In 1988, the President's father, George H. W. Bush's campaign destroyed democrat Michael Dukakis with ads attacking his prison furlough program that allowed convicts such as "first time murderer", Willie Horton to leave prison for the weekend and roam unsupervised wherever they pleased. And of course this unwise program led to some convicts like Horton and others commiting a number of violent crimes while out on their weekend furlough. It was an unwise notion to allow known violent persons such as murderers and rapists to walk the streets insupervised. Of course, some didn't return to the prison. Some simply walked away while on their "weekend furlough".
In 2004, the current President Bush's campaign won a narrow 51% majority largely based on "homeland" security concerns of voters. Yet this "homeland security" system, entirely managed by the Bush administration allows dangerous persons to simply walk American streets just like the failed prison furlough program of Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts.
On April 25, Gregory Depres, a bizarre appearing apparent Canadian drifter arrived at United States border crossing at Calais, Maine with a wide arsenial of weapons including a bloody chainsaw, homemade sword, hatchet, knife and brass knuckles. The "homeland security" program of the Bush Administration failed to act on obvious signs that a horrible crime was commited, and merely confiscated the bloody chainsaw and other dangerous weapons, and only fingerprinted Depres, but allowed him entry into the U.S.
Two days later in Massachusetts, after the broken "homeland security" system of the Bush Administration allowed Depres entry into America, a policeman in a highway patrol car noticed this drifter walking down a highway in what appeared to be a red and brown blood stained shirt. Unlike the Bush "homeland security" system, this policeman immediately held Depres while doing a background check on this drifter.
Because of this policeman, Depres is now held on murder charges, and is awaiting extradition to Minto, New Brunswick, Canada , where the chainsaw was used in the decapitation murder of country singer Frederick Fulton, whose head was found in pillow case. And the singer's common-law wife was found stabbed to death, probably by one of the weapons the Bush Administation "homeland security" system allowed Depres to carry to the American border without his arrest or a background check on this very dangerous chainsaw murderer.
The Bush Administration will have the American public believe they can sleep safely at night, that they have American "homeland security" firmly managed. Yet dangerous people like Depres, simply walk, drive, fly, or otherwise travel into the U.S. each day. Just this week in Lodi, California, a father and son of Pakistani descent, were arrested after some evidence of Al Qaeda training by the son surfaced, including the possibility of planned terrorist attacks on crowded California hospitals or grocery stores. These Al Qaeda associated persons, were also allowed to roam freely in the U.S. until just this week. And many more cases exist of dangerous persons like this who were allowed entry into the United States by agents of the Bush Administration's mismanaged "homeland security" system.
And in just one six month internal investigation, 146 persons associated with the Bush Administration's "homeland security" system were arrested for various levels of theft and corruption. And over $18 million dollars was found to have been misspent, unaccounted for, or simply stolen.
Just like the flawed prison furlough system in Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts, Bush's mismanaged "homeland security" system allows dangerous persons such chainsaw murderers, Al Qaeda trained fighters, and other absurdly dangerous persons regular entry into the United States to roam American streets looking for their next crime or terrorrist plot. In this age of computers, a dangerous murderer like Depres should have been stopped at the border checkpoint with a simple computer check for wanted criminals and outstanding arrest warrants. And a tighter system to prevent so much fraud, theft and corruption within the "homeland security" system, as well as tighter controls to keep Al Qaeda figures out of America is greatly needed.
I'm not going to sleep any better tonight. The ineptness of the Bush Administration is very evident in his deeply flawed "homeland security" system, where chainsaw murderers and Al Qaeda trained fighters are allowed easy entry into America and roam our streets waiting to commit new outrageous crimes against Americans.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Friday, June 10, 2005
Clean Compared To What?
Reader's Digest is hardly a progressive or an environment publication. Yet for a reason beyond my comprehension, this publication named Portland, Oregon as America's cleanest city. As a Portland resident who loves my city I would feel proud if I could find some proof to back up this honor.
While Portland is a terrific city in many ways, including one of America's most politically progressive cities with a great mayor, and great businesses, the air quality seems so much worse this year than any previous that I remember. I recently required blood tests and other medical help at OHSU. The parking situation at the hospital is absolutely terrible, so I thought riding the bus would be a good alternative. But downtown Portland was so congested with automobile pollution, unnecessary panhandler cigarette smokers on every block, who discard cigarette butts on every sidewalk and beg for money to buy drugs or alcohol, that I couldn't believe the chaos. I also had real breathing problems with the air quality so bad that I would probably require a portable oxygen unit to even go to downtown Portland again.
And I used to enjoy walking the dogs in my neighborhood, but now many residents who didn't smoke have taken up this nicotine drug addiction habit, and harm the health of children as well as myself with the lung choking 4,700 poisons each of these nicotine drug delivery systems(cigarettes for the lay folks) produces. And backyard barbeques, roasting and burning the hacked flesh of an animal fill the air with pungent choking smoke. And as a result of high oil prices, more resident heat their homes by burning logs or other material in wood burning stoves. And many residents use gas powered mowers, instead of the far cleaner electric models.
I can hardly breath or even walk the dogs in such a dirty and congested city with major health consequences for myself. Yet Reader's Digest claims this is the nations's cleanest city. This means that other cities are far worse by comparison. That is deeply sad.
I'm a vegan. I respect animals and nature. And certainy there must be ways to clean up air quality in American cities. Public cigarette smoking should be banned, this nicotine drug addiction should only be practiced at home or in an automobile with windows fully closed. Allowing public cigarette smoking allows the spread of nicotine, a harmful and highly addictive drug to children and other unwilling persons. I don't understand any concept of freedom that allows some people to publicly administer a harmful addictive drug to unwilling persons. Lawmakers and government are very lax to allow such a health harming practice to exist. Automobile traffic could be rerouted in large cities, allowing more shopping mall type areas. And electric mowers rather than dirty gasoline would also help. Every city could do much better. Even the nation's supposed cleanest one.
