Generation X-Y Democrat

David Hoffman for US Senate - My Endorsement

2009-12-03T09:16:00.000-08:00

The text of the letter I sent to the Hoffman for Illinois Campaign this morning:
----------------------------------------------------

To Whom It May Concern:

I believe it is important for the young voters of McHenry County to be informed and knowledgeable of all local and statewide candidates. As you are well aware, many young voters were inspired during the 2008 Presidential Election to become more involved in politics, but whether or not this momentum will extend to the 2010 Elections remains to be seen – particularly as it relates to Illinois’ US Senate Race.

It is with this in mind that I feel it necessary to declare my personal support for, and endorsement of, David Hoffman for US Senate.

Mr. Hoffman represents a fresh change to Illinois’ politics that young voters can rally behind. He understands the importance of education, particularly as it applies to local school districts. He also believes in many of the social progressive values that young voters hold on to dearly, such as a woman’s right to choose and equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation. Most importantly, though, Mr. Hoffman is a leader that will fight back against the corruption in Washington that has led many young voters to not want to participate in politics to begin with.

In November of 2009, I was able to watch Mr. Hoffman discuss his views with fellow Senate Candidates at a debate organized by the Northern Illinois Coordinated Campaign Committee, and I was extremely impressed with both Mr. Hoffman’s knowledge of the issues we face and the authenticity of his opinions. Mr. Hoffman is not a man following provided talking points – he clearly has a point of view and is excellent in explaining why what he believes is right.

In sum, I believe it is important that young voters get involved in the 2010 Illinois US Senate race, and they need to know that the February Democratic Primaries offer a real choice. Young voters need to know the importance of voting not just by name recognition, but for the candidate they feel best represents their views. I am confident that David Hoffman is the best candidate, and I hope to convince other young voters of this as well.

Sincerely,

Edward Rotchford
President, Young Democrats of McHenry County

How to Win the Healthcare Debate.

2009-08-07T07:50:00.000-07:00

Have a debate.

No more town halls. No more press conferences. No more rallys.

The message obviously isn't getting through, so it is time to set the record straight.

If we want to win the debate, we have to have a debate.

Up to now it has been just shouting. Republicans and uninformed people who don't want to actually research the truth (wait, is there a difference between the two?) are shouting out lies, while Dems are shouting back, playing watchdog to all the misinformation.

Town halls have a single speaker getting mobbed. It is time to set the record straight and have a debate.

Press conferences are one sided and vague. It it time to be specific in a debate.

Rallys just fire up the base. We need to inform undecideds about the truth WITH A DEBATE.

I would like to see our President challenge any Republican leader to a Health Care Debate to be televised. Each would get an opening statement, then questions would focus on all the fake bullcrap the GOP is using as talking points.

Now I know that won't happen, but why can't our local government leaders have such a debate? Or even local policy experts? Residents could attend the debate in a gynasium or something and see for themselves.

Folks, there is a reason that just a few months ago public support for a public option was 73% and now it is reportedly around 50%. It is because lies are being spread, and Dems are not being effective enough at stopping them.

It's time to have a debate.

Northwest Herald | Health care reform

2009-07-31T08:14:00.001-07:00

Northwest Herald | Health care reform

Shared via AddThis

Approaching the Five Year Anniversary of Joe the Republican

2009-06-26T08:10:00.000-07:00

On August 29th, 2004, we as a nation were enlightened by the story of Joe the Republican, a man who spends an entire day enjoying the benefits of being an American that were provided to him by liberals, only to end the day by listening to a right-wing radio show and hilariously exclaiming "We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

The story of this man was posted on MichaelMoore.com, and seeing that the five year anniversary of this story is fastly approaching, I have pasted it below for your enjoyment. Please pass this around as it is as relevant to today's arguments just as much as it was five years ago!

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
by John Gray

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

Boycotting my local Dunkin’ Donuts because FOX News Channel is played on the TV

2009-06-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

On the mornings that I am going into the office at work, I begin the day by turning on my computer and downloading three audio podcasts onto my phone/mp3 player that will get me through my day: “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” (which lasts on my morning drive until the I-90, I-294 cross), “The Rachael Maddow Show” (which I listen to on my drive home), and “The Randi Rhodes Show” (man I wish she was on our local Chicago progressive talk station!). Around the “Oddball” segment of “Countdown”, I pass a Dunkin’ Donuts that, except for its temporary closing to rebuild, I have been visiting for about 5 years now, consistently 2-3 times a week. 100% of the time I go through the drive-thru.

Usually, they are quick. This past Wednesday, they were not, and I spent a good 30 seconds looking into the store through the drive-thru window, watching the waiting customers inside with their heads glued to the non-sense bigotry that was protruding from the mouths of the hosts on “FOX & Friends” on FOX News Channel.

I was disgusted. I couldn’t believe this was on display at my favorite morning stop.

