4/30/2006

Feingold Raises The Roof in Osceola

Ed Fallon, Christie Vilsack and Chet Culver garnered their share of applause, but the real fireworks came when Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold entered the hall at the 5th District Democratic convention held in Osceola Saturday morning.

Feingold was trailed by several staffers, a reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and even a camera crew from Iowa Public Broadcasting shooting the appearance in high-definition video. After cracking a joke about the Wisconsin Badgers vs. the Iowa Hawkeyes, Feingold launched into a brief list of issues that he is passionate about - including health care for everyone, ending the war in Iraq by the end of 2006, and protecting the constitution by censuring President Bush.

At each point he made, Feingold had to finish his sentence by talking over the continuous applause. Major points were met with standing ovations from the hundreds of Democrats in the hall. These Democrats clearly agreed with Feingold's positions and could begin the spark of a Feingold 2008 campaign in Iowa.

Ramblings

Bye Bye Bacon

One of the best political blogs in Iowa has gone into the great beyond. "Who's Makin' Bacon" has kept me entertained and informed for myriad months, and I'll miss it now that it's gone. The blog went from zero to being one of Iowa's staple blogs in a matter of weeks due to it's insightful, non-partisan, clever content. I can only hope that Mr. Bacon, whomever he is, will come back in a different guise some day. With sadness I take Bacon off my blog roll...


Common Sense


Is the phrase "common sense" now oxymoronic? I wonder... It's common sense that with his poll numbers in the low 30's, United States President George W. Bush would keep a low profile, check in with the common "man on the street," do something concrete about the looming energy crisis, and in general try to comfort the citizens of this fair nation. That would be sensible. But from past performance, I predict that Mr. Bush will instead find some poor nation (most likely one that rhymes with "Iran") to pick on and will try to fan the flames of "patriotism" to get U.S. citizens to rally around him and chant his name.

I put the word patriotism in quotes in that last sentence as Mr. Bush has a different definition of the word than I. To Mr. Bush, a patriot is someone who blindly follows Mr. Bush. To me a patriot is someone who will do whatever it takes to protect this country - including disagreeing with our government and Mr. Bush. There's an excellent discussion of patriotism that took place a few weeks ago here. Be sure to read the comments - that's where the good stuff is.

I once played with a guitarist who played louder when he didn't know the song. I never figured out why... Mr. Bush is a lot like that - the more unsure he is, the louder he gets.


Energy

With gas prices nearing three bucks a gallon (and over in some places), people are now loudly wondering what to do. I have a few simple ideas...

1. Ban the manufacture and import of SUV's and large trucks. "Oh, I need an SUV to carry my kids around." Bullpucky. The world did just fine in the world before minivans and SUV's. We carried our kids around in (gasp) regular automobiles. It worked just fine. Trust me. If you need a large truck because you're a contractor or a farmer, fine - get special permission from the government to own it, and pay the special "big truck tax." Anything over 4,000 pounds is considered a commercial vehicle and is taxed accordingly.

2. Ban the import and manufacture of cars with regular gasoline engines. All vehicles shall be E85 capable hybrids. (E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% regular old gasoline.) Heck, I'd even ride an electric motorcycle if it looked cool enough. I'd miss the "vroom vroom" noise, though...

3. We need to make alternative energy affordable. One way to do this is easy enough... Personal windmills. They have these in England, and they really work. You put a small windmill on your house, and it supplies a pretty heft majority of the electricity you need for day-to-day living. Why don't we have them here? Why are people still dying in mine accidents to supply us with coal to make electricity with when the wind is blowing right past us every day? It is my unproven belief that the energy companies are suppressing the technology. I read about one man who had a windmill installed - it cost him $40,000 - only to find that the energy company wouldn't let him use it. The energy cartel was worried that the man would dump the excess electricity he generated and didn't use back into the energy grid, thus earning a refund from the electricity company. In England they've made the units much smaller, and the energy companies are embracing the technology. How does this help with the price of gas? Simple - we now all have hybrid cars, remember? Plug your car into your windmill and charge it up. The government NEEDS to push this sort of thing - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, give tax breaks to people who install wind and solar devices, and give more government funding to companies that develop such technology. Perhaps it could even be mandated that every government building get retrofitted with such technology to prove its feasibility.

