Medina County Dem News

(Medina County Democratic Action Committee)MEDINA COUNTY DEM EVENTS

The Mike Todd for State Senate campaign committee threw a tailgate party last Sunday before the Browns-Cardinals game. Click here to see some pictures from the event: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/10/pics-from-mike-tood-for-state-senate.html

Items from the MCDAC Blog

Why Immigration is Problem for Democrats

The Democratic Party is a coalition party, much more so than the Republican Party. The advantage of a coalition party is that it can add new members to the coalition. The disadvantage is that members of the coalition can be turned against each other. We have seen it happen with civil rights for Afro-Americans, women's rights, guns, gay rights, religion, the Vietnam War, and now immigration.

Each of those issues have caused, at various times, internal problems for the Democratic Party by turning members of the coalition against each other. In most cases it was white working class males, working class as being defined as people who do not have a four-year college degree, who were angered by postions taken by other members of the Democratic coalition.

It can be seen in the states of the Old Confederacy going from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican starting in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It can be seen in the voting pattern of so-called "Reagan Democrats" in both 1980 and 1984. Now it is being seen in immigration.

The Washington Post did a report dated October 23, 2007 on a special election held in Massachusetts that pitted the widow of the late Senator Paul Tsongas against a Republican. The Republican started hammering on the fact that Mrs. Tsongas came out in favor of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. This is a quote from the article:

Then, just two days before Tuesday's balloting, Tsongas said illegal immigrants should each be allowed to get a driver's license. The final radio ad of the Ogonowski insurgency intoned, "And now for something truly incredible. You already know Niki Tsongas supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, but today we learned Niki Tsongas would go even further. Tsongas told the Boston Herald she wants to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."

The result was that in a special election, in a district where Democrats were used to getting 57% of the vote, she only got 51% and won by about 5%. Now there is one big caveat in that result and that is the fact that it was a special election. The turn-out in special elections is usually much lower than in other elections, and often can be swayed by advocates of a certain position mounting a drive to get their supporters out to vote. Still the result indicates how much of a hot topic the idea of illegal immigrants getting goverment benefits and services may be in the 2008 election.

The issue of driver licenses for illegal immigrants came up in this week's debate for Democratic presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton seemed to waver on whether she supported a plan by Governor Spitzer of New York to allow illegal immigrants to get driver licenses. The idea behind the plan is to get illegal immigrants to get insurance by allowing them to get licenses. Clinton's position at the debate was described by her opponents as muddled, although, according to the Washington Post, she now supports Spitzer's plan. Keep an eye of the issue of illegal immigrants receiving government benefits in 2008 because it could be big.

The Smug Sanctimony of Joe Lieberman

The MSNBC website has an article dated October 31, 2007 up that shows the smug sanctimony of former Democratic Senator and now Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is shocked, shocked we tell you, that the amendment he drafted with right-wing Senator John Kyl of Arizona is being used to attack Hillary Clinton. He doesn't understand why we don't trust the Bush Administration not to get us into a war with Iran. To quote Smug Joe: ""At some point, we've got to get over this distrust and partisanship."

Well, here is what's so aggravating about Smug Joe: When he makes comments like the one quoted above, he isn't talking about Bush and Republicans getting over being partisan and distrustful, no, the only people that SJ thinks need to change are Democrats. He apparently wants us to overlook the Bush record of lies, coverups, stonewalling, incompetence, and corruption in Iraq and all get behind Bush's plans for Iran.

Now, SJ doesn't want us to think that he is for war with Iran, no siree, he's not for that, but, then again, "I'm not gunning for military conflict with Iran, but if they keep killing our soldiers, you can't just sit back and let it happen."
Now what the hell does that sound like if not an excuse for a war with Iran? Is SJ suggesting that if his economic sanctions don't work, he won't be advocating for war with Iran? Is he telling us that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, he won't be calling for military strikes on Iran? If he isn't talking about war, just what in the hell is he talking about?

This is what the new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, thinks about a war with Iran:
"[It]has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it." He went on to say that America should be very, very careful about getting involved in a war with a third Muslim country.

Now see here is the difference between professional military officers like Mullen and people like Cheney, Bush, and Lieberman: he has actually been in war and knows what it is like. He has responsibility for the lives of men and women serving under him. He didn't skip the Vietnam War and then spend the rest of his adult life trying to make up for not going by playing with the lives of other people's children. Wonder if Smug Joe would be so cavalier about a war with Iran if his children were serving in Iraq?

