Morgan County Alabama Democratic Party: Home Page

Time after time
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:58:07 GMT
SaintSatinStain

If late paying your bill:
It takes 60 to 90 days and a court order for your electric power to be cut off in New York City.
It takes 10 days in Huntsville.
New York doesn't tax regular food.
The court system in New York is sometimes unfair to po' folk.
The court system in Alabama is always unfair to po' folk.
I stay here because I like to suffer?
I've nothing else to say today. I am tired.

Are You The Liberal Dale Jackson?
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:47:28 GMT
DaleJackson

Does this animal exist?

The local liberals/progressives/Democrats have no message and no one to vet their candidates because frankly the political media in this town is embarrassing.

I, according to Dr. Jess Brown, pushed coverage of the GOP primary for Congress to a point where real issues actually were discussed and the candidates were actually vetted.

SO… being the humanitarian that I am I want to find someone on the left LOCALLY to do the same.

Here is what I am looking for in the person I am seeking…

They need to be entertaining
They need to have convictions
They need to be able to articulate an opinion
They need to have the ability to ask hard question to political figures
They need to be fearless
They need to be willing to buck the ideology/party when needed

Do you know someone like this? If so contact me at dale@wvnn.com and we will give you an oppurtunity for a 3 minute tryout over the air, if you can’t go three minutes we will find this out.

What is the prize?

You get to be the Democratic Dale Jackson
You get a 1 hour segment on The Dale Jackson Show every week (you choose the time)
+ 30 minutes solo (or with a guest)
+ 30 minutes with Dale Jackson
Potential to launch a talk radio career

I am serious about this.

I want to find this person. I want this to work.

Are you the one?

Liberals have whined for years about the monolpoly of conservative talk radio and I want to help change that.

If you or someone you know wants to be the “Liberal Dale Jackson” contact me at dale@wvnn.com and we will give you an oppurtunity for a 3 minute tryout over the air, if you can’t go three minutes we will find this out.

Stop the Senate from Gutting the Clean Air Act!
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:15:11 GMT
Lowell Feld NRDC Action Fund

Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.

Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! - that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really?

Fortunately, not everyone is so clueless as the U.S. Senate appears to be right now. For instance, in yesterday's Politico, two energy investors – one Democrat, one Republican – explained what's at stake in clear, compelling language.

We are not experts in vote counting or horse trading. But we do know how investors and markets will respond if Congress ultimately fails to put a market-based price on carbon. The response from capital will be brutal: Money will flow to places like China, Europe and India — and U.S. jobs will go with it.

The path to creating more U.S. jobs is simple: Pass legislation that eliminates uncertainty and levels the playing field, and investors will fund projects that create good jobs here at home. Rules bring certainty, certainty spurs investment, and investment creates jobs.

[...]

Take it from investors: Removing the uncertainty, and taking a more thoughtful approach to energy policy by putting a market price on carbon, can bring home new investments and jobs — and ensure that America leads the clean energy economy.

Instead, it now looks like the Senate not only won't be moving us forwards, but instead will be trying to move us significantly – and disastrously - backwards. What's truly stunning about this possibility is that, right now, the science of climate change is clearer and more disturbing than ever. Heat waves are getting worse, the ice caps are shrinking faster than ever, and scientists are telling us that the world is setting new temperature records almost every month, every year, and every decade. In addition, the results of our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels were demonstrated starkly and tragically, both in a West Virginia coal mine as well as in the Gulf of Mexico, on TV screens all across America in recent months. As if all this isn't bad enough, we also could run out of water.

The American people know this situation can't go on. In fact, recent polls show large majorities supporting an energy bill that would "[l]imit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy...by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas." In other words, this is a case where good policy – limiting greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our national security, safeguarding public health, jumpstarting a clean energy revolution – and good politics – strong poll results for doing just that - appear to align. Yet, the U.S. Senate appears ready to ignore both good policy and good politics, and actually move to make matters worse by gutting the EPA and letting polluters like BP off the hook.

Don’t let them do it. Call your Senators right now and tell them "hell no" to the "Let Polluters Pollute with Impunity Act." Also, while you’re at it, call the White House and tell President Obama that, if such a measure reaches his desk, he will veto it – no ifs, ands, or buts.

Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.

He says...
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:23:30 GMT
SaintSatinStain
Senator Sanford,

I am the blogger "saint satin stain" on LeftInAlabama.com. Full disclosure so you don't feel ambushed. One question and I will print your full answer without editing.
Which details in the Alabama State Constitution you feel should be changed and why?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thomas,

A rather broad question given the length of our Constitution, but I will keep it simple. I have one major change I would like to see take place to our State's Constitution: I would like to see the embedded tax structure removed from within the Constitution. As written our taxing system is prohibitive in allowing our State Government to effective manage our departments and money, especially during tough economic times, due to the abundance of earmarkings. This is by far the most challenging aspect of altering our Constitution due to the number of special interests that benefit directly due to the earmarking of specific revenue streams in our State.

Thanks for contacting me, I hope this helps.

Gratefully,

Paul L. Sanford

What is so darn "controversial" about Elizabeth Warren?
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:44:21 GMT
Almoderate

Honestly, this is going to be a very short diary.
I keep seeing headlines about how Warren is so controversial. I see how "progressives" are "threatening" President Obama into appointing her over the very agency she suggested. The one thing I haven't seen is an article that describes in any detail as to why her appointment would be in any way controversial.
So again I ask... Where is all the "controversy" I keep hearing about?

The Real World: Montgomery
Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:58:06 GMT
mattpierce

