|
PERMANENT DEPARTMENTS ARE LISTED ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE
Berrien County,
Michigan (Heart of the Fruit Belt)
Democrats think it's a great idea to wiretap terrorists -- just get a warrant so that we know you're actually spying on terrorists“
The Constitution of the
United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.”
|
|
|
|
(From Truthout.Com) Details of Obama's speech got buried in the wake of General Wesley Clark's politically lunkheaded comment about John McCain that, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." But over the Fourth of July weekend, it might be appropriate and enlightening to take a few minutes to read or watch the whole thing. It's a good speech. The senator talks about American history and his own patriotism, about the need for service and sacrifice. "For those who have fought under the flag of this nation," he said, "for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country - no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides." And this: "I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.... But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism." Which brings me to what I think was an unusual and especially fine expression of American patriotism. It's the June 19 closing argument of Air Force Reserve Maj. David J.R. Frakt, arguing for the dismissal of charges against Mohammed Jawad, a young detainee at Guantanamo, charged with throwing a hand grenade that wounded two GI's and their interpreter in Afghanistan. Frakt argued that Jawad should be released because sleep deprivation - two weeks' worth - was used to torture him. You can read it on the web site of the ACLU. THERE'S MORE - GO TO Truthout.Com POSTED 7/3/08 |
|
All Men (and Women) Are Created Equal
(From the Center for American Progress) POSTED 7/3/08) |
||||
|
A web site is like an onion -- it has layers.
|
||||
|
South County Democratic |
NEWS ITEMS |
|
FROM THE BLOGS
|
|
|
ELECTION 2006 ISSUES |
Member initiated -- South County
members asking you to take action. (These alerts are not necessarily
endorsed by the governing body of SCDC -- they are for your information.
It is your choice whether or not you take the suggested action.) |
ELECTION 2008 ISSUES |
||
|
SCDC BOOK FORUM
|
OPINION PAGE |
CALENDAR
|
||
|
SCDC Young Democrats
|
Senator |
Senator Debbie
Stabenow
|
Governor Jennifer Granholm
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
The
Democratic Party |
||||
|
Bill Barlow,
Chair of the Phone Bank Committee,
needs your help. At the present time we're checking the "VAN" list
(the MDP database) for accuracy. It involves using the VAN (either
at home or at our office) and making calls in the form of a three or
four question opinion poll. It is a process of identifying potential
Democratic voters. A short instructional session is needed, but the
calls can be made at home. If you would like to help, please contact Bill at bill-barlow@sbcglobal.net or call our office in Buchanan (695-7232). |
||||
|
My thanks to Helen and Bill Barlow for taking pictures at our meetings. Good people doing good things.
BILL AND HELEN BARLOW'S TRIBUTE TO
|
||||
=
Updated within the last week
HELP US
COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, SIGN UP TODAY!
|
|
|
POSTED 6/5/08
IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE YET -- VISIT THE
OBAMA '08 WEB SITE STAND UP TO THE REPUBLICANS -- MICHIGAN MUST REMAIN A BLUE STATE. VISIT BARACK OBAMA'S WEB SITE AND MAKE A DONATION TODAY!
IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE YET -- VISIT THE
OBAMA '08 WEB SITE
|
|
POSTED 6/29/08 UNITED FOR CHANGE HOUSE MEETINGS (http://my.barackoba Join with Obama supporters from around
Kalamazoo and around the state, this Saturday, June 28th, for a
Unite for Change house meeting near you. Many of the people hosting
parties aren't active social justice people or Democrats, so it
looks like this is really a grass roots effort. Democrats will be holding a "Unite for Change" Block Party Democratic Office - Buchanan Saturday, July 12, 2008 |
|
POSTED 7/4/08 Obama to overhaul, expand faith based programs
The Obama campaign took issue with an earlier description of the proposal that said his plan would allow religious institutions more leeway to hire and fire based on faith. Speaking in Ohio Tuesday, Obama outlined the limits of his proposal. "Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles," he said. "First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work." Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services. "The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck." Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values. The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans. But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination. Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy. There's More - Go to Raw Story article POSTED 7/4/08 |
|
POSTED 7/4/08 FACT: THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH DEMOCRATS TO ELECT A PRESIDENT A Democratic candidate has to appeal to the center -- to moderates -- and to independents if he/she is to win. As Senator Obama's campaign moves forward, we have to accept that there will be compromises and acceptance of issues that, as individuals, we may not like or endorse. But, overall, we will have a progressive, liberal, intelligent, environmentally friendly Democratic President. A president who will end the Iraq War and bring our troops home. A President committed to justice and a healthy economy. A President who will appoint reasonable and intelligent people to our Supreme Court -- not ideologies. Democrats must not destroy themselves. The following diary puts the issue of Democratic bickering and scrabbling in perspective. We must support Senator Obama and give him room to move. Support our candidate! This is going to be hard to write... (From the Daily KOS by Granny Doc )and, I suspect, even harder to read. Having survived the Purity Wars
that destroyed all of the movement toward Progressive politics in a
blood
One of the things that has given me hope during the past, dark days of Gingrich/Rovian politics is that they would destroy themselves. In a Constitutional democracy no individual, or small groups of individuals, demanding ideological purity, can long survive. People come to their senses. They break out of the head lock of fear, and hate, and narrow self interests to emerge wiser and less vulnerable to the tactics that captured them. It has certainly taken longer than I hoped, but it is happening. Now we are in danger of falling into the same traps that we have so often decried in the Republican Base. We are becoming the enemy, Pogo... We are becoming ideological purists. We are each trying to define those specific elements of our personal Progressive Policy beyond which we refuse to accept a candidate's decisions. We mutter that, "We'll vote for him but, our enthusiasm is gone". We righteously search for key issues and huff and puff about our indignation when our personal standards are not meet by the candidate. We draw lines in the sand. We will not compromise. We "expected" more, we moan. This is not the way it's supposed to be, we pant, in diary and comment, interminably. We have a lot of new folks these days. Some of them have been long time readers who decided to join the fun. Many are gentle and intelligent souls, given to thoughtful and insightful commentary. But, some are not. Some are classic shit disturbers. They try to throw down the gauntlet creating dissension in the ranks of Kossack's by prying apart those disagreements and fanning the flames of discontent. They egg us on. They work our disapprovals and create the same kind of divisive unrest that destroyed the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and the Democratic Party for a generation back in the 1960's. We have a rare and historic opportunity facing us in the next 4 months. We can create a Democratic sweep. We can reclaim the White House. We can change the direction of this country. But not if you are so hell bent on standing up for your particular version of Progressive Values that you weaken your candidate, your party and your hopes for the future, in a flame out of righteous indignation. Barack Obama offered a "New Kind of Politics". He did not promise a new kind of purity. A new kind of electoral self-immolation, or a sacrifice on the alter of a population groping towards sanity after 8 years in Bedlam. He is a politician who MUST GET ELECTED before any of your fondest dreams can be realized. He must walk a tight rope to overcome the racism, fear, and years of indoctrination that have pervaded out politics. He must compromise! Compromise is the most difficult thing for the ideological purist to accept. They always cast compromise as a betrayal. But earning the right to govern a country with such disparate views, a country divided by misinformation, bad information and no information, requires working the room. It requires compromise. If you are unable to understand and accept this, you are not sufficiently sophisticated to play in this arena. Will you please consider what I have offered before you allow yourself to be drawn into the baiting by the trolls who have emerged in the past few weeks to stir the pot? Will you consider the impact of parading your purity before the world (and your diaries, and comments are widely read) when you unintentionally parade your discontent with our candidate? Can we form a united front and, just this once, not destroy ourselves in factional politics, based on individual demands that our candidate comply with our personal analysis of world affairs, BushCo criminality, and the Righteous Truth? Republicans manage to line up behind their candidates. Can we, Democrats, try doing the same, just this one time? It has the potential to deliver the prize that so often has eluded us... |
(From 
bath
of self-referential pettiness in the late 1960's, having laughed
along with many others at the jokes about "circular firing squads",
having grimaced at the constant smug observations that "this is the
Democrat's to lose, and they always find a way", I see the same
foolish tendencies growing daily in this community.
|
POSTED 5/11/08
Don Cooney for Congress (6th
District)
For more than 5 years we have tried in vain to get our Congressman to take a stand against this immoral, illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. He has continued to back economic policies which have cut deeply into the lives of working people and the poor. I believe we must put a different agenda on the table. Tennyson wrote: " Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others see things that never were and ask why not." Why not peace? Why not economic justice? Why not human rights everywhere? With this letter I wish to inform you that I seek the Democratic nomination to run for Congress in this District.