I recalled the “Countdown” from June 1st, when Olbermann spoke about Right-Wing Hatred coming from FOX News Channel could be contributing to the type of hate crimes and violence that Homeland Security detailed earlier this year following the election of an African-American Democratic President. The point was further discussed in a Daily Kos diary, particularly Olbermann’s request that the best way to limit FOX News Channel’s destruction was to do an indirect boycott by not giving business to stores, restaurants, etc. that play FOX News Channel on their public televisions.

So I asked the nice drive-thru lady, “Is FOX News always on your televisions?”

“Oh yes”, she said, “all the time!”

I then made up my mind that I could no longer go to this Dunkin’ Donuts if they were willing to be an outlet for lies disguised as news.

I had a feeling that Nice Drive-Thru Lady would not be able to relay my choice (she is the busiest lady I have ever seen – a true workhorse there for sure), so I made it a point to visit the Dunkin’ Donuts for the last time that evening to speak with the manager. I would explain how much I like the place, but would not be able to continue as their customer if FOX News Channel would be on. I would not make odd threats or make a scene – I just wanted to relay my opinion to the person that actually has control of the TV.

So, just in case they were busy and I would not be able to make all of my points to the manager, I also wrote a letter that I would give to him/her after we were done speaking:

--------------

June 10, 2009

Dear Store Manager:

Let me begin by stating that, since your restore reopened in its current location, your customer service and the products I have purchased have been outstanding. I visit your store at least two times per week for my coffee and/or breakfast foods, and though I have locations closer to my house, I have always found that your particular location has provided me with the best service.

However, I write this letter to tell you that from this day forward, I will no longer be a customer of yours until you permanently remove FOX News Channel from the televisions that you are displaying in your store. I usually use your drive-thru service, so this morning was the first time I have ever witnessed the channel on first-hand. Your drive-thru specialist informed me that FOX News Channel is always displayed on your televisions.

FOX News Channel is an outlet of radical right-wing propaganda and a frequent spreader of hate speech, bigotry, and false information in an effort to smear our President and anyone who does not agree with the Republican Party. Its very existence is dangerous because uninformed individuals may very well believe that what FOX News Channel reports is truth, when it is in fact not that at all.

The hatred spewed by FOX News Channel during the November 2008 election was highly publicized, so you may have heard about the times where FOX News Channel compared the president to a terrorist (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200806060007), or when FOX News Channel made racist remarks towards the President and his wife (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/fox-news-calls-michelle-o_n_106655.html). Now, you may be unaware of the frequency with which FOX News Channel commonly slanders people and twists words to fit their own agenda, so here are a few examples given in just the past week. All examples have been provided by Media Matters for America at MediaMatters.org:

On June 8, 2009: Fox News on-screen text falsely asserted that, during his Cairo speech, President Obama claimed "there is no more terrorism," and Fox News analyst Ralph Peters accused him of "pretending" it "doesn't exist." In fact, Obama addressed at length the issue of "violent extremism" in his speech (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906080011)

On June 8, 2009: Sean Hannity falsely claimed or suggested that the Obama administration acted to "take over Fannie, take over Freddie." In fact, it was the Bush administration that made the decision to "take over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906080042)

On June 8, 2009: Andrew Napolitano cited a DailyTech article headlined, "NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming," to deny that humans are causing global warming. In fact, the article itself noted that NASA does not dispute that human activities are responsible for global warming. (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906080004)

On June 5, 2009: Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama gave "pretty much the go-ahead ... that Iran can now pursue their nuclear ambitions," and asked, "We're gonna allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon?" In fact, Obama said Iran must comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which bans it from acquiring nuclear weapons. (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906050003)

On the June 3 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News displayed an on-screen graphic that asked about Obama: "Islam or Isn't He?" (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906040045)

On June 2, 2009: Fox & Friends falsely claimed an AP article reported that Dick Durbin has been "accused in [a] pay-to-play scheme" involving Rod Blagojevich. In fact, the article did not include any suggestion that Durbin was involved in a "pay-to-play scheme." (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906020012)

While the views and opinions of FOX News Channel may not represent your own, by displaying FOX News Channel on your televisions you have become an outlet for dangerously false information and hate propaganda. I simply cannot and will not be a customer of a store that provides a channel of lies to its visitors. Please contact me once you have permanently removed FOX News Channel from your store so that I may return again as a happy customer.

Sincerely,

Edward Rotchford

------------------

When I made my way back to the Dunkin’ Donuts, the place was relatively calm with just a few customers, and to my surprise, CNN was on the television. I asked to speak with a manager anyways, but the cashier told me they were only in the place in the morning. I briefly voiced my concerns with FNC and asked who switched the channel to CNN, but nobody knew. Pretty odd, considering Nice Drive-Thru Lady told me FNC was on all the time.

Finally I made my morning trip to the Dunkin’ Donuts for the last time. The place was busier than busy, and I was afraid I would be waiting 20 minutes to the see manager. It only took me 30 seconds worth of commercials, though, to see that FOX News Channel was NOT on the television. CNN was still on.

What was I to do? Wait until they turned FNC back on to make my point? I decided to still speak with the manager. I told her my love for the place, and my continued and consistent business. Then I told her the following: “I had planned on coming in here to tell you that as of today I would no longer be a customer here as long as FOX News Channel was on your televisions, but here I am and CNN is on instead.” The manager said she was not too familiar with the content of FOX News channel, so I briefly explained my argument and how CNN was a much more neutral news channel to have on.

