The New, "New GOP"

You have to hand it to the House GOP, they have ideas. The House Republican Study Committee is thrashing around looking for ways to undo the damage they've done to their Party and calling their stuff new. The NYT details some of their thinking and the causes.

“Clearly, we have been sobered by three special election losses in a row,” said Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the group of more than 100 Republican lawmakers. “We are sobered by the massive cash advantage that Democrats have to get their message out.”

It is obvious to many that the Republicans face serious problems in this election and potentially elections past that. Their reactions tell a lot about just how much they do not get it. Here are what they propose as solutions:

present a seven-point proposal calling for a constitutional limit on federal spending, a new simplified income tax alternative and a proposal to require recipients of food stamps or housing aid to meet work requirements.

If you're still standing and have recovered from your laughter, let's actually take a look at this.

A Constitutional limit on Federal spending sets the bar for enactment pretty high. The Republicans need to persuade the Congress to send this out to the fifty states for ratification and persuade the people of those states it is required. This would seem by any measure an odd group to sell themselves as responsible parties to present this. It would seem that this is the bunch who passed tax reductions and are the biggest boosters of the budget busting Iraq War. What I wonder is what level of stupidity on the part of voters it would take to buy into the GOP as the savior on this issue and why the GOP assumes the voters are that stupid? I read this and my brain screamed to a halt trying to figure out what alternate reality I'd stumbled into. It seems a tough sale to paint the Democrats as reckless spenders at this point.

A simplified federal income tax system from the Republicans conjures up pictures of the plutocrats managing to pay less taxes and shift more load onto the rest of America. A simplified tax system would mean that their core constituency would either pay more taxes or be seen obviously to be the beneficiaries. One of the virtues of the current complex system for Republicans is that it is good for hiding tax breaks. Loopholes are there to favor pieces of the country's citizens without drawing general attention. Most Americans have a general sort of awareness that they get screwed in the tax game and general system but that isn't quantified by actual knowledge. A tax system that does not require volumes of books would make very clear the tilt of the economic system - either the Republicans are lying or they're suddenly suicidal.

As the economy wobbles on the edge of a recession with the poorest job growth in decades and negative wage growth throughout the Republican administration the Republicans propose to place work requirements on poverty aid. These are the people who have reinvented the concept of welfare for wealth and the socialization of capitalist risks. They will stand there in front of the public and bring to the fore once again the image of Cadillac driving welfare queens. As the architects of policies that have increased poverty in the United States they actually believe they can get votes by kicking the poor around some more? They would like you to believe that food stamps and housing assistance are the big budget problems of this nation.

This is today's GOP, the Party of big ideas.

The conservative proposal seeks tax credits for buying health insurance, more domestic energy production and a streamlined terrorist surveillance program. The draft also said that House Republicans should extend existing welfare work requirements to food stamps and housing assistance “so that those who are not old, young or disabled are either working in the private sector or serving in their community.”
“We have to get back to our core identity,” Mr. Hensarling said, adding that “there is work to be done.”

The work that needs to be done is the removal of these cretins from any proximity to the levers of power.

Not This Woman Isn't Not A Woman For President

There seems to be a generational split amongst white women regarding Hillary Clinton, boomers seem more likely to be her staunch supporters and to be offended by Obama. Never having been female and working mostly very physical jobs I have little experience with their lot, despite a common age. I have never been denied promotion or consideration due to my gender, I have been dismissed by people not of my acquaintance as lacking in intellect based on my type of work. Not quite the same thing. I happen to not like Hillary R Clinton.

The things I dislike about Sen Clinton have not one thing to do with her gender. I would not like a man who had demonstrated the same character and judgement. Now I do not propose to you that men and women are the same, there are vanishingly few women who could manage the physical demands of my work, a simple matter of muscularity which is one thing, but it goes deeper. There are species specific evolutionary forces at work, a huge one being the neoteny of our offspring and the long and debilitating gestation period. Species survival demanded coping mechanisms for this and placed large demands on the female and to a great extent determined familial work divisions through much of our time. There are cultural imperatives and then there are genetic dispositions and confusing them creates confusion. Female submission is a cultural force but a different framing of world view is easily affected by genetic dispositions. Differences do not equate to inequality, they enrich us when they are not denied and expecting men and women to behave the same or to hold the same view point denies us access to wider understandings.

Many find the failures of the Clinton campaign to be the result of gender politics. I do not, and I do not wish to demean women by asserting that gender had one thing to do with it. Hillary's femaleness did not cause her to fail and by my best measures had virtually no net effect on her vote share. The failures lay with the person. There is exactly one boss in a campaign, the candidate, and whatever failures her managers and advisers may have had their boss, at least, let it happen if not willingly and actively participated. If any vote preference was determined by gender it appears on the balance to have fallen in Hillary's favor. If some in the media didn't like her dress, her voice, or her cleavage these were matters of taste, about as relevant as lapel flag pins and probably of less result in votes. The measure here is not perception of slights but voting results and no candidate gets away scott free with media in regard to stupid insights.

Few Primary candidates have started where Hillary started. Her advantages were huge in name recognition, media attention, and money at hand and fund raising organization. What she also had that was remarkable was large unfavorable perception numbers. Very seldom has a candidate so much as entered a race with such high negatives much less been competitive. Certainly a good sized portion of those negatives were created by the Republican smear machine of the 90s, but a goodly portion were also earned. Beneath the smear was reality and that reality wasn't pretty and the candidate reinforced those perceptions with her Senate career and then brought them into focus in the campaign itself. Vehement Hillary supporters don't like this kind of talk, but the candidate is responsible for it and has paid for it. There is undismissable reality underlying her increasing negatives over the campaign and these were not of someone else manufacture. They consisted of her own words and official statements of the campaign.