What would happen if four of Alabama's most notable political figures were cloistered in a Montgomery mansion together and had their adventures taped by a camera crew from APT?
BREAKFAST
It is 6:30 in the morning. The mansion is quiet. Only Artur Davis is awake. He sits alone in the huge kitchen, making coffee. C-SPAN is playing on a television in the background.
Artur Davis: (Mumbling inaudibly, stirring coffee)
Ron Sparks: (Races into kitchen, flailing arms) Gommornin', you beautiful Alabemmies! Gemme some dagnabbit Wheaties!
Dale Peterson: (Walks in from pantry) Ain't got no Wheaties, Ronnie. (Shoulders .22) I bet some of them crooks and thugs stole them all! (Fires warning shot into the ceiling)
Artur Davis: (Covers ears, ducks) I....uh...It's time we begin an honest discourse...
Ron Sparks: Dagnabbit! Tho me a nanner, Petey!
Dale Peterson: (Stuffs banana into gun barrel, fires the gun, bits of fruit go everywhere)
Ron Sparks: HOO-WEE!
Bob Riley: (Descending down staircase in red felt bathrobe, pipe in hand) Good morning, boys. Bob Riley is awake now.
Artur Davis: (Smiles, waves) Uhh...I'm happy...it's...(voice trails off)
Dale Peterson: What we gonna do today, Bobby?
Bob Riley: (Twirls belt of bath robe, looks annoyed) What a question. Bob Riley does what Bob Riley does.
Dale Peterson: I tell ya what I'm gonna do today--I'm gonna find out who stole the Wheaters!
Artur Davis: (Whispering) Wheaties.
Dale Peterson: (Loading rifle) An after that, I'm gonna head down Mobile way and see if I can't fix that dang oil spill!
Ron Sparks: (Licking banana pulp off the counter) Huh?
Artur Davis: (Cowering) Actually...um....guys...they fixed it...
Dale Peterson: I'M A MARINE!
Ron Sparks: C'mawn Petey! We can tax them fire balls!
Artur Davis: (Crawling under table with coffee mug) Tar balls?
Bob Riley: (Walks into kitchen in panda slippers) Good luck, boys. Bob Riley tried dumping bingo machines into the leak, but to no avail...
Dale Peterson: (Takes off cowboy hat, wipes brow) Then we'll blast it.
Ron Sparks: HOO-WEE! An tax the bullets!
Bob Riley: (Spreads Nutella on piece of black toast) Bob Riley once tried to raise taxes. (Sighs) Alabama was not ready for Bob Riley.
Artur Davis: (Crawling out from under table) If I could make a suggestion...
Dale Peterson: (Fires rifle across kitchen, blows apart the piece of toast in Riley's hand)
Bob Riley: (Unmoved) Bob Riley was not hungry anyway.
Artur Davis: (Dives back under table)
Ron Sparks: Dagnabbit Petey! What got into you?
Dale Peterson: Sorry fellers. Thought I saw Timmy James.
Riley, Peterson, and Sparks look at one another and begin to laugh in unison. Artur Davis attempts to take a sip from his mug while lying under the table and spills coffee all over himself. END SCENE

Robert Bentley, the grocery tax, and a PBS interview
Sat, 24 Jul 2010 02:42:29 GMT
csduke

As we are turning towards the general election, many have been raising questions on the candidates.
In April 2008, the PBS seris Now profiled Alabama's tax structure and the efforts of Alabama Arise and Rep. John Knight to address the sales tax on food. (Quick refresher--this is the proposal to remove the sales tax on food and replace the revenue by removing deduction of federal income taxes on the state income tax). I found a link to this video on Arise's website. Video is here and a transcript is here.
Imagine my suprise when I noticed they interviewed Rep. Bentley for this. Below are his comments:
At the 10:10 mark, discussing Rep. Knight's bill for that session:
HINOJOSA: The house is set to vote on the tax plan as early as Tuesday. Yes, that's April 15 - tax day. Right now, they're just a few votes shy of the number they need to get it passed. Organizers will be lobbying intensely this weekend to convince the members who are still on the fence. But Robert Bentley is one house member who plans to vote against the bill.

HINOJOSA: As a legislator from Alabama, when you know that Alabama is one of the most regressive states in this country in terms of taxes, how does that sit with you?

REP. BENTLEY: The state belongs to the people. And they have a right to pay the taxes that they will pay. And I don't get—I don't get upset about it, I really don't. I have too many things to worry about, that is not one of the things that's high on my list to worry about. We do the best we can with what we have, and actually Alabama does a great job with what it has.

HINOJOSA: But the family that we were with every time they have to go and buy food, they're thinking about cutting corners. Can't buy a gallon of milk, it's going to have to be half a gallon of milk, we're going to have to stretch it out.

REP. BENTLEY: Listen—I understand and I'm fully sympathetic with people who are poor, they don't have enough money to buy food. But, you know, there—there are avenues through which if they really are poor that they can get some help.
They may not be poor in spirit, they may just be poor in not being able
to buy all the conveniences that you think they should have. That doesn't
mean they're not happy. You can be happy and be poor. Now, I'm not
saying that you can be hungry and be happy, I don't mean that. But
money does not make you happy.

At the 16:30 mark, discussing the incentive package to Thyssen Krupp:

HINOJOSA: You say, sir, that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes in the state, and yet you voted to give Thyssen Krupp basically 30 years of not having to pay taxes in the State of Alabama.

REP. BENTLEY: I did, but they're going to supply thousands of jobs. And that's going to help the poor get out of poverty.

HINOJOSA: But did it have to come at such a high price?

REP. BENTLEY: Well, it does if you're going to recruit that type of company because we were in competition with a number of states.
We are rated as maybe the number one state in the United States as having new industry coming into Alabama because we have good workers, because we have low taxes. Low taxes are very important. That brings in industry into the state of Alabama, low taxes are very important.
Another question which will be important to raise over the fall campaign. Has Bentley changed his mind on this issue? How will both of the candidates address issues of poverty in this state?

Alabama and earmarking
Sat, 24 Jul 2010 02:12:42 GMT
csduke

This diary follows up on a couple of comments on a previous thread about earmarking in the state of Alabama. For those following the Sparks campaign, you will note that he has repeatedly stated that revenue generated from his gambling proposal is dedicated for Medicaid, education, and farming relief. This fits into the continual practice in Alabama of earmarking.

First, for definition, earmarking is the practice of dedicating a revenue stream to a specific purpose. For example, most states earmark gasoline taxes for transportation needs. Most states earmark some funds in the state. However, Alabama takes the prize for using this practice heavily. About 87% of state tax revenue was earmarked, the highest in the nation (compared to an average of 22% in other states).

Some find benefits in this practice:

It guarantees funding for a specific purpose.
It takes some funding decisions out of the political arena.
It gives people a reason to support a tax increase.
It offers people a way to support revenue increases if they distrust the state government.

However, earmarking at the level to which it is done is a problem in this state. First is the fact that it is inflexible. Establishing laws that earmark funds are hard to change. Lets look at the history of this practice to start. In a 2003 op-ed, Alabama Arise traced the history of Alabama’s earmarking with the three largest taxes:

The majority of state income taxes were earmarked for teacher salaries in 1947
The majority of state sales taxes were earmarked for various uses in 1939
The gasoline tax was restricted to highway expenses in 1952.

It is not only an issue in Alabama that we earmark funds, but that these earmarks were established over 50 years ago. Yet these do not change. Are these funds being appropriated to the right priorities today? Since the funds are already appropriated, there is no way to shift them when the state wishes to invest in current needs or to foster innovation, education change, and economic growth.

Additionally, the heavy use of earmarking handcuffs the state when they face revenue fluctuations. This has been evident over the past couple of years. The Fall ‘09 PARCA Quarterly helps point this out—the Education Trust Fund depends primarily upon income taxes and a large portion of the state sales tax. These both are the volatile revenue sources, and have both shrunk over the past couple of years due to the economic downturn. Combine this with the fact that the ETF is budgeted on (optimistic) projections, and you create a situation where the state has to call proration every time the economy has a downturn. There is no way to borrow state funds from other sources to fend off the crisis. There is not the possibility of prioritizing and shifting state funds, nor is there an effective way to build up a reserve fund to face these crises.

