Look at the Language

As Republicans at every level across the country find themselves behind, and in some cases way behind, their Democratic opponents, they’re resorting to increasingly violent outbursts that are clearly based on their narrow worldview.

Those outbursts have unfortunately become familiar to all of us: racial tensions obviously underlie attacks against Barack Obama; ideology forms the basis of attacks on economic policies (even if R’s have become schizophrenic about them).

Races in Colorado are no different.  They merely have their own unique facet of the larger worthless rock that the Republican party represents.  I read an article covering Sarah “Socialism” Palin’s visit to the rabid Republican base found in Colorado Springs.  One piece of language in that article caught my attention.

Here is the Rocky Mountain News article.  Here is the quote (emphasis mine):

“This race for the presidency – and my race for the Senate – is all about one thing: It’s about whether we choose freedom and liberty or bureaucracy and bondage,” [Bob] Schaffer told a cheering Colorado Springs crowd.

Schaffer has said some incredibly stupid things this election cycle.  His campaign manager (perhaps the real candidate, depending), Dick Wadhams, has a resume chock full of campaigns whose candidates all too willingly share their … fringe views with potential voters.  But including the word “bondage” in a description of what the presidential race is about while one of the candidates is half-African is particularly tasteless.  It was not included by accident, either.

Republicans this election season have been left to run with what remains of their base: those most prone to their fear-mongering.  They have to pander hard to those who are most scared of foreigners with different skin color, to those who think they’re frightened of “socialism”, to those who are scared of anything resembling change.

Thus, we see Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s rant about pro- and anti-american members of the House, which smacks of McCarth-ism in all its depravity.  Thus, we see Rep. Robin Hayes challenging Bachmann to go even further with her hate speech by saying “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God”.  Thus, we see Bob Schaffer using the word bondage, pushing the buttons of racists in an effort to invoke feelings of victimization among his extremist base.

Schaffer, McCain, Palin, Bachmann, Hayes and the rest of the loonies on the right are letting voters know exactly who they really are.  They’re offering up continual proof of their fringe attitudes.  Unsurprisingly, they’re still bleating about the “bias in the librul media”.  Despite their best efforts over the past 30 years, 50-70% of Americans aren’t as extreme as they want them to be.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

McCain’s Bad Water Policy, Bob Schaffer’s Oil Problems, Marilyn Musgrave’s Oil Problems

Does John McCain want Arizona and California to have more access to Colorado River water, leaving other western states without?  He’ll have to contend with millions of Colorado voters to get anywhere near such a policy.  My hunch is Coloradans won’t like the idea too much.

***

Bob Schaffer, perpetually trailing Rep. Mark Udall in polling throughout the cycle, continues to desperately search for anything that might decrease Udall’s chances.  The latest charge: Udall wants to increase the gas tax by 50 cents per gallon.  It’s untrue, of course, but when you’re behind, you attack your opponent.

Bob Schaffer had the gall to tell reporters after their 2nd debate that oil corporations have a small margin of profit.  Raise your hand if you think they should get a larger margin becuase Schaffer is arguing that $11.68 billion in just three months is too small.

Mark Udall, in contrast, wants to stop the corporate welfare going to Exxon and others and instead provide money for renewable energy ventures so we can end our dependence on fossil fuels.  Which is only one reason why Udall continues to hold a lead in the Colorado Senate race.

***

Marilyn Musgrave thinks her record and efforts to lower the price of gas for families in Colorado should help get her reelected this year.  That’s a novel approach because since her first election, gas prices have increased from $1.50 per gallon to over $4.00 per gallon this year.  What exactly has she down to lower prices?  Billions of dollars in corporate welfare to oil corporations didn’t work.  Invading and occupying a major oil supplier didn’t work.  Voting against every pro-renewable energy bill and amendment didn’t work.  Enough already, Marilyn.  You haven’t represented your constituents for years.  It’s time for Betsy Markey.

ScienceDebate 2008 Update: 4/9/08

Well, quick on the heels of my announcement yesterday that ScienceDebate 2008 ran into a couple of snags, I got word that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are going to do a different debate. A debate on “faith, values and other current issues” at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa. on the 13th of April.

My disappointment from yesterday has turned into frustration. At both candidates. They refused to debate science policy but agreed to debate faith and values?! This exemplifies one of the reasons I want a science debate to occur: science policy is not taken seriously by politicians in this country. Obviously, faith is taken seriously. I have nothing against a discussion about faith, as long as it doesn’t bump other important issues out of the way, as it appears has happened. Couldn’t they have done both? I can imagine the outcry that would happen if Obama and Clinton refused to discuss faith but discussed science. And that seems ridiculous to me.

