A Crucial Blow to Our Democracy

Tags

bev perdue, campaign finance, citizens united, koch brothers, mitt romney, scott walker, super pacs, tom barrett, walker campaign contributions, wisconsin gubernatorial election, wisconsin recall

On Tuesday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won his recall election against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, 53 percent to 46 percent. The Democrats did, however, retake control of the State Senate.

I believe that Tom Barrett – although not the most appealing candidate for this election – was a far better choice and that Scott Walker, whose obvious corruption and terrible policies made him very deserving of the recall. Please see my previous post regarding these issues, as well as some background information on how Citizens United has reared its ugly head in this race. While I covered a lot in that previous post, I would like to offer a broader look after the results in Wisconsin.

With all the votes in, Walker won 1,334,450 votes while Barrett got 1,162,785. These results were fairly close to those in 2010, with Milwaukee, Madison, and the counties in the upper Northwest of the state going strongly for Barrett and Milwaukee’s homogeneous suburbs being Walker’s biggest strongholds. So, there can’t be too much more to discuss here, right?

But then you consider the money spent in this race. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (a conservative newspaper that endorsed Walker), donors gave $30,492,466 directly to Walker’s campaign. Barrett for Wisconsin received only $3,938,626 from less-wealthy Democratic donors. The Wisconsin Republican Party also outraised the Democratic Party, and pro-Walker super-PACs – including the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity – spending far more than its Democratic rivals on the recall election.

Let’s do the math really quickly. Walker’s ratio of cash to votes (and this is only the campaign itself) was 22.85 to 1. Barrett’s? 3.39 to 1. Walker’s ratio is 674 percent greater. 674 percent. How can any candidate win with such a disparity? And that’s only the beginning.

Scott Walker and Citizens United

Tags

campaign finance, citizens united, scott walker, super pacs, tom barrett, walker john doe probe, walker scandal, wisconsin gubernatorial election, wisconsin recall

No one likes Citizens United. An ABC News poll a few months after the 5-4 Supreme Court decision showed that 80 percent of Americans opposed the decision to allow unlimited campaign contributions from both people and corporations. And opposition was universal across the political spectrum – a rarity in today’s politics. 86 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of independents, and 76 percent of Republicans opposed the Court’s ruling. Even among the extreme right wing – the Tea Party – 73 percent opposed the decision.

And it’s easy to see why Americans hate this decision. The super rich, free to give any amount of their excess wealth to Super PACs that don’t even have to disclose their donors, have a ridiculous influence on politics. In February 2012, 72 percent of all donations to Super PACs were at least $500,000 while 86 percent were of at least $100,000. According to the 2010 census, only 20 percent of Americans earn more than $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent make more than $500,000. Yet, thanks to Citizens United, this tiny percent has an absurdly disproportionate influence on the politics that affects 100 percent of Americans. That is not democracy, and I defy anyone to argue that it is.

The Citizens United world has allowed for extremely poor candidates to still compete in elections as long as they convince the rich that his/her policies would benefit this 1 percent. Take Scott Walker. Governor Walker passed a highly unpopular anti-union bill that led to months of protests and far more than the number of signatures needed for a recall. Walker did not publicly campaign on this policy. If he would have, he probably wouldn’t have been elected. Walker cut a shocking $1.85 billion for public education in the state that had the best high school graduation rate and arguably the best public education system in the country. Schools have laid off teachers, have larger class sizes, and less academic and extracurricular programs.

Martin O’Malley 2016

Tags

2016, 2016 democratic presidential candidates, biden, catholicism in politics, clinton.hlllary, cuomo, election, o'malley, o'malley 2016, obama, politics, presidential election

As many have already said, the 2012 presidential election is not the most interesting contest. Romney, an extremely wealthy venture capitalist, has a difficult time relating to the average American. Inside the Actors’ Studio host James Lipton has even offered Romney some tips on how to properly campaign and relate to Americans. Simply put, Mitt Romney is one of (if not the) most boring presidential candidate in recent memory, and I believe that Barack Obama will easily win the 2012 presidential election – unless super PACs get in the way. So, let’s talk 2016 for a brief moment.

Vice President Joe Biden will turn 74 shortly after the 2016 presidential election, six years older than President Reagan was when he was first elected. Biden is also known for his political gaffes. Vice President Biden is certainly a smart and experienced politician, especially in foreign policy. I believe, however, that his political liabilities make him a vulnerable candidate for Democrats in 2016, especially against inspiring candidates like Marco Rubio. Hillary Clinton is also a potential candidate, although she has denied any consideration for 2016. Hillary has seen her favorability ratings rise significantly during her term in the less-politicized Secretary of State role. She would be 69 in 2016, which would certainly not disqualify her but is older than many of her likely Republican opponents. Despite the increased favorability, she is still a divisive figure as well and may have a difficult time convincing independents to vote for her. There’s got to be better candidates, right?

