I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
I'm not perfect. I don't get everything right, not by a long shot. For example, remember my optimistic response to Thomas Ruttig's pessimistic report on the Kabul Peace Jirga? Turns out I was super wrong about that. I understand this blogosphere of ours is an open debate, and I'm willing to reassess how I may have misjudged whatever the situation is on any given day.
So when I see a headline in the New York Times like "In Midterm Elections, Afghan War Barely Surfaces", something that directly contradicts my analysis, I'm more than happy to take a look and see what we have to learn.
According to my reading of the facts, the movement to end the war in Afghanistan is exploding. Congress is slowly waking up it, and we've seen triple the votes to block the war from what we saw just last year. A few more votes like that and it's over. Not only that, but I'm hearing directly from candidates that their constituents are very interested in the war in Afghanistan.
Politico "breaks" the "news" that Pork King Richard Shelby is directing vast sums of taxpayer dollars to those who hire his former staffers as lobbyists. Just since 2008, Shelby has directed $250 million in earmarks to entities that employed lobbyists who used to work in his Senate office. Coincidentally (or not!) lobbyists and employees of those earmark benificiaries have contributed nearly a million dollars to Shelby. That doesn't look like much return on investment for Shelby, but remember, the $250 million isn't his money -- it's yours and mine.
“Sen. Shelby, like Rep. Murtha before him, takes trading earmarks for campaign dollars to a level most members of Congress can only dream about,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the organization [Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]. “Also like Murtha, Shelby earmarks for the benefit of his former-staffers-turned-lobbyists.”
...
Shelby’s earmarking doesn’t appear to run afoul of Senate rules or federal ethics laws. But critics said his tactics are part of a Washington culture in which lawmakers direct money back home to narrow interests, which, in turn, hire well-connected lobbyists — often former congressional aides — who enjoy special access on Capitol Hill.
“It is a system that is in direct conflict of interest with our oath of office because it’s parochial,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an earmark critic who declined to comment on Shelby directly.
This is not new "news" to anyone who watches Shelby's actions -- he is proud of his ability to bring millions in earmarks to the state and his fundraising is simply obscene -- but you will look long and hard to find any articles like this one in the Alabama press. Why is that?
A Hill insider familiar with Shelby’s earmarking said that the senator is “looked at like Robin Hood in northern Alabama,” especially in the Huntsville region, with its growing military and space industries. “The people there genuinely feel like they’ve been victims of federal policies. Shelby is helping them get even.”
We get about $1.30 back for every dollar we pay in federal taxes, and still think we're being victimized by the feds. And Richard Shelby equals Robin Hood. What is wrong with this picture?
As some of you know, I'm a grant writer by trade. While on the Alabama JobLink this morning searching for a contact, I saw this on their front page. Few words, but it says a lot.
Dale Jackson is all in an uproar because some debate or forum he (with Right On Huntsville and the Rocket City Democrats, apparently) was trying to set up fell through. Now Steve Raby (D) probably isn't interested in a debate with Dale as a moderator -- Dale's a little bit partisan, you know -- but Steve is a very smart guy and I imagine he'd like to get Mo Brooks on TV three nights a week from now to election day if he could, so Mo can talk about how he'll reduce government spending if we send him to Washington.
Say it often enough and that message will sink in with the folks whose livelihood flows through that giant pipeline of federal dollars from Washington to Redstone Arsenal, Missile Command, NASA, the rocket plant in Decatur and so forth. Send another loose cannon to Washington and watch them cut OUR federal dollars, not the ones headed for California or Texas.
The more people in North Alabama see and hear Mo Brooks, the less likely they're going to vote for him. He's a nice enough guy to talk to, but he has some seriously crazy ideas and doesn't shy away from talking about them.
I've no doubt there will be debates and forums between Raby and Brooks. Hopefully many, and hopefully broadcast far and wide.
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R, GA) has an attack of the truth on what an exclusive club the Republican Party is:
We are a big tent organization if you are referring to my party, the Republican Party, I don’t think we’ll ever be as big a tent organization as the Democratic Party, their DNA is just a little bit different from ours quite frankly.