While Portland is a terrific city in many ways, including one of America's most politically progressive cities with a great mayor, and great businesses, the air quality seems so much worse this year than any previous that I remember. I recently required blood tests and other medical help at OHSU. The parking situation at the hospital is absolutely terrible, so I thought riding the bus would be a good alternative. But downtown Portland was so congested with automobile pollution, unnecessary panhandler cigarette smokers on every block, who discard cigarette butts on every sidewalk and beg for money to buy drugs or alcohol, that I couldn't believe the chaos. I also had real breathing problems with the air quality so bad that I would probably require a portable oxygen unit to even go to downtown Portland again.
And I used to enjoy walking the dogs in my neighborhood, but now many residents who didn't smoke have taken up this nicotine drug addiction habit, and harm the health of children as well as myself with the lung choking 4,700 poisons each of these nicotine drug delivery systems(cigarettes for the lay folks) produces. And backyard barbeques, roasting and burning the hacked flesh of an animal fill the air with pungent choking smoke. And as a result of high oil prices, more resident heat their homes by burning logs or other material in wood burning stoves. And many residents use gas powered mowers, instead of the far cleaner electric models.
I can hardly breath or even walk the dogs in such a dirty and congested city with major health consequences for myself. Yet Reader's Digest claims this is the nations's cleanest city. This means that other cities are far worse by comparison. That is deeply sad.
I'm a vegan. I respect animals and nature. And certainy there must be ways to clean up air quality in American cities. Public cigarette smoking should be banned, this nicotine drug addiction should only be practiced at home or in an automobile with windows fully closed. Allowing public cigarette smoking allows the spread of nicotine, a harmful and highly addictive drug to children and other unwilling persons. I don't understand any concept of freedom that allows some people to publicly administer a harmful addictive drug to unwilling persons. Lawmakers and government are very lax to allow such a health harming practice to exist. Automobile traffic could be rerouted in large cities, allowing more shopping mall type areas. And electric mowers rather than dirty gasoline would also help. Every city could do much better. Even the nation's supposed cleanest one.
Thursday, June 9, 2005
The General Motors Poverty Myth
Most of the mainstream newsmedia as well as the public is caught up in the myth of the sudden poverty of General Motors. On paper this corporation claims a loss of nearly $2,400 per automobile sold while other competitors such as Toyota and even Hyundai, who increasingly also manufacture automobiles in the United States, are showing profits of $1,300 to over $1,400 per automobile sold. In the case of Hyundai, the climb to solid profits as well as greatly improved product quality came after a new chief executive prevented other executives from using Hyundai as their personal "piggybank" and limited top salaries as well as a new company commitment to product quality.
But General Motors continues to operate similar to the old Hyundai. In 2002, former GM CEO, Charles E. Wilson earned $652,156 a year, but was later replaced with Richard Wagner, who made a major priority, huge pay increases for executives at GM. His salary was boosted to $8.5 million a year with all compensation figured in according to the reputable Forbes magazine. And many other executives also receive extremely high executive pay and compensation packages. And as bad as this is, Wagner is only the 141st highest paid executive in America, 140 other CEO's actually earn far more than the $8.5 million a year, limiting stockholder profits, dividends and company product development funds.
On paper, investors will see their GM stock as nearly dead in the water. The value will stay flat with little upward growth, or likely either drop somewhat with bad corporate profit news. Yet the value of the stock really goes nowhere. It is still in the hands of GM. And as executives increase their salaries, the investors stock value can well flow right into the backpockets of executives as they increase their salaries into the stratosphere.
Executives at Toyota, Hyundai and other highly profitable companies have salaries far closer to the workers who build the automobiles, than American executives whose main goal of running the corporation appears to be for salary increase potential rather than the development and marketing of new products or the health of the corporation. This hurts both the stockholders as well as limits new product development . While Toyota and Honda develop and market hot selling hybrid models, the huge salaries at GM limit the amount of development money, so less advanced, older technology American models are instead marketed, and are experiencing some failure in the marketplace as more American buyers purchase the more technologically advanced and higher mileage import models. Many American executives are far too concerned with the short term goals of the highest possible salary than the competitive place of their corporation in the marketplace. And sometimes marketing the same tired design year after year, may save the corporation development money, but sales wane as buyers tire of yesterday's designs being marketed year after year.
The Chevrolet division does have a few new interesting designs, but they are largely sales failures in the marketplace currently for several reasons. A sports car pickup truck design based on a showcar project was only intended to be sold to a very limited high end group of buyers. So with no pricing or intent for mass market sales, this model simply swallowed up company cash and brings in little revenues to cover development costs or offers the company any profits to work with. And a new subcompact has mileage far lower than comparable models from virtually all import makers, as well as the built-in buyer fear of previous small GM models like the Vega, Monza and Chevette, which had many product quality problems, although this new model looks far better assembled than these previous quality control limited models. So one part of the GM problems are a previous bad experience on some smaller cheaper models, although the larger GM models have a decent reputation for product quality. Yet with high fuel prices, it is exactly the smaller high mileage models that buyers want at this point, and with a head to head comparison, the small GM offerings come up short in the minds of many buyers compared to Toyota, Honda or even Hyundai.
Another problem is GM put too much production capability into the production of larger SUV models with little production capability to switch to other models as market conditions change. And as gasoline prices recently increased, sales suffered on larger GM models such as SUVs . Instead the ability to switch to models that the public wants should have been built into a more flexible production planning.