Thank you, For quite a few years, Fred Upton (R, Whirlpool) has had a lock on the 6th. Over the last three cycles, though, his winning percentage has crept downward each time. This time, the nation is in the midst of recession, mired in a deeply unpopular war, and at the end of the reign of the most unpopular President in American history (well, since polling was invented, anyway). In a Presidential year, turnout is higher, which always helps Democrats. |
|
|
|
POSTED 7/4/08 Clark stands by comments (From Raw Story) Former Gen. Wesley Clark
is standing by his criticism of John McCain as unprepared to In a televised interview Sunday, Clark noted that McCain's honorable and praiseworthy service in the Navy and as a prisoner of war in Vietnam does not alone qualify the Republican candidate to be president. Late Monday night, after McCain and his surrogates spent a day accusing Clark of denigrating his service, the onetime Democratic presidential candidate and supporter of Barack Obama stood by his original sentiment. "There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation. “John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.” There's More - Go to Raw Story article POSTED 7/4/08 POSTED 7/4/08 Veterans Respond to General Clark's Comments (From the Daily KOS by Brandon Friedman )We’ve heard from the pundits, the "strategists," and the politicians all day long on Wesley Clark's recent comments. That said, I’ve been terribly disappointed by the Democratic "strategists" who’ve fallen all over themselves in order to talk about how sacred military service is--specifically John McCain’s--and how awful General Wesley Clark’s comments were, even though not one "strategist" that I’ve listened to today has ever served a minute in uniform. These ignorant, knee-jerking consultants on TV have been in an apparent race to concede ultimate authority on military matters to John McCain and the Republican Party since Sunday night. It’s disgusting. And these concessions have been so over-the-top destructive to our long-term plans for running the country, that I’m not even sure where to begin.
This idea that we can’t question someone’s expertise on military matters simply because they served could very easily become the next "whoever is against the war is unpatriotic" mantra. And that’s not something I’m prepared to accept. That said, one group we really haven’t heard much from today is the group that's actually served in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that changes now. Here are a handful of the messages we’ve received at VoteVets.org since this morning. Judge for yourselves what the troops who are left-of-center think about this whole deal. THERE'S MORE - CLICK HERE TO GO TO VETERANS RESPOND POSTED 7/4/08 POSTED 7/4/08 McCain Flips At Legit Question
By Jon Soltz
| The Huffington Post |
View story in the original context (From VoteVets.org) I've been running VoteVets.org for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in 2008, we've endorsed a number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for Congress. It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always -- always -- get the same first question: What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress? It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it. As veterans of the current conflicts, they have a unique perspective on the wars that should be part of the debate on the floor of Congress, and a vote that helps shapes our security policy. Yesterday, John McCain was asked basically the same question by a brave reporter at ABC News. The reporter, not falling for the hysterics and mock-outrage of the McCain camp over General Wesley Clark's comments simply asked what John McCain's experiences in Vietnam did to prepare him to lead the largest military on the face of the earth. "Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question. Uh uh. That's not good enough. You would assume that given all the whining over General Clark's legitimate point, that John McCain had some obvious answer to the question. Instead, he refused to answer the question, and let Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham come to his defense, babbling to the reporter about character, but not a word about qualifications. The fact of the matter is that General Clark was absolutely right. McCain's service, while heroic and honorable, is not very relevant when it comes to preparing him to be the military's ultimate commander. His experience didn't involve executive decision making in the military, or global strategy. Very few candidates for the presidency have had the experience in life that prepares them for that role. In fact, McCain said it himself in 2003, that some of our best Commanders in Chief had no military experience at all. That's why the McCain campaign went into all-out outrage mode over General Clark's comments. It wasn't about being offended. It wasn't even about General Clark. It was about lashing out so strongly that the media would cower in fear, and not even think about putting a question like this to McCain -- a question to which he has no answer, and is afraid of being