"Their DNA is just a little bit different from ours ..." Yeah, we all know about DNA differences, don't we? Black people, brown people, "foreigners" and so forth need not apply to the Republican Party. And the rich white folks will always believe poor whites have something wrong with their DNA ... otherwise they wouldn't be poor, now would they?
As the Think Progress article mentioned, this isn't some chance remark. It's a mainstream belief within the Republican Party that they are not and don't want to be the Big Tent Party -- they're an exclusive club. Last year Mike Huckabee said the Big Tent "will kill the conservative movement. Conservatives are conservatives because they have convictions and convictions aren’t preferences." And the Republican Party's pet network has now embarked upon an updated Southern Strategy to hawk fear of those with "different DNA" to fearful white voters in all 50 states.
They aren't the Pup Tent Party or the Big Tent Party, Republicans are the Exclusive, Don't-apply-if-you-don't-look-like-us, Country Club Party. Always have been, always will be.
"The idea of dragging home pork is an old-school measurement of a senator,’ said Republican Dino Rossi… ‘And right now, with Republicans and Democrats alike doing that, it's bankrupting America. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the job of a senator is bringing home pork."
Below the fold, Cenk Uygur plays carrots and sticks on Shelby's pork barrel politics.
(Want to be the Liberal Media? Here's your chance. - promoted by mooncat)
Does this animal exist?
The local liberals/progressives/Democrats have no message and no one to vet their candidates because frankly the political media in this town is embarrassing.
I, according to Dr. Jess Brown, pushed coverage of the GOP primary for Congress to a point where real issues actually were discussed and the candidates were actually vetted.
SO… being the humanitarian that I am I want to find someone on the left LOCALLY to do the same.
Here is what I am looking for in the person I am seeking…
They need to be entertaining
They need to have convictions
They need to be able to articulate an opinion
They need to have the ability to ask hard question to political figures
They need to be fearless
They need to be willing to buck the ideology/party when needed
Do you know someone like this? If so contact me at dale@wvnn.com and we will give you an oppurtunity for a 3 minute tryout over the air, if you can’t go three minutes we will find this out.
What is the prize?
You get to be the Democratic Dale Jackson
You get a 1 hour segment on The Dale Jackson Show every week (you choose the time) + 30 minutes solo (or with a guest) + 30 minutes with Dale Jackson
Potential to launch a talk radio career
I am serious about this.
I want to find this person. I want this to work.
Are you the one?
Liberals have whined for years about the monolpoly of conservative talk radio and I want to help change that.
If you or someone you know wants to be the “Liberal Dale Jackson” contact me at dale@wvnn.com and we will give you an oppurtunity for a 3 minute tryout over the air, if you can’t go three minutes we will find this out.
Virginia Sweet is a pro-reform, pro-good government Democrat running in House District 43 (Jefferson and Shelby Counties) to unseat incumbent Mary Sue McClurkin -- who has by the way accomplished very little since being elected in 1998. That's Virginia with her rescue dog, Gracie, at right.
We were first introduced to Virginia Sweet at a Downtown Democrats meeting a few months ago and I said, "I would not only be voting for her, I'd be out knocking on doors with her." After a lengthy interview with her last week, I haven't backed off that assessment one bit and in fact urge all of you who live anywhere near her district (see map) to contact Virginia Sweet and help her get her message to voters.
She's that good.
She's that progressive.
She's that much exactly the kind of results oriented stateswoman we need in Montgomery.
The Alabama Legislature desperately needs a vibrant, forward-looking progressive caucus. That means electing candidates like Virginia Sweet wherever we find them. She kicked off her campaign back in February with this:
I have hope that if we get enough new faces in the House that the Legislature can muster its political will, hold itself accountable, and pass ethics reform. I have hope that if Alabamians decide to put education number one that we will no longer be at the bottom of the barrel in all indicators of child well being, we won't have these horrible illiteracy rates and dropout rates ... And I have hope that there will be this decade a resurgence of people participating in their government, lifting their voices, sounding their opinions and reasoning together so that we can help Alabama reach its potential.
