Reagan Democrats

Can Barack Obama win back the “Reagan Democrats?” Here in Texas that would have been a silly question prior to 2006, but in ‘08 it is becoming more serious.

Texas still cannot be considered a blue state, and will probably cast its Electoral votes for John McCain in November, but ‘06 saw the beginning of a movement to the left in a few down-ballot races. In Dallas County, of all places, Democrats made inroads in a number of local election and actually won a few.

Even in statewide contests Democrats gained, though it did not show in the results. Gov. Rick Perry was re-elected, but received only 39% of the vote in a four-way race where plurality was acceptable.

Back in Dallas, the offices of District Attorney and Sheriff, previously bastions for redneck white men, became occupied by Craig Watkins, an African-American, and Lupe Valdez, a Latino woman, both of whom began cleaning out some very dusty closets at the Court House, to the dismay of the old guard.

The questions in ’08 are, will this trend continue, and does Obama actually have a chance in George W. Bush’s back yard? The answers are probably and perhaps.
The same conditions that led to the sea change of ’06 remain at least as intense in ’08, and even if Bush were permitted to run again this year, winning his home state would not be as automatic as before. That is why McCain will be here campaigning this year, where normally he could save his money and time for other states. He will be here because he knows Obama will be here, using his impressive war chest to contest Texas’ electoral votes.

The reasons are familiar: Iraq and the economy.

Texans have sacrificed their young to Bush’s war on a larger scale than many states, simply because they have sent more of their loved ones to the war zone than many states. They hear the reports about the dead and maimed, and they hear about the deceptions used to place our people in jeopardy.

They also pay more for gasoline than before, hear about the oil companies’ obscene profits, see the value of their homes plunge in a market where many are losing those homes, and see friends and neighbors losing their jobs.

When asked the old Reagan chestnut if they are better off now than they were four or eight years ago, the answer is no longer positive.

The pundits find Texans hard to figure according to poll numbers; they will still claim to follow the Republican line for the pollsters, but might shift allegiances in the voting booth. They may still be guarded in exit polling, but the results speak for themselves. The ultimate red state is losing its scarlet hue.

The same contradictions can be heard from friends and neighbors. “I’m for McCain, because he’s one of us.” Or, “I’m for (Sen. John) Cornyn because he’s a real Texan, and he’ll keep those illegals where they belong.”

The last point offers a clue for continuing changes in the Texas electorate. The minority community is becoming the majority. Legal immigration from Mexico has continued at a consistent pace, so that it is a matter of time before Hispanics become the majority ethnic group in Texas.

Which way will they vote as they continue to become citizens? Up to now they have tended to favor Democrats, but they offer no guarantees. Either party takes them for granted at their own peril, and the Hispanics do not promise to vote as a bloc for anyone.

So the days of “God, gays and guns” may be numbered in Texas. The simplistic campaigns of yesterday will not work tomorrow and beyond. Votes won must be votes earned, and it will take more than throwing one’s ten-gallon hat in a ring and then tending to other constituencies. The times are changing.

-jcscrib

Win what?

Why does John McCain keep talking about "winning" the war in Iraq? Win what? How do you define "winning"?

Historically speaking, one side wins a war when the enemy surrenders, or when the vanquishing is so complete one side is no longer able to field a competitive force, a de facto surrender. Even Japan was able to manage a formal surrender at the end of WWII, which made it official and brought on VJ day, complete with bend-back kissing on Times Square.

But how do you "win" when there is no clear enemy, no one to actually surrender? Who is the "enemy" in Iraq? Since that poor country did not attack its attackers and occupiers, with whom are we seeking revenge for deeds perpetrated on apple-pie America? The Sunnis, whom we are paying to not fight us? The Shi-ites, whose militias have stood down at the order of Moqtada al-Sadr, but who are quite capable of firing up once again? The Kurds, who are more interested in oil and a homeland than in fighting with anyone, except perhaps the Turks?

Whom does that leave? The government, installed by the U.S. and finally reflecting the ethnic makeup of the country (and who, by the way, wants us out ASAP)? The warlords, the actual governors of the country, whom we have paid off anyway? Al-Qaeda, which is not a fighting force or potential government, but a collection of terrorists and jihadists who were not even in the country before we invaded?

Whom do we turn to for a surrender, to legitimize our "victory"? Perhaps when we have killed every Iraqi in sight will we be able to bend back some more women on Times Square.

Perhaps we should treat this as a football game, with a scoreboard to indicate which "side" is leading, and which side will eventually "win". Each kill could count as one point. Each number-two man in al-Qaeda we kill, or each member of our grotesque deck of cards eliminated can count as ten. At the end of a pre-determined (by the Pentagon of course) date for victory, whoever has the most points is decided the "winner" and gets to bend back the ladies. Better not make it a soccer game, though; we just might "lose" that one.

Then McCain would have his "win". He could throw his Navy cap in triumph and bend Cindy back (carefully, of course), and jab his finger at the naysayers who stood for less killing and more peace, a thoroughly contemptible philosophy in light of our historic "victory".

