Turning the Tide: from the Great Recession to Job Creation

Here's some fab propaganda from the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) office. It also has the added benefit of being true. Enjoy, and share with friends...the more folks who see it, the better.



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault

Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Got a Question? The Obama Transition Team has Answers -- and Plenty of Sunlight

The Obama Presidential Transition continues to be one of the speediest ever -- this bodes well for the new president's ability to decisively govern in these chaotic times. While the team as tried to keep some things -- like the vetting of potential cabinet officers -- close to the vest, in other ways the transition process has been one of the most open and interactive in history. The Obama team is playing it smart, and converting their grassroots machinery from that of a get-out-the-vote operation to policy participation. This also bodes well for the new president's style -- because when it's all said and done, people just want to know they've been heard. Folks want a forum to vent, share ideas, connect -- and even if they are not happy with the end decision they are still much more likely to be supportive simply because they were part of the process. I expect this formidable machine will also soon be aimed at Congress -- in the form of constituent email and phone calls -- as the Obama administration seeks to implement some of its proposals.

Have you been participating in the transition process? I have -- through work via many many meetings, but also personally through the change.gov website. My professional interactions with the team have been productive and useful. The Transition Team clearly wants to hear from constituency groups, and are interested in concrete ideas -- not rhetoric. I have found this to be very refreshing -- I don't have to prove to them there's a (healthcare, economic, housing, crime, education, etc,) crisis -- they know this already. What the team cares about are serious suggestions for righting the ship. These meetings are public, in a sense, because of the Your Seat at the Table feature. Here you can view information submitted to the Transition Team -- they post EVERY document they get, so much so that advocacy organizations are now careful about what they give the team in writing. At the very beginning of the transition process, some stuff that was intended to be confidential -- that details strategy and opposition research, for example -- was posted, much to the senders' chagrin. Still, is there such a thing as too much sunlight? People are adapting, trust me.

The agency review teams are also drawing to a close, and their work has been critically important. The reviews teams are responsible for essentially evaluating the agencies to see what is happening as well as what is NOT happening, including what has been discontinued, shelved, overly politicized, or just plain screwed up beyond all recognition. From the web site:

The Agency Review Teams for the Obama-Biden Transition will complete a thorough review of key departments, agencies and commissions of the United States government, as well as the White House, to provide the President-elect, Vice President-elect, and key advisers with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration. The Teams will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in.

Impressively, most of the folks on the review teams are volunteers. Highly connected, very experienced, committed volunteers. Many used to work for the federal government before the Bush administration scared away anyone who was even remotely progressive, cared about good government, disagreed with them or, god forbid, were "out" Democrats. Yep, openly blue Democrats were often ousted after witch hunts -- you think it only happened at the Department of Justice? If only that were the case -- these last eight years have seen the most severe, crippling brain drain and loss of institutional memory the federal government has ever experienced, brought to you by Bush/Cheney and their minions. Now, these good people on the agency review teams -- some Democrats, some not, but all part of a Democratic government in exile -- have returned to try to clean up the mind-boggling mess that has been left for Obama and company.

You might already know that the Transition Team has also recently launched a new feature called Open for Questions. Thousands of people responded, asking more than 10,000 questions and voting nearly a million times on questions from others -- dictating which ones people most want the Transition Team to address. Now that the team has answered some of the most popular queries from the last round, the team is up for Round Two. You can ask whatever you like -- and are encouraged to go back to vote on the questions submitted by others. Answers to this latest round of questions will be posted after the New Year.

The Transition Team is also particularly interested in personal stories and feedback about the healthcare system, and ideas for reform in that area. Now through Dec. 31, healthcare discussions are being held throughout the country to help inform the new administration's plan. If you can't make it to one of these healthcare house parties, you can submit your own comments quite easily through the website.

You really should take a gander at the transition web site if you haven't already. You'll be pleasantly surprised -- perhaps even amazed -- at the open, interactive process that's been constructed. I think all this sunlight -- after eight years in the dark, being force fed fertilizer like a mushroom -- will make for a refreshing, productive change. But, it only works if you take part -- and speak your mind!


This blog has been nominated for the Bloggers' Choice '09 awards. Vote for The Zaftig Redhead!

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Sock and Awe: Need to Release Some Pent-up Aggression as the Bush Administration Limps to a Finish?

President George W. Bush likes to say that his administration is "sprinting to the finish." Well, I suppose if you count the continued trampling of our civil rights -- right up until Jan. 20th -- a form of sprinting, than he'd be right. Bush and his cronies are wasting no time in pushing through horrible new regulations -- as a lovely parting gift to the nation, including the President-elect who will have to clean up this mess.

