"Fair Share for Health Care"

By: Teddy
Published On: 12/11/2005 2:00:00 AM

Most people probably agree that we have a major health care crisis in America.  The question is, what to do about it?  In the recent Virginia gubernatorial campaign, for instance, Tim Kaine proposed providing incentives for small businesses to pool resources in order to provide health care for their employees.  Kaine's idea is a good one in and of itself.  However, it does not solve the fundamental problem of major corporations -- Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, and so on -- providing such inadequate benefits that state governments are forced to foot their employees'' health care costs. 

For example, one out of every two children of Wal-Mart workers lives without health care, or relies on public programs.  In other words, the taxpayers - you and I - are contributing to Wal-Mart?s bottom line profits, even if we never buy anything in the store. That's because we are enabling Wal-Mart to shift its health care costs to the state governments and, thus, to state taxpayers.

A solution has been proposed by a national grassroots organization, which is encouraging the passage of legislation called ?Fair Share for Health Care.?  If enacted into law, "Fair Share for Health Care" would require large corporations to provide a minimum health care benefit to their employees.  If not, they would be forced to pay into state health care funds, so that taxpayers would not have to continue subsidizing profitable, multi-billion dollar corporations.  "Fair Share Health Care" would reduce the number of working families without health insurance, while holding down health care costs for those families by spreading out the burden.

Given that the national government -- run by a Republican President and a Republican Congress -- is completely in the pockets of the health care industry and Big Pharma, it obviously is up to the states to step in and solve our country's health care crisis.  Here is something that our new Governor and Legislature can do to improve health care in Virginia in a cost-effective manner.  Let's encourage them to pass ?Fair Share for Health Care,? so that rich but irresponsible corporations like WalMart start paying their fair share of healthcare costs. 


Comments



I surelyhope that we (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:27:54 PM)
I surelyhope that we can get this legislation, or something very similar, at least introduced this session (a long session?) It would be a great political coup and will put the Republicans on the hot seat, besides being a great idea on its own merits. We need someone to carry the bill; I mentioned it to David Bulova but, as a new member of the legislature he'd need an important old-timer with some longevity to be on thebill with him. What do you think?


I think Kilgore is t (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:27:56 PM)
I think Kilgore is too delicate to actually stand up to anyone, let alone one of his biggest contributors.

If there's one thing you an always count on Kilgore to do, it's let you down.  He's just too fragile.



Nevertheless, SOME o (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:27:56 PM)
Nevertheless, SOME one should put the collar on Pat Robertson, regardless of any so-called "apology" he thinks he made. Or is he above the law? And who better to do so than the self-righteous attorney Mr. Ilgore, who spouts about Law 'n' Order and doesn't want anyone who breaks the law to get away with it--- like, say, undocumented aliens in Herndon?


You all have way too (Married Man - 4/4/2006 11:27:56 PM)
You all have way too much time on your hands!


Richmond Times Dispa (Vineyard - 4/4/2006 11:27:57 PM)
Richmond Times Dispatch editorial says it all. These Kilgore bashing posts on RK are, frankly, disturbing. Using a natural disaster to score political points in a Governor's race many states away....I can't believe anyone would stoop to this level. It's disgusting. Here is the editorial:
Silence

Richmond Times-Dispatch Sep 2, 2005

Partisans and ideologues probably rehearsed their arguments before Katrina slammed ashore and Lake Pontchartrain poured into New Orleans. From The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal, vulgar voices from across the spectrum have used the catastrophe to score political points.

Calamities may be impossible to prevent, but human beings -- endowed with compassion and ingenuity -- never stop trying to mitigate suffering. Yet while worthy ends often are achieved by asking tough questions and assessing real blame, there is a huge difference between an honest search for answers and a sullen exercise in gamesmanship.

Quips and insults traded by left, right, and center offer little comfort to residents stunned by Nature's caprice. There is much to be said for a decent interval. Humility and a sense of proportion are virtues, too. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Wittgenstein's aphorism applies not only to epistemology but also to human empathy. The necessary message to Gulf Coast says only, "We are here."



"The necessary messa (Tom Joad (Kevin) - 4/4/2006 11:27:57 PM)
"The necessary message to Gulf Coast says only, ?We are here.? "

It's day five...where are we?  We had aid in the Phillipines by day two.  Where are we?  We have a genuine refugee situation.  Where are we?

President Bush was campaigning and on vacation while the situation was happening and he didn't make a peep about NO until Wednesday.  Where was he?  The LA National Guard has 1,200 troops coming back from Iraq.  Where were they? 

These are legit questions being raised now.  The fact that this is Republican leadership as usual is no surprise.  "Borrow and spend" tactics leave us little wiggle room when it comes to problems like this tragedy.  Surpluses give us flexibility...something I don't think Republicans understand.



Gentlemen, in no way (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:27:57 PM)
Gentlemen, in no way did I "blame" Katrina on President Bush-- how you could think that, unless you confuse Bush with God?... Oh... But the absolute truth is that Bush cut funding over and over for flood control, cancelled environmental controls of protective wetlands, and sent almost half Louisiana's National Guard to Iraq (which is also where he sent most of the money he cut from the flood control budget). When Katrina hit, Bush was on vacation, and he continued on vacation. Then, days later, he finally does a "fly-over" and makes a lame speech. Now comes the spin. Get off your high horse, start seeing what's really going on, and stop trying to divert attention from Republican failures by whining it's just politics when some one points out the truth. As for "linking Kilgore" may I say it is entirely appropriate, given Jerry's beloved links to everything the right wing Republicans adore, AND his links to George Allen and G.W. Himself. When is he going to denounce Pat Robertson's criminal remarks, for example? Virginia doesn't need another Jim Gilmore, thank you.  Especially an utterly clueless pretty boy like Jerry.


In an unbelievable t (Hanover - 4/4/2006 11:27:57 PM)
In an unbelievable turn of events, RaisingKaine.com has managed to blame a natural disaster on a single human being (President Bush) and spin it into a way to attack the Republican candidate for governor in a state that is in no way related to the hurricane (Jerry Kilgore).

Congratulations.  I didn't think it could be done, but you have somehow managed to wed Hurricane Katrina with raising taxes in Virginia.

If I hadn't seen it myself, I wouldn't have believed it.



Mr. Murtaugh and the (Jen Little - 4/4/2006 11:27:59 PM)
Mr. Murtaugh and the whole Kilgore gang have nothing positive going for them. Jerry Kilgore is the guy writing their checks, and he is a bad bad candidate. 

