that the White house would provide all documents they jointly requested.
December 5, 2003 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to National Security Advisor Rice asking for her help getting documents and access to individuals.
January 22, 2004 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.
February 12, 2004 Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release announcing the Committee's unanimous approval of the expansion of the Iraq review, to include use of intelligence in the form of public statements, and listing other aspects of what became Phase II.
March 23, 2004 Senator Rockefeller sent yet another letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.
June 17, 2004 Senators Roberts and Rockefeller joint press release announcing the unanimous approval of the report.
July 16, 2004 Committee Democrats sent a letter to Bush asking for the one page summary of the NIE prepared for Bush. The Committee staff had been allowed to review it but could not take notes and the Committee was never given a copy.
February 3, 2005 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts outlining Committee priorities for the coming year and encouraging completion of Phase II.
August 5, 2005 Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts expressing concern over the lack of progress on Phase II and calling for a draft to be presented to the Committee at a business meeting in September.
September 29, 2005 All Committee Democrats joined in additional views to the annual Intelligence Authorization Bill criticizing the lack of progress on Phase II.

Alito a "yes" man? Nooooo, it's just a coincident that he would do everything as Bush would.

2005-11-01T17:56:00.000-05:00

Source

Alito's record shows backing of business interests
Tuesday, November 01, 2005

By Jess Bravin and Jeanne Cummings, The Wall Street Journal

In 15 years on the federal bench, Judge Samuel Alito often has sided with positions backed by business leaders -- and shown himself a strict interpreter of contracts -- in cases ranging from employment discrimination and commercial speech to shareholder suits.

Indeed, legal experts said that, while the immediate focus of supporters and critics Monday was on social issues like abortion, Judge Alito's extensive track record on business and regulatory issues at the Philadelphia-based court is likely to play a large role in his nomination process.

Judge Alito's Third Circuit is one of the smaller federal jurisdictions, but it hears a disproportionate share of business-related cases because its three-state territory includes Delaware, where many companies are incorporated, and the heavily industrial New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

For those assessing Judge Alito, there are dozens of business cases to sift, some of which are widely known and many which are more technical. One of the best-known is a 1997 dissent in which Judge Alito argued against a racial-discrimination claim made by a black housekeeping manager who was denied promotion to a job at a Marriott International Inc. hotel. The position, at a hotel in Park Ridge, N.J., went to a white woman. While the court ruled the woman could take the case to a jury, Judge Alito argued that, although she might be able to claim she had been treated unfairly, that wasn't enough to let her sue.

"What we end up doing then is ... allowing disgruntled employees to impose the cost of trial on employers who, although they have not acted with the intent to discriminate, may have treated their employees unfairly," he wrote. "This represents an unwarranted extension of the anti-discrimination laws."

Last year, Judge Alito wrote an opinion striking down a Pennsylvania law that barred alcoholic-beverage advertising in college newspapers. The law violated advertisers' First Amendment rights, he found, while doing little to prevent underage drinkers from seeing liquor ads, since they were prevalent in many other media to which students had access.

And in 1997, Judge Alito affirmed the dismissal of a shareholder class action filed against Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., of Burlington, N.J., after its earnings fell far short of its projections and its stock fell 30 percent in one day. He ruled that shareholder plaintiffs had failed to specify how the company's performance amounted to fraud, in a close reading of applicable statutes.

Judge Alito has insisted on enforcement of contract terms challenged as unfair or otherwise as void, such as provisions that require consumers to use arbitration rather than lawsuits to pursue complaints, said Larry E. Ribstein, a law professor at the University of Illinois. Such contract terms can be "a very useful technique that business has today in avoiding excessive litigation," said Mr. Ribstein, who specializes in business legal issues and has served as editor of the University of Chicago's Supreme Court Economic Review.

Major business groups, which have pressed the White House for business-friendly judges, Monday said they had yet to fully scrutinize Judge Alito's docket sufficiently to reach their own conclusions. Robin Conrad, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Litigation Center, said her lawyers are beginning a review of more than 700 opinions written by Judge Alito, including dozens on labor and employment cases and race and sex discrimination.

"There is a lot of stuff to look at," she said. "We're looking to see if there is a demonstrated understanding of business and economic issues."

Some critics, however, said they already saw warning flags. "Judge Alito's record on the bench demonstrates that he would go to great lengths to restrict the authority of Congress to enact legislation to protect civil rights and the rights of workers, consumers and women," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat.

More here.

Wow, a very "conservative" Republican nominated to the Supreme Court who just happens to love big business very much. I doubt Bushy had any idea that the ol' man had it in him. I am sure it was his moral values that allowed him to follow Miers.

Hey Republicans, tell me if you think any harmful information to Alito's nomination will arise and if you think he will be approved.

And all criticism aside, if Alito does prove to be a decent pick, i'd probably approve. I do not want to see this void in the court drag out in critical times.

More infor here and here

Republicans Try to Cover It Up, But We Won't Let Them.

2005-11-01T17:17:00.000-05:00

Senate Democrats Force Closed Session, Igniting Partisan Battle
Link here

Democrats are fed up with the corruption that the Republicans bring to the honorable halls of congress and are now fighting back. It has been a really horrible year for 'Corruptlicans' and today Minority leader Harry Reid forced the Senate to go into closed session to take up what the Democratic leader complained was the GOP-controlled Senate's failure to complete an investigation into intelligence used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq.

For far too long this quagmire has been ignored and covered up by the Republicans, and what a better way to tear into the truth than by applying pressure to an already unstable leadership. The people want the truth and they want it now. Bush and Co. may have been able to cover up the horrible response to Katrina by nominating Roberts, they may have been able to cover up the Libby indictment by nominating Alito, and he may have been able to cover up many other things with anti-democratic propaganda, but no longer. We won't stand for it.

Senator Reid spoke boldly today to CNN which gave me the impression that Democrats are now finally giving these Republican rats a taste of good old fashion Democratic muscle. And with the self-inflicted wounds Republicans have, it shouldn't be much longer til the American people remember why the greatest Presidents and leaders this nation has seen were Democrats or would have been.

Let's take a glance at some of what was said.

"It is clear now that the American people were not informed properly before the invasion of Iraq. Intelligence information was distorted, was misused, and we have seen as late as last week the lengths which this administration has gone to try to silence and discredit their critics of the misuse of this intelligence information," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters.

So, if the WMD claim was in fact BS, then ofcourse the American people want to know the truth. And even after President Bush admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, the uninformed Fox News viewers and Republicans across the globe still believe there was. It is up to the people in our federal government to do their jobs and investigate this predicament, not cover it up in the name of political bias and greed.

When Reid spoke the truth, Frist had the gall to say it was "an affront to me personally" and labeled it a political "stunt." Sheesh, what an idiot.. or lying sack of crap. So what would you have done Frist? An investigation on the war in Iraq dies down and no answers have been given. What do you want, to just drop it? Leave it unanswered and pretend this ridiculous incident never happened?

I think now is the perfect time to hit Republicans with everything we've got and do not let up. They are at a weak point in their reign and the world would be better of it they were taken out quickly. Slaughtergate gate is coming.

Manchin leading the way...

2005-11-01T09:53:00.000-05:00

Gov. Joe Manchin’s plan to headline West Virginians for Life’s $50-a-plate dinner next month has irked Democrats who do not share Manchin’s anti-abortion sentiment.

But Manchin is not the only party leader to buck the Democratic line on the polarizing issue. His stance reflects a trend in the national party that has made social conservatism a key for political success.

“It’s a little bit more common than you think,” said Jennifer Duffy, editor of the Cook Political Report. “The question for pro-choice Democrats is, what’s more important: to have members of Congress and governors with D’s behind their name, or have candidates who may or may not win but are pure on the issue?”

In neighboring Pennsylvania, the Democrats’ leading candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Rick Santorum in 2006 shares his anti-abortion views. That has helped Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. neutralize Santorum on the issue and keep an edge over Santorum in recent polling.

Full article here.

This is a step in the right direction. I take pride in the fact that West Virginia is one of the only states in the Union that has a great socially Conservative Democratic constituency.

Capito... too cool for congresswoman?

2005-10-31T12:25:00.000-05:00

Capito on Q & A

LAMB: So what have you learned from Senator Byrd about being a senator for the last eight terms?

MOORE CAPITO: Well, I think that being in the Senate looks like a pretty cool job.

LAMB: Why?

MOORE CAPITO: Well, I think you get a lot more influence. Certainly he represents the entire state, and that presents a lot of huge opportunities. The Senate does things differently. IÂm not sure I agree with it, but if I ever got over there I would probably think it was great.

Notice the key statements here: "looks like a pretty cool job", "I think you get a lot more influence", if I ever got over there I would probably think it was great".

This is definitely the mark of a rookie and she has no place being a senator any time soon. Why take the egg when you have the golden goose?

Some Republicans Are Confused

2005-10-31T11:54:00.000-05:00

I am going to repost Mr. Brewster's article enlightening those dimwitted Repubs on the meaning of Modern America. Recently it seems we have slid from our orgininal intentions in hopes of obtaining some other goal. Maybe we were trying to become a proxy for news, but that is over with now. Our orgininal meaning was to provide our brutal commentary and stay firm on criticizing the corrupted Republican Party.

Original Article

Friday, July 22, 2005
What is Modern America?

Apparently some of you GOPers are confused. This blog isn't about intellectual topics on how to improve the life of everyday Americans and West Virginians. This blog is nothing more than a counter-punch to the Right-Wing attack machine that has brewed on a national and state level. We will occasionally talk about certain issues on this blog, however, don't make comments that ask where our substance is, we let our party leaders do the policy work.

Our substance is simple: We are Blood Thirsty Democrats, ready to attack any Republican that we put our crosshairs on.

It's a simple formula. Remember what happened to Barry Goldwater? It's kinda like that.

Now, remember that.

William Stewart Wants An Explaination And Now!

2005-10-31T10:49:00.000-05:00

One thing that is great about government of the people, for the people and by the people is that we can be very critical of our leadership without the fear of being harmed. Or can we? Does Valerie Plame sound familiar? Or what about Nixon's Enemy List? Should we use caution when criticizing those in command? Of course we should, but that should not hinder us from speaking our mind.

A moment this morning, I took a couple of minutes to say that Alito is a "yes man" [for Bush], and William Stewart was all over that comment like Vic Sprouse on a wad of bills. Did I go too far? Was my statement unjust and false? If so, should I apologize or just get a primetime tv show on Fox?

What do we know about Samuel Alito?

He has served on the federal appeals court for 15 years since President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1990. He was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration from 1985 to 1987 and assistant to the solicitor general from 1981 to 1985.

Among his noteworthy opinions was his lone dissent in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

Former appellate judge Timothy Lewis, who served with Alito, has ideological differences with him but believes he would be a good Supreme Court justice.

"There is nobody that I believe would give my case a more fair and balanced treatment," Lewis said. "He has no agenda. He's open-minded, he's fair and he's balanced."

There is much more information on ol' Alito making its way to the public as we speak, and I would imagine that it will be more information helpful to his Supreme Court bid. But when was the last time you seen an open-minded, self thinking, fair and honest individual working with the Bush administration? They all seem to get fired or their families get harmed in one way or another.

Despite any evidence that shows Alito may be an honest man whom determines law fairly, it is very much fair to suspect that the most corrupt administration in America's history has nominated yet another man who will say "yes" to the executive branch for years to come. If not, his family may be harmed.

If Mr. Stewart wants to discuss distortion he needs to contact Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Carlson, Robertson and countless of other Republicans who distort data in the name of money. And if Alito has made one mistake, one unwise decision, he is going down in the name of Democratic Domination.

Alito Info
----
Houston Chronicle
MSNBC
Bloomberg

Forget the criminal investigations ...

2005-10-31T08:26:00.000-05:00

President Bush will today nominate Samuel Alito, a yes man, to the Supreme Court today according to reports.

Also this headline in the Gazette caught my eye: "Manchin not the only Democrat to buck party on abortion". I am just curious if people have forgotten that they have been 'pro-life' for the length of their careers. This is not something new, and Byrd's base can vouche for it.

And one by one the most notable WV Republicans are stepping down from the option of running against Byrd. Ireland and Capito know better, but their Junior Conservative Hiram "Bucky" Lewis needs some help understanding this. Does this piss off the Republicans? That their most beloved politicians are too scared to run against Byrd? You bet it does, as WVConservative has pointed out.

Churches issue resolution against war in Iraq....

2005-10-28T11:24:00.000-04:00

The West Virginia Council of Churches released a resolution Thursday urging Congress “to withdraw all U.S. military troops and bases from Iraq.”

The Rev. Dennis Sparks, director of the state Council of Churches, said the resolution was released after the announcement that more than 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed, and more than 15,000 wounded, in the Iraq war.

