Sheldon Silver Is On Notice!

The Times-Union did a great little write up on the two challengers to the Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver this morning. It emphasizes that these young Democrats were not even out of the crib when Silver went up to Albany to represent the 64th District. More importantly it shows how much these two young activists want to change the scene up in Albany and institute real change, not only for the Lower East Side and Downtown, but the entire state as well.

From The Times-Union:

Newell, 32, and Henry, 33, have both formed campaign finance committees and begun campaigns to defeat Silver in the Sept. 9 Democratic primary for the 64th Assembly District.

They say they want to overturn the power structure in Albany.

For years, Silver has refused to disclose his income as a trial lawyer. Both Henry and Newell said they'd release their tax returns.

"We're running this campaign to win," Newell maintained. "That said, we're trying to get a more responsive government. If we scare Sheldon Silver, that would be a great help."

Henry puts it more simply.

"The goal is to win," he said.

Yes, the goal is to win. We need change in Albany desperately and rooting one of the three men in a room in our state government would be a great start (including taking the state Senate back) to reforming how things are done in New York. I've had the honor to talk to Paul a few months back and certainly liked what I heard. Getting face time with Sheldon Silver is less likely than the Knicks having a plus .500 season this year (hint: they've already lost 1/2 the season thus far). Silver won't even talk to the press about his challengers. That is because he does not want to acknowledge the people in his district, people like Paul Newell and Luke Henry who are sick of how things are being done. The residents of the 64th District.....and all of the districts around our great state deserve a system of government that responds to the citizens, and not the cronyism that we have now.

Obama And NAFTA Still The Big Story In Canada

Thankfully CBC News is starting to sort out the facts in the story:

McCain/Clinton '08?

Last night, Hillary tested my patience yet again. Calling herself and McCain experienced while Obama just gives speeches, that was unconscionable.

From CBSNews:

FORT WORTH, TEXAS -- Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.

Experience? Experience?!?!? Experience to do what Senator Clinton? To help lead us into a war? To be played like a fool by George Bush in 2003 when you believed his faulty intelligence? To be the #2 recipient of health care lobbyist money in the country?

So what does all of this experience do in event of that 3 AM phone call she tried to scare us all with?

Criticism has been leveled towards Clinton as well, though, especially her claim that she is ready to be the commander-in-chief on "day one." When asked at the press conference if she could name a particular instance in her past that equips her to deal with a national security crisis, Clinton balked, saying, “Well, I was involved in a lot of the decisions that were made. Again, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective,” Clinton said. “You know, no one who hasn’t been president has done that, so that’s not the right question. The question is, what have you done over the course of that lifetime to equip you for that moment?”

You want to talk about rhetoric? Now that would be a clear-cut case of empty rhetoric. It is about judgment Senator Clinton, and that is something you have shown that you lack, whether it comes to campaigning etiquette or policy decision. To talk so highly of Senator McCain while trashing your fellow Democratic candidate is horrific, and a travesty to watch. Hopefully the voters will come through today for the party's sake.

Obama Gets Another Important Endorsement

Bill Richardson's sorta-kinda endorsement yesterday was just the beginning of good news for the Senator from Illinois this week. Today it seems that Obama picked up a (somewhat late) crucial New York nod from the famous, delicious, inexpensive and gotta-have hotdog spot Gray's Papaya. If Sunday and Monday look this good, Tuesday's results will be the sweet relish on top.

From The NY Times:

Last August, Mr. Gray, 71, began displaying signs at two of his three stores encouraging the candidacy of the mayor with the slogan “Run Mike, Run!” He told The Times in October that he was hoping for a Bloomberg run for the White House because “he’s cool under pressure” and he believed that the mayor’s personal wealth made him less corruptible.

But after Mr. Bloomberg officially ended his extended flirtation with presidential candidacy in an Op-Ed column last week, Mr. Gray did not waste any time.

This weekend, the large window at the original Gray’s Papaya store on Broadway at 72nd Street was filled with a white sign bearing the words “Yes Senator Obama. We are ready to believe again” in red and black uppercase letters.

“I think he is a very inspirational man and I think he’s what the country needs; we’ve grown a bit cynical,” Mr. Gray said in a phone interview.

I'm glad Mr. Gray keeps up on his political news, but does that big endorsement on the highly trafficked corner of 72nd and Broadway have an effect on possible primary state tourists?

Despite the bold new message at the Broadway store, few of the patrons at the shop on Sunday afternoon showed much excitement about politics. Outside, some passers-by on the sidewalk did stop momentarily to read the sign.

