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.
We need to keep the power of the pardon as it is currently prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. With President Bush approaching the 200 person mark, the issue of pardoning has been raised once again. Yes, the power for the President to pardon can be abused. Yes, there has been some skeptisim regarding the use of this power. Of course there would be, too. When one man overrules the federal sentence of a convicted criminal, it raises some eyebrows (Scooter Libby, anyone?). The fact is that the pardon should stay as reads. Burack’s proposal to limit this power is simply preposterous and completely undermines the intention of the pardon in the first place.
The power to pardon is most powerful as a healing tool. It was used to heal a divided nation after the civil war - confederates were pardoned by then President Johnson as a means to move forward. Ford’s pardon of Nixon to move the country beyond Watergate and George Washington’s pardon of those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion were all times where the pardon was utilized strategically and proved to be neccessary. At critical points in history, the pardon helped to rebuild and heal a nation. Sometimes, the President must exert his authority to lead the country in a new direction and if that means commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence, so be it.
The pardon also serves as a check to the judicial system. Sometimes there are significant individuals who the President believes have made radical changes in their behavior (for the better) and are worthy of acknowledging and highlighting this success; sometimes the President may utilize his power to pardon if there are injustices within the federal judicial system. In reality, the power to pardon is one that it utilized with utmost responsibility – very few people actually make it to the point where they are pardoned, and usually those who are are worthy of it. Pardons can often be against the will of the general public – did anyone really think Richard Nixon should have been pardoned coming off the heels of Watergate? Most people didn’t, and some argue that Ford’s move cost him the following election. That is exactly why most pardons are traditionally at the end of a President’s term – because they can often be unpopular. But then again, what’s popular isn’t always right. We must also keep in mind that if a President makes a controversial or pardon that was of dubious merit they risk their legacy and their integrity, which in it of itself is a deterrent for corrupt decisions.
We need to preserve the power to pardon and embrace a tool that has recieved undue critisim.
Yes, the rumors are true. Three of our regular contributors to the show will be traveling to Denver for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Ben Goodman, our courageous Moderator, as a delegate representing Sen. Obama. Tom Dec as a volunteer for the convention and an attendee to the College Democrats National Convention. And Robert Burack, one of the few lucky supporters from the State of Michigan to achieve a community credential [to INVESCO].
In addition to the show, you can read blog posts of our experiences at BenjaminGoodman.com, for Ben, and ThomasDec.com, for Tom.
See you in Denver!
Picture this:
A running mate with over 20 years executive experience, a self-made billionaire, and a women who has risen to be one of the top players in the media industry.
Oprah Winfrey has a unique story – similar to that of Sen. Barack Obama’s. She was born of a teenage pregnancy in rural Mississippi. She lived in poverty for much of her childhood and lived with a dysfunctional family – living in Wisconsin and Tennessee and was molested by her own family members. Despite this, she was able to win scholarship to high school and later college, and she was soon off on her way in the media industry. Most notably, she now hosts the Oprah Winfrey Show (which has been playing since 1986) and she is one of the most well-known media icons of the century. Her net worth is now estimated to be 2.5 billion dollars, which would certainly be a nice financial advantage to have. Oprah also has a magazine, has produced feature films, a website with over 70 million views a day, and commands a daily viewership of over 8 million. Who wouldn’t want a woman of this stature on the ticket?
Winfrey endorsed Sen. Obama months before Iowa, and she could certainly be an asset in places like the deep south, the working class and white suburbia. She has lived the American Dream, and that message can resonate with anyone. In times of economic crisis, why not bring an African-American woman with tremendous executive experience onto the ticket?
I must admit that is not one of the more serious considerations, but then again, the media has pretty much considered anyone.
This is not an endorsement. Thomas still feels Sen. Biden (D-DE) is the best choice for VP.
Click HERE to listen to the broadcast in it’s entirety.
Big Oil
This is a response to Matt’s post suggesting that the noble Republicans are off fighting to protect the interests of the average American while the Democrats are off on vacation.