This is not the stuff of Ferraro statements or "iron my shirt," or any number of stupidities committed by others. Geraldine Ferraro is an idjit, of the sort who will call Obama incredibly sexist and doubt her ability to vote for him in the General Election. Obama and the Obama campaign have done nothing of the sort beyond beat her. In an election someone will not win, being beaten only means that. It does not signify more. Michigan and Florida are held up as some kind of example of unfair play where Hillary is concerned, the problem with that analysis is that the status of those states was known and acknowledged by all parties before campaigning actually started and agreed to by all parties. To treat those states differently because Hillary had one outcome or another in them due to her gender would be blatantly unfair to any candidate and true sexism in operation. Part of being treated equally is having to follow the same rules as everyone else.

I can understand disappointment with the loss of a candidate one supported, I can even understand the frustration and anger of, "why can't they see?" but I cannot understand the revulsion for the winner that is evidenced by so many. In general terms the candidates' policies are very similar and certainly more closely allied than either with John McCain. The idea of punishing the Democratic Party and its voters by voting for McCain or staying home spites the very things either candidate stands for. Whatever kind of President either candidate would make, this nation cannot afford four more years of BushCo policies and politics and neither is that. There does exist within one campaign's supporter's forums Republican operatives sowing hate and discontent, their names are Villareal. However this Primary shakes out the most important aspect of it now is winning the General Election, neither candidate is poison to Democratic voters' interests. If you think they are, you have been played for a fool by those without your interests at heart.

Barack Obama In Pendleton, Oregon

If you're going to go see Barack I suppose you ought to show your colors, my wife's SSR.
Opening speaker Barbara, whose last name I missed.
From twelve feet away you can get a pretty good impression of body language and expression.
I have now spent better than an hour and a half with in speaking range of the man likely to be the next President of the US. That proximity of course does not count as acquaintance but there is a wealth of information available the is not from a television screen or across an auditorium. I was invited to sit in the VIP section, I gather, due to my Democratic Party of Oregon roles. As with Pres. Clinton I wore no campaign gear, only my Grassroots Democrat pin and my DPO Gun Owners Caucus hat. Oh hell, I clapped a lot and cheered and made no pretence he isn't my candidate. Senator Obama arrived on stage shortly after 6:30 PM Pacific in Pendleton, Oregon.



Pendleton is famous for a couple things, the Pendleton Roundup if you're a rodeo fan or Pendleton Wool. The town's population is right around 14K and it sits in the northeast corner of the state, slightly south of the Columbia River on the Umatilla River and somewhat west of the Idaho border at the foot of the Umatilla Mountains, a part of the Blue Mountain Range. Not far from town is the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Wildhorse Casino and a forward looking tribal council have brought a measure of success there. Pendleton's climate is fairly mild, more strongly influenced by the Columbia River Gorge than the mountains. Blue Mountain Community College has its home there but the town is more a blue collar town than a college town. The crowd, I estimate at over 2,000 (***per AP-over 3500***), was over 90% white with Native Americans the largest minority group, ages ran the gamut, but the majority over 30 years age. The crowd was enthusiastic, in the mood for lots of clapping and cheering and standing ovations.



The opening speaker pictured above is a local waitress, a minimum wage earner who did a nice job with something outside her ordinary experience. She emphasized the struggle working people face and her belief Obama is the person to deal with it. She recently lost a grown son to an aneurysm shortly after he'd finished a letter to Sen. Obama, a large reason giving the opening was so meaningful to her. As you can see in the picture the Senator gave Barb his sole attention.



The Senator spoke for less than an hour and then took questions from the audience. The speech was one he has given before, I had watched part of the Portland Waterfront speech on CNN and recognized lines, but it was tailored to the part of the country he was in. Any references to Senator Clinton and her campaign were moderate and for the most part conciliatory, though contrasts were drawn, particularly in regard to future foreign policy - though even there the emphasis was on John McCain.



This speech consisted of 3 pieces, who Barack is and why he is running, why John McCain must not be allowed to persist in George II's policies, and what Barack Obama intends to do. He entwined the three pieces in both his speech and his answers to questions. Much of the speech was his stump speech, he is running now rather than later because of what MLK called the 'urgency of now," the idea that the country is at a historical crossroad. The economic failures of BushCo cannot be perpetuated on the workers by John McCain and the war in Iraq must be ended and Afghanistan prosecuted in a manner leading to success.

I won't replay a speech that most have heard most elements of, the questions may have been more original so I'll try to address them in the abbreviated manner available to me. Sen. Obama took about six questions and used nearly 45 minutes answering that many and two were the complimentary gimme sorts of things, ie: are you going to do more to get the "Colbert/Stewart bump" and will you come back after you're President. (yes and I'd like to) Other questions received detailed answers, much too extensive for me to cover here, I was seriously impressed by both the quality of the questions and particularly the detail and extent of the answers. There may have been a sound bite available in the answers, but the detail and range of the answers defies a simple blog post much less the MSM approach.

A question of what will you do about Cuba? The transfer of power from Fidel to his brother may offer new openings, but the simple fact is that our policy of 45 years has not resulted in a freer or more prosperous citizenry and persisting in the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of madness. The US could make opening moves by easing the travel restrictions on families from the US and on remittances but from there it would depend on Castro. This answer also broadened into the concept of talking to our adversaries to find elements of common ground to ease tensions.