So what do they do - they fabricate and say random crap about Tim Kaine. 

I suspect they (Kilgore peeps) are trying to top Mo when he said that we shouldn't be too hard on Mr. Murtaugh when he e-mailed the entire press world the Kilgore thought process (or lack there of) for a proposed attack on Tim Kaine. 

You just don't have the gift, Mr. Murtaugh,  go have some Cheetos and watch a "movie". 



That's fine. Whack (Hanover - 4/4/2006 11:27:59 PM)
That's fine.  Whack away at what Murtaugh said.

But what about the essence of it?

What has Tim Kaine done to fight methamphetamine?

I can't find anything.

Didn't he have three years as LG to introduce a bill?

Kilgore at least put in legislation that upped the penalties.

As far as I know, Kaine did nothing.  Which means he actually might have been watching TV and eating cheese doodles.



Touchy, touchy, Mr. (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:27:59 PM)
Touchy, touchy, Mr. Hanover! The article was about Murtaugh's bird-brained remark, and how revealing of his character it is. Since you bring it up, though, I remember how sensitive Jerry himself was about the prerogatives of his position as Atty Gen, and meth labs were definitely his former bailiwick; since we're dealing in speculation here, I speculate he would have gone through the roof (and so would his right-wing fellow Republicans) had ANY one poached on "his" territory, thus dooming the efforts of anyone else. Besides, as Lieutenant Governor, with no committee assignments, confined to presiding over the Senate, just where was the mechanism for Mr. Kaine to have a legislative program? But today we do have Creigh Deeds, Democratic candidate for Jerry's former... ah, job.  Mr. Deeds has from the beginning had an excellent program for dealing with meth labs.  Yes, indeed: Meth labs, the new cottage industry, replacing my brother Bill's still on the hill. Sort of.  Please don't take offense, but it sure looks that way to me.  Remember, my Daddy was a South Carolina Low Country boy, and he suckered tobacco and knew exactly what the meaning of being in "tall cotton" meant--- and how to make whiskey out of the corn crop.


Our supposed "head" (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:00 PM)
Our supposed "head" of homeland "security" this week refered to the "city of Lousiana".  I guess the guy didn't get that Lousiana is a STATE!

Maybe it's a minor thing, but I don't think these guys really get much of anything.



Josh, the only thing (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:00 PM)
Josh, the only thing they get is the Money.  Oh, and they get the Power Thing, too. In my opinion of course.


Mr. Dorsett, there's (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:04 PM)
Mr. Dorsett, there's more than a minor difference here, although your point is well taken.  The "regional" solution advanced by Warner was the one passed by the Assembly which defined the two regions, offering them the individual option of a local tax district (a prerogative heretofore jealously guarded by the Assembly for itself in this Dillon rule Commonwealth). The no-tax gurus who opposed the legislation were indeed acting arrogant, but were over-ridden. However, they were an important part of the failure of the plan, and I'm sure they expect to be a part of the failure of any future referenda. Jerry opposed the referenda then, as I recall; his proposed terms and situation are different now. My point is that he's using the referenda idea as a scam to LOOK like he "trusts the people," and in reality to dodge making the hard choices himself. The referenda plan didn't work before, it won't work now; we've tried that experiment--- lesson learned. Transportation IS a Commonwealth-wide problem and it requires political will and leadership even to begin to resolve it, not a bob and weave like a punch-drunk boxer.


In 2001 Kaine said t (Vineyard - 4/4/2006 11:28:04 PM)
In 2001 Kaine said those who oppose referendums are "arrogant." Now he is against them. Which position represents the real Tim Kaine? Is Tim Kaine, by his own definition, acting "arrogantly"?

Also, in 2001 Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jerry Kilgore all supported letting regions have transportation referendums if they wanted to raise additional revenue for transportation projects. Many pundits following the '01 election said that Warner's plan to trust the people on transportation was a major reason for his victory. Now, in 2005, Kilgore still supports Regional transportation authorities, but Kaine is vehemently against. Interestingly enough, in 2001 every major paper supported them---as did Democrats---now, in 2005, while Kilgore is still in support, every major paper opposes them---and so do Democrats. What is going on here? Seems like Kilgore is the only consistent  one, while Democrats have gotten new talking points and completely abandoned what they claimed to support fullheartedly just four short years ago. And you wonder why Kaine is losing by 7 points.



Just want to make su (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:12 PM)
Just want to make sure everyone gets the point: the rest of the state never actually saw Jerry's flameout.  All they're going to see are the cynical "Jerry as leader" ads with voice-overs, intending to dupe The  People once again.


I'd like to see a Ka (Jim E-H - 4/4/2006 11:28:12 PM)
I'd like to see a Kaine ad with footage from near the end of the debate, when Kilgore said he wanted to be just like Bush in New Orleans...


Jim E-H, that's a go (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:12 PM)
Jim E-H, that's a good idea. Jerry in his own words. I doubt Kaine's media maven will do that, what we need is a secret sponsor... a 527 or such that can whip up a short TV ad utilizing those embarrassing but revealing moments, and run them on local TV thruout the Commonwealth, just as the Swift Boaties did their thing. Any such sponsor come to mind?


Why isn't Robert Nov (Jonathan Mark - 4/4/2006 11:28:12 PM)
Why isn't Robert Novak in jail? Isn't he the guy who outed Valerie Plame?

Why is Libby under indictment or something but not Novak?

I am tired of tendentious print journalists getting special treatment. Novak is free to break the law, RaisingKaine and other blogs get regulated by the FEC.



Michael Munroe, you (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:12 PM)
Michael Munroe, you are exactly right: Kilgore is responsible for the nature of his campaign; it gave us a true view of his character, no matter how the Republican spinmachine tries to paper it over. Let's not overlook the races for Lt. Gov. and Atty. Gen. Republican victory in the race for Lt. Gov. gives them a warm fuzzy feeling: "see it wasn't Republicanism that was rejected, it was just Jerry." Same thing for the closeness of the Atty. Gen. race. With ethically challenged right-wing water carrier Bolling in charge of the Senate, Kaine is going to have a tough time of it. The patterns of the voting shown in the maps recently published here in RaisingKaine provide interesting evidence of the changing voting pattern in Virginia, and need to be studied precinct by precinct by the Democratic Party for future guidance. I do NOT think that it will reveal that, to win, Democrats must mimic Republicans. 


