(This is a form of a letter sent to the Washington Post)
The Administration and Democrats need to adjust their message and become more aggressive if they wish to win the argument on the stimulus package to resolve our unemployment crisis.
The stance and tactics of the Republican Party reminds me of their opposition to the Clinton Health Care plan in 1993. Remember all those radio ads mocking the plan? Silly, but they had an effect.They stated that under the Administation's plan, there would be too much government - and money should be placed in the hands of "the people" who would make "better" economic decisions. Tactically, they act as though winning their internal vote count matters more than figuring out the best compromise (not one Republican House member supported the stimulus plan? Give me a break!)
The Democratic response continues to be that the Republicans' ideas are "old" and have "failed". True, but not good enough to sway those in doubt.We need better counter-arguments. For example: The Republicans advocate creating a "payroll tax holiday", which on the surface, sounds appealing. But this may or may not generate employment, since we do not know what people will do with the extra money. They might, for example invest in a company whose stock price goes up when they lay off people. Thy might also buy foreign-made products.
Instead, why not have the government reward companies (and their investors) directly when an American job is actually created? This reward could be tax-exempt!
The Clinton plan went down in smoke because his arguments got blown away by faulty Republican ones. We cannot let this happen again.
President Obama has taken some good first steps by promoting his ideas on the Internet. Two more things need to happen:1. Make a stronger argument against the opposition plan2. Use the media - advertisements - to push his plan.
Thanks for reading
Senator Clinton has joined the chorus demanding a gas tax "holiday", and has produced a commercial promoting this. The response should be a commercial that has a split-screen, one side showing "Half A Tank of Gas" versus "Income Tax Reduced" - you choose.
What do you think?
This might be fun, I stumbled into this about a week ago.
Back in the 1956 Presidential campaign, Adlai Stevenson (Senator from Illinois) proposed a health care plan. I can't put the text in this post since it's a PDF picture, but here's a link.
Which does this sound more like - Obama, Clinton, or McCain?
Enjoy,
Alan
P.S. How did I find this? The article was written the same day as Don Larson's no hitter, Yanks versus Dodgers. It was on the same front page.
The text below is from hillaryclinton.com, under the issue of Health Care:
URL is : http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/
"If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums."
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been stressing the first line in many of their speeches. It is, in my opinion, a very powerful line.
But consider this scenario: A young, very healthy single person (male or female) with no children with a pretty good income has decided, up to now, to not get health insurance. So far, so good - he "likes" what he "has". She's been healthy her whole life. He wants to take personal responsibility for his health care, is willing to pay out of pocket if need be. Will take the amount that would have gone into premiums and save or invest it. So she wants to "keep" this arrangement.
Will this person, under the Clinton Plan, be able to keep what he/she likes?
I'm not going to make any kind of moral (or practical) judgments in this writing about whether we as a people should or should not contribute to a "pool" of money that is used to treat all Americans with health issues. Personally, I don't have a problem with paying towards a pool. My situation is, for the most part, one I might like to keep - I have insurance via my employer where I pay part of the premium with a high deductable (FSA). There are some problems in this arrangement but I don't want to discuss them now.
I only want to point out the possible inaccuracy of the line "If you have a plan you like, you can keep it". Has the above scenario been debated with the Clinton camp?
If yes, what has been their response? Do they somehow try to claim their statement is still accurate?
If not, do you think this should be brought up? How many people do you think would fit this scenario?
In the debates when healthcare was discussed, there was some back-and-forth about "penalties" for those who do not sign up. It's another valid point, but it's a bit different than my issue. My scenario looks at the possibility that someone COULD choose to stay away from insurance and actually succeed at it. What does Senator Clinton say to this person?
Finally, if it was Clinton-McCain in the general election, do you think McCain would use this argument? Would it be effective?
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for reading.
If you have not seen this yet...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873671-154.stm
Momma for Obama knows best
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
By Reg Henry, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
As a matter of full disclosure, I should tell you that my wife, a long-time Republican, has changed her party registration in advance of the Pennsylvania Primary and has appeared in public wearing "Another Momma for Obama" button.
Nothing in my life had prepared me for this. A squadron of pigs could have flown by and I would not have been as surprised. This was the woman who, when I became a citizen 20 years ago, strongly suggested that I might be smart to register as a Republican if I knew what was good for me. Well, I said indignantly, am I a man or a mouse? So I squeaked like any wise fellow and got with the program.