A Comparative Analysis of the War on Women

Tags

abortion, ann romney, contraception, contraception mandate, darrell issa, equal pay laws, fair pay act, fox and friends, fox news, glenn grothman, hilary rosen, lilly ledbetter, lilly ledbetter fair pay act, paycheck fairness act, politics, republicans war on women, rush limbaugh, scott walker, Tea Party, transvaginal probe, walker repeals equal pay law, war on motherhood, war on women, women's issues

The media is full of buzz about Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney, Mitt’s wife. Yesterday on Anderson Cooper’s CNN show, Rosen criticized Governor Romney for using his wife to relate to women’s economic struggles when Ann “had never worked a day in her life.” Republicans and their media outlets (and, in turn, more moderate and liberal media outlets reporting the outrage of conservatives) immediately pounced on the comments, trying to flip the “war on women” against the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh said that Democrats are starting a “war on motherhood.”

The purpose of this post is not to defend Hilary Rosen’s comments. The CNN contributor should not have said what she did, and being a full time mother is certainly not easy work. Rosen, who is a mother herself, has since apologized for her comments, saying that she did not intend to insult stay-at-home mothers. This apology was good enough for Ann Romney’s close friend and fellow stay-at-home mom Barbara Bush, who said people should “forget it” when asked about the issue. President Obama, whom Rosen does not work for, weighed in on the comments today, saying that “there’s no job tougher than being a mom … Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement.”

How Chris Christie Could Have Won the Republican Nomination

Tags

chris christie, chris christie for president, george pataki, marco rubio, mitch daniels, mitch daniels for president, paul ryan, paul ryan budget, politics, republican presidential election, republican presidential primary, romney, romney for president, Santorum, us presidential election

I was very skeptical back in fall of 2011 when pundits and bloggers were constantly saying how just-outside-the-mainstream Republican X, Y, and Z  would win the Republican presidential nomination if they chose to enter the race earlier enough. Rick Perry’s hype followed by immediate collapse gave me more reason to doubt that these other candidates were as great as advertised. I thought that these candidates, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, former New York governor George Pataki, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were not as solid as the pundits and conservative onlookers believed, and that they would not be able to stand out even in a weak Republican field led by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Simply put, these potential candidates all had problems and didn’t seem like the star that Republicans were looking for.

I’ve since reconsidered. I still don’t think that any of these candidates should be considered “stars.” Rubio, despite his positives (young, charismatic, conservative, Latino), is still very politically inexperienced and has not been vetted by the national public. Journalists found that Rubio embellished facts about his parents’ immigration from Cuba – he said that they fled Cuba to escape Castro in order to gain political favor, but their documents show their entry was before Fidel took power. My native state’s governor, Mitch Daniels, is, to put it bluntly, boring and inarticulate. He was also President George W. Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, playing a key role in the tax cuts for the rich that helped put our country in the terrible financial shape it’s now in (which is why I voted against Daniels in 2008).

How the Republicans Got Stuck in a Loveless Marriage with Mitt Romney

Tags

bachmann, Cain, Cain harassment, Gingrich, Gingrich affair, obama, pawlenty, perry, presidential election, republican nomination, romney, Santorum

As I posted earlier, Mitt Romney is not popular. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 50 percent of voters view the former Massachusetts Governor unfavorably, compared to only 34 percent that view him favorably. His unfavorability rating is higher than any other presidential candidates in the past 28 years, with the exception of the much-maligned Newt Gingrich this year, and the divisive Hillary Clinton in 2008. Republicans aren’t even that happy with Romney – only 62 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of conservatives view him favorably, according to the same ABC News/Washington Post poll. That’s compared to 86 percent of Democrats and 75 percent that view Obama favorably. In 2010, mainstream wisdom said that Democrats faced an “enthusiasm gap,” but clearly this gap has reversed due to the presumed nomination of Governor Romney.

I already touched upon the electoral reasoning of how Romney still became the presumptive nominee – the rich have come out to vote for Romney in massive numbers. But how did it get to that point? Why could no other candidate challenge Romney and take advantage of the feeling of tepidness that Republicans and especially conservatives have for him?

Keith Olbermann’s Departure and the Tone of American Media

Tags

bill o'reilly, cable news, chris hayes, ed schultz, glenn beck, keith olbermann, keith olbermann al gore, keith olbermann current tv, keith olbermann fired, lawrence o'donnell, mainstream media, media, partisan media, politics, rachel maddow, rush limbaugh, sean hannity

I am an unashamed liberal. I believe that liberal policies, such as universal health care, a restructuring of our financial system, marriage equality, and welfare, are the best way to improve the well being of Americans. Keith Olbermann believes the same things. While I don’t know Olbermann’s exact positions on every issue, I would guess that we match up fairly well. So, I’m upset that Olbermann was fired from Current TV, right?