Tonight on the PBS " (michael munroe - 4/4/2006 11:28:13 PM)
Tonight on the PBS "News Hour with Jim Lehrer", the spin continues. Gwen Ifill interviewed Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. Rozell offered a popular theory that the Monday night visit by Bush had really been the final nail in Kilgore's coffin.

I don't disagree that the failures of the Bush administration was a factor in Kaine's win but I don't think his visit was a significant blow to Kilgore's campaign.

It would be nice if someone had acknowledged today that Kaine's victory begin weeks ago and  could be easily tracked by a steady growth his polling numbers. While Kilgore failed to progress. This was pointed out frequently in the last couple of weeks of the campaign. Of course I liked hearing that but remained very scared and worried.

Certainly the spectacular self destruction of the Bush administration as they bounced from one calamity and embarrassment to another was perceived as a Republican problem  and made voting for Kaine even more satisfying for Democrats and easier for Republicans to consider an alternative.

I think it is just spin to suggest that it required a visit by Bush for voters to make the connection. I think that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Myers and FEMA have been on our minds for weeks. Every time I heard Kilgore tell us that Kaine was untrustworthy I just considered the source.

When I think of the word "Republican" it isn't "trustworthy" that comes to mind. No, I think that with every new story about Kilgore or his mom, that Jerry was just one more bird infected with the same sort of contagion that seems to  have corrupted so many of the current Republican flock currently nesting across the Potomac in Washington. If only their was some hope of them all leaving for the south this winter.

The Richmond Times Dispatch in Wednesday's editorial also said that "...Kilgore did not deserve to lose, the GOP deserved a sock to the chops..."

Well, I might buy that if I was convinced that the GOP forced Kilgore to take his campaign into the gutter with an unremitting hail of attacks on Kaine's character and accomplishments.

No, I think that the real blame falls to Kilgore himself for choosing to model his campaign after the GOP's reprehensible attacks that denigrated Kerry's Vietnam heroism and managed to transformed Bush from a rich kid who avoided any danger of combat into a heroic flag draped fighter pilot.

If Kilgore had been willing to focus on issues, distance himself from Washington and avoid the inevitable suicide of attacking the good name of an opponent of obviously stellar character, Kilgore's campaign might have not have sickened so many of his potential supporters.

No, Jerry is a big boy and he freely choose his own gang of campaign advisors and he must take full credit for the result of those choices.



Teddy, I agree, we m (Steve Nelson - 4/4/2006 11:28:13 PM)
Teddy, I agree, we must help Kaine have an effective tenure.

The question is, how do we do that?



stay tuned here to R (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:13 PM)
stay tuned here to Raising Kaine.

Political activism only begins with the election!



I read the article t (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:16 PM)
I read the article to which you linked, Josh.  Thank you, it is very revealing. And here I thought I was the only one who had noticed the "new aristocracy," and the terrible danger its rise poses to our democracy. Who is Philip Agre, the author? Has he written more?


Let's see how long i (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:16 PM)
Let's see how long it takes for DeLay to beat the rap and the Texas prosecutor (who, while a Democrat, has already indicted several Democrats as well as DeLay and his minions, so it's hardly "just political") is somehow smeared and out of office, and the local judge exonerates DeLay. Or, the public does, succumbing to the inevitable Republican public relations campaign that will be waged on DeLay's behalf.


Great piece, Teddy. (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:16 PM)
Great piece, Teddy.

For those interested in the coming conservative aristocracy, take an hour and review this bad boy:

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

you'll be glad you did.



Had thought I'd writ (KathyinBlacksburg - 4/4/2006 11:28:22 PM)
Had thought I'd write a blog piece on the same subject this AM.  Should have known you'd be on task.  I could not possibly have said it as well.  So, thanks. 


Socialism is an easy (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:22 PM)
Socialism is an easy villain.  It's a strawman set up by the Heritage Foundation and the Cato instituted so that the radicals who now rule the GOP can discount all Liberal politics without actually having to wrestle with the realities of society, culture, mankind, poverty, sickness, and death.

Much easier to just tie a sink line between discredited socialism and struggling Liberalism and invalidate both in one fell swoop.

Wonder why the left hasn't tied radical conservatism to fascism to achieve the same ends?  Because while every aspect of conservatism, especially the neo-con philosphies would easily fit in the fascist mold, there are aspects of fascism that do not quite fit in with conservatism.  Genocide comes to mind... but then Bennet comes up with something like this and I'm less inclined to give these weak-willed, soft minded, empty hearted, hypocritical cowards the benefit of the doubt any longer.



It is interesting to (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:22 PM)
It is interesting to note that I have heard from one or two relatively average (if there is such a thing) white citizens that some of what Bennett said was on the mark, except of c ourse for the "abortiion bit." Clearly, he taps into a deep well of, if not out and out racism, at least an inner contempt for anyone who is mired at the bottom of our social system, and that is the part of Republican hypocrisy that speaks to the soul of far too many so-called conservatives in today's America.

We have to do a better job of opening their eyes so they actually see that there are solutions (despite the fact "the poor will always be with us" and despite the fact that no program will raise everyone out of the mire--- some DO have character defects, and are going to be lost). One way to the minds of educable conservatives is to point out that money spent at the start saves beaucoup money later, as Kaine says: $1 on pre-kindergarten will save $17 in later remedial classes, not to mention crime costs down the road. Maybe it would even be cheaper, Mr. Bennett/Hitler, than abortion or genocide.



Sorry Lowell, but yo (posta - 4/4/2006 11:28:23 PM)
Sorry Lowell, but you jumped off this boat too fast.  Bennett may be a grade-A jerk, but this remark was delivered to REFUTE the idea that you could do social policy by using gross categories and aggregate statistics.  The whole POINT of his example was to show that you could reach an outrageous conclusion using the same faulty logic.  That's exactly the opposite of racism.


"Which is where we g (I'm Not Emeril - 4/4/2006 11:28:23 PM)
"Which is where we get to Bennett’s innocent “thought experiment” whereby aborting every black baby — moral issues aside, of course — would cause crime rates to plummet"
But, "moral issues" were NOT put aside by Bennett.
Without "Dowdification" his entire quote was;
"it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
Further, you do your readers a disservice by not explaining that the remark was in response to a caller who had suggested a similar line of "reasoning", and Bennett was refuting that idea.

