BuzzFlash Mailbag for November 14, 2008

BUZZFLASH MAILBAG

Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts with other Mailbag readers by clicking here. You also may comment below; post articles yourself at BuzzFlash.net; or send urls for BuzzFlash to post to: www.buzzflash.com/contact/newstip.html.

Subject: No More Sarah, Please

Please make it stop! Make it stop! I don't want to hear Palin anymore. Obama won and the election is over. He hasn't even taken office yet and Palin is already running in the 2012 election. There should be a rule in journalism that you have to wait for 2 years after covering a presidential election before you start the next one. It's time to focus on Obama now and figure out what we can do to keep the economy from collapsing. It's time for Sarah Palin to step back and go back to her job in Alaska and let real America deal with our future.

I'm Marc Perkel - And I approved this message!

Marc Perkel

Subject: corporate taxes

Hi BuzzFlash,

I want to point out that corporate taxes are invariably passed on to consumers, so little people end up paying them. A better strategy would be to lower corporate income taxes or even eliminate them, thereby making the U.S. a more production environment, while increasing margin tax rates on the affluent. In fact, the best approach might be to set up a tiered flat tax system on income, which could include salary/wages as well as capital gains. Perhaps no taxes on people making less than $30,000 a year, a 15% tax up to $200,000, and a 35% tax for everything over $200,000. There could even by a super-rich tax of another 5% for any income over $5 million, or some such number.

Reducing or eliminating the corporate tax would appeal to a lot of economic conservatives who logically conclude that the corporate tax is a waste of IRS government resources that ultimately costs little people on two fronts: they pay those taxes through their purchases of good and services, and our taxes support the IRS' corporate tax department.

Such a move would be good for Obama and good for little people.

John Hintze
Newark, N.J.

Subject: The GOP philosophy

GWB reiterated the GOP position on the favor-the-wealthy approach to government. He said, in effect: "... for a short duration of economic hardship, don't let go of the necessity for unregulated enterprises ..." The GOP philosophy has been, and continues to be, one of hands-off. Let the people do what they want to, because there's more incentive to create and accomplish, and to move the society forward.

It really doesn't work that way, however. Rather, the system seems more to support the income and property holding status of the wealthy, giving those who have less or nothing much less of a chance for accomplishment and opportunities to advance their economic status. Indeed, the wealthy use their mighty influence to get the legislature to give them greater wealth and, at least, to hold on to what they've got.

Hence, the members of their clan and families of wealth are more frequently ne'er do wells, generally without incentive to advance society with uppity attitudes toward everyone else. Bush can push for these policies favoring the wealthy, and the GOP philosophy, but look what its gotten us into.

John Burgess
Syracuse, NY

Subject: Hillary

I think that HRC as Sec. of State is a very bad move and undercuts Obama's Iraq stand. She is too much in the Kissinger realpolitik mode and would undercut the new direction in foreign policy that we need. Holbrook, Richardson, even Hagel would be much better.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Gay marriage and Civil rights

Had the federal courts not been involved there would still be segregation. If they had voted state by state, civil rights for African Americans would have been voted down every time in the South and the same is probably true about women voting.

I was amused that Tony Perkins in his appearance with Dan Savage on Anderson Cooper's show that he kept saying that children shouldn't have more than one mother and father when so many have step-fathers and -mothers. Some have several of each and tons of step-siblings.

I think Mr. Perkins needs to see how well a vote that denies all benefits and rights to Christians who divorce and remarry goes over.

Cooper allowed Perkins to get by with saying that the young vote was against gay marriage and it wasn't.

Maybe there needs to be a demonstration like the ones outside the White House when Alice Paul and others were jailed for women's rights.

All arguments should be only on Constitutional rights. If you pay taxes you should have exactly the same rights.

Perkins mentioned that there have always been restrictions on marriage and mentioned age and close relatives and such.

At the end he said that if you favor gay marriage then you favor all other kinds that are denied by law and that is not true.

Perkins should be goaded and forced into bringing up marrying pets and children and he will lose every time.

Karen Webb
Moore, Ok

Subject: Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State

I wondered who, and what was "fueling" these rumors.

Now, I find them right here on BuzzFlash. In the form of a "prediction" no less.

So, we are expected to forever gag on Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Caucus, in order for Hillary Clinton to vacate her senate seat for a cabinet position.

We (Democrats) either need 60 in the Senate, or we don't.

If we don't, let us also banish Mr. Lieberman to the Republican Party, where he belongs.

