Archive for: January 2008

I didn’t realize that recently elected Representive James Fields was black or that House District 12 was overwhelmingly a white district. The editorial board of the Advertiser, however, assures us that Alabama is still racist wasteland.

The poll, which was concluded Tuesday before Democratic candidate John Edwards placed his candidacy on hold, shows that 68 percent of African Americans polled in Alabama supported Obama, with 16 percent supporting Clinton.

Among likely white Democratic candidates, 51 percent supported Clinton, with 17 percent supporting Obama.

I predict a different picture will emerge Tuesday, though.

You have to read this to get it. I guess I never really got into Peanuts. The Montgomery Advertiser warns us that despite broad support for a PAC-to-PAC transfer ban in a recent survey of lawmakers, we shouldn’t get too excited.

In related news, I appreciate the emails but the FCPA report for Dan PAC was filed well in advance of yesterday’s deadline. It’s already online too.

Danny just signed up four legislators for the 2008 legislative session to guest blog at Doc’s Political Parlor. I really like how he has it separated too.

Unfortunately, my typical week day has me leaving home at around 7:20 and coming home at around 8:00. I wonder if the blog can recover if I neglect it until June as I’m planning to. Maybe I should take on some help.

All I can say is wow. She was arrested for taking more than $175,000 for work she never did in the two-year college system. Danny has a post and the indictment.

With John Edwards leaving the race, we’re pretty much guaranteed to have either the first woman or the first black man running for the White House on a major party ticket. That’s pretty historical and all, but it doesn’t much matter in how you should pick a candidate.

The two junior US Senators are alike in many ways. Both see a free market as something that must be controlled (ignoring any contradiction in terms). Clinton seems to say that capitalism, if left to its own devices, will destroy people. It must sometimes therefore be fought against by government. Obama is less hostile to capitalism as he is concerned about how to create a true free market through government policy. It’s a subtle difference. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote:

We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility […] we should be guided by what works.

I’m interpreting a little bit here, but it seems like Obama believes that a true free market, and all the goods that come with it, can’t be expected to form without government policy. That’s certainly true to some extent. At the very least, there needs to be a fair civil court system. But Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention showed that he believes government intervention in the market should be much more extensive.

The subtle differences on economic philosophy are perhaps best represented in their respective health care plans. Both candidates say it is time for universal, government health care, and they both see a private-public partnership in ensuring coverage is available to all. Both plans basically copy John Kerry’s 2004 plan of an option for a national and flexible group policy. The only real difference is that Obama’s plan is optional — an individual can decide to not be insured at all. Clinton’s plan, however, is mandatory. You must either receive free government care if you qualify or you must buy health insurance from either a private company or the new, public insurance.

I think this shows the subtle difference in their economic policy very well. Obama believes the government has a responsibility to provide the “social safety net.” His website also emphasizes how the availability of public health care would encourage free markets by giving more freedom to individuals to change jobs. Clinton, on the other hand, believes government has a mandate to control people. She gets to say her plan covers everyone, because she envisions using the police power of state to ensure everyone sees the doctor.

I could go on and on about different economic policies, but it’s the same story to me. They see the Presidency as managers. The only difference, to me, is that Obama sees the government’s role primarily as providing options while Clinton sees the government’s role as controlling markets. Both will probably have the same effect, but since these are the only two candidates, I give the edge to Obama.

Clinton has repeatedly flip-flopped on immigration, changing her mind at least three times on whether or not illegal immigrants should be allowed to have drivers licenses. She seems to lean toward the bipartisan immigration reform that McCain likes most of the time. Obama supports drivers licenses for illegals, but also voted for the border fence. Both are inconclusive, so neither gets the edge.

Both are pretty similar in foreign policy, although Obama gets credit for being against the Iraq War early on while Clinton voted for the war. Both say they’d be happy to bomb Iran as long as they made some sort of token guesture to diplomacy. Obama gets a slight nod for being against Iraq.

NARAL gives both candidates a 100% pro-abortion if that matters to you. Both are for civil unions for same-sex couples. Obama is happy to let states decide what is called “marriage,” as long as same-sex couples are allowed equal protection under the law, while Clinton has only stated opposition to same-sex “marriage.” Obama shows that he understands federalism to some small degree. Edge to Obama.