You have essentially wasted an entire page condeming Bennet for arguing against the idea of abortion as crime control. However, by not telling your readers the entire story, you make it sound as though that is what he was advocating.



Yes, surprising in t (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:23 PM)
Yes, surprising in the 21st century, but remember the basic rightwing conservative love of hierarchy and the apparent (perhaps unconscious) desire to re-create a feudal type of social relationships with strong religious overtones. They all seem to be most comfortable in such a command structure with God, King, and Warrior. Back to the Dark Ages! Maybe that's why we see so many parallels between the fundamentalist 'Christians' and the fundamentalist Shi-ites. Heh, heh.


Just in case there i (KathyinBlacksburg - 4/4/2006 11:28:23 PM)
Just in case there is any confusion (and it appears there might be) about those "condoning Bennett's hateful remark," (a group of folks I completely condemn), I was applaudidng Raising Kaine for its blogpiece.  I have a short comment and link to the Raising Kaine article on my own site.  There is no excusing, no donwplaying, no pitiful circling of the wagons the the far right can do to save Bennett from finally being outed for what he really is.  I am amazed, saddened, and appalled that Bennett's remarks occurred in the "21st Century."  Neanderthals, it seems, know no century.


What's the verdict R (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:23 PM)
What's the verdict Redshift?  Do we just throw in the towell, and start demonizing conservatism as fascism?



"Wonder why the left (Jim E-H - 4/4/2006 11:28:23 PM)
"Wonder why the left hasn’t tied radical conservatism to fascism to achieve the same ends? Because while every aspect of conservatism, especially the neo-con philosphies would easily fit in the fascist mold, there are aspects of fascism that do not quite fit in with conservatism."

Hmm, I don't think this is it -- clearly there are even more aspects of progressivism or liberalism that do not quite fit in with socialism, but that doesn't stop them.  I think it's more that liberal leaders are less comfortable with demonizing their opponents just because they disagree with them, and conservative leaders have less concern with whether or not their demonizing is true as long as it works.  Witness that it is generally considered completely out of bounds to call someone on the right wing a fascist or a Nazi, but right-wing commentators call liberals communists every day, and "friends of Stalin" with regularity.



It's sad to see that (Chris from ASL - 4/4/2006 11:28:23 PM)
It's sad to see that people would defend such a comment. Anyone who values human life cannot stand behind such a comment.

When I was a kid, if I ever had made any comment even slightly offensive, my mother made me apologize and own up to my actions.  That was a virtue she taught me and a virtue I will pass on to my children. If only Bennett and company had that same "virtue..."



The Big Lie: That "L (KathyinBlacksburg - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
The Big Lie: That "Liberals" Don't Support the Troops

I just got through reading an article over at RaisingKaine.com and it got me to thinking. One of the most absurd and outrageous lies the Cons tell is that "liberals" (which is usually meant to label everyone to the left of Tom Delay) "don't support the troops." In fact, just as there hasn't been a flag burning in the US in decades (despite the Con lie that liberals go around burning it), there haven't been incidents when people didn't support the troops. In reality, even at the height of the Viet Nam war, overwhelmingly, most people --even those against the war--supported the troops. We could distinguish between stupid, "ignorant and deceptive chickenhawk politicians" and the troops. And it was the politicians whom war protesters opposed. Most protestors despised Robert McNamera, who not long ago, in "Fog of War" tells of lessons learned. GOP and media spin notwithstanding, those who did not support those serving were an extremely small minority. For the "troops" weren't seen as that at all, but rather they were our husbands, sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, and friends. Now they could also be the daughters, mothers, sisters, friends, significant others, etc. A smaller number of women served back in the Viet Nam era.

I was not originally against the Viet Nam War, but soon learned we'd been mislead. Many of us were honest enough to confront a president of our own party in 1968. (Where are the Republicans now when the lies have been worse?) It was the pressure we brought to bear on him that forced Lyndon Johnson to resign. I hadn't been involved in politics until then. I was a young wife with two small children. But I found time to do some small things to protest the misuse of our troops and work for change. It was always the troops. How dare Johnson take these lives for granted? But we never, ever, would have turned on our families and friends, or other Americans. They were part of us! Even during the period when I opposed the war, I and hundreds of others stood on shore, cheering as my brother's ship came in into safe harbor from Viet Nam. This was played out as month and after month, and year after year, our loved ones returned. But many of us lost loved ones in those or earlier wars.

War protest has always been about doing what's right by the troops. The Cons can say otherwise until they are --er, well...they can't be blue in the face, cause they can't understand "Blue." But if they even tried, they'd see they are buying into a myth.

But their myth does not get to drive what is defined as supporting the troops. And here's where most of the trouble lies, I believe. Blind rubber stamping war, callously sending them to slaughter for insufficient reason, will never be a requirement. Indeed, I believe that the burdon of proof rests with the those wishing to deploy our national treasure for their political ends. Iraq was never about protecting Americans, only the interests of Big Oil and hegemony. Ignoring this and blindly being yes-persons to such a misuse, sells short the interest of the real freedom (not Bush's fake flauanting of the word) that our military is sworn to protect.

But most of all, if we really support and love them, we will never agree to wreckless foreign policy or approve needless belligerence by hypocritical leaders. Besides, many more Democrats have served in the military than Republicans. The GOP leadership and pundit class has so few who've served it's astonishing how readily they'd commit the lives of others. Only in BUSHWORLD is skipping out on your guard Duty seen as preferable to actually saving lives in war. But, then the Swift Boat "Vets for Truth" were never about truth.

We support the troops by loving family and friends, and even strangers, who serve and working to assure they have what they need. We say: Take care of them when they are sent into harm's way. Don't make them pay for their body armor, send them without it, or supply them with defective vests (as was recently revealed). Treat their medical needs with respect, caring and funding. Don't make them pay their own way home (that has happened). Don't leave them to depend on food stamps. Generally do more for the troops than to Halliburton or Bechtel execs. And never, ever take them for granted.

It's time to stop the knee-jerk psuedo-patriotism which pretends to capture what it means to be an American, but really creates and reacts to stereotypes. We don't have to be told. We already know. Some of the leaders of the other side apparently don't.

"Support our troops. Don't Misuse Them."