“The time has come to question the president and our congressional policies that continue to foster terrorist insurgency at a huge cost to our soldiers and their families, and to the Iraqi people themselves,” Sparks said.

“Like Sen. Robert C. Byrd, we offer our deepest sympathies to the brave men and women who have given their lives in selfless dedication to serve our nation,” Sparks said.

The resolution also states that the Council of Churches “holds in our prayers the people of Iraq, the U.S. troops and international troops and humanitarian workers in Iraq, the leaders of Iraq and the United States, and all others affected by this war.”

The council includes 14 Protestant denominations with a combined membership of nearly 600,000.

Patriots for Peace also held a noon rally Thursday in front of the office of Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., in Kanawha City. Capito voted for the war in Iraq.

More than 100 people attended the event. Some held the group’s ever-lengthening “Wall of Remembrance” banners listing the names, hometowns and dates of death for all 2,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq.

Capito’s offices were locked and no one answered the door during the rally.

Article

It's only a matter of time before public support for the War in Iraq dies out completely. Althought I do not believe in withdrawing the troops right away, I do believe that we have some level of obligation now to finish the job and help Iraq stand on it's feet.

Schwarzenneger....

2005-10-28T11:10:00.000-04:00

Protesting firefighters refuse to shake hands with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after he spoke at a town hall meeting promoting his special election campaign at a private residence in Arcadia, Calif., Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2005. The firefighters were protesting Schwarzenneger's proposals to change state government.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "year of reform" initiatives are proving a tough sell to California voters despite a multimillion dollar advertising blitz, according to a poll released Thursday. None of his measures on the Nov. 8 ballot has majority support, and two are opposed by wide margins.

The bombardment of radio and television ads from Schwarzenegger and his opponents have generated voter interest in the election, the Public Policy Institute of California poll found. So far, that interest has failed to translate into support for the governor's agenda.

"There's still a long way to go, but the governor is still looking to find the key to what will change public opinion," poll director Mark Baldassare said. "While his measures may not have moved in a negative direction, there's no sign that voters have any more inclination to support his package."

Article

God has truly blessed our week.

West Virginia and its Coal

2005-10-27T16:05:00.000-04:00

Article

Through his West Virginia Coal Conversion Initiative, Gov. Joe Manchin is promoting development of coal liquefaction processes that convert coal to motor fuel. He promises streamlined permitting for companies that want to build coal conversion plants in West Virginia that can produce highly desirable motor fuels.
...
But West Virginia's energy opportunity extends far beyond coal-to-motor fuel opportunities.

The American power grid is a thirsty beast that demands more and more energy, and coal is the nation's most affordable energy source for the foreseeable future. Coal's critics object loudly to the burning of fossil fuels, but the doomsday crowd offers few alternatives that can satisfy the nation's energy needs.

Further Reading

Along with Senator Byrd and the rest of West Virginia's leadership (besides Capito), I am confident that more opportunities will present themselves to West Virginia in the form of jobs. And not just any jobs, but coal/energy related jobs that will benefit WV and demonstrate how our roots in Coal is long standing and bright. As more inventions and innovations revise the life of the coal industry, we can again smile and welcome the chance for a better WV... but we gotta keep an eye on that Blankenship guy.

Manchin's New Role.

2005-10-27T15:57:00.000-04:00

Governor manchin has been appointed to the Medicaid commission.

The national panel will advise U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt on how to modernize the state-and-federal insurance program.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush also was named to the commission.

Other members include health policy leaders, state health department officials, public policy organizations and people with disabilities.

Medicaid provides health care for more than 300-thousand needy, aged, blind, disabled and low-income West Virginians.

The state department of health and human resources said earlier this year that it needs to cut nearly 116 million dollars out of West Virginia's medicaid program because it faces a 156 million-dollar deficit.

Source

I am curious as to where this will take ol' Manchin. I see more fame nationally being gathered, that's for sure.

Blankenship, will this guy ever shutup?

2005-10-27T15:52:00.000-04:00

Source

Blankenship Avows His Role in West Virginia
Posted 10/27/2005 06:00 AM

Blankenship insisted he has no political motives in his dabbling in the Mountain State's political landscape. Instead, Blankenship explained, his motivation is good citizenship.
Story by Steve Novotney

WHEELING -- Who is Don Blankenship?

It's a question, not a campaign slogan.

Not like "Who Is Brent Benjamin?" The Republican candidate's campaign used common curiosity last November, and Benjamin dethroned former West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals justice Warren McGraw.

But who is Don Blankenship? Now that's a question posed in West Virginia's Northern Panhandle as often as residents above the Mason-Dixon hear, "Paid for by Don Blankenship" on television.

Those are the political ads, the TV spots broadcast in the state's largest markets promoting whatever Blankenship believes in or denouncing what he doesn't. For instance, it was Blankenship who supported Benjamin's victory, and it was Blankenship who spent six figures opposing Gov. Joe Manchin's failed pension bond amendment in June.

His day job, however, means little to citizens of the state's northern counties because "Massey Energy" is not a household name here. Blankenship serves as president, chairman and CEO for Massey, the fourth largest coal producer in the United States with 19 mining complexes in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.

Blankenship insisted he has no political motives in his dabbling in the Mountain State's political landscape. He said he possesses zero political aspirations or premeditated, revenge-driven agendas against the Manchin administration.

Instead, Blankenship explained, his motivation is good citizenship.

Rest of the article.

Good citizenship aye? Sorry if I seem too skeptical, but I am. When was the last time a Republican did something out of the kindness of his heart? Well, I can tell you that I wasn't even born. Blankenship wants to see all of his buddies run the state of WV so he can make more money. SImple as that.

Perjury?

2005-10-27T12:32:00.000-04:00

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald huddled with his legal team Thursday as two key White House aides awaited their fate in the CIA leak probe.

A spokesman for the prosecutor said there would be no public announcements Thursday. The term of the grand jury that could bring indictments expires Friday.

The White House braced for the possibility that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, could become a criminal defendant by week's end. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, remained in jeopardy of being charged with false statements.

Libby and Rove arrived for work at the White House Thursday as usual. Rove attended the daily meeting of the senior staff, but Libby did not and was said to be in a security briefing. Libby misses senior staff about half the time because of intelligence briefings and other issues on Cheney's schedule, an official said.

I'm anticipating tommorow.

Miers drops nomination...

2005-10-27T12:28:00.000-04:00

U.S. President George W. Bush is back where he started in seeking a successor to retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: trying to balance competing calls for a woman or racial minority, a staunch conservative and someone who won't provoke a showdown with Democrats.

The controversy surrounding Harriet Miers, whose nomination the White House withdrew this morning, adds a new complication to the president's decision. Bush almost certainly will want to placate his conservative allies whose opposition to Miers, the White House counsel, was instrumental in sinking her nomination.

Yet if he chooses a nominee with a clear record against abortion rights and affirmative action, he risks a fierce battle with politically empowered Senate Democrats. Democrats have left open the possibility of a filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver used to block a vote.

I believe that Miers has dropped her nomination at the advice top White House officials. White House understands that after tomorrow, once indictments are handed down, they will not have the PR backing to keep this failing nomination alive. This is clearly a sign of fear amongst the White House staff, they know that indictments are coming.

Fear amongst the real Republican players...

2005-10-27T12:21:00.000-04:00

Secretary of State Betty Ireland says she would have made a good candidate for U.S. Senate. But Ireland says now is not her time to run.

Ireland made the announcement on Thursday's MetroNews Talkline. "I will not be running against Senator Byrd. I will not put my hat in the ring for the Republican nomination to run against Senator Byrd for the United States Senate."

It's a decision that Ireland says she weighed carefully after Second District Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito announced that she would not seek the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. Ireland says she's committed to the work of the Secretary of State's Office right now.

"I didn't put my name out there lightly. If I was going to do it, I put my name in to win, certainly not to use this as some sort of name recognition. That's the height of using this office and that is, certainly, not where I was coming from," says Secretary of State Ireland.

Ireland says she did talk with members of the National Republican Party and she says had she decided to run, she would have had the full support, financially, of the National Party.

"I know that, for a fact, the money would have been there, it will be there for whoever the Republican candidate is. One of my concerns was, of course, that the big money people in West Virginia have already started writing checks to Senator Byrd. It seems that no one wants to bet against him at this time," says Secretary of State Ireland.

But she says now is not her time. "I think I would be a great candidate and a great Senator. I really, really think so but when I looked at my family situation, when I know what I need to do still here at the Secretary of State's Office, it's not the time for me to do this."

Ireland says she would have campaigned hard and been a strong challenger to U.S. Senator Robert Byrd who has announced his re-election bid.

Despite the ridiculous attempts by Hiram Lewis, Rick Snuffer, Zane Lawhorn, etc. to run against Senator Byrd the real Republican candidates and their establishment have their tail between their legs when faced with the prospects of running against an entrenched and well funded Senator Byrd.

Capito, Betty Ireland, who’s next?

Turning the tables....

2005-10-27T12:17:00.000-04:00

A well-known West Virginia Republican has switched political parties. Veteran South Charleston Mayor and former gubernatorial candidate Richie Robb is now a Democrat.

Robb says he made the change earlier this month after considering it for about a year. Robb says, "It's issues not people." He says he disagrees with the mainstream of the Republican Party on the war in Iraq and several social issues like abortion and gay rights. "I think being a Democrat will be a better fit for me personally and philosophically." Robb made the comments Thursday morning on MetroNews Talkline.

Mayor Robb says his serious consideration of the switch started last year when he was running for governor. "The party mainstream and I were not on all engines together." Robb says he opposed the invasion of Iraq before it occurred and he's uncomfortable when the GOP's stronger pro-life stand.

Mayor Robb resigned his position on the state GOP Executive Committee earlier this month just a few weeks after South Charleston City Council passed a resolution urging the President to bring the troops home from the Middle East.

Robb says the recent response to Hurricane Katrina shows the nation is putting the emphasis on the wrong place. "We are not safer, but we are making ourselves more vulnerable to the potential of terrorism as time goes on."

Mayor Robb says he doesn't plan to run for a statewide office as a Democrat, but he will seek re-election as the mayor of South Charleston. Earlier this year Robb marked his 30th year in that position.

Robb says he actually switched his party affiliation about two weeks ago, but didn't publicize it. "I did it really quickly. It was sort of a dramatic experience."

I seen this one coming and it's possible that more are headed our way.

The game is up....or is it?

2005-10-27T07:54:00.000-04:00

The prosecutor in the CIA leak probe set the stage Wednesday for possible criminal charges, meeting with the grand jury that heard months of testimony and then consulting with the chief judge at the courthouse where the legal drama has unfolded.

The White House braced for at least one indictment by week's end, possibly Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. It also was worried that President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, remained in jeopardy of being charged with false statements.

More here.

It's time the Republicans face reality: they're truly setting the precedent as the party of scandal and corruption.

While I'll give the Repubs the fact that Clinton had some problems, they've been setting the precedent for corruption for years. Nixon paved the way for Clinton, and Nixon paved the way for crooks like Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove. It's going to be an amazing week, and most of all, it's going to be a great time to be a Democrat next year.

What will the Republicans do without big money men like Jack Abramoff?

Call Don Blankenship?

Byrd Meets With AEP CEO

2005-10-26T10:31:00.000-04:00

Article Here

Washington, DC (HNN) – . U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-WV., met with the head of American Electric Power (AEP), in hopes of strengthening West Virginia’s case for a new advanced coal-based electric power plant.

“West Virginia has the workforce, the coal, and the desire to be home to a new AEP power plant,” Byrd said. “AEP has a strong presence in West Virginia. We have proved to be a good partner with AEP in the past, and I believe that our partnership will continue to grow.”

“If West Virginia is selected for this new power plant, it would mean an infusion of new jobs, construction of a 21st century facility, and a continued commitment to West Virginia coal. This new plant would be a mainstay of West Virginia for many years to come,” Byrd said.

Complete article

One man who has the ability to bring jobs and opportunity to West Virginia is Robert C. Byrd. And if the AEP decides to build the power plant in WV, then Byrd's billion dollar industry plan will be well on its way. This is something Capito, or any other Republican in West Virginia, is not capable of doing.

Byrd is the word and shall remain in 2006.

Party of Scandal

2005-10-21T10:41:00.000-04:00

Looks like Tommy Boy has gotten himself in a bit of trouble recently, and trust me, he’s not alone. The scandal and corruption that the Republican Party has gotten itself into is growing deeper and deeper everyday, as of right now we have several investigations pending that will make or break the Washington Republican establishment in the 2006 – 2008 election cycle.

