That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.
These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.
America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.
This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.
This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.
We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.
Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land – enough! This moment – this election – is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."
But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.
The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives – on health care and education and the economy – Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors – the man who wrote his economic plan – was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."
Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?
It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.
For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.
We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job – an economy that honors the dignity of work.
I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.
What is that promise?
It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.
That's the promise of America – the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.
Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that's the essence of America's promise.
For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.
If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice – but it is not the change we need.
So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.
So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.
For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose – our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.
Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.
You make a big election about small things.
And you know what – it's worked before.
I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.
But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.
This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.
Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.
That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.
And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred. [Editor's note: allusion to Raisin in the Sun]
America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
Friday, August 29, 2008
DNC Convention Zingers - Biden
Failure at some point in everyone's life is inevitable, but giving up is unforgivable. As a child I stuttered, and she lovingly told me it was because I was so bright I couldn't get the thoughts out quickly enough. When I was not as well dressed as others, she told me how handsome she thought I was. When I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, she sent me back out and demanded that I bloody their nose so I could walk down that street the next day.
My mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. You are everyone's equal, and everyone is equal to you.
Another year and no raise?
Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care?
Now, we owe more on the house than it's worth. How are we going to send the kids to college?
How are we gonna be able to retire?
That's the America that George Bush has left us, and that's the future John McCain will give us. These are not isolated discussions among families down on their luck. These are common stories among middle-class people who worked hard and played by the rules on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than their yesterdays.
. He chose to go to Chicago. The South Side. There he met men and women who had lost their jobs. Their neighborhood was devastated when the local steel plant closed. Their dreams deferred. Their dignity shattered. Their self-esteem gone. [dream deferred is from the line in the play, "A dream deferred dries up like a Raisin in the Sun"]
John McCain is my friend. We've known each other for three decades. We've traveled the world together. It's a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me.
But I profoundly disagree with the direction that John wants to take the country. For example, John thinks that during the Bush years "we've made great progress economically." I think it's been abysmal.
And in the Senate, John sided with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Give me a break. When John McCain proposes $200 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, $1 billion alone for just eight of the largest companies, but no relief for 100 million American families, that's not change; that's more of the same.
Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history -- a half trillion dollars in the last five years -- he wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. But he voted time and again against incentives for renewable energy: solar, wind, biofuels. That's not change; that's more of the same.
Millions of jobs have left our shores, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That's not change; that's more of the same.
He voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage. For people who are struggling just to get to the next day, that's not change; that's more of the same.
And when he says he will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq is sitting on a surplus of nearly $80 billion, that's not change; that's more of the same.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan we don't read about it anymore because it's succeeded? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?
The fact is, al-Qaida and the Taliban -- the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 -- have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Baracks call for more troops.
John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about? Or Barack Obama, who said we must talk and make it clear to Iran that its conduct must change.
Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran, because that's the best way to advance our security.
Again, John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says there can be no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq that we must stay indefinitely? Or should we listen to Barack Obama, who says shift responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home?
Now, after six long years, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home.
John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Millions of Americans have been knocked down. And this is the time as Americans, together, we get back up. Our people are too good, our debt to our parents and grandparents too great, our obligation to our children is too sacred.
My mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. You are everyone's equal, and everyone is equal to you.
Another year and no raise?
Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care?
Now, we owe more on the house than it's worth. How are we going to send the kids to college?
How are we gonna be able to retire?
That's the America that George Bush has left us, and that's the future John McCain will give us. These are not isolated discussions among families down on their luck. These are common stories among middle-class people who worked hard and played by the rules on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than their yesterdays.
. He chose to go to Chicago. The South Side. There he met men and women who had lost their jobs. Their neighborhood was devastated when the local steel plant closed. Their dreams deferred. Their dignity shattered. Their self-esteem gone. [dream deferred is from the line in the play, "A dream deferred dries up like a Raisin in the Sun"]
John McCain is my friend. We've known each other for three decades. We've traveled the world together. It's a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me.
But I profoundly disagree with the direction that John wants to take the country. For example, John thinks that during the Bush years "we've made great progress economically." I think it's been abysmal.
And in the Senate, John sided with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Give me a break. When John McCain proposes $200 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, $1 billion alone for just eight of the largest companies, but no relief for 100 million American families, that's not change; that's more of the same.
Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history -- a half trillion dollars in the last five years -- he wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. But he voted time and again against incentives for renewable energy: solar, wind, biofuels. That's not change; that's more of the same.
Millions of jobs have left our shores, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That's not change; that's more of the same.
He voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage. For people who are struggling just to get to the next day, that's not change; that's more of the same.
And when he says he will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq is sitting on a surplus of nearly $80 billion, that's not change; that's more of the same.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan we don't read about it anymore because it's succeeded? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?
The fact is, al-Qaida and the Taliban -- the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 -- have regrouped in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff echoed Baracks call for more troops.
John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about? Or Barack Obama, who said we must talk and make it clear to Iran that its conduct must change.
Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran, because that's the best way to advance our security.
Again, John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says there can be no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq that we must stay indefinitely? Or should we listen to Barack Obama, who says shift responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home?
Now, after six long years, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home.
John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.
Millions of Americans have been knocked down. And this is the time as Americans, together, we get back up. Our people are too good, our debt to our parents and grandparents too great, our obligation to our children is too sacred.
DNC Convention Zingers - Bill Clinton
Most important of all, Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are first strong at home. (Cheers, applause.) People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.
I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other serious conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their children for Medicaid unless they quit work and starved or got a divorce.
Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of?
What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by multiple, multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and unlimited favors for the well-connected? (Booing, jeering.)(Applause.) And what about Katrina and cronyism? (Booing, jeering.)
My fellow Democrats, America can do better than that. (Cheers, applause.) And Barack Obama will do better than that!
Yes, he can, but first, we have to elect him.
They took us from record surpluses to an exploding debt; from over 22 million new jobs to just 5 million; from increasing working families' incomes for nearly $7,500 a year to a decline of more than $2,000 a year; from almost 8 million Americans lifted out of poverty to more than 5 1/2 million driven into poverty -- (boos) -- and millions more losing their health insurance. (Boos.) Now, in spite of all this evidence, their candidate is actually promising more of the same.
Think about it: more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality and weaken the economy; more Band-Aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured; more going it alone in the world instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.
They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. (Boos.) Now, let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America; a simple message. Thanks but no thanks. (Cheers, applause.) In this case, in this case, the third time is not the charm.
16 years ago, you gave me the profound honor to lead our party to victory and to lead our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity. (Cheers, applause.) Together we prevailed in a hard campaign, in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be commander in chief. (Cheers, applause.)
Sound familiar?
It didn't work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it will not work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.
His achievements are proof of our continuing progress toward the more perfect union of our Founders' dreams. The values of freedom and equal opportunity, which have given him his historic chance, will drive him as president to give all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability, their chance to build a decent life -- (cheers, applause) -- and to show our humanity, as well as our strength to the world.
I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other serious conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their children for Medicaid unless they quit work and starved or got a divorce.
Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of?
What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by multiple, multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and unlimited favors for the well-connected? (Booing, jeering.)(Applause.) And what about Katrina and cronyism? (Booing, jeering.)
My fellow Democrats, America can do better than that. (Cheers, applause.) And Barack Obama will do better than that!
Yes, he can, but first, we have to elect him.
They took us from record surpluses to an exploding debt; from over 22 million new jobs to just 5 million; from increasing working families' incomes for nearly $7,500 a year to a decline of more than $2,000 a year; from almost 8 million Americans lifted out of poverty to more than 5 1/2 million driven into poverty -- (boos) -- and millions more losing their health insurance. (Boos.) Now, in spite of all this evidence, their candidate is actually promising more of the same.
Think about it: more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality and weaken the economy; more Band-Aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured; more going it alone in the world instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.
They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. (Boos.) Now, let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America; a simple message. Thanks but no thanks. (Cheers, applause.) In this case, in this case, the third time is not the charm.
16 years ago, you gave me the profound honor to lead our party to victory and to lead our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity. (Cheers, applause.) Together we prevailed in a hard campaign, in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be commander in chief. (Cheers, applause.)
Sound familiar?
It didn't work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it will not work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.