Now look at the General Fund, which covers other necessary state services, including prisons, Medicaid, state troopers, and the court system. The taxes that fund do not share in the growth potential as the ETF, but the amount in the fund has not kept pace with the rising costs for prisons, health care, and other programs. Even in good years, these programs do not have enough revenue. Imagine how bad it is now?

Earmarking also contributes to the Big Mules who dominate state government. It is yet another lever of power as they have an item to protect.

Again, it is time for progressives in the state to advocate for a change to this practice. This is a practice that does not allow the state to be responsive to current concerns, invest in the future, or to have flexibility in financial stewardship. Much is said of the fact that there is little trust of the legislature or executive branch (some other systemic items need to be addressed as well). However, it is time for us to ask progressive questions—what do we expect of our state government? How can we demand a more efficient and responsive state government that provides adequate funding for the needs of the citizens and for the economy to compete in a global market?

Below are some additional resources on this topic.

Resources:
"How Alabama's Taxes Compare." PARCA Report. Fall 2006.
Jim Williams, "Looking at Alabama's Real Tax Dilemma." Mobile Tax REform Symposium. Sept. 1999
"On the Brink: Alabama's Looming Budget Shortfall." Alabama Citizens' Policy Project. July 2009.
"Earmarking State Tax Revenue" Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department. Jan. 2008.
"Principles of a High-Quality State Revenue System." National Council of State Legislatures. June 2007.

General Kayani's "Silent Coup" in Pakistan: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:18:55 GMT
ultimatejosh

I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
Pakistan's General Kayani, the man our leaders in Washington fawn over and who sits atop the intensely destabilizing "Strategic Depth" networks in Afghanistan, has just been handed a three year extension of his term as Chief of Army Staff by Prime Minister Gilani:

The Pakistani government on Thursday gave the country's top military official, army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, another three years in his post, a move that analysts said would bolster Pakistan's anti-terrorism fight and cement its role in neighboring Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced the extension in a late-night televised address to the nation. "To ensure the success of these [counter-terrorism] operations, it is the need of the hour that the continuity of military leadership should be maintained," he said.
The impact on our war in Afghanistan is obvious, as both McClatchy and I included it in the lede; Call it "strategic depth" or "cementing its role," it all adds up to influence on Afghan President Karzai's government, the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, Al-Qa'eda, and the future of all of these players in Afghanistan.

The short of it is that Kayani's extension is bad news for us, due to his cozy relationship with militants and terrorist organizations, as well as his undermining of the democratically elected civilian government. But the details are important, especially as they could mean the difference between uncontrolled escalation and our planned military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

For the complete picture, we'll take a look at what a few experts (read: bloggers) are saying to determine the good, the bad, and the ugly ramifications Kayani's extension has on the US war in Afghanistan.

For the good news, we have Shuja Nawaz writing for the New Atlanticist [emphasis mine]:
A major advantage that might accrue is that the certainty provided by the new term for the army chief will allow the civilian government to become confident in asserting itself in policy matters, knowing that the army chief will not overtly intervene in its affairs. This may help strengthen political institutions. At the same time, civilians must resist the temptation to turn to the army to lead the battle against militancy (a national endeavor not purely a military one) or to arbitrate differences on the political field.

These three years should also give Kayani time to assess the present Higher Defense Organization of Pakistan and perhaps come up with a more devolved structure for the army and a better system of command and control at the center. One possible scenario may include regional and centralized commands at four-star rank, appointed by the same authority who selects the service chiefs, and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs with real powers to regulate all the services while acting as the main military advisor of the government. This approach has been taken by the United States and many other modern militaries, so it would hardly be unprecedented. Without having a stake in the chairman's position in 2013, Kayani may be able to provide a dispassionate plan for the government to decide, well in advance of the next round of promotions in 2013. Any proposal that he presents as a disinterested party will have credibility and will also help override the parochial concerns of the army relative to the other services in Pakistan.
It would be more than good news, it would be great news, if Kayani did work to minimize the role of the military in government, and created a civilian-military relationship similar to the US. But that only works if the first part is true, that Kayani's interference in politics would cease, allowing the civilian government to become more confident.

That's where the bad news comes in. This isn't a case of the Army backing off it's role in politics, it is, in fact, a craven arrangement with the ruling political party. Arif Rafiq writes at AfPak Channel [emphasis mine]:
Perceptions aside, three more years of Kayani could conceivably provide continuity to both Pakistan's military and political setup. In recent months, the consensus in Pakistan was that Kayani would receive a two-year extension. Gilani's choice of three years was a surprise. But not by mere coincidence, Gilani's government also has three years remaining in its tenure. And so it's certainly possible that there is a deal between Gilani's Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Kayani, perhaps involving foreign guarantors, to let this ship sail for three more years (with Gilani wearing the captain's hat steering an imaginary wheel and Kayani actually in control). Indeed, Gilani alluded to a possible deal when he said today that Pakistan's four major "stakeholders" -- the president, prime minister, army chief, and Supreme Court chief justice -- are in a "secure position" till 2013. [...]

And so for Kayani, who has managed to become the darling of many of Pakistan's nationalists and Islamists, there is some risk involved in continuing for another three years as army chief. If he ties himself too close to the PPP, he -- and more importantly, the Pakistani Army -- could lose a critical support base and sink along with the current government, unless he maintains a political distance and continues to pursue a semi-nationalist security policy.

Gilani projects a false sense of confidence in the viability of Pakistan's current political-military setup. This is Pakistan. The Kayani extension provides a short-term ceasefire between the PPP and the army, but it will also likely produce re-alignments among its fractious power brokers. And another head-on clash between any two of them is not far from reality.
Cutting a deal with the ruling elites of the status quo to stay in power is not the same as Kayani becoming a "disinterested party" in the government. That's not a democratic government, it's a puppet. In that sense Kayani's extension could be considered another in Pakistan's long history of military coups, albeit a completely silent one. This will agitate the opposition parties, namely the PML-N, and the Islamist party wouldn't be out of line to call for new, early elections, simply as a way of "re-checking" the legitimacy of the PPP-Kayani government.

But that's not the worst part for the US war in Afghanistan. Pakistan's internal politics are important to us, but it's Kayani's national security and foreign policy that have truly ugly implications for the US. B. Raman writes on his blog [emphasis mine]:
In the counter-insurgency operations against the TTP he has had partial successes in the Swat Valley, South Waziristan, Bajaur and Orakzai agencies. Under his leadership, the Army has been able to deny the TTP territorial control in these areas, but has not been able to destroy their capability for terrorist strikes and commando-style raids in tribal as well as non-tribal areas. While arresting some leaders of the Afghan Taliban, who were living in Karachi and other non-tribal areas, he has avoided action against the Afghan Taliban leadership operating from the tribal areas.