exposed on that point. And, for most of the week, that strategy was successful, as the press wimped out, and repeated the McCain talking points. The reporter from ABC News didn't fall for it, and did his job. But he didn't get an answer. Maybe now, reporters will stuff their guts back in their bodies and keep asking McCain this legit question -- a question I get a version of all the time from the same reporters. It's a legit question, and it's a question for which the American people deserve an answer. POSTED 7/4/08 Defending Wes Clark (From the Daily KOS by Lt Gen Robert G Gard )The controversy over my colleague General Wesley Clark's comments on John McCain have generated a lot of media comment, much of it negative. I have known General Clark for many years: we served in the same Army and for the same country. He's a patriot. So to suppose that somehow Wesley Clark would denigrate John McCain's service to his country, while praising his bravery during the time that Senator McCain spent in an enemy prison, is absolutely ludicrous. So let's check the facts. On CBS's "Face the Nation," General Clark said that he believed John McCain was "untried and untested." Journalist Bob Schieffer asked him to explain what he meant. How could Clark make such a claim when "you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war? He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is un-untested and untried?" And here's General Clark's answer: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. As a retired military officer and a soldier who served his country for over thirty years, I can tell you that there's nothing in what Wes Clark said with which I disagree. He has not only stated the facts, he knows something about them. John McCain was a prisoner of war, an officer who served as a squadron commander, and has been and is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. John McCain can put his service to country up against anyone's. But General Clark has served also -- and with great courage: he was wounded four times in Vietnam -- and like John McCain, he has met and seen the enemy. Is what Wesley Clark said true? Let's check some other facts: John McCain made claims about progress in security by walking through the streets of Baghdad. But as I recall, he was protected by at least a platoon of American soldiers and helicopters lying overhead. In matters of national security, as General Clark pointed out, "it's a matter of understanding risk," and it's "gauging your opponents;" and it's also a "matter of being held accountable." So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief -- understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined "victory" really know how to gauge America's opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let's stand behind my friend Wes Clark -- and hold John McCain accountable for what he's said. Oh, and one more thing: today President Bush signed the GI Bill --which Senator Barack Obama has unstintingly supported . The bill will spend $63 billion over ten years for increased college aid for military service members and veterans who served after September 11, 2001. Good judgment?
John McCain opposed it. |
|
POSTED 6/24/08 Obama slams McCain's energy policy
"What Washington has done is what Washington always does: It's peddled false promises, irresponsible policy and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election but won't lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy," Obama said in Las Vegas, Nevada. "For decades, John McCain has been a part of this failure in Washington." Obama commended McCain for speaking out on climate change but said that "time
and time again, he has opposed investing in the alternative sources of energy
that have helped fuel some of the very same projects and businesses that he's
now highlighting in this campaign."
Obama praised McCain's push to develop a better car battery but added, "I've been talking about this myself for the last few years." He also criticized McCain's proposal to offer a $300 million prize to whoever is able to develop a suitable battery. "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win -- he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people -- not just in the private sector but also in the public sector." McCain's campaign said its plan would lead to both short-term and long-term benefits. THERE'S MORE - GO TO CNN STORY POSTED 6/24/08 |
serve as commander-in-chief. 
The
bottom line is this: If Democrats tuck tail and run from Republicans in this
instance, we run the risk of ceding authority on military issues to John McCain
for the rest of the campaign. Whether you like Clark or not, everyone has an
interest in defending him vigorously in this case. We cannot allow the Right
and the media to get away with trashing the first guy to come out in prime time
to slam McCain’s military "expertise." If our organizations don’t defend Clark
as being right in this case, we give in to the idea that Republicans are the
parents in terms of national defense, and Democrats are the children--something
those on the Right will be more than happy to reinforce.