Clarification: In th (KathyinBlacksburg - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
Clarification: In the above post, where I say more Democrats than Repubicans have served, I speak of party leaders, spokespesons, advisors, and pundits.  There's a widely-distributed list that has circulated the internet a number of times which shows the extent to which Democratic leaders have served, while Republican leaders have not. Personally, I don't think that military service should be a requqirement.  But if a party is hell-bent on sending its sons to war without end, and seeks more wars even now, then it looks mighty fishy if most of the senders have not served.  Gets one to wondering whether they really give a darn about us and whether they think we are all just fodder for their ambitions.


Clearly, if he goes (John Sloan - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
Clearly, if he goes to one funeral, he would have to go to them all. Did Bill Clinton go to all 18 funerals of the Army Rangers who were killed in Somalia?


P.S. Kathy, Have you (John Sloan - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
P.S. Kathy, Have you checked the Kilgore veteran list? See how many Republican members of the General Assembly have served? Think there's more Democrat vets in the GA? Hmmmm!

Also, Democrat veterans are usually former draftees, while most Republicans are volunteers. At least that seems to be my experience when meeting vets.



Oh, one other thing (John Sloan - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
Oh, one other thing Kathy? Have you sent a package to any troops in the last few months? "Support the Troops" is a cute phrase for you "plastic patriots" who pick and choose the times when you support them.


Walt: I fail to see (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
Walt:  I fail to see why Bush would "clearly" have to attend all funerals or none. How about a gesture once in a while, just to show that Dubya appreciates the sacrifice of nearly 2,000 brave Americans for "George and Dick's Not-So-Excellent Adventure in Iraq?"

PS  Can you right-wingers ever make ANY point without either a) an ad hominem attack; or b) referring to Bill "Peace and Prosperity" Clinton? Just askin'



Clearly, (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
Clearly, if he goes to one funeral, he would have to go to them all. Did Bill Clinton go to all 18 funerals of the Army Rangers who were killed in Somalia?

I'm sorry, Walt, were you under the impression that Bill "responsible for all sin, evil, and bad stuff that ever happens in the universe" Clinton sent the Rangers into Somalia?

That honor would go to George HW Bush who had lost the Presidency and just couldn't ring in the new year without some bloodshed.

mmm...

A care package is nice, but don't you think the families of the Troops would be better served if the Republicans didn't cut Veteran's benefits and healt insurance to pay for their freeloading billionaire taxcuts?



You know the old say (Brian - 4/4/2006 11:28:29 PM)
You know the old saying.

Birds of a feather .....



By the way, James, d (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:28:30 PM)
By the way, James, do you ever read right-wing columnists?  Here's Charles Krauthammer on Bush's pick of Miers: "...nominating a constitutional tabula rasa to sit on what is America's constitutional court is an exercise of regal authority with the arbitrariness of a king giving his favorite general a particularly plush dukedom."

And George Will: "the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution....To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous."

I could go on and on with quotes from right-wing commentators the past few days on this crony pick.  James, are you seriously going to be the last one left defending George W. "37% approval rating and falling" Bush, Tom "2 Indictments, Do I Hear Another" DeLday, Karl "Revealing an Undercover CIA Officer's Name is Treason" Rove, etc?  Have fun. 

Oh, and don't forget to keep blaming Bill Clinton. Even though he hasn't been President now for 5 years, it's still obviously all his fault. Always has been.  Always will be.



Personally, I think (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:31 PM)
Personally, I think it's like a conspiracy, this unremitting effort to restore a modern form of feudalism--- call it corporate feudalism--- and Bush Boy is basically the puppet or front man going through his paces.


What is Conservatism and What is Wrong with It?


Mr. Young, hank you (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:31 PM)
Mr. Young, hank you for the explanation of googlebombing, but I must ask you why this unhealthy obsession with Bill Clinton? An odd post to go with Bush's Fiefdom, and the argument presented therein still stands. No one, that is, no President (since, possibly Jackson) has so thoroughly indulged in politicizing the entire bureaucracy, nor with such deleterious results. This is a case where quantity results in a qualitative change, and is, frankly a red flag. I stand by my conclusions: the Bush Republicans treat the entire country as a private fiefdom in ways very much like a medieval king with almost the same religious overtones of Divine Right of Kings. Stand back and look at the kind of country we're turning into. I used to be a Republican myself, but I took an honest look and decided it had gone far enough and must be stopped.


See, I told you, thi (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:28:31 PM)
See, I told you, this is Bush's Fiefdom, and even the Republicans are starting to realize it. Hope you enjoy your status as an adoring low-wage peasant.


Here's what Charles (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:31 PM)
Here's what Charles Krauthammer has to say about Dubya's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court:

"... nominating a constitutional tabula rasa to sit on what is America's constitutional court is an exercise of regal authority with the arbitrariness of a king giving his favorite general a particularly plush dukedom. The only advance we've made since then is that Supreme Court dukedoms are not hereditary. "



CR UVa: Just to cla (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
CR UVa:  Just to clarify, my understanding is that Teddy WAS a Republican most of her life, but isn't anymore because the party moved way too far to the hard, wacko right for her tastes.  And yes, from having talked with her on numerous occasions and having worked with her for months now, she clearly likes Tim Kaine, just wishes that he would be more aggressive in blasting Jerry the Weasel.


Josh: Spine? Are y (CR UVa - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
Josh:  Spine?  Are you trying to imply that Kaine has one by going back and forth with his arguments?  I agree, I wish Kilgore were more open with his viewpoints, but the only reason I am not certain about those things is because he has not told us, not because he has gone back and forth like Tim Kaine.  Jerry Kilgore may not be open, but Tim Kaine is waffling.

And Lowell:  Pot, kettle.



I catch your drift, (Not Bill Tuck - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
I catch your drift, but historical accuracy suggests you pull Thomas Jefferson from your list of pure as snow va politicians.  He funded Anti-George Washington journals (in an effort to keep Washington from running for a third term), then refused to pay the bills.  When Jefferson's letters and instructions were made public, Washington cut off all communication with him.


"Hanover": Tim Kain (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
"Hanover":  Tim Kaine's answers are contradictory?  How's that?  In what way is it "opposite" to say you were court appointed to help in a case and therefore doing your duty under the Constitution, but also that you only played a small role in said case?  My understanding is that it Tim Kaine only spent 48 minutes out of 1,000 hours his firm worked on the case.  If you don't believe Tim Kaine on this, then go do some research and stop smearing a good man.