He has avoided any action against Al Qaeda elements which have taken sanctuary in the non-tribal areas. Under Musharraf, the Army and the ISI were much more active against Al Qaeda in the non-tribal areas than they have been under Kayani. The anger of Al Qaeda and its associates against Musharraf because of the action taken by the Army and the ISI was responsible for the virulent campaign of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri against Musharraf and the Army. They abused Musharraf as apostate, collaborator of the Hindus etc and thrice tried to kill him---once in Karachi and twice in Rawalpindi. Compared to that, there is hardly any Al Qaeda campaign against Kayani. There is a greater threat to Mr.Zardari from Al Qaeda than to Kayani. The Army and the ISI have managed to create an impression in the tribal areas that Mr.Zardari and not Gen.Kayani is responsible for the facilities extended to the US for its Drone (pilotless plane) strikes in the tribal areas. Since Gen.Kayani took over, while many Al Qaeda leaders have been killed in the tribal areas by the Drone strikes, there have been very few arrests of Al Qaeda elements in the non-tribal areas. Al Qaeda feels more secure in the non-tribal areas of Pakistan today than it was under Musharraf.
If you missed that, let me spell it out for you: Kayani's extension is good for Al-Qa'eda. Yes, that Al-Qa'eda. The terrorist guys.

Then there's all that other stuff about the Afghan Taliban - Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura in Balochistan, as well as the Haqqani Network, who're responsible for the vast majority of terrorist and insurgent attacks on our US troops in Afghanistan.

How does the US feel about this? Nawaz:
The United States has studiously avoided taking a public position but conversations with U.S. diplomats and military officials over the past few months indicated their deep interest in the future of General Kayani and a noticeable desire to see him remain at the helm of affairs in Pakistan.
Rafiq:
Some of Pakistan's nationalist and Islamist commentators have also reacted with suspicion toward Kayani's extension, describing it as a result of Hillary Clinton's "lobbying"
Raman:
Kayani is thought of well both by the Pentagon and the PLA leadership
And a flashback to Sue Pleming's report on Kayani's visit to Washington:
Guests crowded around Kayani at the annual Pakistani National Day party at the embassy, posing for photos and jostling for the military leader’s ear.[...]

U.S. senators and Obama administration officials lined up to speak to the slim and dapper general, who Pakistani media say rules the roost back home but is also central to U.S. relations with Islamabad.
Damn, we really love this guy. What are we thinking? Whatever it is we like about him - his style, his centered demeanor, his subtle hand in politics - General Kayani is still just another military dictator, another crook in a long line of corrupt, tyrannical, warmongering thugs. He is not our ally, not our friend, and his extension, now a full fledged dictatorship complete with a compliant, ruling political party, is just plain bad news for the United States.

The US must immediately end all military aid to Pakistan, and should pursue sanctions against the ruling elites in the PPP until such time as their government can prove its legitimacy by way of free and fair democratic elections. Barring such extreme measures, the US must engage exclusively with Pakistan's civilian government, while working toward greater inclusion of opposition parties like the PML-N (who are presently too close to radical Saudi Arabia, and could stand to be moderated with more international influence).

More importantly, the US must end its war in Afghanistan. Not only is not in our interests to fight a civil war in Afghanistan, but it is even less in our interests to have our US troops used as pieces in Kayani's personal chessboard. Our troops fight and die for our national defense, not for Kayani's insane militarist objectives against India. Pakistan is catastrophically unstable, and US military leaders are moving to escalate our involvement. Further war in the region will prove to be disastrous for the US.

Reforming our relations with the Pakistani government can be slow and doesn't have to be as extreme as an immediate freeze. The PPP government can be allowed time and support to again free themselves of Kayani's control, such as when they tried to grab control of the ISI, Pakistan's terror-supporting spy agency, in 2008. But we cannot wait to end the war in Afghanistan.

The war puts Americans in danger, it is destroying our economy, and now with Kayani's empowerment, our objectives in Afghanistan become all the more hopeless and impossible. We have to bring our troops home, get them out of this civil war in Afghanistan and proxy war with Pakistan, and only then can we move on to accomplishing our objectives, be they counter-terrorism, development, or human rights.

We must end this war now, lest one more US soldier die so that General Kayani can "cement his role" in Afghanistan.

Join us on Rethink Afghanistan’s Facebook page, and be sure to check out the Meetups in your area.

My Kids Are Losers: Commentary on the Climate Debate
Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:35:44 GMT
Heather TaylorMiesle NRDC Action Fund

The climate bill blame game has begun. When I first started writing this post about the so-called death of the climate bill, I literally pointed the finger at just about everyone, including myself. The anger poured out, and I was frank in my assessment as well as unforgiving in the motives behind this latest setback.

After I was done with my self-loathing tantrum, the kids ran in the door from camp and I was swept up in the lovely reality of my family's banter. It is summer, so the pace in our home is a bit more relaxed in the evening. We aren't quite as quick to rush through dinner, toss the kids in a bath, and then march them off to bed. Ice cream and extra cuddles are relished, and I am reminded each year at this time why I do this job.

Later, after progeny were tucked in, I went back to my draft blog post to spruce it up. I reread my rage, disappointment, and irrational ramblings and was embarrassed. And I asked myself "What good is all this blame going to do?"

At the end of the day, it is my kids - and your kids - who lose when we implode. If you think kids have a lot to say about their parents now on Dr. Phil, can you imagine what our children will say in 50 years should we fail to get our act together?

The country should be ready for this. The facts are on our side. As we witness the worst industry-caused environmental catastrophe in our history, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years, and sweat through the hottest first 6 months of any year on record, it is clear that there's never been a more urgent time to move forward with a smart clean energy and climate plan.

Unfortunately, the politicians just aren't there. At every juncture during this debate, a minority, led by the Republican leadership and supported by a few impressionable (I might say pathetic) Democrats, has obstructed the opportunity to solve America's energy problems, preferring to leave the worst polluters and the big petro-dictators in control of our energy policy, while tax-payers are forced to pay for their messes.

Oopsy... there goes that blame again. Let's focus on what we can do next.

Hope is not lost. Of course, the closer we get to the midterm elections, the more challenging passing a bill becomes. Still, it's not impossible. In fact, the Senate has passed almost every single bedrock environmental law in the fall of an election year or in the "lame duck" session following an election. Here are just a few examples:

o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - 1996 Amendments: 8/6/96

o Food Quality Protection Act: 8/3/96

o Energy Policy Act of 1992: 10/24/92

o Clean Air Act of 1990: 11/15/90

o SDWA - 1986 Amendments: 6/19/86

o CERCLA (Superfund): House 9/23/80, Senate 11/24/80, POTUS 12/11/80

o Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA): 10/21/76

o Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA): 10/11/76

o SDWA: 12/16/74

o Clean Water Act: 10/18/72

o Establishment of the EPA: first proposed 7/9/70, established 12/2/70

o National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 1/1/70

o The Wilderness Act: 9/3/64

As this list demonstrates, the Senate and the environmental movement are no strangers to passing major legislation right before - or just after - an election.