“I’m here for the hot dogs and the papaya drink,” said Mona Walsh, 54, in between the last couple of bites of her amply garnished frank. “Even if Gray’s Papaya were supporting the most deplorable candidate imaginable and there was a big sign about it out front, I’d still be here eating hot dogs.”

Hmmm, if they endorsed McCain, would I still go there? You bet your you know what I'd stop at Gray's when I'm on the UWS. That place transcends politics any day.

A Nationwide YouthQuake Coming Our Way

And only The Daily Show can explain it, or explain it being explained by the media:

It Doesn't Get Much Worse Than This

I recently watched Michael Moore's SiCKO again and realized that the documentary is still a tear jerker, exposing the awful realities that is our excuse for a national health care system. Of course there are the deniers out there that will dismiss the findings just because Michael Moore has his name on the exposé. Despite anyone's feelings about Mr. Moore, the tragedy that is the reality in the U.S. is hard to escape unless you are ultra-wealthy or live in an area where poverty has been swept away. Perhaps the wealthy Republican elite will dismiss CBS' 60 Minutes as liberal scum, but folks, the camera doesn't lie when you hear about what is going on in the South.

From CBS News:

In a matter of hours, Remote Area Medical set up its massive clinic, for a weekend, in an exhibit hall in Knoxville, Tenn. Tools for dentists were laid out by the yard, optometrists prepared to make hundreds of pairs of glasses, general medical doctors set up for whatever might come though the door. Nearly everything is donated, and everyone is a volunteer. The care is free. But no one could say how many patients might show up.

The first clue came a little before midnight. Stan Brock, the founder of Remote Area Medical, opened the gate outside. The clinic wouldn't open for seven hours, but people in pain didn't want to chance being left out. State guardsmen came in for crowd control. They handed out what would become precious slips of paper - numbered tickets to board what amounted to a medical lifeboat.

It was 27 degrees. The young and the old would spend the night in their cars, running the engine for heat, but not much - not at $3 a gallon. At 5 a.m., Pelley took a walk through the parking lot.

"We got up at three o’clock this morning and we got here about four. We’ve been out where a little while it's cold," Margaret Walls, a hopeful patient from
Tennessee, told Pelley.

"Why did you come so early?" Pelley asked.

"'Cause we wanted to be seen," Walls replied.

That is the reality for the uninsured in America. Moore talks about the insured in SiCKO, this is about the other 45 to 50 million Americans out there. These people can't afford insurance, not at the high premiums that companies like Cigna, Aetna and Blue Cross offer. The worst thing about this story was that not everyone was able to be seen because there were just too many people. A group that donates their time and money to conditions in third world countries don't have to go very far to be helpful, a short trip to Tennessee will do just fine.

Dams Are Not the Answer

There is a growing water problem in the arid western states of our country. Part of it is the long running drought but the true problem is the rapidly expanding population in these states. If you have ever been to a city like Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, etc during two different years, it is easy to see just how quickly these places expand. Of course they aren't anything like many Eastern Seaboard cities, they grow out, not up. That causes many problems, such as a healthy tax base in proportion to the area. More importantly though, water is what brings life, and it can bring the opposite as well to this region. Naturally we want to preserve our homes and our ways of (wasteful) life, so we'll go to ridiculous extremes to keep that water flowing.

From RawStory:

"The West and the Northwest are increasing in population growth like never before," said John Redding, regional spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Boise. "How do you quench the thirst of the hungry masses?"

The population of the Western states grew nearly 20 percent in the 1990s, to more than 64 million, and continues to swell even as climate change poses new threats to the water supply.

Ironically, consideration of new dams comes even as older ones are being torn down across the country because of environmental concerns — worries that will likely pose big obstacles to new construction. In Oregon, a deal has been struck to remove four dams on the Klamath River to restore struggling salmon runs.

So why would we create more problems with dams when we already know they are proven losers? Well there's money in it for one. Another obvious answer is that it is a relatively quick, short-term fix to supply a whole lot of water and power. Basically it is about instant gratification, and these burgeoning municipalities to increase revenues and size while the individuals cash in on relatively inexpensive real estate.

Now what should we be doing instead? Well you can't stop population growth, but you can regulate it. Legislators should be focusing heavily on conservation, green technology, low-water appliances and building up, not out. Many of these cities have conservation programs, but they aren't enough. I lived in Tucson for several years and watched the effects of the scarcity of water. Sinkholes opened up, the water table kept dropping and yet, the city kept expanding. If we aren't careful in places like these, the results could be disastrous.