I'll give Gov. Warner the last word on your comment: "I trust Tim Kaine to enforce the death penalty. All three [Democratic] candidates will. My hope is this campaign will return to a focus on real differences, like how we educate our kids, how we fix our transportation system and how we keep growing our economy."



Every time I read a (Mimi Schaeffer - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
Every time I read a story about the latest ad from Jerry Kilgore I see red.

I want Kaine to strike back and frame the issue as Kilgore slamming his religion, not his stance.

In other words, why does Kilgore hate Catholics...?  If they're good enough to be on the Supreme Court, they're certainly good enough to be governor.



Teddy writes: "Sh (Hanover - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
Teddy writes:

"Shame on Mr. Rosenbluth for allowing it!"

Mr. Rosenbluth was an eager participant in the ad, otherwise he would not have made it.

He did a lot more than just allow it, he caused it to be made.  It would not be on the air right now if he did not agree to do it, or be willing to speak his mind.

Is this really the tactic you want to take? 

Blame the father of the murdered son? 

Also, call into question the activities of the victims, at the very least, to imply that they deserved it?

Regardless, Tim Kaine has given no good answer to his involvement in this case.

First, he said he was court-appointed, doing the good lawyer thing by representing someone according to his Constitutional rights.  Good for him.  People are due quality representation.

However, now he is saying that he had very little to do with that case.

Which is it?

Was he court-appointed, or was he not involved?

Bad news when the guy gives two opposite answers to the same question separated by only 24 hours.

Something clues me in to the fact that this week has been very, very bad for Tim Kaine.

Further, the amount of time and energy spent on this website on this issue demonstrates that Lowell and his compatriots know this to be the case.



Finally more people (Brave Hart - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
Finally more people have seen the soul of Kilgore (spell check gives us KILLER).


I am curious Teddy. (CR UVa - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
I am curious Teddy.  You say you are a Republican.  What do you think of Tim Kaine?  Do you think he is honest (in particular, with his waffling in topics such as abortion and the death penalty)?  Do you think he would make a good governor?  Or do you just dislike Jerry Kilgore?


I'm embarassed that (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
I'm embarassed that we have to spend our time talking about Jerry Kilgore's despicable Hitler ad, and we can't talk about the things that really matter to Virginians.

What about Education, Transporation, Healthcare, Balanced Budgets, and Freakin' Jobs for goodness sake!

Great article, Teddy. 

I'm going down to Monticello tomorrow to watch the steam rising from all the spinning Thomas Jefferson is doing in his grave.  Wanna make it a day trip?



CR UVa: Does Jerry (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:42 PM)
CR UVa:  Does Jerry W. Kilgore actually have a position on any subject?  He won't commit to an abortion position.  He won't commit to supporting the Warner-Kaine tax reform or to trying to repeal it.  He won't say how he's going to pay for any of the projects he supposedly supports.  Where's Kilgore's spine?

He must have left it in the AG's office when he quit.



CR: If supporting (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:28:43 PM)
CR:

If supporting the separation of church and state is waffling, then we oughta just change it from USA to IHOP.  Under your definition and Jerry W. Kilgore's, a few guys got together in Philadelphia a few years back and made this the "waffle" nation.

Yeah, standing up for the constitution, that's called spine.  Working under due process of the law, that's called spine.  Protecting the separation of church and state, that's called spine.  Having faith and serving the public, that's called spine. 

This is America.  If you want religious rule, move to Saudi Arabia or the Vatican.



I just can't figure (Christian Grantham - 4/4/2006 11:28:58 PM)
I just can't figure it out. Where are the prominent Republican leaders when it comes to supporting Jerry Kilgore? President Bush? Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist? Former Republican Governor Gilmore?

My GOODNESS! Doesn't Jerry Kilgore share the thoughtful policies and catastrophic successes of these Republican leaders?

Here in the 13th District, our opponent can't seem to get a single reputable Republican to publicly support his re-election effort. At most, he got that Manassas Republican indicted on election fraud, Steve Chapman, to write a glowing letter to the editor in our local paper.

I'm really confused here. Is there a single reputable Republican willing to publicly support Bob Marshall's campaign in the remaining 13 days before the November 8th elections? Is there a single reputable Republican willing to defend Marshall's 13 year record of failure and lack of a plan to address our transportation mess? Is there one willing put aside the fact that the Republican controlled Virginia Assembly voted against Marshall's legislative agenda more than 80% of the time in the last session alone? Is there a single reputable Republican willing to break with their party and stand up for Bob Marshall?

*crickets chirping*

It looks like Republicans are deeply afraid to be Republicans this year from the governor down to the most local race on the ballot.



That's ridiculous--i (Mary - 4/4/2006 11:28:58 PM)
That's ridiculous--if you click through to the ad hosting site, they post all the sites authorized to run that ad.  Guess what--the racist blog is not authorized.  That's a pretty thin sham.

Yellow is typically associated with cowardice.  Since you accuse Tim of lacking courage, back up your claim or step out of the discussion!  It sounds like you are projecting here...Is avoiding televised debates, misrepresenting the opponent's record, hiding and avoiding constituents evidence of courage or cowardice?

You see, Billy, unlike you, we don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks on Kilgore--his own actions indict him--as the only coward in this race. We also don't have to manufacture fake websites to find evidence of the kind of racism that is driving Kilgore's appeal to Virginian voters.  I'd contend Tim Kaine's color is blue--true blue integrity.



I was there too. We (Jambon - 4/4/2006 11:28:58 PM)
I was there too.  Were you the one with the Kaine sticker on your jacket? 

The gentleman who hosted the vigil sure had an amazing knowledge of facts about the war.  It really put things into perspective.



The Statement of Org (Drew - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
The Statement of Organization for a Virginia PAC requires the addresses of the residence of the PAC's Treasurer and other officers.  Ms. Clancy was complying with the law by placing her personal address on the Statement of Orgnization. 


Christian is exactly (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
Christian is exactly correct.  When you decide to conduct your operations in a shady, disreputable fashion as the Republicans do, you reap the consequences.


Actually, looking at (Craig Pennington - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
Actually, looking at the VPAP report on the SOO, I suspect, but could be wrong, that they *did* use the "Committee Mailing Address" section, and the HLFVPAC put the same contact info in both places. The "Committee Mailing Address" may be a PO Box and does not need to be a residence.

http://www.vpap.org/donors/pac_soo.cfm?ComID=05-034&FmKey=ORP000237918

Regardless, I will not call a residence.