His achievements are proof of our continuing progress toward the more perfect union of our Founders' dreams. The values of freedom and equal opportunity, which have given him his historic chance, will drive him as president to give all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability, their chance to build a decent life -- (cheers, applause) -- and to show our humanity, as well as our strength to the world.
DNC Convention Zingers - Hillary
No way, nohow, no McCain.
To make America once again a nation of immigrants and of laws, to restore fiscal sanity to Washington and make our government an institution of the public good, not of private plunder.
Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down. (Cheers, applause.) And he knows that government must be about we the people, not we the favored few.
Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before, with President Clinton and the Democrats. (Cheers, applause.) And if we do our part, we'll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don't need four more years of the last eight years.
Well, John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. and in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't warrant equal pay for equal work!
Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.
My mother was born before women could vote. My daughter got to vote for her mother for president. This is the story of America, of women and men who defy the odds and never give up.
On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice. If you hear the dogs, keep going; if you see the torches in the woods, keep going; if they're shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop; keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.
In America, you always keep going. We're Americans. We're not big on quitting. (Laughter.) And remember, before we can keep going, we've got to get going by electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.) We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare. Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hangs in the balance.
To make America once again a nation of immigrants and of laws, to restore fiscal sanity to Washington and make our government an institution of the public good, not of private plunder.
Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down. (Cheers, applause.) And he knows that government must be about we the people, not we the favored few.
Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before, with President Clinton and the Democrats. (Cheers, applause.) And if we do our part, we'll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don't need four more years of the last eight years.
Well, John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. and in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't warrant equal pay for equal work!
Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.
My mother was born before women could vote. My daughter got to vote for her mother for president. This is the story of America, of women and men who defy the odds and never give up.
On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice. If you hear the dogs, keep going; if you see the torches in the woods, keep going; if they're shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop; keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.
In America, you always keep going. We're Americans. We're not big on quitting. (Laughter.) And remember, before we can keep going, we've got to get going by electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.) We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare. Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hangs in the balance.
DNC Convention Zingers - Richardson
The Denver DNC Convention speeches are a veritable gold mine for one-liners to use in the national campaign. Here are some of my favorites.
Bill Richardson:
Obama in 2002--
In the midst of great fervor — brought about by an administration that questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with it — Barack Obama called the coming war what it was: "a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He was right!
Barack's words were prescient and brave. "I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle Eastand strengthen the recruitment arm of Al-Qaeda." He was right!
He said: "A successful war against Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He was right!
Instead, Barack Obama urged President Bush — who's never in the mood to be urged in a direction other than his own folly — to finish the fight with bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. He was right!
Six years ago, in this simple but forceful speech, Barack Obama did more than just challenge President Bush. He offered a detailed vision for foreign policy — including the vigorous enforcement of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty , condemnation of human rights abuses even among our allies and a commitment to reconciliation between Pakistan and India. He was right!
John McCain said we'd be welcomed as liberators, and that Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding. John McCain was wrong.
Barack Obama was among the first to call for a timetable for responsible withdrawal. But John McCain, to this day, condemns the idea. The Iraqis are calling for a withdrawal timetable, but John McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right.
Bill Richardson:
Obama in 2002--
In the midst of great fervor — brought about by an administration that questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with it — Barack Obama called the coming war what it was: "a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He was right!
Barack's words were prescient and brave. "I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle Eastand strengthen the recruitment arm of Al-Qaeda." He was right!
He said: "A successful war against Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He was right!
Instead, Barack Obama urged President Bush — who's never in the mood to be urged in a direction other than his own folly — to finish the fight with bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. He was right!
Six years ago, in this simple but forceful speech, Barack Obama did more than just challenge President Bush. He offered a detailed vision for foreign policy — including the vigorous enforcement of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty , condemnation of human rights abuses even among our allies and a commitment to reconciliation between Pakistan and India. He was right!
John McCain said we'd be welcomed as liberators, and that Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding. John McCain was wrong.
