Obama and Byrd
Someone please explain Obama and Byrd for me,
Altogether, the freshman senator from Illinois has helped raise $6.5 million for his political action committee and other Democratic candidates, party committees and state parties from New Jersey to Virginia to Florida.Ok,, I'm done for a few days... been on blogging roll.
He brought in about $800,000 with an e-mail message sent out on MoveOn.org on behalf of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who at age 88 is seeking a ninth term in office.
39 comments:
Oh man. Took until 21 minutes after twelve to get the comment BB was fishing for.
What ever are the other Republican bloggers up to today!?
Apparently I can see into the future. See comments at 12:19. Weird
The only black Senator raising money for a former klansman. Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.
Goes to show you how far the Democrats will go to stay in power.An African-American and a member of the KKK hand in hand.
Who is he supposed to support? As I noted on my blog, President Bush does not know what the Voting Rights Act is.
Does he support someone who did something bad 70 years ago, or somebody who may not support renactment of legisliation that effectively gave African-Americans the vote?
What good is Byrd doing now, for the country or party, to deserve $800,000 from Obama and folks at Moveon.org?
What's the mean age of the Democrats in the Senate...75 or something... it's pretty stodgy bunch... I'd rather see Obama supporting some fresh faces.
He's a guy who can do a lot, and can pull in the money.
He would have scored a lot of points with me if he had shut up the press on Cheney and Hunting and talked about Bush's call for NATO to back up African Peace keepers in Darfur.
Let Sam Powers use some of the $800k for real good...
forget Byrd.
The MoveOn people were being paranoid if they thought for a moment that Sen. Byrd was in trouble. If Byrd is breathing on November 7 he'll win re-election.
Whoever runs against Byrd this year may make the appearance of putting up a fight, but in reality that candidate is trying to position himself as the front-runner in 2012, when Byrd is expected to retire and seat becomes open for the first time since 1958.
You have to admit, skeeter, if you can get past the obvious (but, as you rightfully point out, currently irrelevant) racial aspects of the Obama-Byrd relationship, there are some reasonable questions to be asked:
Why IS Obama wasting his star power propping up an icon of a failed generation of Democratic leadership? Especially an icon that, as Randall correctly points out is in little-to-no danger of losing his seat anyway. Per larry’s comment, Byrd’s campaign is hardly a battleground for Senate control.
Why not, instead, focus his time and tremendous talent on helping to cultivate – and lead – a sorely needed new generation of Dem leadership in competitive states? (This is both a commentary on the current Dem leadership and an acknowledgement that competent and respectable opposition is needed to keep the GOP honest and on their toes.)
First, I don't think Sen. Byrd is part of a failed leadership. I think he has served the party well and honorably -- far more so than Sen. Daschle. The jury is out on Sen. Reid, but I appreciate his efforts to date. The Party is as strong as it has been any time since 1992. I like the current leadership. I admit that I openly despised the Daschle/Gephardt leadership.
Second, I do think the seat is at risk, since that state (for reasons that escape me) trends Republican. The Democrats must hold that seat. Two years ago we thought we had Kentucky and Oklahoma won, only to lose those in squeakers. We are not going to let that happen this year if we can help it.
Third, Cong. Emmanuel has done an incredible job of bringing new blood into the party. That is his job. Sen. Obama, besides being a great voice for Illinois, can help hold on the seats that we have. It will not help much to pick off Santorum if we lose Byrd.
Larry, your characterization of the Anon comments as nuts is understandable and justified. I hope that you are not lumping my arguments in with theirs. I certainly do not think there is anything “unethical” or “immoral” about what Obama is doing. I just think it’s sad, ill-advised, and not in the best interests of his party or our nation.
It appears that you and skeeter do not agree with my and Randall’s assessment of Byrd’s seat being safe. That is fine. But in an odd way, your points contradict each other, and partially support mine…..
If Byrd really is vulnerable, isn’t that evidence that he has not (at least in the eyes of those who matter – his constituents) served the nation (and thus, I would hope, his party as a result) well – just like Sen. Daschle. If you are worried about losing a seat you have held for 50 years in the Blue Dog paradise of WV, then saying that your party is in it’s strongest position since ’92 isn’t saying much, is it?
I think the current leadership is just as, if not more, inept as Daschle/Gephardt. They have taken your party farther to the left than the mahority of Americans are willing to go, and I think the results of that will mean another depressing election night for Democrats this November.
Bill, you are being very disingenous by not reporting that Obama is Vice Chair of the DSCC.
anon 4:42...I didn't know Obama was Vice Chair of the DSCC.