A question about the recent Farm Bill and subsidies creating an atmosphere of dependence from a beef rancher. You have to be ready for a ride with this one, Barack voted (***supported-I misunderstood the thrust of the words***) for the bill but doesn't like some aspects of it but regards it as an improvement over previous ones. He disapproves of the benefits accorded agribusinesses, subsidizing the Fortune 400. He would like to see the emphasis more on catastrophic protection, natural or the bottom falling out of a market and the encouragement of a more varied food production. He believes that the epidemic of childhood obesity is linked to the Farm Bill, through food offered in schools and the food stuffs subsidized which links into health care costs and educational success. Yes, the Farm Bill gets you to health care and education and you've got enough information to do the connection work without me spending six paragraphs on it. Like I said, these were not simple sound bite answers.

A question about what he would do about the Hanford cleanup. His answer, you won't hear this from a politician very often, but I don't know the issue; and I will by the time my plane lands in Montana tonight. My estimation is that he meant that and wasn't pleased he didn't know it.

Regarding your stance on alternative energy, what about nuclear? He said some answers don't please everybody and this one may please no one. He wants to invest money to study it, in particular the waste disposal, but "some times you have to pick your poison" because nuclear energy doesn't create carbon waste. You have to know what your options involve, realistically. The same regarding coal, "we are the Saudi Arabia of coal," but it is one of our dirtiest fuels. Research is needed on cleaning it up, a role for the federal government.

I have stated repeatedly that as a political junkie of many years standing I am not given to fandom regarding politicians. I recognize that these people have thrived in a flawed system, some have thrived sufficiently to be realistic candidates for President, but I came away impressed. I was not impressed by rhetorical flourishes, I was impressed by the depth of thought and the range of it. I was impressed by the ability to naturally interconnect seemingly disparate items into a coherent chain of thought. I am pleased by the impetus to change the way business is done in DC, to drag health care negotiations with Congress onto CSPAN where you can see what we're doing and who won't and why, but the hope of unity is trumped by how he thinks.

I am satisfied that my vote for Obama was well placed and tonight I am happier with it than previously. Thank you Senator for coming to Eastern Oregon, I hope our hospitality made the trip worthwhile. I'm tired, it has been a long day, 100 miles each way, home after midnight, and now this post - goodnight - or good morning...

McCain's "Rebranded" GOP

The GOP unveiled its new slogan, "The Change You Deserve" and ran right straight into the drug company Wyeth's product Effexor which uses the same slogan. Effexor is an antidepressant and carries this warning:

Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs

Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, teens, and young adults. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior.

Seems appropriate to me to monitor the GOP since I'm not sure I want anymore of what they seem to think I deserve. Let me see which pieces I'm sure I deserved:

Unending Middle Eastern War, war profiteering on massive scale, torture, detention without Habeas Corpus, blown away 4th Amendment, gas through the roof, economy through the floor, falling wages, brain dead women legislated in Congress, disaster non-response for poor people - particularly poor black people, lobbyist written laws and rules, politicization of the entire Executive Branch, massive disenfranchisement of legitimate voters, Congress filibustered to a standstill, socialization of all plutocratic losses, for profit government services - I'm running out of tolerance here, maybe I'd better stop before I need that drug.

But the GOP is already drawing together to pull this off under the McCain banner. That's the ticket, they'll get shed of the crap that is sinking the GOP by going McCain - you know, Mr Hundred Years War (he didn't say that? yes he did, we'll keep fighting until we're not dying and then stay, I'd expect 100yrs of dying under his management) who was against tax breaks for the rich before he was for them since they've worked so well. But really, here is the McCain change:

Two aides who lobbied for the Myanmar military junta or how about a finance co-chair like Tom Loeffler former GOP TX congressman who took millions from the Saudis and others with military contract business as a lobbyist still active and even paying Susan Nelson, an employee, while she was a McCain finance director? McCain energy advisor Eric Burgeson was just let go, it seems his relationships with lobbying and plutocrats finally managed to offend even McCain's grubby little mind - or more likely the potential media fallout offended. What you have to get is that even scratching the surface of McCainism reveals the plutocracy in action.

***Update*** apparently Loeffler has now gone bye-bye. What? Did McCain just figure out who these people are? How'd all these nasty lobbiest people sneak in there? Bad as rats, one little hole and the place is infested....Keeeeripes, people will buy how ethical McSame is now...

The picture gets worse as you see the Grover Norquists of tax no rich man fame and drown government agenda teaming up with Limbaugh to castigate McCain. Tancredo is furious about illegal immigration and McCain throwing up roadblocks. Where does this leave Sen McSame? He cannot afford to have the conservative wing going away in search of his mythical "Change" GOP. McCain's biggest problem is that the GOP has taught the George II 28%ers that all the stuff he's talking about is evil Democratic communistic garbage. When John McCain says, "global warming" their fingers go in their ears and their tongues come out and yet he turns around and tells a public that disapproves by 80% that tax breaks for the ultra-rich are a good idea - in the face of a record setting deficit and a tanking economy. The truly unfortunate aspect is the news media showing the plutocrats walking away from the credit meltdown with profit and glee as the government subsidizes their losses and leaves Joe Schmoe losing his house.