To put it mildly, emphasizing faith while deemphasizing science is a bad situation. I get it that people of faith have interjected their issues into the realm of politics. It’s obvious that people of science haven’t done as good a job at this. It’s obviously time to do something about this. I’ll start by expressing my frustration with both Democratic campaigns.

I hope to see Democratic candidates at all levels ready and willing to enter into science policy discussions this election cycle.

ScienceDebate 2008 Update: 4/8/08

It’s coincidence that this update about the 2008 Science Debate is one month since my last one. In any event, I received word that the proposed April 18th Science Debate probably won’t happen. A little information: Barack Obama has declined, Hillary Clinton has been non-committal and John McCain has been non-responsive (big surprise: he’s busy showing everybody how little he knows about Iraq and our economy). I’m disappointed that Barack has declined, though I think I understand, for now, why. It sounds like Hillary is waiting for her committee to tell her whether to do it or not. The 18th might pass before they make that decision.

Here is the latest announcement from the Science Debate 2008 folks.  A snippet from their email:

To that end, we have formed a working relationship with the venerable PBS television programs NOVA, their science series, and NOW on PBS, their weekly news program, to cosponsor a national debate broadcast.  NOW host David Brancaccio will moderate, supported by a panel of internationally recognized scientists agreed upon by our cosponsors.  We’ve proposed not one but three possible dates.

The importance of this debate cannot be overstated.  Science policy will likely dominate the next president’s term: climate change, stem cell research, bio- and nano-technologies, cancer, AIDS and pandemic flu only scratch the surface of topics that will be important.  I want to know who recognizes the importance of science policy and I want to know some policy details before the next president is elected.

I would like to see the Democratic nomination process get wrapped up sooner rather than later so that items like this debate, which have been push aside for pointless discussions on image, can be moved to the forefront of a national discussion.  As a bonus, the group pushing for this debate is also considering having similar debates for Senatorial candidates across the country.  I for one would love to see Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer debate science!

Clinton and union voters

I just saw a graphic on CNN – households with a union member in it (in New Hampshire) voted more for Clinton than Obama or Edwards.  This is despite official union support for Edwards.

More importantly to me, it comes despite the fact that one of her predominant staffers is a known union buster.  It looks like Democrats continue to vote based on slick marketing instead of a track record.

N.H. Primary Night 2008 IV

21:10 MST – Clinton up by 6,300 votes; 77% reporting.

Before it slips my mind, what’s the anti-Clinton vote? Iowa and N.H. so far:

Iowa: 68%.

N.H.: 54%.

To be fair, what’s the anti-Obama vote?

Iowa: 59%.

N.H.: 56%.

And the anti-Edwards vote?

Iowa: 67%.

N.H.: 66%.

Interesting. I’ll keep track of these.

Update 21:20 – what’s next?

Michigan 1/15*
Nevada 1/19
South Carolina 1/26
Florida 1/29*
Super Tuesday 2/5

* – The delegates from MI and FL may be stripped from consideration. I’ll believe it when I see it, the party can’t afford to exclude either state from the process.

Update 21:53 – The story for me?  20th Century politicians won N.H. tonight.  21st Century politicians won Iowa five nights ago.  We’ll see how the remainder of the country votes.

N.H. Primary Night 2008 III

20:47 MST – CNN called it for Clinton.

20:45 MST – Clinton’s lead is up to 7,300 votes. College towns left to report.
20:30 MST – Clinton’s lead is up to 5,200 votes. I think this thing is over.

N.H. Primary Night 2008 I

Tried posting this one first earlier.  Let’s see if this one does it:

Iowa 1/3/08

Obama                 38%

Edwards              30%

Clinton                 29%

Richardson            2%

Biden                      1%

 

2^nd choice votes in Iowa likely helped Obama and Edwards, as expected.  Edwards embraced by the netroots this entire election.  While not strong supporters, more netroots folks would have voted for Obama than Clinton.

N.H. Primary Night 2008 II

New Hampshire 1/8/08 20:15 MST

Clinton          39%

Obama         36%

Edwards       17%

Richardson     5%

 

Obama performed well in debate prior to N.H. primary. Bill Clinton sent to N.H. events for Hillary, attacking Obama. This was seen as a negative just prior to the counting of votes on the night of the 8^th. Narrative changed as votes began to come in. If Clinton goes on to win, I’ll have to remember to thank N.H. voters. Not.

 

If Obama doesn’t win the Democratic nomination, how will his infrastructure for getting the youth vote out fare? Will those folks work to help get Clinton elected? How about Edwards? I’m not going to work to get Clinton in the White House. I’m tired of her corporate-lib approach to governing. That’s what doesn’t work in this country. If Obama gets the nod, I’d be happy to do things to get him elected. He’s closer to that corporate-lib mold than Edwards is, but further than Clinton. I view Obama as more likely to get things done for the majority, not the minority.