« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »

October 31, 2007

Nader '08?

Ralph Nader has filed a lawsuit against the DNC alleging that they conspired to keep him from taking votes from John Kerry by trying to bankrupt his campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states - forcing him to spend scarce money defending against them.

Nader's suit also alleges that the Dems deliberately intereferred with his petition drive in Portland. He failed to get enough signitures to make the ballot in Oregon.

All of which sounds reminiscent of Bill Sizemore's past alleged attempts to minimize the Oregon Teacher Union's capacity to influence Oregon politics by forcing them to spend money fighting multiple ballot measures

But what this Nader suit makes me think of the most is the 2005 Oregon legislature's reaction to Nader. Democrats and Republicans (who remembered Ross Perot's huge draw in earlier elections) got together to all but enshrine the TWO PARTY system here in Oregon by passing House Bill 2614, which makes it nearly impossible for any independent candidate to make it onto a ballot in Oregon. Which of course directly gave rise to the Independent Party of Oregon.

Personally I wish both the IPO and Nader good luck. HB 2614 proved to my satisfaction that the Democratic Party is willing to use brute force to limit democracy.

Posted by Kevin at 12:22 PM |

Kucinich's Mental Health

I’m sure a lot of people are chuckling about Dennis Kucinich’s admission that yes, he did see a UFO at Shirley MacLaine’s house. But neither Democrats nor Republicans have any reason to poke fun or to dismiss Kucinich as un-presidential for having admitted to the sighting. Both parties have elected Presidents in the recent past who also claim to have seen UFOs. As Kucinich pointed out, Jimmy Carter filed a sighting report back in 1973 (you can read his hand-written report here). The Ronald Reagan UFO sightings (not to mention his deep interest in astrology, Armageddon and the occult) are even more interesting. He had to keep quiet about it in public because of the same sort of reaction we are seeing right now to Kucinich’s admission (smugly linking it to his having questioned President Bush’s mental health).

Lucille Ball saw the Reagans half an hour after they saw a UFO. She wrote in her book “Lucy in the Afternoon” that she wondered after he was elected President “if he still would have won if he told everyone that he saw a flying saucer.” Later, Reagan saw another UFO while in an airplane, and he excitedly told reporter Norman C. Miller all about it. The pilot backed up his story, but said they never filed a report “because for a long time they considered you a nut if you saw a UFO.” Apparently, many people still do.

I don't. I know a very reliable person who has seen a UFO. Of course, he doesn't tell anyone about the experience because it sounds crazy.

Posted by Becky at 09:00 AM |

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

According to "The Washington Post" :
Giuliani Still Working at Firm He Promised to Leave

Ten months into his presidential bid, Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to work part time at the security consulting firm he promised to leave this past spring to focus on his pursuit of the Republican nomination.

Giuliani's continuing involvement with a firm catering to corporate clients makes him unique among Republican contenders. It also complicates the task of separating his firm's assets from his campaign spending.

Several of the firm's employees do volunteer work for his campaign. And Giuliani did not decide until mid-June, six months after he entered the race, to bill his campaign for the cost of the security detail traveling with him on campaign trips; before then, the firm paid the expense.

Aides at Giuliani Partners in New York and with his campaign confirmed that he continues working part time at the firm. They declined to answer specific questions about the nature of his efforts, his compensation or the amount of time he spends there.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what this says about the man's ethics.
The MSM (FAUX NEWS in particular) seem to already have annointed him as the Republican Presidential Nominee for 2008. Which I find curious since not a single official VOTE has yet been cast in a single official primary election.

Posted by Mac at 01:22 AM |

October 27, 2007

Jacoby Ellsbury does Oregon proud.

Boston Red Sox rookie Jacoby Ellsbury, of Madras Oregon and drafted out of Oregon State University, tonight became the first rookie in 61 years of MLB history to get four hits in a World Series game. The last rookie to get four hits in a Series game was the great Joe Garagiola in 1946. Ellsbury batted two runners in and scored twice himself. Very impressive for a rookie!

I'm not a Red Sox fan. Heck, I'm not really much of a baseball fan except for the playoffs. The regular season just goes on and on and on far too long to keep my interest. But I love the playoffs and must say that I've really enjoyed watching Ellsbury play. I didn't even realize that he's an Oregonian at first.

Posted by Kevin at 10:40 PM |

Interesting Call to Support Ron Paul

Of all the editorials in favor of Ron Paul for President that I have seen, this is the most interesting. I think most of our readers can relate to the author's frustration and sense of urgency, even if we are not certain about his conclusions. But this piece does speak well to why Ron Paul has become such an unexpected national sensation.

Posted by Becky at 02:21 PM |

Condi orders diplomats to volunteer or else

Apparently the State Department can't coax enough diplomatic staff to volunteer for the sunny skies, palm trees and nearly daily mortar attacks in Baghdad. So she's warned, through an underling of course, that she'll soon have to start ordering them to serve if they don't start cooperating.

Harry Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service, said Friday:

"If someone decides ... they do not want to go, we will then consider appropriate action," he said. "We have many options, including dismissal from the Foreign Service."

Some friendly waterboarding is probably one of those "options".

Posted by Kevin at 07:19 AM |

October 21, 2007

About Mitt

It behooves every voter to go read this post by Hart Williams about Mitt Romney. Particularly if you're a "values" voter.

Posted by Becky at 09:58 PM |

M50, $$$ & Justice

One of my chief problems with Oregon's Measure 50 is how patently regressive it is. It was only upon receiving my Voter's Pamphlet and reading the text of M50 therein that I realized that it's even more regressive than I'd originally thought.

This rant is about more than just M50, but bear with me while I make my case.

M50 contains a neat little clause which would allow the legislature to cap cigar taxes at $.50 per cigar, which just happens to be where cigar taxes are already capped at.

Now I understand that the legislature capped cigar taxes at that level because when it was higher cigar smokers simply turned to buying cigars online and avoided paying any Oregon tax. Capping the Oregon cigar tax at $.50 per cigar brought many of them back to buying locally and allowed the state to at least get SOME revenue from cigar sales. But this entire dynamic further underscores how patently regressive M50 is.