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel Calls for Direct Talks with Iran

The Washington Note, a blog run by Steve Clemons, reports today, October 31, 2007, that Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, R-NB, sent a letter to Bush calling for direct and uncontional talks with Iran. He copied the Secretaries of Defense and State, and the National Security Advisor. He apparently did not copy the Vice-President.

In this letter, which the Washington Note has reprinted on its site and which Cleamons says he did not get from Hagel or his staff, Hagel tells Bubble-Boy that:

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

Of course, this approach is not what The Duck Hunter wants and so we fully expect that Hagel's suggestion will be rejected, if not explicitly, then implicitly. It is a good reminder, though, that not every Republican has drank the Bush Kool-Aid.

Clinton's Caution Leading to Defense Industry Support?

Alternet, which is a website that complies articles from the left side of the cultural and political spectrum, has a story from the Independent newspaper of Great Britain about Hillary Clinton and the defense industry. This article points out that as of the date of the article more money had gone to Democrats from the defense industry than had gone to Republicans. This is a quote from the article:

Employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

This illustrates both the potential and the problem with a Clinton candidacy. The potential is that she may be the one Democrat who can tap into support from groups that traditionally support Republicans. Groups like executives from large corporations, the defense industry, the securities industry, and the insurance industry. The problem is that she gets this support because she doesn't challenge the status quo as far as the economy is concerned.

Somewhere I read that the Clintons who had worked for McGovern and seen him defeated, and who had experience in government in Arkansas are convinced that progressive change in America has to be incremental. This belief was only fortified by their experience during his presidency.

Clinton governed from a centerist position. He signed onto the NAFTA treaty. He restored fiscal discipline to the Federal government. He worked with the Republicans on welfare reform. Yet, for all that, he was hounded by the right-wing and had to fight off impeachment. One can only imagine what the right-wing reaction would have been if he would have tried to expand government programs to benefit the poor or reduce the influence of the rich on our goverment.

You can see the impact of those experiences on Hillary Clinton during her campaign for the presidency. She is very cautious in what she says, she doesn't take positions that are too far from the center, she is determined not to give the right-wing an opening to further distort and demonize her and her record.

In one respect this makes a lot of sense. There is a reason why she is leading the polls right now among Democrats. Her name recognition is one reason but another is that she is not giving the right-wing attack machine a lot of openings. The problem is, though, that if there is an opportunity to bring about real progressive change over the next four to eight years she may not, if she were president, recognize it.

Contrary to What Rasmussen Polling Organization Thinks, HRC Can Win

On October 29, 2007 we posted an entry that argued for the proposition that historical trends indicate that the election of 2008 will be a very close election. This is because Democrats, even when winning re-election very seldom break 50% of the popular vote. Indeed, Truman was elected in 1948 with less than 50% of the electorate, as was Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. In fact, only two Democratic Presidential nominees have received over 50% of the popular vote: FDR in all four of his elections and LBJ in 1964.

Given that historical record, it's not too surprising that the Rasmussen polling organization reports that Hillary Clinton seems to have both a ceiling and a floor of around 48%. Most Democratic candidates play at the margins with regard to the popular vote. Very seldom are they going to go above 50% and very seldom are they going to go below 40%. Indeed over the last 76 years only George McGovern went below 40% of the popular vote.

Unlike Rasmussen, however, we don't see this as an acute problem for the Democratic Party nor does it make the 2008 election un-winnable by Clinton. That's because of the electoral college, which while it has a small state Republican bias, can also be used by Democrats to win the presidency.

Kennedy, Clinton and Truman all had close popular vote elections, but substantial electoral college victories, with Clinton getting over 68% of the electoral college vote. This is because of the winner take all nature of the electoral college. In presidential elections winning elections by a 100,000 votes is as good as winning by a million votes.

In 2000 we saw Bush barely win, (if indeed you accept the legitimacy of the Florida vote), the electoral college by winning Florida even though he lost the popular vote by about 500K. Although as we pointed out in an entry dated October 29, 2007, we believe that the electoral college has a conservative or small state bias, we also believe that Democrats can use the electoral college to win presidential elections.

Depending on the Republican nominee it is easy to see Hillary winning all 17 states that Kerry carried, the District of Columbia, which Kerry also carried, and one more or possibly more than one more state to win the presidency. The states that will be up for grab are Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. A dark horse state for the Dems will be Virginia. It will be a down and dirty election, but the one thing about the Clintons, they don't run from a fight.

