Sunday, June 04, 2006
Reprinted Courtesy of
Heights Mom
This is the majority of the Sherrod Brown speech (I did not make it to the stage that quickly so a little at the very beginning is missing). I hope you enjoy it. I am pretty sure this is a HeightsMom exclusive since most of the other bloggers with recording capabilities have already made up thier mind about Sherrod Brown and I suspect stopped listening to his speech when he started talking about workers rights - heck - I bet they stopped listening after Sherrod talked about how wonderful and talented his wife was! :-) Ahhh bloggers!
Some quotes from the speech...
100 years ago a child born in this country had a life expectancy of about 45 years. Today we live... 3 decades longer becuse of what progressive government has done - workers compensation, minimum wage, mine safety, medicare, social security, safe drinking water laws, clean air laws, prohibition of child labor - all of the things progressives in government have fought for. All the things the civil rights movement fought for - and the womens movement and the trade union movement - and the enviromentalist. From people of faith who fought for a better government and pushed thier government to move forward... We live thirty years longer partly because of high tech medicine and partly because of miracle drugs but MOSTLY because progressive Democrats have fought to help people live longer healthier lives...
Let me for a moment tell you for a second about this race for the Ohio Senate..we are rasiing money... we have started phone banking in many of the counties that John Kerry lost... but I've noticed the way the media covers this race is they keep talking about "POOR MIKE DEWINE" ... the iraq war is going bad, medicare is going bad, energy prices are up, Tom Noe is going to prison, it is "POOR MIKE DEWINE" to be in this situation. But, let me tell you something about "POOR MIKE DEWINE" from the moment that he was sworn in in January of 01, when George Bush was sworn in that same month - Mike Dewine has been a Rubberstamp for Gerge Bush. On the Iraq War - Mike Dewine is "you got it Mr. President! and energy bill written by the oil companies - you got it Mr President RUBBERSTAMP, on the prescription drug bill written by the drug companies - Mike DeWine says you got it Mr. President. RUBBERSTAMP! One rightwing judge after another rightwing judge Mike DeWine says you got it Mr. President. Whatever you need. No Raise in the minimum wage - No oversight and NO ACCOUNTABILITY! But you know what Mike DeWines reward for that is? A 1 million dollar fundraiser in Indian Hills Cincinnati. You know what else his reward is ...DIck Cheney coming in to (Ohio) to campaign, Ken Mehlman coming in to campaign, Karl Rove sitting in on his strategy meetings and helping Mike DeWine - POOR MIKE DEWINE!
Thats why this race is so important.
I think this is a very important race and like
Obama said:
"we are operating in the real world and if we've got a situation where we've got a high quality candidate with progressive credentials, who has decided to run and is moving forward against someone whom we know is entirely supportive of George Bushs agenda then we've got to get on with it"
Reprinted Courtesy of Chris @ MediaWatchThis will be a mix of postings since my fingers are swollen from my two day sprint to finish a promised project. I am beginning to hear more and more press and Congress mentions of the signing statement. Just today I received an urgent plea from Senator Leahy's PAC to "
STOP PRESIDENT BUSH'S POWER GRAB!"
I am to sign a petition to send off to President Bush. In the plea is a mention of the story that the "Boston Globe" "...shockingly revealed" about the use of the signing statements by President Bush. Not to cry in my soup, but I sent a multitude of snail mail letters to Senator Leahy back to 2003 asking him to hear me out on the President's use of the signing statement, and not once did I receive a reply. Now it is "shocking!!!" (I know, I know, sour grapes).
Reading
Romenesko over at the Poynteronline page, I come across
this story on the sidebar. It seems that an appeals court judge in California
has extended the shield law to protect bloggers, because the shield law is designed to protect the "dissemination of information" and not "journalists." That is an excellent point to move us towards expanding what we refer to as journalists.
How many remember the "sky is falling down" scenarios after the 1996 "Telecommunications Act?" Not according to this "Wall Street Journal"
article.
On Wednesday, ABC News ran a story with Jeffrey Kaufman reporting, about home insurance companies refusing to insure homes in hurricane regions.
Given that the National Hurricane Center has predicted some rough weather in our future, home or property insurance companies have used that threat as a reason to not renew any policy or write new policies in regions were hurricanes are likely to hit.
Now here is what Communications scholar Shanto Iyengar refers to as episodic framing. See if you can catch it in the conclusion:
Kaufman: Forecasters calling for another hyperactive hurricane season that is a huge risk.
But increasingly, the choice is between living without insurance or leaving the coast.
See how the choice is both limited and focused on the individual? Let's reframe:
Home insurance companies face a choice between finding a way to offer home owners (who also have health insurance, car insurance, life insurance, etc with many of these same companies) affordable insurance for their homes and property or face having the state "nationalize" insurance. Now, for instance, Florida will offer complete insurance for all residents of the State of Florida. The State will raise the extra funds on the hotel and restaurant industry, a gas tax, toll roads on highways, and so forth. The trade off? Complete insurance coverage by the state will bring more individuals and families who come to the State, and thus spend in the state. More companies locate in Florida because they get a massive break in foregoing insurance for its workers....
Now if the media were truly liberal, we might have heard that alternative frame...
And finally, the "
National Journal" has once again (sub.req.) released its "most conservative/most liberal" lawmaker. You may remember
this study during the 2004 presidential election, where Senator Kerry had rated the "most liberal Senator" and his running mate, John Edwards rated the fourth "most liberal Senator" in 2003. You may also remember that 2003 was an outlier as those two gentlemen geared up for the 2004 Democrat Primary, where they needed to appeal to their liberal base.
Well it is out once again. And who is the most liberal Senator? That would be Ted Kennedy, who, except for 2003, is consistently #1 in the rankings. Just FYI. Senator Clinton, who anyone on the Right believes is an uber-Liberal, where does she rank? #20. Right there in the middle. And Kerry? Well he has moved down in the rankings from 1 in 2003 to 8 in 2005. Keep an eye on this ranking because the closer we get to the 2008 election the closer to #1 will be potential candidates. But lets not leave it there. Who is the most conservative senator? That would be Senator Jeff Sessions, a clone of Ross Perot.
In the House of Representatives, we find Representative Pete Stark of the 13th District of California as the most liberal, not the Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi--she comes in at #35! As for the most conservative, that belongs to Trent Franks, from the 2d District in Arizona.
So there you have, my potpourri for the evening!