Cigar smokers tend to be financially well off and well educated. So it's not surprising that that money and education led cigar smokers to easily bypass the tax by going online to buy their cigars. In stark contrast to cigar smokers, cigarette smokers are heavily dominated by financially and educationally disadvantaged Oregonians.

According to the state's own statistics 30% of Oregon cigarette smokers earn less than $15K per year and another 30% earn between $15K and $25K per year. Meanwhile we know from those same statistics that 30% of high school drop-outs in Oregon smoke and that nearly 30% of those who only achieved a HS diploma or GED smoke (less than 10% of college graduates smoke).

So how surprised can we honestly be that an economically and educationally disadvantaged demographic probably has neither the hardware (ie. a computer), access or the savvy to bypass state taxes by purchasing online? I mean, how many HS drop-outs earning less than $15K per year do you seriously think could have known that there is a way to buy their cigarettes cheaper online?

Quite predictably our legislators didn't write in a clause allowing cigarette taxes to be capped because it's simply not an issue for them.

So that's the M50 portin of this rant. But M50 merely scratches the surface and in so doing it only uncovers the tip of the iceburg.

Much has been said over the years about the acquittals of both O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson in their respective criminal trials. The blame has been placed on the Juries. But I submit that that blame is misplaced. OJ and Michael were acquitted for the same reason that those white Lacrosse players at Duke were finally acquitted in the jury of public opinion - they all had the $$$ to buy the services of the very best, most capable lawyers. Those lawyer's competence is at the root of each of those acquittals.

How many people are sitting in prisons today not because they were any more (or less) guilty than OJ or Michael, but because they couldn't afford the kind of legal talent that Michael and OJ could afford?

And then there are the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. If 1 out of every 1000 citizens can comfortably afford to give $1000 to the political candidate of their choice but another 100 out of the same 1000 citizens would not be able to eat for a month if they too gave $1000 to the political candidate of their choice... is it any wonder that Congress voted the way that they did?

Closer to Oregon... how many Congressional/Senatorial candidates do you suppose would attend a fund-raising "House Party" in the poor part of town and where those who showed up would only be able to give $10 each? How many Presidential candidates do you suppose would fly into Portland and hold a fund-raising dinner at $25 per plate?

Even closer to home... here in Washinton County "Nonna Emilia" Italian restaurant is a fixture and very well known. Nike co-founder Phil Knight and former Governor Neil Goldshmidt both famously loved eating at Nonna's. Nonna's is in Congressman David Wu's district. If the owner of Nonna's were to call Congressman Wu's office in Washington D.C., indentify him/herself as the owner and ask to speak to the Congressman... what do you suppose are the odds that Wu would, if he were available at the time, take the call? If the dish washer at Nonna's were to likewise call Wu's office and identify him/herself as the dishwasher at Nonna's... what do you suppose the odds are that Wu would take that call personally? I think we all know that the odds have got to be radically different for the owner versus the dishwasher.

I'm not ranting against personal wealth. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it. What I AM saying is that we ought to be honest with ourselves about how fundamentally tilted the entire playing field is in favor of those who are affluent and against those who aren't, particularly against those who inhabit the lowest socio-economic strata of our society.

Posted by Kevin at 11:04 AM |

Site maintainance

I moved some things around on the sidebars. Removed the Goering quote (actually it's just hidden), moved the search function to the left-side and added a couple things just below it on the left-side.

To my eye it now looks more balanced. If you disagree or have any other comments/suggestions/criticism on what I've done, please say so.

Oh... and if you've got any blogs you'd like to see added to any of the blogrolls please say who the blog is and include their URL in comments.

Posted by Kevin at 10:44 AM |

Sen. Smith & Iran/Contra

I find it both ironic and amusing that someone making calls on behalf of the Smith campaign revealed his own apparent ignorance by insisting that Senator Smith is "working on an Iran Contra program to help fight the terrorists".

Ironic because Iran/Contra was the catalyst for me severing my relationship with the Republican Party to become an Independent, which I remain to this day and into the foreseeable future. Also ironic because, although an Independent angry with the GOP, I continued to vote for many Republicans and have never voted against Gordon Smith, including his initial attempt where he lost to Wyden. I am, however, going to vote against him in 2008. The irony is compounded by the fact that the ill-informed caller cited the campaign of Jeff Merkley as the reason for soliciting contributions... and Merkley is the horse I'm betting on to be Oregon's new junior Senator next session.

Posted by Kevin at 10:07 AM |

October 19, 2007

Scientist Crosses Line with Race-Based IQ Comments

You've probably heard by now about the Nobel prize-winning geneticist who reportedly said he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really." James Watson now says his comments are being misreported and that he is mortified by the response his reported comments have received from the public. He says now that Africans are not "genetically inferior." He has been at the center of controversy in the past, too, over statements of his scientific opinion that ran contrary to socially acceptable view. For instance, he said women should be able to abort babies if genetic tests showed the babies would be homosexual, that skin color is linked to sex drive (the darker the skin, the higher the drive), and that it would be good to genetically modify fetuses to ensure physical attractiveness. I think in his quest to unlock the mysteries of science, however, he has entirely ignored something far more important: the human soul.

Back to the issue of race and intelligence, obviously, we know that differences on IQ tests have been tied to cultural differences and differences in test-taking abilities, thereby virtually eliminating the notion of racial differences in intelligence. I would add to that my own suspicion that different brains process things differently, and western IQ tests are predicated on the notion that everyone being tested thinks the same way, which they probably don't. Based on my own experience as a teacher in Zimbabwe for a year back in 1983, I simply do not believe that black people are less intelligent than white people. I found my students to be very bright, and certainly harder working and more engaged than American kids – they were hungry to learn and wanted to contribute to building their new country. I personally believe Africa's problem is political corruption, not intelligence.

