COMMENTARY . . .
With Tony Palmeri and Jim Mather
Weeknights 7 P.M. Titan-TV 2
Politics 2000
|
|
|
|
Donald Graham, Publisher Washington Post 1150 15th St, NW Washington, DC 20071
Dear Mr. Graham,
Yesterday I spoke with Mr. Tom Edsall and expressed my dismay about the Washington Post’s unwillingness to provide even the bare minimum of coverage to this campaign. I cited – as just the most recent example – the Post’s lack of coverage of the Nader 2000 Super Rally in Madison Square Garden on October 13, an event which sold 16,617 tickets and included appearances by Bill Murray, Eddie Vedder, Phil Donahue, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, Ben Harper, Ani DiFranco, Patti Smith, and the members of Company Flow. This was the largest political rally of the presidential election and people paid $20 a ticket to share in the overwhelming enthusiasm of this grassroots campaign. Your paper’s coverage consisted solely of a few paragraphs of preview description buried in a column about Hillary Clinton’s use of White House social lists. Your paper hasn’t bothered even to note that Ralph is drawing thousands of people nationwide to these rallies. When was the last time that any political candidate drew 10,000 paying people to a political rally with no food or drink on a Tuesday night, as Ralph did in Chicago on October10th?
Given the Post’s proclivity to devote nearly 800 words on even the most trivial subjects, like when the Vice President relaxes (see e.g. “Gore, Family Taking It Easy in N.C.,” Washington Post Sunday Edition, July 30, 2000), and the fact that last Sunday’s edition of the Post contained over 50 articles on candidates Bush and Gore, do you think in the remaining 17 days of the 2000 presidential campaign the Post could manage to cover at least the history-making aspects of Ralph Nader’s campaign, if not provide adequate daily coverage?
Very truly yours,
Theresa Amato
Campaign Manager
|
Petition Signer #100297: Ron Gamble, Conneaut, OH--I am a lifelong Democrat who voted for Clinton/Gore twice. I won't make that mistake a third time. Let Ralph in to the debates to show those who think there are only two names on the ballot that they do have another choice. Petition Signer #102300: Kevin Halloran, Milwukee, WI--I believe Nader's effort is a heroric one,to say the least. He is butting heads with multibillon dollar corporations,and making one hell of a go at it. There are not too many people that I know of that would be able to accompish this. Keep it up Ralph! |
|
#111947 Gregory Cowper Taylor, MI. I am a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 728, and am personally appalled by the politics of greed and expediency which has somehow replaced compassion and common sense as determinants of our destiny. If we want to leave a habitable world to our children we must first take back the helm of state from the corporate plutocracy so that the voices of all the people may be heard. I wish to thank Mr. Nader for once again making the personal sacrifice of standing up to the powers that be and giving us a reason to get out of bed on November 7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALBANY, N.Y. (Reuters) - New York's Republican Governor George Pataki appeared on Wednesday to reopen the wound of president-elect George W. Bush's past arrest for drunk driving with an unusual remark while introducing a new state commissioner. As Pataki, who flew to Florida to defend Bush in the election recount impasse earlier this month, appointed Raymond Martinez as Department of Motor Vehicle Commissioner, a reporter asked if his choice ever had been ticketed for speeding or drunk driving. Martinez replied, ``Yes, I have a DWI from 1989, and also a speeding ticket from 1997.'' DWI is shorthand for a ``driving while intoxicated'' offense. ``I guess that qualifies you to be President of the United States then,'' Pataki said. Pataki's spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the governor's remark. A spokesperson for Bush, who is vacationing in Florida, was not immediately available for comment. After Pataki's remark, there was a brief pause and then the media conference continued. During the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bush admitted he had been arrested in 1976 for drunk driving in Kennebunkport, Maine, when he was 30 years old. Bush, who pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and had his permission to drive suspended for 30 days, noted after the incident came to light that he had stopped drinking 14 years ago. |
|
|
|
Presidential Election: General
|
|
The Prosecution Can't Even Get Through A Preliminary Hearing? From The Beginning, This Case Has Not Passed The Smell Test. |
|
|
The Rock might say that Belken's been going up against some major league Jabronis. |
Return To 54th Assembly District
Return To 54th Assembly District
June 20, 2000: Speaking before members of the Winnebago County Central Labor Council, District 54 Republican Assembly candidate Melanie Bloechl touted her working class roots as a reason she should be supported in her primary race against 13 year incumbent Gregg Underheim. Speaking before about a dozen union representatives, Bloechl delivered a 5 minute introductory statement before taking questions. In her intro, she said that she offers a "different perspective" from Mr. Underheim. She touted her blue collar background, saying that the fact that her dad was a teamster and her mom a state employee gives her much identification with the issues of concern to working people. She said that it is difficult for someone who is not working class to represent working class people. The legislature was never meant to be a full-time position, said Bloechl, adding that the partisan gridlock has rendered the legislature not able to take on important issues like prescription drugs, campaign finance reform, and property tax relief.