At long last, it looks like Congressional Republicans are taking up the war banner again. The GOP men and women in Congress have finally found their voice and are using it to slam Democrats on one of the biggest issues in the coming election: energy policy. With new polls suggesting that clear majorities of Americans support offshore drilling, additional exploration for oil, and anything that promises to expand fuel supplies in the coming years, a cohort of Republicans is preaching to a chamber of ordinary Americans. Since Congress is not in session, Republican members have invited tourists to fill the chamber’s seats and are frantically sending out audio clips, vlog posts, and Twitter updates in an effort to get the word out: Republicans have a solution to one of America’s problems and are ready to bring change.
I see this as a political attempt to try an block the dems from actually passing a comprehensive energy policy that doesn’t include offshore drilling and as an attempt to win some political points. Republicans want to try and make a big spectacle showing that they will not back down from their position on offshore drilling and consequently their fight to reduce gas prices (they fail to mention their support for big oil though). Where were these noble Republicans back between 1994 and 2006? If the Republicans had half of the ambition that they have now, I am sure with clear majorities in Congress and a Republican President they would be able to pass a comprehensive energy policy. If a comprehensive energy policy was passed six or eight years ago, we would not be in quite the situation we are in today. Since 2006 the Democrats have not passed any massive energy policy either, but that is arguably because of Pres. Bush and his veto pen, and because of the slim majorities the Democrats have in both houses of Congress.
Face it. The Republicans are scared that once the Democrats advance their majorities in both the House and Senate and once the White House turns blue, they will be ignored and quite powerless. This is an attempt to save big oil and create a political scene that is sure to seem as though they are for the American people. They had their chance. It is time for real change.
At least C-Span isn’t covering the event….
…and here’s why:
Caroline Kennedy has experience as a lawyer and a member of our greater American and world community. Not only has she represented Camelot and our nation, but she’s been a witness to the inner-workings of government for decades, while maintaining her role as an outsider.
There are 1,143,358 lawyers as of the end of 2007 according to the American Bar Association. Ok, so she is a lawyer…a lot of people are. She runs a couple non-profits (like the Kennedy Library Foundation and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund)… a lot of people run non-profits. That by no stretch of the imagination gives them any type of grounding as to experience or familiarity in the beltway, or should lead us to suspect any of them could be VP. How has she exactly been a “witness to the inner-working of government?” I fail to see that claim justified. Caroline Kennedy has been outside of the political sphere up until she endorsed Obama a few months ago. Watching the political process is not the same as being in it. She wrote a couple books. A lot of people have written a couple books.
Critics have said that Senator Obama can’t put another woman on the ticket as it might anger Hillary supporters. I think they are right. Putting Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket is simply putting a female governor on the ticket to put a female governor on the ticket.
Ben, isn’t putting a Kennedy women the same thing as putting Kathleen Sebelius…just with a Kennedy name a less executive political experience? Instead of justifying why everyone else is bad, you should explain why Kennedy is good. And cut the BS with rhetoric that does nothing to substantiate your claims.
Caroline Kennedy would not be my optimal choice for VP. She would be a poor choice for the Democratic Ticket.
…and here’s why:
Caroline Kennedy has experience as a lawyer and a member of our greater American and world community. Not only has she represented Camelot and our nation, but she’s been a witness to the inner-workings of government for decades, while maintaining her role as an outsider.
There are 1,143,358 lawyers as of the end of 2007 according to the American Bar Association. Ok, so she is a lawyer…a lot of people are. She runs a couple non-profits (like the Kennedy Library Foundation and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund)… a lot of people run non-profits. That by no stretch of the imagination gives them any type of grounding as to experience or familiarity in the beltway, or should lead us to suspect any of them could be VP. How has she exactly been a “witness to the inner-working of government?” I fail to see that claim justified. Caroline Kennedy has been outside of the political sphere up until she endorsed Obama a few months ago. Watching the political process is not the same as being in it. She wrote a couple books. A lot of people have written a couple books.
Critics have said that Senator Obama can’t put another woman on the ticket as it might anger Hillary supporters. I think they are right. Putting Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket is simply putting a female governor on the ticket to put a female governor on the ticket.