And since labor is a supply and demand commodity to the coporate mindset, the executives at GM will attempt to trim American high paying $27 an hour jobs with full health and retirement benefits and replace these with jobs in China at 24 to 40 cents an hour labor, or labor in mexico at $1.50 an hour, with lower labor costs and little or no company benefits. And this may result in cheaper materials as well, so quality could suffer unless strict quality control is carefully monitored. In addition American GM workers may be asked to give up benefits, such as retirement or health benefits. Yet it is doubtful any top executive at GM will cut their compensation or salary. The corporate view is the corporation runs for the enrichment of the executives first and building cars second is the philosophy that rots a big corporation like GM from the inside.
GM can survive their problems. But a better philosophy of executive commitment to the corporation's health and more concern for the worker's role as a vital link in the American economy, instead of merely a supply and demand commodity that can be easily be replaced with cheap foreign labor to enhance profits, as well a commitment to more reasonable executive salaries and more flexible and modern product development are all vital links. But unlike many successful foreign competitors, the American corporate vision is often short-sightedly based on the short term goal of extreme executive salaries. This has to change for the health of GM, which is equal to 1% of America's economy. And it should serve as a warning to other corporations of how to fail in a marketplace with far better managed foreign competitors.
But General Motors continues to operate similar to the old Hyundai. In 2002, former GM CEO, Charles E. Wilson earned $652,156 a year, but was later replaced with Richard Wagner, who made a major priority, huge pay increases for executives at GM. His salary was boosted to $8.5 million a year with all compensation figured in according to the reputable Forbes magazine. And many other executives also receive extremely high executive pay and compensation packages. And as bad as this is, Wagner is only the 141st highest paid executive in America, 140 other CEO's actually earn far more than the $8.5 million a year, limiting stockholder profits, dividends and company product development funds.
On paper, investors will see their GM stock as nearly dead in the water. The value will stay flat with little upward growth, or likely either drop somewhat with bad corporate profit news. Yet the value of the stock really goes nowhere. It is still in the hands of GM. And as executives increase their salaries, the investors stock value can well flow right into the backpockets of executives as they increase their salaries into the stratosphere.
Executives at Toyota, Hyundai and other highly profitable companies have salaries far closer to the workers who build the automobiles, than American executives whose main goal of running the corporation appears to be for salary increase potential rather than the development and marketing of new products or the health of the corporation. This hurts both the stockholders as well as limits new product development . While Toyota and Honda develop and market hot selling hybrid models, the huge salaries at GM limit the amount of development money, so less advanced, older technology American models are instead marketed, and are experiencing some failure in the marketplace as more American buyers purchase the more technologically advanced and higher mileage import models. Many American executives are far too concerned with the short term goals of the highest possible salary than the competitive place of their corporation in the marketplace. And sometimes marketing the same tired design year after year, may save the corporation development money, but sales wane as buyers tire of yesterday's designs being marketed year after year.
The Chevrolet division does have a few new interesting designs, but they are largely sales failures in the marketplace currently for several reasons. A sports car pickup truck design based on a showcar project was only intended to be sold to a very limited high end group of buyers. So with no pricing or intent for mass market sales, this model simply swallowed up company cash and brings in little revenues to cover development costs or offers the company any profits to work with. And a new subcompact has mileage far lower than comparable models from virtually all import makers, as well as the built-in buyer fear of previous small GM models like the Vega, Monza and Chevette, which had many product quality problems, although this new model looks far better assembled than these previous quality control limited models. So one part of the GM problems are a previous bad experience on some smaller cheaper models, although the larger GM models have a decent reputation for product quality. Yet with high fuel prices, it is exactly the smaller high mileage models that buyers want at this point, and with a head to head comparison, the small GM offerings come up short in the minds of many buyers compared to Toyota, Honda or even Hyundai.
Another problem is GM put too much production capability into the production of larger SUV models with little production capability to switch to other models as market conditions change. And as gasoline prices recently increased, sales suffered on larger GM models such as SUVs . Instead the ability to switch to models that the public wants should have been built into a more flexible production planning.
And since labor is a supply and demand commodity to the coporate mindset, the executives at GM will attempt to trim American high paying $27 an hour jobs with full health and retirement benefits and replace these with jobs in China at 24 to 40 cents an hour labor, or labor in mexico at $1.50 an hour, with lower labor costs and little or no company benefits. And this may result in cheaper materials as well, so quality could suffer unless strict quality control is carefully monitored. In addition American GM workers may be asked to give up benefits, such as retirement or health benefits. Yet it is doubtful any top executive at GM will cut their compensation or salary. The corporate view is the corporation runs for the enrichment of the executives first and building cars second is the philosophy that rots a big corporation like GM from the inside.
GM can survive their problems. But a better philosophy of executive commitment to the corporation's health and more concern for the worker's role as a vital link in the American economy, instead of merely a supply and demand commodity that can be easily be replaced with cheap foreign labor to enhance profits, as well a commitment to more reasonable executive salaries and more flexible and modern product development are all vital links. But unlike many successful foreign competitors, the American corporate vision is often short-sightedly based on the short term goal of extreme executive salaries. This has to change for the health of GM, which is equal to 1% of America's economy. And it should serve as a warning to other corporations of how to fail in a marketplace with far better managed foreign competitors.
