October 16, 2010
Predictable Newspaper makes Predictable Endorsement
In a move that pretty much anyone could have seen coming, the Bangor Daily News endorses Eliot Cutler for Maine's governor.
Maine faces crucial decisions in the next four years. The state can continue to limp from budget crisis to budget crisis with Libby Mitchell, or state spending can be slashed in haphazard and counterproductive ways under Paul LePage. A better way would be to elect a governor who will remake government so it is focused, effective and affordable.First of all, "blow up state government?" Really, BDN? Terrorist imagery? Have you no integrity left? Twenty years ago, when I first moved to Maine, the BDN was a decent newspaper. Now, I find The Maine Edge more informative and a lot less predictable.The Democratic and Republican choices this year — between one candidate who wants to largely maintain the status quo and another who wants to blow up state government — reflect a failure of these parties.
The BDN's embrace of Cutler doesn't stop with an editorial. The news department gets into the game, with an article that cries crocodile tears over the 'nastiness' of party politics and sets up a certain gubernatorial candidate as above such nonsense.
While both major parties have spent much of the campaign attacking the rival party’s candidate, the independents in the governor’s race have cited the partisanship as a reason not to vote Democrat or Republican.Candidates for governor sparring on issues?“Well, there they go again. The bickering is not going to get us anyplace,” independent candidate Eliot Cutler said during a recent debate after LePage and Mitchell sparred over transportation funding.
Oh, the humanity! Please, save us, independent candidate!
Independent. Interesting word. Webster's defines it as "not affiliated with a larger controlling unit." A larger controlling unit in this case, I suppose, would be a political party. So one would expect that someone who calls himself an "independent" candidate for governor has taken care not to tie himself too closely to one political party.
One would expect. Based on his political donation record, Eliot Cutler disagrees.
Open Secrets is one of the most useful sites on the web. In 2008, I used it to expose a rather inconvenient fact about some Palin-bashing historians. This year, I used it to investigate Eliot Cutler's donation history.
According to the information I found at Open Secrets, Cutler has made $47,416 in political donations to political candidates since 1989. $44,916 of those donations went to Democrats. $2,500 went to Republicans. What does this mean? Basically, this 'independent' candidate gave just only 5% of his political donations to the GOP. I guess that makes him only a 95% Democrat partisan. This analysis only includes individual donations Cutler made to candidates and partisan organizations like the DCCC. Maybe it's just me, but one would think the donations of a true independent would be a bit more evenly distributed between the two parties.
Finding this information took me only about a half-hour. A few minutes to do a search on Open Secrets, and a few to crunch some numbers in MS Excel.
Eliot Cutler announced his 'independent' candidacy in December of 2009, almost a year ago. Not one political reporter thought to spend a half-hour checking out his donations in that time when those donations undercut the image he's spent his entire candidacy cultivating?
Not one?
Even if one doesn't believe in the Bible as a theological document, it's hard to deny the truths about human nature in that book. In Matthew 6:21, Jesus says "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." A simple concept - money is valuable, so we tend to spend it on things we want or believe in. Most of Eliot Cutler's donations have gone to one of the two political parties he now claims to transcend.
He has put his treasure there.
Where, then, is Eliot Cutler's heart?
Posted by slublog at 09:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 05, 2010
Ridiculous Spin of the Day
Republican leaders and their claque are promoting the idea that letting the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich expire would amount to a tax increase. The conservative lobbying organization Americans for Tax Reform says it would be “the largest tax hike in history.” Of course, that’s just standard talk for the ATR, which says it “opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle.” But many other Americans seem to have bought into that idea and the accompanying trickledown theory.Get that?Lest anyone fall for this political explanation of what should happen to President George W. Bush’s gift to the millionaires and billionaires, here is the truth of the matter: Allowing the massive cuts to expire would not increase taxes, but rather it would simply undo an unwise and unfortunate tax reduction and let the tax level revert to that of the low-deficit Clinton years. Remember that as a time of budget surplus, not deficits.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would "not increase taxes." It would just "undo" a "tax reduction," leading to a situation in which the government takes so much of our money that they will have surpluses. So take that, wingnuts! The government wouldn't increase taxes, they'll just let the tax rate "revert" to a time when they took more money out of our paychecks! That is different from a tax increase because we say it is!
The editorial then devolves further from there, recycling the class-warfare pablum about how only the super-mega-rich will be affected by the elimination of the tax cuts. The rest of us?