4. Anyone remember riding a bicycle? Maybe instead of the government giving each citizen a hundred bucks as a bribe to forgive congress (which is what leading republican Bill Frist wants to do - it's a buyoff, pure and simple) they should give each citizen a bicycle. "Here's a hundred dollar voucher that can only be redeemed at the bicycle shop, please don't drive your car quite as much" makes a lot more sense to me than "here's a hundred dollars, please forgive us for being inept politicians."

5. How about finding alternative fuels for semis and airplanes?

6. Your teenager needs a summer job? Have him build himself a rickshaw and send him downtown...

We have to remember, folks, that the high price of gasoline is simply due to the high price of oil. We have to remember that we use oil for things other than gasoline. Things like plastics and heating. Heating. I'll say it again - heating. This winter is going to be harder than last winter.

Something to think about: When President Bill Clinton took office, gas cost around $1.10 a gallon. When he left office, gas was somewhere near $1.25. In his eight years in office, gas went up fifteen cents. Mr. Bush took over when gas was $1.25, and only six years later the price is nearing $3.00 a gallon. Mr. Bush is proud of his "Texas Oilman" persona. I'm sure that he's equally proud that his oilman friends are getting hundreds of millions of dollars in their retirement packages.


South Dakota

I'm breaking a self-imposed ban today. I have not spent one thin dime in South Dakota since they passed that law banning abortions in the state. (I think that abortion is something that should not be taken lightly. However, I do not think that the state should legislate morality.) My wife and I, however, are on our way out the door in just a minute to go to a performance of A Prairie Home Companion at Vermillion, SD. I promise that after today I shall continue with my economic boycott of the state of South Dakota. (It's not as easy as you'd think; we live just a few miles from the border. For all you out-of-towners, Sioux City is in Iowa, South Sioux City is in Nebraska, and North Sioux City is in South Dakota.)

4/26/2006

Fox "News" Officially Merges With the Republican Party

Compliments of our friends at BuzzFlash.com:

Well, the continued degradation of America by the Bush Administration continues unabated. No matter how low he goes in the polls, the guy is still controlling the nation -- and he has his trigger finger on THE button.

Often overlooked on a day-to-day basis is just how different our country might be if we had a mainstream media that truly reflected the principles of democracy, instead of the interests of corporatism.


So now (and you'll need to go to buzzflash.com to read the stories on this) an anchor person for FOX GOP News is becoming the White House Press Secretary. Yes, Tony Snow, the go-to guy for Cheney when he wants to repeat lies without being challenged is going to officially merge the FOX propaganda network for the Republican Party with the Republican Party!


Remember that FOX News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who hired GOP television and advertising consultant guru, Roger Ailes, to run FOX News. Yes, FOX News has advertising, but it is -- in and of itself -- one big advertisement for the Republican Party, and currently for Bushevism. It uses the same principles of propaganda disguised as news that Pravda used under the Soviet regime.


And now, FOX News and the GOP are publicly becoming one seamless entity as Tony Snow replaces the infamous masters of saying nothing: Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.


So the winter hasn't ended in America. We're about to get the biggest press corps Snow job one can imagine.
Only this Snow is as fake and phony as the flakes on a Hollywood Christmas set.

4/21/2006

Even His Friends Don't Like Him

FOX News...
President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.


Thanks to Upper Left

4/20/2006

Iowa Voted for The Worst President in History


We know that the intelligent readers of 'The Woodbury Democrat' were bright enough to vote for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000, but our unfortunately deluded neighbors voted to give America and the world The Worst President in History. The worst EVER. This article by a respected historian explains the case for Bush's title as Worst President in History.

4/16/2006

Is That What You REALLY Want?



