Join us after our Superbowl and Valentine’s Day hiatus as we sit down with Vermont gubernatorial candidate, Democrat Matt Dunne. Will he be the first “google governor?” Internet for all? Campaign finance reform? Tune in this Sunday, FEBRUARY 21ST AT 10PM to catch the interview.
And as always, the panel will tackle the headlines of the week.
What does Gov. Sanford’s affair mean for the 2012 GOP field? Does Charlie Crist stand a chance in the Florida Senate race? Is Michael Jackson’s death “dooming” the people of Iran? What does the newest climate change legislation include? Why did a GOP Rep. call it a “pile of s**t”? Is Tony Danza really the boss?
I was reading through the newspaper and stumbled upon what I thought was a great cartoon.
According to this report from the Chicago Tribune, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich may be impeached as early as next week. A Illinois House Investigative Committee may recommend the impeachment of the Governor as early as next week. Blago was invited to testify in front of the committee at a later date, and tapes were being turned over to the Committee by the state’s Attorney General.
Isn’t this a bit preemptive? Don’t get me wrong, based on media reports it seems as though Governor Blagojevich is guilty, but should the legislature impeach someone just because they were accused of being corrupt? It seems as though it would be out of place right now. I agree with Senate Democrats not wanting Burris to take office while the Governor is [rightfully] accused of selling the seat, but for the legislature to impeach before any type of legal action seems irresponsible. Apparently Blagojevich feels he has done nothing to warrant impeachment, so let’s have due process do its magic.
If the Assembly was nervous about Blagojevich appointing someone, they should have stripped Blagojevich of that power and held a special election. Now, we have an appointed Senator – definately qualified – by a seemingly corrupt Governor.
With HRC moving to serve as SOS in the Obama Administration, Gov. Paterson will have the opportunity to appoint a person to represent New York until the next federal election in 2010. Any choice he makes should surely be a shoe in for the special election – in the heavily democratic New York, republican opposition is generally weak. Much speculation has been swirling in recent weeks about the possibility of Caroline Kennedy replacing Hilary as the U.S. Senator from New York.
For the Obama Administration, this would be a gift from above: a liberal senator who endorsed Obama in the election. I think Caroline could be a great pick. She has largely been outside of the political scene down in Washington since this year, she has lead and been a player in the non-profit sector, and is also an author and a lawyer. Granted, she needs to clarify some of her views, and granted I do have reservations about some of the ones she has voiced (such as her support for the auto bailout), but I think she would be a fine Senator.
Caroline has received support from many prominent New Yorkers, and she has been gaining traction on the national stage. Now we just wait for Gov. Paterson….
If you support Caroline’s bid for U.S. Senate, you can sign a petition to Gov. Paterson here.
Wishing you a Happy New Year from the Filibuster crew. Thank you for sticking by us throughout the year.
Be sure to tune in to our first show of 2009 this Sunday at 10 to catch the top 20 moments of 2008!
(photo from AP/Politico)
They might want to consider going to D.C. to lobby people who actually have power over the current situation.
From Politico:
Shortly after 9:30 this morning as Obama headed to his high school alma mater to play basketball, the small group of demonstrators near his vacation home waved signs that said, “No U.S. support for Israel” and “Gazans need food, medicine, not war.”
But Obama was sitting in the rear on the passenger side of his black sport utility vehicle, and was not visible to the protesters, according to a pool report, which said the president-elect sipped from a bottle of water and looked straight ahead as his vehicle passed the demonstrators.
According to the Politico, the Democrats will be facing a tough election coming in 2010.
“We have a daunting challenge ahead in the 2010 midterm elections,” Democratic House campaign chief Chris Van Hollen says in a year-end Web video thanking supporters. “Many of our new members are from conservative areas with long histories of Republican representation. We are looking at potentially 70 — 70 — threatened Democrats who will need our support.”