Barack Obama was among the first to call for a timetable for responsible withdrawal. But John McCain, to this day, condemns the idea. The Iraqis are calling for a withdrawal timetable, but John McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Fearing on Target to Win
At the close of the initial primary vote counting on Tuesday George Fearing, the Democratic party candidate for the Washington 4th congressional district, was clearing on target to eventually post a win in November's general election with 35% of the vote. His general election opponent, the incumbent Richard Hastings, did poorer in the congressional district that Republican candidate for governor did in the same area. That is to say that incumbent Hastings didn't do as well as his gubernatorial rematch colleague. Many Rossi voters found it distasteful to vote for Hastings. He is not sufficiently well-liked by the swing voting people in his district to garner enough independent votes to win the general election.
Hastings is toast.
Hastings is toast.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
A True Revolution
Have you ever stopped to think about how many of our problems would be eased if there were only fewer people? Less pollution, less traffic, less scarcity of resources. But there seems to be almost no one talking about population reduction these days. In their book The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment Paul and Anne Ehrlich lay out the case against our continued, mindless population expansion.
Reasonable Discrimination
Is there any reason we should allow religious fundamentalists who believe that the Earth will eventually be destroyed in the Apocalypse to hold public office? There is no reason to expect them to support policies that provide long-term benefit to both the environment and society. In their minds all the matters is short term gains with little concern for eventual consequences. After all the whole thing is going to be torched anyway. Who cares if the water is undrinkable or the air unbreathable? Who cares if patterns of poverty or predation continue from generation? They don't. If they are faithful to their "God" they will escape the mess they make for the rest of us.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Trout
Idaho got played. Suppose for strategic reasons a corporation wants to build a nuclear facility. The worst strategy is to go hat-in-hand to the state in question begging for incentives. An optimal strategy is to generate a bidding war even if only one bidder is preferred.
AREVA did this. They dangled a possible Richland site at Idaho and they were able to obtain a nice package of sweeteners for their new enrichment facility. The ploy was made convincing when TriDEC, the Tri-City Herald staff, the Rossi campaign, and other community leaders bought the bluff completely. There was one party who was clearly smarter-than-the-average-bear and stayed out of the game, Governor Christine Gregoire. The political climate is such that she could have done nothing to create sufficient additional advantages for AREVA to seriously consider Washington. Imagine the furor from the nuclear-ignorant West side that the company would face if a new nuclear facility was announced here.
TriDEC saw dollar signs and jobs and bit on that fly like a brainless trout. And Rossi supporters are using it to vilify the governor. I would much rather have a smarter-than-the-average bear for a governor than a brainless trout.
AREVA did this. They dangled a possible Richland site at Idaho and they were able to obtain a nice package of sweeteners for their new enrichment facility. The ploy was made convincing when TriDEC, the Tri-City Herald staff, the Rossi campaign, and other community leaders bought the bluff completely. There was one party who was clearly smarter-than-the-average-bear and stayed out of the game, Governor Christine Gregoire. The political climate is such that she could have done nothing to create sufficient additional advantages for AREVA to seriously consider Washington. Imagine the furor from the nuclear-ignorant West side that the company would face if a new nuclear facility was announced here.
TriDEC saw dollar signs and jobs and bit on that fly like a brainless trout. And Rossi supporters are using it to vilify the governor. I would much rather have a smarter-than-the-average bear for a governor than a brainless trout.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Real Foreign Aid
An Idaho spud farmer shares some appropriate technology with Afghan farmers. Something as simple as a good way to store potatoes combats the opium economy.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
An initiative gone bad...again
TCH bloviates.
My thoughts:
It’s time for TRIDEC to get some leadership who has a better strategy than whining about the governor. Carl Adrian’s problem isn’t the governor, it’s all those people who voted for initiative 297. As long as those people are out there and regardless of the fact that it has been struck down, she simply can not afford to be seen as aggressively pursuing more nuclear industry in the state. Rather than criticize the governor, Carl needs to find a way to make the west-side voters more nuclear-friendly. There are any number of potential points of persuasion. Reasonably-priced power is root of economic growth. Reasonably-priced power makes for more jobs for rich and poor alike. Reasonably-priced power provides the taxable income that is needed to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. And so on.
Frankly, Carl tends to smell like a Rossi Republican when he engages in fear tactics by trumping up rumors that Areva may move its existing plant. Here’s how it works. Trump up a threat to move the plant. That forces the governor to either ignore the threat thereby appearing to be unconcerned. Or to counter the threat by taking a position that may be unpopular. Either way she loses. People who make up such unsubstantiated threats are not your friends, governor. Areva denies the threat in words and denies the threat in its actions by continuing its investments in the existing plant. So knock it off, Carl, before you’re exposed as the Republican shill you are.