Right now I tally the list of top Republicans under investigation to be:

Karl Rove
Scooter Libby
Dick Cheney
Bill Frist
Tom Delay
Jack Abramoff
Ralph Reed Jr.
Conrad Burns
Bob Ney
Tom Feeney
Mike Scanlon
Grover Norquist
Jim Ellis
John Colyandro
Warren RoBold

With the prospects of more indictments and possible convictions I would imagine that for my Democratic allies the future is looking bright. (Select any of the crooks l above for a news link related to their investigation)

Republicans Move to Cut Services

2005-10-19T16:04:00.000-04:00

Republicans controlling Congress and the White House are pushing to cut BILLIONS from essential services. At the same time, the Republican leadership is seriously considering extending even greater tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and still spending $6 BILLION a month in Iraq. If they really want to cut the record deficits that they have caused they should clean up their own mess before forcing America’s neediest to sacrifice.

Here is a list of the programs they want to cut:

Medicaid and Medicare—the primary health insurance provider for America's poor and elderly.
Federal student loans—which make higher education possible for millions of American students.
Child Nutrition Programs (school lunch and breakfast, summer meals, day care meals)—which provide basic nutrition to underprivileged children in every state.
Food Stamps—the highly successful federal program that keeps millions of Americans from facing hunger and even starvation.
Earned Income & Child Tax Credits—vital tax relief for low-income working families.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation—the federal guarantor of private pension programs, needed more than ever in this era of major bankruptcies.
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and TANF—which provide basic cost of living support to millions of extremely low income and disabled Americans.
Unemployment Insurance.

Like Social Security and the National Guard each of these public interest programs successfully serve the public good.

Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito is trying to justify voting with her Republican benefactors by spinning these cuts as a "shared sacrifice". We call it "mismanaging the public trust" and further proof that Republicans have no intention of leading us in the right direction.

These programs are important to preserve and you can help. Tell Congresswoman Capito to take a stand, for a change, by calling:

Congresswoman Shelley Moore CapitoPhone: 925-5964 Charleston, 264-8810 Martinsburg

We need to make absolutely sure that Second District Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito has the benefit of our opinions on this issue before she votes on this draconian measure!

Capito Vulnerable in Bid for Re-election to House

2005-10-11T14:06:00.000-04:00

In the attention focused on the potential Byrd-Capito match-up, few have noticed Capito's vulnerability in WV HR2. Despite having the wind at her back, a massive in-district GOP GOTV effort targeting the DC exurb Eastern Panhandle counties which supply her margin, and facing a massively underfunded token challenger, she actually dropped two point from 2002 to 2004.
In 2006, she will lose her seat to the credible challenge of Mike Callaghan, a former AUSA, WV Department of Environmental Protection Director, and state Democratic chair. His campaign site is mikewv.com.
Capito continues to pull her Hamlet act on the Byrd challenge, pointedly keeping her options open. She has deftly used the Byrd float to raise her statewide profile for her ultimate goal of winning the govenor's mansion. She has used the leverage she has with the Bush Administration in their frenzied desire to take a shot at Byrd to get a free pass on the CAFTA vote.
She has played her hand well. She just has played it too long. There is growing impatience among West Virginia Republicans over her coy approach. Democrats are livid over the indecency of circling like a vulture waiting for Byrd to pass away.
Click here for the rest of the article

Right-Wing House Twists Arms, Thwarts Democracy To Pass Oil Industy Windfall

2005-10-09T12:40:00.000-04:00

From Think Progress:
October 7, 2005
Emotions erupted on the floor of the House of Representatives this afternoon as the right-wing-led Congress held open yet another vote to twist arms and pass a bill that would line the pockets of energy company executives. The House leadership held the five-minute vote open for almost 50 minutes until they could convince three lawmakers — Reps. Wayne Gilcrest (R-MD), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) — to change their minds. The bill passed 212-210. As the vote concluded, opponents of the bill chanted in unity: "Shame, Shame, Shame!"
The vote was held on the “Gasoline for America’s Security Act of 2005,” a provision sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to nominally “expedite the construction of new refining capacity.” But the bill is essentially a giveback to the oil industry — Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) called it a “leave-no-oilman-behind bill.”
***
How could legislation be passed to subsidize the oil industry when these companies are aready enjoying uncontrolled windfall profits from rising gasoline prices? The answer is, the vote was rigged, as detailed by Marie26 at Democratic Underground.
"Is this the House of a Banana Republic?" Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., shouted at one point, expressing his frustration about the GOP holdup of the final tally.
"Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuses the Republicans are again pushing their special interest agenda," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, including "all the special favors to the industry that were too extreme" for Congress last summer when it passed energy legislation.
"The bill weakens state and federal environmental standards ... and gives a break to wealthy oil companies while doing little or nothing to affect oil prices," complained Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., one of 13 Republicans who voted against the measure.
With prices soaring, "oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries" without government help, he maintained.
West Virginia's two Democratic Representatives voted against this outrage. Republican Shelly Moore Capito, however, supported the measure.
Video links are available here and here.

Capito keeping ARMPAC money

2005-10-05T10:36:00.000-04:00

The Charleston Gazette
October 5, 2005

Three Republican members of Congress have announced they will return campaign donations they received from Americans for a Republican Majority, a national political action committee run by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said Tuesday that she has no immediate plans to return $48,500 she has received from DeLay's ARMPAC.

--snip--

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, "West Virginia families deserve to know why it is that ... Capito refuses to return money from indicted Congressman Tom DeLay. ...

"DeLay's indictment was only one part of a system of pay-to-play and lobbyist-driven legislating that he put into place. Unfortunately, Capito has supported and benefited this same culture which puts the special interests at the expense of middle-class families and our country," Burton said.

Charleston Gazette article

Rep. Capito Won't Challenge Senator Byrd

2005-10-03T13:38:00.000-04:00

Scared or smart?

What A Year...

2005-09-30T09:56:00.000-04:00

Republicans just keep placing their heads on the chopping block.

"Former education czar William Bennett was accused of feeding the fires of racism after he claimed that the U.S. crime rate could be reduced by aborting "every black baby in this country."
Bennett, education secretary in the Reagan administration, made the astounding claim Wednesday on his morning drive-time show on the conservative Salem Radio Network. The show is heard on 115 stations but not in New York.

Addressing a caller's suggestion that lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years would be enough to preserve Social Security, Bennett..."

Link Here

The list of Republican scandal continues to grow. Reed, Rove, Frist, DeLay, Bush...

Hot Tub Tom DeLay Indicted

2005-09-28T14:57:00.000-04:00

Well, It's about time!

***

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.

DeLay, 58, was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today," DeLay said.

Criminal conspiracy is a state felony punishable by six months to two years in a state jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The potential two-year sentence forces DeLay to step down under House Republican rules.

Link Here

Senator Byrd Announced His Intentions.

2005-09-27T20:30:00.000-04:00

Today, Our great senator, Robert C. Byrd, spoke from the Capitol Rotunda saying he was "ready to go for another round." Byrd has 47 years in the Senate and will become the longest-serving member in Senate history in June.

While Republicans are lining up to knock down this great man, chances are that this wise, tactful Senator still has a few tricks up his sleeve to even derail the misdeeds of Rove.

God bless Senator Byrd and may he represent the people of WV as he is willing.

*EDIT*

Here is a transcript of Senator Byrd's speech available on his campaign site Byrd2006

Senator Byrd's Announcement Speech

Surrounded by family, friends, and hundreds of supporters, United States Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., made it official on Tuesday -- he will seek re-election to the Senate in 2006. Senator Byrd's remarks are below.

"I have given most of my life to serving the people of West Virginia, and today I stand before you ready to go another round. Today, I am here to announce my decision to run once again for the United States Senate and represent each of you, the people of our great State of West Virginia.

I have the best job in America because I represent you, the people of West Virginia. I want to keep this job. And I have called hundreds of West Virginians, and asked them, and they all said, "Go for it!" Here among our hills are the finest people on earth. Why do I say that? Because it's true. West Virginians believe in humility, hard work, patriotism, and we have an unshakeable faith in God.

We know that humility ennobles the spirit. We understand the dignity in hard work. We love our state, our country, and our flag. We share the faith of our fathers. Their faith in God is our faith. It is rooted in the marrow of our bones.

What a privilege to represent people like you! That is why I want to run again.
West Virginians deserve the best. As for me, it is an honor to work for all of you every day in the United States Senate.

It is not easy work, but I enjoy doing all that I can for West Virginia. I know how to deliver. I have been practicing my craft for years and, with your support, I will keep on giving you all I've got. I want to help build West Virginia's future. Together, we are making great progress, But there is more to do, and our best is yet to come.

We are a state rich in natural resources, natural beauty, and creative people who know how to work for what they want. We have a new, dynamic Governor. We have a hard working State Legislature. We have a strong Congressional Delegation. And we have lessons for America in the way we live our lives.

With a modern transportation system, a skilled workforce, and a friendly climate for small businesses and entrepreneurs, opportunity abounds. West Virginia is ready to reach new heights and new horizons. We are on the way to better days, and I will keep pushing to help build a better future for West Virginia.

There is much more to do. West Virginia's health care needs must be addressed. West Virginia's education opportunities must be improved. West Virginia's senior citizens must have the dignity and the security that they deserve. Our young people need good jobs so they can stay home in West Virginia and help us to build West Virginia's future.

I pledge my best efforts on those tough problems and more. And I also promise you this. I will never pull my punches. I will never duck a challenge. I will never close my ears to your concerns. And I will never, never, never fail to speak my mind on your behalf.

My beautiful wife, Erma, cannot be with me here today, but she is a West Virginian through and through, and she wants me to continue to work for the state we both so dearly love. With God's blessing, I look forward to the days ahead. With your support, and Erma's love, I look forward to working with all of you. We have mountains to climb together, so let's get going!

May God continue to bless our great country, and may God continue to bless the great State of West Virginia and her mountain people!"

Republicans Love Money...and Corruption.

2005-09-26T17:53:00.000-04:00

An investigation is underway that may have Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in an "Alderson Prison" of his own. Senator Frist seems to have pulled a "Martha Stewart" by getting inside information and selling his stock shares before its value plummeted. Senator Frist says he will comply with the authorities on this situation, but ofcourse, what else would he say?

Today in his first public comments on the issue, Frist said he "acted properly" in the transaction. Federal prosecutors last week said they would look into Frist's sale of HCA shares just before the hospital chain warned in July of weak numbers, driving the stock lower.

Today's comments came as the new chief of one of the agencies investigating the sales, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Christopher Cox, recused himself from the investigation. Cox, a former California representative and onetime contributor to a Frist election campaign, cited the need to avert what he called "any appearance of impropriety."

With Cheney having more medical complications, Bush's approval ratings plummeting, the "War On Terror" entering a seemingly infinite loop, U.S. economy taking a beating from the executive screw-ups and natural disasters, this is the last thing the Republican leadership needs. But as many have stated before, a mountain pile of screw-ups will open the eyes of the people... eventually.

Byrd to reschedule announcement

2005-09-20T12:23:00.000-04:00

Senator Byrd has rescheduled his 2006 announcement to next Tuesday, September 27 at 12 noon.

Here are some excerpts from the announcement:

September 20, 2005 Byrd re-schedules 2006 announcement

Friends of Robert C. Byrd
Ned Rose

On Tuesday, September 27, 2005, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., will announce his 2006 re-election plans at an event in the Lower Rotunda of the State Capitol in Charleston.

...

Byrd had previously been scheduled to announce his re-election plans on September 7, but postponed the event because of the state's massive efforts to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Supporters are welcome to attend Senator Byrd's announcement.

More information can be obtained at:
Direct Link and Byrd2006 News

Happy Constitution Day!!!

2005-09-17T20:27:00.000-04:00

Thanks to the efforts of Senator Robert C Byrd we can now celebrate officially the birth of the U.S. Constitution. Happy Constitution Day!!!

Limiting 527 groups....

2005-09-15T09:24:00.000-04:00

"West Virginia has taken the lead in regulating shadowy 527 groups that increasingly influence elections, one reform advocate says - but questions remain about whether the state's law is constitutional.

On Tuesday, the Legislature passed a bill that limits contributions to such groups to $2,000 per election cycle - the first state to do so, said Cecilia Martinez, executive director of the nonpartisan Reform Institute.

"West Virginia is a model for the country," she said. "After the 2006 elections, you'll see more states doing what [West Virginia is] doing."

Gazette article.

I guess we're seeing the first of the well justified-retaliatory measures to be taken against Don Blankenship.

I'm eager to see how the Republican Party in this state responds to such legislation vocally with their constituents. Republicans in this state, whether they like to admit it or not, depend heavily on the big spending 527s that use wedge-issues against their Democratic opponents.