Compliments to Needlenose

4/10/2006

Costs of Another War

The Center for American Progress brings us this summary of some of the costs of starting another war, this time with Iran:

COSTS OF WAR: IRAN TERROR FORCE 'MAKES AL QAEDA LOOK LIKE KINDERGARTEN':
A recent Washington Post report noted "a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere" if attacked; planning for such a response "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said. Former U.S. counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke stated recently that Iran would be likely to respond to an attack with a three-pronged terrorist assault: "terrorism by Hezbollah, which they own and operate as a subsidiary; terrorism in Iraq, where they have tens of thousands of militia under their control; and terrorism by their special forces call the Kudz Force, that in the past blew up the American Air Force base at Khobar. All three of these organizations make al Qaeda look like a kindergarten." Clarke concluded, "We’ve thought about military options against Iran off and on for the last 20 years and they’re just not good because you don’t know what the end game is."

COSTS OF WAR: AIR STRIKE WOULD 'ALMOST CERTAINLY SPEED UP' IRANIAN NUKE PROGRAM: A military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would not likely delay the program, but "almost certainly speed it up," as occurred after the 1981 Israeli preemptive strike on Iraq's nuclear facilities. After the Israeli strike, with its nuclear ambitions fully exposed, Iraq stepped up its weapons development dramatically, according to Iraqi defector Khadir Hamza. "At the beginning we had approximately 500 people working, which increased to 7,000 working after the Israeli bombing," he said. According to Carnegie Endowment nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, "the bombing set back Israel more than Iraq" by further harming its international reputation while "making Iraq appear a victim of Israeli aggression." Similar dynamics are at play in the current impasse with Iran.

COSTS OF WAR: 'WHAT WILL 1.2 BILLION MUSLIMS THINK THE DAY WE BOMB IRAN?': A report published in February by the Oxford Research Group determined "that attacks on Iranian facilities, most of which are in densely populated areas, would be surprise ones, allowing no time for such evacuations or other precautions," and thus leading to hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties. Moreover, planners also currently debating launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace, which could "exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world." Analysts fear a military strike would "rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq." As one former Pentagon advisor asked Seymour Hersh, "What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?"

A NUCLEAR REGIME CRISIS, NOT A NUCLEAR WEAPONS CRISIS: The "consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies" is that Iran is "about a decade away" from acquiring a nuclear weapon, meaning that the situation today is "not a nuclear bomb crisis, it is a nuclear regime crisis." The Bush administration's Iran strategy should reflect this reality. The first priority of U.S. officials should be to form a strong global front to demand that Iran curb its nuclear ambitions or risk further international isolation. Iran's latest actions -- demanding that the U.N. Security Council stop investigating its nuclear program and announcing it will not abide by the Security Council's directive that it cease uranium enrichment -- have helped unite the international community; new reports of the Bush administration's aggressive war planning will likely reverse that tide. Also, the United States should come to the table and engage Iran directly in bilateral talks over its nuclear program, an option it has consistently rejected despite numerous opportunities. As Council on Foreign Relations expert Ray Takeyh notes, current U.S. policy "of relentlessly threatening Iran with economic coercion and even military reprisals only empowers reactionaries and validates their pro-nuclear argument." A "more adroit American diplomacy could still dissuade Tehran from crossing the nuclear threshold" by persuading Iranian pragmatists of the many benefits of abandoning their nuclear ambitions.

SHOW US THE INTEL: "Fortunately, we know more about Iran's nuclear program now than we ever knew about Iraq’s," Cirincione writes. But we don't know nearly enough. Following a briefing last week on Iran intelligence, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, said, "I remain skeptical — lots of unanswered questions." As we learned the hard way in Iraq, intelligence about Iran's nuclear development is key to determining the appropriate policy -- and facts are already being manipulated. At a recent meeting of the International Atomic Energy Association, for example, "US officials called several journalists to tell them that in the briefing IAEA officials were 'shocked,' 'astonished,' 'blown-away' by Iran's progress on gas centrifuges." In fact, nuclear experts reported that "IAEA officials have said they were not surprised by Iran's actions," prompting one IAEA official to say the U.S. statements came "from people who are seeking a crisis, not a solution." As Cirincione advises, "The key now is to get all this information on the table for an open debate. ... An accurate and fully understood assessment of the status and potential of Iran’s nuclear program is the essential basis for any policy."

4/08/2006

Nuclear Option

The drumbeat for a new war in the middle east is apparently still going strong, and the Bush administration has Iran in its crosshairs. According to sources within the administration from a must-read New Yorker article by Seymour Hirsch, Bush has a messianic vision about "fixing Iran" and removing their government.