From a horrible narrowing of the Family and Medical Leave rules, to the disastrous expansion of so-called "conscious exemptions" related to workers providing reproductive healthcare (simple stuff like birth control and referrals, not just abortion), to new permissible -- and scarily intrusive -- techniques for collecting information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing, to new environmental regs that create significant exceptions to rules requiring scientific review of any federal project that might harm endangered species or impact climate change. These rushed through regulations are a case of so little time, so much damage. Actually, here's a great chart of all the midnight regs coming down the pike.

So, if you're feeling a little additional antipathy towards W. and company in light of about 100 new regulatory missles aimed our way in these last weeks, I have a great suggestion for you to work out that aggression. Inspired by the now infamous Iraqi shoe hurler, some creative folks have created the Internet game, Sock and Awe. It's kinda like whack-a-mole, only you get to launch shoes at the president himself. At the time of this blogging, 33673756 shoes have successfully found the mark -- and presumably left one. The site also lists the top 25 "Bush Shoeing Countries;" not surprisingly, the United States tops the list, with France a close second. But you might be interested in the other 23 countries making up the list. Even the peace-loving Swiss are getting into the act.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Latest Stocking Stuffer: Bush Gets the Boot, Literally

"This is a farewell kiss, you dog!" shouted the protester, interrupting a press conference to hurl his shoes at President George W. Bush. Unbelievably, this craziness happened in Iraq -- surprising since I have a lot of friends who've waited a long time to see W. get the boot on American soil. While the Prime Minister heroically went for the block, Bush agilely ducked both shoes as they whizzed past his head and thudded against the wall behind him. He's not the most physically fit president we've ever had for nothing! "It was a size 10," Bush said later.

The Cy Young wannabe was later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo. Fascinating -- the hurler was a member of the media. Do you suppose Bush will give Al-Zeidi a nickname -- "Shoeless Muntadar" perhaps? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Of course, I'm not exactly sure what kind of reception W. was expecting during this farewell lap. It's what, 37 days before he passes the baton -- together with the un-freaking-believable mess he has created in just about every sector of society and the economy -- to President-elect Barack Obama. I'm guessing, however, that even Google maps couldn't help him find his way to a "Mission Accomplished" banner before he bows out for good.



12/18/08 Update: "Shoeless Muntadar," after becoming a folk hero for throwing his size ten's at George W. Bush, has asked the Iraqi government for a pardon. Further, an Egyptian man has offered the hand of his 20-year-old daughter to the journalist, and apparently the woman agreed -- because it would be an honor to marry such a man.

Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Best Political Ad I've Seen All Season -- And That's Saying Something

Congratulations to Progressive Future for an evocative spot that tugs at your heartstrings, managing to make you sad, angry and hopeful all at once. The music is a masterful choice, but the images seal the deal. The pictures remind us of the commonality of our experiences and that we're all in this together -- and that better days are ahead for all of us, and for this nation founded on the grandest of democratic principles.

Please VOTE.

Andy and Opie, Ritchie and the Fonz All Endorse Obama

Good guy Director Ron Howard had made a wonderful video, bringing back beloved TV characters to stump for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). For those of us who grew up on The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days, the clip is a fun walk down memory lane -- with a creative current events twist. Even better, Howard teamed up with former co-stars Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler to reprise their most famous roles.

The video is not a hyperbolic, liberal Hollywood endorsement -- not that there's anything wrong with that! But Howard doesn't take himself too seriously, and says he has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past -- but like so many of us, feels that this time around the country needs change. Go ahead, give the video a view. It's a welcome oasis in a sea of negativity.

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama, Condemns Robocalls -- but will not Campaign for the Democrat

In 2007, Gen. Colin Powell gave a political donation to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Yes, in the primary, Powell was pulling for the Maverick -- and calls him a "dear friend." But Powell has become increasingly concerned about the direction that the Republican party has taken, and Powell cites Gov. Sarah Palin's selection as further evidence of that troubling shift. On the subject of Palin (R-AK), Powell said, "She is a very distinguished woman and should be admired, but after watching her for the past six weeks I don't believe she is ready to be president. And that is an issue of McCain's judgement."

In coming to his decision, Powell said he watched both candidates over the past few weeks -- as a part of a sort of "final exam" as they dealt with the economic crisis. He talked about his concerns that McCain seemed less sure of himself in taking on these bread and butter economic issues, while Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) showed intellectual rigor and a steadiness that impressed W's former secretary of state.

As a result, Powell announced Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press that he will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama, citing the Democrat's "ability to inspire" and the "inclusive nature of his campaign."

"He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure," the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. Powell expressed real frustration and disappointment about the McCain campaign's overuse of 1960's radical William Ayers, and was genuinely troubled by their focus on such an inconsequential matter -- the RNC and McCain are still doing Ayers robo calls in many states -- while so many more important issues were begging for attention.