(From
|
POSTED 6/21/08 President Soon-To-Be
SMEAR: Barack Obama is a MuslimLIE: Barack Obama is a Muslim LIE: Barack Obama attended a radical madrassa LIE: Senator Obama was sworn into the US Senate using the Koran TRUTH -- Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian |
|
POSTED 7/4/08 Granholm Bikes it to Work, Security in Tow
Governor outlines ways to save money. (From the South Bend Tribune) LANSING -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm is riding her bike to work a couple of times a week, an example of a way she says Michigan consumers can save money. The 49-year-old governor lives just southwest of the city center, about three miles from her office near the state Capitol. She rode her bike to work Wednesday, accompanied by her security detail. Granholm told reporters during a media round-table that the state has created a "Save Money" Web site to help Michigan residents find ways to share rides, find the cheapest gasoline and use alternative transportation. Granholm said the governor's residence already has energy-saving devices, but she plans to look for ways to generate electricity at the residence and to cut energy use even more. She noted that drivers can save money by driving slower and said lowering the speed limit "is something we should consider." She didn't say what the new lower limit should be. The current limit is 70 mph on most portions of Michigan's interstate highways. State Rep. Aldo Vagnozzi said Wednesday in a statement that he has introduced a resolution urging Congress to reduce the national speed limit to 55 miles per hour. The lower limit would save Americans money by reducing gasoline usage while saving lives and lessening U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the Farmington Hills Democrat said. THERE'S MORE -- GO TO THE SBT STORY POSTED 7/4/08 |
||||
|
POSTED 6/29/08
Governor Granholm continues to work tirelessly to diversify Michigan's economy. One of the most promising areas the Governor has identified that holds the promise of thousands of new Michigan jobs is alternative energy. In her State of the State Address the Governor called for and has now signed into law, new tax credits for "anchor companies," which are the first of their kind in the nation. Under this program certain alternative energy companies can be designated as "anchor companies," making them eligible for additional incentives if they partner with the state to bring that company's suppliers or customers to Michigan. It's a win-win. A company like Hemlock Semiconductor, which is the world's leading producer of a key component of solar panels, could bring hundreds of new jobs from other solar companies and create a new Silicon Valley in the Saginaw Valley. The Governor is also working to capitalize on Michigan's incredible expertise in our world-class research universities by creating "Centers of Energy Excellence." These centers will bring university researchers on-site to a growing alternative energy company. The state's first Center of Energy Excellence will be centered around Mascoma -- a company that Governor Granholm today announced is going to build the country's first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant in Chippewa County in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The Mascoma plant will be one of the first of its kind in the nation and is just the latest alternative energy investment that stands to put Michigan at the forefront of renewable, next-generation fuels. Long before the current run-up in gas prices, the Governor declared Michigan's intention to lead the nation in alternative energy production. That's why this week's announcement by the Massachusetts-based Mascoma Corporation was greeted with such excitement. You've probably heard the rush to produce billions of gallons of ethanol from corn has been pushing up the price of food, something no one wants. But Mascoma will produce ethanol that can power a vehicle from wood chips and other non-food related materials. This clean energy technology is critical to producing ethanol more quickly, efficiently and economically. And it's cleaner burning. Not only will this project bring as much as a quarter billion dollars in investment to the U.P.'s Chippewa County, it will create hundreds of jobs in logging and transportation as well as the construction jobs needed to make the plant a reality. Mascoma is just the latest alternative energy investment that stands to put Michigan at the forefront of renewable, next-generation fuels. During her recent investment mission to Sweden, the Governor announced that the Swedish-based Chemrec and the Ohio-based NewPage Corporation will partner in Escanaba to explore using waste from the region's paper industry to create clean, consumer-friendly fuel. That project is now underway. And in Flint, Swedish Biogas is working with Kettering University to take waste from the waste-water treatment process to create biogas that could be used to fuel our vehicles, too. All three projects are working to transform resources that are abundant in Michigan into alternative fuels. Michigan's economic strategy is to establish and advance high-tech industries that will accelerate sustainable alternative energy production and pave the way for new jobs for Michigan workers. Make sure to forward this exciting news on to your friends, and visit http://www.jennifergranholm.com/ for the latest on how Governor Granholm is moving Michigan forward! Thanks, Granholm Leadership Fund