In the South, people care more about gay marriage than about jobs. To digress slightly, when I returned from my last trip to St. Bart, I wanted to send the people of Alabama and Mississippi a thank you note. Since they care so much about gay marriage and so little about jobs and schools, they voted for a team gave people like me got tax breaks that we used to pay for $800 a night vacations. Think they received those same tax breaks? They were rewarded with the worst schools in the nation. Well Done! Screw over your own to benefit people like me! Nice work!
In the south, Max Cleland was branded a traitor and soft on defense.
You can serve your country and your party honorably and still be in danger. You can vote to end tax breaks for the rich and still be in danger. You can vote for better schools, and still be in danger. There is no connection between a record of service and electoral success.
With regard to the current state of the party: In 2004, with the nation at war, the Party came with a few votes in Ohio of unseating a President, and made a net gain nationally of state legislative seats. I think that is pretty good and I'm pretty happy with our team.
The article you linked to says Obama is Vice Chair of DSCC. You should read articles more carefully before you link.
It's revealing how Democrats forgive and forget an aged Democrat Senator's KKK past, but would never give the benefit of the doubt to an aged Republican Senator with a segregationist past named Strom.
oh anon 6:51... start your own blog... bloggers can link whomever we like and the great thing about this is all truth comes rolling out.. that's what linking is all about. You go back instantly to the source for yourself.
I don't care if our Senator Obama charged by JFK's ghost or the DSCC or anyone else to go raise money on behalf of all Democratic Senate Candidates.
Byrd's an embarressment and I hate to see an Illinois Senator with great potential linked with the man.
This isn't as complicated or nefarious as the above debate makes it seem.
Are they an odd couple? Sure, like most political bedfellows. But the freshman senator from Illinois promised new locks and dams for his constituents. What other Democratic senator is in a better position to help that cause?
I want my senators to bring home the bacon. I know, I know, the end result of that desire spells trouble for the national budget. But Obama knows how to push the levers in Washington to deliver for Illinois. That's a good thing.
Skeeter.
Last time I checked, Congress and the US Department of Education are not responsible for funding or managing the school systems of Alabama and Mississippi. So I don’t understand what they have to do with this debate. And yes, people in those states did receive tax breaks. They were not as large as yours apparently was….but then again, they weren’t paying as much as you to begin with. That’s what happens when your make cuts in a progressive tax system.
I just finished reading Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas.” He says that the GOP is forcing people to vote away their economic interests by manipulating their passion on social issues. I suppose that’s one way to look at it, but the way I see it the Democrats are asking them to do just the opposite: vote away their deeply held cultural values for the sake of a few bucks. If they choose to vote their values over their pocket book, who are you or I (or Thomas Frank) to tell them they are wrong or imply that they are stupid for doing so.
What I always thought was idiotic about Thomas Frank's argument in that Kansans are voting Republican mostly because of abortion (and to some extent gay issues and to a lesser extent evolution) is that he totally and utterly misses the solution to that problem: Abortion should be a state issue rather than a Federal issue which is why Democrats benefit from Roe v Wade being overturned. If Presidents have nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage and the decisions are left up to states, then people will be able to consider a Democratic Presidential Candidate's issues in what should really be national issues like social security, defense, tax policy, health care, etc. Democrats will benefit nationally when they de-nationalize the culture wars and let individual states make their own decisions on these issues like they should.
Cheesman,
your right... Rov V Wade's been lethal for Democrats. Gay Marriage is lethal for Democrats.
But Democrats are lethal for themselves when they insist these issues belong in courts and not legislatures.
That gay marriage and abortion on demand are rights; and not issues properly decided by voters and their legislators.
And then have the audacity to tell people in Kansas their ignoring their economic interests and being bamboozled by capitalists when they vote Republican based on deeply held beliefs and react against the affrontry of being told they're bigots or opposed to human rights etc etc.... that there's something a matter with them.
I was going to point this out yesterday, but I opted not to. But it is still bothering me this morning, so I’ll give it a shot –
Skeeter: I’m sorry you feel guilty about taking expensive vacations with money that was yours to begin with. If you really think that the redistribution of wealth is a moral imperative, please remember that government welfare is not the only means by which citizens can financially assist their fellow man.
Now, before you get defense (perhaps an understandable response to such an admitted personal jab), I’ll add a few disclaimers here:
For all I know, you may very well be a generous philanthropist. But you are the one who brought your own finances into this debate. And you are the one who is blaming your own (seemingly admitted) selfish extravagance on others. I’m not judging – I’m just pointing out the ridiculousness of your point. I mean, really, how do you think it makes you look to essentially say: ““I selfishly blew my tax cut on personal luxuries while others lived in poverty – and it’s George Bush’s fault!”