Powell also shared his concern about the Republican party's not-so-subtle pushing of the myth at Obama is Muslim -- and was eloquent in saying, "no, he's not, he's a Christian. But so what if he was? Why do we care? That's not American, that's not what this country is all about." Right on, General.

"Both John McCain and Barack Obama would be a good president. It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain has I have this morning," Powell went on to say. "Barack Obama will not only electrify the country, he will electrify the world."

Powell said he was not interested in returning to government, but out of respect would talk to any president who wished to speak to him. Powell in an Obama Administration -- in some way, shape, or fashion? It could happen, folks. It could happen. And the country would be better for it.

Take a listen to the inflammatory robocalls McCain-Palin and the RNC are making across the country.




Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

DC News Briefs: Lost Relatives, Historic Votes and ... Mani-Pedi's?

A few days ago I did my first DC News Briefs blog, and I find I like the format -- perfect for the latest juicy news from inside the beltway. So, friends, here's another installment of news tidbits direct from our nation's capital -- the strange, the remarkable, the trivial (but interesting), and some things guaranteed to piss you off. Expect this to become a regular feature -- hell, I'll even give DC briefs their own label.

A Record Vote in More Ways Than One: The Oct. 3 House vote on the $700 billion financial bailout package was historic in more ways than one. Aside from the massive socialization of risk/privatization of profits trade off that occurred, it was also notable because all members of the chamber showed up to cast their votes. Shamefully, this marked the first time in five years that the entire body had cast a simple yes or no on a piece of legislation. Way to go, team!

Palin and the Princess: Apparently VEEP candidate Sarah Palin is distantly related to Princess Diana and FDR. But she's not the only one with some presidential DNA -- apparently Barack Obama is related to Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford, and Bush 41 and Bush 43. Damn. McCain's got connections as well -- to Laura Bush, of all people, as well as King Louis VII of France. No wonder the Maverick has delusions of grandeur.

Uncle Sam Gives a Mani-Pedi: Less than a week after the federal government -- um, that would be you and me -- so generously offered an $85 billion bailout to insurance giant AIG, the company held a week-long retreat for its executives at the luxury St. Regis Resort in California, running up an astonishing tab of $440,000. The executives spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa. No wonder AIG needed that additional loan of $38 billion just to make ends meet.

Remember the First Stimulus? October 15 is the last day to file for those stimulus rebates. At last count, at least 4.3 million Americans had yet to claim their $300 to $600 booty. You can find out if you're eligible for the debt-funded windfall on a prior blog I did on the topic. By the way, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is still talking about another stimulus bill -- the House passed a measure just before they recessed, but the Senate failed to follow suit.

Voter Suppression Rears its Ugly Head Again... and Again, and Again: According to an investigation by the New York Times, upwards of tens of thousands of eligible voters in as many as six swing states have been removed from the registration rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that might to violate federal law.

Obama Makes Record Ad Buy: Already advertising at record levels, Barack Obama has scheduled a half-hour commercial for prime time on Oct. 29, six days before Election Day. I guess he's betting that he can lure people from FOX, who will showing the sixth game of the World Series at the same time -- or perhaps, now that Chicago's teams are out of the running, he just doesn't give a crap. The Obama campaign has lined up a 30-minute block of time at 8p.m. on both NBC and CBS -- the latter of which is already pushing back "The New Adventures of Old Christine" to sell the time. The campaign is still working on ABC.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Denver's Inclusiveness versus St. Paul's Police State

I'm on my way back from St. Paul, leaving behind the 2008 Republican National Convention and all its sarcasm and right wingnuts, half truths and outright lies. Phew! But as I leave, there are a few observations I need to make that go beyond the typical speech analysis and punditry. Bear with me. :)

-- It's become clear to me that Democrats are liberal arts majors (I know I am) and Republicans are business majors -- and there is a big difference in how the two types run a convention. Denver was one long line after another, and getting into the Pepsi Center each night was a bloody nightmare. St. Paul went like clockwork, logistically speaking -- even Hurricane Gustav didn't trip 'em up. I never waited in line to get into St. Paul's Xcel Energy Center, even though security was scarily tight. I guess such narrow-minded focus (and I do mean narrow) pays off sometimes.

-- Denver's 16th Street Mall witnessed peaceful protests every day, with little problem or fuss. St. Paul was a police state with troops in full riot gear lining the streets, tear-gassing and scatter bombing protesters who had not, by and large, done much to deserve it. In fact, the riot patrols were everywhere, and actually discouraged me from attending some events -- I'm guessing that was most likely their intent. I am mad that I allowed my civil liberties to be infringed upon in that way, but rather than making me feel safe all those cops wearing splash shields, guns and billy clubs just scared the shit out of me. I decided to stay as far away from them as possible -- and I'm glad I did. Hell, I'm lucky they didn't arrest me as a spy, for being a stranger in a strange land and all that. I clearly had not drunk the Kool-aid.