What really makes this editorial sad is that our founders enshrined journalism as a civil right because they knew a strong and independent press was essential to a healthy democracy. They believed politicians must be held accountable by those who purchase ink by the barrel.
Those who write editorials like this have no idea how badly they debase a profession our founders held in such esteem. They have become more invested in protecting an ideology than pursuing the ideal that the founders intended for their field.
And the worst part? They're doing so willingly. Consider this: Journalists in Soviet Russia had to be coerced into protecting the regime. Ours volunteer for the duty.
Posted by slublog at 05:22 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
October 02, 2010
A Constitutional Question
A couple of years ago, I joined the NRA. One of the benefits of membership is subscription to one of three magazines. I chose "American Rifleman." Each edition of the magazine includes "The Armed Citizen" feature - stories of ordinary people using firearms to defend their lives and property.
The column is a good reminder of the need for the second amendment. It chronicles the stories of real people who would have died or suffered harm if they had not been in possession of a firearm. As I was reading it, I wondered what our gubernatorial candidates believed about guns and gun control. Paul LePage, Eliot Cutler, and Elizabeth Mitchell are all campaigning to be governor of Maine. A month from now, one of them will be elected governor and shortly after that, will take the following oath of office at their inauguration:
"I, [name] do swear, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, so long as I shall continue a citizen thereof. So help me God."So what does this have to do with guns?
Article I of Maine's constitution begins with a 'Declaration of Rights.' Listed among those rights is Section 16:
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."Shall never be questioned." Maine's constitution clearly goes further than the US Constitution on the issue of gun rights. As a Maine resident, I have the right to own a firearm and that right shall never be questioned.
This brings us to "independent" candidate Eliot Cutler. On his website, Cutler has the following to say about gun rights:
I support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and I respect Maine’s longstanding tradition of responsible gun ownership and use. I also support the current law requiring background checks on firearms purchases from licensed dealers.Emphasis mine.I would support extending the requirement for background checks to private sales (except between family members) and sales at gun shows if the State of Maine were to provide a system for checks that would eliminate unnecessary delays and unreasonable costs and burdens on sellers and buyers. For example, the state could provide a toll-free number that sellers could call to obtain an immediate background check on a buyer over the phone prior to consummating the sale.
Maybe it's just me, but a case could be made that the idea of background checks is a form of 'questioning' one's right to bear arms and a candidate who promises to expand those checks is saying that he or she willing to violate the Maine constitution and his or her oath to support it. But wait...am I really suggesting that background checks are bad? What kind of inhuman, American and puppy-and-apple-pie-hating monster am I?
To that, I would offer a single question - whose rights are most affected by background checks?
I own a gun. A .22 semi-automatic Smith and Wesson pistol. I bought that weapon at a gun show. When I bought that weapon, I had to prove my identity and pass a NICS check of my ability to purchase that weapon. I purchased my weapon legally and was willing to submit to the state's requirements for background checks to purchase it.
I did so because I am a law-abiding citizen.
If I were a criminal, however, I would not have bothered with any background check. There are many ways to buy a gun, and those who don't respect the law will find them. Eliot Cutler seems to believe that regulating private gun sales will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. If he really thinks that's the case, then he is, at best, naive.
Criminals will always find a way to acquire firearms. They will not bother with background checks. If it were up to people like Eliot Cutler, only law-abiding citizens would face government interference when trying to acquire firearms. I have a concealed carry permit. If Cutler had his way, I would have a harder time buying a gun than would a criminal, if only because I'm willing to follow the rules.
According to the Constitution of this state, my right to own a gun "shall never be questioned." Eliot Cutler wants to question it.
Update - I'm honestly not sure whether I completely agree with my thesis about background checks. I'm about 70% there. I do think they should be required for concealed carry permits. Still, it's hard to reconcile the sometimes unreasonable burdens modern gun laws place on people who are willing to follow the rules with the constitutions of the country and Maine.
Posted by slublog at 10:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
September 29, 2010
The revolution takes another hit; Tea Party candidate says bad words
How do you know when your state's politics are officially boring? When something like this counts as a MAJOR. SCANDAL.