Senator Byrd calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq

2005-09-14T08:41:00.000-04:00

By Rick Maze
Army Times staff writer

The Senate's senior Democrat called Tuesday for the Bush administration to withdraw the military from Iraq to focus on domestic needs such as hurricane relief.

"Sometimes, it takes a catastrophe to put events into perspective, to shake us and sharpen our clarity of vision," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

"We cannot continue to commit billions in Iraq when our own people are so much in need, not only now, in New Orleans, but all across America for everything from education to health care to homeland security to securing our own borders," Byrd said in a speech on the Senate floor

"We need to stop making excuses, stop spinning facts and come to grips with the unpleasant truth. The government of the United States is failing the American people."

Link to the complete story

Also of interest:

Senator Byrd's 02/12/03 Speech to the Senate of the US

New Poll Shows Byrd in Strong Position

2005-09-08T14:44:00.000-04:00

Public poll numbers released in Charleston today show Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., with a 75 percent job approval rating and a 16 point lead over a potential match-up versus Representative Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va..

According to the poll, about 55 percent of registered voters in West Virginia said they would support Byrd in the election. Only 39 percent said they would support Capito. Poll respondents also had a higher opinion of Byrd than Capito and gave the senior senator higher job approval ratings than the congresswoman. According to the poll, 72 percent of residents have a favorable opinion of Byrd.

Ned Rose, chairman of the Friends of Robert C. Byrd Committee, said about the new poll numbers, "This poll reflects what West Virginians already know -- that our state has no better champion than Robert C. Byrd. Senator Byrd stands up for West Virginia. He puts the people first. Senator Byrd does right by West Virginia.

"There is a long way to go before the election, and poll numbers change. But this is certainly good news. And I expect that the poll would have been even stronger if it were taken after Senator Byrd came through to save the West Virginia National Guard's 130th Airlift Wing in Charleston. Senator Byrd always uses his power, clout, and experience to fight for West Virginia."

The poll, commissioned by The State Journal, was conducted by RMS Strategies during the week of Aug. 8. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Bush Strafes New Orleans, Where's Huey Long?

2005-09-03T11:44:00.000-04:00

by Greg Palast
September 2, 2005

The National Public Radio news anchor was so excited I thought she'd piss on herself: the President of the United had flown his plane down to 1700 feet to get a better look at the flood damage! And there was a photo of our Commander-in-Chief taken looking out the window. He looked very serious and concerned.

That was yesterday. Today he played golf. No kidding

There is nothing new under the sun. In 1927, a Republican President had his photo taken as the Mississippi rolled over New Orleans. Calvin Coolidge promised to rebuild the state. He didn't. Instead, he left to play golf with Ken Lay or the Ken Lay railroad baron equivalent of his day.

Then, as the waters rose, one politician finally said, roughly, "Screw this! They're lying! The President's lying! The rich fat cats that are drowning you will do it again and again and again. They lead you into imperialist wars for profit, they take away your schools and your hope and when you complain, they blame Blacks and Jews and immigrants. Then they push your kids under. I say, Kick'm in the ass and take your rightful share!"

Link to the rest of the story

Meet With Hiram...

2005-08-30T10:19:00.000-04:00

Hiram "Bucky" Lewis or better known as Capt Hiram "No Win" Lewis has recently launched a new campaign to attack grieving mother Cindy Sheehan. Blogcritics.org has a great review of this madness:

"Hiram Lewis IV, GOP challenger for Robert Byrd's US Senate seat, is publicly embarrassing himself and/or disqualifying himself from becoming a serious contender to unseat Byrd in West Virginia. He has announced a new "Meet With Hiram" campaign targeting anti-Bush and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

Together with the conservative activist organization RightMarch.com, he will travel to Crawford, Texas, to demand a meeting with Cindy Sheehan. "If she refuses to meet with me there, I will follow her on her bus tour and continue to demand a meeting until she agrees to talk with me face-to-face." said Lewis. He further pledged to "dog her steps" until she meets with him.

For several reasons, this charade takes Mr. Lewis out of serious contention for the US Senate. First and foremost, he has little understanding of the First Amendment. Whether you agree or disagree with Cindy Sheehan, she has every right to protest the President's war policy. Only a thug would "dog" her or harass her because she is speaking out. For a citizen to follow her and harass her for her speech would be contemptible, but for someone running for the US Senate to do so as a political stunt, is outrageous and over-the-top.

Secondly, from a public relations point of view, this will be a disaster for Lewis. Why would this man, who is trying to convince the public in West Virginia that he has the temperament to be a US Senator, hound and "dog" a woman distraught with grief over her son dying in the Iraq war? Moreover, Mr. Lewis has been bought and paid for by RightMarch.com. He is performing a political stunt to counter Cindy Sheehan's spontaneous protest and that is obvious on its face.What does this man stand for? Does he believe it is appropriate to protest against another American citizen who is exercising their right to protest? What is his goal? To silence Sheehan? Is he pro-war or anti-free speech? Does he define himself as being anti-Sheehan? Why is interfering with this woman, who is protesting in a lawful manner, an important issue that is pertinent to West Virginia?Finally, Mr. Lewis is making a grave error in judgment by hounding this woman and demanding a meeting with her.

Aside from looking like a schoolyard bully at best, no citizen has the right to demand a meeting with another citizen when that other citizen has refused --that is called stalking and harassment. The President of the United States is a public official and the first amendment allows Ms. Sheehan to petition the GOVERNMENT for a redress of grievances. That is what Sheehan is bravely doing. Mr. Lewis doesn't get it or doesn't care. He has no right to demand a meeting with another American citizen who does not represent the Government. He has as much a right to demand a meeting with Cindy Sheehan as I have a right to demand a meeting with Michael Jackson.This obvious, partisan political-stunt shows Mr. Lewis to be a political opportunist, who does not have the temperament to be a US Senator.

If he follows through with this sham, he will not only be harassing grieving military families, he will also be showing little respect for and understanding of the First Amendment. Such a petty and misguided individual is not qualified to be a US Senator."

I couldn't agree more with what has been stated above. Hiram Lewis has destroyed his credibility as a candidate in West Virginia because he insists on running against the Democratic establishment (Rockefeller, McGraw, and BYRD). Gary Abernathy pointed out the fact that if Hiram Lewis would work his way up through the system (House of Delegates, State Senate, etc) he may be a viable candidate in the future. Yet he continues to pursue offices beyond his ability.

It is beyond my knowledge in understanding the thought process of people like Hiram Lewis and Zane Lawhorn; these two individuals have never even held legitimate offices before, yet they believe they can represent West Virginia at the United States Senate?

Bush Approval Plunges to 40%

2005-08-25T10:10:00.000-04:00

Poll Shows Bush Approval RatingsSink to Lowest Point in Presidency

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
August 24, 2005

President Bush's job approval ratings are at their lowest point of his presidency as only 40% of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of his job performance and 58% have a negative opinion, according to a Harris Interactive poll.

This is a decline from two months ago, when the president's ratings were 45% positive and 55% negative. The war in Iraq and the economy climbed to the top of a list of issues Americans say are most important for the U.S. to address. Social Security declined sharply.

At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney's approval ratings slipped to 35% from 38% in June, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's approval ratings dropped to 40% from 42%.

Link to the rest of the story

Bad Iraq War News Worries Some in G.O.P. on '06 Vote

2005-08-18T08:55:00.000-04:00

The New York Times
By ADAM NAGOURNEYand DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 18, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 - A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush's Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday.

Some said that the perception that the war was faltering was providing a rallying point for dispirited Democrats and could pose problems for Republicans in the Congressional elections next year.

Republicans said a convergence of events - including the protests inspired by the mother of a slain American soldier outside Mr. Bush's ranch in Texas, the missed deadline to draft an Iraqi Constitution and the spike in casualties among reservists - was creating what they said could be a significant and lasting shift in public attitude against the war.

The Republicans described that shift as particularly worrisome, occurring 14 months before the midterm elections. As further evidence, they pointed to a special election in Ohio two weeks ago, where a Democratic marine veteran from Iraq who criticized the invasion decision came close to winning in a district that should have easily produced a Republican victory.

"There is just no enthusiasm for this war," said Representative John J. Duncan Jr., a Tennessee Republican who opposes the war. "Nobody is happy about it. It certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you that much."

Link to the rest of the article

Update Shortage

2005-08-16T21:08:00.000-04:00

Both myself and Jeremy Lester will be moving back on to the Concord University campus in the coming days. We will make only small updates (if that) when we have available time. Expect more frequent updates after the 22nd of August. Thanks!

President Bush has earned his plunging poll numbers

2005-08-13T12:04:00.000-04:00

New Hampshire Union Leader
Saturday, August 13, 2005

President Bush has earned his plunging poll numbers
By ROGER SIMON

GEORGE BUSH'S poll numbers are in decline because the Iraq war hangs around his neck like a two-ton albatross.

The latest AP-Ipsos poll puts approval for Bush's handling of the war at only 38 percent and his overall job approval at only 42 percent. (In addition, 50 percent of the country says he is a dishonest and only 48 percent says he is honest.)

The latest Newsweek poll puts Bush's war approval at only 34 percent and his overall approval at 42 percent, his lowest ranking ever.

Since Bush doesn't have to run for office again, you might wonder why this matters. There are at least two reasons:

Republicans in Congress have to run for re-election next year, and these figures terrify them. The numbers are getting so bad - as is the war in Iraq - that some are already wondering whether a campaign visit by the President would be a plus or a minus in their districts.

The rest of the story here.

Political Suicide? Byrd's Successor?

2005-08-12T08:57:00.000-04:00

Sorry we've been a bit slow on the updates we're all recovering from our annual McDowell County Young Democrat's Bluegrass Festival. I've witnessed quite a bit of activity from within the state GOP as to who Senator Byrd's successor will be after his successful reelection next year. I thought I'd key in on the matter with my own personal views.

Gov. Manchin is a smart man I don't believe that he would make a suicidal appointment if Senator Byrd decides to retire in 07 or 08. I've heard 'rumors on the internets' that Manchin may appoint himself or perhaps even Gayle Manchin: give me a break. Appointing Gayle Manchin would most certainly make history, but not for the right reasons, West Virginia Democrats would hold the de facto standard for political suicide by a state Governor.

To be quite honest with everyone viewing, I don't believe that Manchin will appoint himself, Gayle Manchin, Congressman Mollohan or Congressman Rahall. Why? Well the first two are self-explanatory and the rumors that's been floating around pertaining to self-appointment and Gayle Manchin is nothing more than a press driven GOP effort to materialize their inner-desires for Governor Manchin to commit political suicide.

I like Congressman Rahall, he's a nice guy, and I've met him several times, but he's not ready for a Senatorial position. I've heard good things about Congressman Mollohan, he plays an organizational role in the Democrats for Life group, which is something I like, but he's not ready for a Senatorial position. I don't believe that Rahall and Mollohan are ready because they don't offer a visible presence for the people of West Virginia. I rarely see either of them on C-SPAN and I rarely see them take the fight to the enemy on a press front.

Before Rahall and Mollohan are ready they must first demonstrate they have the visibility to represent West Virginia in the United States Senate. What can they do to increase visibility? I most certainly believe that Mollohan and Rahall should be a guiding presence in the ethical questions and press circles in relation to DeLay Inc. and their connection to Shelley Moore Capito. It is within the best interest of the Democratic Party and our roster of candidates to remove Shelley Moore Capito. Mollohan and Rahall need to speak to their constituents more often about the ethical concerns of Tom DeLay and Shelley Moore Capito. I would have also enjoyed more outspoken visibility from both camps in relation to CAFTA as well.

In a perfect world Governor Manchin will appoint Gaston Caperton to serve out Senator Byrd's term if he chose to step down. It would also be great to see Caperton hold onto that seat for several more terms as well, but to me that is wishful thinking. If I had to pick two candidates to keep an eye on it would be Earl Ray Tomblin or Bob Kiss. The reason why I would keep and eye out for Kiss above all is rumors floating around that he may not be seeking reelection the coming years, and once that happens we will of course see Rick Staton leave the House of Delegates as well. In this case if Governor Manchin appointed Congressman Rahall to the seat Democrats would be in a very good position to hold onto this Congressional seat because we have a roster of viable 3rd Congressional District candidates that have served Southern West Virginia for many years. I won't go on any further because the possibilities are endless.

What have Democrats learned by these theoretical discussions by the GOP as to who Byrd's successor will be? We have learned that Senator Byrd will win hands-down next year, Republicans have already conceded the election to us by framing the debate on the theoretical discussion of who Byrd's successor will be 'after a 06 victory.'

Let's be honest, did they really stand a chance to begin with?

The Truth

2005-08-10T22:25:00.000-04:00

I recently discovered a very intersting article and rebuff written by Byrd Campaign Chairman Ned Rose.
I've posted it below for your viewing pleasure.