I don't want to overpromise success. This is an uphill battle. But if you and I show up to every town hall, rally, spaghetti dinner, and other rituals of election year and fight for our kids... fight for our country... fight for our America... we can turn the tide. Without that kind of passion, we will all lose. That's an outcome we must try hard to avoid, on behalf of people, communities, large and small businesses - oh, and our kids, sleeping peacefully or playing happily around the country.

In the meantime, we must also protect what we already have, like a plethora of state laws and the federal Clean Air Act. I recommend reading David Doniger's blog on Switchboard today that really outlines how we can make progress with the tools we have right now.

In coming weeks and months, we must continue to push forward for a strong, clean energy and climate bill, just like we have done countless times in the past. I am done with blame. History is on our side. Are you?

Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.

The People's Candidate-Barnes for Senate
Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:36:44 GMT
DemoGirl

I've heard it said and read it before that Bill Barnes is the People's Candidate. He's repeatedly reminded us that it is OUR campaign. So, I'd like to pose a few questions to everyone within the sight of this content.
How does he get contributions, media attention? What kind of fundraisers will help? How does he get the message across? What kind of suggestions can we offer to help the campaign along?
Let's share our thoughts. Here's the hypothetical question. "If I were the campaign manager for Barnes, I would...." what?
The big issue here is tapping into free media. Barnes is doing a great job with Facebook and his candidate blog, but he needs recognition from sources other than blogs and social media. He needs the MSM to recognize that he's running and running to win.
It's an issue with many of the downticket races in Alabama too. We have good people running for Secretary of State and State Auditor, but how do they get the word out on their campaigns without money? And how do you attract contributions without media?
We know that the LIA folks are the "best and brightest" political minds in the state, so put on your thinking caps and toss in your ideas!

What is a Progressive?
Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:20:17 GMT
PoliticsAlabama

I wrote a blog post over at my website (http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/), and I thought I'd cross-post it here to get your input. I tried merely to define Progressive as I perceive it, and am interested in what folks on the left think of the description. Are the beliefs and goals that I ascribe to Progressives accurate?

I have read several blog posts and opinion pieces asking a simple question... What is a Progressive? I thought that I might take a whack at providing my own definition.

Once upon a time, when I was but a youth, we had two basic kinds of political critters. We had the Conservative critters and the Liberal critters when I was growing up, but gradually the Liberal critters started to get a bad name. They became known for favoring a large intrusive government that had influence and/or control over every aspect of our lives, and most people didn't really like that idea.

So the term "liberal" fell out of favor with those who most acutely "felt the sting," so to speak. By that, I mean the extreme liberal wing. The most liberal Liberals were the ones who wanted to distance themselves from their own reputation... so they selected a replacement name.

They chose the word "progressive" for a reason. Take a look at the word. It obviously means "one who favors progress." And the word "progress" means "to move forward"... and who doesn't want THAT? So the most liberal of Liberals began to self-identify as Progressives.

But here's my major question... exactly what are they making progress towards?

I think that's a fair question... because not all progress is GOOD. It's possible to "move forward" into a trap, or just plain "progress" yourself right off a little ol' cliff.

Progressives today are basically the old Socialist wing of the Liberal movement. They're the ones who want a strong central government to "help" us in all areas of our lives. They want high levels of spending and a large government workforce. The best solution to any problem is a government solution. They want to expand the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And they'd DEARLY love for the ObamaCare program to have a single-payer system... government-provided and controlled health care for all.

Progressives believe that we are not taxed enough. I've never yet had a Progressive tell me what percentage of taxation would be "enough." They believe that most people (and by that I DO mean more than 50% of the American populace) should pay NO income taxes, but everyone above that should be taxed as heavily as is possible. A Progressive friend of mine once told me that he didn't care if the government took EVERYTHING HE EARNED in taxes... they'd compensate by giving him enough to live on.

I find that naive trust in the benign and efficient nature of government to be... well, charming. Frustrating, but charming.

Progressives have no faith in the nature of a free market. Nor do they value overly much the concepts of individual freedom and liberty... at least, not when those concepts put the individual above the good of society as a whole. They see the Constitution as a "living document" that can be interpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Progressives are the people who brought us to the place where "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" results in High School Valedictorians being forbidden to mention God or Jesus in their commencement addresses.

The underlying basis of most, if not all, of the Progressive belief system is strong, central control through the Federal government. And by control, I mean control of EVERYTHING. Though many won't admit it, this includes central planning of the economy... like the Soviets used to do, before they collapsed in economic ruin.

Now, if you think I've been unfair with any of the beliefs I've attributed to Progressives, kindly point out the specifics, and we'll discuss it.

But all in all, the destination that these folks are making progress TOWARDS doesn't really appeal to me.

Rethink Afghanistan: What does it mean to be less safe?
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:16:10 GMT
ultimatejosh
I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.

In our latest video from Rethink Afghanistan, we hear a tale of the deadly consequences of war directly from those most affected by it, the Afghans themselves. Zaitullah Ghiasi Wardak describes a special forces night raid which resulted in the death of his 92 year-old father, allegedly shot 25 times as he lay in his bed. It's a disturbing and gripping story that exposes what Nick Turse calls "real war."
Few Americans born after the Civil War know much about war. Real war. War that seeks you out. War that arrives on your doorstep—not once in a blue moon, but once a month or a week or a day. The ever-present fear that just when you're at the furthest point in your fields, just when you're most exposed, most alone, most vulnerable, it will come roaring into your world.
Here was a man who had lived 92 years, surviving kings and communists and criminal despots just to eke out a small living for his family in eastern Afghanistan, and we ended it at all with one botched night raid, one piece of bad intelligence, one misstep in our "population-centric" counterinsurgency campaign and targeted counter-terrorism operations.

Now we could waste our time endlessly debating the finer points of COIN doctrine, the motivations of the special forces, whether it was deliberate or accidental, a war crime or a tragic error, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. The sundry fallacies of COIN have already been thoroughly exposed, here and elsewhere, and the really pressing questions about this specific event in Wardak province can only be answered with a thorough investigation of government and military officials.

Instead we should see this as an example of what those who oppose the war are talking about when they say it isn't making us any safer. Both presidents Bush and Obama framed the war in terms of national security, keeping America safe, and so it only follows that as the facts of our occupation come to light, we reach the conclusion that the war isn't making us safer. In fact, it is making us less safe.

But what exactly does that mean, to be less safe? This video is the perfect answer.

First, this night raid has an immediate impact on our counterinsurgency operations.