She smiled and said “Okay”.

I followed with “I was going to give you a letter further describing my point, but instead I will let you go back to what you need to do, and I will order a Large Extra-Extra. Thank you so much for listening!”

***

So did my attempted boycott work? Did Nice Drive-Thru Lady somehow relay my concerns? Or did the cashier make the point to the manager that would be coming into work in the morning? I guess I will never know, but I hope that my decision to continue doing business with them simply because FNC was not on the television will make them decide to keep CNN on the television from now on.

Soon, I will be hand delivering a new version of my letter, thanking the kind manager for listening to my concerns, but still warning them of the potentially dangerous lies FNC puts on the air.

However, should I walk in again with FNC on the TV, I will have a copy of the old letter, just in case.

The Impending Death of the GOP

2009-06-03T07:30:00.000-07:00

Let’s get right to the point here – the GOP is dying and wants to die, but in the world of today’s politics, it may be forced to survive against its own will.

Does that make sense? Of course it does. Think of how many independent politicians have very diverse views, but have to claim a party status just in order to get elected or recognized. Do you think Ron Paul really wants to be a known as a Republican congressman? Hell no – he wanted the money and support of the GOP to get elected.

So as long as the GOP raises money, they will be around because the politicians need that money.

(Good thing too – because as a Democrat, I don’t want to see this circus go away and create a new party that might actually make sense!)

The GOP finds itself in a huge pickle – kind of like in baseball where a runner is caught in a rundown while the first baseman and second basemen keep tossing the ball back and forth until eventually the runner is caught.

What is the pickle? The pickle is that the GOP, in trying to re-establish an identity and redefine a message, is trying to force people into uncomfortable spots by making them choose sides on issues that you shouldn’t have to choose sides on.

Think about the issues that have come up lately from the GOP – abortion and gay marriage – two things that have very little to do with politics and governmental policy to begin with.

Regarding the topic of abortion - the murder of George Tiller has set off a mini-firestorm which suddenly finds GOPers arguing a Supreme Court decision from over 35 years ago. The result of this argument gives the public perception that if you are pro-life then you are Republican and if you are pro-choice then you are Democrat.

Let’s dwell on this for a second – pro-life means one choice, while pro-choice means two choices. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion! I consider myself pro-choice, but I don’t think there is any way that, as a father, I could argue for aborting my child. I do, however, think that this should be a woman’s choice, and the woman’s health certainly has everything to do with it as well. Either way, I think it can be said that this is a delicate issue – but what the hell does it have to do with fiscal or foreign policy? Nothing!!

Let’s touch on gay marriage. The public perception is that if you are against gay marriage (or to use the GOP talking points, “pro-traditional values”) you are a Republican (despite Meghan McCain’s failure to convert current GOPers), and if you are for gay marriage, then you are a Democrat. Again, this should have little to do with politics. In fact, many or most Democrats, including the President, are for civil unions, which give equal rights to gay couples and legally married couples. But by constructing the argument in the way that they have, the GOP is trying to force you into spots when you shouldn’t have to be forced at all! Democrats, however, have an arena that allows you an abundance of choices. Many or most Democrats are Christians, but while they may not believe in gay marriage, they certainly aren’t going to kick you out of the party because they disagree with you – in fact, many Democrats will avoid the issue not as a way of diminishing the argument, but as a way of saying “I don’t agree with you, and I may not fight for you, but I certainly am not going to stop you from advocating your cause and ultimately achieving your goals.”

Until the GOP steers away from its addiction to social issues as a means of achieving votes from the Appalachia and Southeastern states, it will continue to run back and forth between first and second base, while the Democratic first and second basemen gleefully toss the ball back and forth, laughing at the panicked baserunner.

To Pursue Happyness in 2009, you must…abandon Hope???

2009-05-12T07:32:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Today, Chris Gardner made an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Mr. Gardner, he is a self-made millionaire who was once homeless. He was also the subject of the movie “The Pursuit of Happyness”, starring Will Smith, which was based on his autobiography.

The Morning Joe crew asked what is different in this book from the last one, and Mr. Gardner pointed to practical applications, saying, “I had a plan…We’re in a position in our country (where) there is too much hoping going on …My position is you have to have a plan; you don’t have to have a whole lot of hope.”

Wha?

Okay, I do agree with the planning part. Most people who are truly successful had a plan. But to abandon Hope?

Hope is not crossing your fingers. Hope is not buying lotto tickets. Hope, by definition, is “to cherish a desire with anticipation” and “to desire with expectation of obtainment”.

To Hope is to Want.

Your best chance of getting is wanting.

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean you have to have Hope before you have a plan?

I find this an interesting choice of words by Mr. Gardner, especially when most of this nation voted for Hope.

Gardner’s example for success is a unique one, but don’t you think he was holding on to Hope that he would be successful? That's because he was! He even said around a quarter of the way through the interview, "I was homeless, but I was not hopeless".