Update: Adrian's supposed access to internal Areva email is pretty thin. One can only see Areva email from an Areva computer and I doubt Carl Adrian has one. If he does he would be in violation of the non-disclosure agreement that comes with it. Perhaps he has a mole in the organization. I'm sure Areva management would be interested to know who that is. But most likely Carl is simply making it up. Areva was not looking for any concessions from the state. There would be no tactical point in hinting that the Richland plant might be moved. Carl, you're busted.
My thoughts:
It’s time for TRIDEC to get some leadership who has a better strategy than whining about the governor. Carl Adrian’s problem isn’t the governor, it’s all those people who voted for initiative 297. As long as those people are out there and regardless of the fact that it has been struck down, she simply can not afford to be seen as aggressively pursuing more nuclear industry in the state. Rather than criticize the governor, Carl needs to find a way to make the west-side voters more nuclear-friendly. There are any number of potential points of persuasion. Reasonably-priced power is root of economic growth. Reasonably-priced power makes for more jobs for rich and poor alike. Reasonably-priced power provides the taxable income that is needed to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. And so on.
Frankly, Carl tends to smell like a Rossi Republican when he engages in fear tactics by trumping up rumors that Areva may move its existing plant. Here’s how it works. Trump up a threat to move the plant. That forces the governor to either ignore the threat thereby appearing to be unconcerned. Or to counter the threat by taking a position that may be unpopular. Either way she loses. People who make up such unsubstantiated threats are not your friends, governor. Areva denies the threat in words and denies the threat in its actions by continuing its investments in the existing plant. So knock it off, Carl, before you’re exposed as the Republican shill you are.
Update: Adrian's supposed access to internal Areva email is pretty thin. One can only see Areva email from an Areva computer and I doubt Carl Adrian has one. If he does he would be in violation of the non-disclosure agreement that comes with it. Perhaps he has a mole in the organization. I'm sure Areva management would be interested to know who that is. But most likely Carl is simply making it up. Areva was not looking for any concessions from the state. There would be no tactical point in hinting that the Richland plant might be moved. Carl, you're busted.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Primary versus Caucus
I recently served on the resolutions committee and attended the Washington State Democratic Party Convention. As you might imagine there is a strong controversy about whether the state’s national convention delegates should be determined by caucus or primary. It pits state electoral traditions against national party rules. It pits populists against party regulars. And it is going to continue to be a problem until an equitable solution can be worked out. This article is an attempt to arrive at what such a solution might be.
How did we get here? In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 198 that change the state’s traditional closed primary system to a blanket primary system similar to that that used in Washington State in which voters could voter their preferences regardless of party. In the 2000 case of California Democratic Party v. Jones, the US Supreme Court ruled that the recently-enacted California blanket primary violated the political party’s first amendment right of freedom of association. In this case the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party had all filed suit against the state of California and won. That decision also applied to the Washington state primaries (thank you, California).
Within the parties there is strong sentiment against blanket primaries not only because of the technical first amendment violation but because they inhibit the control parties have over their own “brand”. Fringe candidates (such as the followers of Lyndon LaRouche) can claim a party affiliation even though the party itself finds the candidate abhorrent. On the other hand, there is strong sentiment within the voting community that rejects the idea of any strong party affiliation. A great many voters want to have the capacity to select candidates regardless of party. Furthermore, in localities in which one party predominates, the primary serves as the more significant election. Voters who wish to cast a vote in a race in the minority party have no vote in other races between candidates in the majority party.
At the moment party rules leave it to the jurisdictional party legislative bodies to designate and officially sanction party candidates. While this is traditional and reasonably democratic, it is cumbersome and requires potential candidates to jump through some procedural hoops. In jurisdictions in which a party is barely functioning an appropriate endorsement body might not convene in a timely manner for a campaign. This could be streamlined somewhat if the party decided to allow executive committees to sanction candidates but at the price of democratic process. Furthermore, putting it completely in the hands of the party leaves non-aligned voters with direct input whatsoever. Their only hope is that the party keeps them in mind when selecting candidates.