Andrew Jennings, you (Craig Pennington - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
Andrew Jennings, you are correct. It looks like VPAP *should* be publishing the contact info from the "Commmitee Mailing Address" section and not the "Prinipal Custodian of the Books" Section. The form (blank) plus instructions can be found here:

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Campaign_Finance/Political_Committee_SOO.pdf

So why did VPAP not use the Committee Mailing Address. The fact that the given address was a residence is why I refrained from calling.



Give em' Hell Teddy! (RickyD - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
Give em' Hell Teddy!

and Carry a Big Stick!



As someone who has b (Christian Grantham - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
As someone who has been on the receiving end of a few pathetic and failed legal threats involving online media, all you have to do is thank this man for his concern and tell him if it's that important to him to waste time calling you about it that maybe he'd also like to take the time to put his thoughts in writing and you'll get back to him within seven days of receiving his letter.

A phone call from an attorney is just egotistical blustering as far as I'm concerned. And his concerns could have been address by the PAC founders had they had the commonsense to advise an attorney in creating the PAC in the first place. Any attorney worth their salt would have told these people it was a bit foolish to list your personal information as the contact info for an official Political Action Committee in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

IF ANYTHING, the parents of these children the attorney claims are in harms way were placed their by their irresponsible parents. Considering the fact that this PAC has knowingly engaged in unethical behavior, these people willfully placed their own children in the politcial spotlight with absolutely no regard for their well-being. To the founders of this PAC, it would appear that lies were more important than their own children. How very sad for those who ignorantly peddle lies at the expense of their own family.



Teddy: Here is my c (Brian - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
Teddy:  Here is my comment re: the same issue.  It was funny, he thought he was going to roll over me too, then I mentioned I had just passed the bar and was looking for some good cases like this and he backed off.  :)  From now on, just send them my way. 

---
Amazing.  This guy, Ben Wood, who works at Patton Boggs, LLP, with Sean Clancy, the Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC's Treasurer's husband, just called me and demanded that "Mr. Clancy's home address be removed from this blog entry." 

He also said that "the FBI was investigating this and had positioned security outside the Clancy's home."  Apparently the Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC's address is Sean Clancy's home address and is publicly available here on the VPAP website, but they don't want anyone to know who they really are.

He suggested that by us asking folks to drop by and say "hey" that we were some how encouraging violence against the Clancys.  They are the ones with the endorsement from the NRA, right? 

In other news, he also said the Clancys have been contacted by over 100 of our faithful readers.  I assume you all are respectfully asking them to run a positive campaign.  If so, keep up the great work. 

(Public email addresses for Mr. Wood and Mr. Clancy are available on the above linked pages.  Feel free to email them and tell them how you feel.)

---



This episode was biz (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
This episode was bizzarre, the more I think about it.  Remember when Delegate Black complained about "strange people" going past his home office? In this case, I wonder if the rowdy folks If there were any)  going past the home office of the Honest Leadership PAC were actually some of the reporters I contacted, alerting them to the news about the robocalls. These Repub operatives consider themselves immune to criticism, and the pattern of spite and retribution runs from the top down (think Bush and Joe Wilson's wife Victoria Plame). I say the head of the fish stinks first with these folks.


Andrew, that's all t (Christian Grantham - 4/4/2006 11:29:16 PM)
Andrew, that's all the more reason to consider whether your PAC's message is worth the attention being placed on every detail provided the public. Truth and honesty might bring better light to these facts than lies and dishonesty. That's a choice the PAC officers made, and the consequences are an informed public expressing their views directly with the officers and with each other on the Internet. If that's not what the officers had hoped for when they peddled their message to the public, maybe they shouldn't have created the PAC in the first place.


I have to say that o (RickyD - 4/4/2006 11:29:22 PM)
I have to say that one of the biggest reason that I am involved in the Democratic Party is to counter what I see as the Christian Right's attempt to gain control of the government and schools.

Freedom to practice religion without interference from the state was what our country was built upon.  I think we need to stand up and fight back or we will all need to be "born again" or hide in the shadows.



Aside from the impos (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:22 PM)
Aside from the impossibility of proving there is or is not an Intelligent Designer (who, if available, apparently blew his effort when he molded Robertson), aside from that difficulty, there is the high risk to any religion which ties its validity to a particular explanation of reality, the way the Catholic Church did with Galileo-- if the earth wasn't the unmoving center of the universe, then the whole dogma fell apart, so scientific evidence was heresy, and "revealed Truth" was not, after all, TRUE.  At least the Catholics later exonerated Galileo, after a few hundred years. We can't wait that long this time around. 


This really just mak (Jen Little - 4/4/2006 11:29:22 PM)
This really just makes me laugh!  Ok, so now Pat Robertson is telling GOD what to do?

Wow.  Again I say - This S@#% is Bannanas!



I'm no Wal-Mart love (Steve Nelson - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)
I'm no Wal-Mart lover, (actually i loathe stepping into Wal-Mart) but i have to say the statement: Wal-Mart DOES make a profit - a huge one at that. seems a little skewed to me.

I'm a small business owner myself, when i do projects i like to try and work in 20-30% in profit. That profit let's me grow and eventually retire.

Your post says: Wal-Mart made $10.3 BILLION in profits in 2004, on sales of over $285 billion

That's only a 3.5% profit. That's not huge, in fact it's not even small, it is MINISCULE!



Maybe benefits, bett (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)
Maybe benefits, better medical/health care? I'm not against profits as such, it sure motivates a lot of improvements, and, Steve, I, too have run small businesses, "met a payroll" as Repubs are fond of saying. Keep in mind the return on sales varies from industry or category to category. What I'm hearing you say is that Wal-Mart's low return tells us they are not especially good managers, that maybe they succeed more because they're just so big? That maybe what we're finding out is that their business model is in the long run self-defeating and they can survive and profit only by continuously opening more and more new stores, and THAT's their true business plan?


Ok. Think about it i (Steve Nelson - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)
Ok. Think about it in terms of dollars. They have 1.6 million employees, $10 billion profit, $8.23/hr average salary. How much could everyone get for a raise with $10 billion profit?

$3/hr.

That would leave Wal-Mart with basically $0 profit at the end of the year. $3/hr is not a huge jump.

Anyway, the movie sounds intriguing. I loved Outfoxed.



....but i agree. The (Steve Nelson - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)
....but i agree. Their tactics are awful.