Mr. Gardner took risks. Yes, he was successful, but those risks could have been disastrous.

If I was in Mr. Gardner’s shoes during his difficult times, and I had to choose between 1) an internship that might get me rich but would leave me and my toddler homeless, and 2) a low wage job that would not get me rich right now, but would pay the bills and allow me to raise my child in a safe environment, I would be jumping up and down for choice #2.

Mr. Gardner took choice #1 and it paid off. He got lucky. If he would have failed, choice #1 could be considered selfish and irresponsible. I think most people would agree, so for now, people just want a decent job, and they will hope for when times get better and other responsibly opportunities will present themselves.

Telling people to abandon hope is not a good message. Hope is what we need.

The Whole Torture Debate broken down in plain English, AKA “Torture for Dummies”

2009-04-24T07:39:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Gen X-Y’s paying attention to politics over the past week or so may be overwhelmed by the torture debate that has come about, so I am going to break it down easy for all those out there with short attention spans:

The Bush Administration approved torture techniques, such as waterboarding, in order to get information from detainees. Torture is illegal in the United States, and we have prosecuted people for torture, so the right-wingers are arguing that the methods that we used are not actually torture. The complete idiocracy of this debate is serving as a distraction from the real issue: Most of the intelligence we gathered from the detainees was received before we implemented torture, so there is an increasing opinion that torture was used to get detainees to link terrorist attacks to Iraq, thus giving the Bush administration justification for going to war.

As more information continues to pour out, the next debate is whether or not the US prosecutes those involved with torturing. President Obama’s position is to not punish those carrying out orders they were given, and though he opposes a torture commission, has left the door open for those that were involved with actually ordering torture methods to be implemented to be prosecuted.

So there you have it.

Will such a torture commission get in the way of the President’s budget initiatives? Perhaps this is why he is backing away from it. However, he knows that the same progressives that got him into office are very much for the prosecution of torturers, so he has left the door open for it to take place. Just another day of “toeing the line” for the President I guess…

Why the low voter turnout at local elections?

2009-04-10T06:34:00.000-07:00

On April 7th, 2009, the voting booths were open in my home county of Illinois (McHenry).

According to the Northwest Herald, there are 200,853 registered voters.

Want to know how many showed up on April 7th?

About 31,000.

Less than 16 percent.

Now I have admitted to not being a long-time political activist - just getting in the swing of things the last couple of years - so I think I am going to approach this subject from a different perspective; somewhere in between "Why the heck aren't people showing up?" and "Who the heck cares?".

In 2008, we had a very dramatic Presidential election that, while it didn't dramatically increase the percentage of the youth vote (the Generation Y Democrats are just now voting), it certainly increased the enthusiasm of the percentage that actually did go out to vote. And while I believe that anyone with a "D" next to their name on the ballot would have won the election, it is also my belief that, to a certain extent, we had such an extraordinary candidate that he alone could bring people with him to the polls.

...kind of like the Chicago Bulls in the early Jordan years - it didn't matter if the Bulls were good or not, because Jordan was popular enough to have fans buy tickets to come to the games all around the league.

Comparing Obama to Jordan is a complement in terms of popularity, not just from a Chicago perspective, but from a Generation X-Y perspective. Everyone my age knows Jordan and what he meant to the league and the NBA.

But this is where the comparisons stop, because after Jordan retired, Bulls fans still bought tickets and still came to the games - all this despite being the worst team in the league for the first half of this decade.

Obama fans? Well, once the 2008 election was over, they felt little need to go back to the polls.

31,000 showed up for local elections in McHenry County on April 7th. Do you know how many people voted for the Presidential election in McHenry County? 137,133. President Obama received 72,288 votes by himself.

So what's wrong here?

I understand, and somewhat agree with, the argument that local elections aren't too popular at any time - that you don't get the glitz and the glamour of the nationally known figures on TV, yada yada yada.

But wasn't this time supposed to be different?

While the Bulls did have Michael Jordan and their championships, they knew the key to bringing in fans and generating revenue was to build a solid foundation of fans on a reputation of a family-friendly experience. They knew that Jordan couldn't play forever, so they had to also create an atmosphere where people of all ages would be welcomed with open arms, and they did so by making the games not just about basketball, but about entertainment. Soon, these people wouldn't be just fans, but they would be part of the Bulls family.

The bottom line is this - Democrats need to focus on the party and getting people involved with the party. We need to increase the size of our family.

We can't expect people to just show up to the polls for candidates. There is not enough money to do this. When I was phonebanking for our local officials, and I had a few people say they would not commit to voting because they did not know what sort of platform the candidates were putting forth. They did not know what the local officials stood for.

Really? These candidates are running for smaller offices on behalf of the Democratic Party! People don't have at least a vague knowledge of the core values they stand for?

It's not too late people, but for all the focus we have on finding future candidates that appeal to voters, we need to put just as much effort in inviting people into our party.