It should be noted that compared to other countries the party system in the United States is abysmally weak. In parliamentary systems, all significant political action takes place through the party. American parties are just not that strong and I don’t think Americans would want them to be. (While American parties may aspire to that sort of dominance, they should, as a practical matter, just give up that dream. It ain’t gonna happen.)
So what might a reasonable middle ground be?
On the face of it, it seems odd that a state government can spend taxpayer money running an election that is essentially a party function. It bespeaks a certain amount of collusion between the major parties to co-opt public resources for their own particular benefit. Indeed, constitutionally the government is only required to hold a single election, not a bunch of pre-election elections. One could argue that it is in the government’s interest to narrow the field of candidates such that the final office holders are elected by a majority rather than a potentially small plurality. This is a reasonable justification for a top-two primary. And by this reasoning the primary is a party-neutral process by which to have a meaningful general election at the end of an electoral process. Essentially the general election becomes a run-off election between the two highest vote-getters.
One might ask, how is a top-two primary effectively different from a blanket primary? In a blanket primary each party is assured of having at least one candidate in the general election even if the party candidate had fewer votes that two or more candidates of the opposing party. This may be a tad undemocratic but it does throw a bone to the official parties. The parties may have cut their own throats by having blanket primaries thrown out. In a top-two primary system party identification is taken out of the equation entirely and parties have to actually meet a competitive threshold to have their candidates on the general election ballots.
The parties’ only hope of recovery their capability to have a sub-minority candidate on the general election ballot lies in a potential lawsuit that may be brought in which a given party can argue they were damaged by a candidate who self-identified as a member of the party without official party sanctioning. The court will have to decide between the right of a party to protect its brand and the right of the government to meaningful elections in which a sub-minority candidate takes precedence over a minority candidate. It seems to me that the proper decision would be the one that makes for a more democratic election process than one that protects the privilege of a political organization, that is to say, the top-two primary process.
The political parties need to suck it up and prepare to operate in a regime that gives them no special privileges. (To the degree that party ranks are occupied by people grasping for power by undemocratic means, it would certainly frustrate their efforts.) Every general election would be a decision between the candidates who have clearly-demonstrated popular support.
Since I am skeptical that the Republican Party would ever cede any of its political clout for the greater good I make no appeal to them. But I do appeal to the Washington State Democratic Party to embrace the top-two primary system as the more democratic solution to electoral process. And I call on the Washington State Democratic Party to adjust their rules and practices accordingly for life in a new sort of world. I also call on them to stop wasting time and money trying to fight a process that more accurately expresses the will of the people merely to protect the party’s selfish interest.
How did we get here? In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 198 that change the state’s traditional closed primary system to a blanket primary system similar to that that used in Washington State in which voters could voter their preferences regardless of party. In the 2000 case of California Democratic Party v. Jones, the US Supreme Court ruled that the recently-enacted California blanket primary violated the political party’s first amendment right of freedom of association. In this case the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party had all filed suit against the state of California and won. That decision also applied to the Washington state primaries (thank you, California).
Within the parties there is strong sentiment against blanket primaries not only because of the technical first amendment violation but because they inhibit the control parties have over their own “brand”. Fringe candidates (such as the followers of Lyndon LaRouche) can claim a party affiliation even though the party itself finds the candidate abhorrent. On the other hand, there is strong sentiment within the voting community that rejects the idea of any strong party affiliation. A great many voters want to have the capacity to select candidates regardless of party. Furthermore, in localities in which one party predominates, the primary serves as the more significant election. Voters who wish to cast a vote in a race in the minority party have no vote in other races between candidates in the majority party.
At the moment party rules leave it to the jurisdictional party legislative bodies to designate and officially sanction party candidates. While this is traditional and reasonably democratic, it is cumbersome and requires potential candidates to jump through some procedural hoops. In jurisdictions in which a party is barely functioning an appropriate endorsement body might not convene in a timely manner for a campaign. This could be streamlined somewhat if the party decided to allow executive committees to sanction candidates but at the price of democratic process. Furthermore, putting it completely in the hands of the party leaves non-aligned voters with direct input whatsoever. Their only hope is that the party keeps them in mind when selecting candidates.