HD43 is not a favorable district for a Democrat, but hard work and a great message can make up a lot of ground, even in a tough district. Continue below the fold for Part 1 of out interview where Ms. Sweet talks about her background and why she is called to run for the Legislature.
Hint: Republicans voted against it, because NO is all they KNOW.
Here's a great new study of the effect of the stimulus and economic policy responses to the economic crisis of recent years by Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, Alan Blinder, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. This is required reading for all the stimulus doubters and those who say the Obama administration has hurt the economy. WRONG!
The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day ...
With respect to the government's total policy response:
We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 81⁄2 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
... the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 11⁄2 percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. ...
The Great Recession gave way to recovery as quickly as it did largely because of the unprecedented responses by monetary and fiscal policymakers.
And who opposed those unprecedented responses that saved America from a repeat of the Great Depression? Republicans, the Party of NO. From The Gavel:
Most Congressional Republicans fought this rescue and recovery—and criticizing it has become a Republican mantra. This report paints a grim picture of what America would look like now if Republicans had been in charge:
America would have lost “16.6 million jobs … about twice as many as actually were lost.”
The “unemployment rate would have peaked at 16.5%.”
“The peak-to-trough decline in GDP is … close to 12%, compared to an actual decline of about 4%.”
America’s top three automakers and their suppliers “might have had to liquidate many operations with devastating effects on the American economy, and especially on the Midwest.”
The federal budget deficit would have surged to over $2 trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012.
The report concludes:
Remember, this is with no policy response … this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression.
… it is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act. Not responding would have left both the economy and the government’s fiscal situation in far graver condition.
Left to themselves, the Republicans would have let the economy slide over the cliff and into a 1930's style depression. As it is, they managed to reduce the size of the stimulus and are still opposing measures to ease the economic pain, such as the extension of unemployment benefits. Their entire message is one of opposition to Obama's policies, no matter what effect it will have on the nation. They have to convince Americans the stimulus and other extraordinary economic policies have failed -- because Republicans staked their political future on opposing Obama's efforts to clean up the economic mess Bush left behind. These are not the grown-ups we need in charge.
Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton agreed with the Department of Justice’s argument that certain parts of the law should be put on hold until the courts study and rule on the law.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law],” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, wrote in granting the injunction. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
...
The most contentious part of the law required police officers who have stopped individuals for other reasons to verify their citizenship if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” he or she is an illegal immigrant.
Bolton halted enforcement of that provision, arguing that it would violate the rights of legal immigrants and citizens who could potentially be detained.
The ruling also granted an injunction against a provision of the law that makes it a crime not to carry proof of immigration status.
Chris Matthews has been going on about how this is going to be a disaster for Democrats going into the fall. His reasoning is that this will further energize the Tea Partiers. Reuters expresses the same concern, but notes that Democrats can also benefit from more enthusiasm on the part of Hispanic voters.
The Rasmussen survey that was mentioned earlier today also asked Alabama voters about the DOJ challenge to the Arizona law and found:
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Alabama voters favor the passage of an Arizona-like immigration law in their state, which is higher than the national average. Just 18% in Alabama oppose such a law in their state.
...
Fifty-eight percent (58%) in Alabama also oppose the decision of the Department of Justice to challenge the law, while 25% agree with the decision. Sixty-five percent (65%) favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only criminals, threats to national security and those coming to live off the U.S. welfare system.
Earlier today the Immigration Policy Center released state by state data sheets on the economic and political power of immigrants. The IPC data sheet for Alabama indicates:
The 2009 purchasing power of Latinos in Alabama totaled $3.1 billion—an increase of 1,026% since 1990. Asian buying power totaled $1.8 billion—an increase of 497.8% since 1990, according to the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia.
...
Unauthorized immigrants comprised roughly 3.6% of the state’s workforce (or 80,000 workers) in 2008, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center.