But the whole controversy got me thinking. Some years back, a similar controversy raged over the suggestion that black people were better athletes in some sports because they had larger thighs, if memory serves. For the longest time I did not understand where it was racist to point out something like that. You could just as easily say that black people can stay out in the sun longer because they have more pigment. It's a simple fact. I have often thought that black people tend to have more soul and their music is just plain the best in the world (think Jimi Hendrix or all the amazing jazz and blues artists). We know that talents have a genetic basis – that they are passed on in families – so why is it so difficult to accept particular abilities being stronger in one race than another, when evolution would indicate otherwise? We see a genetic basis for talents in the rest of the animal kingdom all the time, which is why winning race horses are sought after as sires of future race horses and why people pay so much money for the pure-bred offspring of award-winning dogs. So why would people be any different? My point is, I could not understand why we would be so afraid of noticing if members of one race tend to be better at something than members of another race.

The answer comes only if you ask a more difficult question. What if scientists actually did find intelligence differences in the races? Should the science be suppressed in the interest of building an egalitarian society? Isn't that sort of like imprisoning Galileo for challenging the flat-earth believers? Or is it a way to make the world safer for everyone? Here's my answer: human nature being what it is, the stakes involved are too great to allow something like that to be known. It can only lead to oppression and misery. We're all better off if we focus on equality of opportunity and work to stamp out corruption in the world. In such an environment, people all around the world do a pretty good job of finding happiness and creating a good life for themselves and their children.

So that brings me to why noticing differences in thigh size actually does matter. You cannot notice that one race is better at something than another without noticing that the other race is less able at that thing. You also cannot notice general trends within the races without creating stereotypes that limit particular members of various races. And the fact is that we are all, as a worldwide society, striving for a time when each human being matters and can reach his or her full potential. Shedding stereotypes and seeing people as individuals is a necessary part of that quest. And science, while informative and useful in so many ways, can never measure the capacity of the human soul when filled with hope and provided with opportunity.

Posted by Becky at 11:04 AM |

October 18, 2007

Thank you Senator Dodd!!

Dodd placed a "hold" on the FISA bill.

I've got nothing of substance to add to it so I'm just going to point you to our friend Chuck Butcher's post for the details, including the text of the email Dodd sent out.

Posted by Kevin at 10:04 PM |

Right Brained or Left Brained?

Are you right-brained or left-brained? Here is a cool test that will help you find out. By the way, I came out fairly balanced between the two, though a bit more right-brained than left-brained.

Posted by Becky at 02:43 PM |

Politicians Pander to Majority Who Believe in Theocracy

For those naysayers who believe some of us are overly-paranoid about the prospects of a theocratic future for America, I point to a new poll by the First Amendment Center that finds the majority of Americans – 55% - believe the founders wrote Christianity into the Constitution – that is, that America was founded to be a Christian theocracy. And it doesn't help that most of the Presidential candidates are actively pandering to this belief. For instance, John McCain recently said, "The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." Never mind the facts. (Aussie Mistress could teach McCain a thing or two about Christianity and the Constitution.)

Mitt Romney is one-upping McCain, misrepresenting Mormonism as well as the secular nature of American government. "The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background," he said in New Hampshire. "They're American values, if you will."

Yesterday marked the opening of this year's Values Voters Summit, and speakers this year include John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Bill Richardson. Lest you think Richardson is the lone Christian-pandering Democratic Presidential candidate, note that Hillary Clinton has an "evangelical consultant" on the payroll and Barack Obama, who invokes religion more than any other Democratic candidate, is actively seeking to prove that Republicans don't "own" religion. Of course, being religious doesn't mean actively seeking a theocracy, but it does embolden those 55% who believe a Christian theocracy was the founders' intent.

The difficult part about this is discerning which candidates are sincere about their faith and which are pandering to the theocratists. David Kuo's revelations about the behind-the-scenes scorn of Christians in the Bush Administration should have woken Christians up to the realities of politicians pandering for votes. Mitt Romney is working hard to convince Christians that Mormonism isn't much different – in fact, it's basically the same. Yeah, that's the ticket. He's a Republican, so it just might work. On the other hand, Barack Obama, who appears to actually be a sincere Christian and, therefore, ought to be attracting Christian voters isn't – and never will - because he is a Democrat. Oh, and he has that unfortunate "Hussein" and "Obama-Osama" thing going (very bad luck on his part). The realities of his Democratic persuasion mean that Obama's pandering may ultimately cost him votes. As the Rev. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance said upon hearing Obama's "Kingdom" comments to an evangelical church a couple of weeks ago, "in an evangelical church … that terminology has a very specific, indisputable definition that is exclusive rather than inclusive." (That's right – I wasn't the only one who was troubled by it.)

But sincere or not, we still have to address the fact that 55% of Americans do not understand or are unfamiliar with our own Constitution and our politicians are more than willing to take advantage of our ignorance. At this point, I find myself actually hoping that this crop of Presidential candidates is as insincere about Christianity as the Bush Administration has been (per Kuo) - in other words, that they're all lying to get votes and don't really mean what they're leading Christians to believe. How's that for depressing.

Posted by Becky at 12:00 PM |

October 16, 2007

Where is America's Heart?

Right-wingers scoffed at left-wingers' assertions this morning that the assumed brutal attack this weekend on Air America radio talk show host Randi Rhodes was likely politically motivated. But until Randi disputed her Air America colleague's report of an attack this morning, claiming instead that she fell while walking her dog, it seemed the only realistic explanation. As baroosk wrote on Talking Radio, it isn't unprecedented to see violent attacks on left-wing radio hosts. Joe Gendelman at The Moderate Voice offered more on the history of attacks on radio talk show hosts. But that aside, what really has concerned me most about the incident has been the nonchalant reaction of America to what was thought to be a brutal attack on a woman.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned (though I happen to think that some of our old-fashioned values are pretty good), but the idea of a man or men doing something like this to a woman is deeply offensive. The symbolic nature of femininity is that of nurturing. I believe our culture has lost something valuable in its rejection of respect for that "feminine" quality, as expressed through gallantry (though gallantry was often perverted by chauvinists into domination of "the weaker sex"). But if you read through the many comments by the public posted all over the Web today, such as here, the feminine is no longer valued – in fact, it is no longer apparently even discerned. Instead, we find a vulgar display of the opposite of nurturing – that being pure hate, and the source of that hate is undeniably political. For instance:

- Why doesn't anyone kick the S**t out of Ann Coulter?

