Search Results for ‘air america’
Ed Fallon was a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000. He described Al Gore as “to the right of Bill Clinton” and said that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either.”
So what was the platform of the far-right wing, DLC Democrat that Ed Fallon refused to support?
In Gore’s acceptance speech, he stated that “campaign finance reform will be the very first bill that I send to the United States Congress,” that “free trade…must be fair trade” and reaffirmed his commitment to a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In fact, in that very same speech, Gore reiterated the basic theme of his campaign-representing the people versus the powerful, which Gore defined as “big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs”. It is a theme that Ed Fallon even supported in 2008 when he endorsed John Edwards, whose candidacy was based on the idea that “powerful, well-financed interests [were] taking over this democracy, and taking it away from regular Americans.”
So the question is what was so right-wing about Al Gore crusading for campaign finance reform, fair trade and gay rights in 2000 that Ed Fallon couldn’t support him? Instead, Fallon supported a candidate and party that advocated ending the use of all pesticides and most fertilizers and “an end to government price supports” for agriculture, wanted to allow unemployed Americans collect government benefits without any time limit or restrictions and believed African Americans should be able to form their own separate nation on American soil. It’s a platform that veers from policies that are just bad to those that are outright wacky.
When Ed Fallon would rather support the candidacy of someone who runs on a platform that African Americans have a right to secede from the United States and form their own nation on American soil over a candidate who is committed to passing campaign finance reform, something is wrong. Ed Fallon’s support of Ralph Nader and the Green Party over Al Gore is not just a sign of bad judgment but it’s a sign of someone who has the wrong priorities for Iowa, for America and for Liberalism and Progressivism as well.
January 30th, 2008
Dwayne Alons, Iowa’s resident climate change expert, pronounced today that global warming isn’t a problem because we have air conditioning. Alons opined that “we shouldn’t be as concerned, actually, about warming, especially now that we have modern refrigeration and air conditioning.” Unfortunately, unless we air condition the entire planet, we’re in trouble. Global warming means that the polar icecaps will melt and flood many coastal cities and islands. In fact, according to the National Resources Defense Council, 22,400 square miles of the United States, an area half the size of Iowa, will be underwater by the year 2100 as a result of global warming.
While Alons is on the record stating that global warming made the ancient Maya “giants - taller & stronger than modern men and women,” unless it gives future generations of Americans the ability to breath underwater, no amount of air conditioning will make global warming good for anyone.
January 24th, 2008
I’ve written before about Rudy’s penchant for bullying and his contempt for civil liberty. And New Yorkers have long known that Rudy is, well, abrasive.
Here’s a favorite moment of mine from the Mayor’s radio show:
Gravel-voiced Joe from Dutchess County asked in 1999 why the mayor did not attack President Clinton at a fund-raising dinner. When the program returned after a commercial break it sounded as if Joe still was on the line. It was the mayor, imitating Joe’s dese-dem-dere voice.
”This is, uh, Joe from, ahhh, Dutchess County. I unnerstan’ youse went too easy the other night because people applauded or they didn’t applaud for ya or sumthin’–I don’t remember.” Mr. Giuliani giggled. Then he speculated that maybe Joe was a long-term resident of a state prison.
”I think you should go back to making license plates, Joe.”
But Rudy’s contempt for the public is endearing when compared to his pugnacious plans for our country’s foreign policy. The team America’s Mayor has assembled to advise him on foreign affairs is downright frightening. Take a look at this TPMtv segment on Rudy’s minions. It looks like if Rudy becomes the President, he’s going to treat the rest of the world like a bunch of ferrets:
October 16th, 2007
An article in The New Republic this week chronicles how Mike Huckabee sold out his belief in balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism to gain the support of anti-tax fanatics like Grover Norquist. This meant embracing the “fair tax” which is a highly regressive economic program that puts a disproportionate burden on working Americans and puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy by replacing our tax system with a sales of at least 30%. This marriage of convenience has already benefited Huckabee at the Ames Straw Poll. However, on most issues, Mike Huckabee doesn’t need to sell out to embracing fringe ideas. Most of the time, he already is embracing strange and extremist views on his own.
Although Huckabee’s opposition to evolution is well known, his embrace of the intellectual and scientific fringes is far more wide ranging. Huckabee just announced that State Rep Dwayne Alons will be one of his Iowa campaign legislative co-chairs. (Alons joins former State Rep and conman Danny Carroll in taking a leadership role on the campaign.) Alons has publicly advocated his theory that the ancient Maya were a race of giants and that global warming will enable modern man to be as gigantic as the ancient Maya.
So to sum up Mike Huckabee’s view of the universe, the Maya were giants, the world was created 6,000 years ago and the best way to help poor people is have a 30% sales tax. It seems like Huckabee’s more fit to run for President of the Flat Earth Society than the United States.