Listen folks, the core message is already there. We are already past the "Anyone But Bush" argument. People believe in our core values. They believe that education should be a high priority. They believe that healthcare should be affordable and accessible. They believe in the benefit of social programs that bring us together. They believe that we need a government, even a local government, that should put the priorities of our towns and villages as a whole above spending tax dollars to benefit the wealthy.

Now sure, I am inexperienced politically, so maybe this has been done before, but has it? In my time of being a registered voter, I have gotten dozens and dozens of calls to vote for a candidates in a particular election, but not once have I gotten a call from either party for the sole purpose of wanting to educate me on their beliefs so I would support them in the future. I know dozens of people my age who don't know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

I believe that if we educate people about our beliefs, it will be a whole heck of a lot easier to count on people showing up on election day. But more importantly, we will establish a larger foundation. A bigger family.

BREAKING NEWS

2009-04-01T07:37:00.000-07:00

HAPPY APRIL FOOLS' DAY!
HAPPY APRIL FOOLS' DAY!
HAPPY APRIL FOOLS' DAY!
HAPPY APRIL FOOLS' DAY!

TNT: Why those who think Obama was too tough on GM, Chrysler should Shut It!

2009-03-31T06:44:00.000-07:00

1. The Catch-22

So the Obama Administration is in a Catch-22 with the GM, Chrysler situation. If he is not tough enough and hands out more money, the socialist calls become louder. If he is too tough, then the populist anger rises up and we hear questions of why he has set a double standard by coddling Wall Street execs while forcing Auto execs (i.e. Rick Wagoner) to step down.

The Obama Administration tried going down the middle, giving each GM and Chrysler a second chance before offering government funds, and I think that is entirely appropriate. If we are giving auto companies taxpayer money, they need to meet some demands before they are going to get it. Furthermore, we do need the auto industry to survive to get though this economic downturn, as they employ hundreds of thousands of people, and these companies represent a significant portion of our GDP.

The fact is this: If the bank bailouts never happened, this course of action would not nearly be as scrutinized as much as it is today.

But the bank bailouts did take place, so comparisons are being made – but why bother? Both sides of the aisle know that the handling of the first batch of TARP funds was lackluster at best. Also, the bank failures clearly have much more to do with the downfall of the economy than SUV’s do, and so of course the government is going to be more willing to put money into stabilizing the financial system sooner and quicker without waiting months to review individually submitted plans, as in the case of the GM and Chrysler – many, many businesses depend on these banks lending in order to be successful, or even functional for that matter.

Now did the White House get strict enough with banks when the TARP funds were released? No. Should the CEO’s be getting millions of dollars in bonuses? Not at all.

But if we kind of screwed up some key areas of the bank bailout, shouldn’t we be happy we did it right this time with the auto companies, instead of comparing it to the bank bailout situation? Seems pretty pointless to me. So how about we shut up about this one?

2. Glenn Beck

So Glenn Beck is all the hype now, as he has put up some monster ratings on Fox News. Beck has also gained a significant amount of press to promote his show, even having a large chunk dedicated to him in the New York Times.

But c’mon people, let’s call him out for this stunt he is pulling.

We are all of a few months into the Obama administration, and Glenn Beck is strutting like it is not only the end of the world, but like he is part of this revolution that has been brewing for years and years and now HE’S ANGRY AS HELL AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!

Dude, calm down. The smell of Bush still lingers in the White House bathroom toilet and Beck’s acting like it’s been four years already.

Do you ever wonder why he doesn’t mention that MOST of his anger should be directed towards his own party, which didn’t follow their own basic conservative principles, and that mistake, combined with their stupid neo-con values, were the reason Republicans got booted from the White House in the first place??

But no, Beck won’t say that. Instead, he will grumble about Socialism into the camera in a condescending tone to everyone that disagrees with him – and it reminds me of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s character in Patch Adams, the smart ass that you just want to slap silly because while he may be passionate, he just doesn’t know how to communicate with you without acting like he is talking down on you.

Between Beck and Hannity, who would have thought that The O’Reilly Factor would be the easiest to swallow on Fixed News?

3. Fixed Nation

Speaking of Fixed News, Fox has a new website called “FOX Nation” – which apparently is supposed to be a cross between Huffington Post and Drudge Report, but as of now just looks like Fox’s own crappy website except with more comments.

So…Fox anchors make fun of Huffington Post, and now they want to be like them???

Hmm – must be because MSNBC and CNN slaughter Fox in website traffic in way, way, way, way worse ratios than Fox beats whose two in TV ratings.

4. One more Fix…

I spotted an Alan Colmes post available through the “FOX Nation” website. The title of the post? “Leave my President Alone!”

Geez, can we PLEASE get a left-winger on FOX that doesn’t sound like such a wuss???

5. Okay, two more Fixes…

Whatever happened to Howard Wolfson?

6. O’Reilly on Penn

So O’Reilly boycotts Sean Penn movies.

Wait a second…doesn’t everybody? I guess not for the same reasons though…

7. The GOP “Budget Proposal”

Still no numbers…

8. The NBA

I don’t really understand. Besides LeBron James, that Cavs team doesn’t look like anything special at all. It just shows you that sad state of the NBA and how much everyone else sucks.