-- There are depressingly few Republican women elected to Congress, and fewer still in leadership positions. And lots of moderates -- particularly the women -- stayed away from the convention altogether, not wanting to be tainted by the right wing spectacle and the Bushies in their tough re-election fights. While Denver was Diversity Central, St. Paul was absolutely the domain of straight white men. That explains the word on the street that the hookers were hopping in St. Paul. In Denver there was only a slight uptick in johns looking for dates -- but nothing like the Twin Cities bonanza. Apparently "they" had to bus in more prostitutes to meet the demand. Some family values, huh?

-- In Denver, just about every speaker had sincere, good things to say about John McCain. They disagreed politically with the Maverick, usually vociferously, but none of the speakers doubted his patriotism or courage, and they lauded his amazing personal story. In St. Paul, the only speaker I heard say something nice about Sen. Barack Obama was former Gov. Mike Huckabee (bear in mind I was traveling during McCain's big night, so maybe when I watch the replay he'll surprise me and have said good things as well). The rest of the Republicans at the podium? Well, they were just mean. Sarcastic. If all you watched of the convention was Gov. Sarah Palin, they were all like that -- condescending and nasty.

-- I agree that a good amount of the press coverage of Gov. Sarah Palin has been imbued with sexist stereotypes, both overt and covert. The very idea that a woman should be excluded from consideration for any job simply because she is a mother is fundamentally offensive. But, I also have to say, the Republicans suddenly getting religion on the topic of sexist media coverage is disingenuous and transparent. Where the hell were they when Hillary was being excoriated? When Hillary nutcrackers were the hottest holiday gift? Yes, the coverage of Palin has been problematic in some ways. But don't conveniently get a conscience about media sexism as a way to self-righteously sidestep the tough and entirely valid questions about experience and qualifications.

-- Wednesday night pissed me off for all kinds of reasons -- but it really pissed me off when one speaker after another disparaged Obama's work as a community organizer. Clearly, these folks have no idea what the hell that is or the good such work can do -- which is especially ironic since so much community organizing takes the place of programs the Republicans have axed, or addresses problems their lousy, short-sighted, care-only-about-the-rich polices have produced.

I am so glad to be home. Seriously. The entire atmosphere in St. Paul was oppressive, but it was also eye opening. I was submerged in the opposition's camp, and I certainly wasn't in Obama's Kansas anymore. After this experience, I sure as hell do not want to live the next four years in McCain-Palin Land, with the the Stepford delegates and evangelical automatons. While the walk on the Red Side was an education, it's good be back in my Blue life. Damn straight, Toto, there is no place like home.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

McClellan's "Revelations" Just the Tip of the Unsavory Iceberg

Republican swift boats are armed and already firing at former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, whose tell-all book -- What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception -- isn't scheduled for release until June 2 but is already making the scandal rounds in our nation's capital. Given that Congress is out enjoying its Memorial Day Recess, this has definitely been the talk of the town.

McClellan, who resigned just two years ago after an Administration shake up, has written a book that by all reports is likely an early and -- my guess -- fairly tame precursor to the nasty offal that will be uncovered about this most destructive of Administrations; the tip of the unsavory, unconstitutional iceberg yet to come as investigations come to light and other former employees step forward with diarrhea of the mouth.

While there does not appear to be a whole lot of new "news" here -- the Bush Administration shaded the truth about Iraq prior to the invasion? Duh. The West Wing ran an all-out, Iraq War PR campaign aided by a complicit White House Press Corps? Gee, ya think? Cheney's a devious mastermind who manages to cover his tracks by polluting the Constitution at every turn? Um, yeah, we got that -- he's Darth Vader, except there's no good left in him whatsoever. Karl Rove lied about outting Valerie Plame to the planet? That news is older than John McCain. Bush is an out of touch leader incapable of admitting he's made a mistake? Holy smokes, Batman -- McClellan's on fire.

To me, it is the fact that this not-so-new news is being bandied about by a former Bush Administration insider, someone who was part of the circle for more than a decade, that is so striking. And it is the fact that McClellan did not wait until after his former boss had left office to write such a critical tell-all piece -- as is customary -- that is so notable. Bush prizes loyalty above just about everything, and McClellan just gave him the finger. Interesting. It makes me wonder just how many other Bush insiders are also disgusted by the excesses of this Administration and are chafing at the bit for the right opportunity to reveal juicier secrets and share their own unflattering opinions.