With the Momma newly converted, she pressured me to become a Democrat too, but this time I resisted. I like being one of the few remaining liberals in the Republican Party and I feel that if I hold out I'll be granted endangered species protection and I'll get my own national park and pretty female bird watchers will observe me through binoculars.
So as a person who thinks party affiliations pretty much nonsense, I can say the following to make the Momma happy, because it just happens to be the truth: This alleged controversy over Barack Obama's comments about guns and religion -- the so-called "bitter comment" -- is the biggest load of bull fertilizer ever to fall off the back of the political truck.
First of all, let us examine what Sen. Obama actually said at a San Francisco fund-raiser on April 6. It was so shocking that apparently it took five days before anyone could denounce it.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them ..." he said. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
What is important to remember is that Mr. Obama was speaking sympathetically about these people. And, yes, not that it seems to matter to the nattering classes, there is truth in what he said. When people feel defeated, they do feel bitter and they do cling to the cultural pillars of their lives, religion being one of them, our help in ages past and our hope for years to come.
As for guns in rural Pennsylvania and the Midwest, praising the Lord and passing the ammunition is what goes on. That's a fact, not a judgment.
But if there is one industry still booming in this country, it is the controversy fabrication industry. Various political and media elitists fell over themselves to feed the production line with claims that Barack Obama was an elitist, the same fellow of humble origins who was a community organizer in Chicago, which I doubt he did to feel superior to the poor people he was helping.
Among all the elitists in the anti-Barack brigade, none outperformed Washington Post columnist George F. Will, who wrote:
"Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are 'bitter,' he said they 'cling' to guns, religion and 'antipathy to people who aren't like them' because of 'frustrations.' His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice."
Really? What a mind reader. Still, I defer to superior breeding because here's a guy so snooty that he could go to the Elitist Persons Ball and guests would say, "Who's that elitist over there?" Here's a guy that when he goes to the ballpark, he may eat a hotdog but he probably has his pinkie extended. You can just imagine him denouncing Sen. Obama as an elitist over a good glass of sherry, looking down his superior nose, perhaps through a monocle. The whole thing is beyond satire.
But that is life in these United States, where a politico-media babbleocracy constantly assumes that working people are a bunch of dopes to be cynically manipulated with the scares and packaged controversies of the day -- gay marriage, illegal immigrants, unguarded comments, whatever serves to advance the interests of some sharp politician.
Talking about Hillary Clinton, I ask her supporters: Aren't you so proud that her campaign rushed to take advantage of the controversy with a TV ad that offers the reality of cynicism as an antidote to the audacity of hope? Who is their Momma anyway that they insult the people's intelligence like this?
To Pennsylvania Reps: I didn't see the Peensylvania debate on TV, just heard a few minutes on the radio and read the transcript.I knew from the start it was trouble with Stephanopolous, didn't know what to expect from Gibson.
Last week I tried to contact Cokie Roberts by email to ask her to moderate. Also mentioned names of Margeret Warner and Ted Koppel as better alternatives. She didn't get the email. I found this out when I personally went to see her at Politics and Prose, a bookstore in DC, where she was promoting her new book this past Monday.I went to the back office to chat with her. She gratiously declined my request, stating that she didn't like these debates because the candidates give their stump answers. But I felt that Cokie had the ability to draw out more. I wish I had pressed the issue, but maybe it was too late anyway.
So we were left with examples of Tabloid TV. Forty-plus minutes of wedge questions. I'm so pleased that Senator Obama for the most part stuck to the high road. But what will voters think?
So I'm curious if in your canvassing you plan on asking about the debate. I would be tempted to ask, "If Cokie Roberts and Margaret Warner hosted it, do you think it would have been a lot different?".My hope is that voters see through the "journalist"'s tactics. Tom Shales in the Washington Post has already blasted ABC.
Good luck the rest of the days. Keep up the good work
P.S. Hey, maybe my hopes are reality. I just looked at an ABC Poll:Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off ahead of next week's crucial Pennsylvania primary.Who won the Democratic debate?Sen. Barack Obama28,936
Sen. Hillary Clinton 10,500
It was a tie 3,476
Total Vote: 42,912
For those who prefer a Hebrew blog, you now have one:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/userBlog.asp?FolderName=Obama
I've put this into my blog a second time so that I can include more groups (does anyone know an easler way to do this?)