We either want to pass the agenda of the President-Elect, with a "veto" proof majority in the Senate -- or we don't.

Bill Richardson is equally, if not more qualified, than Senator Clinton, for this post.

And, he would not cost the Democrats a Senate seat. Nor would his selection cause "bitterness" among Democratic members of the Senate. Particularly John Kerry, who supported Obama from the get-go.

After all, isn't that why Senator Bayh tells us we have to tolerate Joe Lieberman? We don't want a "bitter" Joe Lieberman in the Senate, now do we?

You, BuzzFlash, and Arianna Huffington, have gone from reporting hard news, to reporting gossip.

Nobody will name a source for this story. However, the biggest hint of all came from Andrea Mitchell last night -- when she declared "now that the "news" is out there -- the Obama transition team could not --- not name Clinton.

So, an educated guess.

The un-named sources are Bill and Hillary Clinton, or Terry McAullife, or maybe even James Carville.

Regardless, it comes not from the Obama camp, but from the Clinton camp.

It is designed to be divisive.

And, you bought into it. Hook, line and sinker.

Silly me. I would think Treasury Secretary would be Job 1.

A BuzzFlash Reader

[BuzzFlash Note: One point. If Hillary Clinton moved into a cabinet position, her open NY Senate seat would almost certainly stay in the Dem column.]

Subject: What Did President Barack Obama Say When He Met With The Leaders Of The Iraq And Afghan Resistance?

"His speech wasn't recorded, but based on the outcome of that meeting, his words probably went something like ...

'I hate war, the American people hate war and, without doubt, the people of Iraq and of Afghanistan hate war. Who in your shoes wouldn't, considering the fact each of your two countries is experiencing a military occupation by a foreign power, a conquest so vicious and brutal that, to date, the body count is around three-quarters of a million and counting. For which, on behalf of the American people, I apologize. Which raises the question, what's an apology worth? Right here & now, nothing, unless attached to it is an action plan for bringing the troops home within sixteen months, together with America's providing material and resources to help both Iraq and Afghanistan recover from and let go of that which is the nightmare of war. The only thing that we ask in return is that the bloodshed stop, that which we inflict on you, and that which you inflict on us."

"And the response of the Iraq & Afghan leaders?"

"Presumably something like, 'Count us in.'"

"Based on?"

"History."

"And ever since then what sort of world?"

"It's been up to us."

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Lieberman

Joe Lieberman is a TRAITOR and "here we go again weak sh...DEMS" won't take action and send him packing. We are incensed and hope it's not a sign of things to come re the "Jimmy CARTER" type Dems - Obama included. Clearly his FIRST BIG BLUNDER.

BUZZ WHY DON'T YOU GET A PETITION GOING AND WE WILL SIGN IT AND SEND IT OFF TO THE WEAK-SPINED DEMS IN WASHINGTON - LIEBERMAN HAS TO GO HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED HE'S A WEASEL SLIME BALL.

MARGARET & ED MILLER
WEST PALM BEACH FL

Subject: THE END OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY

The auto industry as it stands will not hold water in years to come. My prediction is a selection of approximately a dozen different selections of cars with mpg at a palatable number and a price to afford. The only way the car industry can last is if the lobby industry is cut off from the relationship to all auto related industries.

ron
pittsburgh pa

Subject: I can't forgive McCain for Palin

I can forgive him for a lot of things but sending us the Palin plague isn't one of them. And she just won't go home and shut up. Well, we have proof she wasn't running the McCain/Palin campaign because if she were we would have had her 24/7 and that is too much for anyone.

So, she tells the GOP governors that the GOP needs to keep the Democrats honest, but she doesn't say what the Democrats are dishonest about. I keep wondering why no one kept the GOP honest for the last 8 years.

"We are the minority party," Palin said at a session on "Looking Towards the Future: The GOP in Transition." "Let us resolve not to be the negative party."

Now that would mean at least a 180 degree shift from the most dishonest administration in history.

"Let's reach out to Barack Obama," Palin said. "Show him how lower taxes provide opportunity for the private sector to grow."

There she goes again. She keeps forgetting we know what happens when you let the GOP take charge.

Today Bush was saying this economic mess isn't the fault of capitalism and it won't be fixed by redoing capitalism. It is absolutely the fault of unbridled capitalism and they still want to ride that dead horse.

Every week Paulson decides on a different angle. Paulson and the rest should be in jail. You don't give people who have robbed you blind more money and expect them to do anything other than feather their own nests.