"What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary," McClellan reportedly writes in the book. Boy Howdy, Scott. You do have a gift for understatement. But don't think this let's you off the hook. Don't think this book somehow absolves you. You are still complicit. While it took some stones to write this book when you did, it would have been infinitely better if you'd grown a pair and and actually spoken up at the time.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Reaping the Results of Seven Years of Failed Federal Abstinence-only Sex Education Policies

I've been a bit blocked lately. I think I am suffering from some election-related fatigue. But I also realized that in some ways, in writing about so many election-related topics, I'd fallen into the same trap as the mainstream media -- and in so doing was neglecting some of the real policy issues before us at the expense of maintaining such a close focus on the horserace. So, back to the policy stuff tonight -- and please, if you have topics you'd like me to explore, just let me know. Ideas and suggestions are always welcome.

A statistic recently slapped me in the face, and inspired today's topic. According to the first national study of the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among young women ages 14 to 19, one in four are infected with at least one of the most common STDs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, released in mid-March, also found that nearly 50 percent of African-American teenage girls were infected with an STD.

The alarming results of this study are the manifestation of failed government policies coming home to roost -- and our children are reaping what we've sown. What's so disturbing is that most STDs are largely preventable. "Clearly young people do not have the information and skills they need to protect themselves," said Joseph DiNorcia, Jr., president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Gee, you think? I wonder why?

This CDC study should motivate policymakers, both on the state and federal levels, to finally get their head out of their collective asses and provide responsible, age-appropriate, comprehensive sexuality education to young people. Rather than continuing to pour good tax money after bad into failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, the federal government must deal with the hard truth that teenagers are having sex, and are woefully ignorant of how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy. We have to arm young people with knowledge about prevention methods -- how else can we begin to see declines in these staggering figures?

And more and more states are seeing the light. In February, Iowa became the 17th state in the union to withdraw from the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage block grant program -- effectively telling President Bush and his thought police that they could keep their money -- and that they'd educate their kids about sex in the way they thought was most appropriate, thank you very much.

Why would states take the extreme step of turning down money from the feds? Because, believe it or not, there is no federal funding stream dedicated to comprehensive sexuality education programs. Since 1982 our federal government has spent at least $1.5 billion on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs -- over $800 million of which has been spent during the Bush administration. These ideologically-driven programs are not allowed to discuss contraceptives except in terms of failure rates, and have never been proven to be effective. A congressionally mandated study, released last year, found that students in abstinence-only programs were no more likely to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex, had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at pretty much the same age.

Comprehensive sexuality education is not really so scary. And yes, it includes abstinence discussions and ideas for delaying sexual activity. But it also provides kids with the information and decision-making skills they need to make good choices. Such programs cover a wide rage of of topics related to sexuality and provide medically-accurate facts free of outdated stereotypes -- something those abstinence-only programs don't do. Comprehensive sexuality runs throughout the school years, and provides information on topics such as sexual development, reproductive health, relationships, affection, intimacy, body image, and gender roles. It also helps young people develop communication, decision-making, and other personal skills to help them become sexually healthy adults. Duh.

Congress is beginning its work on the federal budget. In an absolutely shameless move last year, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, cut a deal that kept the abstinence-only program alive and well. We can't let him do it again this year. Email or call Rep. Obey and tell him not to cave so quickly on a bad deal this year. Tell him it's time -- once and for all -- to end federal mandates for abstinence-only education programs, and instead create funding streams for comprehensive sexuality education.

You can also send an email to your representative, asking them to co-sponsor the Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R. 819), which according to the American Association of University Women includes "a myriad of provisions that would expand access to contraception and preventative health care services that help reduce unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases while improving access to women's health care; it would also provide a federal funding stream for comprehensive sex education in schools." Sounds like a plan to me.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

4000: Freedom Isn't Free, but Hubris Takes Its Toll As Well

This week, our nation hit a bleak milestone -- 4000 -- the number of servicemembers killed while fighting in Iraq. It was a roadside bomb on Saturday; an explosion that took the lives of three American soldiers just north of Baghdad. And now, the U.S. death toll in the five-year conflict stands at 4000 -- sadly, it has likely climbed higher even as I write this entry.

Here are some other sobering statistics: an average of one servicemember is killed every day, and seven more are wounded -- every day (ABC News, 3/23/08). Forty of the slain servicemembers were just 18 -- they couldn't buy a beer legally, but they were old enough to die for their country. Another 24 were over age 50; 102 of the war dead are women. We hear the statistics a lot on the nightly news. But for every statistic, there is a face. A mother's son, a father's daughter, a wife's husband, a sister. So many dads and brothers and sons. Too many gold star moms. Faces, not statistics. Their families and friends grieve for their loss, and there is a hole that is left that cannot be filled, only survived.

