Monthly Archive for November, 2008

Lauren (Bubbba) McDonald, Candidate, Public Service Commission District 4

Lauren McDonald prefers the name his sister gave him, Bubba. Me too!

I must apologize to Bubba for posting this interview late, but I am afraid Thanksgiving caught up with me early last week.

As a candidate for the Public Service Commission we discuss the gamut of energy issues from nuclear to natural gas to alternative to wind. We do get into a little Democrat vs. Republican squabble when Bubba says the magic phrase: “The Democratic Party left me!” As I point out to Bubba, in case he hasn’t noticed, the Republican Party left him, too! It sure as hell left me! After a few rounds, we (I) settle down to the issues that concern the PSC.

When it comes to alternative energy sources, Bubba doesn’t consider Georgia to be in the market for wind and solar options, at least for generation of electricity for mass consumption. He believes that we should focus on developing nuclear energy. There are 2 new reactors being planned for Plant Vogel in Waynesboro. He also see “biomass” as a source to generate electricity. His objection to ethanol is the fact that it was subsidized by the federal government.

Of course, the biggest source of electricity in Georgia is the coal burning plant. Bubba believes in “clean coal” technology.

Bubba believes that deregulation in the natural gas industry has been a failure in reducing gas prices and increasing competition.

DON’T FORGET TO VOTE DECEMBER 2ND, IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY.

 
 Lauren McDonald, Candidate PSC District 4 [34:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (126)

Saxby Chambliss: Fiscal Conservative and Bi-Partisan!?!?

This interview with Senator Chambliss is like all interviews with experienced politicians, you can ask the question, but the answer is totally his territory. Saxby is as good as they get when it comes to answering questions. After doing this for a few years, I have come to the conclusion that we need to pass a law that requires all elected officials to submit to cross-examination by an experienced trial attorney for at least 24 hours as part of qualifying to run for re-election.

For example, anyone (anyone other than a totally fervent partisan) who knows much of anything about what goes on in Washington would laugh at the idea that Saxby is a fiscal conservative, having served in Congress under the greatest deficit spender ever, George Bush, who more than doubled the national debt. And yet, Saxby unashamedly claims to be a fiscal conservative. You couldn’t get him to admit otherwise if you had a photo of him spending $750 for a hammer.

Saxby defends his Senate record and denies that he has been a “Yes” man for Bush. His position is that he supports the president unless it’s not good for Georgia. There are, of course, many that would disagree with that. I remember last year when he was supporting Bush’s “immigration reform” and amnesty until a grassroots effort convinced him that he needed to vote for what was best for Saxby.

What is amazing about Saxby (and many politicians, for that matter) is that he has no consistent philosophy of government that guides his votes. Hence, he makes fiscal conservatives angry when he votes in favor of Medicare Drug D, in favor of the farm bill and other such big expense items that garner votes from large constituencies. And yet, he will vote against healthcare for kids (SCHIP) because it is “big government.” I just don’t get it!

He is not in favor of the baleout of the auto manufacturers. He distinguishes this position from his vote in support of the Wall Street baleout. The $25 billion the car manufacturers want is a band-aid that will only last till February or so. Then what? More money? The sad thing is that we baled out the money changers, but can’t help the guys that do real work on a production line. Of course, unions are getting blame for all the sins of the industry. Everyone wants the auto makers to file bankruptcy and break the unions and their expensive contracts. I don’t know enough to say this isn’t necessary, but the shame is that this country almost rejoices in the destruction of the American dream: a good job, with good wages and good benefits. You will not see those 3 things coincide in many jobs for a long time.

And let’s not forget Iraq, the War that is and shouldn’t be. Saxby still insists on victory, a word that has no objective definition, is incapable of being accomplished, but which people that don’t have a clue (like Bush) still assure us is worth the death and maiming of more young Americans. What more can I say!

 
 Saxby Chambliss, U. S. Senator (R-GA) [31:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (87)

Our President at the G-20: Ma! They Don’t Like Me!!

Damn It! I Said Change!! I Meant Change!!!

For everyone and anyone who is griping, whining or complaining about Joe Lieberman keeping his chairmanship or dumbfounded that Hillary Clinton may be our next Secretary of State, I have only one thing to say: The proof is in the pudding.

