Archive for January, 2010

Kelly Anderson Wright

RENO – Republican hopefuls have just four months to persuade Nevada voters they have what it takes to beat the most powerful Democrat in the nation, 4-time incumbent and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV).

More importantly, they need to prove that they understand the will of We, the People of Nevada.

Nevada has eleven (possibly 12) Republicans who think they have what it takes to unseat Reid. But do they really understand what Nevadans want?

Not really about Harry.

If we’ve learned anything from Massachusetts, it’s that Republican candidates need to focus on Nevadans, not Harry, to win the primary this June, before they can ever hope to beat Reid in November.

The Republican campaign talking points should be easy to articulate: create jobs, cut taxes, shrink government, stop spending money, work together, protect Americans from terrorists and listen to us, the people of Nevada.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jamie Weinstein

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, honored guests, my fellow Americans,

I speak to you tonight just over one year into my presidency.  I also speak just eight days removed from a report card given by the people of Massachusetts on my performance to date.  It would be fair to say that the grade was far lower than the B plus I so recently thought I deserved.

How about making the country applaud?

Fellow citizens, the state of our union is surely strong, but my task is to ensure it remains so. Let us not delude ourselves. We face great challenges both domestically and internationally.

Read the rest of this entry »

Herman Cain

We already know that the president will deliver an eloquent State of the Union address filled with exaggerated accomplishments and some not so subtle blame-Bush references. Whereas the president must try to be as optimistic as possible, we must also be realistic about the state of the union through the Voice of the People, because problems do not fix themselves.

The powers that be.

Assessments of the state of our union will prompt different opinions by different people. The majority party in control of Congress and the White House will tend to be overly optimistic, while the minority party will tend to be more pessimistic about the health of the nation. And there are plenty of selective statistics out there to try and make one’s desired political case.

Read the rest of this entry »

Gregory D. Lee

After President Obama’s inauguration, if I had predicted that within his first year in office, his party would lose gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and a Senate seat in Massachusetts, you simply would not have believed me. After all, the president was enjoying an unprecedented wave of popularity and he had solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

It seemed like such a good idea at the time.

As early as six weeks ago, if I had suggested that Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Massachusetts Senate seat once held by Edward Kennedy, would not only win the special election, but win it by five points, no one would have believed me. After all, Kennedy held that seat for 46 years.

In the same week of Mr. Brown’s victory, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, ruled in United Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, that large portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing reform act violated the First Amendment.

Read the rest of this entry »

Steven Hutson

Yesterday our president visited the town of Elyira, Ohio, as the backdrop for a major economic address.  This area has been hard-hit by the recession, with many jobs lost and throngs of citizens desperate for relief.  As usual he was received as a rock star, interrupted by enthusiastic applause, it seemed, every few seconds.

Listen. Really listen.

Clearly they are true believers.  But did they really listen to what he said?  It’s hard to say, because much of it was misleading, slanted or just plain false.  A few notable excerpts:

#1: “The banks caused this mess.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Bob Franken

At least the Supremes’ latest hit is a blow for honesty. The 5-4 ruling that corporations (and unions) can directly spend their mega bucks for the ads that can distort the elections means they can have their way without having to jump through all the phony hoops they had to maintain the pretense they weren’t doing that anyway.

Trust me!

What a victory for the Republicans. On those rare occasions that the Democrats don’t just hand them an election, like the freebie they gave away in Massachusetts, the GOP can buy it, now that there is easier access to the coffers of their patrons. They’ll get whatever they need simply by reminding them how they always protect their interests.

For those attempting to keep the rich and powerful in line, it will be like herding fat cats, but at least the record will be set straight. The conservatives on the high court prevailed with the ruling that these artificial restrictions on campaign finance violated the Oligarchs’ First Amendment Free Speech rights.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mark Watson

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech.  It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.

Free speech for me, but not for thee

“Its theory, if accepted, would empower Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations–as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of democracy.”

This quotation is not from George Orwell’s 1984. Rather, these words were written by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, Jr., in his concurring opinion in today’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, where the Court struck down the most odious portion of the McCain-Feingold law. Part of McCain-Feingold banned electioneering communications paid for by corporations 30 days immediately prior to a presidential primary, and 60 days before the general election.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kelly Anderson Wright

Newly elected Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) heaped heavy praise on one man for helping him do the unthinkable. “I’ll never forget the help of [this] man, who took the time to meet with me months ago, who told me I could win,” Brown told supporters in his acceptance speech Tuesday night. “[He] gave me confidence for the fight… a truly great and heroic American… my new colleague, Senator John McCain.”

One down . . .

McCain (R-AZ) may have failed to beat Obama, but like running mate Sarah Palin, he has still found a way to change America’s political landscape, not as a candidate, but as a right-wing career coach and cheerleader.

Could he do the same for Nevada? Brian Krolicki says, “Yes, he can.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Steven Hutson

At various times in our history, the federal government has experimented with something called an excess profits tax.  During the Civil War the Confederate Congress flirted with the concept, as a means to fund the war effort.  Subsequent levies served a dual purpose: they both financed war-waging and discouraged profiteering by private contractors who might take unfair advantage of a national crisis.  Most economists will argue that this is a short-sighted fettering of industry, but sometimes

My savings account number was 3117-033291-22

desperate times call for desperate measures. The good news is that we won the wars, even if the contractors were denied a fair return on their investment.  American industries are resilient; the capital markets supplied them with fresh investments; life goes on.

But just how much profit is “excess?”  Exactly who gets to determine how much is too much, and by what formula?  Should we do away with free markets and set prices by government mandate, as they did in the Soviet Union?   We all know how that one turned out, don’t we?  You see, there’s this wall in Germany, or rather there isn’t one, that silently testifies to the wisdom of that strategy.  Joshua himself could scarcely have done any better. Read the rest of this entry »