And still countless more stand vigil, worrying until their loved ones come home safely -- waiting for this tour of duty to be up, hoping against hope there will not be another one. I've watched my mother face her fears about a son in a submarine a thousand miles away, and it was no picnic. But that was also peacetime -- I cannot imagine the fear when active combat is involved. That is the human cost of this war -- and it goes beyond statistics, beyond the trillions spent. It's the faces and the families whose lives are irrevocably changed, it's the lives lost and the bodies broken, it's the changes that come even if families are lucky enough to have their soldier home safely.

Our country mourns these losses, too -- but it seems to me that the nature of this war has let a lot of us do that mourning from a distance, in an almost sterile way. This is an all-volunteer war, with active duty servicemembers and reservists bearing the worst of the burden. For a lot of us -- people of good will though we may be -- we have the rather amazing luxury of going through our day-to-day lives and not constantly being reminded that we are a nation at war. There is something inherently wrong with that state of affairs.

But I don't pretend to have the answers, either. I am not a pacifist. Unfortunately, violence sometimes is necessary to protect what we hold dear, to defend our homeland and our way of life, to ensure that enduring American ideals are preserved for generations to come. Our efforts in Afghanistan represent this kind of response; our nation was attacked on 9/11, and the threat of Muslim extremists is still keen. It was imperative that we respond.

But Iraq is different. We invaded that country without provocation. Oh, to be sure, we got rid of a despot and a bully in Saddam Hussein. But it was an act of aggression based on a combination of hubris and bad intelligence -- apparently some people in the Bush administration knew just how bad that information was even before they sent our troops into harms way, and embroiled the nation in this mess. Truthfully, I'm dreading the information that's going to come to light once this administration leaves town -- the tell all's, the files declassified, their arrogance exposed in the sunshine of a (hopefully) Democratic administration. We have only scratched the surface.

But the lies and half-truths of this administration in no way diminish the honor and service of those who answered the call. If anything, it paints a vivid dichotomy between those motivated by unspeakable hubris and those who loyally and selflessly serve their country. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude, and we also have the responsibility to care for them when they come home -- to see them through whatever physical or psychological wounds they've sustained while doing their jobs. The Veterans Administration, the Defense Department, Homeland Security -- whatever agencies involved -- as well as Congress need to pony up the resources and programs to ensure our servicemembers get the best care, the best assistance, through a system that is compassionate rather than suspicious of their condition.

As for the rest of us, we'd do well to remember that freedom isn't free, and there is a price being paid by our neighbors -- who stoically complain little and pray a lot. What they need from us is more than simple words of respect, they need action. This election season, ask your candidates how they intend to address the war in Iraq. But also ask them about funding for the Veterans Administration and associated agencies serving our military, about long-term rehabilitation for vets and college aid for kids who lost their parents in the war. Ask them about homeless vets, military families going broke and losing their homes as their reservist spouses are overseas, and how we can help reservists when they come home who often don't get full military benefits. It's our duty as citizens to ask these questions, and our responsibility as neighbors to demand answers -- and action. It is the very least we can do.





Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Who's the Better Bet Against McCain?

There are clear and obvious differences between both Democratic candidates and Republican frontrunner-again John McCain. Lots of folks, however, think that Clinton and Obama are similar enough on the critical policy points -- despite style differences -- that the larger question facing party loyalists is which of the two makes a stronger showing against the Maverick.

One of the biggest bones of contention between Democrats and Republicans is, of course, the war in Iraq and the overall conduct of the War on Terror. While I think both Democrats could score easy points against McCain's intractable position, there is no denying that Obama has an advantage here. It's a no-brainer for McCain (or some swiftboat-like entity) to accuse Clinton of being just as complicit in the move towards war because she also voted yes on the Iraq War resolution. Obama, on the otherhand, can say McCain showed poor judgment on the Iraq War from the get go, and Mr. Surge has no defense against that. (As Obama said in the most recent debate -- sure, Clinton has experience from day one, but it's better to be right from day one.) Democrats looking to cast their vote strategically might not want to let this obvious rhetorical and policy advantage slip through their fingers by choosing a nominee that also voted for the war.

Of course, the war has a flip side as a voting issue. There is no denying we are waist-deep into the mess, and the idea of experienced leadership to pull us out of it is not only attractive but reasonable. In times of war, Americans have often been reassured by turning to veterans. The Republicans have a bona fide war hero in McCain. While the top two Democrats don't have military experience, Clinton does have a lot of experience, period -- which could be an important counterpoint to a nation weary of war that's also in the process of selecting a new president. Of course, there are still lingering gender stereotypes about a woman as commander-in-chief, but I think Clinton's confident manner puts a lot of them to rest.