News of the punch comment comes on the heels of a video posted online Tuesday showing LePage telling a crowd that, if elected, they can expect to see newspaper headlines declaring “Governor LePage tells Obama to go to hell.”Normally, I wouldn't post about local politics [this was written for the AOSHQ crowd], but this seems to be scandalous enough to attract the attention of national media. Equally horrifying? This same candidate told a reporter to "stop the bullshit" when he was asked a question about his wife's taxes.In an interview with The Associated Press, LePage said he regretted his choice of words but wasn't backing down in his criticism of the Obama administration for what he describes as free-spending, antibusiness policies.
“Am I politically correct all the time? No. Maybe it's time to have people say bluntly what's going on,” LePage said Wednesday. “The fact of the matter is that I haven't learned how to speak out of both sides of my mouth yet.”
Sorry folks...the revolution was fun while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end.
Seriously, though, there's a reason LePage is getting hit on stuff like this. The Dems who have been running this state for years can't defend their record so they (along with a willing press) are playing up the 'temperament' argument and asking whether LePage is emotionally stable enough to be governor.
The only problem with this argument? The Dems and the press made it an issue during the last election, and it hasn't exactly worked out that well. Americans were assured that Barack Obama had a "first-class temperament." As it turns out, the president is a bit thin-skinned and unable to take criticism.
What the media doesn't seem to realize about this election year is that the political silly season is over. Voters aren't looking for someone who can play the part of elected official. They're looking for people who share their beliefs and who have the willingness to lead and limit the intrusion of government into our lives.
Even if those individuals sometimes say naughty words.
Obligatory: If you've got a few bucks lying around and want to hurt some blue-state Democrats, you know what to do.
Cross posted at Ace of Spades HQ
Posted by slublog at 09:41 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
September 26, 2010
Priorities
This election year, I know more about the Maine GOP candidate's wife's taxes than about Libby Mitchell's legislative record or Eliot Cutler's business background.
Not a great year for Maine's statewide news media.
Posted by slublog at 01:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
September 22, 2010
Maine: State of the Race
Only a few weeks to go until ballot-castin' time.
Judging from the trend line of these polls, Paul LePage is going to be Maine's next governor. Only one thing to say, really.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Posted by slublog at 06:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 10, 2010
Nine Years On
It may seem strange, but my most vivid memory of September 11, 2001 is the blue sky and the crisp, cool air. It really was a perfect day on the East Coast. I was a graduate student at the time, and I remember noting the beauty of the day while driving to my teaching assistant job that morning.
My radio was tuned to the "Bob and Sheri" show. Shortly before 9 a.m., Sheri reported that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. I thought at the time that it was a terrible accident. Then the second plane hit, and everything changed.
Well, not everything. As I've noted before, the attacks didn't change everyone.
I went to my office and checked the news online, only to find most of the news sites inaccessible. Traffic was too high. So I went downstairs to the history department, where a television was set up. On the television screen, the news was showing video of the burning towers. There were about a dozen of us in the room. One of the people in that room was a faculty member in the history department. As he watched the news, his only comment was this:I will never forget the smirk on that professor's face, and it has since represented, to me, the senseless anger of some liberals during the Bush administration. When I heard his words, I was torn between bewilderment and anger. I did not understand how someone could express such stupid, mindless hatred while watching news reports about the deaths of thousands of his fellow citizens. Was the Florida recount that traumatic? That was my first glimpse of how ugly Bush Derangement Syndrome could be, and why I scoff at those who say George W. Bush squandered our unity after the attacks."I wonder if the president is crying to his daddy?"
He smiled after saying this, as though he'd said something clever. I wanted to punch the son of a bitch in the face.
The year of the attacks, I was a graduate student who had been married three years. Nine years later, I'm a father of two daughters who were born after the horrible events of that day. I watched the attacks of September 11 as they happened. My daughters will read about them in the history books, books I hope are not written by the likes of the smirking professor I wanted to hit that day.
When my girls ask me what it was like during and after the attacks of September 11, I'm going to point them to two pieces of writing. The first is Alan Jackson's remembrance of that day in song. The second is Allahpundit's Twitter feed of his memories.
In July of 2002, I visited New York City. During the visit, the group I was with visited lower Manhattan and the site where the World Trade Center once stood. As I looked through the fence that surrounded Ground Zero, I was struck by the size of the hole that had been torn into the heart of Manhattan. Ground Zero was huge, and the buildings surrounding it bore the scars of that day's violence.
I was overwhelmed, and I cried.
When I talk to my girls about that day, I realize everything I share with them will be history. I hope, however, that I will be able to convey what that day meant, and how it affected me, and the country.
Posted by slublog at 10:24 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