This link is for an earlier post on my blog, concerning Obama's interview with the Jewish News Service:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alanrockville/gGBcWg
Just one comment. Listen to Barack's inteview where he mentions his invitation to the Seder, feels it is important to retell stories, relate them to the present, to perform Tikkun Olam.
Here's the text:
I was looking at the Jerusalem Post today and found several interesting recent articles.
These are interviews with the three candidates, with Obama you have the full audio recording. The interviews are with JTA, the Global News Service of the Jewish People.
I'll step back from punditry, only to say that it's useful to see or hear the candidates' own words. Better to listen to them than a commentator, including me!
Please share this with voters in the upcoming primary states.
JPost article:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1207649980274&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
JTA interview with Obama (about 10 minutes):
(Text)
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008041020080410obamainterview.html
(Audio)
http://elections.jta.org/2008/04/09/jta%e2%80%99s-ron-kampeas-goes-1-on-1-with-barack-obama/
JTA article on Hillary:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080327clintonexponent03272008.html
JTA interview with McCain:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008040920080409mccaintranscript.html
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008040920080408mccain.html
JTA article on Pennsylvania
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080402HillaryJewsPa04022008.html
Hello, PA:
I have used some software on my computer to make a master CD copy of the Philadelphia "More Perfect Union" speech. Up to now you could get it by going to an Internet Link such as the Obama Website to view of hear it. But my idea is to make bulk copies of the CD and just hand them out at stations and shopping areas. The CD contains only 2 files, an "AVI" video file that can work in all versions of Windows and Mac (the picture is small, but good enough), and an "RTF" file that has the text of the speech that would work with all text viewers (Windows or Mac). I've tried it on Windows, but I don't have a Mac. These are all unfiltered files, the speech and nothing but the speech. Best advertsing there is!
I do not have any connection to make bulk copies at a low price, so this is where you guys come in. I'd love to supply the master. It would take me 5 minutes per CD to duplicate, whereras a machine could do hundreds in a matter of minutes. A local duplicator charges $1.50 per CD which is outrageous. So we need to find a store that can donate services. In addition, we'll need a professionally-made sleeve.
Once that's all done I'd be more than happy to travel to Gettysburg or York (from Rockville) to hand out the CDs.
Please write to me either through this post, or sign up as a friend if you have ideas or suggestions for me.
I'd also like to create a DVD version. I have a DVD burner, but I'm not sure I have the software. I'll check today.
Thanks,
P.S. I've already contacted a few groups, such as Adams County, but they told me I was on my own. I would assume the campaign would want something "official" to be handed out, not a hand-written sleeve that nobody else looked at. Am I right? If yes, whom do I call?
Hello Philadelphia,
I'm about 2 hours away near Washington, and I got an email from the Clinton campaign that Elton John will be doing a benefit at Radio City Music Hall in NYC for Hillary in April. Bill Clinton will appear as well (probably with the Rockettes :-) )
Can we do better? Do you think a Philadelphia show could be put together? Maybe have some actual Philadelphia performers. Here's a link to the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Philadelphia%2C_Pennsylvania
Hall and Oates? Kevin Bacon? Will Smith? Patti Labelle? Bill Cosby? Wow, lots of talent in your city. Of course, not too far away in New Jersey, Bruce!
Just a thought. Good luck and keep up the great work!
(This is a copy of another post in response to some blog posts I've seen on the minister controversy. If McCain even dares to try....)
Hey, if you're gonna kick around Reverend Wright, how's about looking at some other pastors whom the candidates' get support from:
Here's a wiki about Rod Parsley, McCain's pastor, his call for a war on Islam is just fascinating, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Parsley
If you like Farrakan's anti-semitism, you'll love John Hagee, another McCain supporter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee
I've looked at the Clintons - they don't use one pastor. They've used J Philip Wogaman, Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham. Well, in Bill Clinton's case, didn't seem to help much.
P.S. On the issue of transparency, Barack opened it up with the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-080314-obama-audiogallery,0,7019608.audiogallery
and here's the Tribune's editorial on it:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,7855333.story
I have a crazy idea for the Obama campaign, based on "the math".