The GOP wants to re-brand itself, they actually expect to have some kind of results from a new slogan, as though getting what they wanted and running the show or stopping the show for seven years isn't some kind of evidence that what they do is massively stupid for most of America. A slogan undoes the work of seven years of Presidency and more as a Congressional majority? After all these years post-Hoover they finally got to put their junk into action again and now that it has worked out the way it has we're suppose to believe - what? That a 72 year old shot down fighter jock can wave a magic wand at their stuff and it will change into gold? It isn't that one or two pieces of their ideology (cough) failed, the whole concept is bankrupt. It isn't even a coherent body of thought beyond the idea that the rich and the connected deserve all the pie, it is a hodgepodge of junk that serves the interests of almost no one and the results show that. Other than rich is goodness there is no consistent informing thought, personal responsibility my butt, only if you're poor. Individual freedom from government interference, only if you don't count the legal system. Nothing is there. They cherry pick the Bill of Rights much worse than the Democrats have ever thought of, they even go into the body of the Constitution and strip out Habeas Corpus - only respected since 1215AD. They junk every good idea the Clinton administration had and ran with all the bad ones and then blame Clinton. A Party of Values? There is not a single American value beyond greed that these people have not offended. Morality? Where and when? They threw the idea of ethics off a cliff and waved a Bible in your face as they violated every tenet ever espoused by Jesus Christ - every one. Read his direct quotes and show me where they've followed one, just one. There is no Republican ideology beyond the words, "greed and fear," and I defy the most informed Republican to show me where there has been consistency beyond those words. I have friends I think the world of with (R) after their name and what they believe and what the Republican Party is could not be more different or I would loath them rather than be their friend. That Party needs to be broken on the wheel of the public good and gutted out so that something at least half way responsible can take its place. I'm an advocate of opposition parties, they are necessary, but they also have to stand for something.

I understand that here at "Chuck for" I'm preaching to the choir, if the right wing noise machine's adherents were coming around here the "Comments" section would be filled with rude screeds involving words like socialist, communist, and various profane references. Some of you profess to be "Independents" and that's how that is, though what you come down with is absolute disgust with BushCo and anger that the Democrats do too little. Well then, here is your chance, 2008, get behind the person most likely to do something, as President, Senator, Congressman, hell - City Councilman. This is what Primaries are for and it's winding down fast - now. If you're too late, since there are only a couple states left, there is an election again in 2 years, that's exactly right, Senate and House seats will be up again in 2 years. No, you won't have the drama of Clinton, Obama, & McCain to drive your interest, but you cannot drive change unless you start pushing where it begins - having a candidate and then having a nominee. If you don't like the same old politics; run, recruit somebody, work for them, canvass, register voters, re-register voters, write, speak out, DO NOT GIVE UP - NOT EVER!

Useful Propaganda - Baker Co Democrats, DPO

***click pic for full size***L/R Chuck, Roxanna, Mike ,Randy, Craig, Marilyn, Linda, Marie, Ed

There are a lot of ways to propagandize, George II recently showed one way at the Knesset, the kind of thing that gives the word a bad name. Then there is this way of doing it, the Baker Co Democrats of Democratic Party of Oregon would like our name associated with positive images in the public's mind; so we adopted a section of OR Hwy 86 from I84 to the base of the hill leading to the BLM Oregon Trail Interpretive Center as well as Hell's Canyon. This is a well traveled section of road leading to several of our county's more notable landmarks.

The well travelled part means that it also gets a fair share of trash deposited along side the road, so for the propaganda value of a sign stating that Baker Co Democrats have adopted the road ODOT (Oregon Dept of Transportation) gets to have volunteers clean it up a couple times per year. This is a win for each organization, ODOT doesn't have to spend money and resources cleaning that section of road and it is cleaned and BCD is publicly acknowledged as doing something in the community interest - that doesn't involve a candidate.

For organizations interested in doing this, the procedure is pretty simple, ODOT has a list of road sections, you select the one you'd like to do, and commit to doing it a couple times per year. There will be a mandatory safety orientation meeting and participants need to sign a waiver that they know what they're doing (over 16 years) and ODOT will provide signage, bags, vests, and grapplers (pick up stuff tools) and pick up the filled bags along the road. Nothing really to it other than a few hours a few times a year of picking up trash. Yes, there can be stuff you shouldn't touch, like meth lab debris and other nasties, mostly it is just the kinds of things that either blow off vehicles or are tossed by unthinking individuals. For this, ODOT will place highway signage stating "Adopted by *****."

Travelers, please note that we all live in a beautiful country, you can do your part to keep it that way, where ever you are headed there is a place to put that trash that doesn't involve spoiling the countryside. BCD appreciates the propaganda value of the sign, but we'd more enjoy it being unnecessary. BCD thanks ODOT and everyone else that participates in this worthwhile endeavor.

Bush, Knesset, Ignorance, Stupidity

LA radio host Rick James gets taken down for stupid ignorance by Chris Matthews much to John Cole's amusement over at Balloon Juice and his many Commenters. I engaged in the same amusement as James wailed, "Appeasement!" over and over without knowing what Neville Chamberlain actually did to earn the appellation appeaser. Talking to Hitler wasn't Chamberlain's sin, giving him "Sudetenland" Czechoslovakia isn't quite the same thing as talking. All this amusement was in regard to the televised statements George II made to the Knesset on the 60th anniversery of Ireal's founding.

George once again set up his strawmen,

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the
Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator
declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

I don't know who it is that is notable that has proposed negotiating with terrorists, unless maybe he's referring to Jimmy Carter talking to Hammas in the West Bank. Since Carter has no authority beyond his standing as an ex-President that couldn't be called negotiating and Obama has already stated repeatedly that terrorists are excuded.