During the question and answer session, Bloechl said that unlike her opponent, she would remain independent from the Republican Party leadership and vote always according to what she believes to be right. She said that she would support restoring political independence to the Department of Natural Resources Secretary (the position became a political appointment as a result of the 1995-1996 budget agreement), and she would also support returning power to the state "public intervenor" watchdog. When asked about what she thought were the most important issues facing the legislature, Bloechl said shared revenues, getting budgets passed on time, campaign finance reform, health care reform, and recycling. She offered no specific suggestions for any of the issues.
After the meeting, Winnebago County Labor Council President Don Wyman told Commentary that he thought Bloechl would win the race against Underheim. "Working people are not getting good representation from Gregg," said Wyman, adding that "I think union people will come out for Bloechl." AFSCME activist Joan Kaeding agreed that Bloechl had an excellent chance to win the primary. She and Wyman, however, said that they hoped "a strong Democratic candidate" would get into the race before the general election.
Return To 54th Assembly District
Tuesday, July 18: Republican State Representative Gregg Underheim, a 13-year Oshkosh incumbent facing a primary challenge from Oshkosh Common Councilor Melanie Bloechl, visited the Winnebago County Labor Council on Tuesday night. Underheim provided responses to questions that the AFL-CIO is sending to all legislative candidates. In response to a question about the privatization of public services, Underheim said that he favors the "threat of privatization" so as to keep public employees sharp. He also said that he is in general against private companies using prison labor, but supports such a practice when the company in question is facing labor shortages or will leave the state without the ability to use the labor. In response to a question about campaign finance reform, Underheim argued that public financing is unconstitutional because, in his opinion, it forces taxpayers to pay to support speech they might not agree with. In all, Underheim was in agreement with the union position on about 50% of the issues.
Greg Belken, the UWO student who recently announced that he will be running for the 54th district seat as a Democrat, did not attend the meeting even though he was invited and was expected by those in attendance. A source close to the Belken campaign told Commentary that "Belken is not ready yet to debate Underheim." Joan Kaeding of the Labor Council said that there was no plan for a debate, and had Belken appeared he would have addressed the council before or after Underheim.
After Underheim got done answering the questions, he was escorted out of the hall by Winnebago County Labor Council president Don Wyman. When Wyman returned, he said of Underheim: "The man's worried. He's got a right to be. He's wrong on most of the issues and he's facing a damn good opponent." The "damn good opponent" Wyman is referring to is Melanie Bloechl, not Belken. Will labor support Mrs. Bloechl on September 12? Without labor support, it is difficult to see how she can defeat Underheim.
More to follow . . .
Return To 54th Assembly District
June 23, 2000: UW Oshkosh Professor of Economics and Oshkosh C ommon Councilor M. Kevin McGee told Commentary today that "after some wavering back and forth," he has decided to run for the Wisconsin 18th State Senate District against incumbent Carol Roessler. McGee, the top vote-getter in the 1999 Common Council elections, will run as a Democrat. A spokesperson for the Senate Democratic caucus has said that there are potentially three candidates ready to challenge Roessler, but so far McGee is the only one to publicly announce his candidacy. Roessler, one of the main sponsors of W-2, Wisconsin's welfare reform plan, defeated Democratic union activist Fred Frederickson handily in 1996. Data available from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign indicates the variety of interest groups that have contributed money to Roessler's campaigns over the years. More to follow . . .