If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Alabama, the state would lose $2.6 billion in economic activity, $1.1 billion in gross state product,and approximately 17,819 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group.
The judge's ruling in this case seems quite reasonable to me. What do y'all think about the odds it will be upheld (the State of Arizona is going to appeal) and what do you think the political ramifications will be?
Rasmussen historically leans right by a few points, but their finding of Bentley at 55% is still a worrisome result for Ron Sparks, who garnered support from 35% of the 500 likely voters surveyed. 7% were undecided and 3% wanted a different candidate. Other findings:
Voters in Alabama not affiliated with either major political party favor Bentley over Sparks by a nearly three-to-one margin.
Only nine percent (9%) in Alabama rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent, but 51% rate it as poor. While 27% say economic conditions are getting better, 51% say they are getting worse.
Sixty percent (60%) of those who believe the economy is improving back the Democrat, while 73% of those who it's worsening support Bentley.
...
Bentley is viewed Very Favorably by 32% of voters and Very Unfavorably by just seven percent (7%).
Sparks is viewed Very Favorably by 19% and Very Unfavorably by 21%.
Rasmussen also asked about the stimulus and found that 41% of Alabamians believe it has hurt the economy, far more than the 26% who believe it has helped. There is a lot of misinformation to overcome out there -- we can't just say 41% of people are wrong or stupid, we have to develop effective talking points to convince them. It's a long term project in this conservative leaning state. The only consolation is that the facts are on our side -- not just on the stimulus but on health care, immigration, regulatory reform and a host of other issues. The trick now is to figure out how to use themeffectively to convince our neighbors.
Creative messaging from Democrats -- tell people what the opposition really wants to accomplish. These are not popular ideas. Main headers of the Republicans' Contract On America:
1. REPEAL THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM)
2. PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY OR PHASE IT OUT ALTOGETHER
3. END MEDICARE AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS
4. EXTEND THE BUSH TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY AND BIG OIL
5. REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM
6. PROTECT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OIL SPILL AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES
One of my neighbors (a very-well informed Democrat) pays close attention to ALFA's endorsements every November. She is on their mailing list and gets something that looks very like a sample ballot in election years and she uses it -- as a guide to who NOT to vote for.
That's a bit oversimplified, but in many, many ways the Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA) is anything but a progressive organization. Constitution reform? It will raise property taxes. Tax reform? It will raise property taxes. Home rule? It will restrict where family farmers can put hog operations.
ALFA has just announced their FARM-PAC endorsements for the 2010 general election. The list is below for any of you who care to use it as a guide -- either positive or negative. I've added party identification in the list below. You may notice that these farmers are heavy on incumbents and heavy on Republicans. They did not endorse in every race, governor being one high profile contest they chose to sit out.
Candidates who received endorsements in last week’s meeting include: • U.S. Representative, District 5 - Steve Raby (D) • U.S. Representative, District 7 - Terri Sewell (D) • Lt. Governor - Kay Ivey (R) • Secretary of State - Beth Chapman (R) • State Auditor - Sam Shaw (R) • State Treasurer - Young Boozer (R) • Attorney General - Luther Strange (R) • Public Service Commission, Place 1 - Jan Cook (D) • Public Service Commission, Place 2 - Susan Parker (D) • Commissioner of Agriculture & Industries - John McMillan (R)
Earlier this year, the Farm-PAC Trustees made endorsements in the following races: • U.S. Senator - Richard Shelby (R) • U.S. Representative, District 1 - Jo Bonner (R) • U.S. Representative, District 2 - Bobby Bright (D) • U.S. Representative, District 3 - Mike Rogers (R) • U.S. Representative, District 4 - Robert Aderholt (R) • U.S. Representative, District 6 - Spencer Bachus (R) • Supreme Court Justice, Place 1 - Kelli Wise (R) • Supreme Court Justice, Place 2 - Mike Bolin (R) • Supreme Court Justice, Place 3 - Tom Parker (R) • Court of Civil Appeals Judge - Tommy Bryan (R)
(I checked with Sen. Paul Sanford (R, SD7) who confirmed that the letter of reply quoted below is his. - promoted by mooncat)
Senator Sanford,
I am the blogger "saint satin stain" on LeftInAlabama.com. Full disclosure so you don't feel ambushed. One question and I will print your full answer without editing. Which details in the Alabama State Constitution you feel should be changed and why? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Thomas,
A rather broad question given the length of our Constitution, but I will keep it simple. I have one major change I would like to see take place to our State's Constitution: I would like to see the embedded tax structure removed from within the Constitution. As written our taxing system is prohibitive in allowing our State Government to effective manage our departments and money, especially during tough economic times, due to the abundance of earmarkings. This is by far the most challenging aspect of altering our Constitution due to the number of special interests that benefit directly due to the earmarking of specific revenue streams in our State.