Now what I found really offensive was George II deciding to use a foreign government as a political sounding board for Presidential campaigning. What I found rather astonishing was the standing ovation given after this piece of garbage was uttered. I would have expected that group of people to have a passing acquaintance with World War II history.

Now America is one of the most conservative of the industrialized democracies and when its conservatives get involved in history, it tends to be for the sake of convenience rather than facts. They continuously get caught out at it and just keep on at it. I don't suppose that anyone would like to argue that Israel is more liberal than the US? Well, the Knesset sure seemed to love this piece of inaccuracy and strawman argument. That sure increases my appreciation of Israel's special standing with the US. It is nice to know that they won't leave us holding the bag as the only people led by ignorance and stupidity.

Does anyone honestly believe that the mess in Israel and Palestine is the entire fault of one side? I have found that killing, terrorism, oppression, and general violence seems to take two to play when it involves nations. I propose that in that part of the world there is plenty of stupidity and intolerance to go around, and here's our President egging it on. Damn, does the idiocy have no end? Where is January 20, 2009 and what's holding it up?

2025 or 2210 ?

The latest "metric" (I'm starting to hate certain words and phrases) of the Hillary campaign is that the delegate total to reach nomination is 2210, despite their repeated uses of 2025 following the disallowed FL/MI primaries. They get there by using those state's fully allotted delegate slates. Since the first clause of DNC rules regarding inadvertent violation stipulate a 50% delegate penalty that would seem outright flaunting of the rules, the 100% penalty is for an egregious violation, which both states did. I am no fan of punishing voters, but I am also no fan of changing rules in midstream after all candidates agreed; there is simply no measure of any accuracy to be obtained from the results. The candidates all agreed to the penalties because to do otherwise would be unfair to candidates following the rules and punishing them for following the rules. There were no Democratic Presidential Primaries held in either state. Period.

Not seating FL/MI is not politically smart, but neither is seating them in an unfair fashion. Hillary would have it her way and no other way, despite having no ethical leg to stand on. This is exactly the kind of behavior that will cement the resentment of the citizens of those states towards the Democratic Party. Whatever other political manuevers Hillary has taken that offend some in the Party, this one is the most offensive and divisive.

The political problem with this stand of 2210 is that it is mathematically stupid, it raises the bar for Hillary even higher than it was at 2025, the delegates gained in the two states don't get her to 2025 much less a higher number. Add into the inability to do simple addition the irritation level raised within the DNC and you have (sorry here comes multiplication) stupidity squared. No organization as complex as the DNC can function without rules. The idea that something that encompasses 50 states and territories, varied races, varied genders, varied economic interests, varied etc ad nauseum groups like the DNC can function without adherence to rules of conduct is beyond ludicrous. You might as well turn 650 three year olds loose alone in a house and expect it to be spic and span when you return - and the dishes done and dinner cooked.

Democrats are a fractious group to begin with and leaving them without a rudder is an invitation to disaster. Despite the linked agendas someone or someones will try for an edge in their particular piece of the agenda. The gloves come off and at the end the most powerful win and the losers are quite angry. This is already playing out in the Primaries, there are a lot of hurt feelings and potentially hurt feelings. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will decide how to deal with this, but Hillary has already pushed it past the point where any decision will not leave anger in its wake. If I didn't fear the results of more Republican rule, I'd be satisfied to watch this go to the Convention Floor as a brawl and blow the Party apart for awhile - as long as it resulted in the complete extinction of the Clinton brand. On this basis alone.

A New Pal For 'Chuck for..." And Flintlocks For You

Jerry Huddleston and I are are fairly new friends. He is one of those remarkable creatures, a reasonable Republican. No, I mean that seriously (ok kidding him a little) and as a compliment You have to understand that my lefty Democratic enthusiams mean trying to convert anyone willing to stand still long enough to hear it. I doubt that I've turned Jerry into a Democrat, but he and I listened to each other and found a lot of common ground.



I'm displaying on this page some of that common ground, firearms, and in this case they happen to be outside my shooting interests and well outside my budget.
Jerry is retired and living right here in Baker City, well he's retired in the sense of formal go to work for somebody, he's working for himself building these beautiful flintlocks as gun maker and engraver. I don't care if guns scare you spitless, if you cannot appreciate the stunning workmanship and artistry I'm showing you, you are dead from the neck up and whatever taste you have is in your mouth.

I'm not about to set values on his pieces, if you think you can afford such a thing and can wait up to a year for it I suggest you contact him.

I'm glad I got the opportunity to get acquainted with Jerry, he is a smart guy, he pays attention to the world around him, and he thinks about it - and agrees to disagree when that's how it is. He also is a craftsman and an artist, two things I really respect as ways to spend time.

***Click on the pictures to enlarge***

(D) versus McCain and (R)

An article by Jim VandeHei and David Kuhn about the "Toxic GOP" got me thinking about some of the dangers of 'counting chickens.' Both Democratic Primary contenders have some weaknesses against the Republican noise machine despite the historic lows that BushCo has engendered.

Both candidates absolutely suck for gun owners. Does that seem harsh? It isn't. The most responsible remark regarding this Bill of Rights Civil Liberty was made by Obama who stated that it seemed the 2nd Amendment must be read as an individual right, the problem is that he then moved on to compare it to zoning. Does there exist a Democrat who'd lay such an idea on the 1st Amendment? This train wreck happened for Democrats quite awhile ago and it seems the best efforts to dissuade them have minimal effects. There is a core vote that will absolutely not let this slide. I happen to be willing to elect one of them and have this one out in court. What people seem unable to grasp is that a firearm is a concrete example of a serious right to people who do not have that example in their life otherwise. They can look at or pick up an actual example that the government is not their boss. These two candidates will have that to overcome and the Republicans will use it.