Bye, Sarah, Alaska is calling you and if there is a God you will be in jail before 2012. I heard the same people who built Stevens house built yours.

Karen Webb
Moore, Ok.

Subject: public broadcast and the rethuglican governors

Georgia public TV; Judy Woodruff Has biased panel of rethuglican whiners without a democratic or opposing view in sight what a hack, this would never be accepted by the rethuglicans. oh well something else for the new president to clean up, so many toilets to flush so little time.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: That Early Twenty-First Century Turnabout Represents An Historical Equivalent To The One About Whether Or Not, If A Tree Falls In The Forest And Nobody's Around, Then Is There A Sound?

"Equivalent how?"

"The Republicans were screaming Barack Obama is this, he's that, or, that he and Congress are out to destroy the American way of life, not to mention aiding and abetting criminals, immigrants, moral decline and such."

"But the way things turned out, it was as if nobody had heard a word of what they were saying."

"The public's attention was focused elsewhere."

"On what?"

"Making sure that President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress delivered on their campaign promise to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home."

"But, still, out of the awful din that was raised by those opposed to the new government, a teaspoon of their vitriol surely got through to the public."

"Got through, but not heard, and even if heard, not acted upon."

"So was there a sound?"

A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: A New Political Party Is Needed

A New Political Party Is Needed

Set aside any Obama euphoria you feel. The other important news is that third-party presidential candidates had a miserable showing this year, totaling just over one percent of the grand total with 1.5 million votes nationwide, compared to some 123 million votes for Barack Obama and John McCain.

It couldn’t be clearer that Americans are not willing to voice their political discontent by voting for third-party presidential candidates. The two-party duopoly and plutocracy is completely dominant. The US lacks the political competition that exists in other western democracies. Without real political competition there is insufficient political choice.

A key problem is that for many years, third parties have not offered presidential candidates that capture the attention and commitment of even a modest fraction of Americans, unlike Ross Perot (8.4 percent in 1996 and 18.9 percent in 1992), and John Anderson (6.6 percent in 1980).

This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent). He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent.

In the primaries Ron Paul had earned enormous public support and before the general election he urged his supporters to vote for one of the four main third-party presidential candidates. However, it does not appear that they did so in significant numbers. Recently, Paul commented about the Obama victory: “the candidate demanding ‘change’ won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.”

Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot. In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates. In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were (Oklahoma).

Nader’s best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney’s with 28,624 votes. Baldwin was not on the ballot there. Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California. Barr’s best state was Texas with 56,398 votes. None of the other three were on the ballot there. In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot). Baldwin’s best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes. Nader was not on the ballot there.

In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote. Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.

It must also be noted that there were countless congressional races with third-party and independent candidates, but none were able to win office, with only a very few reaching the 20 percent level. That third-party candidates can win local government offices means little because political party affiliation at that level is overshadowed by personal qualifications.

I say that current third-party activists should admit defeat, shut down their unsuccessful parties, and move on. Unlike so much of American history, current third-parties no longer play a significant role in American politics or even in affecting public policies. They have shown their inability to matter.

We need a new, vibrant political party that could bring many millions of American dissidents, progressives and conservatives, and especially chronic non-voters, together behind a relatively simple party platform focused on structural, government system reforms (not merely political change). Examples include: replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, restoring the balance between Congress and the presidency, eliminating the corrupting influence of special interest money from politics, preventing the president to use signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress.

What would unite people is a shared priority for revitalizing American democracy. It should position itself as a populist alternative and opponent to the two-party plutocracy. It should define itself as against the corporate and other special interests on the left and right that use money to corrupt our political system. Possible names: Patriotic Party, United Party or National Party. With Thomas Jefferson as its spiritual founder it should seek the political revolution he said was needed periodically.

Here is what helps. Despite considerable enthusiasm for Barack Obama, there is widespread unhappiness with both the Democratic and Republican Parties. One indication is that so many voters register as independents. Plus there has always been a chorus of negative views about the two-party system. In one pragmatic sense this is the ideal time to create a new party. Why? Because of the incredible loss of stature of the Republican Party. Why not envision a new party that could replace the Republican Party on the national stage and provide a sharp alternative to the Democratic Party? In other words, we don’t need a new third party as much as we need a new major party.

www.delusionaldemocracy.com

Joel S. Hirschhorn

BUZZFLASH MAILBAG

Technorati Tags: BuzzFlash Mailbag Palin Clinton Taxes