October 3rd, 2007
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
March 21st, 2007
John Edwards recently sent out the first mailing of the 2008 primary season to 70,000 Iowans. The mailing includes a detailed description of his health care plan and a DVD (found here) that describes the plan. The video is quite effective though it’s unclear how many of the 70,000 people who received it will actually watch it. However, it is a clear sign of how serious Edwards takes Iowa and also of the emphasis that he is placing on health care. It also gives away his campaign strategy.
Edwards’ focus on health care makes Iraq a secondary issue for him. Although he voted for the Iraq War in 2002, he has since made a very public mea culpa and has been forgiven by anti-war left (as Ed Fallon’s endorsement of Edwards shows). This enables him to dodge the debate over Iraq, which will be the most divisive part of the campaign. From this, one can surmise the Edwards’ road map to the nomination. The second tier candidates (Biden, Dodd and Richardson) are running on experience, specifically that they have the experience to help avoid further American embarrassment in the Middle East and one of Barack Obama’s major selling points was that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning. And we all know how Hillary Clinton voted on Iraq. They will all tear each other apart while Edwards can avoid the entire mess. Edwards then sails through the early primary states as the field narrows. Once it becomes a two-man race, he takes on the wounded survivor of the Hillary-Barack fight over Iraq on February 5th. He defeats his badly bruised opponent and becomes the nominee.
With l’affaire Geffen and Artur Davis’s comments in Selma, Clinton and Obama seem to be doing all they can make this scenario possible. However, with Edwards tipping his hand, both Clinton and Obama still have time to change gears before Edwards successfully takes advantage of the media obsession with them so that he can become the nominee.
March 5th, 2007
One day after Tom Vilsack ended his bid for the Presidency, there is already speculation about what his next step will be. Century of the Common Iowan passes on speculation that Tom Harkin might retire and that Vilsack would run for his seat. However, Harkin retirement rumors were aired and debunked earlier this year and it seems very likely that Harkin will run for re-election. Especially since 2008 seems like the first relatively easy race that he’ll have since he was back in the U.S. House of Representatives.
One of the key assumptions of the Vilsack for Senate speculation is that “Money Vilsack raised for his presidential bid could be transferred to a Senate campaign fund.” Considering it’s quite likely that Tom Vilsack’s presidential campaign is heavily in the red, all that he could transfer is debt. It seems more likely that Vilsack will spend a couple of years making money. Even while he was running for President, he accepted a job with Mid-American Energy as a consultant. Being a former public official is a very lucrative job and there’s no reason to think that Vilsack won’t take advantage of that for a couple of years and enjoy life as a prosperous public citizen.
But there is some speculation about Tom Vilsack’s future that is much more intriguing at the end of the post on Century of The Common Iowan. It is whether Vilsack would run for Chuck Grassley’s seat in 2010. Grassley would be 77 years old then and might even retire rather than run for re-election. If Grassley doesn’t retire, Vilsack would probably be the only Democrat in the state who could run a credible campaign against the very popular Grassley. By then, Vilsack will have had several years to make some money and pay off campaign debt. Of course, 2010 is a long way off and a lot of things could happen between now and then. But a Vilsack-Grassley scenario seems much more likely than Tom Harkin retiring. Plus, it has the added benefit of holding out the possibility of a day not too far away when Iowa has two Democratic Senators for the first time since 1978. And that sounds pretty good to me.
February 24th, 2007
There has been some speculation about the connection between Tom Vilsack and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps some of the ’sack staff will move to the Clinton camp, and that would be a huge boost to Clinton if it happened. But while the staff might go to Clinton, it is way too early to assume that Vilsack’s supporters will automatically flow that direction, too. So the question remains: who will fill the Vilsack vacuum here? Who gains the most politically from the drop-out?
That’s a question that requires two answers, because, here in Iowa, we have gotten to know two different sides of Tom Vilsack. The first Tom Vilsack is the conservative DLC Democrat who was our governor for eight years. He was well-liked by moderates because of his political positions, and he was well-liked by many progressives because he was able to win. It is safe to say that the majority of Vilsack’s caucus support over the past few months has come from folks who got to know Vilsack as a moderate, and these folks are going to be looking for another moderate, probably with some executive experience.
The second Tom Vilsack is the McGovern-esque presidential candidate he had started to become over the past few months. He ran far to the left on the Iraq war, calling for immediate withdrawal and a cutoff of all funding in Congress, and he fashioned himself an expert on environmental issues in general (and renewable energy in particular). He was getting some traction on AirAmerica Radio and on certain liberal blogs (although clearly that wasn’t enough) and using “Courage to Create Change” as his tagline. In many ways, his campaign might have hoped to be 2008’s Howard Dean, another candidate who had a somewhat moderate record as a governor but who broke out as the antiwar left’s poster candidate during his campaign. (Vilsack was even using Blue State Digital, the team that handled Dean’s online strategy 2003-2004, for his web stuff.)