70 seats is nothing to sneeze at. Democrats picked up about four dozen seats in the last two elections giving them a healthy majority in the House. History is not on their side. Usually the party in power loses seats during a midterm election – as 2010 will be – so the Democrats will have to be careful how they govern in the next two years if they want to hold on to their mega-majority. I hope we will not have a repeat of 1994 come 2010.
The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan handicapping guide, places 48 Democrats in prospectively competitive races. And Democrats are expected to have targets of their own in 2010, with Cook placing 34 Republicans on its watch list.
Even given this preliminary report, the Democrats are looking at a 14 seat deficit.
In response to the discussion on the post Re: Equality through Capitalist Mobility.
Local districts, at least in Connecticut, get about 40% of their budget from the state government, a comparable amount from local governments, and the minority remaining from the federal government. Suggesting that the state has little impact on the quality of each district is simply false. The state, if they wanted to, can most certainly redistribute the money in a way that gives more money to the poorer areas and less money to the affluent areas. This helps to make up for the income inequality throughout various parts of the state. There is no need to send all of the local tax money that would go towards education to the state government. If an area is more affluent and pays more into their local education system, they should (and currently do) reap the benefits. Fundamentally, I disagree with the school voucher system for the k-12 public education system, and on the University level I think it is unwarranted.
State-funded colleges and universities already come at a high discount to the residents of that state. UConn, arguably the best public university in Connecticut, has a tuition of about $19,000 for in-state students, and $35,000 for out-of-state students. Bob Bowen is suggesting that we need to eliminate or heavily subsidize the costs for the in-state students attending. Already, students are getting a 45% discount from the “full” tuition, and if you compare the prices of UConn versus, say, the private Quinnipiac University which costs $42,700 per year, going to UConn looks like a good option (a 55% discount) . Quinnipiac is a good private school – good enough for those students who are smart enough to go to college, but can’t make it into the top tier to get the necessary financial aid. Both schools are in Connecticut, and both are solid schools.
Would a school voucher really change any of the dynamics? If the student isn’t smart enough to gain admission to a school which meets 100% of the demonstrated need, would a $12,000 voucher really make a difference? Tuition for Connecticut residents is $7,200 at UConn, a price that is manageable for all students – even disadvantaged ones. A $12,000 voucher would be refunding more money than the actual tuition. Students can work with the financial aid office to do a combination of work-study programs or apply for scholarship and grant money to help pay for the $7,200. Students can also work in the summer, too, or (gasp) take a loan. I have no problem creating incentives or a plan to lower the cost of in-state tuition, but I don’t think vouchers are necessarily the solution. If a student wants to go to the private Quinnipiac, taxpayer money should not be going to directly pay for the (more expensive) tuition of a student there because the student could get a comparable (and arguably better) education at UConn for a cheaper price.
So, in a nut shell, I think both vouchers and heavy subsidies from state taxpayers are not the immenent answer. School’s need to become more competitive in their own right, which seems to be happening in the case of UConn, which will attract more students of higher caliber and more money, and will in turn lower tuition rates.
Ben Goodman
Matt Cavedon
Pete Christopher
Robert Burack
Tom Dec
Bob Bowen
Tom Dec
Climate Change Bill Hits Senate Headwinds
In Commentary on July 6, 2009 at 8:22 pmAfter reading this article on FiveThirtyEight.com, it seems as though Senate Democrats have an uphill battle in trying to pass the Climate Change Bill which barely made its way through the House about two weeks ago. According to the site, Democrats have 50 votes that are likely, and 3 votes as a “Maybe-” and two of those “maybes” come from the Republican Senators of the Pine Tree State, home of Ben Goodman. Six of the nine Democratic Senators on the “Problematic Democratic Votes” list represent the states of West Virginia, Arkansas, and North Dakota. This isn’t coincidental, of course, seeing as those three states are among the largest per-capita emissions producers in the country. Basically, Majority Leader Reid is going to have to sway (or twist the arms of) seven of those Democrats in order to get to the 60 vote threshold needed to break any filibuster attempt. So much for a mandate.