- Ann Coulter would kick your whining, sniveling liberal *ss.

- couldnt happen to a nicer commie

- Her 12 listeners will miss her.

- This picture must have been taken after the attack

And then there is this post, entitled "I Support Randi Rhodes Muggers."

Let us not judge the Randi Robbers too harshly. Sure she's missing a few bucks, and a few buck teeth, but that's not the real tragedy. The real tragedy is the fact that so many robbers are out there, waiting to pounce on liberal gas bags, and nothing is being done to reach out to them.

Only when we reach out, can we truly call ourselves a just society. Let's not punish these criminals, they've been punished enough. Let's look at ways of addressing the root causes of Libtard muggings and ensure that all are treated equally (cue All American Background music) so that a city for the people, by the people and of the people, can one day shine for everyone, regardless of race, religion, height, sexual orientation, political party, or right handed or left handedness. Then we will truly be free.

Upon learning that Randi's injuries were the result of an accident, he updated his post thus:

UPDATE: It turns out that Randi was not attacked by a conservative mugger. It makes sense, you bunch of chickenhawks. New reports show that Randi Rhodes "fell" when her dog pulled her off balance. The dog is being investigated, will be checked for rabies, but not for any other "papers."

I have my doubts about the veracity of Randi's claim that she fell (does one lose two teeth from falling down while walking a little dog?), but that doesn't change my concern about the apparent heartlessness, lack of esteem for nurturing, and inability to empathize that are displayed by so many in America these days.

Posted by Becky at 12:00 PM |

October 13, 2007

The A-list musicians' muse - Pattie Boyd

This has nothing to do with politics but I do hope you'll indulge me anyway.

I just read an AP piece on Pattie Boyd's new book in which she talks about her marriages to both George Harrison and Eric Clapton.

I'm very much looking forward to reading her book. Three of my all-time favorite songs were written Pattie Boyd- "Something" by Harrison, "Layla" and the hauntingly beautiful "Wonderful Tonight" by Clapton. All three are on my MP3 player, but of the three I play "Something" and "Wonderful Tonight" much, much more often than "Layla. As a life-long hopeless romantic those two songs touch me in a way that very few things in this life ever have.

Fittingly enough Boyd's book is entitled "Wonderful Tonight". Although from the review it seems that Clapton doesn't come off nearly as well as Harrison does.

Despite the ups and downs of the marriage, the book presents a warm portrait of Harrison, who died of cancer in 2001. "Eric and I were playmates," Boyd writes, "but George and I were soul mates."

There was also the issue of Clapton's alcoholism too.

"I have to take some of the credit for his bad behavior," she said. "I allowed it. I would not allow it now.

"I now know about alcoholism, for example — I know that it is a disease. Whereas when I was younger, I just thought it was people behaving badly. Eric was drinking far too much and I just thought it was a nightmare. I didn't realize he was ill."

As a recovering addict I can empathize all too easily with her on that point.

Eric Clapton is set to release his own autobiography next month and Pattie Boyd is looking forward to reading it.

"I'm looking forward to it," she said. "I'll plunge straight in."

Posted by Kevin at 07:38 PM |

It's 700 Years Late, But What the Heck

Why is the Vatican spending time and effort exhonerating the Knights Templar 700 years after the infamous "Friday the 13th"? And isn't it odd that this happens just when people are beginning to compare Blackwater to the Knights Templar? Is there a connection? Well, it is the latest and greatest conspiracy theory. The fact that the great pontiff himself would get involved certainly makes one wonder. Of course, the foreign press is also taking note, as is the Daily Kos.

I must say I don't see the Blackwater/Templar comparison as particularly valid, but it is interesting to see it being made. Depending on your point of view, it either demeans the historic perception of the Templars or uplifts the reputation of Blackwater. And maybe that's the purpose.

Some are asking whether Blackwater is the fourth horseman of the apocalypse (or should I say horsemen, as the fourth horse - the pale horse - carried two men, Death and Hell - very apropriate description of Blackwater, which is interesting because the Templar's emblem was a horse carrying two men). If Blackwater is intended to be a reincarnation of the Templars, it is a perverted one and certainly deserving of the pale horse comparison.

I, for one, would rather see the Pope come down on the modern "Templars" - as in Blackwater - than waste time exhonerating a 700-years-ago group of knights that have no relevance to today. Or do they?

Posted by Becky at 01:23 PM |

American Ignorance About the Toll in Iraq

The ignorance of the average American about the war in Iraq is staggering. Did you know that the average American believes only 9,900 Iraqis have died in the war? As some of us know, the actual number is 100 times that - 1,200,000 human beings of Iraqi citizenship have been violently killed. That's equivalent to the utter destruction of the entire Portland, Oregon metropolitan region, or all of Salt Lake County, including Salt Lake City, UT, just to put it into perspective. Proportionally, though, it's much worse. Iraq's population is just over 27 million. If the U.S. lost the same percentage of its population, we'd be looking at a loss of around 13.5 million people. How would we react to that? Nearly one in four families in Iraq today has lost a member of their household to the violence. 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in Najaf alone. The war has created 500,000 new widows in Iraq. And the reaction here in the U.S. is a big yawn. The best we seem to be able to say is we're tired of the war. Just tired of it.

The question that plagues my mind is not so much why Americans don't know how many Iraqi men, women and children have been violently killed and maimed, but whether we have the ability to know and are choosing to ignore it and, if we did know, whether we would do anything about it. Or would we, in order to hold on to our precious self-image as decent, God-fearing people, convince ourselves that the Iraqis are our enemies and need to be killed, or worse yet, that we are simply acting as the hand of God, who is at long last exacting judgment for ancient Babylon's treatment of Israel thousands of years ago?

I fear we are about to reap the whirlwind. Somehow I don't believe God will help us. We simply don't deserve it.

Posted by Becky at 09:44 AM |

October 11, 2007

Measure 49 Process Reveals True Colors

If you ever wondered why the rabid right-wing right is so rabid, all you have to do is look at Measure 49. As Nigel Jaquiss explains, the measure's proponents – those who have been fighting continuously since 2000 to undo Measure 7 and the subsequent Measure 37 – "orchestrated a strategy to get Measure 49’s backers the ballot title they wanted." In other words, those who have spent so much time criticizing ballot title shopping shopped around for the best possible circumstances in order to control the measure's ballot title and thereby ensure its passage. Apparently, they recognized that Bill Sizemore has been right all along about the importance of ballot titles.