There is another factor to consider. The right-wing base -- including the all-important talk radio royalty as well as TV talking heads and bloggers -- has its knickers in a twist over the idea of riding the Straight Talk Express all the way to the White House. They are scared spitless that McCain is a closet liberal -- there are even attack ads running to that effect, designed with an eye towards derailment. Interestingly enough, while Republicans like to bash Clinton as a lefty liberal, it's Obama who has the truly liberal record. In fact, for 2007, the National Journal rated Obama as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate -- compared to a relatively middle of the pack composite rating of 16th for Hillary. This liberal tag is sure to be used against Obama, but then again it will be used against Clinton, too, however inaccurately -- so this one's a draw. Besides, I'm tired of running from the word liberal like my mama's coming after me to wash my mouth out with soap. It's time we reclaimed it, with pride.

Unfortunately, about the only thing that can rally the entire vast right wing conspiracy behind John McCain might be -- Hillary Clinton. I've always thought the way she's been demonized was grossly unfair, not to mention inaccurate -- then again, considering the source, truth-telling was not exactly the first priority. I mean, what has Hillary really done to earn such animosity, besides stand by her hugely successful, philandering husband? Wait, maybe it's the hugely successful husband part -- despite the mud and special prosecutors and impeachments thrown his way. Hillary Clinton is polarizing by association, because right wingers have spent the better part of two decades unsuccessfully trying to convince the American people that Bill Clinton was the devil incarnate. Fair or foul, the right wing can't wait to go to war against the Clintons again -- and they will marshall resources the likes of which we've never seen to stop a Hillary presidency. Conversely, if it's Obama versus McCain in the final round, they just might dislike McCain more -- due to simple muscle memory. But, let's face it, the reflex to hate Hillary is stronger. No way around it -- it's a liability that has got to be factored into the equation.

Perhaps most importantly, voters are overwelmingly in favor of change this election cycle. If Obama is running, he is clearly the candidate of change. If Clinton is running, McCain could almost make an argument that you would get more change out of a Maverick White House than you would under another Clinton administration. It's that whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty thing. We've had a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket since 1980 -- think about it. Then again, Hillary's assertion that it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it well might take another Clinton to clean up after the last Bush, has a certain appeal.

Then again, all this strategic analysis about who's a better bet against McCain might not be as relevant as in prior election cycles. This year, I think it's universally understood that a pure base strategy loses in the end. You need independents, and you need the youth vote who -- while more reliably Democratic, also has an independent streak. Given the whole John Kerry debacle, I'm not sure that voting for the person you think is the most electable is the best choice. I say, go with your gut -- and go for a historic first in the White House in November, as long as it's a Democrat.

Independents, Don't be Fooled: McCain is NOT a Moderate

John McCain is in many ways an admirable man. He's a war hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton with his dignity intact, and has served his country through the armed forces and in elected office. On some key issues, like campaign finance reform and immigration, he has tried to work across the aisle to seek a workable compromise. He prides himself on being a straight shooter, telling you what he thinks whether you like the taste of the medicine or not -- and a few times after he subverted his straight-talking instincts (like the confederate flag issue in South Carolina a few years ago), he has even righted his course and admitted his politically-induced lip service. And he has been blunt and unwavering in his disdain for U.S.-government-sanctioned torture, not hiding his deep disappointment that the United States has sunk to that new low. All of these things make for a good public servant and a good politician. As I said, John McCain is an admirable man. However, he is absolutely, postively, NOT moderate in his politics -- not even a little bit. And we'd all do well to remember that when we consider the kind of president he would make -- especially you independents.

I know some of you would like to believe otherwise, especially since both of our Democratic candidates have managed to make themselves look pretty unattractive of late (though they were better in tonight's debate). And now that McCain seems to have a good head of steam -- even the beginnings of an aura of inevitablity -- you might be looking at him seriously for the first time, all over again. But don't let the endorsements of the New York Times, Rudy Guiliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger fool you. Remember that McCain also has the hearty support of such stauch social conservatives as Govs. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rick Perry (R-TX), fellow senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and and Tom Coburn (R-OK), and former senator Phil Gramm (R-TX). And for god's sake, don't put any credence in the endorsement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); in fact, that should give you pause. The allegiance of a turncoat is not a valuable statement, nor can it be trusted.

Just take a look at McCain's voting record on progressive issues, on social issues, on labor issues, on education issues, on women's issues. In the 109th Congress, he had a 20% voting record with the American Association of University Women, getting credit for a vocational education vote that went through 99-0. In 2006, McCain had a 7% voting record with the AFL-CIO, having only voted the right way on the Voting Rights Act -- another popular measure that went through largely unopposed. That same year he received a 15% rating from Americans for Democratic Action. There are more voting records on the Zaftig Redhead's main page, where you can guage McCain's support on issues you care about. Take a look, but even on the issues where you might be reassured -- like his vote against the marriage amendment last year -- don't count on the fact that his position will stay firm now that he's got Pennsylvania Avenue on his mind.