BYRD FIGHTS BACK AGAINST FALSE OUT-OF-STATE ADS –
SENATOR SAYS ‘WEST VIRGINIANS DESERVE THE TRUTH’

U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., is fighting back against Republican television ads
that make outright false claims about his service for the people of West Virginia.

“These slick, out-of-state ads rely on falsehood and trickery. They do not tell the truth.
These ads, coming so far in advance of the election and playing fast-and-loose with the
facts, are some of the worst kind of campaign tricks,” Byrd said. “I will not sit quietly and
let these national Republican ads lie to the people of my state. False, misleading, and
deceptive ads will not go unanswered.”

In response to these negative ads, paid for by the Washington, D.C.,-based National
Republican Senatorial Committee, Byrd has launched a television ad of his own that
features West Virginia veterans, including a veteran of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The
advertisement begins to air today.

“West Virginia’s veterans believe in Senator Byrd. They know that he is always standing
up for them and for the men and women of the Armed Forces, including our National
Guardsmen and Reservists. That’s why they wanted to stand up for Senator Byrd,” said
Ned Rose, chairman of the Friends of Robert C. Byrd Committee.

The ad, entitled “Truth,” features Sergeant Jared Towner, a native of Wood County and
an “Operation Iraqi Freedom” veteran who served in the Parkersburg-based 1092d
Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq for a year. While there, Sergeant Towner was his
platoon machine gunner and a combat lifesaver. His company removed improvised
explosive devices (IEDs) and provided mobile security for civilian contractors who were
rebuilding roads, schools, and other infrastructure projects.

“I’m Jared Towner and I served in Iraq. Senator Byrd has been fighting for us, bringing
jobs to West Virginia, funding schools and hospitals, protecting our flag and supporting
our troops,” Towner tells the people of West Virginia.

Senator Byrd closes the ad, telling the people of West Virginia, “I am Senator Robert
Byrd. I approved this ad because the people of West Virginia deserve the truth.”

FACT: The Washington, D.C.,-based National Republican
Senatorial Committee (NRSC) paid for $53,000 worth of
television advertisements in the Charleston/Huntington
media market beginning on July 29, 2005.

FACT: Washington Republicans continue to press for a
privatized Social Security system.

NRSC Chairman Elizabeth Dole has repeatedly made the
case this year for privatized Social Security. [CNN, “Inside
Politics,” 4/25/05; Greensboro News & Record, 1/2/05]
And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist supports privatization. In
March 2005, Leader Frist demanded that Congress support
privatizing Social Security. "We need to do it this year -- not
next year, but this year," said Frist on the Senate floor.
[Washington Post, 3/4/05]

FACT: The national Republicans have used their majority
in Congress to pass tax breaks for companies that close
operations in America and reopen in countries with lower
labor and environmental standards.

This year, NRSC Chairman Dole and Majority Leader Frist led
the GOP caucus in voting to keep tax incentives for offshore
companies. Earlier this year, Senators Dole and Frist led 52
of their Republican Senate colleagues in voting against an
amendment to the Fiscal 2006 Budget Resolution that would
have repealed tax incentives for domestic companies that
move their manufacturing plants to offshore locations. [S. Con.
Res. 18, 3/17/05, Vote #63]

FACT: Federal investments that Senator Byrd has
directed to West Virginia has led to thousands of new jobs.

These jobs include those at the FBI Complex in Clarksburg,
the many federal agencies in the Eastern Panhandle, and the
Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg. These facilities have
also helped to spur significant private-sector growth in the
Mountain State. For instance, the biometrics initiative that
Senator Byrd is spearheading with the Department of Defense
in Harrison County is opening the door to other technology
related jobs in that region. Byrd’s work has also boosted the
efforts of entrepreneurs. Last month, for example,
Touchstone Research Laboratory in Triadelphia was awarded
the prestigious “R&D 100 Award” for its cutting-edge work.
Company President Brian Joseph said that it was Senator
Byrd’s work that “allowed us to move research forward and
expand to accommodate the work that had to be done."

FACT: Senator Byrd has written legislation to expand the
federal investment in schools and make good on the
funding promises of the “No Child Left Behind Act.”

On many occasions, Senator Byrd has pressed to invest new
funding in our schools. He has voted to fully fund the “No
Child Left Behind Act” and improve the quality of our nation’s
schools. [Recent votes include vote 35, 3/10/2004, Murray
amendment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act; vote
343, 9/10/2003, Durbin motion to provide an additional $450
million for teacher quality programs; vote 330, 9/9/2003, Reid
motion to waive procedural budget rules and allow passage of
a Byrd amendment to increase funding for the Title I program
in the Elementary and Secondary Act by $6.15 billion]

FACT: Senator Byrd has worked to invest new resources
in health care and take advantage of new technologies to
expand health care in rural communities.

Earlier this year, Senator Byrd announced that his work had
led to the start of a new pilot project, called ‘HEALTHeWV,’
designed to utilize technology to better treat patients in rural
counties in West Virginia, starting in Wayne County. He has
also invested critical new resources in health care facilities at
West Virginia University, Marshall University, the West
Virginia School for Osteopathic Medicine, the University of
Charleston, and Shepherd University, as well as the
Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC).

FACT: Senator Byrd is cosponsoring legislation (S. 1370,
authored by Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah)
that would criminalize flag burning.

Senator Byrd has voted to protect America’s flag from
desecration and punish those who would burn it to incite
violence. For example, on 3/28/2000, Byrd voted for the
McConnell-Bingaman bipartisan amendment which imposed a
fine of up to $100,000 and/or up to one year imprisonment
upon any person who destroys or damages flag with primary
purpose and intent of inciting or producing imminent violence
or breach of peace, and in circumstances where person
knows this action is reasonably likely to produce this outcome;
imposes fine of up to $250,000 and/or up to two years
imprisonment for stealing a flag belonging to U.S. and
intentionally destroying or damaging that flag, or stealing flag
while on Federal property; and defines "flag" as any U.S. flag
made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is
commonly displayed as a flag and would be taken to be a flag
by reasonable observer.

FACT: Senator Byrd has pressed to make sure that
financial resources go to the American troops in harm’s
way, and not for big special interest contractors like
Halliburton.

Senator Byrd, in a letter dated February 6, 2003 – a month
and a half before the Iraq war began, asked Secretary
Rumsfeld “to initiate an immediate review to insure that our
troops are receiving the proper equipment for the environment
in which they are being deployed.” If Secretary Rumsfeld had
followed Senator Byrd’s advice, the shortages in body armor
would have been discovered before the war.
Senator Byrd has repeatedly voted for additional armor for
troops [Vote 199, 7/21/05, Warner amendment on Humvee
armor; Vote 117, 5/10/05, Supplemental Appropriations
conference report; Vote 109, 4/21/05, Supplemental
Appropriations bill; Vote 108, 4/21/05, Bayh amendment on
Humvee armor; Vote 163, 7/22/04, Defense Appropriations
conference report; Vote 149, 6/24/04, Defense Appropriations
bill; Vote 146, 6/23/04, Defense Authorization bill; Vote 112,
6/14/04, Dodd amendment for reimbursement of families who
bought body armor for troops].
Senator Byrd voted against giving $18.4 billion in taxpayer
funds to rebuild Iraq. This is the same reconstruction money
that was supposed to bring peace to post-war Iraq, but is now
ending up in the pockets of large defense contractors, like
Halliburton.

FACT: Senator Byrd is right; the people of West Virginia
deserve the truth.

Thank God someone is speaking the truth!

Wallis Opinion Piece

2005-08-05T02:30:00.000-04:00

The Message Thing

"SINCE the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.

So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.

Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for-as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.

Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them."

...

"Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose," or the alternative, "safe, legal and rare." More than 1 million abortions are performed every year in this country. The Democrats should set forth proposals that aim to reduce that number by at least half."

Read on...

Jim Wallis is editor and founder of the liberal evangelical magazine Sojourners, the author of The Soul of Politics and God's Politics, and the head of "Call to Renewal," a faith-based anti-poverty organization.

It is a little bit too late for that now, but I dedicate the repost of Wallis' article to all of you Libs in "Candy Land". I ask you to seriously take a second look at politics and strategy. This will be useful for the future.

Senator Byrd will not have to worry about staying consistent with that message, nor will he have to worry about the Klu Klux Klan vomit spewing from the opposition. The only thing Byrd has to worry about is the downfall of Hechler. But then again, what does 6 years difference make? Byrd triumphs in everything he takes on due to his intellect and ability. I can tell everyone right now that if Byrd officially announces his run, he will CRUSH the opposition. Hands down, not even close. Byrd will win by 20+ percentage points. Oh wait, what's that I say, only twenty? Nah, notice the plus. I'll give his opposition a little credit.

But in the meantime we should have some fun with the Republicans. I agree with what Wayne has stated: "...I think it would be a lot more fun to go on the offense with an ad that's critical of Smelly Moore Crapito, and let her see if she can defend herself." If the Democrats have half a brain here in WV they will take this opportunity to play with the Republicans. Swat them around like a cat would a mouse. Kick them up and down and show them who is boss. Republicans are starting to buck their chests out and stare 2 seconds too long in our eyes. We have to set them in their place. Do they seriously think they have a chance here in WV? Yes they do think so.

Capito, get ready to spend your money early because your name is about to be smeared worse than your blotchy face makeup.

Robert Novak Storms Off CNN Inside Politics Set

2005-08-04T19:45:00.000-04:00

Potty mouth and everything! Bob sure likes to dish it out, but he can't take it. James Carville really got his goat. Maybe he's cracking under the pressure of the Traitorgate investigation. You can enjoy a video clip at this site:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Scroll down a little at the same site for an accounting of an interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R - of course) on the Brian Lehrer radio show. There's an audio clip there, for your listening enjoyment. Santorum loses it too!

Update: CNN Suspends Novak

More here

Robert C Byrd is unstoppable.

2005-08-04T11:52:00.000-04:00

Republicans aren't too united on whether or not Byrd can be defeated. But turning to Gary Abernathy, the seasoned and veteran Republican operative from Ohio/WV has keyed in on the matter. Here are some quotes that should give you an idea of what he thinks about the election next year in terms of Republican success.

"Rather than run against Rahall, he has decided to throw his hat in the ring for the U.S. Senate race for the right to run against Robert C. Byrd. I want to call the EPA and ask them to examine what someone is putting in the West Virginia water these days. "

"Frankly, if you're going to have a candidate end up running against Byrd who has absolutely no shot at winning whatsoever, I much prefer Hiram Lewis. For one thing, Hiram announced his intention to get creamed by Byrd long before Snuffer ever thought about it."

"Hiram has raised a couple hundred thousand dollars, and by the time he’s done he could have a million. That is just precisely enough to make sure everyone remembers the exact name of the person Byrd buried in 2006."

"They ( Hiram, Snuffer, and Lawhorn) are good folks who should be involved in West Virginia politics for years to come. They will ruin their political lives with a series of high-profile losses."

"And yet, for some bizarre reason, Republicans galore continue to revel in the fact that Senator Robert C. Byrd once belonged to the Ku Klux Klan -- an indisputable fact admitted and written about by Byrd himself -- as though Byrd's membership in that disreputable organization will spell doom for the Senator in 2006. I've made it known many times that defeating Byrd in 2006 is something I think is beyond the GOP's reach."

"What I do know beyond doubt is that consistently rehashing Byrd's KKK exploits is to join a strategically sinking ship, one that actually sailed a half century ago. The frequent derogatory online references to the Senator as "Sheets" Byrd are about as effective as when Ann Richards calls President Bush "Shrub." It's kind of amusing, but in the end it makes her the one who looks small and petty. "

"If we have nothing better to use against Byrd than his KKK membership -- and the fact that so many like to revisit it so often and in such detail indicates we don't -- we are truly in an untenable position in regard to our chances of defeating him."

"All Byrd has to worry about, of course, are the voters of West Virginia, who have always known about Byrd's KKK history. And they have demonstrated time and again they do not care."

"But unless West Virginia has a sudden influx of African Americans, or bleeding heart liberals, such lapses of judgment will be shrugged off by most of Byrd's fellow Mountaineers."

"His position on social issues? He's been conservative enough on all the hot button issues to satisfy most West Virginians. His reputation as the King of Pork? Please. This is one of Byrd's biggest selling points, whether Republicans like it or not. "

"We Republicans can complain all we want about how Byrd's largesse has created an atmosphere of dependency in West Virginia. What West Virginians know is that federal agencies and jobs have come to their state that otherwise would not have come had it not been for Byrd." "The political reality that we must face in West Virginia is that there are very few voters who have not either benefited directly from a Byrd hand-out, or have family members or close friends who have. Pork buys votes, and if we think we can educate people to vote otherwise, no matter how correct our position, we are more foolish than the audience we are targeting."