Bush and others in the White House view him (the president of Iran) as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That'’s the name they'’re using. They say, "‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?'"

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do '"“what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,"” and "“that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "“a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government."” He added, "“I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, '‘What are they smoking?'"”


Click Here to read the entire article.

4/07/2006

Confession

After reading Historian's post, I figured it was about time I confessed some things. I was kind of hesitent of posting these things before, but I think Historian made me feel a little more at ease. (Deep breath) Ok, to start off, I was a republican. The key word "was." I was reborn a year and a half ago. The only reason I was a republican was because I thought I had to be because my entire family is. I was stupid. There was something not right; I just didn't feel anything being a republican. Then I entered government class, and, from there, they say the rest is history. I had to do an assignment on a specific issue. I chose gay marriage/civil unions; should it be legalized or not? The position I took was it should. First off, no right minded republican is going to stand for it. I still wouldn't listen to myself and tell myself I was a democrat. During the last week of class we had to tell the entire class our topic. (The funny thing about this class was all the republicans sat on one side, and the democrats on the other. Yeah, I sat with the dems. This class was during election season so I would campaign for Bush and go door to door with all those red folks. I even protested at the Kerry rally at Briar Cliff. This just makes me sick to write. HOW DUMB WAS I. YES, I KNOW A FRICKEN IDIOT. FOR GOD'S SAKE I EVEN VOTED FOR MR. PRES. PLEASE DON'T HATE ME. I HATE MYSELF ENOUGH. NOT A DAY GOES BY I DON'T THINK HOW DUMB I WAS) Back to the class thing. I get up and do my talk on why I agree with civil unions. The red's jaws all dropped. After class some reds said, "How could you believe in it?!" My professor told me I was sounding like a liberal, and to think hard about who I really was in a sense. A couple of weeks later I quit college republicans and joined college dems. It was quite weird at first, but thank god all the dems were understanding. Let's just say the reds, well, are none to thrilled with me (that is putting it nicely). After I joined college dems, I felt like it was time to come clean to the family and friends. This was not cool. My entire family was shocked and well sort of outraged. My mom wouldn't talk to me for a day or so. My dad just laughed and said he understood because he was once a dem and is now republican. My brother used tons of explicit language and told me how dumb I was. My family loves me, it was just at the time, they were flippin' out way too much. My friends from home don't understand me and think I'm going to hell. Whatever. Yeah, so it was kind of a harsh situation. There were times I cried because I wish I would have listened to myself and not done what I thought was right at the time. I'm glad I saw the light because seriously right now is not a good time to be a red.

~demgem


Republican No More!

Republican No More!

Well, it’s true confessions time for the Historian. You see, I was once (literally) a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. I grew up in a staunchly Republican household, with only a single “yellow dog,” Irish-Catholic grandpa around to present an alternative point of view (which he offered rarely, knowing how vastly outnumbered he was in the family). I cut my teeth in politics, so to speak, as a young boy on a street corner passing out “Nixon Now” pins and leaflets to passersby. I helped Gerald Ford win Pennsylvania in 1976, and worked many long hours on the 1979 primary campaign of George Bush, Sr. under the direction of a young local attorney named Tom Ridge (later Governor of Pennsylvania and Director of the Department of Homeland Security). I even have a nice thank-you letter from the first Reagan presidential campaign gathering dust in some long-forgotten drawer of my house.

You see, I grew up in a “Rockefeller Republican” household, named after long-time Republican governor of New York (and sometime presidential hopeful) Nelson Rockefeller. This comprised the wing of the Republican Party that was basically fiscally conservative but socially moderate, to which I happily appended myself for many years. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 marked the triumph of the sort of religiously-based social conservatism that eventually drove me out of the political party of my birth.