As the Senate seeks to at least force transparency on corporate political spending in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision, the stakes are incredibly high. Literally, government by the people and for the people is what's at stake. Yesterday President Obama urged the Senate to act, emphasis mine.
Because of the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in the Citizens United case, big corporations –- even foreign-controlled ones –- are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads –- and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who’s actually paying for the ads. Instead, a group can hide behind a name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Companies for Weaker Oversight.” These shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections.
Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians. Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign. And all too often, no one will actually know who’s really behind those ads.
Yes, most of us already thought special interests have too much power over politicians -- but it's about to get worse. That's why the DISCLOSE Act is so important. The House of Representatives passed it with some Republican support (although of Alabama's delegation, only Artur Davis (D) voted in favor) last month. Senate Republicans have been using the same stalling tactics we've seen since Obama took office.
Now, you’d think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense, particularly since they primarily involve just making sure that folks who are financing these ads are disclosed so that the American people can make up their own minds. Nobody is saying you can’t run the ads -- just make sure that people know who in fact is behind financing these ads. And you’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue. But of course, this is Washington in 2010. And the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the DISCLOSE Act from even coming up for an up or down vote. Just like they did with unemployment insurance for Americans who’d lost their jobs in this recession. Just like they’re doing by blocking tax credits and lending assistance for small business owners. On issue after issue, we are trying to move America forward, and they keep on trying to take us back.
At a time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political games. ...
A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy. It is precisely what led a Republican President named Theodore Roosevelt to tackle this issue a century ago.
Dollars to doughnuts Alabama Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions will both vote "to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections."
As long as we'll be gerrymandering to beat the band after the 2010 census, I'm asking now to have NE Madison County included in State Senate District 13. I want Greg Varner as my state senator!
If you haven't been following Varner's campaign blog, you're missing out on a treat. This young man (and first-time candidate as far as I can tell) is a Democrat I can get excited about.
And now, he's making rural broadband a part of his campaign. From a recent blog post:
According to a recent study performed on 228 selected rural counties that had relatively high broadband availability in 2000, and rural “twin” counties that mirrored their economic structure in terms of farming, manufacturing, retail trade, Federal, State and Local Government income as a percent of total income, investment in broadband Internet access leads to a more competitive local economy.
Counties that had access to Broadband services, had lower unemployment levels, due largely to businesses being attracted to areas were they could operate through high-speed Internet accesses. Average wages for those employed were significantly higher in broadband available areas as well.
Now, I've been a proponent of increased broadband access for a LONG TIME and had several stimulating debates with free marketeers who offer the opinion that "if people choose to live in the country, they know that they're getting - and what they aren't."
It's a perfectly valid arguement if you're looking no farther than the start-up costs of broadband expansion. But remember: "it takes money to make money" and if broadband expansion increases the tax base, attracts industry, and raises property values, well, it's hard to argue that it's an investment worth making.
Varner isn't a social liberal but he's economically progressive and isn't interested in using homophobia or hatred to get elected. He wants to help the citizen of his district prosper by boosting local businesses instead of big corporations and creating livable, sustainable communities.
He's also running against a real right-wing Democrat-turned-loonie-Republican, Gerald Dial. He's the guy who said this about Constitution reform:
He contended that “home rule” was a dangerous principle. For example he argued that, “if we had had home rule, Lowndes County would not have any white land-owners.”