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Howard Dean & Ken Mehlman: A Study In Contrasts
There is a mile wide difference between the DNC and RNC party heads. Not only in style, but message as well. While RNC head Mehlman, comes across as cautious in his statements, he is essentially a spokesman for the Bush White House agenda, and hardly the party leader for a "big tent" vision of republicanism. And Mehlman acts as cheerleader for a shopping list of absurd positions on Social Security privatization, exporting more jobs to Central America under the new CAFTA treaty, limiting lawsuits under "Tort" reform, the continued carnage in Iraq, all seem like insurmountablely silly positions to defend. Yet, by contrast, so far the democratic strategy seems to volunteer little in new ideas, but rather to allow the republicans to over expose themselves on a number of unpopular positions. Not the best strategy in my opinion. If some views are intellectually bankrupt, you offer more credible alternatives to build public support and more democratic party registrations and party volunteers.
And while Mehlman is more soft spoken, Howard Dean sometimes voices loudly partisan with statements that may ignite his core base, but probably play far less well with many independent voters, swing voters, and republicans who tend to ticket split. It is just these sort of voters who elected LBJ, Carter and Clinton. It is also these voters that Clinton's moderate oriented Democratic Leadership Council hoped to woo, and successfully did in both 1992 and 1996. Yet to alienate any in these potential voter groups seems less than wise strategy. In the Sunday talk programs, whether from the more conservative FOX or the devil's advocate Meet The Press with Tim Russert, some of Dean's comments are not only discussion, but becoming his most public perceptions. This has to tone down very quickly. It alienates moderate voters, and does little to attract new democrats or help the party rebuild it's battered position among the electorate. To ignite a strong base of support is vital to the democrats. But care should be done not to follow the failed McGovern or Goldwater efforts of the past. In both cases, these figures ignited a base of followers, but neither garnered more than 39% of vote in the general election. To McGovernize the party rather than follow the successful formula of Bill Clinton would be a gross strategic error.
Another huge area of difference is in fund raising ability. In the same recent time period, while Dean has helped to attract 20,000 democratic donors for a little more than $14 million dollars, Melhman's far better organization has attracted 68,000 donors for more than $32 million dollars. Yet the ability to harness the Internet was supposed to be the main strength of Howard Dean. In all fairness, Dean has only been on the job for a little more than 100 days, yet the huge organizational disadvantage of the democrats is very clear. To bring his party to parity in national elections, Dean must improve the number of democratic donors as well as promote members of his party to start to articulate some populist positions that start to build a wide coalition of support if the democrats will ever again compete in a true two party system in American elections. Otherwise democrats will be able to elect some state leaders in local elections, but fail to gain the White House, Senate, Congresss or more say in judicial selections for some time. Finances are the "mother's milk" of campaigns, and Mr. Dean must quickly learn how to nearly match the republican's huge advantage in recruiting new members, party workers and very importantly, cash donations to fund the party.
The democrats cannot continue to lose their base in geographic areas such as the South and expect to win national elections. The last three successful democrats, LBJ, Carter and Clinton all had a Southern power base, and won at least some Southern states as well as Ohio. Hillary Clinton, although a former republican when younger, is attempting to appear more centrist in her views to appeal to a larger share of voters than her base of power in more liberal New York. Yet it is unlikely at this point that she could carry even one Southern state. In order to win in the electoral college this is absolutely vital. Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana are the democrat's best bets. But only Florida is even remotely possible among these states. A large voter population of voters concerned about the Bush plans to alter Social Security could be brought back to the democratic fold with some real democratic party effort. These democrats largely supported Al Gore, but abandoned John Kerry. Kerry did better among younger voters, largely due to concerns over Iraq, yet the importance of bringing older voters who have a deep concern over Social Security issues is vital to a winning coalition in Florida, the democrat's only real best bet in the South. The democrats need to rebuild their Florida network of elected officials as well as Southern political organizations between now and 2008. If in 2006, unless more democratic governors and senators can be elected in the South, then the ability for a democratic win for president in 2008 are greatly weakened. And generally if a democrat can win at least some Southern states, then Ohio often pulls along as a critical Northern prize. The same appeal to win in the South for a democrat also appeals in Ohio as well. The democrats must work hard to rebuild a strong organization in this state as well. Ohio is the kingmaker. No democrat or republican can hardly win without this state. It is absolutely vital to both parties. All efforts for democrats to build an organization to win this state are vital. There has to be a large base of disatisfied former factory workers as well as others in this deteriorating manufacturing state. Democrats need plans to make this state competitive with a renewed manufacturing base and a core of loyal union and factory workers.
And in some close loss states such as Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, better democratic organization is greatly needed to bring these states back into the fold in 2008. But republicans are not totally without concerns in some swing states like this. Unless they elect a popular moderate conservative, some swing states may also drift from their fold. The problem is that a moderate conservative like John McCain probably cannot get elected in the current makeup of the republican party. He can start strong with primary wins in New England, such as New Hampshire, but will probably hit a wall when Southern states like South Carolina begin to vote. This is why Bill Frist is working hard to build an organization with the Christian right. These voters did in John McCain in South Carolina, and his campaign never recovered. This right wing will probably never allow John McCain or another moderate conservative to capture the republican party nomination. But on the other hand, so much of the voting public is either conservative or very conservative, that more hard right candidates such as Reagan and the current younger Bush are elected rather than rejected like past hard right conservatives like Barry Goldwater. The right controls the republican party. Democrats need to hold the liberal and the progressive base, but draw back a lion's share of moderate voters to gain any chance of becoming a viable party in future national elections.
A dpressing statisical problem , is that John Kerry did worse than Al Gore in every state except Oregon. John Kerry's improved win in Oregon, was bouyed by a fierce campaign and the nation's 2nd worst unemployment creating an antiBush reaction vote. A keen ear to respond to such local concerns needs to be undertaken in all 50 states, to erode the republican majority, and elect more democrats, even in red states. At one time South Dakota had a solid liberal democratic organization in the days of George McGovern, but this has completely evaporated. And now even Minnesota is getting closer, as republicans chip away there as well. The democrats cannot give away so much strenghth in the MidWest. Wisconsin is now very close, and Iowa was lost in 2004.