There are a lot of things that Obama could do to prove he is going to change things. Any choice of one thing would necessarily limit or eliminate the choices of something else. Someone might not like it. The old politics was not to lead, rather not to ruffle feathers. Cut the deal, favor the friends, reward your supporters.

Obama is changing the rules. Obama is determined to change politics in this country and if he can change politics, he just might be able to change other things like the economy, or healthcare.

But, I am fine with him starting with politics, since that is the only thing he can change before he takes office on January 20, 2009. I would be fine it he locked the doors of the capital and told them to go home. I would gladly give him 60 days as supreme dictator if that is what it took to see if someone in this country could bring about change! Radical! You bet. Am I serious? I sure am. Of course, I know Obama is not going to do that. My radicalism is safe, but…..

I am smelling change. I am high on it, just like glue. I demand it. I need more of it. I will do anything to insure that we have more change.

Change has its own danger. Appointing Hillary could be a big mistake. But, I voted for Obama. I wanted him to have a mandate for change. I am going to support his decisions. My bet is that if Hillary doesn’t mind her manners, she will be replaced. And soon!!

I would like to personally grab Joe Lieberman by the nape of the neck and kick his ass down the steps of the capital, one step at a time. He is a sorry sack of crap, a weasel, a scummy little sucker of opportunities and I hope he loses when he runs for re-election in 4 years.

But, if Obama can use his sorry carcass and wants him to keep his position of leadership, then he has my blessings. He can always be discarded later when he is all used up.

Everything Obama does proves to me he is a leader. He is going to bring change whether we like it or not. We are going to change, even if we go kicking and screaming.

After all, isn’t this what we said we wanted!! Ain’t it?

Ted Stevens: Go To Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Go To The Senate!

It looks like Alaska has elected a Democrat to the Senate, Mark Begich.

That is Democratic Senator No. 56. I think!

Your President-Elect’s Weekly Address!

Jim Powell and the Run-Off Election!

Jim Powell’s campaign for a seat on the Public Service Commission might be over if Secretary of State Karen Handel had not tried to keep him off the November ballot. It took from July until 5 days before the election for the Supreme Court to get the case and tell Handel, in an unanimous decision, that she was wrong. Think of all those early voters who may not have voted for Jim because his candidacy was in limbo. And what about the supporters who might have contributed to his campaign, if they had known they were not wasting their money on a “non-candidate?”

Such is the power of politics. Such is the abuse of political power. Anyway you cut it, Handel cannot defend her actions in drawing out this election. Was it partisan? Was it intended to help Powell’s opponent? Who knows? The regrettable truth is that her conduct raises these questions. The question for the future is whether or not this will come to haunt her should she decide to seek higher office (Governor) in 2010.

Even with the adversities caused by Handel, Powell still received 23,000 votes more (47.9% to 47.2%) than his opponent.

In this interview just a few days after the general election, all the votes had not yet been counted, but Jim explains the financial inequality that he had in the general election, whatever the cause.
If you check Jim’s campaign reports you will find that in the last report filed just days before the election, Jim had received contributions totaling $61,000.00, rounded. In the same reporting period, his opponent reported contributions of $146,000.00, rounded. That is the difference that can make a difference.

According to the financial disclosure filled with the State Ethics Commission, Powell’s opponent has a net worth of just over $1 million. Jim’s financial disclosure puts his net worth at about half that.

Jim did point out that Angela Speir won her seat on the PSC in 2002 on a tight campaign budget, spending less than $5,000.00 on the effort. Wow!!!

Jim Powell does not have time to wonder about what might have been. The race is not over until December 2nd.

VOTE!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 Jim Powell, Candidate, PSC District 4 [30:30m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (85)

National Politics: Don’t Blink or You Will Miss Something!

If you tired of the two-year presidential campaigns, you may be in a daze with everything that is happening post-election. In this interview with Mark Willen, Senior Editor for Politics and Government at Kiplinger’s, Politics ‘08 Blog, we cover the current state of affairs from Hillary’s potential cabinet position, to Palin’s efforts to out-do Britney Spears in media coverage, to the Chambliss-Martin battle here in Georgia, the magic number of 60, and last but not least, what happens in four years if Obama and the Democrats don’t deliver.

It’s good listening for a lazy, wet weekend, if I do say so myself.