Do we think that Mr. Wardak, or his young sons who were beaten and abused by the special forces, really care about how many irrigation ditches ISAF is digging in Helmand province, or whether the local US-backed governor is more or less corrupt than the Taliban shadow governor, after what happened in the US night raid? What do we think will happen the next time the Taliban comes knocking on Zaitullah's door looking for patronage, recruits (remember those sons), or even just a shelter to smuggle their Al-Qa'eda foreign fighters?

Will Mr. Wardak turn them down, explaining that on page such-and-such of FM 3-24 it says that targeted night raids are an effective COIN tool and will one day to lead to a peaceful democratic state for Wardak and his sons? Or is he more likely to see the US and Kabul as his enemies, and choose to join the Taliban?

The Taliban is strengthened and empowered by this night raid because the "local population" (Mr. Wardak and his family) are so horrifically affected by "collateral damage" (murdering Mr. Wardak's father). A legitimized Taliban is not good by itself, certainly for the Afghans' sake, but it also makes our troops less safe.

We have something around 100,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan. We've given them an impossible task (Here's some cash and a machine gun - now go make a state) and every time we have a night raid like the one in our video, their job gets even harder.

They take the objective seriously, they are really trying to accomplish something in the way of nation building. But every time our special forces decide to gun down an old man in his bed, our soldiers get another 5 or 6 IEDs planted on their roads, another handful of militants joining the assault on their FOB, and another suicide attack on the markets they fought and bled to open.

100,000 is a lot, but we can't get lost in the statistics. These are American volunteer soldiers. That girl you know from work who joined to pay for school, or that buddy you have on Facebook who's always griping about the bandwidth in Kandahar - that's who we're talking about here. It doesn't matter if they're Army, Navy, Air Force, they're all there, and they're all less safe thanks to this night raid on Mr. Wardak's home.

But lest we get caught up in such nonsense as "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" or "Americans don't have to sacrifice for this war" (Tell that to your local - unemployed - teacher, cop, or firefighter. I dare ya), it's important to note that we here at home are also made less safe by the events in this video. When we say this war is making us less safe, we're also talking about you.

It's common knowledge that terrorist groups take much of their inspiration from US aggression like the incident in Mr. Wardak's home. Every time we commit these acts, another young Muslim man logs onto the jihadi forums, or walks into the Lashkar-e-Taiba recruiting offices looking for a job, a purpose, martyrdom.

If we're really, super lucky, if all of our wishes are granted and all of our prayers are answered, then that young Muslim man will be another Faisal Shahzad, just another hapless, lost individual who doesn't ever manage to hurt anyone. If we're not lucky, that man is the next Mohamed Atta. It's all just a roll of the dice, betting everything on a decade-long, trillion dollar occupation. You pay the price for losing.

We get a stronger Taliban, more of our soldiers dying, and a greatly enhanced terrorist threat, all from night raids like the one in our video. And this is just one isolated incident from March, months ago. The damage from it is already done, regardless of any investigations or discussions we have, and as the video notes, use of special forces is increasing.

That is what it means when you hear that this war isn't making us safer. It is not an abstract political concept or a throwaway slogan, it means you are literally made less safe by the US war in Afghanistan.

And we're only talking about the night raids here, that still leaves everything else like the collapse of our national economy and infrastructure because of war spending, or our pouring of money and soldiers into one of the most corrupt governments on Earth, or the illegal and outrageous drone strikes in Pakistan. Really it's true, the war makes you less safe. All of it.

The war in Afghanistan must be ended. Funds must be cut, and a withdrawal timetable, which 65% of Americans support, must be accelerated. The war puts our soldiers at risk, ourselves at risk, and it isn't even in our own selfish interests. To repair the damage, we must end the war now, while we still can.

Call Congress at (202) 224-3121 and tell them that this has to happen, that this war has to stop. Vote for timetables, block the funding, do everything they can to make you safer by ending the war in Afghanistan. Remember, pressure works.

Join us on Rethink Afghanistan’s Facebook page, and be sure to check out the Meetups in your area.

Lee Surrenders To Grant, Obama Retains Slavery
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:05:30 GMT
fake consultant
WASHINGTON, DC, April 10, 1865 (FNS)-The Civil War ended yesterday with the surrender of General Lee's Confederate Forces to Ulysses S. Grant, the Union Commander, at Appomattox.
Although most observers are generally happy with the surrender, many of President Obama's most loyal supporters are livid with the Commander-in-Chief because of the concessions he made in order to obtain the future support of the Southern Senators who will rejoin the body when the next Session begins.
At a media event this morning, Press Secretary Dick Timoneous expressed the President's hope that the formerly Confederate Members of Congress are looking forward to changing the political culture and steering the Nation in a better direction:
"It's time for the opposition to realize that what really matters is putting America first. The President is certain that by offering some concessions now, Southern Senators will look beyond their own parochial interests and do their part to move this process forward."
Ohio Congressman Zebidiah Kucinich summed up the anger from the left: "We won the war, for God's sakes, which is a mandate if I ever saw one, and yet the first thing the President orders when putting together surrender terms is to take the issue of ending slavery off the table.
It makes no sense, especially when we know that these former Confederates will never support the President's agenda. To make it even worse, we know the President will make more concessions later on down the road in order to try and get any opposition votes he can."
Reached in Charleston by telegraph, former Confederate Senator Beauregard DeMint told this reporter that: "Appomattox will be Obama's Waterloo! He can never be allowed to destroy the foundation of our Southern economy-and if he tries, we'll use the 10th Amendment to protect the interests of our States...and Freedom."
Disaffected leftist voters, who were already upset over Obama's failure to close the Union detention facility at Andersonville, as he had promised he would during his Presidential campaign, have become even more vocal recently as the Union Army has appeared to block Administration efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that has caused thousands of urgently-needed Black soldiers to be discharged during the War.
All of this, combined with the President's recent actions in failing to end slavery, have led to an "enthusiasm gap" between voters in the President's Party and those on the other side, emboldening his opponents in the upcoming midterm elections.
Southern voters, who have seen the end coming for some time, have been organizing into "Coffee Parties" in an effort to protect their economic interests-but they chafe at the notion that there is a racial component to their concerns.
In a recent speech to an enthusiastic Kentucky crowd, Senate candidate Roger Weightman ("Old Flintlock") Paul was heard to say: "Our only interests are in protecting the agricultural economy of the South, and the Constitutional values that were handed down to us from our God; that requires us to keep slaves in places like Mississippi, but it has nothing to do with racism."
Members of the crowd, sporting the robes and hoods that have recently begun to take over as the preferred uniform of the "Coffee Party", echoed Paul's comments, including a large, florid, gentleman who appeared to be using laudanum at the time of our interview; he chose to remain nameless, but told me this about the slaves he had met: "Slaves are uppity, but not as blacks. They're elitist. They think they're smarter and better than everybody else. That's what they were taught. It's like they're Harvard men."
Political strategists, including Senator Sumner of Massachusetts, have urged the President to become more bold in his negotiating tactics, and to take more control over the weekly media cycle: "The President is enormously popular when he gives speeches, he clearly has a mandate, and now that the telegraph can quickly spread his message there is no reason why the Coffee Party, who, after all, represent a minority of the Nation, should be allowed to drive every single element of the political conversation-especially if all the President ends up doing is watering down the abolition of slavery to the point where nothing is accomplished at all."
In a related story, pressure continues to mount on the Administration after the unprovoked firing of an Agriculture Department official who was "framed" by Confederate media interests; the official, who gave us an exclusive interview in Washington yesterday, reports that she has already been told that she could make enough money suing for wrongful discharge to purchase her own "Seward's Folly" if she wanted-in fact, the act of suing for wrongful discharge, currently a novel legal concept, may become known as a "Sherrod Suit" if the former official chooses to move forward with this new form of litigation.