Tim Nesbitt, who was supposed to be acting in a fair manner, joined up with Bob Stacey, the director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, "to make sure any prospective ballot title would reflect proponents’ views, rather than neutrality," as Jaquiss explains. They polled and ran focus groups. They tested the language of proposed ballot titles to see which language would get them the best outcome. They made certain it was biased.

None of these options are ever available in the initiative process. The only option available in that process is to engage in ballot title shopping. The process is, in a sense, a dance with the Attorney General's office and the Oregon Supreme Court. Sometimes bias affects the titles, but in comparison to the effort Measure 49 proponents undertook, the traditional ballot title process seems exceedingly fair.

Steve Novick's involvement in this effort is particularly disturbing because back in 2000, he was very outspoken in his opposition to ballot title shopping. At the time, I am sure supporters thought that opposition was due to a desire to ensure ballot titles were fair and neutral; in retrospect, it would appear that those rabid right-wingers were right – Novick's (and others') opposition to ballot title shopping is that it prevents them and their allies in government from prejudicing the ballot titles.

Not only did Measure 49's proponents bypass the normal process and word the ballot title language to ensure it would lead voters to believe it reflected their desires, they also chose to bypass the normal process for writing the Explanatory Statement and deliberately tried to make the summary so long that it would be left out of Voter Pamphlets, thereby ensuring that their carefully crafted ballot title would be the only official explanation available to most voters. Voters would, then, vote based on ballot title language they knew was biased because they had intentionally biased it, and would not be able to understand the implications of the vote they were making. In the end, the summary was shortened for inclusion, but the specific effort to prevent it's printing reveals much about the motives of Measure 49 proponents.

The Democratically-controlled Legislature passed the package out to the voters on a party line vote after a lengthy process during which Republicans and property rights advocates were denied any legitimate participation. This after spending the past session griping about Republicans doing the same sort of thing to Democrats and promising things would be different when they were in charge. Well surprise, they aren't any different.

Greg Macpherson, who led the Democrats' effort to overturn Measure 37 (or, to be more socially acceptable, to "fix" Measure 37), says he believes the ballot title is accurate and fair. This is belied by the fact that proponents themselves said in communications to each other throughout the process that the title was biased in their favor. It is frightening to me that Macpherson is now running for Attorney General, where he would be in charge of writing all future ballot titles for initiatives. This is precisely the sort of bias that should not be allowed to taint that position.

Now I know I'm going to get some negative comments from people I respect telling me I'm overly-conspiratorial and that the Democrats would never do any such thing, but I am convinced they, like so many right-wingers, are simply unable to see the problem when it is their own side engaging in it. Jaquiss points out a classic example of this in a quote from Gov. John Kitzhaber when he vetoed a Republican effort to bias a legislative referral back in 1995:

I think it is important to preserve the right of Oregonians who may disagree with the Legislature to challenge the proposed ballot title in court.... It is never appropriate to avoid the appeals procedure in an effort to thwart court scrutiny and bypass citizens who may have an alternate point of view on the objectivity of the proposed ballot title.

I wonder what Kitzhaber would say about the Measure 49 ballot title process. Considering his own role in undermining and overturning Measure 7, I would not be surprised to see some cognitive dissonance exhibited by the man and his supporters.

This would all be outrageous enough if it stopped with bias in the ballot title, but it doesn't. The measure itself contains language that could very well change Measure 37 in ways the voters would not realize and would not want. That is why the ballot title had to be biased.

In fact, through the subtle use of specific terms and the knowledge of the process that is unfamiliar to most voters, legislators were able to draft a measure that sounds like it is fixing Measure 37 when in fact it is overturning it. Take, for instance, the voters are being told property owners could regain up to ten home sites unless located on "high value farmland," where they can only have three home sites. My guess is that few realize that most of the affected land is defined as "high value farmland," meaning very few people would get the ten homes. But worse, as it turns out, very few - if any - would even get the three homes because, according to Measure 49, residences cannot be built unless existing regulations "prohibit" them outright. Oregon law doesn't "prohibit" homes on farm land – it "restricts" them based on certain tests being met. In other words, the language of the measure is such that it will look like it is doing one thing, but in actuality will be doing another.

And don't even get me started on the misleading advertising.

The Measure 49 crowd is practicing elitism at its worst. They believe they know best, they have worked to overturn the will of the voters who, they believe, did not understand what they were doing, and now that they have the capacity to manipulate the situation they are ensuring that they fool the voters into undoing what they have already done – twice – because it is for the best.

Really, I'm so disgusted by the entire process I don't even feel like talking about politics anymore. It seems there just aren't any good guys left.

Posted by Becky at 04:17 PM |

October 09, 2007

Why Democrats Suck

We all know Republicans suck. I mean, they tell you they’re going to rein in spending and then they borrow against our great-grandchildren’s money and spend it all turning the rest of the world against us. They say they’re pro-life and then they veto children’s health care. They talk about supporting small businesses, and then they support big corporations and their interests that are working to squeeze small businesses out - or swallow them up. I could go on, but we all know it. Republicans just plain suck. Well, guess what. Democrats suck, too. Why? Because they break their promises, too, and sometimes the results are even worse. This time, they promised us they would stop the Republicans’ efforts to steal away our civil liberties and now, due to lack of sufficient votes to rein in the Bush Administration, they are about to approve the very same broadened N.S.A. wiretapping authority they told us they would stop.

A Democratic bill to be proposed Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. wiretapping that the administration secured in August for just six months. But in an acknowledgment of civil liberties concerns, the measure would also require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the N.S.A.’s interception of foreign-based communications.

A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration’s demands, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s once-secret program to wiretap without court warrants.

No one is willing to predict with certainty how the issue will play out. But some Congressional officials and others monitoring the debate over the legislation said the final result may not be much different than it was two months ago, despite Democrats’ insistence that they would not let stand the August extension of the N.S.A.’s powers.