I should point out that Mark thinks Obama should avoid a personal appearance here in Georgia on Martin’s behalf. Mark’s observation:

Obama is doing what he can to help. He’s lent his considerable organization to Martin and is bringing in more than 100 volunteers from neighboring states to help turn out the vote. He’ll probably cut some campaign ads for Martin and maybe make some video appearances.

But a trip to Georgia is another matter entirely. In the end, Obama has little to gain and everything to lose. So far, he is doing a reasonably good job of staying above the partisan fray, and he needs to keep doing that if he is to have any chance to achieve a level of bipartisanship. A campaign trip now would undercut that. He should remember what happened to Democrats under similar circumstances in 1992. President-elect Bill Clinton campaigned for Sen. Wyche Fowler in a Georgia runoff, only to ratchet up partisan resentments and have his reputation tarnished when Fowler lost.

Politics is a hard occupation. He who lives by…., dies by. As much as I would like to see Obama visit our Red State, Mark’s observation might prove true considering that, to date, there has been no announcement of any Obama trip. McCain, campaigning for Chambliss, has already come and gone.

At least everyone agrees the Chambliss/Martin run-off is going to be a matter of voter turnout.

So, there is no need to lie about voting, just GO VOTE!!!!!

 
 Mark Willen, Senior Editor-Politics and Government, Kiplinger [30:29m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (73)

Voice for the Uninsured!

Do you have health insurance? Do you need health insurance? Does a pre-existing condition prevent you from getting insurance? Can you afford health insurance? These are questions facing many Americans each and every day.

You may have seen the TV ads where doctors say that people who need their services are not coming to see them because they have no insurance. Nice ad. It’s sponsored by the American Medical Association as part of its campaign “Voice for the Uninsured.” The website is full of what they call “Real People, Real Stories.”

In this interview with Dr. Joseph Heyman discusses the issue of the uninsured in America. Dr. Heyman believes that now is the time to solve this problem. Unlike the Clinton effort in 1994, solving the problem is now the focus of a wide variety of business and political interests and the chances of everyone coming together to a successful resolution is better than ever.

If you want to read the whole thing, you can, or check out the overview. Here is a portion:

The AMA proposal to expand health insurance coverage and choice is based on three pillars:

1. Subsidies for those who most need financial assistance obtaining health insurance.

This assistance could take the form of tax credits or vouchers, should be more generous at lower income levels, and should be earmarked for health insurance coverage. It is important to note that the government already gives people financial assistance to buy private health insurance—well over $125 billion each year—with an employee income tax break on job-based insurance that is hidden from public view. This tax break gives more assistance to those in higher tax brackets, and gives no assistance to those without employee health benefits. Shifting some or all of this assistance to tax credits or vouchers for lower-income people would reduce the number of uninsured and improve fairness in the health care system.

2. Choice for individuals and families in what health plan to join.

Today people are effectively locked into the health plans their employers offer, often just one or two plans, which are subject to change from year to year. A change in employment typically means a change in insurance coverage. In contrast, under the AMA plan, people could use tax credits or vouchers to help pay for premiums of any available insurance, whether offered through a job, another arrangement or the open market. As with job-based insurance today, health plans would still have to meet federal guidelines for covered benefits, but people would have greater say in what types of benefits and plan features they value. Coupled with individual choice, tax credits benefit recipients directly, and everyone indirectly, by stimulating the market for health insurance. If enough people have enough purchasing power—and enough say over how that purchasing power is used—insurers will be compelled to offer better, more affordable coverage options.

3. Fair rules of the game that include protections for high-risk patients and greater individual responsibility.

For markets to function properly, it is important to establish fair ground rules. A proliferation of state and federal health insurance market regulations has made it more difficult and expensive for insurers to do business in many markets. The AMA proposes streamlined, more uniform health insurance market regulations. Regulations should permit market experimentation to find the most attractive combinations of plan benefits, cost-sharing and premiums. It is also important that market regulations reward, not penalize, insurers for taking all types of patients. People should have a guarantee that they will not lose coverage or be singled out for premium hikes due to changes in health status. Market regulations intended to protect people who have high health risks typically have backfired, sometimes disastrously, by driving up premiums for younger, healthier people and leading them to drop coverage.

To help high-risk people obtain coverage without paying astronomical premiums, additional targeted government subsidies are needed for high-risk people that would allow insurers to keep premiums down in the regular market. Individuals also need to be encouraged to play fairly by taking responsibility for obtaining health insurance without waiting until illness strikes or medical attention is needed. People who are uninsured despite being able to afford coverage should face tax implications.