And personally, I don’t think you have anything to feel guilty about to begin with. I’m not sure where you spent that $800 a night, but where ever it was, you helped improve their economy. Which is the whole idea behind the tax cuts to begin with. When people have move of their own money to spend, it stimulates commerce and economic growth. It helps create jobs.
Tax cuts are pointless unless you reduce government spending commensurately. Relying on debt to finance the government hurts the economy as much as higher taxes because heavy government borrowing raises interest rates for every one else, lowering investment and lowering long term economic growth. Cutting taxes without cutting spending just means giving this generation more money at the expense of the next and America's long term economic health.
If Bush was a real conservative who cared about freeing America's economy to reach new levels, he'd cut government spending. Unfortunately, he is not in any real way a conservative but rather the biggest Keynsian in the White House since LBJ. His calling himself a conservative is a disgrace to everything that word stands for.
Our country really needs to adopt a balanced budget amendment so that another fraud conservative like Bush can't repeat this politically expedient long term damage in the future.
First, money spent is St. Bart is by no means "blowing money." St. Bart has some of the best food in the world and some of the nicest resorts. It also has some of the best and most secluded beaches. Trust me -- the money was spent wisely.
Second, I don't feel guilty at all. Not in the slightest. I gave people advice, they chose not to take it, and the result is that I benefit at their expense. I got tax breaks that they did not get. I find it humerous.
Those people care so much about gay marriage that they are happy to carry more than their fair share of the tax burden, so that people like me can relax on French islands.
I think that is great!
Skeeter,
Your points have gone over my head, but Illinoize is so grey this time of year, pictures of St Barts would look real good.
Send me some and I'll endure readers and Miller's wrath and post a few.
B
Yes, Skeeter, you got tax breaks that they did not – because you were presumably paying more in taxes than they to begin with. That’s what happens when your make cuts in a progressive tax system. Speaking of which, last time I checked, we still had a progressive tax system (ultra-progressive if you ask me, considering that even a straight percentage – known by some as a flat tax – would still be fundamentally progressive since there would still be a sliding scale of obligation based on income….but I digress) and those at the top are still paying much, much, much, much more than those at the bottom. Perhaps the definition of “fair share” is subjective and thus open to debate, but let’s not try and misrepresent who is paying more.
Bill,
My point is amazingly simple.
Certain people are happy to pay far more than their fair share of taxes. In return, they receive "social" benefits -- such as no gay-marriage -- they really do not impact them in any way. The result is that they are paying for the "social" benefits with real money, since the people who are providing the benefits also are taxing them at a higher real rate than they tax people with much higher incomes.
They are free to take that deal, if it means so much to them.
With regard to GOP:
I have this strange notion that a government should pay for what it buys.
Buy a war? Pay for it, even if it means paying more in taxes.
You obviously disagree with that notion, and believe your children should pay. I guess we've reached an impasse.
I have this strange notion that a government should pay for what it buys.
Buy a war? Pay for it, even if it means paying more in taxes.
Wars aren't commodities --like a car or house, Skeeter; that one can do cost comparisons on, or pick cash or term options. They're struggles thrown on us, like Bin Laden's Fatwar of War, and fought to the death or surrender.
I know that this comment was directed at Bill, but since he responded to the comment to me I figure I'll pitch in here:
Your point is amazingly misleading. Currently, a person who makes $100,000 pays some $28,000 in taxes. That’s some 14x more than a person who makes minimum wage, despite the fact that their income is only 7x more.
We still have a progressive tax system. The wealthy still pay much, much, much more than the poor and working class.
Now, I don’t have time for the calculations, but I’ll assume and stipulate that the rich were paying an even larger multiple more under the pre-Bush tax system. But the poor are still paying less in dollars and as a percentage of their income than they were before Bush. So I don’t understand what you mean by them “paying” for their social value based vote with “real money.” They have more real money than they did before Bush. That’s the concrete fact. You’d have to use some pretty convoluted and pointlessly theoretic rationalizing to suggest otherwise.
In regards to the comment that was address to me:
I think the government should pay for what it buys too. And I wish the President and Congress would do a better job of balancing the budget. I consider myself at an impasse with my own party on that issue. But Kennedy understood that tax cuts were a valid and useful tool for stimulating the economy. And Johnson and Roosevelt weren’t exactly bashful about running up deficits. And the Republic survived. So while I’m concerned about the deficit, I think I’ll be able to sleep okay tonight.
