Comments
Posted by billclausen on November 27 at 3:18 p.m.
"Jackson sounded weary but unrelentingly upbeat in saying she has not yet had time to reflect on anything she might have done differently in the campaign to make up the exquisitely tiny difference between victory and defeat."
There are some of us who have observed her behavior over time and I have little doubt that what I've seen, so have others. To Wit:
Back when she was running for office a few years back, (I think it was in 2000) she used the argument that the implementation of school vouchers raised issues of church/state separation because money they provided could be used for religious schools. (Bear in mind that there are secular private schools as well where the money could be spent) This argument is flat out wrong because it isn't the *government* which decides how the money is spent, but the *parents* who make that decision. Using her logic, that would mean that the G.I. bill would have to be eliminated because a soldier could spend it to go to a religious university of *their* choice, and to take the argument to its seemingly absurd yet logical extreme, welfare would have to be done away with because someone could take some of the money from their welfare check and drop it into the collection plate at their church. At the time, I wrote her three times--twice by e-mail once by snail mail raising these points--if she responded the response never got back to me.
I can speculate as to why Jackson (and the Democrats) are so defensive about school vouchers, but what I *do* know is that for all of her pro-choice rhetoric when it comes to abortion, she sure isn't pro-choice when it comes to working-class parents being able to decide what sort of institution will educate their kids. For that matter, neither are the Democrats when they speak as an organized party. (continued)
Posted by billclausen on November 27 at 3:19 p.m.
(part 2 of 2)
About a year and a half ago, when Hillary Clinton was running for president looking as though she would win, Jackson was on the Paul Berenson show, (www.paulb.com) she was saying that all things being equal, we needed a woman president. She was also saying that she had opposed the war from the beginning but of course failed to mention that Hillary Clinton had voted for this war. Noting her inconsistency, I called the show and pointed out that all things are *not* equal because unlike Clinton, Dennis Kucinich had been against the war from the beginning, pointing out that if Bush in fact had lied about the war, that meant Kucinich was smart enough to see through the lie but Clinton wasn't smart enough to see through this (assuming Clinton simply wasn't playing both sides of the war debate by voting "yes" and then opposing the war for which she voted) and as such Jackson should support Kucinich since she had been saying on the show that she was against the war from the beginning. She instead evaded the topic by saying that we need to put Clinton's voting record behind us and pointed out that nobody is perfect and that we should support her nonetheless. So what's my point?..party politics and perhaps gender prejudice win out over idealogical consistency. Since Berenson archives his shows on his website, you can listen to this exchange.
I'm not here to say whether or not Strickland is good or bad, so if other bloggers want to attack me as a Strickland stooge don't waste your time. The issue here is that I've pointed out Jackson's history of twisting facts around for her political gain, or, in the best case scenario, her incompetence. My advice to party-line Democrats is this: If you want to win, thoroughly examine the issues and learn them and make sure your candidate has irrefutable arguments based on fact rather than social or personal agenda.
Posted by at large on November 27 at 7:34 p.m.
$10,000,000 and 415,000 votes equals about $24 per vote. Shocking.
Although I, a good Democrat but no Jackson admirer, reluctantly voted for her this time around, I truly hope she does not run again for anything --- and that this statement is not an indication that we have to put up with another Jackson show: "But I'm going to try to stay involved. I really feel like I have something to offer."
Posted by Daisy on November 28 at 7:36 a.m.
Bill, if that's all you've got, you should join Travis Armstrong in the line of HBJ trashers without ammunition. As for the voucher issue, in 2002 -- after HBJ took her position on vouchers, the Supreme Court said, in a widely condemned 5-4 decision, that a Cleveland voucher program was constitutional, but only because it offered sufficient secular as well as religious choices. All your nonsense about comparing school vouchers (where public agencies take money away from public education to give it to other educational resources) to other government benefits has no bearing on anything. Surely the question was severely in doubt in 2000, and there was no shame in taking the anti-voucher position.