Obviously (at least to me), we need Republicans to keep their word and stem the spending, slow the growth of government, look after the economy, etc. But the things Democrats claim to be safeguarding are even more important. Civil liberties are the foundation of this country, not economics. When Republicans fail, it sucks, but when Democrats fail it really sucks.

I’d say it’s time to give the Democratic S.O.B.s a telephone call. You can find out how to contact your very own Democratic S.O.B. right here. (Of course, if you live in Oregon, your Democratic representatives probably are not S.O.B.s, but for the rest of the country, have at ‘em.)

Posted by Becky at 09:17 AM |

October 08, 2007

What Did Obama Mean by "Kingdom"?

What the heck did Barack Obama mean when he told Sunday worshippers this weekend, “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth”? Did he mean the Christian “Kingdom of God”? Because that sounds theocratic to me. A quick Google blog search tells me I am not the only one troubled by this statement, though the reasons people are concerned are amazingly diverse. Does it concern you at all? Why or why not? What do you think he meant?

Posted by Becky at 12:22 PM |

Paul Jacob Tries to Rewrite History

Ted Piccolo today highlights Paul Jacob’s new “I’m Innocent!” Web site, www.freepauljacob.com. And the site is a real piece of work. Jacob, who apparently isn’t fond of “hand-cuffs and leg-irons,” not to mention the potential “ten years in prison” he faces for, as he explains it, “exercising [his] right to petition the government,” is rewriting history in a desperate attempt to free himself. He accuses “HalfAssPete” of Daily Kos, who wrote about the story last week, of using a “leering tone with which he actually relishes the idea of people being hauled away in handcuffs because they dare to disagree with his ideas” and says his prosecution is “a 100-percent politically-motivated attempt to threaten and intimidate me, and any other citizen wishing to petition their government.”

“I did nothing wrong, unless trying to help Oklahoma citizens place a measure on the ballot for a vote of the people has now become a crime,” Jacob remarked. “After celebrating so many victories in the long, tough struggle for civil rights, it is shameful that Oklahoma authorities seem determined to harass those of us they deem ‘outside agitators.’”

Jacob continues on the site working up the right-wing grassroots and drawing them in as personal participants in his persecution as a martyr for them all:

We the People will not be intimidated. We will keep fighting to turn out-of-control government into government that is under citizen control. We will defeat this vicious attempt to criminalize honest political activity.

This is standard operating procedure for right-wing crooks. I have come to believe the entire reason they spend so much energy telling their followers that the media is “left-wing” and biased, and creating knee-jerk hatred of the left and of government (or rather, of the left-wing government), is so that if and when they get caught breaking the law they can count on their followers automatically assuming they are being unfairly persecuted by left-wing government crooks and unfairly libeled by left-wing media. In other words, their followers will disregard all other sources of information and believe what the right-winger and his or her allies tell them.

Jacob’s “I’m Innocent!” Web site provides his rationalization for breaking the law, which he believes will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. Yes, you read that right. He disagrees with the law and that is why he broke it. Here is how he tells the story:

As the TABOR petition drive got underway, an aggressive campaign was launched to block and harass petition gatherers. Jeannie Berg, an expert in campaigns of harassment against petition drives, was brought in from Oregon to manage the multitude of blockers—many of them brought in from outside the state, and reportedly paid $100 a day.

These “blockers” used thuggish tactics, which have been documented. For example, gangs of them would stalk a petitioner, interrupting, yelling and creating a scene whenever a voter was being asked to sign the petition. There was an organized campaign of lying to store managers, alleging rude treatment from petitioners and asking that they be removed.

In response to all the harassment, many Oklahoma petitioners left the state to petition in other states. Given the difficult environment, not enough new circulators were being recruited and retained in Oklahoma to enable the petition to reach the ballot. Under such circumstances—and under the legislature’s (not the constitution’s) draconian 90-day petition window—I suggested to the petition company that the drive be scuttled.

I was then informed that under Oklahoma’s statutory residency requirement, people could move to Oklahoma and immediately declare residency, and thus be qualified to circulate the petition. The petition company felt enough people could be recruited to move to Oklahoma to gather enough signatures to bring the question to the ballot.

Emails between Paul Jacob and Susan Johnson tell a different story. They show that the signature drive started on Sept. 15, 2005. By November 11, Johnson indicates she had already been working with three “pros” -- that is, out-of-state petitioners brought in to work the campaign, and had seven “pros” coming in. The concern she had for keeping petitioners working on the Oklahoma drives was not union “thug” harassment, but rather the high price being paid for signatures on a drive going on in California, which she feared would lure her petitioners away. The reason she states for wanting to use “pros” and bring in more “pros” is that they would cost the campaign “less money in the long run.”

Not until November 29, after using "pros" for several weeks, does Johnson mention that blockers were out interfering with signature gathering over the Thanksgiving weekend, and she indicates that she thought “there may be a mobilized union effort.” She then goes on to talk about efforts to keep the “pros” happy (financially) and how to recruit more of them. By December 8, Johnson writes, “We have commitments from 62 pro’s to be in the state by Friday. I am continuing to encourage others to come. Reports are that California ends tomorrow. Many are already here and working.”

I am not discounting the possibility that blockers used outrageous tactics to prevent signature collection. If they broke the law, they ought to be prosecuted. If no laws existed to protect petitioners from such harassment, then perhaps the Oklahoma Legislature ought to get on that because people do have a right to petition their government and ought not to have to endure threats and intimidation in the process.

However, the law is the law. Jacob and Johnson knew the law. Jacob and Johnson knowingly and willfully broke the law and then denied it until irrefutable evidence was uncovered in the form of their emails to each other. And, as “HalfAssPete” points out, fraud and lawbreaking are routine for Paul Jacob and his friends. This should be unacceptable even to those who support the issues Jacob works to place on their ballots.

Posted by Becky at 11:51 AM |

October 07, 2007

Where are all these Hillary supporters???

While commenting on Hillary's reported polling numbers one of the panalists on To The Contrary (PBS) observed that one can't raise the kind of money that Obama has and get such a large percentage of it from small donors as he has and not have it show up in the polls. Yet poll after poll appears to show Hillary not only leading him handily but increasing her lead.