No. To put it mildly, Olbermann isn’t my favorite news host. Olbermann represents the problems with the current path of American political media. Fox News and MSNBC have both filled their prime time lineups with partisan talking heads. These talking heads rarely have anyone on their shows that disagree with them; rather, they invite “yes men” journalists to tell the talking heads how right they are. When the talking heads have a big figure on their show, it is almost always from the same political persuasion as the host, and the interview “questions” are softballs, not challenging the politician or adviser at all on their positions. While there are some exceptions to this, this has become the general trend in cable news.

The Real Meaning in the Trayvon Martin Tragedy

Tags

fox news, george zimmerman, geraldo rivera, post-racial society, racial stereotypes, rush limbaugh, stand your ground, trayvon martin

UPDATE: There is new evidence that race was not a factor for George Zimmerman and that NBC News altered the tape of the 911 call. This negates a lot of what I said in this post. However, the issue of Stand Your Ground laws is still a major issue. These laws are incredibly vague and give people permission to commit violent acts any time they feel “threatened.” What threatened means can be interpreted differently by different people. For too many people in this country, race and ethnicity does in fact play a role in whether someone feels “threatened.” I still think these laws show incredibly naivety toward the continuing struggle of race relations in this country. (July 13, 2012)

If you don’t know the story of the Trayvon Martin’s murder, you’ve probably been living under a rock for the past month. The 17-year old African American boy was shot and killed by neighborhood watch vigilante George Zimmerman as he left a local convenience store. Martin was unarmed. In the 911 call, Zimmerman says that Trayvon looked like he was “up to no good” and that he might be on drugs.  But in the call, Zimmerman himself told the dispatcher that Trayvon was “just walking around, looking about … He’s just staring looking at all the houses.” Zimmerman then tells the dispatcher that “these assholes always get away.” Despite the dispatcher tell him to stand down, Zimmerman followed Trayvon and eventually fired a lethal shot at the unarmed boy.

The Way Too Early 2012 Presidential Election Prediction

Tags

2012 election, bush, campaign, carter, clinton, dole, dukakis, election, favorability, gore, kerry, mondale, obama, politics, reagan, romney, unfavorability

Yes, it’s still late March. However, it seems like the presidential race has its 2 major participants: President Obama and Mitt Romney. While he hasn’t officially won yet, it is very hard to imagine a scenario with Romney not as the Republican nominee. Plus, there are plenty of indicators available to form some type of prediction for the general election. In this post, I will discuss some of these indicators, and explain why I disagree with the mainstream idea that this will be a close election.

Perhaps the most important poll when predicting the next president is each candidates’ favorable and unfavorable ratings. No president in recent history has won the president election with a higher unfavorable than favorable rating. While voters certainly can change from viewing a candidate favorably to unfavorably after more media attention is devoted to that candidate and voters learns more about the candidate. But, logically, it doesn’t seem that this change would work in the reverse direction. Once a voter finds out something that he/she doesn’t like about the candidate, it is very difficult to forget that information. Unfavorable ratings always increase as the election becomes more heated, with more mudslinging and more focus on the candidates’ negatives.

Analyzing the Unanalytical: Part II – Same-Sex Marriage

Tags

family research council, frc, gay marriage, homosexuality, liberalism, marriage equality, maryland, national organization for marriage, nom, politics, progressivism, same sex marriage, same-sex marriage, social issues, washington

Make sure to read my first post on the National Organization for Marriage’s arguments against gay marriage as well.

The Family Research Council (FRC) also strongly opposes same-sex marriage. Despite it’s claim at valuing research, FRC offers only similar arguments to NOM. The organization’s main brochure makes many of the same arguments as NOM, such as a redefining of marriage and homosexuality’s harm to children.

FRC does, however, make a few different points. The group states that no society has allowed marriage to be anything more than a man and a woman and still survived. In this claim, FRC cited Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin. Perhaps Sorokin would be a valid authority if he had written in today’s times. Sorokin’s book FRC cites was published in 1956, and the sociologist died in 1968. Sorokin never had time to analyze modern societies that have legalized same-sex marriage (Netherlands in 2001, Belgium in 2003, Spain and Canada in 2005, South Africa in 2006, Norway and Sweden in 2009, and Portugal in 2010). While Spain and Portugal have faced difficult economic times recently, I highly doubt that anyone would argue that this is a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage.