West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
There has been much made lately by the Sean Hannitys of the world that political blogs are pushing the Democratic Party to the left as if that is a bad thing. What those "pundits" ignore is that bloggers are just people and we are reflecting the views held by the majority of Americans whether it is on ending the occupation that keeps our soldiers pinned down in Iraq's civil war or providing health care to all Americans. We're pushing the Democratic Party to the left because that is where the American people are going and that is where the party should be.
This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.
Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.
Some of the report's findings specific for West Virginia:
"Providing health insurance for people who do not already have it-should the federal government spend more on it, the same as now, less, or no money at all?"
* Percent answering "More": 82%
The federal government helping to pay for health insurance for all children-do you favor or oppose this?
* Percent answering "favor": 88%
"The federal government helping employers pay the cost of their workers' health insurance-do you favor or oppose this?"
* Percent answering "favor": 65%
"Providing financial assistance to public elementary and secondary schools-should the federal government spend more on it, the same as now, less, or no money at all?"
* Percent answering "more": 70%
"The federal government trying to reduce the income differences between rich and poor Americans-do you favor or oppose the federal government doing this?"
* Percent favoring: 61%
"The federal government banning all abortions-do you favor or oppose the federal government doing this?"
* Percent opposed: 56%
"Restricting the kinds of guns that people can buy-should the federal government do more about it, do the same as now, do less about it, or do nothing at all?"
In this anecdote, not only can you see Mitt Romney's cruelty to the family pet, but you can see it as a metaphor of the rightwing's way of governing. As Michael Bérubé put it so aptly in the comments:
It was a tiny preview of a trait he and his party would grow famous for: coming up with an answer to a problem that is both ineffective and cruel, then having to clean up the mess his "solution" created, yet STILL not actually fixing the problem.
UPDATE: Not only is it wrong what he did to the dog, it also could have been illegal and punishable for up to five years in prison if Romney had been caught. Still, it's an interesting look into Romney's character.
Apparently West Virginia's Republicans are not keeping up with the latest news. They're using old talking points. Gov. Joe Manchin III needs to straighten them out.
The most surprising finding of a Pew Research Center poll released this month is that only 44 percent of white evangelical Protestants approved of Bush's handling of his job, down from a peak of 95 percent in October 2001.
Entire column well worth a read on the GOP's identity crisis.
This could be the new Republican Party in the making: a disappointed, dissatisfied and inward-looking coalition that abandons Reagan's hopefulness and tries to hang on by playing on fears of terrorism and anger about immigration.
That's actually describes the Republican Party for several years. Now people like Dionne and others are catching up to what many of us already recognized.
In the middle of the big debate on immigration, the California GOP finds out that among the jobs that Americans apparently don't want to do are the deputy director and director posts of the state party.
I love when Bow Tie Boy at the State Journal gets writing in such huffy excitement that his words run right by obvious facts and he doesn't even wave to them as he passes them by.
As I always say, 50 years from now people will look back at us beset by challenges from the Islamists, the Chinese, the Russians and from our porous borders and they will say “And they tried to change the weather.”
If you don’t think that our first priority should be to get untangled from that nest of vipers in the Middle East, you’re not thinking like an American
Looks to me from where I sit that it's Chris Stirewalt's beloved Republican Party (except for Maryland Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a Vietnam veteran) that intends to keep the U.S. forever in Iraq.
Somehow Bow Tie Boy overlooked that the occupation of Iraq is an entanglement in the Middle East, perhaps because he hasn't enlisted to serve in the occupation there.
Or is Bow Tie Boy suddenly bucking the Republican Party and reversed his position on Iraq and eager for bringing the troops home? Nah, he's just being his usual, illogical self.
Bow Tie Boy's criticism of Big Oil also rings exceptionally hollow when he approvingly quotes his reader "Bo":
At a minimum, we are funding the munitions (military, education, etc.) of the enemy every time we fill up a Hummer.
Percentages of campaign contributions from Oil & Gas industry to Republicans:
* 2006 - 82 percent of contributions to GOP.
* 2004 - 80 percent of contributions to GOP.
* 2002 - 80 percent of contributions to GOP.
* 2000 - 78 percent of contributions to GOP.
Bow Tie Boy also thinks the danger of global warming is an issue only cared about by liberals.
