The Democrat's agenda restated

The Democrats have been, over the last year, increasingly efficient at expressing the party’s agenda. Howard Dean, speaking in New Orleans, laid out the main points of the plan.

Dean said that Democrats will fight for a six-point plan that includes raising the minimum wage, tax ``fairness'' for the middle class, ``a complete ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists,'' the inspection of all cargo coming into U.S. ports, fixing the Medicare drug plan and ``transition'' in Iraq.

This adds to what Rahm Emanuel, leading of congressional Democrats through the DCCC, laid out on Meet the Press:

(1) making college education affordable for every American; (2) holding a summit to fix the budget; (3) achieving energy independence in part by switching to a hybrid economy; (4) creating an institute on science and technology to spur American innovation; and (5) universal health care.

These ideas of course don’t show a policy shift, but merely list some Democratic ideals to make it easy for media outlets to report. Critics may cite the lack of new ideas, but ironically these are probably the same critics that said “the Democrats have to plan.” (embarrassingly for the Republicans, their site has a poll asking when the Democrats will reveal their agenda).

I’m more happy with Emanuel’s list, simply for the inclusion of affordable college education and universal healthcare, but I like Dean’s new list as well. Complete separation of lobbyist perks, as well as raising the minimum wage are very progressive values. These bold objectives are exactly what the Democrats need to trumpet up, and of course deliver on.

Democrats in 2008

John Kerry is considering running again in 2008. I like the guy, voted for the guy, and would vote for him again. But doesn’t it seem like common sense in politics that if you lose the first time around, you step aside and allow a new politician to try? The same goes for Al Gore, who has denied wanting to run again, but the suspicions are there. Only if there was a lack of new Democratic faces would I suggest they try again.

Let me also use this space to support Mark Warner for the Democratic nomination (thats him up there). I don’t think he officially announced that he is running, but he is. And he’s helping Democrats around the country to get elected. He was the governor of Virginia from 2001-2005, and had huge approval ratings (75%-80%) as a Democrat in a red state. He steps above partisan politics and puts forward practical solutions. When Democrats look at Bush, they don’t say, “I don’t like how he does Thing A, but at least he does Thing B.” It is hard to find something we like about George Bush. With Mark Warner, it could be different. Republicans may not like everything that he does, but most respect him, support him, and trust him. We need someone that can bring us together and work to solve our current and future problems. So my early support goes to Mark Warner. Do the research – its very early, but keep the name in the back of your mind. This is someone you’ll be hearing more of in the next year.

The (next) War

The conflict in Iran has garnered added attention this week and last, as Iran announced it had joined the nuclear club and could enrich uranium (note: they don’t and can’t have a bomb for at least 5 years). A rumor had come out that the US had considered using tactical nukes on Iran, and I didn’t even report it. It seemed so far fetched. At a later press conference, the President was asked point-blank if they were considering a tactical nuclear strike on Iran.

"All options are on the table," he said.

What!? Nuclear weapons?! That’s ridiculous! That’s the worst bit of diplomacy I could have dreamed of. This would make us out to be the bad guy in the situation, and we’re dealing with one of the craziest leaders in the modern world. Cooler heads certainly must prevail.

Harry Reid has stepped up and assured us that there is no military option for Iran; it must be worked out diplomatically. He blames the upsurge in Anti-American feelings on Bush’s horrible handling of the war in Iraq. I’m glad he came forward and said this, considering previously the talking point from Democrats was nothing or “All options are on the table.” We need Democrats to be the rational ones here. Just because they have the right position on the Iraq war doesn’t make them the best on the conflict with Iran. I hope to see more Democrats get behind Reid on this one.

My Senate Preditions for 2006

I have looked at the first quarter Senate campaign finances, and am happy with what I see. This is the list of fundraising that Democrats and Republicans have done for the Senate race this fall, including (and most importantly) their current cash on hand. Here’s what I found:

There are 10 races where the Democrat is set, with a combined $49,967,872 (Hillary has 19,703,421 of this, and will be saving for the Presidential unfortunately). On the other hand, 6 Republicans are set, with $15,639,020 cash on hand (Note: Lugar doesn’t have his numbers listed). There are 11 Races where money is needed for Democrats to help them win. Republicans are sitting on a large cash advantage here. Democrats could spread some money here and help out a lot.

All in all, I think that the only seat changes are as follows:

Pennsylvania: Santorum (R) loses to Bob Casey (D)

Montana: Burns (R) loses to John Morrison (D)

Rhode Island: Chaffee (R) loses to Whitehouse (D)

Ohio: Mike DeWine (R) loses to Sherrod Brown (D)

Missouri: Jim Talent (R) loses to Clare McCaskill (D)

These 5 are backed up by Rasmussen Reports, which tends to lean conservative.

I’m not as sure about John Ensign of Nevada losing to Carter, who is way behind with money. I also think the Dems can hold their positions. Not many seem to threatened, except in New Jersey and perhaps Minnesota. I think Dems will pick up 4-5 seats, because they might not overturn Nevada, and might lose on of the two just mentioned. I’d love to see 5 seats, tying us. This would mean Chaffee, a true moderate Republican, would be gone, so we wouldn’t really have too many moderate Republicans left. More moderate estimates still have Dems getting 2-3, noting Santorum was dead on arrival, Chaffee has problems in RI, and Burns might be arrested before the race, and if not, is in bad shape. I doubt Dems get all 6 pick ups, but it’s early, and I’m curious to see how my predictions stack up.

Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton (an anti-choice and pro-choice senator, respectively) have proposed a bill that would require health insurances to cover birth control. The bill includes providing accurate sex education to low-income women. The purpose is to avoid the abortions. It tackles the problem at the root (one reason why I like Democrats).

There is no question that the rate of unintended pregnancy is too high in the United States.

Half of the 6 million pregnancies each year in this country are unintended, and nearly half of these unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. It doesn't have to be this way.

The article cites that many insurance plans cover Viagra, but not birth control. I’d love to see abortions much fewer, but like these two senators, I know that outlawing abortion doesn’t solve the problem. The Prevention First Act will certainly help. Hopefully, a receptive congress can hear this bill next year (I doubt that this would pass or even get time on the floor in the current House and Senate).

Senator John McCain spoke last week on a few topics, including the war in Iraq. He proved that he was completely ignorant on the subject, or perhaps landed in the wrong country:

Overall though, the Iraq war has proven to be "far worse" than the Vietnam War, said the former Vietnam prisoner of war.

"When we left Vietnam, the Vietnamese didn't want to come after us. These people -- (Abu Musab ) al-Zarqawi, (Osama) bin Laden and others -- they want to come after us. They're not interested in Iraq as much as they're interested in destroying us and everything we stand for and believe in. There is a great deal at stake here," McCain said.

Osama and Iraq, together again. Even the President gave up on that one. It really gets me angry when people lie about September 11^th for political gain. But this is disappointing. Our senators should not confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.

Scott McClellan has resigned from his post as White House Press Secretary. It is unconfirmed if he was lying when he said this, but chances are this was a moment of candor. "I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott.” There are plenty of Republicans in this country. Even though his approval ratings are so low, I’m sure he can find someone who can lie until they believe it.

I'm looking forward to the Daily Show tonight; I'm sure they'll give him a great send off.