Not doubt the draining war in Iraq as well as unpopular views on Social Security will harm republicans more and more as time goes on. Vietnam undid LBJ in the same manner. But some serious rebuilding of their battered party to become nationally competitive once again should be a vital mission of Howard Dean. He can easily become a "George McGovern", a figure popular with a base following, but largely dismissed by most voters unless he succeeds in appearing a moderate and a responsible populist to most voters, not just ignite his activist base. It's very easy for a candidate to ignite a small core base like a McGovern or a Goldwater to ignite strong feelings in their core of voters, but to totally fail with most other voters. The republicans certainly hold many current advantages at this point, although unpopular and absurd issues will poke some holes in their coalition of voters. Whether Dean can bring democrats back from the brink, or they continue down the path that led to the demise of the Whig Party is a huge question.
And while Mehlman is more soft spoken, Howard Dean sometimes voices loudly partisan with statements that may ignite his core base, but probably play far less well with many independent voters, swing voters, and republicans who tend to ticket split. It is just these sort of voters who elected LBJ, Carter and Clinton. It is also these voters that Clinton's moderate oriented Democratic Leadership Council hoped to woo, and successfully did in both 1992 and 1996. Yet to alienate any in these potential voter groups seems less than wise strategy. In the Sunday talk programs, whether from the more conservative FOX or the devil's advocate Meet The Press with Tim Russert, some of Dean's comments are not only discussion, but becoming his most public perceptions. This has to tone down very quickly. It alienates moderate voters, and does little to attract new democrats or help the party rebuild it's battered position among the electorate. To ignite a strong base of support is vital to the democrats. But care should be done not to follow the failed McGovern or Goldwater efforts of the past. In both cases, these figures ignited a base of followers, but neither garnered more than 39% of vote in the general election. To McGovernize the party rather than follow the successful formula of Bill Clinton would be a gross strategic error.
Another huge area of difference is in fund raising ability. In the same recent time period, while Dean has helped to attract 20,000 democratic donors for a little more than $14 million dollars, Melhman's far better organization has attracted 68,000 donors for more than $32 million dollars. Yet the ability to harness the Internet was supposed to be the main strength of Howard Dean. In all fairness, Dean has only been on the job for a little more than 100 days, yet the huge organizational disadvantage of the democrats is very clear. To bring his party to parity in national elections, Dean must improve the number of democratic donors as well as promote members of his party to start to articulate some populist positions that start to build a wide coalition of support if the democrats will ever again compete in a true two party system in American elections. Otherwise democrats will be able to elect some state leaders in local elections, but fail to gain the White House, Senate, Congresss or more say in judicial selections for some time. Finances are the "mother's milk" of campaigns, and Mr. Dean must quickly learn how to nearly match the republican's huge advantage in recruiting new members, party workers and very importantly, cash donations to fund the party.
The democrats cannot continue to lose their base in geographic areas such as the South and expect to win national elections. The last three successful democrats, LBJ, Carter and Clinton all had a Southern power base, and won at least some Southern states as well as Ohio. Hillary Clinton, although a former republican when younger, is attempting to appear more centrist in her views to appeal to a larger share of voters than her base of power in more liberal New York. Yet it is unlikely at this point that she could carry even one Southern state. In order to win in the electoral college this is absolutely vital. Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana are the democrat's best bets. But only Florida is even remotely possible among these states. A large voter population of voters concerned about the Bush plans to alter Social Security could be brought back to the democratic fold with some real democratic party effort. These democrats largely supported Al Gore, but abandoned John Kerry. Kerry did better among younger voters, largely due to concerns over Iraq, yet the importance of bringing older voters who have a deep concern over Social Security issues is vital to a winning coalition in Florida, the democrat's only real best bet in the South. The democrats need to rebuild their Florida network of elected officials as well as Southern political organizations between now and 2008. If in 2006, unless more democratic governors and senators can be elected in the South, then the ability for a democratic win for president in 2008 are greatly weakened. And generally if a democrat can win at least some Southern states, then Ohio often pulls along as a critical Northern prize. The same appeal to win in the South for a democrat also appeals in Ohio as well. The democrats must work hard to rebuild a strong organization in this state as well. Ohio is the kingmaker. No democrat or republican can hardly win without this state. It is absolutely vital to both parties. All efforts for democrats to build an organization to win this state are vital. There has to be a large base of disatisfied former factory workers as well as others in this deteriorating manufacturing state. Democrats need plans to make this state competitive with a renewed manufacturing base and a core of loyal union and factory workers.
And in some close loss states such as Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, better democratic organization is greatly needed to bring these states back into the fold in 2008. But republicans are not totally without concerns in some swing states like this. Unless they elect a popular moderate conservative, some swing states may also drift from their fold. The problem is that a moderate conservative like John McCain probably cannot get elected in the current makeup of the republican party. He can start strong with primary wins in New England, such as New Hampshire, but will probably hit a wall when Southern states like South Carolina begin to vote. This is why Bill Frist is working hard to build an organization with the Christian right. These voters did in John McCain in South Carolina, and his campaign never recovered. This right wing will probably never allow John McCain or another moderate conservative to capture the republican party nomination. But on the other hand, so much of the voting public is either conservative or very conservative, that more hard right candidates such as Reagan and the current younger Bush are elected rather than rejected like past hard right conservatives like Barry Goldwater. The right controls the republican party. Democrats need to hold the liberal and the progressive base, but draw back a lion's share of moderate voters to gain any chance of becoming a viable party in future national elections.