Liberals love to put global warming first because it is somewhere over the horizon, is solved by government regulation and is our fault.
"We will pay for this one way or another," said retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
"The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability," the Military Advisory Board recommends.
The study, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," explores ways in which climate change acts as a "threat multiplier" in already fragile regions of the world, creating the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.
The CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, brought together 11 retired four-star and three-star admirals and generals as a Military Advisory Board to provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change on national security. CNA writers and researchers compiled the report under the board's direction and review.
Members of the Military Advisory Board come from all branches of the armed services. The board includes a former Army chief of staff, commanders-in-chiefs of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA administrator, and experts in planning, logistics, underwater operations and oceanography. One member also served as U.S. ambassador to China.
"We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world," said retired General Gordon Sullivan, chairman of the Military Advisory Board and former Army chief of staff, in releasing the report today at a Washington news conference.
The Military Advisory Board report recognizes that unabated climate change could bring an increased frequency of extreme storms, additional drought and flooding, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the rapid spread of life-threatening disease.
These projected effects are usually viewed as environmental challenges, but now the Military Advisory Board has looked at them from the perspective of national security assessments.
They are serious risk factors for massive migrations, increased border tensions, greater demands for rescue and evacuation efforts, and conflicts over essential resources, including food and water, the board said, saying such developments could lead to direct U.S. military involvement.
"Climate change can provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror," said retired Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, former commander-in-chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe.
"Rising ocean water levels, droughts, violent weather, ruined national economies-those are the kinds of stresses we'll see more of under climate change," he said.
"In the long term, we want to address the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit," Admiral Lopez said. "But climate change will prolong those conditions. It makes them worse."
I guess a rightwing, 101st Fighting Keyboardist might know more about national security issues than those 11 retired three and four star generals and admirals...but I have my doubts. I'd bet they know a bit more about national defense than him.
Was Republican Rep. Shelley Moore "Stay the course" Capito a cheerleader in junior high? If so her thinking in regards to the Iraq war appears not to have changed.
One might point out that Iraq is a somewhat complex country, with seemingly endless inter-sectarian and intra-sectarian tensions and centuries of conflicts, shifting allegiances and competing agendas. But all you need to know is "We Win. They Lose." Among the incessantly unclear matters in that Brave Doctrine are (a) what "win" means, (b) who the "they" are, and (c) what it means when "they lose," but let's not have such petulant and defeatist nuances detain us.
What I'm genuinely interested in knowing -- and I'm asking this in all sincerity -- is how their Iraq policy differs from the views of those who submitted similar declarations of Victory for this site. I suspect there may have been some plagiarizing from there.
That site is one maintained by Valerie Ninemire, "a former cheerleader in elementary school, junior high school, and on her high school dance team" and currently the editor of Cheer Coach and Advisor.
I wonder if some of these war supporters are willing to put down their pom poms to enlist or to encourage their sons and daughters to enlist? Apparently it's OK for rightwingers to cheer from the sidelines while other people do the dying out in the field.
"By giving our enemy a date-certain timeline for withdrawal, we are simply asking them to duck into the shadows and wait for us to leave. Such timelines hog-tie the hands of our commanders in the field and essentially hand our enemy a roadmap to victory.
snip
"Congress has the power of the purse, but it should not micromanage this war or any war by making decisions best left for those on the battlefield."
Lt. Gen. William Odom, President Ronald Reagan's National Security Agency Director, April 28, 2007:
In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.
Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.
To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is `absent without leave.' He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.
snip
The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.
But it has served Iran's interest by revenging Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s and enhancing Iran's influence within Iraq. It has also served al Qaeda's interests, providing a much better training ground than did Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and competence that otherwise would have been possible.
We cannot `win' a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.
A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.
No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside and other major powers including India, China, Japan, Russia.
It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other countries on Iraq's borders, making them far more likely to take seriously new U.S. approaches, not just to Iraq, but to restoring regional stability and heading off the spreading chaos that our war has caused.
The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support, setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure of victory, not some impossible outcome.
I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill the Congress has sent him. I will respect him greatly for such a rare act of courage, and so too, I suspect, will most Americans.