Where are all these Hillary supporters???

Straw polls certainly aren't scientific but can tell us a little something about how much support a given candidate has in a geographical region. A straw poll done this weekend at the annual Oregon Dem Summit show Hillary at a distant 3rd at 36votes behind Obama (49 votes) and Edwards (47 votes). Now those kinds of numbers strike me as more inline with reality. At least they jibe with the support levels that I've been exposed to.

What do you think? Is Hillary really as strong as the national polls seem to indicate?

Posted by Kevin at 07:21 PM |

October 05, 2007

"F--K Bush" Protected by the First Amendment

Bravo to the Colorado State University Board of Student Communications for deciding that David McSwane, the editor who ran a large-lettered editorial reading "Taser This … Fuck Bush" in the university student newspaper following the tasering of a University of Florida student, was exercising his First Amendment rights and should not lose his job. The Board gave McSwane the least severe punishment it could impose because of the inappropriateness of the language for an editorial and the harm it caused to the university. Student publications have lost about $50,000 in advertising support and staff have had to take 10% pay cuts. McSwane's punishment was the receipt of a formal admonishment from the Board calling his decision to run the editorial "unethical and unprofessional." An appropriate response, in my opinion.

Posted by Becky at 05:24 PM |

Paul Jacob Indicted

Looks like Paul Jacob, close associate of Howard Rich, has just been indicted in Oklahoma. For a refresher course, see my post on the Oklahoma scandal. He made the stupid mistake of knowingly disregarding Oklahoma's laws against non-residents circulating petitions. Thankfully, Oklahoma actually goes after people criminally when they violate election law.

There's a reason why Oregon's Hardy Myers' nickname is "Hardly Matters."

Posted by Becky at 05:13 PM |

October 04, 2007

How Larry George Does Business

Last month I responded to some rumors and speculations floating around about Larry George's "self-dealing" – as in dipping into the funds of campaigns he controlled to benefit himself. Unlike those who were criticizing Sen. George, I actually called him myself and talked to him. I did so because I knew him personally back when I worked in politics and based on my knowledge of him I did not believe the rumors. I have just had another conversation with Sen. George about the matter after he discovered my post and called me. After talking awhile, he told me I got a couple of things wrong in my first post about how he runs his advertising firm. So, for the record, let me describe for you how Sen. George does business, particularly with regards to his advertising agency, George Advertising. With any luck, I won't screw it up this time.

The first detail I got wrong relates to the designation of a political committee as a "candidate controlled committee," which is something new that was not in place when I was involved in politics before and not a term I recognized. So when I wrote that the alleged scandal was that "on numerous occasions, large expenditures of money have been paid by PACs controlled or partly controlled by Larry George to a company called George Advertising," I did not understand the term "controlled" in the same way that Sen. George's accusers did. I assumed they meant campaigns on which he was a designated Director.

I understand after speaking with Sen. George that a "candidate controlled committee" is a committee for which major decisions are made by someone who is a candidate. Transcripts from a hearing on the matter show that the new designation was intended to prevent candidates from hiding the sources of contributions by controlling several different committees and laundering money through them and to prevent candidates from claiming receipt of loans from big contributors when those "loans" were not intended to be repaid and were actually contributions. No doubt, Rep. Derrick Kitts's use of campaign funds for personal expenses also played into the passage of the bill.

In Sen. George's case, his advertising firm is run in such a way that a good number of his clients' committees needed to be classified as candidate controlled committees even though he was not a board or committee member or a Director for those committees. This was not, as has been alleged, a matter of Sen. George being in charge of several campaigns and hiring his own firm to place advertisements so he could profit from the campaigns he was running. It was a matter of several campaigns hiring his firm and, because of his habit of paying significant portions of those campaigns' normal expenses out of the commissions he was required to charge them, having to list him as a controlling party.

You're probably shaking your head in confusion, so let me explain.

In my September post, I wrote:

And on the campaigns he controls, when he hires himself to place advertising he doesn't make any profit at all. He does the work at cost. His firm is simply able to get better rates, so hiring himself saves the campaigns money.

This was partly right, but also partly wrong, as Sen. George was kind enough to explain to me.

Here is how it all got started. Back in 1994, Larry George was working for Oregonians in Action, which was using outside consultants for its campaigns. The group was having difficulty obtaining the information it wanted from its consultants related to how much was being spent on advertising and how much was being paid in commission. Additionally, the campaigns the group was running were too small to be able to afford the big consultants and firms. Larry decided to start George Advertising as a way to facilitate ad buys without having to use a consultant.

Those who haven't placed ads may not realize that when you buy radio advertising, the person who places the ad gets a 15% commission. Most of OIA's ad buys were in the range of $200,000 back then, so George Advertising would get a $30,000 commission, which Larry would give back to OIA as a contribution. Before long he began taking on other nonprofit clients, which generated a reasonable income for him and still enabled the campaigns to keep their costs down. When he ran for office, he disclosed this information. Today, he says, George Advertising pays him about $2000 a month in salary out of the 15% commissions the firm is paid to place advertising for various campaigns. The rest of the money the firm gets from its 15% advertising commissions is spent paying the salaries of 7 to 9 campaign staff and paying hard costs, such as the fees for the firm creating the ads (about $70,000 so far, he says). The Secretary of State considers his selection of the creative firm, his placement of the ads, and his salary payments to campaign staff to be a directorial role. These expenses, therefore, must be listed as in-kind contributions by George Advertising to the campaigns that are the beneficiaries of his generosity -- and the campaigns must be listed as being controlled, at least in part, by him. This is because he is offering campaigns more than other consultants traditionally offer. So I was correct in stating that he gives back to the campaigns what they pay him as a commission for placing the ads. I was incorrect in that I did not note that he takes a small salary for himself out of those commissions - but let me say that any reasonable person could see that a total $2000 salary each month, taken from the combined commissions paid by all his clients, is truly negligible.