A dpressing statisical problem , is that John Kerry did worse than Al Gore in every state except Oregon. John Kerry's improved win in Oregon, was bouyed by a fierce campaign and the nation's 2nd worst unemployment creating an antiBush reaction vote. A keen ear to respond to such local concerns needs to be undertaken in all 50 states, to erode the republican majority, and elect more democrats, even in red states. At one time South Dakota had a solid liberal democratic organization in the days of George McGovern, but this has completely evaporated. And now even Minnesota is getting closer, as republicans chip away there as well. The democrats cannot give away so much strenghth in the MidWest. Wisconsin is now very close, and Iowa was lost in 2004.
Not doubt the draining war in Iraq as well as unpopular views on Social Security will harm republicans more and more as time goes on. Vietnam undid LBJ in the same manner. But some serious rebuilding of their battered party to become nationally competitive once again should be a vital mission of Howard Dean. He can easily become a "George McGovern", a figure popular with a base following, but largely dismissed by most voters unless he succeeds in appearing a moderate and a responsible populist to most voters, not just ignite his activist base. It's very easy for a candidate to ignite a small core base like a McGovern or a Goldwater to ignite strong feelings in their core of voters, but to totally fail with most other voters. The republicans certainly hold many current advantages at this point, although unpopular and absurd issues will poke some holes in their coalition of voters. Whether Dean can bring democrats back from the brink, or they continue down the path that led to the demise of the Whig Party is a huge question.
Monday, June 6, 2005
War Is An Equal Opportunity Maimer
Unlike most previous wars, the Iraq War is killing and maiming a far higher percentage of American women soldiers than any war in American history. Women are increasingly thrown into serious life or death combat situations with sudden ambushes or roadside bombs. Female officers charged with leading a supply convoy at any moment may find themselves to be a commander in a life or death combat situation.
Women pilots have been shot down and killed. One family lost their only daughter and child in an attack on a helicopter. A star basketball player lost an arm to a roadside bomb. This morning USA Today has a sad story of Lt. Dawn Halfaker who lost an arm to RPG attack. And CNN tabulates that 35 women have been killed in combat with another 271 wounded.
Not only has the Iraq War taken as many as 100,000 Iraqi lives, including many cowardly suicide bombings that have taken the lives of women and children from terrorist insurgents, but American female soldiers continue to pay a high price in blood and limbs. And at least a large supply of weapons that would have taken many more lives were discovered by American soldiers this weekend, so at least these won't be used to kill and maim many more. But Iraq is far from peace. Some military estimates predict as much as nine more years of fighting before the nation is secure. And just over 40% of Americans now feel that this war is worth the cost in lives and money. As of this moment this war is up to $174.7 billion dollars, and $1,572 per American family, and $698 per person. And more than 1,600 American soldiers are dead and more than 12,000 wounded. In nine more years of killing, all costs will greatly increase from their current heartbreaking levels. God must be very disappointed that this is how mankind resolves their differences.
Women pilots have been shot down and killed. One family lost their only daughter and child in an attack on a helicopter. A star basketball player lost an arm to a roadside bomb. This morning USA Today has a sad story of Lt. Dawn Halfaker who lost an arm to RPG attack. And CNN tabulates that 35 women have been killed in combat with another 271 wounded.
Not only has the Iraq War taken as many as 100,000 Iraqi lives, including many cowardly suicide bombings that have taken the lives of women and children from terrorist insurgents, but American female soldiers continue to pay a high price in blood and limbs. And at least a large supply of weapons that would have taken many more lives were discovered by American soldiers this weekend, so at least these won't be used to kill and maim many more. But Iraq is far from peace. Some military estimates predict as much as nine more years of fighting before the nation is secure. And just over 40% of Americans now feel that this war is worth the cost in lives and money. As of this moment this war is up to $174.7 billion dollars, and $1,572 per American family, and $698 per person. And more than 1,600 American soldiers are dead and more than 12,000 wounded. In nine more years of killing, all costs will greatly increase from their current heartbreaking levels. God must be very disappointed that this is how mankind resolves their differences.
Saturday, June 4, 2005
The Syrian Missile Tests & The Emboldened Response To The Bush Militarism Policy
Despite so much opposition to the Bush militarism policy, one hoped for legacy was for a pale to sweep over a number of belligerent states to back down from their brutal militaristic goals. However it seems like this is hardly the response of so many states, and now an expanding number of very dangerous potential world trouble spots exist. It seems like the Bush Administration which won a narrow mandate in the November election with a "national security" message has now spurred a belligerent response in a number of nations to stand up to American policy. Part of this self-protection for their regimes, hoping to deter American aggression by a new commitment to WMD weapons systems. Another part is to assert national strength in their regional power relationships with other states.
Syria joined this dangerous club last week with the tests of two North Korean designed NoDong 1 Scud D missiles, one breaking up over Turkish airspace, and the test of an older 70's era Soviet-style Scud B missile. All of these missiles, especially the newer North Korean Scud D designs are being developed to carry chemical or biological weapons. And the longer range Scud D missiles can travel over 400 miles, which can hit targets in every inch of Israel.
There is no internationally independent evidence that any Iraqi WMDs were transferred to Syria, rather any chemical or biological weapons programs are of their domestic design, however the missile technology ranges from early 70's style Soviet designed missiles, to Chinese Scud C and the most powerful and longest range North Korean Scud D missiles. And while Syria possesses no nuclear weapons, it could always seek this technology to counter Israel as well. And in addition, Syria has also exported some Scud C and Scud D missiles as well WMD components to Sudan, although the government of Sudan officially denies this claim.