My formal exile occurred in a typically surrealistic fashion. One night, unbeknownst to me, my fellow college Republicans met in secret conclave and formally expelled me for the crime of “excessive moderation.” I kid you not – their own words! And to add insult to injury, they neglected to inform me of their decision; they simply stopped sending me notices of upcoming meetings. Apparently, what finally set them off was my refusal to join in a public protest intended to disrupt a major feminist conference being sponsored by my college. While not yet much of a feminist myself, I failed to see the wisdom in attempting to shut down an exercise in free speech, especially on the campus of a well-known liberal arts institution. So, when a fellow College Republican and National Guard member talked excitedly about borrowing a tank to park on the lawn outside the conference venue, I thought he was just kidding. They expelled me within the week. Talk about missing the joke!

I was bitter, and avoided another formal declaration of party allegiance for many years afterwards. It was only in 1996 that I changed my registration from Independent to Democrat, and only because of a brief but pleasant encounter with Christie Vilsack, wife of Iowa’s current governor. Christie showed up outside my office door one day to stump for her husband, who was running in the gubernatorial primary. Not only was she a very compelling speaker on his behalf, but she very sweetly interacted with my then three year-old son, and even gave him one of her few “Vilsack for Governor” pins. I have never looked back.

I certainly can’t go back. I’m appalled by what the Republican Party has become in recent decades. The Reagan years were only a foretaste of the mean spirited, hyper-aggressive, fear-mongering, blindly patriotic, self-righteous, and fiercely anti-intellectual beast that calls itself the Republican Party today.

On all fronts, the leaders of the Republican Party are cheerfully tearing down the pillars of an educated, civic-minded citizenry in this country. They hate the public schools, they despise the university faculties, they rally against the courts, they brand government the enemy in all things, they feel nothing but contempt for a free and public press (Fox News excluded, of course), they question all science, they dismiss the arts as elitist, and they seem incapable of writing or reading a book with footnotes!

The Republican leadership demands our blind submission, and in return offers us a simplistic view of the world that validates our purported superiority over every other people in known history. They torture, and dismiss it as mere “hazing.” They censor, and blame it on “popular opinion.” They spy on us, and have the audacity to say it’s for our own good. They wage war on a noun, while arrogantly refusing even to define that noun. They constantly stoke our basest fears with an ever-growing litany of amorphous, so-called “enemies” – homosexuals, feminists, environmentalists, liberals, immigrants, “Old Europe,” Arabs, Muslims, terrorists – and then use our fears to manipulate us into compromising our very freedoms. They preside over the ruination of our national economy and their own enrichment at the same time. They waste billions on a war without end, and against an enemy with neither face nor place (yes, I realize there are people out there who hate us, but how do we successfully fight a vast abstraction?). They know responsibility, but never accountability!

Or consider the following depressing fact. Thanks largely to Republican-generated anti-intellectual propaganda, the United States may be the only major world power that has cultivated a visceral distrust of intelligent, informed candidates (pity poor Al Gore and John Kerry). Alas, we Americans would rather accept as President an arrogant, draft-dodging, ‘good old boy’ with atrocious language skills, scant knowledge of the world, a paper thin resume for high office, and a stubborn unwillingness to take into consideration other points of view. Bush, after all, “seems nice.” That he’s arguably a complete ignoramus matters less, apparently.

Is it any wonder, then, that the United States is now bogged down in what threatens to become a permanent military commitment in an increasingly troubled Middle East?

The Democrat Party has a golden opportunity here. We can fight fear and ignorance, and stand tall as the party of hope, confidence, and thoughtful reflection about the problems of the world. It’s what the American people really need. Let’s make it so!

Peace!
Historian

The Bush Presidency For Dummies

Save yourself the $12.95 at Waldenbooks - you don't need to purchase "The Bush Presidency For Dummies." Here's all you need to know:

President Bush can do whatever he wants.

4/05/2006

Kerry Wants Out of Iraq; Bush Wants to Bomb Iran

From 'The Booman Tribune'

by Steven D
Wed Apr 5th, 2006 at 08:16:37 AM EST

The difference between Democrats and Republicans has never seemed so stark. Yesterday John Kerry called for the removal of US troops from Iraq. By May 15th this year if Iraq can't form a unity government; by the end of the year if they can:

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America’s leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can’t bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq’s leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

John Kerry: Leadership on Iraq

An alternative to the Bush lack of planning in Iraq has been proposed by Senator John Kerry in an opinion piece in the New York Times. It's well worth reading -- and more importantly -- well worth serious consideration by all.