Both voted against the Military Commissions Act and support repealing the part about habeus corpus. Obama voted for the 2006 version of the Patriot Act while Clinton voted for both the 2001 and 2006 versions. When asked in the Las Vegas debate if human rights were more important than American national security, Obama said the two concepts were not contradictory while Clinton said national security was more important. Edge to Obama.

I’m not voting in the Democratic Presidential primary on Tuesday, but I would vote for Obama if I were.  I can’t say it’s a resounding endorsement, but it is one that I carefully considered. The Democratic winner of the primaries will likely win the general election in November, so it’s an important race.

In addition to the policy and record, I just like Obama more. And that’s important.

By the way, I can’t find it anymore, but I read somewhere online that there was a survey conducted that indicated that some Democrats picked their nominee based on how they viewed George W. Bush. It seems some people are going for the most anti-Bush person they can find. If you see Bush as a clinically retarded, you’re more likely to be for Clinton. If you see Bush as an evil mastermind, you’re more likely to be for Obama. I can’t remember the numbers, so it might not have been that conclusive.

It seems very likely that most citizens vote based on many things besides “the issues”  and “the record”. When choosing a name to bubble on the ballot, it seems that there are three major categories of criteria:

• Their record
• Their policy positions
• Their personality

Pundits and careful political observers often scoff at the importance placed on the third criterion. They say that whether or not someone is agreeable personally to the individual should not be a factor. I disagree — I side with the feelings to some extent.

All three criteria are important. The record gives us a factual representation of what a candidate has done. The policy positions tell us what the candidate would like to do if elected (or at least what they say they would like to do). But the personality is an issue of trust. Whether or not you like someone is often representative of how much they think and react like you do. This is very important for a variety of reasons.

The most obvious reason this is important is because we can’t predict the future. The perfect example of this came with the 2000 election of George W. Bush. Terrorism wan’t an issue that was debated, and even military strength was seldom brought up. If we could see the future, how the US should react to catastrophic terrorist attacks would have been a hot topic. But we can’t predict the future, so many of his supporters voted for him partially because they just liked him. He seemed like a good ole boy, and, to most people’s delight, he acted like a good ole boy after the terrorist attacks.

Of course, Bush’s likability hasn’t extended forever. Most people disapprove of the war in Iraq. But let’s really think about this. When the war started, most people were itching to kick some Arab butt. Whether or not this was a wise course of action only kinda matters in a republic. The people picked a President who they liked, and he did what many of them would have done at some level.

I’ve never voted for George W. Bush, so don’t think I’m defending the guy. But let’s really probe deeper here. The most important aspects of his Presidency were not found in his previous record or his stated policy positions during the campaign of 2000. If you were voting soley based on policy positions in 2000, George Bush would have been your guy if you liked gun rights and low taxes. I like gun rights and low taxes, but I didn’t like or trust him and didn’t vote for him. I’m very proud of that today, but it seemed a little odd in 2000.

Disclaimer: I actually ended up not voting due to the headache of voting absentee before I had the Internet, but that’s not the point. I had decided not to vote for him.

I’m not saying that likability is the only factor, or even the most important factor. Let’s just stop pretending it doesn’t matter, and let’s stop acting like people who vote for people they like are somehow destroying America. I have used all three criteria to pick my favorite candidate from both parties.

Despite the Plan 2010 for Alabama Republicans to finally take the state legislature, House District 12 remains in Democrat hands. The special election was held today to replace retiring Representative Neal Morrison in Cullman County.

Since his preferred candidate, Fred Thompson, has left the race, our favorite state representative here at Daily Dixie has chosen another favorite. I guess I should discuss the picks from the two major parties before Super Tuesday. Here’s the press release sent from Romney’s Alabama campaign.

After Thompson left the race a few days ago, I took a close look of each of the remaining Republican candidates for President, searching for the same qualities that drove me to Fred Thompson: A well-rounded Republican who believes in both individual freedom and personal responsibility. I was looking for a candidate willing to return our nation toward the social, economic, and foreign policy ideas that once defined the Republican Party, but have since been gutted by insiders.

All of our Republican candidates are very strong on some of these aspects of our Republican principles, but only one remains that covers them all: Mitt Romney. Going into the general election in November, we need to allow the American people to choose between a Democrat or a Republican, not a Democrat or a Democrat-lite.