Remember that immigration compromise he worked on earlier? McCain is now back-pedaling from that bill -- which he co-authored -- as quickly and as publicly as he can. In truth, he may be one of the bigger flip floppers in the campaign, having seen the error of his ways in 2000 when he had the gumption to skip Iowa and diss the evangelical, conservative block in the Republican party. As a result, on issues like gay marriage to making the Bush tax cuts permanent to repealing Roe v. Wade -- McCain has changed his mind, pandering to the religious right since his speech at Bob Jones University, and even more so the closer he got to the nomination.

On other critical issues, like judicial nominations, healthcare, student aid, broader reproductive rights, pay equity issues and the minimum wage, McCain has been distressingly, depressingly, consistently conservative. This, despite always being a target of the civil rights community as a potential swing vote on the issues that matter most, McCain rarely comes through -- in 2007, only about 15% of the time.

So let's just be clear. Despite whatever appeal he may have as a person, whatever we might rightly admire in his life story and character, no matter how much we might like to have a beer with the man, McCain is a conservative. Indeed, he keeps saying so himself -- over and over and over again, in every Republican debate this campaign season. We should take him at his word on this one, folks. On the issues that matter most to progressives -- from civil rights to reproductive rights, from domestic budget priorities to his selections for the U.S. Supreme Court -- he will be a socially and fiscally conservative president. (NOTE: I do not believe that fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative are the same thing; they are, in fact, very different things.) McCain is not, in fact, all that much different from President Bush in his social positions -- just as McCain is not all that different from the president on Iraq. I don't mean to imply McCain would be anything like the unprincipled leader we have now. But I do believe John McCain would be a consistent president -- consistently conservative. Please, happy voters, don't be fooled -- not if you truly want change this election season.

SOTU: Bush, Version W.7

For the seventh and final time, George W. Bush addressed the Congress and the nation about the state of our union. Thanks to you, Mr. President, the country is in deep shit. Tonight you came to Capitol Hill with your lame duck, lame ass wish list. Here's a few of the more brazen highlights:

• Faith-based initiatives that don't just blur the line between church and state, they trample it -- unrepentantly proselytizing, shoving your version of religion down the throats of people who come looking for basic social services. You want Congress to make them permanent.
• Precious public funds being siphoned off into private schools through the DC voucher program -- which, oh by the way, were mainly given to students already in private schools, not those needy kids in underperforming schools you like to use as smokescreen. Oh, and civil rights -- like Title IX -- don't apply in these private schools now mooching off the public trust. But no matter, you'd like the program to go nationwide.
• Injecting religion into science, effectively scuttling promising breakthroughs on such things as stem cell research and delaying the over-the-counter availability of critical alternatives like emergency contraception. You still think it's the government's role to hamstring critical research based on your own narrow moralistic viewpoint, and plan to withhold federal funds to ensure your agenda.
• Short-sighted, selfish tax cuts that sent the country further into debt and only benefit the rich -- not so much as a trickle has trickled down. These, too, you'd like Congress to make permanent -- you know, because the middle class is doing sooooo well.
• Renewing No Child Left Behind, the teach-to-the-test unfunded mandate you and Ted Kennedy thrust on the states five years ago. A circuit court recently slapped your hand and said you can't force state and local governments to underwrite your schemes anymore, and Teddy seems unwilling to be duped by you again. Still, you like the high stakes testing cuz it lets you find some measure, somewhere, that shows some group of students has improved. Let's see you put lipstick on this particular pig.
• Preemptive wars that cripple our economy and undercut critical domestic programs and -- oh yeah -- have made us the most reviled country the world over. Yeah, yeah, you think the surge is working, you want more money, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, our fighting men and women get extended stays overseas, less time at home, and a crippled and underfunded Veterans Administration either unable or unwilling to treat our soldiers with the dignity they deserve. Shame on you. (My brother's a vet, pal -- I am particularly hawkish on this one.)
• Constant patriotic platitudes while you question the patriotism of those who dare to disagree or criticize your policies, and barely concealed scare tactics used to con people into believing that giving up their civil liberties is a fair price for freedom. The latest is your recommendation that we give retroactive immunity to the telephone companies that violated our right to privacy under the auspices of your administration's illegal wiretapping witch hunt.

That's quite the parade of horribles. Impressive, really. Prior to the speech, President Bush went to great lengths to say he was not feeling the least bit nostalgic about his last State of the Union address, that there was no sentimentality about this event that marks the beginning of his last year in office. Gotta tell ya, George, I'm not feeling particularly nostalgic myself. In fact, January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough. But since you were so kind to share your list of recommendations with the people tonight, here's one for you: don't let the East Wing door hit you on the ass on your way out.