HR 4213, Extension of Unemployment Benefits Passes Senate
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:04:46 GMT
archangelsk

Around 6 local time the Senate, after seven weeks of Republican stalling and haranguing, finally passed HR 4213, extending benefits for unemployed Americans until November 2010. Now 2.6+ Million Americans can breathe a slight sigh of relief, if only for a short time.
But there are some issues...the bill is a shell of itself from when it arrived in the Senate.
So, whats in the bill?

H.R. 4213, began as a $141 billion, 426-page omnibus package of stimulus spending, tax measures, unemployment insurance and more. But what the Senate voted to move forward with today (S. Amdt. 4425) is revision of the bill that whittles it down to $34 billion, 13 pages and includes only one substantial item — an extension of unemployment insurance for people who have been out of work for 6 months or longer. You can even see this change reflected in the title of the bill. It was originally called — somewhat awkwardly — the “American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.” It has now been renamed simply the “Unemployment Compensation Extension Act.”
The filing deadline for unemployment insurance benefits expired on June 2nd; this bill would extend that deadline until November 30, 2010, allowing unemployed individuals who exhaust their current tier of benefits, or who have exhausted their last tier since June 2nd, can file to move into the next tier of benefits.
The bill also provides for benefits to be paid back retroactively for people who have seen their payments cut off since the filing deadline expired on June 2.
Additionally, it includes an extension of the closing deadline for the first-time homebuyers tax credit, but that provision is redundant with a bill that was signed into law on July 2nd (H.R. 5623). There are also three revenue-raiser provisions in the bill — changes to the Travel Promotion Act, cracking down on tax fraud committed by prisoners, and recessions from the Defense Department budget. These are three provisions are estimated to raise $146 million over the next ten years and generally non-controversial. You can read more about them here.
What’s Not in the Bill?
Tier V
— The bill would not create additional weeks of unemployment benefits. 99 weeks (Tier IV) would still be the maximum amount of a time a person could receive benefits for in states with high unemployment rates, and 86 weeks (Tier III) would still be the max in states with low unemployment rates.
Federal Additional Compensation Program
— This stimulus program, which provided an extra $25 per week in unemployment benefits payments, would not be extended under the bill. That means that all retroactive payments would be for $25 less than what they were before June 2nd, as will all payments in new tiers.
COBRA — These benefits for helping unemployed people pay for health insurance were dropped from the bill in a previous iteration. They will not be extended in this bill and there is no plan to extendthem during this session of Congress.
So the bill as it was passed was really nothing more than a bandage covering a huge gaping gushing wound. Without some real action, millions more come November will find themselves in the same position they were in during the summer.

Been Shopping Lately?
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:06:27 GMT
DemoGirl

We've all had our fair share of grocery shopping in our lifetime. The words, "paper or plastic" are all too familiar to the shopper in line. Interesting how the process of analytical thinking begins when small jargon is thrown out there. Until this week, I never read too much into the phrase except a preference. Paper or plastic? Ever wonder which is actually the right choice? Everyone has been asked that question at least once, and I'm certain specialists have wondered which is better, too. How do we determine which is better for us? Do we ask ourselves, which endures more weight and can carry the heavier load? Which is better for the environment? Which is cost effective? Which can burn out faster? Which can hold up longer? Do they both serve a purpose? I think so.
I began to juggle this around.. as the cashier asked me again, Paper or Plastic? And immediately, for obvious reasons, I started thinking "out loud" and found myself asking the cashier, Republican or Democrat? She looked puzzled and said, Ma'am? Then inquiring curiously, I replied. You asked me for Paper or Plastic. Which is better? Her reply was the same as all of our concluded replies. It's just a preference. So, I asked her, "which did she prefer?" She said, puzzled.. she hadn't thought about it much before, but she usually just takes plastic. I asked, why? She went on to say, well... "I use to always use paper. I said, what did you like about paper? She said, nothing special, except it was the only option." I asked what was good about the paper? She said, It was good because it was thicker, it held out a long time, she could reuse it, fold it up easy and store it, she could burn it, then she said, "I don't know.. at some point, I just preferred plastic and started using plastic". I said, why? She smiled, and I could tell she didn't want to be rude and replied. Well, I know it's cheaper to make, it works great as a bathroom garbage bag, holds bad food in the frig, smaller to compact and store, can get more stuffed into a bag because it's flexible, lighter, has handles to carry... Then she said, it's just more convenient, practical and works best for me in my household." I just smiled really big and said, hmmm! The cashier looked up at the customer behind me who was obviously enjoying the conversation because she opened her drink and said, go ahead honey... I'm enjoying this, I've got time." And the cashier said openly, I guess I realized without thinking about it that when there was a choice, I chose the plastic. I just don't remember when! AND CHA CHING! God gave me an opening. I looked at both ladies, and said... that's democracy ladies! William Barnes is running for US Senate to give you a choice in November. I handed them both his card and said, VOTE PLASTIC in November. The bagger said, "So plastic then?" And we all started laughing.
It was a really fun moment in politics. Those days are hard to come by and I'm thankful for those kind of openings. They make fighting for a cause more enjoyable.
So, the moral of my story is Paper or Plastic? Republican or Democrat? The preference is determined by which product best serves the needs of your household. What issues do they represent that affect YOUR PERSONAL SITUATION?

Sparks vs Bentley
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:27:55 GMT
Old Prosecutor

Since we seem to be getting nowhere asking for reasons to vote for Sparks, perhaps we should examine some of their campaign promises to date. The factual information (in bold face) is drawn from the candidates web sites. The editorial comments are solely the opinions of this author.
Jobs - both candidates agree that job creation is priority one - they differ on how they plan to do that.
   Sparks - use 1.4 billion to build roads.
Pro -The underlying premise is that many construction jobs would be created short term and improved roads will lead to increased business activity later.
Con- construction work often goes to out of state contractors, thereby creating few jobs in Alabama and any jobs created are short term. Also it raids the Gas and Oil Trust Fund, thereby decreasing funding to other State agencies and it duplicates the Federal stimulus.
   Bentley - tax incentives for businesses to relocate, for existing businesses to expand and for any business that hires someone currently unemployed and who pays that person more than $10 per hour.
Pro - a large business locatiing in a community is certainly a shot in the arm for that community,existing business can expand and create a lot of jobs and the idea re hiring unemployed creates an incentive to expand.
Con - this is usually a long term process and offers little immediate help plus there is always the question of whether you give away too much.