Everyone needs to write their Congressman and Senators and tell this to fix this thing!!

 
 Dr. Joseph Heyman, American Medical Association [31:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (63)

Why Republicans Should Vote for Jim Martin!

Among the Deep South, inGeorgia has always been a leader. It was the industrial and commercial center of the “New South” of Henry Grady. Probably its greatest achievement was the leadership Georgia demonstrated in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. It federal courts enforced integration while its politicians (like Ivan Allen of Atlanta) prepared its population for a non-violent transition. Certainly, it was not perfect, but neither was it Alabama or Mississippi. It was the home of Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, John Lewis, Andrew Young, just to mention a few.

Through leaders like Richard Russell and Sam Nunn, conservative Democrats, Georgia politics often carried the balance of power in Congress.

But the conservative values of Georgia Democrats were easy pickings for the Reagan Revolution. Conservatives who had never been politically active switched parties or otherwise identified themselves as Republicans and 24 years later, 2004, Georgia became a red state in every sense of the word. Republican Governor in 2002, and legislative majorities in the Georgia House and Senate.

And now, like it or not, Georgia finds itself at the crossroads of another historic opportunity.
The first African American has been elected President. In the wake of Republican excesses, the Republican Party has in two years, lost all of the ground it had gained since 1980. Even so, Georgia has re-elected Democrats to Congress in surprising majorities, while at the same time returning incumbent Republicans to Congress with equally impressive majorities. Not one Congressional incumbent came close to defeat. Democrats who voted against the “baleout” did as well as Democrats who voted for it.

What does this mean? Georgia has always been conservative. It is Republican by default. When Georgians examine an individual candidate for who he is, such as John Barrow or Jim Marshall, a Democrat has just as much credibility as any Republican challenger. But incumbents have a special place in the hearts and minds of Georgians in general. Republicans won the legislature by tagging good, conservative Georgia Democrats with the National Democratic Party stigma of an abortion loving, gay marriage endorsing political party. All is fair in love and war. So be it.

But now, there is one difference, one practical change, which all Georgians, Republicans in particular should seriously consider. The Democrats, not the Republicans, control Congress, House and Senate. We didn’t necessarily know this when we went to the polls in November, but it is a reality, which I think everyone needs to think about when we go back to the polls in December.

Georgia may have it reasons for being a red state when it comes to local politics, but if Georgia wants to be a player in Washington during the next 4 years, its only opportunity to do that is to elect a Democrat to the Senate in the run-off election in December. The question for Georgians is whether or not it is more important, more beneficial, to this State to elect a conservative Democrat than to re-elect a conservative Republican who will be without influence for the next 4 years. The truth is that unless Saxby Chambliss becomes a swing vote by which Democrats achieve the magic 60 in the Senate, he will be without influence. Georgia will be without the opportunity for an effective voice in Congress for 4 more years.

Is the Republican party worth impotency for 6 years? Is it better to have Jim Martin fighting to keep Robins Air Force Base in a Democratic administration or to have Saxby Chambliss simply be part of the Republican opposition. Is there anything about Saxby Chambliss that suggests that he is such a leader that Georgia, in these changed times, cannot survive without him? Is Saxby’s re-election important to anyone other than him? Is his re-election important to Georgia? I suggest that these are questions which each and every Republican voter needs to think about before they cast a vote in the December 2nd run-off.

I have to believe that in these times Georgians are both independent and practical enough to consider the benefits of electing a player in the majority party. Like it or not, America has changed. That change may be as “permanent” as the Reagan Revolution, or it may last 4 years. Like it or not, Obama and the Democrats are going to have an opportunity to show America what they can accomplish or how they can fail. If they succeed in solving the pressing problems we face as a nation, it will be much better for Georgia to be a participant in that future.

If the Democrats fail, there will be another opportunity to elect another Republican 6 years from now.

I hope Georgians will consider the run-off election to be an opportunity to vote that Georgia participates in the future, rather than fighting it solely for partisan reasons. I am absolutely certain that voting for Jim Martin will never hurt this great State. Returning Saxby Chambliss will simply mean that Georgia has no effective voice.

The choice is yours. Vote December 2nd.