Both Democratic candidates have an oppo research background that isn't going to be easy to shake. Obama has Rev Wright, a politically unfortunate middle name, Rezko, and at least one "bitter" statement. I won't even bother to retail the Hillary problems other than to note that they span from the present to her college days. The fair aspect of Republicans addressing this stuff is meaningless, they will. They will follow oppo research where ever it might let them and twist anything that can be twisted. I understand that McCain is absolutely rife with stinky oppo, that is beside the point, most oppo is designed to validate a direction already comfortable or to defuse negatives about the candidate.

Let me use an egregious example, nobody really inclined to vote for Obama believes he is a Muslim, that attack is used to validate a direction of thought already in play and solidify it. It has the added virtue of protecting a candidate from the smelliness of his own past or present. The Keating 5 looks pretty bad for John McCain - but at least he's not a Muslim. If this kind of calculation offends you, find a nice pretty alternative reality to live in.

There are large swathes of Republicans who are disaffected with BushCo, only around 60% of them approve of it. This is good, right up until you run the oppo at them, I don't care if it is Obama with the pretty public stuff or Hillary with the more buried stuff, this is a reason to stay with the (R) candidate you would ordinarily have loyalty to. I have no belief that there is great hope of pulling large numbers of Republicans.

The chunk that is least subject to this stuff is the Independent or more correctly Non-affiliated Voter. These people are by nature of their registration suspicious of political parties, their slogans, and oppo. Non-affiliated voters run the gamut from those too left for the Democratic Party to those too right for the Republican, they are nothing like a monolithic group other than their disdain for Party politics. This leaves most available for the Democrats the left through middle in this election. There will be a piece of right of center NA and liberal Republicans that become a toss-up.

The absolutely gut wrenching pieces of this campaign will occur outside the candidates' campaigns. The candidates' gloves will probably come off, but that part will revolve around policy; I expect that to get pretty darn rough. The independent campaigns, 527s and others, will work the oppo. Both parties have research groups that are professional at this and they'll make sure their information is available in one fashion or another. Despite John McSame's blather, he will run as far into the dirt as he can without getting it all over his face and then leave the real mudslinging to his surrogate campaigns all the while disavowing it. John is no jolly old grand-dad, he's a rough tough mean ole SOB in politics and everybody who has battled with him will attest to it, and he does take it personally. The Democrats have shown differing methods of dealing with this stuff, but what they've shown has been in a Democratic Primary and that isn't what we're talking about.

I have confidence in both Democrats to take the fight to John McSame and the GOP and deal with the negatives. They are both able politicians and the Democratic party has available to it some real astute thinkers and strategists. I am warning against over confidence and smugness. The General Election is not a slam dunk run away race, it will require the candidates and their campaigns to be top notch and also a lot of workers in the trenches. If this is done right the Democrat could be able to go into office with a solid majority and good down ticket results.

Bill Clinton Speaks In Baker City

Bill Clinton arrived in Baker City at about noon Sunday May 11, 2008. He looked fit and energetic. Baker County Democrats Chair Marilyn Dudeck, Vice-chair Chuck Butcher, and long time Democratic wheel and enthusiastic Clinton supporter Peggi Timm had a meet and greet with the ex-President before the event. Bill spoke from the steps of the Baker County Courthouse after being introduced by County Commission Chair Fred Warner (D). He was accompanied by a CA Congressman from the LA area, whose name escapes me - sorry, you can't take notes in front of a crowd during a speaking engagement, Bill's right hand is on his arm. Fred is directly in front
of Bill in the top photo.

In the second photo with Bill speaking, Fred is on the left side, Peggi is holding the Hillary sign, I am next, Marilyn Dudeck and her son, with Fred Warner's family sitting below. I am wearing my "I am a Grassroots Democrat" pin and my Gun Owner Caucus/Democratic Party of Oregon ball cap, propagandizing don't you know. Those granite slabs aren't comfortable.

Bill was presented with a large framed picture of Baker City back dropped by the Elkhorn Mts. It is an odd experience to shake hands and say hello to a man who has been the most powerful man in the world and still is a mover and shaker of huge dimensions. I am well acquainted with some powerful people and have spent some time around famous people, but this was still an odd experience. He is a politician of surpassing ability, in person and as a speaker, whatever your politics you have to admire Bill Clinton in that regard.

Obviously he was in Baker City to advance Hillary's campaign and his speech was aimed in that direction, touting her accomplishments and abilities while attacking the BushCo administration. He did do some compare and contrast with Barack Obama, but it was done with a very light hand. I am not sure this quote is verbatim, "of course my family and I will do everything possible to ensure a Democratic victory in the fall," it is surely very close and captures the exact spirit if the wording is slightly inaccurate. A recurring theme in his speech was that places like Baker City (and W VA) "need a President" which was refined a bit at the last to "need a President who cares." I am pretty sure the earlier references were slight slips of the tongue.

Bill made very sure that the BushCo record on deficit, wage gains, job creation, and education was front and foremost, and blasted it on Iraq - with a bit of a defense of Hillary's vote, "that vote was to allow force to ensure the inspectors were let back in." The record isn't going to support that one, Bill. He noted that studies show that the kids in the audience today will mostly live to 100 years and while they may not be impressed with it now, awhile later they'll be really happy about it, providing their later years aren't compromised by Alzheimers or the outcome of early onset diabetes, ailments were do not know the causes of nor cures for - research is of the utmost importance. He asked for a show of hands of those without health insurance, a large number of them went up, he pointed out that no high income nation in the world would have one hand go up, and that they pay 50% of our costs for that. He also stated that no matter what outcome there was in trade agreements, that with our health costs we cannot compete. His opinion was that Hillary's plan is superior to Barack's. Since I don't think either is worth spit I'm not going to debate it.