Return To Wisconsin's 18th Senate District Race
July 27: According to figures just released by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, campaign 2000 is shaping up to be the most expensive one in the state's history. Incumbents have a huge money lead over challengers, holding a 14-1 fund raising advantage as of the end of June. Locally, incumbent District 54 Assembly Representative Gregg Underheim had $24,230.03 in cash on hand as of June 30, while his primary challenger Melanie Bloechl had $1,550.00. In the race for the 18th Senate District, incumbent Carol Roessler had $50,009.94 on June 30, compared to zero for Democratic challenger Kevin McGee. Figures for all assembly candidates are available at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign web site, as are Senate candidate figures. Analyses of the data are available on the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign site.
Can anyone seriously claim that there is not a desperate need for campaign finance reform in the state of Wisconsin?
July 26: Major print and television media announced today that Iowa Senator Tom Harkin is being considered seriously as a vice-presidential candidate by the Gore campaign. Why has Harkin, a fierce Democratic partisan with a liberal record on social issues while supporting the Clinton/Gore agenda on globalization, suddenly been thrust into veep contention? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Harkin could create headaches for Dick Cheney, former Bush Sr. Defense Department Secretary recently given the number 2 spot on the Republican ticket by Dubya'. Harkin might even appeal to those considering a vote for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. Consider this snippet from an editorial in the July 24th Superior (WI) Daily Telegram:
It seems federal agencies don’t mind doing business with contractors who have defrauded the government. An analysis by the Associated Press has identified 1,020 companies that were sued or prosecuted for fraud over the last five years. When checked against a list of contractors barred from doing federal business, the study found 737 of the companies remained eligible for future contracts. Some had multiple court cases against them. This report may not come as such a surprise in this age of cynicism about government. But it should still hit most taxpayers as inexcusable and, yes, outrageous.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has compiled a list of 103 defense contracts involving fraud against the government, and only four cases led to bans on future business. “There is a continuing pattern of fraud and abuse in some of our largest contractors,” Harkin said. The companies in the AP review range from a Texas contractor convicted of selling bad Coast Guard windshields to an environmental testing firm convicted of bribery.
Isn't it possible, maybe even likely, that Cheney can somehow be implicated in some of those fraudulent defense contracting schemes? True, the Associated Press analysis was only concerned with the last 5 years, well after Cheney left the Bush administration. But is it unrealistic to expect that the Democratic National Committee's "Opposition Research" team will find something to hang on Cheney other than that he's an oil tycoon with a bad heart--especially when Mr. Gore's own oil connections are, if you will please pardon the pun, "slippery"? [July 27 Update: Here They Go!] . And what warms the hearts of Naderites more than a crusader against corrupt defense contractors?
Harkin is appealing to the Gore team for another reason: while he is in general agreement with Clinton/Gore on global economic issues, he has authored legislation in the Senate that would update the nation's child labor laws. Harkin also was the major sponsor of a bill to prevent the import into the United States of products made with exploited child labor. With Ralph Nader running at close to 10% in national polls on a progressive platform of ending worldwide corporate abuses, Harkin presents a hope of cutting into the Nader support.
A veep candidate that could neutralize Cheney and pacify undecideds looking toward Nader might be very attractive to the Gore camp indeed.
During the primary season, Vice-President Al Gore took some criticism for his abortion views. Republicans and Democratic primary opponent Bill Bradley tried to exploit the fact that early in his legislative career, Gore opposed federal funding of abortions. Democratic insiders believe that Gore has to select a solid pro-choice running mate in order to quell any doubts about Gore's own commitment to choice, and to guarantee active support from womens' groups. Indeed, some pro-choice activists have already threated lukewarn or no support for the ticket should Gore choose Indian Senator Evan Bayh as a running mate (see Pro-Choicers Want Gore To Say Bye To Bayh).
Gore's latest statements on abortion center around his "support for Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that decriminalized first-trimester abortions.. A representative Gore statement on the issue appears in this snippet from his July 16 interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press:
MR. RUSSERT: ...which allowed abortion. I want to ask you a very simple question. Do you believe that life begins at conception?
VICE PRES. GORE: No. I believe there is a difference. You know, I believe that the Roe vs. Wade decision wisely embodies the kind of common sense judgment that most Americans share.
MR. RUSSERT: In 1987—let me show you a letter you wrote to your constituents and put it on the board. “During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions. In my opinion, it’s wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to further this goal.” You went on with Washington Monthly and gave an interview which says, “It is quite correct that a position like mine in opposition to the federal funding of abortion results in unequal access to abortions on the part of poor women. Nevertheless, I feel the principle of government not participating in the taking of what is arguably a human life is more important.” When did you change your mind on that principle?