Assuming Obama has a 120 pledged-delegate lead.For the Florida-Michigan controversy, Obama should:
1. Agree for a re-do in Michigan
2. Concede the "pledged delegates" in Florida. Do NOT redo.
Even if Clinton wins PA, I think Obama looks good in NC and Indiana. It will be a draw.
In Michigan, my guess is that the delegates will be close, will split, same with the popular vote.
In Florida, according to thegreenpapers.com, Hillary would end up with a plus 38, based on the districts.
Do not concede any superdelegates.
This would be the equivalent of accepting the ref's bad call, not doing the instant replay, to save the timeout. No new win, no new bragging rights. So at the end, Obama could still be at least plus 100.
What do y'all think? Is this too risky, or should we give it a shot?
(I'm also afraid that if Obama wins Florida, Clinton will call for a 4 out of 7 World Series :-)
BTW: According to Google Maps, total current popular vote including FL and MI is: Obama 13,568,526, Clinton 13,464,305. If you remove those 2 states it is Obama 12,762,873 Clinton 12,279,210. Good news for us any way you look at it.
Hi all,
I wrote this letter Friday morning, it got in today (Monday) with a few edits. It's the 4th letter of 5 that were written as commentary to David Brooks' article on Friday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/opinion/l10brooks.html
Here's my original letter, before the Times edited it. I wanted to avoid mentioning Clinton by name, but I was OK with the edit since it could not be assumed that all readers know who made the "Ken Starr" remark,
----- Original Message -----
To: letters@nytimes.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:37 AM
Subject: Re:Playing by Clinton Rules To The Editor:
I agree with Mr. Brooks' analysis. I believe that Senator Obama needs to make some statements on the character of the campaign without getting personal. The aspect of claiming "victimization" when being challenged (such as the "Ken Starr" remark) is not even adult, let alone Presidential. Of course, if Obama wishes to play the game, he could say that his opponent's attacks are "Lee Atwater" or, worse, "Karl Rove". But I think all of us would rather have a person in our highest office who resolves conflicts than one who generates them. We don't need a "fighter" if the next 4 years means nothing but fighting.
P.S. This was my second letter to the Times that got published. The first, on 10/2/06, was even before I was thinking about Barack as President (probably before he decided to run, too):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06EEDF1430F931A35753C1A9609C8B63&scp=2&sq=rotnemer&st=nyt
It's always a challenge to get this to 150 words or less, hopefully this can help.
I met Samantha Power a couple of weeks ago at Politics and Prose. Excellent speaker. She answered a question for me about the Middle East.
She made a couple of favorable remarks about Obama, joked that Mrs. Clinton would make a great Senate Majority Leader. While I was waiting to get my book signed by her, a woman complained to the bookstore owner that a Clinton spokeperson should get "equal time".
But I think it is absolutely right that she apologize for her remark about Hillary being a "monster".
If I were a monster, I'd REALLY be offended by it!!!
I don't know if anyone has ever tried posting to Senator Clinton's Blog. But if you are not rah-rah pro-Hillary, there's a good chance you won't get on.
I've just posted an entry to the main Obama blog. In it I say:
I have attempted to post to Senator Clinton's blogs. So far, they have not appeared. I am not offensive - I am just intelligently objective. I look at their posts and I see nothing but "pro-Clinton" entries. This is wrong and I hope someone calls their campaign on this (I now have documented proof).
My full entries get on there just fine, even if I am a bit critical of Obama.
But my post below is not on Clinton's site.
Is there any action we can take to call their campaign on this? I am not offensive, I actually like both candidates. But I have a screenshot of my post that never made it on.
If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.
P.S. This was my "censored" post:
Congratulations to Senator Clinton for her victories.
I just want to be sure that posts that are "objective" get into this blog. I submitted one a few weeks ago and it did not make it. I also sent the same post to Obama's blog (it got in). I'd hate to think that any candidate suppresses thoughtful, non-offensive remarks even if they do not fully support the candidate. So I'll check this blog to see if this post is taken. If it is, I'll post some more.
Alan from Rockville
Please read this article:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080121/AUTO01/801210338/1148/rss25
Israel will soon have an all-electric car. Plus, their government is offering incentives.
Should we follow this example? I know the car only gets 100km per charge, but we should pour more R&D into developing an even better car.
Just think, lower fuel costs, more jobs, better economy. Doesn't solve all our problems but it's a step.