"I am amazed and amused every day when I cruise the Republican blog sites and read the drooling that' currently exists over the prospects of defeating Byrd. The fact is, no one is capable of defeating Robert C. Byrd in West Virginia -- except one person. Robert C. Byrd."

I guess veteran GOP operative Gary Abernathy has a view that I agree with.

Fact Check Responds

2005-08-03T23:39:00.000-04:00

Check out the newest Fact Check article weighing in on the Republican/Byrd ads.

"Summary

With 15 months to go before election day 2006, the National Republican Senatorial Committee unleashed an attack ad in West Virginia in an attempt to soften up Democratic Senator Robert Byrd for an eventual GOP challenger. Byrd responded immediately with a TV ad of his own.

Both ads contained shopworn distortions.

The NRSC ad accused Byrd of voting "against body armor" and "for higher taxes for the middle class" – as misleading now as when Bush used the same attacks against Kerry last year.

And Byrd responded by claiming he was being attacked by "out-of-state special interests" with an "agenda" that includes "tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas." In fact, the ad was run by a political party and not by a "special interest," and the tax breaks Byrd mentions have been in place for decades, even when Democrats had a majority in the Senate and Byrd was their leader. Few economists see those tax breaks as a serious drain on US jobs."

Senator Byrd needs your help!

2005-08-03T21:16:00.000-04:00

West Virginia Senatorial and Congressional General Election Fund

As of right now West Virginia's 2nd Congressional seat is held by Shelly Moore Capito. She is rumored to be making a run at Senator Robert C Byrd, however, many have stated that she will not seek a run against our legendary Senator and will hold onto her Congressional seat for at least another term.

In any case, if we as Democrats unite to defeat her early, she will pose no threat to any incumbent Democrat in the future. Capito is perceived by many West Virginia and national Republicans as their savior in in the Mountain State. They believe strongly that she will lead the West Virginia GOP to a victory on a national, state, and local level.

Because of this hope and faith that the GOP has in her, I believe that we must send a message to the Republican Party, a message that defines the political outcome of our state for years to come: We must put Capito back on her daddy's payroll! Let's send her packing back home and completely demoralize the GOP's dream of carrying West Virginia firmly within their column.

You can contribute by clicking 'here' or you can go to the bottom of our blog and click the icon "Contribute."

Please contribute whatever amount you can spare, thank you.

Who's scared? Not Senator Byrd.

2005-08-03T17:29:00.000-04:00

Stop living a lie my Republican buddies. Byrd is not running scared, and he really doesn't have anything to worry about. Those doctored polls presented by the GOP can't really be taken seriously. Why? Because the RNSC has for sometime now tried to court Capito into running against Senator Byrd, those polls are only a manifestation of their desires. The same could be said of these false and negative attack ads being ran.

The RNSC is hoping that these ads, if aired long enough, will influence West Virginia's citizens to poll even better for Capito. Elizabeth Dole understands that unless Capito decides to make a run
at Senator Byrd, the GOP has no chance of dethroning Robert C Byrd. The 2000 and 2004 elections have nothing to do with this campaign. George W Bush gained our electoral votes because of the passion he invoked relating to the War on Terrorism, and most other in-state victories can be attributed to Don Blankenship.

Senator Byrd is responding to these ads in commendable and respectable fashion because his camp does not want Capito to run against him either. The West Virginia Democratic Party and Byrd's folks are bringing about these ads to prevent further polling that might inspire Capito to run against him. It's not that he's running scared, it's a simple matter of being a careful and strategic politician.

By having Internet ads and fund raising drives on MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, and MyDD, this says nothing about the man's character, and it certainly does not label him as a "liberal." By reaching out to their viewers for support is he endorsing their "The French are right" views? The answer is no. That same logic could be used against right-wing militant sites in this country who blow up abortion clinics, they have "Contribute to Bush-Cheney" on their site, but that does not necessarily mean that President Bush endorses their views or actions, but I'm positive he enjoys
their support.

As Jim McKay has pointed out on his site time and time again, those ads against Senator Byrd are FALSE.

"I showed in the other comments that the body armor claim is very misleading.

Senator Byrd proposed an amendment (Congressional Record, page, S12779, 10/17/03) that would have INCREASED funding for the body armor section of that bill by $600 million.

He wanted to amend the bill to provide MORE money for things soldiers needed and less on things like:

-- $2 million on 40 garbage trucks, at $50,000 each,

-- $20 million for a 4-week business course at $10,000 per student, and,

-- $900 million to import petroleum products, for a country with the the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Unfortunately President Bush and Republican Congressional Leaders felt it was more important to buy garbage trucks than to protect the troops and guard ammunition stockpiles from insurgents. As for taxes, Senator Byrd understood that you cannot continue to have an exploding deficit and not pay the consequences.

The 1993 vote helped balance the budget and didn't hurt the economy, which had it's largest period of growth ever in the nineties. On the other hand, Bush's tax cuts have exploded the deficit and our economy continues to tread water. And voting against a specific tax cut is not the same as voting for higher taxes. If I ask my boss for a raise and he says no, then it doesn't mean that I lose money. It doesn't mean that my boss cut my wages. I just don't get the raise. As for the flag burning, the only time I see the flag being desecrated is in Republican ads. If they're so outraged about it, then why keep broadcasting it?

I agree that the playbook has been successful. I still think it's underhanded. It's on par with George Steinbrenner and Barry Bonds -- successful, but that doesn't make it right."

- Jim McKay

As for the "Flag Burning" bull, if you read Byrd's speech about the matter he did at one point in time endorse a Constitutional amendment that banned flag burning, but after further reflection and study of the Federalist Papers he came to the conclusion that a Constitutional amendment is not necessary. We can simply outlaw flag burning using traditional laws, and this is what the Framers intended, they intentionally made it hard to pass a Constitutional amendment for various reasons. Byrd fears that if we pass such a Constitutional amendment, it will further acts of flag burning, similar to the same ramifications that the "Prohibition" brought to the United States.

I'll be honest with you right-wingers, the NRSC will pull out of West Virginia once they find out that Capito will not run, and they will most certainly not succeed in beating Senator Byrd by mimicking the GOP Max Cleland formula. At least Byrd's ads are true. Repubs do want to privatize Social Security and give
tax-breaks to corporations who want to send our job's
overseas.

Open A Cold One...

2005-08-03T11:45:00.000-04:00

I just wanted to take the time out of my 'busy schedule' and congratulate Brandon on tackling a beast of an obstacle. I guess once everything gets lined out I will have to complete my end of the bargain.

Keep up the good work.

Senator Byrd fights back!

2005-08-02T17:23:00.000-04:00

True to the policy of punch/counter-punch that we preach on Modern America, our beloved Senator Robert C Byrd is fighting back against the misleading, and deceitful ads being aired by special interest Republicans from out of state tycoons. After receiving a thrashing by Democrats (See: Modern America and Daily Kos articles) for practicing one sided journalism, Lauren W. Whittington of The Roll Call bowed to our pressure and did a follow up explaining Senator Byrd's recent counter-attack to the NRSC sponsored ads.

Byrd Hits Back at NRSC Ads

By Lauren W. Whittington
Roll Call Staff

Tuesday, Aug. 2; 03:53pm

Although he has yet to formally announce that he will seek a ninth term next year, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) began airing his first campaign television ads of the cycle Tuesday in response to the "false, misleading and deceptive" advertising that Republicans launched against him last week.

"These slick, out-of-state ads rely on falsehood and trickery. They do not tell the truth. These ads, coming so far in advance of the election and playing fast-and-loose with the facts, are some of the worst kind of campaign tricks," Byrd said in a statement announcing his response ad buy. "I will not sit quietly and let these national Republican ads lie to the people of my state. False, misleading, and deceptive ads will not go unanswered."

Byrd's new ad, titled "Truth," is airing principally in the Huntington and Charlestown media markets and is of relatively the same scope as the National Republican Senatorial Committee ad buy hitting Byrd that began running Friday.

Ned Rose, chairman of Byrd's re-election committee, would not put a specific time line on how long the ads will remain on the air.

"It's going to run long enough for Sen. Byrd to be able to tell the truth about the ads that were put on by the Senate Republican committee," Rose said.

While Byrd has yet to draw a top-tier challenger, Republicans are aggressively working to woo Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) into the race against the 87-year-old Senator, who has never faced a competitive re-election contest.

Byrd's new 30-second spot opens with ominous music and an announcer telling viewers that "out-of-state special interests are running false attack ads against our Senator, Robert Byrd."

Those same special interests, the announcer says, want to "privatize Social Security" and give "tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas."

The ad also features Army National Guard Sgt. Jared Towner, a West Virginia native and veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Towner tells viewers that Byrd "has been fighting for us, bringing jobs to West Virginia, funding schools and hospitals, protecting our flag and supporting our troops."

Byrd appears with a group of veterans at the close of the ad and issues this disclaimer: "I approved this ad because the people of West Virginia deserve the truth."

The NRSC went up on West Virginia airwaves last week with a 30-second spot attacking Byrd for being out of step with the state's voters and values. It claims that much has changed with regard to Byrd's voting record since he was first elected to Congress in 1952.

"Byrd voted for soldiers in the '50s. Today, against body armor in the war on terror. Then, he stood with working families. Today he votes higher taxes for the middle class," the announcer says in the NRSC ad. "Then, Byrd protected our flag. Now he votes to allow flag burning. Sen. Byrd. We all agree he's changed. But is it good for West Virginia?"

Byrd's campaign has wasted little time in using the Republican ads as a fundraising tool.

He currently has Web ads running on at least two prominent Democratic blogs, Daily Kos and MyDD, asking supporters to help him raise $55,000 to fight back against the GOP attacks.

As of June 30, Byrd had more than $1.7 million in cash on hand.

A handful of Republicans have already announced their intentions to run for the GOP Senate nomination next year: Rick Snuffer, Hiram Lewis and Zane Lawhorn."

As we've stated before on Modern America, Byrd will not rest easy while the GOPers preach spin and rhetoric, he fights back.

God bless Senator Byrd! We've got your back!

UPDATE:

Senator Byrd's counter ad can be viewed online.

Byrd visits Veterans

2005-08-02T14:30:00.000-04:00

Nice article by the Martinsburg Journal about Senator Byrd's efforts to help local veterans.

"Just two days after Congress approved his plan to stave off a more than $1 billion budget shortfall in veterans' health care, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., stopped at the Martinsburg Veteran's Affairs Medical Center Sunday to visit local veterans.

"Our veterans served and they sacrificed to permit this country to fulfill the great hopes of our founding fathers. We should take time to thank those who have sacrificed for our freedoms," Byrd said.

Byrd orginally is credited with securing the funding for the $76 million new construction replacement of the Martinsburg VAMC he visited Sunday and dedicated in 1984.

"I'm proud of it," he said.

The 559-bed center is a medical, surgical, psychiatric, nursing home, outpatient and dormitory facility. The hospital employs about 1,270 full-time-equivalent personnel and has had an annual economic impact of $146 million.

"It's one of those experiences that brings into focus why we are here and what we are here to do, which is to serve our nation's heroes," Fernando Rivera, the VAMC's director, said of Byrd's visit.

Byrd's tour of the VAMC in Martinsburg was closed to the media because of patient privacy rights, but the Senator did meet with reporters as well as other veterans and old friends in the lobby of the hospital to talk about the visit and veteran's health care funding issues after the tour.

"I'm here to visit the veterans and tell them that I'm standing up for them," Byrd said.

Byrd said he, along with other Democrats and Republicans, have stood up for veterans and will continue to do so in the future.

"I will always stand up for veterans. I have stood for them and I will continue standing up for them," Byrd said. "I will do whatever I can for the veterans of West Virginia. We owe them a a lot."

Byrd also hinted that he may run for re-election if he feels the people of West Virginia wish it.

"Well I have a story with that," Byrd said after being asked if he would run again. "I've been calling people around the state, Republicans and Democrats and asking them, what do you think?"

Byrd said he won't make an official announcement until September. He was quick to say that he wouldn't let anyone put him on the spot or intimidate him into revealing his intentions about a possible run until that time.

"If it looks like the people of West Virginia will still vote for me, I'll do it. I will do it," he said. He acknowledged that if he chooses to run, opponents would likely turn his age into an issue.

"That's alright, though," he said.

He added that he would have no problem "proudly proclaiming" his 47 years of service in public office. After speaking about his age, one audience member told Byrd "the older the violin, the sweeter the music."

According to one of Byrd's long-time friends, Earl E. Barney, who has known the senator since 1958, Byrd would be a shoe-in if he runs again.