Bill Baar said...
"I have this strange notion that a government should pay for what it buys.
Buy a war? Pay for it, even if it means paying more in taxes.
Wars aren't commodities --like a car or house, Skeeter; that one can do cost comparisons on, or pick cash or term options. They're struggles thrown on us, like Bin Laden's Fatwar of War, and fought to the death or surrender. "
What does Bin Laden have to do with the war in Iraq? But I digress.
But Bill, don't you believe that we should pay for that war? It does cost money, right? Should we just borrow money for it?
Enlighten us Bill. Tell us how we can go to war and not pay taxes to support it. Tell us why Mr. Bush is the first President in American history to go to war and not raise taxes to support it. Give us a lesson in economics, so that I also can obtain goods, but not pay for them.
With regard to GOP's comment: Apparently you believe that the people in Mississippi living in tiny shacks receive tax breaks on their dividends.
Skeeter:
I believe (know, actually) that the dividend tax break applied to anyone with dividends. So, yes, the people living in Mississippi living in tiny shacks did recieve that tax break.
What's that you say? They don't have dividends. Well then, since they don’t, they pay no tax at all. Imagine that! Talk about paying less than their “fair share” – they pay no share when it comes to dividends.
I’ll try and explain this again: those people are NOT paying for anything with “real money.” Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “real rate,” but they certainly are not being taxed at a rate higher than people with higher incomes. They, in fact, are taxed a lower rate. And they are still paying significantly less in taxes than they were before Bush became President. You can certainly argue that their taxes could/should have been lowered even more than they were. That’s a perfectly valid point to make. But not getting an even bigger cut isn’t the same as paying an increase, now is it?
War Bonds Skeeter... that's what FDR did.
I've never been a balanced budget guy... I've been consistent on that from McGovern to Bush.
I am constantly amazed by praise of Obama bringing home the bacon for Illinois, when in return he champions the "bridge to nowhere". If we have to waste huge amounts of our money to bring home the bacon, I will do without Obama or the Pork.
JBP
Bill,
Bad news. I've studied history.
FDR did issue bonds, but he also raised taxes.
You see, he understood that if you buy something, you should pay for it.
Looks like you are 0 for 2 on this one. First you did not know Obama's job. Now you didn't know about FDR and taxes. If I were you, I would lay low for a while. This hasn't been a good thread for your credibility.
of course he did Skeeter... he raised taxes and put us on rations to suppress inflation.
and of course he borrowed...
But the thing so many over look about this War, was that it was a deliberate attack on our Economy.
Bin Laden has said that repeatedly. The United States is to powerful to attack militarliy, so he attacks our economy... he attacked the World TRADE Center... twice.
So when people critize Bush for failing to put on the US on a War footing similar to what FDR did to fight wartime inflation, it's worth noting Bush correctly did the opposite... Bush was fighting an attempt by a terrorist to induce a recession... Bush has been successful so far in not just avoiding a terror attack on our soil, but a terror induced deperession too... that was Bin Laden's main goal.. and it sill is.
So WW2 CAUSED a depression?
Wow. I learn more and more every day. I thought the government spending helped pull us out of a Great Depresssion.
Tell us more, Learned Bill. Tell us about how paying for what we buy HURTS the economy. Tell us how the military spending to fight WW2 and the accompanying tax raise CAUSED a depression. Educate us, my friend.
But seriously, read some history. With every post you look worse. The last one showed a really incredible historical ignorance.
Bin Laden's intent was to cripple our economy. His intent was to cause a depression. So far, he's failed.
FDR put price controls and big taxes in place to prevent war time inflation. Many thought the War would be followed by a depression... they were wrong.. because of the pent up demand (all those War Bonds i.e. gov debt people bought up) during the war and redemed and spent afterwords.
War Time financing WW2 style would be destructive in this war... Bin Laden was seeking just that frankly.
hey skeeter, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you say:
"The result is that they are paying for the "social" benefits with real money, since the people who are providing the benefits also are taxing them at a higher real rate than they tax people with much higher incomes."
If I may say so myself, I think I've done a pretty good job of explaining how that arguement is utter BS.
Perhaps you'd like to address that before you start attacking others over lapses in "credibility."
Oh, and for the record, Bill, I am certainly not saying that skeeter would have been right to assail your “credibility” otherwise. You made a few errors, which is something that happens to all of us from time to time. And you are at least honest enough to acknowledge your errors and accept correction when necessary, and concede facts when warranted. Too bad more people on here don’t do that.
Post a Comment