VICE PRES. GORE: Ten, 15 years ago. I can’t give you the exact day. It’s been quite a while ago. And here’s the reason I changed. I talked to a lot of women who taught me about the kinds of circumstances that can come up and the kinds of dilemmas that women can face. And the circumstances are so varied. I’ve come to the very deep conviction that a woman’s right to choose must be protected regardless of the woman’s income. Now, I’ve always supported Roe vs. Wade and I’ve always opposed a constitutional amendment to take away a woman’s right to choose. I changed...
MR. RUSSERT: But you did vote to define a person as including an unborn child.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, that was a very odd procedural vote on the Sill-Jander amendment years ago.
MR. RUSSERT: When do you think life begins?
VICE PRES. GORE: I favor the Roe vs. Wade approach, but let me just say, Tim, I did...
[end of transcript]
Now during the Senate's debate on Rick
Santorum's anti "partial-birth" abortion bill, Senator Harkin
introduced and got passed an amendment that expressed the Senate's
support for Roe v. Wade:
HARKIN AMENDMENT NO. 2321 (Senate - October 20, 1999)
Mr. HARKIN proposed an amendment to amendment No. 2320 proposed by Mrs. Boxer to the bill, S. 1692, supra; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. XX. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.
(a) Findings: Congress finds that--
(1) reproductive rights are central to the ability of women to exercise their full rights under Federal and State law;
(2) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973));
(3) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose toterminate a pregnancy; and
(4) women should not be forced into illegal and dangerous abortions as they often were prior to the Roe v. Wade decision.
(b) Sense of Congress: It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an important constitutional right; and
(2) such decision should not be overturned.
With Dick Cheney's established anti-choice voting record in the House, Harkin on abortion provides the Democrats with one more way of contrasting with the Republicans on this important issue. They can also further frighten those leaning toward Nader into voting for Gore because a Bush/Cheney team will attempt to appoint anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court.
As noted in an earlier opinion piece, I thought Iowa Senator Tom Harkin had a good shot at being named Al Gore's VP nominee. A midwestern populist, Harkin could have significantly short-cut Green Party candidate Ralph Nader's growing support within the traditional Democratic Party base of labor, students, senior citizens, and environmentalists. Gore's actual pick, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, is a conservative Democrat who may still attract those thinking of voting for Nader.
How could a conservative Democrat appeal to potential Nader voters? Lieberman, after all, is chair of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the "centrist" outfit founded by Bill Clinton and others in the late 1980s with the expressed aim of minimizing the public's perception of the Democratic Party as "liberal." Additionally, columnist David Broder has likened Lieberman's free-market philosophy to that of the Reagan Revolution (an analogy that Lieberman apparently approves of as he uses Broder's comment as an endorsement on his web page). Lieberman is also pro death penalty, supports school voucher programs, would support a "moment of silence" in the public schools, and has been one of the Senate's major critics of Hollywood and violent rap music.
So how could a man with a relatively conservative record of governance appeal to the progressives? Very simply, the fact that Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew makes his selection very meaningful at the symbolic level. Senator Lieberman is the first non-Christian to run on a major party Presidential ticket. Like Mondale placing Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket in 1984, Gore's selection of Lieberman is "courageous" in the sense that it risks alienating those neanderthals in the country who still have problems voting for women, racial/religious/ethnic minorities, or anyone else that does not fit into the traditional white Christian male mode.
As much as the Reagan/Bush administration, Clinton/Gore have understood the power of symbols in politics. For progressive and liberal Democrats, many of whom believe strongly in things like religious pluralism, tolerance, and affirmative action--the Lieberman pick may be powerful enough at the symbolic level to forgive the Democratic Party's paucity of progressive values in its platform or on its ticket.
Like Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman has the reputation as a thoughtful, decent man without much charisma. In fact, a debate between Cheney and Lieberman will not win any ratings records. Perhaps Lieberman should come out and support the inclusion of Winona LaDuke, Nader's Native American woman running-mate, in the debate. Supporting LaDuke's inclusion would demonstrate that Lieberman is progressive at more than just the symbolic level.
The Progressive's Ruth Conniff On "The Illusion Of Inclusion" Fostered By The GOP And DEMS
|
|
|
|
|
|