A couple of telling (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)
A couple of telling items were left out of the post. One included a direct quote from a former Wal-Mart Manager, about how the conspicuous consumption of the Walton family and Wal-Mart executives is creating a revolutionary situation (this while the cameras scanned the ostentatious palaces of the top dogs), followed by a photo of the actual bunker constructed as a refuge for these top dogs... the only conclusion is that the executives believe in the Apocalypse (or at least in the inevitability of a revolution) and intend to be Saved. It's called prior planning, and must be a codicil to their Genghis Khan business plan.


Good points all. (Ben - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)


When the supreme cou (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)
When the supreme court upheld the national minimum wage back in the 30s, it held that the absence of a minimum wage created an unfair burden on society placed there by unjust corporate interests.

I'll need to find the decision, and quote it directly, but I think the concept of "unfair burden on society" must be expanded.



Maybe the profit per (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:31 PM)
Maybe the profit percentage-wise is not enormous ,but in absolute dollars it is certainly is. Besides, don't forget they show that profit after the paying of corporate salaries which are also incredibly generous. And then, too, given the business philosophy at work here, one can't help but wonder about how much the books are cooked, shall we say less than full disclosure (show enough profit or bottom line to appease Wall Street, but conceal the greed of the Walton family itself).  It is tempting to remember how "current acceptable accounting procedures" can jigger the books to show anything that management desires. Go see the movie. It will give bits and snippets of actual quotes from Wal-Mart field manuals and management directives that will curl your hair even if you have none.


TO: RK RE: Baker v. (Chuck Pelto - 4/4/2006 11:29:37 PM)
TO: RK
RE: Baker v. Carr ('62)

This was one of the most devastating decisions to the nation by the Supreme Court.

It, in essence, overthrew the constitution of every state in the Union, with the exception of Nebraska, turning the state senate into nothing more than a glorified house of representatives and destroying the balance of power between the metropolitan and rural areas of each state.

It's total impact was not begun to be understood until recently.

In Colorado, we are watching as all monies and even all the water are being drawn away from the rural areas and sucked into the Denver area.

If it was good for the state legislatures that the state senators be elected based on population, why don't we just go ahead and do it for the US Senate as well?

You live in Virginia. Want to turn over all legislative power to New York and California? I kind of doubt it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)



Teddy: OK, it now li (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:29:53 PM)
Teddy: OK, it now links directly to the article.


Former Presidential (Josh - 4/4/2006 11:29:53 PM)
Former Presidential Adviser David Gergen on "The Countdown with Keith Olberman":

OLBERMANN:  Yes, but those are?but are?those don?t qualify as accidents.  Those qualify as sloppy mistakes, do they not?

GERGEN:  Absolutely.  And you know, they just blew that one.  And just as you know, that woman, Miss Schmidt, Congresswoman Schmidt did, in going after Jack Murtha on the floor of the House, and Mean Jean Schmidt.  It was just a?it was?she blew that, and she may lose her seat over it.

So, you know, it?I think every?we?ve got?we?ve created a toxic atmosphere in Washington now in this debate over Iraq.  We do need a ceasefire, as Bill Clinton started arguing today.

The president is facing?it?s not just who?s winning the war on points, but in this particular instance, it?s very different from when they argue about taxes or other issues.  Because on this one, you know, we have men on the ground out there.  This is not just about politics.  And the sand is running out of the hourglass here on Iraq now.

I think it?s really important that we are moving into a new phase or have turned a corner now.  So we?re in a countdown, literally, in Iraq.  I don?t know how long it?s going to last.  But I think the president has about six to 12 months now.  Whatever the debate happens, he?s got about six to 12 months to find an exit out of Iraq, or public opinion is going to start moving through the polls, and everybody?s going to start running.

If Bush fails to read the American sentiment and fails to change his policy in Iraq, the Republican party in America will not recover for Decades.  But this isn't about party, this is about a failed policy, by a failed executive, supported by a failed conservative ideology, and the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen are the price we pay every day for those failures.

Transcript at MSNBC [here].



Teddy, I enjoy your (Ben - 4/4/2006 11:29:53 PM)
Teddy, I enjoy your writing style a lot.


Matt: As far as I c (Lowell - 4/4/2006 11:29:53 PM)
Matt:  As far as I can tell, most Dems are in the middle camp.  Certainly, Joe Biden and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are...

Here's Mark Warner on Iraq, from Face the Nation (11/13/05):

I think the Democratic Party ought to get over refighting how we got into the war and, again, continue to press the president on what he hopes to do in terms of how we will finish the job.

I think there are three or four things we need to focus on. One, how do we keep the Sunnis involved in the government? How do we make sure that they don't feel excluded? Two, how do we make sure that as we go through the reconstruction of Iraq, that we don't continue to spend 30 cents on every dollar for security for folks like Halliburton and how do we get more Iraqis involved in the reconstruction? Three, how do we end up making sure that we truly keep that coalition involved? Because this is an international issue, not just an American issue. And four, I think we--one of the issues that will come out of Iraq--and I don't believe we have to set a arbitrary time line because--not only in terms of Iraq but Afghanistan and Iran, but we've got to make sure we look at this whole question of forced structure. Our military is so good at kicking out the command and control of the bad guys, but as we see in Iraq or in Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, what do we do afterwards in terms of restoring civil authority?



Matt, glad you don't (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:53 PM)
Matt, glad you don't accept Cheney's phony either/or choice of cut and run vs. stay the course, as if there were no other choices. At least now we're talking about the real situation, something the Bushies desperately tried to prevent and now cannot, thanks to Murtha. Although we're now engaged, finally, in an Iraq debate let's not forget why we're doing so this late in the game, and how we actually got into this situation (sorry Mark Warner, I agree with you here in one way but not in another).  After all, the Bush rascals lied and lied more than once in the beginning, why should we trust them now, for heaven's sake? They're lying again.


To Ben,Thank you for (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:53 PM)
To Ben,Thank you for your comment. I work on it, sometimes better than other times.


You have to hit webl (Teddy - 4/4/2006 11:29:53 PM)
You have to hit weblog on the front page of Veterans for Common Sense to get to the post.

And the post is a very thoughtful one. Some people have been saying that the neocons, of which Cheney is one, seem to live in an alternate reality and believe in it so strongly that they have convinced others it is the real reality. But this article serves to remind us there is nothing of a fairy tale in their dark view. Our minds flinch from the horror, and go into denial.