It should be noted that compared to other countries the party system in the United States is abysmally weak. In parliamentary systems, all significant political action takes place through the party. American parties are just not that strong and I don’t think Americans would want them to be. (While American parties may aspire to that sort of dominance, they should, as a practical matter, just give up that dream. It ain’t gonna happen.)
So what might a reasonable middle ground be?
On the face of it, it seems odd that a state government can spend taxpayer money running an election that is essentially a party function. It bespeaks a certain amount of collusion between the major parties to co-opt public resources for their own particular benefit. Indeed, constitutionally the government is only required to hold a single election, not a bunch of pre-election elections. One could argue that it is in the government’s interest to narrow the field of candidates such that the final office holders are elected by a majority rather than a potentially small plurality. This is a reasonable justification for a top-two primary. And by this reasoning the primary is a party-neutral process by which to have a meaningful general election at the end of an electoral process. Essentially the general election becomes a run-off election between the two highest vote-getters.
One might ask, how is a top-two primary effectively different from a blanket primary? In a blanket primary each party is assured of having at least one candidate in the general election even if the party candidate had fewer votes that two or more candidates of the opposing party. This may be a tad undemocratic but it does throw a bone to the official parties. The parties may have cut their own throats by having blanket primaries thrown out. In a top-two primary system party identification is taken out of the equation entirely and parties have to actually meet a competitive threshold to have their candidates on the general election ballots.
The parties’ only hope of recovery their capability to have a sub-minority candidate on the general election ballot lies in a potential lawsuit that may be brought in which a given party can argue they were damaged by a candidate who self-identified as a member of the party without official party sanctioning. The court will have to decide between the right of a party to protect its brand and the right of the government to meaningful elections in which a sub-minority candidate takes precedence over a minority candidate. It seems to me that the proper decision would be the one that makes for a more democratic election process than one that protects the privilege of a political organization, that is to say, the top-two primary process.
The political parties need to suck it up and prepare to operate in a regime that gives them no special privileges. (To the degree that party ranks are occupied by people grasping for power by undemocratic means, it would certainly frustrate their efforts.) Every general election would be a decision between the candidates who have clearly-demonstrated popular support.
Since I am skeptical that the Republican Party would ever cede any of its political clout for the greater good I make no appeal to them. But I do appeal to the Washington State Democratic Party to embrace the top-two primary system as the more democratic solution to electoral process. And I call on the Washington State Democratic Party to adjust their rules and practices accordingly for life in a new sort of world. I also call on them to stop wasting time and money trying to fight a process that more accurately expresses the will of the people merely to protect the party’s selfish interest.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Justice at last
I just love it when political appointees like the Bush Supreme Court actually get down to doing the job. It's sad that we have people in power in Washington that think it is OK to simply ignore a cornerstone of our constitution such as that pesky article 1, section 9.
Note that presidential hopeful John McCain calls this basic decision "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
Note that presidential hopeful John McCain calls this basic decision "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
Humans Exonerated in Mammoth Extinction
Genetic studies show:
"'The population was split into two groups, then one of the groups died out 45,000 years ago, long before the first humans began to appear in the region,' said Stephan C. Schuster, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Penn State University and a leader of the research team. 'This discovery is particularly interesting because it rules out human hunting as a contributing factor, leaving climate change and disease as the most probable causes of extinction.'"
Global Limits Of Biomass Energy
From the article, Global Limits Of Biomass Energy:
"Research is booming to improve energy crops and methods of converting crops to fuel. Already, Brazil gets 30% of its automotive fuel from ethanol distilled from sugar cane. But critics warn that “energy farming” will gobble up land needed to grow food or will impinge on natural ecosystems, possibly even worsening the climate crisis."So added to the rise in food costs as farming moves to energy products, there just isn't enough arable land to farm our ways out of the energy problem.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Fisking Joseph Romm
In an article in Salon Joseph Romm attempts to convince us that he knows something.
So let's have fun taking him apart.
In the following passage:
Romm doesn't know that the tricky part about power plants is keeping the reaction going at an acceptable rate, not keeping it from running away.
Romm complains about the costs of construction being so much higher now than in 2000. What was your house worth in 2000? Cost increases as compared to what? One must also consider that in order to get past the public perceptions inflamed by the likes of Romm the plant designs are going to be more expensive and beyond safe.