9. WORLD CONQUEST on Facebook

I’m not very good, and it disturbs me that the “Lightning Round” games still last half a day. The best way to play? Sign up for like 15 games that all have 1 day or 3 day time limits, then you can get your fix without wasting 12 hours.

FOX News equates the President to Stuart Smalley

2009-03-26T12:35:00.001-07:00

FOX News has just put out probably the most despicable showcase of "journalism" ever.

On the front page of FoxNews.com as of 2:40 CST, the main headline reads "Smalley Diplomacy".

"In contrast to Bush's 'cowboy diplomacy,' Obama administration's apologetic foreign policy tone seems to be based on Stuart Smalley: 'Doggonit, people like me."

So, let me get this straight. George W. Bush is a "cowboy" for turning the rest of the world against us, but Barack H. Obama is "Stuart Smalley" for trying to correct all of our mistakes?

Personally, one of the main reasons I supported Barack Obama for President was my belief that he could restore our standing in the world. Bush made the USA look like a selfish and reckless country. Why else wouldn't the rest of the world help out more in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

So now we have a President who actually symbolizes our new found respect. Americans said to the world, "Hey, we're all not like that loon - you know, our last 'President'."

Our new President actually treats others with respect, even if we disagree. Take the higher road, learn how to negotiate, and learn from past mistakes.

And for this, a major news network gets to equate him to a self-conscious SNL character?

That is downright wrong.

While George W. Bush drew charges of "cowboy diplomacy" for his unilateral style of doing things, the Obama team might just be the Stuart Smalley counterpart to Bush's John Wayne.

Smalley, you may recall, was Al Franken's lovable alter-ego on Saturday Night Live -- an uncertified gusher of self-help advice who often needed that advice more than his guests.

"I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness," he used to recite to himself. "I refuse to beat myself up. I am an attractive person. I am fun to be with."

Maybe President Obama's daily sessions with senior advisers don't begin with a daily affirmation, but the similarities are there.

Smalley often had his guests repeat his mantras.

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and, doggone it, people like me." It's a line many Americans surely still say to themselves every morning when they brush their teeth.

The Obama administration, likewise, has invited a list of nations to join him on the couch, put down their guard and share in that sense of satisfaction.
"We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world," Obama said in a Web video message to Iran in celebration of Nowruz, the country's new year, last week, praising the country's art, music and literature that have "made the world a better and more beautiful place."

Does FOX News understand that in the Iranian message, he was talking to all of the people there? Is it wrong to treat people with respect, after our President succeeded in having the entire world think that the US hates all Muslims?

It is absolutely pathetic that a major news outlet would portray a President that doesn't act like the schoolyard bully as soft.

When Al Gore came on the set, Smalley told him: "I don't have to be the most powerful man in the world. ... I don't have to be able to bomb a country any time I want."

Obama seems to have come to terms with that line.

I think this crosses the line of nonsense. FOX News is a disgrace of a news outlet, and the message it is trying to send to people with this article, that the President is an un-confident wuss who sports an image of confidence to cover up an inside of cowardliness, is just plain awful and teaches a bad lesson to anyone who reads the article.

Shame on them.

Petition to include Public Healthcare Option in Obama's Healthcare Plan

2009-03-26T10:05:00.000-07:00

I'll keep this really entry really short and to the point.

Howard Dean and Democracy for America have started a petition at StandWithDrDean.com that includes the video above, along with the following statement:

"If Barack Obama's healthcare plan gets changed to exclude a public option like Medicare, then it is not healthcare reform. Legislation rises and falls on whether the American public is allowed to choose a universally available public option or not."

Sign the petition

Give America a choice. We support healthcare reform that allows individual Americans to choose either a universally available public healthcare option like Medicare or for-profit private insurance. A public option is the only way to guarantee healthcare for all Americans and its inclusion is non-negotiable.

Any legislation without the choice of a public option is only insurance reform and not the healthcare reform America needs.

Don Manzullo from IL-16 should be targeted in 2010!

2009-03-25T09:11:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Don Manzullo, the Republican Congressman from Illinois’ 16th Congressional District, for receiving “the treatment” from Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim in an article published last night titled “Don Manzullo: Worst Congressional Questioning Ever”. The article posted a video, which I have embedded here, showing goofy Manzullo trying to act tough, but not making any sense.

I happen to live in the 16th District, and I will be quite amazed if this man will be able to survive the 2010 election. This man has been elected numerous times now, by quite a wide margin in fact, because he USED TO live in a traditionally Republican area.

So why would the tide change? Very simple. Nearly all counties within the 16th District voted for President Obama in 2008 by 8%. To put this in perspective, in 2000 and 2004, Bush won this district by 11%. For the first time on record, McHenry county (where I live) voted for a Democratic Candidate for President. Voters are beginning to relate to progressive ideals, and I would venture to say that Manzullo won the 2008 race simply on recognition.

The DNC committed too much money and time to trying to oust Mark Kirk in the 10th Congressional District – a tough task since Kirk is actually liked by most of his constituents. I have met Mark Kirk before and, despite the fact I don’t agree with the guy on a ton of issues, he is a likeable guy. I was not at all surprised that he won convincingly in 2008. However, nobody I know in the 16th district finds Don Manzullo to be a great personality.

