View From The Left Coast

I’m a little puzzled as to why people would allow the press or the political pro’s to dictate who they vote for. Amazingly, most Democrats seem reconciled to the fact that they have a choice between Clinton and Obama. The argument is that if you vote for somebody who isn’t a front runner, because they were able to raise $500 million from corporations like Exxon and Pfizer, you’re wasting your vote.

But if you think about it, agreeing to vote for the lesser of two weevils is self-disenfranchisement. In this case, both these people voted twice for the so-called Patriot Act, for funding for the war, and did nothing to put Bush and Cheney behind bars, where they belong. Both support invading Iran, and both support mandatory payments by all Americans to insurance companies. They enabled Cheney for the past seven years, so how are they any better? Besides, Karl Rove and Co are praying (and paying) for Hillary to be nominated, knowing she is so hated by the right she has no chance of winning the general election.

Seven years ago I took a lot of flack for voting for Ralph Nader, which allowed Cheney and Bush to win. Turned out later Cheney didn’t need my help. . .he made sure he’d win regardless of how the “voting” went. Last election I voted for Kerry, but Cheney had other ways of winning. I have this weird idea that voting is about expressing yourself, about supporting those you trust to represent you. If people are allowed to “vote” only for people they don’t trust or support, how is that democracy? Why would anyone participate in a system like that?

No, I’ll be voting for another longshot: Dennis Kucinich. He’s as close as our political system will come to a real choice. He opposed the war from day one, has voted consistently against suspension of the Constitution, favors a single-payer healthcare system, and is the only candidate supporting impeachment.

I’ll be voting my conscience, win or lose. It may be crazy, but I think that’s my duty as an American. If I can’t vote to end mass murder, punish war crimes, institute real, non-corporate health care and protect the rights of Americans, what’s the point of voting at all?

Posted by Walt Frazer at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

An email from the Dennis Kucinich campaign today mentioned an interesting thing: there are some who think the New Hampshire upset for Hillary was something less than an expression of the will of the voters.

I hadn’t really thought about it, and I’ll bet you hadn’t either, but the fact that the polls that said Obama was pulling away from Hillary just prior to the primary turned out to be way wrong. Then all the pollsters were covering their butts and saying people changed their minds. Suddenly, I was reminded of the “election” of 2000, when Gore beat Bush. There was all the dimpled chad stuff in Florida, the dumping of black voters from the rolls in Ohio, etc etc, but there was also the BIG difference between the exit polls and the final tallies.

Because of the unexplained disparities between hand-counted and machine-counted ballots in New Hampshire, Dennis has asked for a recount. “I am not making this request with the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,” Dennis said in his letter to the Secretary of State of New Hampshire. But he cited “serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors” that question the integrity of the machine-controlled process.

And here again is an example of one set of figures not agreeing with another.

So who do you believe? If you watch Faux News, you believe one thing, and if watch DepressMe Now, you believe another.

And if, like me, you tend to believe Amy and Michael and Dennis, what does that say about elections in America? Is the voting rigged AND they blew up the World Trade Center AND they killed Paul Wellstone? Or just A and B, but not C?

And will we ever know, or will it always be a question of Who do you believe?

Posted by Walt Frazer at 08:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

There’s a long tradition in Washington of pork barrel politics: when one member votes for another’s federal dollar giveaway, he gets to call in one of his own. When you read the “newsletters” of our politicians, they’re filled with self-congratulation for the pork that they’ve “brought home.” In a little place like Humboldt County, a couple of million is considered a lot of money. In Washington, it is, as Everett Dirkson used to say: “A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

In the Northcoast Journal this past week, there was an article about Congressman Mike Thompson, or rather, about three people who want to run against him for voting in favor the war, the “Patriot” Act, domestic spying and a bunch of other things Democrats don’t usually support. One of Thompson’s detractors, however, was forced to “give the devil his due” and praised him for helping get $3.7 million in federal funds for the Redwoods Rural Health Center. Not being in SoHum, I know nothing about the Health Center, but I do know that people from, say, Poughkeepsie or Walla Walla would consider it pork.

Then there’s the money that might or might not be available for something like the rail and port improvement project that promises to connect the metropolis of South Fork with the booming port city of Samoa. The Railroad Authority has asked the State for $19 million to work on this project, while the State is closing parks. Shrewd.

The other side of the equation, that we’ll never know, was what did Mike support to get $3.7 million for the Health Center? Was it voting to fund the “surge” in Iraq? Voting for the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act? Everyone in Washington says the same thing: “There was no quid pro quo.” And they’re lying.

Posted by Walt Frazer at 08:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"But the dictionary definition of populist is: 'A member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people; a person who holds or who is concerned with the views of ordinary people.'

--R. Limbaugh

The Times-Standard Editorial this morning trumpeted “Populism is back in America”.The editorial talked about how the Iowa caucuses showed how “populist” candidates had done so well. Sen. Barack Obama, who so far has collected $80 million in his race for the presidency, and Rev. Mike Huckbee are considered populists.
Actually Obama and Huckabee won because they had money and/or organization. Huckabee won because there are a lot of Christians in Iowa, and the Christian right is VERY well organized and very rich. And he’s their guy.

Obama won because he has spent even more money than Hillary: $44 million to her paltry $40 million. The $64 million question is: where did that money come from? If you know who paid it, you know who owns him. And I know it wasn’t me or other people putting in $25 here and $25 there. Opensecrets.org points out that 47,643 people donated more than $200 to Obama. By contrast, Dennis Kucinich has raised a little over $1 million, he has 908 $200 plus donors, and 69% of his donors gave less than $200.

It’s my old mantra: Follow the money. Only in this case, it’s follow the mullahs, too: the Christian mullahs and, in Oprah’s case, the celeb mullahs. Just listen to the Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS minarets calling the faithful to prayer. Allah akbar!

I would argue the only real populist candidates are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, neither of whom, we are told, has a snowball’s chance in hell. And why is that? Because we are told neither has a chance. We believe what we are told (and told and told. . .the essence of advertising). That’s where the $44 million went, and it was spent judiciously.

And did it work? Who won the Iowa caucuses?

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates a billion dollars will be donated in this presidential campaign, and the winners will get around $500 million each. That won’t be Ron Paul and it won’t be Dennis Kucinich.

That isn’t populism in my book. Rush's either.

Posted by Walt Frazer at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)