Over the years, U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller has made bipartisanship a hallmark of his behavior in Congress. He's been widely praised for his committment to bipartisan work as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
So how do the Republicans repay his constant goodwill and inclusiveness to them? By putting up a misleading, partisan attack ad:
Rebecca Fisher, communications director with the NRSC, said Friday her group had targeted Rockefeller because he is a Democrat "in a red state," where President Bush won in 2000 and 2004.
Fisher said the NRSC has also targeted two other Democratic senators up for re-election in 2008: Tom Harkin of Iowa and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
Rockefeller's spokeswoman Wendy Morigi had a strong response:
"West Virginians know where Senator Rockefeller stands on Iraq," Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller's spokeswoman, responded Monday. "As he has said for a long time, President Bush has badly mismanaged this war and America is paying a terrible price.
"Senator Rockefeller has said the troops have met every challenge they've been given," Morigi said. "It's the president and civilian leaders at the Pentagon whose strategy isn't working."
snip
Morigi said the senator believes the nation should shift resources to fight "the real war on terror, starting with Afghanistan and the many other countries where al-Qaida is gaining ground."
Republicans should continue to remind the public that Rockefeller has been critical of PResident Bush's conduct of the Iraq war. Unlike the Republican Party which is out of touch with Americans, Rockefeller's view is shared by the majority of the American people:
People Hate Bush And Hate The War
I don't know what it'll take for that to enter the bloodstream of Official Washington.
WASHINGTON - As the Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House clash over an Iraq spending bill, with President Bush vowing to veto it because it contains withdrawal deadlines, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats.
...
Yet the poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.
What's more, 55 percent believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible. And 49 percent say the situation in Iraq has gotten worse in the last three months since Bush announced his so-called troop surge. Thirty-seven percent say the situation has stayed about the same, and just 12 percent think it has improved.
...and:
According to the poll, only 22 percent believe the country is on the right track. That's the lowest number on this question since October 1992, when Bush father's was running for a second term -- and lost.
Why are the Republicans attacking Rockefeller? They think that he won't be able to mount a strong campaign because the health problems of his wife might distract him. How craven and callow can Republicans get? (Don't answer that: we've seen too much disgusting behavior from them to know.)
So I hope Senator Rockefeller remembers: his reaching out a hand to Republicans only results in them biting it.
West Virginian have enough reason to feel proud of the actions and grit of Jessica Lynch without the administration turning her into a propaganda prop.
Lynch's grit, honesty and loyalty to her fellow soldiers led her to tell the truth at every opportunity, including on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent post on why it took so long for Congress to hold a hearing on the propaganda efforts by the Department of Defense that tried to turn Lynch and fellow soldier Pat Tillman into props.
First, it has been well-known for several years that the U.S. military outright invented lies regarding literally every aspect of the Jessica Lynch story. And the Tillman family for years has been vocally complaining about the lies they were told by the Pentagon regarding the circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman's death, the pressure on other soldiers to conceal the truth, and the crass and disgusting exploitation of those lies to serve the administration's political interests. None of this is new. So why is Congress holding hearings to investigate these matters only now?
The answer, of course, is because the Republicans who controlled Congress for the last four years absolutely suppressed any attempt whatsoever to exert oversight on the administration. They not only investigated nothing, they aggressively blocked every real investigation into allegations of wrongdoing and corruption on the part of the administration. Our government literally ceased to function the way it is designed to, because Congressional Republicans deliberately abdicated their duty of checks on the executive and actively helped to conceal every improper and deceitful act.
The only reason any of this is being aired now is because the American people removed the President's party from control of Congress and they are no longer able to keep concealed the Bush administration's misconduct.
We often refer to Rep. Shelley Moore Capito as a Rubberstamp Republican because that's all she has done. She's not called for hearings to hold any one in the administration accountable for any of the misdeeds -- from the Iraq war to Hurricane Katrina to the firings of the U.S. Attorneys. She never held up a hand to signal stop on any of the scandalous behavior that the American public is learning about thanks to the oversight hearings held by the Democrats doing their job as an equal branch of the federal government. She never held up a hand to stop those doing wrong because she was too busy raking in lobbyist cash with both hands.
This sounds more like organized crime, with two sets of books to hide illegal activity. It's a good thing that we have Democrats in charge to hold the administration accountable, or Republican Rubberstamps like Shelley Moore Capito would have continued to act as accessories and dupes.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