|
||||
POSTED 6/22/08You are Confused, My Children... The DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and DLC (From the Daily KOS by Granny Doc) In keeping with its strategy of delicacy, of never clearly stating its philosophy, of burying its motives in the cat box of history, the Democratic Party has concocted a pile of acronyms designed to befuddle even the most dedicated among you. They form groups with different purposes but confound their existence. They blend "D's", and "C's", and even the occasional "S" or "N", in a salad bowl, dressed with piety, tossed with abandon, and designed to serve as a shorthand that conceals both the intent, and the function, of organizations whose sole reason for beings is to raise money to further their goals. I refer, of course, to the DNC, DCCC, and the DSCC. This would not be of serious concern if these groups shared goals. The problem arises when the careful and attentive reader can not discriminate between these groups, and subsequently assigns the vices of one to them all. A few days ago I published a diary asking for your support of one of those groups, the Democratic National Committee, or DNC. I was enthused when we found that we had raised over $16,000. After the FISA fiasco however, many of you, properly furious with the Democrats in Congress, bemoaned your contribution. It would seem that a clarification is in order. The three groups that are difficult to distinguish because of their acronyms are:
From Wikipedia: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal organization governing the United States Democratic Party on a day to day basis. While it is responsible for overseeing the process of writing a platform every four years, the DNC's central focus is on campaign and political activity in support of Democratic Party candidates, and not on public policy. The DNC was established at the 1848 Democratic National Convention.[1] The Democratic National Committee provides national leadership for the Democratic Party of the United States. It is responsible for promoting the Democratic political platform, as well as coordinating fundraising and election strategy. Note the bold portion of the above quote. "Not on public policy". The DNC is not responsible for legislation. It does not effect voting behavior among Congressional Representatives. The DNC is the overarching group that is responsible for organizing and overseeing state and local parties, developing the Party platform for national elections, organizing the national convention, training and development of Party leaders, and getting out the vote on election day. When you donate to the DNC you are showing your support for organizing and growing the Democratic Party. You are not influencing individual legislators. You are NOT showing approval for legislative actions. You are supporting the ideals and policies such as the 50 State Strategy, and the growth of a Democratic voting base. You are supporting the election of Democrats. The Party is currently Chaired by Dr. Howard Dean who developed and brought the 50 State Strategy to fruition and, who has spent millions of dollars to ensure that almost every district in the United States has a trained organizer to assist in the election of Democrats. The next pile of acronyms is very different in both its goals, and its processes.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (commonly referred to as the "D triple C," or the "D-Trip") is the Democratic Hill committee for the United States House of Representatives, working to elect Democrats to that body. They play a critical role in recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races in districts that are expected to yield politically notable or close elections. The DCCC was founded in 1866 as the Democratic National Congressional Committee.
They do not coordinate their activities with the DNC. They work within the House of Representative, with the Party Leadership, to identify and promote the election of individuals who would further the current goals of the House and its Members.
The DSCC performs the same functions in the US Senate as the DCCC performs in the House of Representative.