Here's part of what Kerry proposed in today's New York Times:

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines -- a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections.

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

----------------------------------------------------
Below is what former Senator Gary Hart wrote in The Huffington Post about the Kerry plan:

John Kerry has drawn a line in the sands of Iraq and has forcefully and specifically laid down a marker for the administration, the Democratic party, and the nation.

No other public official to date has had the courage to face the truth, that Iraqi democracy is now, finally, up to the Iraqi people, not the United States.

The Bush administration must now be required to respond to the Kerry time-table, to refute it with more than slogans and rhetoric, and to tell the American people, once and for all, when and how we intend to extricate ourselves from this Vietnam-in-the-desert.

Other Democratic leaders must now be heard on the question of whether they agree or disagree, in specific terms, with the Kerry initiative.

By revealing the brutal truth, that we cannot impose liberal democracy on a people that will not achieve and protect it for themselves, Senator Kerry has gone a very long way toward filling the vacuum in Democratic party leadership felt by too many Americans.

For those of us who never accepted the Bush administration's justification of the war, and did not accept the default argument that we were in the evil-dictator-removal business, Senator Kerry has offered a voice of opposition and a carefully constructed plan for returning the responsibility for Iraqi governance to the Iraqi people and their political leaders.

This is a very welcome development for American foreign policy and prestige in the new world of the 21st century.

4/03/2006

Let's Pay Iowa's Teachers Fairly

Iowa teachers pay ranks 41st in the nation - is that fair? We can be proud of the ACT scores (we rank 3rd in the nation) and proud of the tradition of excellence in education in Iowa. But we shouldn't be proud of the way we compensate our teachers for that excellence.

At a time when teachers are required to work longer days, go to more meetings and take more professional development classes, we are failing them when it comes to their monthly checks. If Iowa wants to maintain our standard of excellence it needs to pay their teachers a wage that will keep them teaching in Iowa.

Even after our state has seen an increase in revenue of $280 million, Republicans are dragging their feet on teacher pay, while Democrats are leading the fight by refusing to adjourn the session until teacher pay is raised.

Republicans are attempting to force any pay increase be directly tied to "performance" of their students. This would mean, for example, that Special Education students (some who have a tough time reading anything) would be held to the same standards as mainstream students -- or their Special Education teacher would be found deficient. It would also penalize teachers and schools with high percentages of immigrant students who have limited or no English skills. "Pay for performance" might sound good, but things are often quite different in the real world.

With legislators trying to work out an education package in the coming weeks, we need to act now to guarantee teacher pay is no longer stalled in the Legislature. No more excuses - raise Iowa's teacher pay this week and let the legislature adjourn.

4/02/2006

Iran is Next - Just in Time for Our Elections

The war in Iraq is so yesterday! Now that Bush's (and the republican party's) polling numbers are so low, it's time to start another little war. Bush and Blair are now actively planning the next war: Iran. I wonder what date they have "penciled in" for the bombing to begin -- maybe just before the November elections?

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support.
Click here for the entire article.

4/01/2006

Ten Commandments for 2008 Democrats

From Daily Kos:

Frank Luntz, formerly evil but now just a mercenary (which still makes him evil but, um, in a different way), focus group tested the current crop of 2008 Dem contenders in Iowa and New Hampshire.

His findings are in this report (PDF) which I haven't read yet. I just thought some of you might want a head start reading it.

But Luntz pulled out the following "Ten Commandments" for 2008 Dems:

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don't feel my pain - give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don't want to be told what's wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They're not looking for the diagnosis - they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on "solutions" will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don't like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it's time for a change. They're looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don't want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they'd be Republicans.

4. Don't tell me what's wrong with America unless you can tell me what you're going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don't already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won't sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,' they complained. Tell us what you're going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It's also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion - yes passion - is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn't generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

I have an inherent distrust of focus groups, but take this as you may. I'm sure it has its nuggets. Especially the part about "passion". That's what I'm looking for. Passion.

Of course, the line between "passion" and "angry" is a thin line indeed, especially with a hostile conservative-controlled media setting the terms of the debate.