Measured against the conduct of the campaign until now this was a very measured speech in competitive terms. He makes the case that Hillary is better positioned to win, that W VA and KY will give her the lead in popular vote and that the media has been unfair and that calls for her withdrawal are signs of weakness. These arguments weren't the cornerstone of the speech, they were nearly asides. I am not a Clinton supporter in this Primary and I listened carefully and watched body language as closely as someone behind a speaker can, this was a partisan speech, but it was carefully measured. The audience was enthusiastic to the Democratic message, considerably less so to the partisan pieces. There were numerous Hillary supporters in the crowd, but I'd make no judgements regarding BC voter enthusiasms from that crowd.

There were several factors at work, this stop was scheduled and announced too late to make our Friday newspaper and we have no Saturday edition. It was on some of the Portland news, I imagine it was on the Boise news and someone told me they heard something on the radio here. Portland is 350 miles from here and Boise is 150 miles, so neither is a great local news outlet. All this potentially reduced the crowd size - which I refuse to try to estimate beyond it was hundreds of people. Our ballots have been in our hands since Monday. Whatever Party someone belongs to this was significant happening in Baker City, we're just not on many important people's maps.

I am, frankly, surprised that I was a part of the meet and greet. I haven't been real low key in my lack of admiration for the Clintons as Democrats, I am an adamant 2nd Amendment supporter, and I have on occasion used pretty strong terms to describe powerful figures. There are more important local figures who weren't included, the people on the steps were the extent of it and the Secret Service was out in force and not amenable to additions. I probably was close enough to various aspects to know more than they'd be happy about and recognizing that means I know enough to keep my mouth tightly shut, for the sake of their mission and that in itself is enough reason for them to keep a tight rein on how many available slots there were.

I can only speak to this particular event, but I would say that it was notable in its politeness and conduct in broader terms than just Hillary vs Barack. I won't speculate to motives for that or what it portends; this speech has all sorts of special conditions involved versus the rest of the nation. I apologize that this isn't better journalism from such a close perspective, conditions just weren't conducive to it.

Neutrality

Baker County Democrats, Democratic Party of Oregon, and DNC all take a position of neutrality in a contested Democratic Primary race. I am a Precinct Committee Person and Vice-chair of BCD and I am a State Central Committee Delegate to DPO; in those functions I am neutral. The Clinton campaign asked for the BCD Executive Board to appear on stage with the ex-President. I will (Clinton campaign support call just interupted - I hope we can...) be on that stage in that function.

This is not a case of my Party right or wrong. Bill Clinton was the standard bearer for this Party. His wife is an important Democrat. Whatever political disagreements exist in this Party, we are still head and shoulders above the other one and I will be there to demonstrate that fact, regardless of anything else.

I need to get out of here to be there now.

-isms and the Primary

There has been a lot written about the racism and sexism in the Democratic Primary, talk about who wouldn't vote for whom or votes for whom on the basis of gender and race. The exit polls reveal splits along several lines, race, gender, education, economic class, and age. I'm not going to pretend that there isn't racism, sexism or other divisions within the Democratic Party, there is. I also think the breakdown of these may be misleading.



Racism and sexism as a vote determiner are more difficult to discern than the media pretends. In many cases the tone and content and framing of the spoken word are more connective with people of similar backgrounds and experiences and race and gender, despite near congruence of actual policy content. It is, simply, easier to have sympathy with some who reflects our daily experiences. I have heard males comment that Hillary is shrill and the same words reflected on by a woman as emphatic. Such a difference in interpretation of the sound of words isn't misogyny or feminism it is a lack of shared experience and common taste. There are vocalists I do not like, I find their singing grating, others like them - that is taste. It is scarcely odd that men and women hear each other differently, we are different and we do not spend large amounts of time with lots of others of the opposing sexes. Most people have a fairly narrow range of extensive contact with others, whatever sex. Retail people have lots of contacts with other people, but those contacts are of limited duration, scarcely time within which to develop well reasoned opinions of those contacts; the rest of us are much more limited.



This holds true in other race contacts, perhaps more significantly. Most people live in more diversified communities than I do, this place is one of the most un-diverse places around, but I have lived other places. This lack of contact may have nothing whatever to do with racism, however mild, it is simply a matter of opportunity. Once you consider the small number of extensive contacts one has placing another race into the mix simply statistically reduces the chances a minority is included. Toss in the factual segregation within communities and those contacts are reduced.

All of these considerations carry across the other demographics, consider women of Hillary's age crashing up against the glass ceiling and watching the Republican hate machine crank up in the 90s. There is a perception of a shared experience of life altering consequences. I am a highly educated man working in a blue collar environment, I started doing it to finance college, and it took me awhile to learn how to speak to my fellow workers. I was real fond of $2 words, they expressed more exactly my meaning, they found it "elitist." Shades of connotation and definition are lost on people who don't use the words; a wedge is driven.

Media has two things going on with demographic analysis, one is time and attention span; the other is simply ratings - something with conflict in it to draw interest. We can stop and pay attention and draw reasonable conclusions or get walked into stupidity. Sure, all the 'isms are in play this year, they always are, but how large an effect is important to serious issues. Like the media, I don't have time to make a real detailed analysis of my thinking on this and I don't think it is necessary to do so. I just want to make a point to think about and trust you to take it from there.