Given Historical Trends 2008 Should Be a Close Election

There is a wonderful site called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections which has a lot of historical data about presidential elections. Just for fun we did some research on what has been the average Democratic vote compared to the average Republican vote over the last 10 presidential elections, starting in 1968.

Over those 10 elections the Democratic percentage of the popular vote has been 44.64 while the average Republican vote has been 49.17. A big reason for the difference are the large Republican victories in 1972, 1980, and 1984. During the last three elections, however, the average Democratic vote has been much higher. Democratic candidates Clinton, Gore, and Kerry averaged 48.63% of the popular vote. During that same period of time Dole, Bush and Bush averaged 46.44% of the popular vote. Those figures indicate a very evenly split American electorate.

Of course, as we saw in both 2000 and 2004, the American system of having voters choose electors who then actually vote for the president helps conservatives. In the lsat two elections George W. Bush averaged 49.3% of the popular vote but averaged 51.77% of the electoral college vote. This bias comes from the fact that each state, no matter what its population, is assured three votes in the electoral college: one for each U.S. Senator and one for a constitutionally guaranteed Congressional representative.

A state like South Dakota has three electoral votes and an estimated population of 752,103. This means that each electoral vote represents 250,701 people. In California there are 55 electoral votes and an estimated population of 35,594,342. This means that each electoral vote represents 671,170 people. That is quite a discrepancy and applies to other states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. Those states, combined with South Dakota, have a total electoral college vote of 24, four more than Ohio. Their total population, however, is 7,310,773, or about 64% of Ohio's.

Given the fact that the electorate is pretty evenly divided and given the fact that the electoral college has a small state/conservative bias that helps Republicans, the election of 2008, if historical trends are any indication, will be a very close election.

Media Already Failing in 2008 Campaign Coverage

A report was issued by the Project for Excellence in Journalism along with the Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard regarding campaign coverage for the 2008 presidential campaign. That report shows that the media is failing to address what consumers of political news want addressed.

This is from the www.journalism.org story on the report:

"In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates' ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates' records or past public performance, the study found."
The report noted that this is at odds with what the public says it wants from political news reporting:

"All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates' stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates."

Ever wonder why lesser known candidates can't develop any momentum? Here's one reason:

"Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband."

So here it is, another important election, and the media wants to talk about fundraising and polls as opposed to issues and positions. It's just too bad that the public can't sue journalists for malpractice.

U.S. Water Concerns Affect Northeast Ohio

One factor that shaped the history of the United States, particularly the part of the U.S. that is east of the Mississippi River, is our country's supply of fresh water. The rivers and lakes of our country allowed settlers to penetrate the inland, transport goods, and provided water for businesses, farms, and households. Like a lot of other things, though, our country's supply of fresh water is threaten by growth in our population and environmental factors like drought and global warming.

The Akron Beacon Journal had a story on its website dated October 27, 2007, which explores what is happening to our water supply. This is a quote from the story:

An epic drought in Georgia threatens the water supply for millions. Florida doesn't have nearly enough water for its expected population boom. The Great Lakes are shrinking. Upstate New York's reservoirs have dropped to record lows. And in the West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is melting faster each year.

Across America, the picture is critically clear the nation's freshwater supplies can no longer quench its thirst.

The government projects that at least 36 states will face water shortages within five years because of a combination of rising temperatures, drought, population growth, urban sprawl, waste and excess.

This is not just a concern of western and southeastern states, it is also a concern for Ohio. One thing that a lot of Ohioans aren't aware of is that Ohio's use of Lake Erie is controlled by a treaty between the United States and Canada that created the St. Lawrence waterway project. That project opened up the Great Lakes to international shipping, and greatly benefited both the U.S. and Canada, but the treaty creating the Waterway also mandates that water cannot be taken from Lake Erie and pumped over a Continental Divide.

In Ohio there is such a divide that runs through Medina County around the River Styx area. North of that divide water from Lake Erie can be used for municipal water systems. South of that divide, however, the water cannot be used for municipal water systems. This means that water from Lake Erie cannot be used for water systems for cities and villages like Wadsworth, Lodi, and Seville.

Both the U.S. and Ohio need to start looking at this problem and coming up with solutions. If we don't, then our children and grandchildren may end up living in a nation where fresh water is much harder to find.

The MCDAC Newsletter is published by the
Medina County Democratic Action Committee
Joyce V. Kimbler, Treasurer
P.O. Box 1213
Medina, OH 44258
Email: joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org
On the World Wide Web at http://www.mcdac.org