But Syria is not the only nation to assert some WMD or military potential buildup to counter the Bush militarism. In a new statement by Donald Rumsfeld in Singapore, Rumsfeld has bluntly challenged China's policy in the last few months of a massive military buildup of it's People's Liberation Army. Using the wealth from so many American manufacturing jobs closing up shop and traveling to China, this nation has added six new major naval destroyers to it's People's Liberation Army Navy in the last few months. Two are Russian Republic built, and four are from the Luhu and Luhai class, including nuclear tipped Sunburn cruise missiles which are designed to kill American aircraft carriers with 100% mortality. It is only 90 miles to Taiwan, whose military is far weaker, and Japan is limited since WWII in it's military potential, as well as lacking a desire to expand it's military or be forced to enter the nuclear club. But Japan and Taiwan are forced to rely on increased American military presense as the balance of power tips farther to China, or else enter an arms race with China and expand more and more weapons in this part of Asia.
The main players in the nuclear club are the United States with over 10,000 weapons, the Russian Republic with over 20,000 weapons(although down from the 45,000 of Soviet Union era days), China has 400 nuclear weapons, Israel has as many as 200 nuclear weapons, the U.K has about 200 nuclear weapons, France has 350 nuclear warheads, India possesses enough nuclear material to produce as many as 90 nuclear warheads, and Pakistan has enough nuclear material to produce as many as 50 nuclear weapons. But it is North Korea, the major world exporter of missile technology to developing nations and Iran which both have nuclear ambitions that are seen as the most dangerous threats to peace as most likely to develop and use such weapons, lacking the restraint of other nations not to use such dangerous WMDs.
The Bush policy of attacking the weakest of world renegade regimes, Iraq, has not caused states like North Korea, Iran, or Syria to backdown, but instead encouraged more WMD efforts to deter the United States from an "Iraq invasion" of their regimes. And even China has entered this mix with their massive pouring of their economic boom into a crash military buildup for a possible invasion of Taiwan or retailiation against Japan due to sour feelings over Japan's refusal to accept more responsibility for crimes against Chinese civilians during WWII, such as the "Rape Of Nanking". The Bush policy of militarism has not made Americans more secure. In Iran, an organization raises funds to train one million terrorist fighters to enter Iraq, or to fight American or Israeli interests. And the Bush Iraq War has only spurred more terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria and other states to join with local antiAmerican forces.
At some point the Bush Administration should realize that it's goals to make Americans more secure are horriby failing and making Americans less secure by the day. America should look to South Africa for a possible change of policy. At one time Nelson Mandela was a radical head of the ANC. But America realized that he could be "coopted", freed from prison and made into a responsible democrat. South Africa also left the nuclear arms club as well. In Syria, Iran and China, "cooption" is most most likely, but in North Korea far more difficult.
A military conflict with any state like North Korea, could also bring many states in for support such as Syria, Iran, Libya and a host of other supporters. The United States would be acting in the best interests of world peace to see if any aspect of "cooption" could defuse the growing danger of armed conflict or even WWIII. But with the current militarism mindset in the Bush Administration a loggerheads with some equally belligerent regime is far more likely. This is unfortunate. And must frustrate the heart of God as well.
Syria joined this dangerous club last week with the tests of two North Korean designed NoDong 1 Scud D missiles, one breaking up over Turkish airspace, and the test of an older 70's era Soviet-style Scud B missile. All of these missiles, especially the newer North Korean Scud D designs are being developed to carry chemical or biological weapons. And the longer range Scud D missiles can travel over 400 miles, which can hit targets in every inch of Israel.
There is no internationally independent evidence that any Iraqi WMDs were transferred to Syria, rather any chemical or biological weapons programs are of their domestic design, however the missile technology ranges from early 70's style Soviet designed missiles, to Chinese Scud C and the most powerful and longest range North Korean Scud D missiles. And while Syria possesses no nuclear weapons, it could always seek this technology to counter Israel as well. And in addition, Syria has also exported some Scud C and Scud D missiles as well WMD components to Sudan, although the government of Sudan officially denies this claim.
But Syria is not the only nation to assert some WMD or military potential buildup to counter the Bush militarism. In a new statement by Donald Rumsfeld in Singapore, Rumsfeld has bluntly challenged China's policy in the last few months of a massive military buildup of it's People's Liberation Army. Using the wealth from so many American manufacturing jobs closing up shop and traveling to China, this nation has added six new major naval destroyers to it's People's Liberation Army Navy in the last few months. Two are Russian Republic built, and four are from the Luhu and Luhai class, including nuclear tipped Sunburn cruise missiles which are designed to kill American aircraft carriers with 100% mortality. It is only 90 miles to Taiwan, whose military is far weaker, and Japan is limited since WWII in it's military potential, as well as lacking a desire to expand it's military or be forced to enter the nuclear club. But Japan and Taiwan are forced to rely on increased American military presense as the balance of power tips farther to China, or else enter an arms race with China and expand more and more weapons in this part of Asia.
The main players in the nuclear club are the United States with over 10,000 weapons, the Russian Republic with over 20,000 weapons(although down from the 45,000 of Soviet Union era days), China has 400 nuclear weapons, Israel has as many as 200 nuclear weapons, the U.K has about 200 nuclear weapons, France has 350 nuclear warheads, India possesses enough nuclear material to produce as many as 90 nuclear warheads, and Pakistan has enough nuclear material to produce as many as 50 nuclear weapons. But it is North Korea, the major world exporter of missile technology to developing nations and Iran which both have nuclear ambitions that are seen as the most dangerous threats to peace as most likely to develop and use such weapons, lacking the restraint of other nations not to use such dangerous WMDs.