"Of course, if he runs again there's no doubt he will be elected," Barney said.

But the main focus of Byrd's visit was not to talk about future election bids, instead the focus was on veterans services. He noted there are more than 190,000 veterans living in West Virginia. Byrd recently led a bi-partisan coalition in the Senate and helped steer $1.5 billion in funding through the Congress, with the final vote sending the legislation for the additional funding for VA medical care to the president last Friday, representatives reported.

"I put my back into it and it passed on Friday and it's on its way to president," Byrd said. "... I think he will (sign it)."

The funding emergency was sparked by a massive shortfall in the Department of Veterans Affairs budget discovered earlier this summer.

"The Bush administration acknowledged that it had underestimated, by more than $1 billion, veterans healthcare funds for the current fiscal year. Without action, essential services and programs would be placed at risk. That's why Byrd's effort was so critical," a statement released by Byrd's office said.

Fearing that veterans would see their medical services cut off, Byrd in June added the $1.5 billion to a federal spending bill - the first expected to head to the president's desk for the coming fiscal year. After winning unanimous Senate approval for the measure and then guiding it through the Senate, the Congress sent the measure to the White House on Friday to be signed into law.

"We have veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War and so many other battles already waiting in line to see a doctor. Now, we have new veterans coming home from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan each day, some with grievous injuries. They should not come home to long lines to see a doctor or, worse, no doctor at all," Byrd said. "With increasing pressure placed on the VA medical system each day, we cannot afford to short change the healthcare of our veterans."

While the additional funds fill the current hole in the VA's budget, Byrd said that analysis already shows that by next year the VA will see an almost $2 billion budget shortfall.

"Next year we have a job to do," Byrd said

The $1.5 billion approved by the Congress Friday will cover the shortfall for the current fiscal year, which ends September 30, 2005. But, Byrd pointed out again that a growing hole remains in the budget for the coming fiscal year. Byrd said he will continue to press for emergency funding to fill that gap.

"Abraham Lincoln said very clearly that the nation has an obligation 'to care for him that shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.' My efforts to protect medical care services at VA facilities are aimed at meeting those obligations. We must continue to stand up for America's veterans and resist the efforts to shortchange our veterans in their hour of need," Byrd said."

May God have mercy on those that try and taint Senator Byrd's reputation. Lord knows he has given all he's got to serve our state and nation and he deserves our respect and our vote.

From Bolton to Miller

2005-08-02T13:11:00.000-04:00

President Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton demonstrates this administrations' complete disregard for the Constitutional "Advice and Consent" procedure in the United States Senate. I commented on Jersey Perspective about the issue, and I pointed out that most people seen this move coming from the White House. I first noticed that President Bush was going to make this stupid move back when Karl Rove gave an interview on Scarborough Country where he stated that President Bush would have his "ambassador at the United Nations one way or the other."

There is no bipartisan support for John Bolton, even Republicans on Capitol Hill hate this guy. Not because he's a straight shooter, but because he's a hot-headed lunatic that deserves to be hog-tied by Brent Benjamin. (joking) But really, if President Bush wanted to shake things up at the United Nations he should have appointed a much better, much more sensible person to be the ambassador.

If I was President tomorrow I would prob. appoint Zell Miller to the position, why you ask? Not because I like the man personally, I'm actually still fuming over his betrayal, but because I feel he is a sensible, down to Earth individual. Zell Miller may not have the background in international relations, but I'm sure he would be willing to learn and he would appoint a highly qualified staff to assist him. It is my belief that if the Democratic Party is ever in power on a national level again (which it isn't looking too bright for us) we need to reach out to people like Zell Miller, because they reflect a dying, but nationally vital constituency that still exists in some parts of the South.

Like Zell Miller, I am a Conservative Democrat, I prefer the label "Traditional Democrat" as you know Jack. However, I do not agree with the overblown and yes "insane" rhetoric that Zell Miler used at the Republican National Convention, and my theoretical appointment of Zell Miller as the ambassador of the United States to the United Nations is in no way an endorsement of his views pertaining to John Kerry, the War in Iraq, or the rhetoric he used during the RNC.

I came to the conclusion that he is a down-to-earth man and a sensible person by reading both of his books. He details his love of the Appalachians, his love of the Democratic Party (oddly enough), and his love of the American people in those two books, and I most certainly respect his ideas on a morally aware, yet ethically guided society. If I appointed Zell Miller as ambassador to the United Nations it would be through the understanding that I've gained about his character by reading his speeches and published works. But I do not agree with his betrayal of the Democratic Party. I agree that our party has been polarized to the point where Traditional Democrats are the minority, and I do agree that their must be reform within the Democratic Party, but I do not feel that turning our back on the Democratic Party is the answer.

What Zell Miller did at the RNC was wrong, and I am in no way endorsing or supporting his actions. I am simply stating that I have more respect for Zell Miller through his devotion to God, State and Nation, but I have little respect for him through his support for his Party.

Appointing Zell Miller to be the UN ambassador would court back our blue-collar constituency that largely agreed with his flawed speech at the RNC (open the party up for inclusion), and it would serve a good purpose to have a down-to-Earth individual represent our nation on a international level. Miller would always have his mind on the best interest of the people in my opinion (which reaffirms the Democratic Party's credo as the 'People's Party'), and that's the important thing.

I don't want to go off into a rant about political strategy for the Democratic Party, but if we are to survive, there must be change.

In conclusion, we need level-headed, straight shooters representing us at the United Nations, but they need to carry with them a ethical and respectable background, and John Bolton certainly does not meet that criteria.

Great News Internet Explorer Users!

2005-08-02T03:36:00.000-04:00

After many hours of hide and seek, I think I have fixed the errors that crammed the side bar to the bottom of the page. We at MA mostly use Mozilla Firefox or some other alternative to IE and rarely catch the errors that IE users experience.

I strongly suggest everyone use Mozilla Firefox. There are multiple things about its features that make it great, one being the built in popup blocker. Once I tested Modern America on IE, I noticed you guys experience some popup adds from bravenet, Mozilla stops that and without third party software. Another great thing about Mozilla is that it interprets code more proficiently, unlike IE that handles code sometimes like it is from another planet. Mozilla can comprehend flawed code and interpret it to what you intended...almost like a skilled living creature.

Anyway, if anyone notices anything looking a little funny, i'd appreciate an email. I'll try and stay up-to-date on how to keep MA lookin' good for your viewing pleasure. But hey, you come here for our awesome commentary and news, not the graphics and looks right?

Get Firefox

P.S. Don Surber stays up too late.

Sports Analogy

2005-08-02T00:39:00.001-04:00

Great article by Jim Mckay.

"What West Virginia Can Learn From the Boston Red Sox

or What Manny Ramirez, Shaquille O'Neal, and Bob Byrd Have in Common...
MannyIt looks like the Red Sox have learned their lesson.

Despite rumors flying about an impending trade of Manny Ramirez, the Red Sox have decided not to trade the future Hall of Famer. It appears the Red Sox have finally learned that the best trade is often the trade you don't make.

It would not have been wise to trade their best player one year after winning the World Series. The last time they did that, the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth and ushered in almost a century of frustration before winning the World Series last October.

Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Lakers didn't heed this advice, trading their most valuable player, Shaquille O'Neal, to the Miami Heat in exchange for 3 players hardly anybody has heard of. The results, the Lakers ended up losing more games than the LA Clippers and missed the playoffs, while Miami almost won the Championship for the first-time in franchise history.

What is the lesson?

You don't trade your most valuable players, especially not for an unproven rookie. It may seem like you made a good deal at first, but a bad trade can have lasting results.

Next year, West Virginia voters will have a chance to choose between a proven star, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who has demonstrated his value to the state time and time again, and an unproven prospect, Rep. Shelley Moore-Capito. The writers will talk about the potential of Rep. Capito, but voters should know that "trading" Senator Byrd would be no better than trading Manny for Aubrey Huff, or Shaq for those other guys.

Capito has been working in the minor leagues and has even had some success, but the US Senate is the Major Leagues. West Virginia can't afford to risk trading a perennial MVP candidate for a prospect who recently admitted,

"I'm not sure I completely understand (the federal budget process) yet myself."

That's like saying, "I can't hit a curve ball, but I'm working on it."

We can't afford to wait for someone to learn at the Major League level.

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask the fans in Los Angeles, which player do they wish they still had on their team?"

Frist is a Flip Flopper

2005-07-29T23:52:00.000-04:00

Do I smell a flip-flopper? I think so.

"Irate that the Senate majority leader had broken with President Bush on the volatile issue of human embryonic stem cell research, conservative Republicans denounced him on Friday, warning that his support for the work could cost him the Republican presidential nomination should he seek it in 2008.

But the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, was also showered with praise - from scientists, advocates for patients and some fellow Republicans, including Nancy Reagan - after he surprised his colleagues by announcing that he would back a bill, passed by the House but stalled in the Senate, expanding federal financing for such studies.

"It is a very, very profound change," Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, said of Mr. Frist's decision. "It's an earthquake."

In defying the president, who has threatened to veto the bill, Mr. Frist was veering to the political center in a year during which he had artfully courted his party's right wing. Just Friday he won passage of a measure shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits, pleasing conservatives even as he left them feeling jilted by his stem cell decision.

Mr. Frist's counterpart in the House, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, whose relationship with him has been cordial but not close, quickly called a news conference with House Republicans who, like Mr. Frist, are also doctors. Mr. DeLay said a candidate who advocated "creating commodities out of embryos would have a very hard time appealing to the vast majority of Republicans in this country."

Yet polls show that a majority of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research. In siding with backers of the science, Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon whose fast rise in politics has bred speculation that he will run for president, may have calculated that the political benefits outweigh the risks.

Mr. Frist told Mr. Bush of his decision in a call Thursday night. Though Mr. Frist was instrumental four years ago in persuading Mr. Bush to open the door to some federal financing of embryonic stem cell research, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Friday that the president had "made his position pretty clear"- a strong indication that the veto threat was firm.

"The president told him last night, 'You need to vote your conscience,' " Mr. McClellan said. "The president made a decision based on his principles, and Senator Frist is making a decision based on his principles."

Scientists and advocates for patients believe that human embryonic stem cell research holds the potential to treat and cure a variety of diseases. But the studies draw strong moral objections from social conservatives because they involve destroying human embryos. In August 2001, the president placed strict limits on federal financing for the work; the House bill would ease those restrictions by allowing the government to spend money on studies of stem cell colonies, or lines, derived from frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics.

In a lengthy speech on the Senate floor announcing his backing for the House bill, Mr. Frist said he believed that he could reconcile his support for the science with his position as someone who is "pro-life" and who feels that "the embryo is a nascent human being." Aides said that politics had played no role in his decision and that he had made it after weeks of reviewing medical research papers, talking with scientists and medical ethicists, and reflecting on his own principles, articulated in July 2001, a month before the president's policy was announced.

"Embryonic stem cells have specific properties that make them uniquely powerful and deserving of special attention in the realm of medical science," Mr. Frist said Friday, adding, "Embryonic stem cell research must be supported."

The response was swift.

"I'm brokenhearted," said one longtime friend, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.................................."

We've got the leader of the Republican controlled Senate, raising hell over abortion, raising hell over Terri Schiavo, and now we see he breaks his moral and religious obligations - commitments to support Stem Cell Research? Flippity Floppity Coward.

Teresa Chambers

2005-07-29T23:31:00.000-04:00

I recently read this interesting oped.

The plight of whistleblowers - those employees who sound the alarm about anything from dangerous conditions in the workplace to missed or ignored intelligence regarding our nation's security - is a story that seems to grow stronger and with more frequency every day. My guess is that those stories have always been there; I suspect I am just paying closer attention to them now.

You see, I joined the "ranks" of whistleblowers on December 2, 2003, when a major newspaper printed a story in which I confirmed for them what many of us already knew - we, the members of the United States Park Police, could no longer provide the level of service that citizens and visitors had grown to expect in our parks and on our parkways in Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. The world changed for all of us on September 11, 2001, and the expectations of police agencies across the country grew exponentially overnight. As the Chief of the United States Park Police, an organization responsible for the safety and security of some of America's most valued and recognizable symbols of freedom - including such notable sites as the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, and the Golden Gate Bridge area - I knew it was my duty, as chiefs of police across the country do every day, to inform the community of the realities of the situation.

For being candid - for being "honest" - while still being supportive of my superiors, I was, without warning, stripped of my law enforcement authority, badge, and firearm, and escorted from the Department of the Interior by armed special agents of another Federal law enforcement entity in December of 2003. Seven months later, the Department of the Interior terminated me.