Gambling
   Before examining the candidates position remember that to legalize gambling (1) the legislature must pass a bill (tenous, particularly if indictments come down from last session) and (2) citizens must approve it.
   Bentley - personally opposes expansion of gambling but is willing to allow a straight up or down vote.
Pro - sort of neatly straddles the issue.
Con - very vague about the extent of gambling he is willingly to allow and how it would be regulated. These are the issues that caused such fits in the last legislative session.
   Sparks - allow and tax casino gambling (proceeds to Medicaid) and create a state education lottery
Pro - creates a revenue stream that unlike taxes, you only have to pay if you want.
Con - this is Siegelman Redux and no Plan B has been set forth in case either the legislature or the voters refuse to approve it. Also the lottery would not seem capable of paying for a college education for every student who wants one and it continues the practice of earmarking revenue.
Ethics
Both candidates propose strong ethics rules for their staff but are silent as to whether they will fight to extend those to the rest of government.
Real Estate Tax reappraisals - both wish to end the yearly reappraisals and return to 4 year reappraisals
Sales Tax
Sparks - remove sales taxes from food.
   How the hell can you oppose this?
Bentley - no position set forth
Why the hell not?
Social issues
Bentley - against same sex marriage, against abortion nd against illegal immigration
Pro - these stances will get you a lot of votes in Alabama
Con - these issues are going to be decided in Federal Court not in the governors mansion.
Sparks - No position expressed
The above is just to get the discussion back on track. Feel free to post other positions you are aware of, to disagree if you think I got a position wrong and to argue to your hearts content
Only rules, keep it civil and discuss the issues, not just which party is better.

What's your opinion of the AEA, and why?
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:01:04 GMT
CallidaMater

I didn't grow up in a union household, and don't work in a job where there's a union option, so I see the AEA (and the ASEA, for that matter) as an outsider. I recognize the historical importance of unions in creating safer workplaces and more reasonable working hours, but I think federal legislation and departments like OSHA do much of that for all workers now.
I have a child in the public school system, and it appears to me that the AEA's main purpose is protecting tenured teachers, rather than the best teachers or all students. While I haven't done in-depth research into charter schools or vouchers, the fear-mongering advertisements I heard on the radio during the primaries (funded by the AEA) infuriated me.
I realize the AEA was created when the two pre-existing teachers' unions headed by Hubbert and Reed merged, and from what I understand they did much to make integration relatively smooth. However, that was decades ago.
Currently, the state party is dominated by the AEA. My county chairperson is an employee of the AEA. The meeting place for the county party is in the AEA headquarters building. It's rather difficult to be a part of the Democratic party in this state without supporting the AEA -- so tell me why I should.

Tell me why on earth I should vote for Ron Sparks.
Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:07:11 GMT
Almoderate

"He's the Democrat" isn't going to be a good enough reason for me. Why? Because I don't vote party labels. I'm not a Democrat.

This actually started as a comment to a previous posting on the Davis comments, but I felt as if a diary would be more appropriate after putting this all together, so here goes...

The problem with Ron Sparks is that almost all of his support came from Democrats who believed that Artur Davis just wasn't progressive enough. Davis was supported primarily by independents and more moderate Republicans.

And there's the rub.

We heard after the primary about how Dems rejected Davis because he didn't play to the base. Well that's all fine and good if you can win an election with just your base. Unfortunately, you can't, and I think that's where the state Dems are falling short. Until the folks on the left figure out that they're going to have to make some concessions to appeal to independents and even some (gasp!) moderate Republicans so that they can get a little bit of progressive in there, they'll get nothing accomplished. The far left liberal Dems are an endangered species in Alabama. You won't win an election on your own.

Meanwhile, those independents and moderate Republicans like me who voted for Davis will simply move on to the next best candidate (or the less evil one, depending on how you look at it). That's currently not Ron Sparks. If we did in fact vote for a party label, he'd have less to worry about-- and so would Democrats for that matter.

Bentley scares the hell out of me. I won't lie. But Ron Sparks scares me more. He was so willing to sell his soul to certain groups and individuals. He openly embraced convicted criminals. And if the way his campaign has been run is any indication of what we can expect with him as governor, I'd rather have a third grader. The emails alone are atrocious.

If Sparks really wants to win this, he's going to have to do a lot better than just reaching out to remaining Democrats. He's going to have to make some concessions and appeal to the middle and even a tad to the right. And he's going to have to be convincing. That last part will be a particularly uphill battle considering his conflicting statements on his views during the primary, and if he so much as hints that he's against this HCR legislation after the way he used that during the primary, there will be no turning back. There's just no trusting this guy as it stands, and the last Democrat who left that impression on me was Parker Griffith. We saw how well that one turned out.

And to address another comment... I'm sure the Dem website could use some polishing, but that's really the least of your worries. Let's please be realistic, here. What needs to be done is what the national party has done and Obama is taking hits from the left for-- appeal to moderates and expand the tent. I can't even begin to tell you how much I as a moderate feel like an outsider among Democrats in this state. Posts from folks like certain Sparks supporters on this site are practically screaming at me that they could care less whether or not they want my vote and support.

I'm not a Democrat. So then please tell me why on earth I should vote for your candidate.

Hubbert resigns as State Party Vice Chair
Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:10:31 GMT
csduke

The news coming out of Montgomery today is that Paul Hubbert is stepping down as the SDEC's Vice Chair for Public Sector Labor. As quoted in the Advertiser's story on this:
“First and foremost my duty is to AEA and its members," Hubbert said in the press release. "We support friends of education regardless of party, and our membership reflects the diversity of party membership in Alabama. AEA is made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and my leadership role in one party has at times clouded that issue."
It has long been known that Hubbert's and Joe Reed's involvement in state Democratic party roles has led AEA to be charged as an agent, champion, or bogeyman of the state Democratic party (depending on your outlook). Their leadership roles led the Republican establishment and Byrne's campaign to attack AEA during the primary and runoff.
Both Danny at Doc's and Kris at the World Around You have posed on this, where Danny raises a good question: Why now? Kris theorizes that it is in order not to burn bridges with Bentley if he were to become governor.
So the questions to ponder: 1) As Danny asked, why now? 2) What relationship does this indicate between AEA and the state party? 3) Does Hubbert feel that Democrats are about to lose power overall in Montgomery?

morgan county alabama democratic party liberal politics political news north alabama decatur somerville priceville falkville huntsville trinity athens hartselle cullman campaign democrats democrat

100 Excellent Online Documentaries for Presidential History Buffs