The Bush policy of attacking the weakest of world renegade regimes, Iraq, has not caused states like North Korea, Iran, or Syria to backdown, but instead encouraged more WMD efforts to deter the United States from an "Iraq invasion" of their regimes. And even China has entered this mix with their massive pouring of their economic boom into a crash military buildup for a possible invasion of Taiwan or retailiation against Japan due to sour feelings over Japan's refusal to accept more responsibility for crimes against Chinese civilians during WWII, such as the "Rape Of Nanking". The Bush policy of militarism has not made Americans more secure. In Iran, an organization raises funds to train one million terrorist fighters to enter Iraq, or to fight American or Israeli interests. And the Bush Iraq War has only spurred more terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria and other states to join with local antiAmerican forces.
At some point the Bush Administration should realize that it's goals to make Americans more secure are horriby failing and making Americans less secure by the day. America should look to South Africa for a possible change of policy. At one time Nelson Mandela was a radical head of the ANC. But America realized that he could be "coopted", freed from prison and made into a responsible democrat. South Africa also left the nuclear arms club as well. In Syria, Iran and China, "cooption" is most most likely, but in North Korea far more difficult.
A military conflict with any state like North Korea, could also bring many states in for support such as Syria, Iran, Libya and a host of other supporters. The United States would be acting in the best interests of world peace to see if any aspect of "cooption" could defuse the growing danger of armed conflict or even WWIII. But with the current militarism mindset in the Bush Administration a loggerheads with some equally belligerent regime is far more likely. This is unfortunate. And must frustrate the heart of God as well.
Friday, June 3, 2005
Another Retreat From Values
The Bush Administration hammers on a daily basis for it's plan for private investment of Social Security funds in the Wall Street stocks. And under the previous SEC chief, the stock market was made a safer area for investors to tread. Scandals such as Enron or other scandals in which corporations made sweeping promises to investors not back by truth left many investors with little or nothing as their stock plummeted in value and corporate heads pocketed the public's invested value. The previous SEC chief tightened rules to protect investors.
Now the Bush Administration appoints a new head for the SEC, right wing congressman Christopher Cox, who believes in a "laissez-faire" approach to investors investing in the Wall Street stocks. Cox has had a rotten history of attempting to limit investor lawsuits when stock market crooks steal the investor's stock values. And instead of looking to protect the investor, has instead sided with the worst corporate swindler interests against the investors. If the SEC will not clamp down hard on fraudelent activity that swindles investors each year who place their life savings in stock issues, then Bush has no business promoting his Social Security plan which puts investor funds more likely to stolen when a "puffed up" stock issue deflates and investor money disappears into the pockets of some unsavory corporate heads. Some people will face serious financial problems if their investment money intended for theire retirement disappears because of unsavory business interests.
Our own family lost a fair sum of money some years ago in such a Wall Street scheme, where a corporate head "puffed up " the corporations real potential. The corporate head walked off with most all of the stocks values, and the investors were only left with a few pennies a share. Millions of dollars were lost by investors in just this single stock issue. Congressman Cox may want to defend unsavory persons like this. His history of anti-investor legislation is indeed a rotten one.
The stock market will indeed become a more dangerous place to invest under Cox. And if Bush wanted to sell his Social Security plans, then every effort to protect the investors should be undertaken. But this is just another from retreat from decent values from the corrupt Bush Administration. While most of the public was disgusted by some corporate figures like Ken Lay from Enron, Bush embraced his friend and referred to him as "Kenny Boy". Kenny Boy let a lot of people down hard. New SEC head Cox will also let a lot of people down. If confirmed, Cox will light a green light for a new environment of Enron style problems for investors in the future. Another rotten values retreat from the Bush White House. This Administration is doing everything to make the Nixon Watergate Administration look almost saintly by comparison.
Now the Bush Administration appoints a new head for the SEC, right wing congressman Christopher Cox, who believes in a "laissez-faire" approach to investors investing in the Wall Street stocks. Cox has had a rotten history of attempting to limit investor lawsuits when stock market crooks steal the investor's stock values. And instead of looking to protect the investor, has instead sided with the worst corporate swindler interests against the investors. If the SEC will not clamp down hard on fraudelent activity that swindles investors each year who place their life savings in stock issues, then Bush has no business promoting his Social Security plan which puts investor funds more likely to stolen when a "puffed up" stock issue deflates and investor money disappears into the pockets of some unsavory corporate heads. Some people will face serious financial problems if their investment money intended for theire retirement disappears because of unsavory business interests.
Our own family lost a fair sum of money some years ago in such a Wall Street scheme, where a corporate head "puffed up " the corporations real potential. The corporate head walked off with most all of the stocks values, and the investors were only left with a few pennies a share. Millions of dollars were lost by investors in just this single stock issue. Congressman Cox may want to defend unsavory persons like this. His history of anti-investor legislation is indeed a rotten one.
The stock market will indeed become a more dangerous place to invest under Cox. And if Bush wanted to sell his Social Security plans, then every effort to protect the investors should be undertaken. But this is just another from retreat from decent values from the corrupt Bush Administration. While most of the public was disgusted by some corporate figures like Ken Lay from Enron, Bush embraced his friend and referred to him as "Kenny Boy". Kenny Boy let a lot of people down hard. New SEC head Cox will also let a lot of people down. If confirmed, Cox will light a green light for a new environment of Enron style problems for investors in the future. Another rotten values retreat from the Bush White House. This Administration is doing everything to make the Nixon Watergate Administration look almost saintly by comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)