Alabama's judicial elections are among the most expensive in the nation. Never mind why people would spend $8 million fighting for a position that pays $170K per year, let's talk about how donors should be treated before judges they contributed to. This was addressed by a 1995 Alabama law which says a judge should not hear cases in which one of the parties donated a significant amount ($2000 for a circuit judge or $4000 for an appellate judge) to his or her campaign. That sounds entirely reasonable, from this layman's point of view.
Wait. Did I say reasonable?Turns out the law has never been enforced. Not so reasonable after all. It's been in legal limbo since 1995 thanks in part to the arrogance of then Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Now a citizen who wants to contribute to judicial candidates and also wants the judges to be able to hear his cases, wants to make sure the law won't be applied:
Soon after it was passed, the Alabama attorney general's office submitted the law to the Department of Justice, which normally reviews all changes to Alabama's election laws under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. But before the Justice Department could make a decision, the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, withdrew the request for review and notified Washington that the state would enforce the new law and that it didn't need preclearance from the DOJ.
But the law immediately ran into problems. An ethics panel of the Alabama Supreme Court in 1997 found a host of practical problems with enforcement and recommended the law be revised. Ten years later, a lawsuit in Birmingham to try to get the law enforced was dismissed.
So now Benjamin Little, an Anniston City councilman who says he wants to contribute to judicial campaigns and is a party to pending lawsuits, wants the law formally blocked until the Justice Department can review it. Until then, he's worried that someone could decide to enforce the law and "deprive (him) the opportunity to have the judicial candidates of choice participate in judicial decisions involving his cases, both in his personal and official capacities, on the basis of political contributions," the complaint states.
This may be a poorly written law -- they do happen in the Alabama Legislature -- but surely no one can argue with the general intent? I mean, when a judge is looking at the parties involved in a case and he or she received thousands (or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands) from one of them, that is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Yes, this is the way we've always done it, but it leaves our courts subject to criticism as being tempted to dispense the best justice money can buy.
It's gets discouraging when we have to watch Senators Shelby and Sessions rail against the extension of unemployment benefits and see every Alabama House member except Congressman Davis voting against extension. But it's great to know we have a choice in November. Democratic candidate for Senate, Bill Barnes, supports the extension AND ties the loss of jobs to the loss of health insurance:
"I support the extension of unemployment benefits and reason being is that those taxpayers who are unemployed have to have some type of subsistence income to maintain a basic standard of living.
They still have mortgages to pay. If it's not a mortgage, it's rent. They have to live somewhere! We can't just throw them out in the cold. And it's their families too. My wife is a kindergarten teacher and I see this and hear about it from her: the families people are facing and how it affects their family members.
Whenever someone loses their job, for example, they lose their health benefits. We're trying now to incorporate a system where families don't get hurt when that happens to them in the event that the family breadwinner(s) lose their jobs.
Their children shouldn't be hurt. They're innocent! They had nothing to do with that. Why should they be hurt?"
Barnes doesn't agree with the GOP that the people on unemployment are just lazy bums who prefer unemployment benefits to full time jobs.
"Absolutely NOT. I don't agree with it. That's not the purpose of it. Of course, there are some who are going to take advantage of it, but do we punish everyone for the actions of a few?
My answer is NO."
This is the second in a series of posts from an interview LIA did with Barnes in early July. The video from this interview is on the flip and you can contribute to the campaign at this link. Every dollar and every contributor counts, so pull out your wallets and support someone who's taking on the "Big Dick" of Alabama why don't you?
T.H.E. Social Work Agency Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers. blog advertising is good for you
Politico "breaks" the "news" that 
Does this animal exist?
Virginia Sweet
She's that good. 
Hint: Republicans voted against it, because NO is all they KNOW.
f you haven't been following 
"I support the extension of unemployment benefits and reason being is that those taxpayers who are unemployed have to have some type of subsistence income to maintain a basic standard of living. 