Manzullo represents a district that voted for Change, yet he has said “No” to everything his constiuents voted for. The man is clearly not doing his job, and he needs to go!

DY-NO-MITE! TNT: Top Nine Tuesday – Canvassing, CBO, and RISK

2009-03-24T12:31:00.000-07:00

Because Monday is too early to start off the workweek…

Here are the top things on my mind as I start off the week purposely late:

1) Organizing for America’s Pledge Project Canvass:

I hosted a canvass on Saturday sponsored by Organizing for America in order to gain pledges of support for the three main initiatives outlined in President Obama’s budget proposal: Engery, Healthcare, and Education.

I was somewhat disappointed in the amount of time they left for volunteers to assemble – they wanted to have the canvass within a 10 days or so of the announcement. Combine a short period of prep time, with the fact that the canvass would be on a weekend, AND the fact that we are asking people to campaign for someone that is already going to be in office for the next 4 years…let’s just say it was a little tough to get the type of numbers that we had all hoped for – and that is understandable.

That being said, I was very happy with how receptive everyone was to our message. I didn’t get any angry looks and I didn’t have any names shouted at me. In fact, I had a lot of people come up willingly to sign without having to try very hard to persuade them. The Washington Post has a front page article regarding the numbers that turned up around that area, so that was all very positive.
In fact, the campaign is urging people that are willing to pledge their support to go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/pledgeproject and sign the pledge themselves.

2) CBO Report shows larger deficits than White House Predictions

So whatdoyaknow…The day before the President enlists his grassroots organization to gain public support of his budget, the Congressional Budget Office puts out a lovely report that predicts larger deficits than the Obama Administration predicts. This news leads Republican lawmakers to decry the budget proposal, saying that we will all go bankrupt because of it.

Now, the Obama administration has stated that they are willing to give a little wiggle room as long as it doesn’t affect the three initiatives…but we all know what the real motive is behind telling everyone that the US will go bankrupt if the budget is passed – Tell us Sen. Gregg!

Wow – the first thing you would cut is the Healthcare initiative??? Spoken like a true Republican…

3) President Obama is back and having a press conference on national television again. Let’s bet on the top story coming out of it – Obama’s “cool and calm” rhetoric, or a progressive media member being called to answer a question/being allowed to sit in the front row?

4) The market goes up 500 points, and so far today hasn’t lost too much of it…but I really want to know why Jim Cramer has seemed much more calm than in the recent past.

5) Speaking of CNBC, is anyone else watching that channel as much as I have lately? I know absolutely nothing about stock trading, and watching this channel isn’t helping me learn anything other than to stare at the Dow Jones ticker in the corner.

6) Ed Shultz has been hosting “1600 Pennsylvania Ave.” a lot lately. So MSNBC obviously likes him, and that is fine, because so do I, and if FOX thinks that hiring Glenn Beck and getting rid of Alan Colmes is a great solution to staying Fair and Balanced, then I think MSNBC should do him one better by hiring Ed Shultz and ditching Joe Scarsforbrains.

7) I have a love/hate relationship with “Morning” Joe – I hate him right now because of his Twitter updates – he is complaining about Obama’s budget proposal and calling Democrats blind to spending, and that’s fine because he is entitled to his opinion, but then he sends out tweets asking people why it was okay for him to rip the GOP when they spent too much, but not okay to rip Obama for the same.

It’s because your audience is mainly a bunch of Democrats you goof! We like when GOPers rip on their own – that is why your ratings went up! You keep this up and we’ll start campaigning for Mika to go solo!

8) Mike never says too much on that radio show she has with Joe…she is like Colmes to Joe’s “Hannity”.

9) I finally tuned in to the “World Domination” (aka RISK) application on Facebook and I am pumped. Anyone that wants to play – just find me! I will take you DOWN!

AIG a missed opportunity, but Citigroup opens the door

2009-03-20T06:08:00.000-07:00

In terms of pushing forward the Democrats' progressive agenda, the AIG debacle was a missed opportunity. The White House, Senate, and House of Representatives all called for revenge and outrage instead of channeling that anger into some good, sound arguments.

Instead of saying emphasizing his anger and desire to clean up the mess, the President should have pointed to AIG as a prime example on how when the rich get too rich, they get greedy and clumsy, and they waste money that could have been better spent elsewhere. The President should have pointed out all of the ways that over $100 million dollars could have been used for the greater good.

Well, it's too late to use that against AIG now, but lucky for us, Citigroup has opened the door.

That's because Citigroup has decided that now would be a great time to refurbish executive offices, including CEO Vikram Pandit's office, to the tune of $10 million.

$10 million for new offices? Do these guys deserve to spend that kind of money, taxpayer money, so they can get a cooler looking place to chill while they ruin the economy?

In the word's of Keith Olbermann from last night: "Enough!"

But we can't just get angry and upset and demand the money back, because when we do that, it is our natural instinct to spend our in-between time trying to place blame on someone else so we can get angry at them too.