The construction of nuclear power plants is expensive but the performance of even the old non-standardized plants have been good enough that major utilities are putting money on the line today for new plants. The plants that are now being built using a standardized, pre-licensed design are running into some problems but these problems are business problems not design problems or technical problems. With each copy the kinks in the process are smoothed out more and more. In time the numbers are going to look better and better. In that same time, the numbers for fossil plants are going to be looking worse and worse, both in cost and actual environmental damage.
So let's have fun taking him apart.
GOP presidential nominee John McCain, who has called for building hundreds of new nuclear plants in this country, recently announced he won't bother showing up to vote on his friend Joe Lieberman's climate bill because of insufficient subsidies (read "pork") for nuclear power.John McCain and Joe Liebermann. He doesn't even take what they say with a grain of salt. When you consider the source, even without delving into whatever the facts may be, it's a pretty good bet that the truth is diametrically opposite of their positions. In other words, nukes don't need subsidies. Next.
Since new nuclear power now costs more than double what the MIT report assumed -- three times what the Economist called "too costly to matter" -- let me focus solely on the unresolved problem of cost. While safety, proliferation and waste issues get most of the publicity, nuclear plants have become so expensive that cost overwhelms the other problems.Costs matter to utilities. If they didn't they would be continuing to build gas turbines regardless of the rising fuel cost. This doesn't pass the laugh test.
In the following passage:
Zakaria asks, "A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it." Moore replies:Romm conveniently omits the rest of the quote in which Moore makes his point.
That's simply not true. Where the massive government subsidies are is in wind and solar ... I know that the cost of production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least. Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10 times as much.
I know that France, which produces 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear, does not have high energy costs. Sweden, which produces 50 percent of its energy with nuclear and 50 percent with hydro, has very reasonable energy costs.Romm displays the depth of his prejudice with this line:
Operation is also cheap, compared with nukes, which run on expensive uranium and must be monitored minute by minute so they don't melt down.This is countered by the rising natural gas prices that have put nukes back on the table. Uranium may seem expensive until you consider the energy density of uranium. You can put 2 years of fuel on two tractor-trailer rigs. Think of how much coal or natural gas a fossil plant goes through in 2 years. In that 2 years only 1% of the weight and 1/5 of the fissile component of the fuel are actually consumed. The rest is available for recycling.
Romm doesn't know that the tricky part about power plants is keeping the reaction going at an acceptable rate, not keeping it from running away.
Romm complains about the costs of construction being so much higher now than in 2000. What was your house worth in 2000? Cost increases as compared to what? One must also consider that in order to get past the public perceptions inflamed by the likes of Romm the plant designs are going to be more expensive and beyond safe.
The construction of nuclear power plants is expensive but the performance of even the old non-standardized plants have been good enough that major utilities are putting money on the line today for new plants. The plants that are now being built using a standardized, pre-licensed design are running into some problems but these problems are business problems not design problems or technical problems. With each copy the kinks in the process are smoothed out more and more. In time the numbers are going to look better and better. In that same time, the numbers for fossil plants are going to be looking worse and worse, both in cost and actual environmental damage.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Scott McClellan's Confession, Ho Hum
Only to the truly clueless does this come as a surprise.
"Bush emphasized this sentiment during the campaign. He would 'change the tone in Washington.' He would be 'a uniter, not a divider.' He would 'restore honor and dignity to the White House.' He would govern based on what was right, not what the polls said. He would, in short, replace the cynicism of the 1990s with a new era of civility, decency, and hope. There would be no more permanent campaign, or at least its excesses would be wiped away for good.Many of us were on to this from day 1.
But the reality proved to be something quite different. Instead, the Bush team imitated some of the worst qualities of the Clinton White House and even took them to new depths."
Monday, May 19, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Dino Rossi: Candidate for the Clueless
Dino touts the story of a Kennewick Dino supporter on his website. If this supporter is typical then it could easily be said that those who are swayed by slogan instead of substance are the kind of folks who want him for governor. She supports Dino because
“he has an aura about him that inspires people and gives confidence.”Yeah, aura, that's what's really important here. We wouldn't want to elect a governor who can actually get things done, would we?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)