Shame On Us Senator Obama

On behalf of America, I apologize for the senseless attacks on you for being called a Muslim....and what that means to Muslims that live in the United States, a place that is supposed to be a symbol of religious tolerance.

Pataki And His PACs

For all of the grief that New York politicos give Eliot Spitzer, he doesn't even come close to drawing the ire that Pataki deserves. Even though Pataki has been out of office for more than a year, he is still coming up in the news and not for good reasons. It turns out that the momentary Presidential aspirant raised quite a bit of cash for his PACs. That is perfectly fine to work for campaign donations, but it gets tricky when you start spending it on things other than your campaign.

From The NY Times:

After ending his exploration of a presidential bid early last year and all but disappearing from politics, former Gov. George E. Pataki spent more than $1 million from his political action committees for Broadway theater tickets, gatherings at the Yale Club and payments to political loyalists and advisers.

The money came from PACs used to raise Mr. Pataki’s profile nationally and to lay the foundations for a possible presidential run. They were organized in Virginia, where candidates are given broad discretion in spending.

In all, the committees spent about $2.1 million in 2007; about $1.4 million of that was paid out after Mr. Pataki quietly suspended his efforts to seek national office last March, according to a review of campaign finance disclosure reports and other records. Some of the spending appears to have had little connection to a political cause or candidacy.

Pataki seemed to have known what he was doing when he started his exploratory bid. Instead of opening up shop in his home state, he picked Virginia for its lenient laws. Well isn't that nice. Among his many maneuvers, he laundered took his money from his NY PAC and moved it down to the Virginia account, enabling that money to go as far as he could stretch it.

As the Times points out, Pataki has been very busy since he left office, besides creating a facebook account, he made lucrative friendships and spending ridiculous sums of PAC money on frivolous items that just might pass the legal tests of Virginia. It seems the stench of Albany followed Pataki down to Virginia.....and wherever else he goes.

Bill Richardson Endorses Obama

It isn't official yet, but Bill Richardson's comments yesterday all but confirm that the former candidate and still-current Governor will endorse Obama.

Here's what he said:

“D-Day is Tuesday," he told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday should be the nominee."

Richardson deferred from announcing a personal endorsement of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (“I’m legitimately torn," between the two, he said), but suggested that the leader after this week's primaries will have the presumptive title.

He also called for a positive Democratic race rather than one marred by negative ads or name-calling. “We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday," Richardson said.

Hmm, he denounces negative attacks kinda like this and then wants the nominee to be whoever is winning the delegate race by the time the ballots are counted in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. He may be "legitimately torn" but facts are facts and Bill is calling for party unity behind the leader of the race. Unless Hillary completely wrecks Obama tomorrow (and I'm talking about blowouts across the board) then there is no mathematical way she will be the front runner in earned delegates or delegates in general. That is just not a possibility for Senator Clinton at all.

Update 3/5/08 1 AM:

Looks like Richardson can say one thing on Monday and another as the election unfolds...what does he think he stands to gain from this type of politicking?

John McCain Is A Hit

Thanks to Brave New Films, check out the latest pop star success:

Unity '08 Bloomberg Still Donates To Republicans

So I hear that Bloomberg is looking for a candidate that hates guns, loves the Earth and doesn't care about the party, so long as they work for what he is passionate about (probably gotta include corporate greed in there too). Well the now-officially non-candidate in 2008 has yet to endorse McCain/Clinton/Obama but that doesn't mean he won't pick sides when it comes to parties.

From The NY Times:

Several weeks ago, the mayor wrote a $500,000 check to help keep the dwindling and increasingly imperiled State Senate Republicans from losing their grip on power, according to an official with direct knowledge of the donation.

The Democrats are seeking to gain control of the Senate for the first time in 40 years, and the race is growing personal and bitter.

Moreover, Mr. Bloomberg has made clear to the Republicans that he is willing to personally campaign for G.O.P. senators.[...]

Senate Republicans say privately that Mr. Bloomberg may well emerge as perhaps their biggest political benefactor in the coming election, which Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, has likened to a war.

Would the donation of hundreds of thousands of dollars to a man like Joe Bruno be something characterized as unifying? That would be like cheering for unity after entrusting the nation to George Bush. Bloomberg may like to talk a lot (and even change his party affiliation) but when it comes down to it, his money speaks loud and clear.