As for Hillary, while I was no supporter of HRC (and I doubt you are using Kucinich as anything but a stalking horse for your desire to trash HBJ), there are many who were willing to overlook her pro-war vote and still support her. That doesn't make those people hypocrites, and politics isn't anything if not occasionally illogical or based on factors other than strict geometrical consistent rationality. Why, I bet if we tried hard enough we might be able to discern flaws in even your holier than thou positions.
Posted by hank on November 28 at 9:18 a.m.
Daisy, like Bill you have an opinion & it happens to be in favor of HBJ, as opposed to Bill's.
I also have an opinion & it is based on her attempt to play party line politics w/ her constituency.
That was proven in the incident I often refer to as the "squawk box incident" in the Capitol Building.
The attempt to prolong the budget crisis @ the expense of her constituency & blame it on those evil Republicans was a Nixonian attempt @ manipulating politics.
Yeah, even the Democrats learn from those they accuse of everything.
Personally, I'm glad her reign is over because all she ever sought to do was marginalize matters on a purely party line basis w/ no attempt to reach across the aisle when help was needed.
This "go it alone" mentality works in purely partisan matters, but when you have the people of the Republic of California hostage to your little games, well, it gets taken personal.
Remember these 2 things:
1) Opinions are like a certain body cavity, everybody has 1.
2) Politician, from the Greek word "poly" meaning many & the English word "tick" meaning bloodsucking parasite :) henry
Posted by Dr Dan on November 28 at 10:40 a.m.
How unfortunate Hannah Beth lost given that a huge margin in the LA gerrymandered "rump" (only 7% of total) essentially rendered the rest of us useless. At the same time, HBJ and most Democrats were against Prop 11 which hopefully rids us of such gerrymandered monstrosities like this district and like that of Lois Capps. Lois can win in any district.
HBJ has given much time and energy and service to people in this area, and I am grateful to her.
Posted by jerryroberts on November 28 at 5:04 p.m.
Dr. Dan: For the record, Jackson (and Strickland) endorsed Prop. 11 during the campaign. As you note, however, most other Democrats opposed it.
Posted by billclausen on November 28 at 10:24 p.m.
"Why, I bet if we tried hard enough we might be able to discern flaws in even your holier than thou positions." (Daisy, in response to my post)
OK, so go ahead and discern them, but until you do, your threats to do so have no substance.
"As for the voucher issue, in 2002 -- after HBJ took her position on vouchers, the Supreme Court said, in a widely condemned 5-4 decision, that a Cleveland voucher program was constitutional, but only because it offered sufficient secular as well as religious choices." (Daisy, to my post)
Daisy: From the look of things, you are making my point because you are saying that vouchers *do* offer choice.
What you are doing is attacking me with conjecture and hyperbole and not addressing the points that I've raised. If you want credibility, address the points people raise and don't throw in off-topic comments.
As for Travis Armstrong, he is a separate issue who has no bearing on why I *independently* decided that I don't care for HBJ's approach, so I don't know why you link me with him.
In short, you fail to address my points and you are trying to get the issue off topic because so far you have nothing to refute my points.
Posted by at_large on November 30 at 8:52 a.m.
Bill Clausen: "...that Hillary Clinton had voted for this war." This is often written, but in fact that vote was to give the president authorization should he so choose. Important distinction, imho.
What she, a Senator from NY, referencing 9/11 and its effects on NYC as well as her years living in the White House, said was: "This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. ... A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort." Obama was not in the Senate then to have to make that vote but it's likely that he would agree with what Clinton said in her speech.
Posted by billclausen on November 30 at 6:53 p.m.
at_large: I accessed and read the above link you posted. My criticism is not so much against Clinton herself, but against those who criticize Bush for the war, while not criticizing Clinton as well. Clearly her speech indicates that she was laying out a strong case for preparing for war, which would tell me that right or wrong, she shared Bush's feelings about the war.
Posted by Natty Bumpo on December 2 at 8:57 p.m.
Can I change the subject to Jerry Roberts?
Bravo to Mr. Roberts for a GREAT job in covering a
complex, 3-ring circus of a campaign that seemingly
would not end!
This was/is journalism of a high order. I hope he
continues his column for a long time to come.
Job well done, sir!
Previous Month