We have spent the last 8 years being angry, and instead of creating chaos, we selected a Presidential candidate that gave a sound argument for change.

So instead of using "angry" as an argument for revenge, I would like to see Democrats outline all the things that could have been done with $10 million as it relates to the President's Budget and use it as an argument for a progressive agenda.

For example, with $10 million, you could:

Hire 44 new elementary school teachers at the average starting rate of $33K yearly salary (according to Payscale.com) and guarantee them work AND a 5% pay raise each year for 6 years
For an ENTIRE YEAR, provide college textbooks for 10,626 college students struggling to pay tuition (The Baltimore Sun reports the average cost at $941 a year)
Provide free flu shots to 500,000 people (The Sandusky Register states the average flu shot costs $20)

These are just a few I thought of, and certainly there are other uses - but the point here is this: All of this money, all of these bonuses - this is a prime example of why when the economic policy in this country is skewed towards the rich, we all go down in flames.

This is why we voted for change, and we need to remind ourselves of it.

Back and Forth on Evan Bayh

2009-03-19T12:22:00.000-07:00

I'll be honest - when I saw Evan Bayh on Morning Joe announcing that he had formed a group of 15 moderate Senate Democrats in order to keep things balanced, I was extremely angry.

Here was a guy who was a serious contender for the Vice-Presidency and was a large reason on why Barack Obama carried the state of Indiana - suddenly acting as if he wanted to demonstrate to the nation just how much power he had because he wasn't quite as liberal as the rest.

As if Democrats need an enemy right now. The House can pass anything they want at any time without consulting the Republicans at all. (And they might as well, considering all they say is "No" without any alternatives) The Senate simply needs to Wine-n-Dine Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins, then KAZAAM you get your way with a vote to spare. Once Franken nails down Minnesota, it will be even easier. What could possibly get in their way?

Um...their own party?

So yeah, I was a little angry.

Until I looked at the rest of the list in Bayh's group.

Kay Hagan, Mark Udall - Senators who owe a lot to Democrats and Obama in particular.

Mark Warner - Gave the Keynote at the Democratic Convention.

Claire McCaskill - probably did the best job of supporting the Obama campaign out of everyone.

This my friends, could be a good thing.

These are not people who are opposed to the President. I would venture to say that these were some of the closest in the Obama circle. Furthermore, I would agree with Bayh when he says this group could be the President's best friend.

Think about how much bad press Democrats got for passing the Stimulus package in such a partisan manner. Sure, the President acted the part, but his Stimulus package got ZERO votes from House Republicans and just a few from the Senate. And all we heard about was that it was too partisan. That is all we got in the news for days and days. And that was just for a Stimulus package! Can you imagine that argument when applied to Obama's Healthcare Plan? To Education Reform? To upping the tax on households making more than $250K? They will say "There is no balance! The left is out of control! Socialism!" The last thing we need is another 1994.

So, while we may not need bi-partisianship to pass anything for the next 2 years, we certainly need it if we want Democrats to continue to control both the House and the Senate. And if Republicans won't play their role in "Bi-Parisianship! Now on Broadway!"...what better situation than to have Democrats "give-in" and "cooperate" with the "conservative" wing within their own party?

Not a bad idea at all. Hell - "Morning Joe" fell for it - it could indeed work. So for now, I like it.

If the President's budget doesn't pass, though, then I take it all back.

First Post - Keep Fighting

2009-03-19T09:32:00.001-07:00

I have been contemplating the creation of this blog for quite some time. But first, a little (but not too much) background...

I was not politically active until I went to college in 1999. After all, I grew up in a time of peace (for the most part), economic stability, and progressive ideals. Then came November 2000 - an election that I did not vote in, regrettably.

9/11 came and went, and soon I started to pay more attention to foreign affairs. I paid more attention to the rallies taking place on campus - not enough to participate, but enough to notice. Then came the patriot act, and soon came the night we dropped bombs in Iraq - an event that happened six years to the date of this first blog. I opposed the war and did not believe the whole "WMD" claim. It soon became apparent that our American rights were being stripped before our eyes. Our economy favored the rich, our addiction to foreign oil seemed to dictate every decision... something needed to change.

In 2004, I voted for the very first time. I voted for Kerry of course, and was devastated when I learned that Bush would be in office for another four years. However, I also voted for the Democratic candidate for Senate - a guy I first noticed when I watched the Keynote Address at the Democratic Convention...

So ultimately I was heavily involved in the Obama 2008 campaign and learned a lot through the process. Besides the results of the election, the most enjoyable part for me was putting to use my English-Writing degree in contributing articles for the Huffington Post. I stopped writing after the election, but that was a mistake. Just because my candidate was elected does not mean I can sit back and hope everything goes well - I have to take advantage of having Democrats in Washington by continuing to fight for my progressive beliefs - renewable energy, universal health care, and a quality education for all. I continue to work on behalf of Organizing for America, recently started to involve myself with the Democratic Party of my county, and decided that it is essential that I continue to write and communicate about my beliefs.

Let the journey begin...