In fact, of course, there is no victory in Iraq, only death and tragedy inflicted on an unsuspecting people by the most powerful nation in history, not a legacy of glory to take into the history books. When McCain stops talking stupid and begins to join most of humanity in demanding an end to the pointless carnage, then he will be eligible to rejoin the human race.

-jcscrib

A Case For Impeachment

So now we learn we have barely scratched the surface of wrongdoing by the Bush Administration, regarding manipulations of intelligence, torture and extrajudicial spying inside the United States. While Congress was deliberating their latest capitulation on domestic spying and absolution of the telecoms for their complicity, Bush/Cheney and their minions at the NSA must have been chuckling up their sleeves.

Now we hear about a far-reaching database for monitoring people considered a threat to national security, which can include anyone they don't like for whatever reason (see Nixon's enemies list, only far more sophisticated). This would be on a par with including Nelson Mandela on a list of potential terrorists, so he could be detained at a U.S. airport if he attempted to enter the country. Why does the name Karl Rove keep suggesting itself?

The pundits are now talking about the need for a modern-day version of the Church committee hearings of the 1970's, which uncovered massive malfeasance by the Nixon administration. The problem with that is the Bush acolytes would simply stonewall the hearings, refusing to even show up and invoking "executive privilege," a concept that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution.

It's time for Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table, while there is still a chance to learn the full scope of this administration's lawlessness. The evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors is overwhelming, and executive privilege would be off the table. The administration people would be compelled to testify under oath or face jail time, which they all probably deserve anyway. The TV ratings of testimony by Cheney, Libby, Addington, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Feith and so many others would dwarf the Watergate hearings, and maybe even approach the O.J. Simpson trial.

After January 20 impeachment will no longer be an option. Only six months and the clock is ticking. The likelihood of a prosecutor bringing criminal action against the aforementioned, and Bush and Cheney themselves, is remote. The information needed by this democracy will disappear to the ranch with Bush.

American citizens deserve to know about Cheney's secret meetings with energy executives, the meetings in the White House to determine torture policies, the process of leading us into war in Iraq, the scope of the "war on terrorism," and many others. A Church-type hearing should uncover more than we have now -- if there is a Frank Church in Congress -- but it is not enough. We literally need to haul our "leaders" into the dock for interrogation under oath, with no hope of executive privilege. Only an impeachment proceeding offers that hope.

-jcscrib

Pelosi is right on this one

Pelosi is right on this one
July 18, 2008

We keep hearing about the 73 percent of Americans who support lifting the 1981 ban on offshore drilling as a means of lowering prices at the gasoline pump. We also hear that George W. Bush is blaming Congressional Democrats for the four-dollar-per-gallon prices we have been seeing lately, by refusing to jump in line with the oil companies in their opportunistic grab for more profits, albeit years down the road.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is right on this one, and she is to be admired for standing firm against such poll numbers when she knows she is on unpopular ground. After all, isn’t that 73 percent close to the numbers that favored invasion of Iraq in 2003 before people had access to actual facts instead of propoganda.

She knows, as should we all, that any benefits from offshore drilling will not be realized for years, and that oil from ANWR would be shipped to other countries, and would benefit only the oil companies.

The administration seems to have one way of dealing with national emergencies — and this issue is definitely approaching that status — which is to politicize. Point the finger of blame at the other party; do not look for real solutions for real problems.

Here’s a suggestion. Quit rattling the sabers over Iran’s real or imaginary development of nuclear weapons. Whether it is true or not is one thing, but issuing threats only stimulates market speculations, which in turn drives up the price of crude oil, which then provides cover for the oil companies in their gouge fest for record profits.

Dealing with Iran is fairly simple: talk to them. Remember diplomacy? Probably not, because it has never been a part of this administration’s arsenal of international relations. Anything, but stop threatening anyone on the world stage. Who knows, perhaps things might calm down. Trouble is, that is not a good situation for the 1 1/2 oil men currently running things (Bush is the 1/2, since he never successfully ran an oil company). Calm is bad for business.

-jcscrib

Out Now

Timetables, timelines and now time horizons. It’s enough to make one’s head ache. For Pete’s sake man, just get out. This war was illegal and inappropriate from the first day of planning — assuming it was actually planned.

It was waged on false pretenses, using contrived intelligence and nefarious advice from such as Ahmad Chalabi, with a definite axe to grind. Nothing, after all this time and after so many lives have been wasted, can make anything seem “right” or “good” about this war.

The surge? More killing and maiming on both sides to further questionable aims. And now the surge is a success, and maybe some troops may be pulled out? Good. Declare victory, as if it was a football game, and leave in triumph.

The Iraqis want us out; most of the American people want us out. Declare anything you want, but please just get out. You could deploy some of them to Afghanistan, though the horse has left the barn on that conflict, but get them out of Iraq and leave that miserable country alone. And leave their oil alone, so we can get on with developing the next phase of mobile technology.

-jcscrib