Frighteningly, the issues I brought to light about our citizens' and visitors' safety and security and the future of these American icons have not been addressed - other than to silence me. In fact, there are fewer United States Park Police officers today than there were in 2003 when I was sent home for daring to say that we weren't able to properly meet our commitments with existing resources. Other security concerns I raised internally have also gone un-addressed.

Imagine the outcry if I had stayed silent and if one of those symbolic monuments or memorials had been destroyed or the loss of life had occurred to someone visiting one of those locations. I did not want to be standing with my superiors among the ruins of an American icon or in front of a Congressional committee trying to explain why we hadn't asked for help.

Despite the serious First Amendment and security implications of my case for each American, there has been no Congressional intervention, no Congressional hearing, no demand of accountability by elected officials for those who took action to silence me and who have ignored all warnings about the perils to which I alerted them. Through it all, it has become clear that Federal employees have little protection for simply telling the truth. Following my termination and the publicity that accompanied it, it is unlikely that any current Federal employee will be willing to speak up with straightforward, accurate information about the realities of any danger we face now or in the future.

My story is told on a website, www.honestchief.com, established by my husband in December 2003 so that the American people could "witness" the issues in this case. Through the webmaster's regular updates, the website has provided transparency to my situation by including an audio library and making key documents available for viewing, including the transcripts of depositions of top officials and their testimony during a key administrative hearing.

Suppression of information is spreading - gag orders, nondisclosure agreements, and the government's refusal to turnover documents. In agencies that span Federal service, conscientious public servants are struggling to communicate vital concerns to their true employers - the American public. Is anyone listening?

Teresa Chambers
tcchambers@honestchief.com

Is she another example of the Rove White House retaliation policy?

SHAFTA-NRSC-China

2005-07-29T15:39:00.000-04:00

"Capito, one of the Republicans opposed, said she voted against the pact on grounds it could hurt her home state.

"I gave the bill a very thorough review and just could not find how it would protect jobs in West Virginia," she said.

"Keeping West Virginians on the job is the first thing we need to do to ensure our state's economy grows. This agreement may be good for other states, but does not make sense for West Virginia."

Capito's vote was not lost on United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts, who said he was pleased to see the Republican representative vote against it.

Robert said Capito voted to "keep American jobs here at home, and the UMWA appreciates her courageous stand."

This is another example of why Capito would be a horrible - amateur Senator. Let's say for instance that there was no deal established between Tom DeLay and Shelly Moore that allowed her to vote "no" on CAFTA. She stated that after careful consideration she came to an educated conclusion that CAFTA would hurt West Virginia. Now once she came to this conclusion, what is an elected representative of West Virginia supposed to do? They are supposed to lobby on behalf of the people of West Virgina to protect our jobs, and what did she do? Apparently nothing. Even if Shelly Moore tried to lobby against this legislation on behalf of the people of West Virginia, she failed.

No one wants to listen to an amateur Representative from West Virginia, nor will they listen to an amateur Senator from West Virginia. Senator Byrd wields more power than most of the Republicans on Capitol Hill. When Senator Byrd speaks, Congress listens (unless your as disrespectful as Majority Leader Frist). Now the NRSC is going to remove the single greatest political asset in West Virginia? As I've stated before, that is undeniable proof that their interests lie with RNC rather than the people of West Virginia. I hope Byrd gives Bush hell before he retires.

Thank God for our Democratic leadership.

Mollohan and Rahall have their heads on straight:

"(February 10, 2005) -- America's trade policy with China has already cost U.S. jobs and threatens to cause more losses in the years to come, according to two West Virginia lawmakers who want to repeal the favorable trade status enjoyed by that nation.

Congressmen Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, both D-W.Va., are original cosponsors of legislation which would revoke Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. The measure was introduced in the House late Wednesday.

"PNTR has been a boom for China, but a bust for workers here at home," Rahall said. According to a January 2005 study, 1.5 million U.S. jobs were lost from 1989-2003 due to trade deficits with China. America's 2004 trade deficit with the country is estimated at $160 billion, roughly one-fourth of the U.S. total.

"Together with free-traders in Washington who believe that outsourcing American jobs is ‘just a new way of doing international trade,' PNTR is exporting the livelihoods of our U.S. workers and hurting their families," Mollohan said.<

H.R. 728, cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 60 lawmakers, would end the PNTR now in place, prompting the negotiation of a new and fair trade agreement with China.

"It defies all logic to expect the United States to successfully compete with nations that don't follow worker rights, environmental regulations and safety rules which are similar to our own," Mollohan said.

"Until we take a reasonable approach to foreign trade, jobs that are held by Americans will continue to be shipped overseas. The policies that are now in place simply aren’t in the best interests of our own workers," Rahall said.

The lawmakers noted that in addition to continued employment losses in the manufacturing sector, a growing number of information technology jobs are projected to be lost to China and India over the next decade."

In Unrelated News:

M A was also featured on the Daily Kos.

Byrd on CAFTA

2005-07-29T15:27:00.000-04:00

Senator Byrd has an excellent speech on CAFTA, I've posted a transcript of his speech for everyone's viewing pleasure.

"On April 6 of this year, Senator Dorgan and I introduced S. Res. 100, a resolution to prevent a two-year extension of the so-called “fast-track” or “Trade Promotion Authority,” which the Congress granted the Administration in the Trade Act of 2002. If our resolution were approved, existing fast-track negotiating authority would expire this year. If only it would! Wouldn’t it be ideal if it would expire? But, instead, it will be extended through 2007. And that is a crying shame.

Senator Dorgan and I introduced our resolution of disapproval of fast-track, because we oppose giving any Executive the unfettered authority to negotiate trade agreements like CAFTA, which cannot be amended by the Congress. I opposed fast-track when it was used to negotiate the NAFTA; I opposed it when it was used to negotiate the Uruguay Round; and I oppose it today.

Let me restate what I have said so many times in the past -- something that I think people are finally beginning to comprehend: Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Congress, not the Executive, shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations. And under Article I, Section 7, the Senate is permitted to “propose or concur with” amendments to all revenue bills.

But under fast-track -- this trumped-up, power-grab called fast-track, which is now disingenuously called “Trade Promotion Authority,” the Congress is left with no ability to modify the text of these trade agreements. As a result, they are negotiated by a small band of bureaucratic gnomes accountable to no one. Under fast-track, the Congress cannot modify, amend, or delete any section of trade agreements negotiated by USTR. Congress is excluded from the process; cut out of the loop; cast aside like excess baggage; shunned like a scarlet woman.

But unlike Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne who had to sport only one letter as a symbol of her wrongdoing, the shamed in this story should be forced to wear three letters to highlight their humiliation. And those letters are TPA, which stands for “Trade Promotion Authority.”

Fast-track negotiating authority is an abomination. Is this what we think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created our three separate branches of government? Blind adherence to agreements negotiated behind closed doors, dictated word-for-word by only one branch of the government? The Executive? That’s not what the Constitution says: it says that the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce.

But the Congress, like blind mice or hyperactive lemmings, time and again keeps making the same mistake. It approves fast-track. Each agreement negotiated under fast-track destroys more American jobs and leads our nation into deeper deficits. The overall U.S. trade deficit in 1993, when NAFTA was enacted, was $75.7 billion. Today, it’s nearly $700 billion. Back in 1993, we had a trade surplus with Mexico of $2 billion. Last year, we ran a trade deficit of $45 billion with Mexico. The facts speak for themselves. Were these some of the promised benefits of NAFTA? Sky-high trade deficits?

Since NAFTA and the Uruguay Round were negotiated under fast-track, the U.S. has lost thousands of manufacturing and service jobs, a substantial portion of which have been “outsourced” to Mexico, India, and China, leaving U.S. workers without jobs; without health care; and with diminished pensions. I have seen it happen first-hand, in West Virginia. It’s happened in our steel industry, in the aluminum industry, in the glass industry, in the communications industry; in the special metals industry, the furniture industry, and in textiles and hand tools. Were these the promised benefits of NAFTA and the Uruguay Round? Who could have foreseen that these agreements would cause such massive dislocation and grief? Who? Those of us who wisely voted against them. I did, and so did about a third of the Senate. But the majority back then refused to see what was coming. I hope they recognize what they see today.

Administrations like to allege that because they sometimes deign to “consult” with the Congress on fast-track trade agreements, their “consultations” satisfy the need of Congress to be involved in drafting the text of these agreements. But we all know what a sham this is!

Despite all the assurances we heard during the 2002 trade debate, I have been told that even Members of the Senate Finance Committee – the Senate Committee that is charged with jurisdiction over trade matters – have been shut out of substantive consultations on CAFTA. Since only certain Members of the Finance Committee are part of the Congressional Oversight Group, which was supposedly created in 2002 to “consult” with the White House, other Senators on the Finance Committee who are not a part of that group have rarely been consulted on CAFTA at all. What kind of consultation is that?

Similarly, the majority-controlled Senate Finance Committee refused to hold a hearing on the TPA resolution of disapproval that Senator Dorgan and I introduced in April. The Committee also refused to discharge the resolution so it could receive an up or down vote on the Senate floor. You hear that a lot around here -- this demand for an up-or-down vote. Well the Senate leadership refused to give our resolution an up-or-down vote. Instead, they killed it in committee, despite a written request asking for its discharge that was sent by Senators Dorgan, Graham, Rockefeller, Johnson, Levin, Inouye, Dayton, and me.

The proponents of fast-track, TPA, and CAFTA argue that by expanding free trade in Central America we will help the workers in those countries become more stable and less of a national security threat. That’s what we were told about NAFTA. But what happened? Did NAFTA stabilize immigration? No. Since NAFTA was implemented, the number of those migrating illegally to the United States to seek work has doubled. Perhaps this is because the wages of Mexican workers have declined, and the number of people in poverty there has grown

Yet the Administration wants us to enact another NAFTA, this time called “CAFTA,” which the AFL-CIO tells us will not require its members to maintain or improve their labor laws, or to protect the core labor rights of their workers.

The Administration continues to negotiate these failed free trade agreements, when it should be focusing on the real trade crises that face our nation.

For example, while the Administration has been spending its resources on these agreements, it is doing nothing to address our nation’s enormous trade deficit, which soon will surpass $700 billion.

The Administration also refuses to bring WTO cases against other countries that violate international law, yet it acquiesces when the WTO unfairly and deliberately twists international rules to strike down our own laws. In fact, the current Administration has taken only 12 cases to the WTO in over four years, compared with its predecessor, which filed an average of 11 WTO cases per year.

USTR sits idly by while the WTO tries to undermine or eliminate our most critical trade laws, including the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) – also known as the Byrd Amendment. A strong majority of the Senate supports the Byrd Amendment, and this law will not be repealed or modified in response to the WTO. In fact, in the Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Acts, both Houses of Congress directed the Administration to start negotiating a solution to this WTO dispute. In response to this congressional mandate, the Administration in early 2004 submitted a proposal to a negotiating group in Geneva to reverse this WTO ruling against our law. But the Administration has done nothing to advance those negotiations since April 2004. It needs to stop stalling and start solving this problem.

History shows that it is a big mistake for the Congress to cede its authority to negotiate trade agreements to the Executive, because the outcome of those agreements can have disastrous consequences for American industry.

How much more negative history and flawed consequences must our nation suffer before we wake up and realize that fast-track has been a disaster? Instead of negotiating more unfair trade agreements like CAFTA, we should be fighting aggressively to preserve our nation’s trade laws and to protect America’s workers and their families."

Amen.

Say what's unpopular, get to what's popular

2005-07-28T15:13:00.000-04:00

Check out this article by Michael Sherrin! I wish everyone on the Democratic Leadership Council would be replaced by him and others just like him.
_______________________________

A PIECE OF ADVICE
Say what's unpopular, get to what's popular
By Michael Sherrin RAW STORY CONTRIBUTOR

Liberal government happens. Imagine 69 Democratic Senators. Imagine, at the same time, a second term Democratic President. Imagine a time when that Democratic President feared Southern Democrats more than Republican sound bites.

This was the case a short 60 years ago. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democratic Party commanded such popularity that there was no state where they weren’t competitive. When FDR concerned himself with the social issues of the times, the conservative Southern Democrats threatened his agenda more than any Republican.

The Democrats were in power and they can be in power again. Unfortunately, the current strategy of the Democratic Party seems ineffective at combating the ever-dominant social issues. Try to explain the Democratic Party’s stance on same-sex marriage in under 30 seconds with enough time to explain how you’re going to provide health insurance for all Americans. While the Republicans have simple, conservative answers on abortion and school prayer, Democrats flounder in the center with no one to represent the left. By swinging to the left, the Democrats can deliever short, simple positions on these controversial social issues, giving them time to turn the subject to what Democrats have always won on–economics.
_______________________________

The rest of the story is at rawstory.com

For more on what we could do to improve the Democratic party (IMHO), visit: huffingtonpost.com