Ben, isn’t putting a Kennedy women the same thing as putting Kathleen Sebelius…just with a Kennedy name a less executive political experience? Instead of justifying why everyone else is bad, you should explain why Kennedy is good. And cut the BS with rhetoric that does nothing to substantiate your claims.
Caroline Kennedy would not be my optimal choice for VP. She would be a poor choice for the Democratic Ticket.
As of tonight, he is my favorite for the VP position on the Democratic ticket.
Here are a couple preliminary reasons:
He will win back Hillary-Country for Obama. He is a devout Catholic (born in Scranton, PA even)/Irish Immigrant and stands for the working class. I think he can help Obama lock down Pennsylvania and Michigan, and significantly improve his chances of winning states like Ohio and Virginia.
He is a seasoned legislator. Having been in the Senate since 1972, and now heading the Foreign Relations Committee, there is no better person to have as your right hand man. Keep in mind, Obama can use someone who knows the in and outs of Washington and Congress, and Biden’s experience can aid in that.
He is the king of Foreign Policy and National Security. This is a man who knows his stuff, and I think can be a huge asset when running against a decorated POW and Vietnam Veteran.
He has a sense of genuineness and gives McCain’s strait talk express a run for its money. Although gaffe prone at times, I think Biden can add a lot of value of really getting to the heart of the issues and presenting it in an open and frank way.
He is a nice guy. He has the campaigning skills and the charisma that provides a nice compliment to Obama’s. And he can handle himself in a debate.
________________________________________________________________________
Here is a speech he gave recently on Iraq and the Bush Administration:
Check it out HERE
And you thought the primary season was strange…
Apparently, in some small town in Romania, their mayor of almost two decades died of liver disease just before the elections. He won by a margin of 23 votes. Many even voted for him knowing that he was dead.
Imagine if you were defeated by a dead person; how would that make you feel?
You can read the full article here.
The weekly filibuster team talks with Prohibition Presidential Candidate Gene Amondson.
Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are all states that Obama thinks he might be able to pick up as a result of his candidacy – with a combined 32 electoral votes, it would be enough to offset McCain’s strength in Florida, Ohio, or both and in turn enough to win the election. Clinton continues to make the arugment that she can win the blue collar, working class states, but polling and data analysis suggests Obama will expand the electoral map for the dems, which also means a strong performance in Congressional and Statewide elections. Keep in mind redistricting is just around the corner…
Info on this facebook group. Please join!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13025974868&ref=mf
Princella Smith, the Chief Advocate of Newt Gingrich’s organization, American Solutions, will be joins Ben, Tom, and the panel this Sunday.
For the second half of the show, a PA Preview, a review of the debate, the Pope, McCain’s tax returns and more!
For More info about Princella Smith or American Solutions go to:
http://www.americansolutions.com/
http://www.americansolutions.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=a78f62ba-35fd-4422-a803-fe94a447489a
Thank you to everyone who tuned in yesterday. We had a great interview with Former Senator Mike Gravel, who is running for the libertarian nomination.
If you would like to listen to the entire broadcast, click here.
The topics covered (in order of discussion on the interview):
Libertarianism, endorsements, economy, fair tax, boycotting the Olympics, universal healthcare (caller), national initiative, fair tax rebates (caller), President Carter meeting with Hamas, Israel/Palestine, Supreme Court nominees, term limits, civil disobedience and Iraq War, transparency in politics, Israel/Palestine (caller), LGBT rights and gay marriage, genocide in Darfur, global warming.
Gravel links:
www.gravel2008.us (campaign website)
www.ni4d.us (national initiative)
www.citizen-power.us (Sen. Gravel’s book: Citizen Power)
The Kingmakers (out June 2008)- Senator Gravel’s new book about the Media in this election cycle
A Political Odyssey (out May, 2008) – A book about Sen. Gravel’s journey in attempt to dismantle the military-industrial complex
We hope you tune in next week at 10pm EST for another exciting edition of The Weekly Filibuster
Hey Everyone -
The team of The Weekly Filibuster is re-vamping our site. For now, this site will serve as a portal to our weekly show at 10pm on Sunday nights.
Check out our archives for our previous broadcasts!
Thanks
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.