Those who accuse Sen. George of self-dealing in his involvement in Measure 49 simply aren't thinking logically. Even though he was in a position to make a good deal of money from the referral of Measure 49 to the voters, he voted against the referral. What many people don't know is that he was not clamoring to take the campaign on. Only after Mark Nelson turned it down was Sen. George approached, and he only agreed to it because he didn't want to let people down. Like me, Sen. George is very attuned to the many forgotten real Oregonians who have been seriously harmed by regulatory takings in this state and who are watching their first ray of hope – Measure 37 – slip away from them. Like me, he is disillusioned by the dishonest effort that resulted in Measure 49, which is not going to accomplish what the public is being led to believe it will accomplish.

You probably won't hear much from Sen. George in response to the ridiculous allegations against him because, like me, he's much more interested in spending his time doing things to make the world a better place and not so much interested in being on the front page of the newspaper. In fact, when he called me today it wasn't to ask me to write a correction – I'm not even sure if he wants me to write this correction. But considering my own belief that Sen. George is one of the good guys, I'm not going to sit by quietly while he is personally attacked.

By the way, I don't intend to engage in a drawn out debate over Measure 49 and how it was conceived because I'm just too busy to invest in an argument where I already know I won't change anyone's mind. But if you all want to discuss it here, be my guest.

Posted by Becky at 03:19 PM |

Lies, Lies, and Still More Lies

Remember back in December 2004, following the Abu Ghraib scandal, when the Justice Department publicly declared that torture was "abhorrent"? Then Alberto Gonzales was brought on board in February of 2005, and something happened that you didn't know about: the Justice Department issued a secret second opinion that expansively endorsed "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency," according to New York Times reporters Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen. Specifically, the Bush administration authorized use of a "barrage" of "painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." Gonzales himself approved the authorization over the objections of James Comey, whose congressional testimony about Gonzales' actions outraged America to the point Gonzo finally was forced to resign.

Then, when YOUR and MY representatives in Congress outlawed "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment, the Justice Department secretly ruled that its secretly approved torture barrages did not violate that standard.

Shane, Johnston and Risen tell of how the Justice Department ended up in a "mutiny" in 2004 against the Bush administration's torture and other policies. Gonzales "wrenched" the department "back into line with the White House." Since then, it seems the administration is ignoring entirely the will of the people.

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda, President Bush for the first time acknowledged the C.I.A.’s secret jails and ordered their inmates moved to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The C.I.A. halted its use of waterboarding, or pouring water over a bound prisoner’s cloth-covered face to induce fear of suffocation.

But in July, after a monthlong debate inside the administration, President Bush signed a new executive order authorizing the use of what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques — the details remain secret — and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding prisoners in “black sites” overseas.

Under the auspices of the "War on Terror," the United States has treated prisoners to "slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding." These are tactics we never used before because they were morally reprehensible, ineffective, and likely to be subsequently used on our own young men and women. Our "interrogation" techniques have been modeled after Egyptian, Saudi and Soviet methods – wonderful examples of enlightenment to the world.

I tend to agree with Mr. Comey: “We are likely to hear the words: ‘If we don’t do this, people will die.’” But, he said, government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great institutions. "It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most. It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country.” Or, even better said:

John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy’s top lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said he believed that the existence of legal opinions justifying abusive treatment is pernicious, potentially blurring the rules for Americans handling prisoners.

“I know from the military that if you tell someone they can do a little of this for the country’s good, some people will do a lot of it for the country’s better,” Mr. Hutson said. Like other military lawyers, he also fears that official American acceptance of such treatment could endanger Americans in the future.

“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.

Answer: the sheep aren't protesting now, and I don't believe the sheep will ever protest unless their partisan handlers tell them to.

Posted by Becky at 12:33 PM |

October 02, 2007

Arthur Coltrane Hates Women

That's Ann Coulter, for those of you who haven't yet figured out that she is really a he. Because apparently, real women don't have Adam's apples. And according to Arthur, ahem, Ann, they shouldn't be allowed to vote either. That's how you know for sure she is really a man. A woman with any confidence would never say something like that.

Coulter's latest book, If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans, is sure to be wrapped and lovingly placed under the tree for me from my father-in-law this year (I got O'Reilly's latest tripe last year). It is no more likely to be read, by the way, and will likely end up in the same landfill. And the reason is simple: I hate hate. How ironic is that? Specifically, I hate the kind of hate that Arthur spewed to George Gurley of The Observer today:

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'

Hmm. Seems I've met a fairly good number of union manly men who vote Democratic, for starters. Men who could kick most manicured Republican men's asses, including Arthur Coltrane's. (That's Ann Coulter for all you Republican heterosexuals who think he's hot stuff and don't want to admit you're attracted to a transsexual.)

Posted by Becky at 08:45 PM |

Give Us Some Real Numbers, Part Two

Back in July, when the last presidential campaign funding reports were filed, the numbers were all 33s. This time, they’re all 22s. I first noticed this when I read this morning that Hillary Clinton had raised $22 million for the primary and that she maintains a 22% lead over her top opponent, Barack Obama. Not everywhere, though, because Obama is in first place in the Hawkeye State (Iowa) where, interestingly, John Edwards is running third at – you guessed it - 22%. Iowa used to be the first state to vote, but this year New Hampshire moved its primary into first place to January 22. 22 states will hold primaries on February 5 this year. That could turn into a crucial day of reckoning for Republicans, who will be defending 22 seats in Congress this year.

Anyway, it seems 22% of white voters prefer Obama over the other Democratic candidates, and Obama is preferred by 22% of both women and men, though among women overall, Clinton has twice as much support at 44%. Poor John Edwards has only 1/2 the support of Obama among women at 11%. The candidate’s positions on health care will have at least some influence on the outcome of the election. A recent survey by the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society found that 22 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who favors the development of a Nationwide Health Information Network. It remains to be seen whether Iowans – or any of the rest of the states – will be influenced by memory of the 22 guilty pleas that resulted from all the Clinton scandals during Bill Clinton’s administration.

But what about Republicans? Well, a new poll in Washington state shows that if Obama and Mitt Romney went head-to-head there, Obama would win by 22%. I’m not sure how Obama is doing in Iowa, but Romney is currently enjoying 22% support there.

Posted by Becky at 02:32 PM |