Taken by John Little
Water Tower
Auburn, AL

—–
Want to participate? Send me your pictures!
—–

I just want to point out that I don’t have to like the photos, I just post them

The special election for House District 12 is tomorrow in Cullman County. The winner will replace Representative Neal Morrison who left his seat to become president of Bevill State Community College (and possibly one of the only genuine two-year college employees caught up in the whole scandal).

Danny has much better coverage of all the going ons while my life is consumed with academics.

While my life is consumed with electromagnetic theory and a senior design project, I’ve been trying to think of a way to express my feelings about Roy Johnson’s plea deal and it’s possible implications for certain members of the Alabama legislature. Lucky for me, J.D. Crowe’s cartoon says a thousand words.

Taken by Steve Elliot
Overton Farm
Hodges, AL

—–
Want to participate? Send me your pictures!
—–

Who said it? This one is difficult, but he is well-known to anyone who has had much integral calculus — particularly anything involving integral transforms.

In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in the case of poetry, it’s the exact opposite!

The man had an interesting outlook on life. I will provide a hint that probably isn’t at all helpful. One of his colleagues once said of him, “If I understand him correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and [the answer] is his Prophet.”

The rumor is that Anheuser-Busch isn’t at all happy with their little local distributor, Birmingham Bud, or it’s VP, Pat Lynch. AB corporate initiated contact with Free the Hops, seeking resolution to the problem.

Again, Anheuser-Busch doesn’t oppose the efforts of Free the Hops, and Pat Lynch appears to be in direct opposition to their primary supplier and namesake. For the past two years, AB has conducted a national ad campaign, “Here’s to beer,” which promotes craft beer. If AB stands behind that campaign and puts pressure on their main Alabama distributor, I’ll be happy to say, “This Bud’s for you, Anheuser-Busch.”

If you want one reason why Free the Hops is boycotting Birmingham Budweiser products, check out this post from last year. You can also see the Free the Hops response to some of Pat Lynch’s recent claims.

I also feel like I should clarify some stuff for the readers. The boycott is directed against Birmingham Budweiser, a distribution company in Birmingham that primarily (maybe exclusively) sells Anheuser Busch products.  It is not directed against any other beverage distributer, even Budweiser distributors, anywhere else in the state. It’s also not directed against Anheuser Busch, the company that actually makes the beer and has never expressed opposition to Free the Hops.

Although I sometimes crack a joke at Bud’s expense, I honestly don’t have anything against them. It’s a historical, all-American brand, and they have even recently been catching onto the idea that many Americans might prefer a more complex brew than an American style lager from time to time (see Stone Mill beers).

The problem is solely with Birmingham Budweiser and Pat Lynch, a company and a person who has repeatedly opposed Free the Hops, lied to Free the Hops, backed out of deals with Free the Hops. They have used the police power of government to control the otherwise free market, robbing Alabamians of the ability to purchase about 90% of the beers currently available in the world.

When will I be back regular posting? Who noes.

moar funny pictures

It’s on now.

(Birmingham, Alabama) – Free The Hops / Alabamians For Specialty Beer, a grassroots consumer group working to change legislation banning most craft beer from Alabama, is calling for a consumer boycott of Anheuser-Busch products sold in the Birmingham/Jefferson County area.

The group’s president, Stuart Carter, says his group is calling for the boycott because of the anti-craft beer lobbying efforts of Birmingham Budweiser and the distributor’s vice president, Pat Lynch.

Lynch, Carter says, has been a major opponent of local and state legislation
which could legalize gourmet beer, typically higher-strength, in Alabama.

Free The Hops has been working for three years to change the current Alabama law that limits beer to no more the 6% alcohol by volume (ABV). This ABV ceiling means the majority of America’s finest craft beers, and many of the world’s best mported beers, cannot be sold in the state.

The Free The Hops organization is seeking to raise the state’s ABV limit for beer to 14.9%.

Lynch’s lobbying efforts against the local Jefferson county bill for the higher ABV limit led to the Free The Hops supported legislation (HB-728) failing last year, Carter says.

Free the Hops has called for a boycott of all Budweiser products sold in the
Jefferson County/Birmingham area.

“The members of Free The Hops,” Carter says, “will no longer purchase or
consume any Budweiser products in Jefferson County. And we urge all of our
non-member supporters to do the same.”

“I would also like to see those retailers, restaurants, and bars that support our
cause stop selling Budweiser products.” Carter adds.

I still think it should be called Civil Rights Day.