Democratic Leadership Council, DLC
I have been asked to add an explaination of the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC. The current entry in Wikipedia is blocked from edit and is under dispute as not being sufficiently neutral. I include it here for your information. The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation [1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story while progressives assert that Bill Clinton won campaigning as a populist only to abandon those positions after getting elected. Critics contend that the DLC is a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party - or "The Republican Wing of the Democratic Party"[2]. The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. Others use this label too though and belong to other organizations and have differing agendas contesting to define that term and control the party's future. The DLC's current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its president is Bruce Reed. U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative. The DLC has no affiliation with the National party or the Congressional apparatus. **************** Corporate money is directed to individual candidates, and to the DCCC and DSCC. This funding is designed to elect candidates who express support for the interests of the money sources. Granny sez: Get these differences straight! When I beg for support for the Democratic National Committee, I am begging for party building, GOTV, and the growth and development of local and state wide party apparatus. This is the area of American politics where you can have the greatest impact. This is where you can get involved, make your voice heard, and effect the platform of the party which is offered to the National Convention. This is where you can make your effort to get elected. Donate directly to individuals who support your beliefs. Go to Act Blue and find a candidate you can trust and value, and give them money. By-pass the DCCC and DSCC, which work very hard to maintain the status quo, and make it your business to find good Democrats that you can support. Do not confuse individual candidates and their re-election apparatus (the DCCC and the DSCC), with the nationwide party building organization (the DNC), devoted to democratic ideals, and training citizens to participate in the election of their leaders. The DNC is not responsible for the foolish voting decisions of those who elect corporate hacks. They are not the ones who elected Blue Dogs. They are not the ones collecting millions in corporate contributions to protect the seats (and the asses that fill them) of the current crop of Congress Critters. Support individual candidates. Support the Democratic National Committee. Let the corporate hacks and the Beltway Insiders have the DCCC and DSCC. They have nothing to do with People Power. The DNC most certainly does, and as such, deserves your support. You may go, now... <g> |
||||
|
POSTED 6/24/08 University of Chicago Study Rates Michigan Supreme Court Worst in Nation Lawyers Rate Taylor Worst Justice on Court Taylor’s “worst of the worst” status will help defeat him this fall
“The University of Chicago Law School is hardly a bastion of liberal bias,” said Mark Brewer, Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party. “For them to rate the Michigan Supreme Court this poorly is a serious blow to Chief Justice Cliff Taylor and his activist court.” The Chicago study ranked the Michigan Supreme Court 42nd opinion quality, 40th in productivity, and dead last in partisan independence. Michigan lawyers rate Taylor as the worst justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. “Michigan voters will have the opportunity this fall to begin to improve the Michigan Supreme Court by removing its worst justice—Cliff Taylor,” said Brewer. To read the complete University of Chicago study, visit www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon.index.html. For a full version of the survey of lawyers, go to www.milawyersweekly.com. From the MDP |
||||
|
Landmark ruling fires challenges to gun laws
The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, established for the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution's Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns at home for self-defense. Yet Scalia noted that a person's right to gun ownership is not unlimited. He said it would not likely override bans on concealed weapons; laws that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms; or those that ban firearms in government buildings and schools. Beyond that, the court did not address what types of regulations would survive legal challenges. It did not say, for example, whether people have a right to carry guns in their neighborhoods, or keep them in their cars on the way to and from work. Nevertheless, Thursday's ruling by the conservative-majority court represented a huge breakthrough for gun rights advocates who have long wanted the high court's confirmation that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals — and not just government militias — the right to bear arms. THERE'S MORE - GO TO USA TODAY STORY POSTED 6/29/08 |
||||
|
POSTED 6/24/08
|
LANSING—
Cliff Taylor sits on the worst state Supreme Court in the country, according to
a May study by the University of Chicago Law School. 
(From 
At
the end of May, settlement talks broke down for the second time in a
federal class action lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Human
Services. Children's Rights, a nonprofit child advocacy group, initiated
the suit in 2006 alleging that Michigan violates the constitutional,
statutory and federal common law rights of almost 19,000 children
currently in its foster care system by failing on every level to deliver
basic services to keep them safe. The group relies on several studies
that show funding cuts over the last 20 years have resulted in a
mismanaged, overburdened, and ineffective safety net for Michigan's
foster children.
|
POSTED 6/29/08 On Tuesday [6/24], the U.S. House passed legislation that would significantly improve Medicare benefits for 44 million American seniors and people with disabilities. The bill pays particular attention to recipients in areas with limited access to health care. Medicare providers in rural areas often lack the resources they need to serve the public. This bill increases payments for sole community and critical access hospitals, increases payments for rural ambulance services and ensures physicians are fairly reimbursed for Medicare services. Without this legislation, physicians across the country would face a 10.6 percent cut in reimbursements for Medicare services beginning July 1. Alarmingly, the data suggests that over 60 percent of physicians would leave the Medicare program or stop taking new Medicare patients if these cuts are implemented. Although this bill stops cuts to physician payments, it is not about how much we pay doctors; it is about access to health care for patients. When doctors don’t get reimbursed, they often can’t continue serving Medicare patients. Jun 26, 2008: This bill failed a cloture motion, preventing consideration of the bill, in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were 58 Ayes, 40 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting.
The Medicare Improvements for |