So these are two different voids. In Iowa, though, it is the moderate Vilsack who attracted most of the supporters. So the question is, which candidate matches up the best?
Ironically, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner would probably have gained the most. Unfortunately for them, they both dropped out months ago, perhaps because Vilsack was sucking up all of the moderate governor oxygen. (Yeah, in Bayh’s case, he has Senatorial experience, too, but it was his experience as Indiana Governor that he seemed to be emphasizing to distinguish himself.)
Without Bayh and Warner, it seems that the most likely to gain will be Bill Richardson, but he doesn’t draw as many obvious comparisons to Vilsack as Bayh and Warner would have. If Richardson doesn’t have an excellent Iowa field campaign soon, he will lose whatever advantage he might have gained, because folks who were comfortable settling on Vilsack this early could be looking for another candidate to settle on soon. He has a strong Iowa field director already, but that won’t be enough. Maybe this will encourage him to buy access to the state party’s VAN (the super-high-tech voter file), which is the mark of any serious Iowa Caucus campaign.
Either way, all of the non-”rock star” candidates must be breathing a sigh of relief today. Tomorrow, we’ll find out which one is “rock solid” enough to fill Vilsack’s two pairs of shoes.
February 23rd, 2007
Throughout most of the world, Labor Day is celebrated on May 1st to commemorate the aftermath of the so-called “Haymarket Riots” when a mass strike for an eight hour working day in Chicago was crushed by the police. The police used a bomb that was thrown at a line of policemen that killed one and fatally wounded six more (thrown either by an agent provocateur or by a lone crazed anarchist) as an excuse to fire into a crowd of peaceable demonstrators. The deaths of the policemen served as a pretext to round up the city’s labor leaders who were put on trial in front of a packed jury as accessories to murder, despite the fact there was no evidence of any connecting them to the deaths of the policemen. Seven were sentenced to death, and although the sentences of two of them were commuted to life in prison, four innocent men were murdered by the State of Illinois (and a fifth committed suicide on the eve of his execution).
How do Mary Lundby and the other State Senate Republicans want to commemorate this hallowed day for the Labor Movement? They’ve introduced a bill to declare May 1 as Iowa’s Right To Work Day to remember the passage of Iowa’s anti-labor “Right To Work” Act. The resolution also praises the Taft-Hartley act, which enabled states to pass “right to work” legislation, and is the most anti-Labor legislation in American history. Taft-Hartley was described by Harry Truman as “a clear threat to the successful working of our democratic society.” As contemptuous as this resolution is, it’s just a resolution and merely a symbolic statement. However, it’s part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to undermine the Labor Movement and the rights of working people that goes back beyond Taft-Hartley. But Iowa Republicans aren’t limiting themselves to symbolic gestures.
The Republicans in the State House are also opposing the Fair Share Law in Iowa. This merely mandates that “all workers who receive union-negotiated benefits contribute to the cost of providing those benefits.” However, the Republicans claim that this will destroy business in Iowa. This is baseless assertion that was easily refuted by Peter Fisher, a University of Iowa economist, who pointed out, “Why would a unionized company care how many of its workers paid how much to the union? I can only conclude that firms who assert that they will not come to Iowa because of fair share are looking for a low-wage location and want weak labor unions to help ensure that it will remain a low-wage location.” It’s a shame that Republicans are continuing their efforts to undermine workers’ rights and thumbing their noses at those who actually work to help Iowa’s working families.
February 17th, 2007
It’s no secret that few people understand exactly how the Iowa Caucuses work, and many don’t think they should exist. So the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs is going to make a museum exhibit for the State Historical Museum in Des Moines. From the Register:
The purpose of the display is threefold, said Anita Walker, director of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs:
- To secure Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus status by helping the nation understand why Iowa is a good first stop on the road to the White House.
- To provide a more well-rounded picture of Iowa to the world. The caucuses attract news media from 50 foreign countries and virtually every major media outlet in America.
- To encourage participation in the caucus process.
“I use the word ‘exhibit’ with quotes around it,” Walker said. “The real underlying, powerful message of this is citizen democracy, people’s participation in government. We want to get people excited about attending their own caucus.”
The ‘exhibit’ is going to open around Labor Day of 2007, and it’s going to have a real coffee shop (with a jukebox that plays politician sound-bites), a real living room (because there are still a few precincts where the caucuses are held in homes), and some kind of technology room where visitors can blog about stuff! I can’t wait to see all the great blogging that could result from this…
December 25th, 2006
Previous Posts