"Chuck for" Numbers Upside Down

For the first time in quite awhile "Chuck for" has political numbers that exceed gun articles and archived posts. The margin is impressive, over 70% of Saturday's mid-day numbers are either the main or today's post. There are two reasons for that, one is unexpected big name news, Bill Clinton's visit to our backwater. I love this place, but we're 10K population in town and total 14K in the entire County of 3500 sq mi. so we're a backwater (not to mention 3D:4.6R). The other, and main driving force was a recommendation from Rick Taylor in the "Comments" over at Balloon Juice. The BJ bunch is pretty rowdy, but they're also smart and savvy, a fine addition if they stick around.

Being a lower tier political blog means you compete for attention in a crowded well developed milieu and you won't get it unless somebody else notices you, someone with access. I don't try to piggy back other people's work by flogging this blog on their sites, I think it's rude and pretentious. Anyhow, I'm glad of the attention and I hope this place has lived up to expectations. And so it's been said, "thanks, Rick."

Baker City, Oregon Hosts Bill Clinton

At 12 noon Sunday, May 11 President Bill Clinton will be at the Baker County Courthouse to campaign for Sen. Clinton. As far as I know, this is the first President, ex- or otherwise to visit Baker City. Regardless of one's affection for Hillary or Bill, this is a big deal. Robt Kennedy visited right before he went to California the last time.

In my capacity as Vice-chair of Baker County Democratics, DPO, I will sit in the VIP section. I may have personal preferences in this campaign, but that is not what my presence is about. My DPO and BCD office is neutral in this campaign and I will be there as a representative of Democrats of Baker County and Oregon.

I have no idea how many Baker County residents this will reach. The Press was notified too late for the Friday paper, so the campaign will try to get to the radio. I have made the out-reach I am capable of through emails and this posting.

Hillary's Wolfson And The Course Ahead

Howard Wolfson on MSNBC's Hardball stated that the Clinton campaign would do whatever is allowed in the rules to win the nomination and go as far as that takes. MI, FL, and Puerto Rico should all count in the popular vote metric, despite PR not being able to vote in the General, MI not having Obama's name on the ballot and their agreement from the outset that neither state counted in the Primary. Wolfson is willing to split the delegates by proportion, good for them since Obama has no MI delegates, and even better since nobody campaigned in either state.

Perhaps more interesting was his statement that she's all in for the campaign finances, noting there is a legal limit. That would be one half their joint assets. I'm not unhappy to see the Clintons throw money at this. It is not only their right, it pleases me to watch them do it. It does get a little difficult to play the shots and beer blue collar gal paying millions for a campaign. I'm sure they both picked up lots of blisters and calluses getting those millions. She's in $11.5M now, what's some more?

Here is the thing that bothers me with the Clinton campaign as it has since February, her willingness to say nearly anything to get elected. Since the only real difference between the candidates is foreign policy stance and attitude toward the electorate in campaign, her only moves can be to tear down Obama in the voter's eyes in search of the elusive nomination. Will she take this far enough to give the Republicans campaign material and will she so harden her supporters that they will not support Obama? Her reach is limited in neither regard except by considerations of the November election, which she seems to assume she will be campaigning in. If that mindset holds, there is no limit, damage to Obama is immaterial.

I do not advocate Hillary dropping out before the Primaries are over. She has earned her shot at this and her voters have earned the right to their votes considered. What does not seem to be in Hillary's consideration is that this is a Democratic Primary, it is not a General Election. It is not opposed Parties. It is one Party with a large reach in demographics. Attempting to play the Party off against itself is destructive. The idea that a campaign that closes out as the Clinton campaign has run since March can turn around and credibly support Obama is nearly nonsensical.

As the Clinton fortunes have decreased the rhetoric has gotten more harsh and the Clinton supporters have hardened. The harshness not only plays to Republicans but also creates bad feelings in her supporters. Those voters are not reflected clearly on the Internet and pro-Hillary websites, but there is an aspect of carried over reality. Both sides have looney tunes supporters who would rather throw a monkey wrench into the Democratic works than vote for the opposing candidate in the General, but the Hillary numbers in exit polls are distressing and the vehemence of dislike on the web is atrocious. The Clinton electability argument is picked up and carried to the extent that anyone associated with Obama is a traitor to Democrats. There is a consistent thread of Obama dishonesty and lies regarding Clinton. This is in the face of all the unused negatives Clinton has, all that left laying by Obama - unused. This is a real problem, it is not media fantasy.

There is no similarity between either Democrat and John McCain, absolutely none. To interpret the nomination of either candidate as a validation of McCain is beyond ridiculous, it is self-immolation. Anything Clinton does to encourage or to tolerate this is irresponsible in the extreme. Comments like the one today responding to the AP article with USA Today that emphasize racial and economic splits as a justification for a campaign are the sort of thing that nails supporters down. Regardless of how votes are splitting in race and education and economic status this is not an argument to make. It creates the cement that sets support in a fixed position and validates racism as reasoning, by inference. There are white blue collar Democrats who are uneasy with the idea of a black candidate for President, you do not give that any more impetus than it has on its own anymore than it would be smart for the Obama campaign to encourage misogyny. You do not set up conditions to make groups useless to your opponent in a Party primary, you do that in a General.

Hillary Clinton could choose to go out of this campaign stressing her positives, she could do that and gain more good will than all the votes gotten from the other course. I'll bet she doesn't.