Ohio Loses Two Seats: Kucinich Unbound?

The Congressional redistricting that will arise from the 2010 Census won't help Dems, but I figured that, since South Dakota's already as low as it can go in House representation, there's not much to get excited about.

Then one of my favorite Ohioan transplants sends me this depressing Christmas note: Ohio will lose two Representatives, and one may be my man Dennis Kucinich!

Ohio's population grew by 183,000 people over the last decade to 11.5 million, but it wasn't enough to keep up with fast-growing states in the South.

Ohio has 18 congressional districts that now will drop to 16.

...In November, Democrats lost five out of 10 U.S. House seats they currently hold in Ohio. The remaining five are tightly packed into an area that stretches from Toledo through Cleveland and into Youngstown.

...Among the Ohio Democrats in Congress who could face losing their districts are Cleveland's Dennis Kucinich and Betty Sutton, who represents Lorain and Elyria, plus suburban Cleveland and the Akron area.

Both are in areas that have lost population in the last decade ["Ohio Loses 2 Seats in Congress, Sutton and Kucinich May Go," AP via Morning Journal, 2010.12.21].

On the bright side, I'm pleased that the Republicans might consider Kucinich a sufficiently big thorn in their side to draw him off the Congressional map. But I'll bet some elephant in the map room is thinking, "Hey! If we redistrict Dennis out of a job, maybe he'll change his mind and run in the 2012 primary against Obama!"

----------------------
Bonus Ohio love: Bob Schwartz has been enjoying a solstice resurgence, cranking out lots of good blog posts on new START (passed!), ethanol, Thune hypocrisy, and other matters over the past week. Keep those keys clicking Bob!

Keep Fighting, Dems: Obama-GOP Tax Deal Entrenches Plutocracy

Dennis Kucinich is not planning to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012. Maybe we can draft Robert Reich, who justifies efforts Kucinich and other rowdy Dems may make to beat the Obama-GOP tax-rate deal into better shape:

If the Democratic Party has stood for anything over the years it is to maintain and restore upward mobility for the majority of working Americans, ensure that the playing field isn’t tilted in the direction of the privileged, and limit the power of the richest among us to entrench themselves and their heirs into a semi-permanent plutocracy.

Continuing the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, including a sharp cut in the estate tax, violates these core principles. Doing so in the midst of an economic emergency that demands bold measures to rescue America’s vast middle and working class adds further insult. For President Obama and former President Clinton to tell America there’s “no other choice” or that “this is the best we can do” — when Democrats remain putatively in control of the House, Senate, and the presidency — is misleading [Robert Reich, "Why Democrats Should Disregard Bill Clinton's Endorsement of Obama's Tax Deal," blog, 2010.12.11].

Among the things I appreciate about Reich's call to principle is that he acknowledges that he admires his former boss and the current Commander-in-Chief as "good men." Yet he disagrees with them, civilly and passionately... just as we could in a good healthy primary. Hmmm... Reich-Kucinich 2012? Weiner-Paul?

Cap and Trade Not Ballot-Box Poison

Heartland Consumer Power District's Mike McDowell wags his finger at Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and any other Congressmen thinking of taking advantage of the lame-duck session to "enact policies rejected by the voters on November 3rd [sic]." McDowell's warning carries the hint that he includes cap and trade in that batch of "rejected" policies.

Mr. McDowell's queasiness about cap and trade, that really effective policy that was part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, was not rejected by the electorate last week. The bill never made it to a vote in our laggardly Senate, but in the House, 80% of the Democrats who voted for ACESA won re-election. 27 out of 43 Democrats—63%—who voted no on ACESA lost last week. Only one of eight House Republicans who voted with Nancy Pelosi for cap and trade was beaten at the ballot box, and that was Delaware's Mike Castle, who lost the Senate primary to Christine O'Donnell... which worked out nicely for Democrats and other reasonable people.

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was one of those Democratic nays. So was Dennis Kucinich. But Herseth Sandlin the Blue Dog lost, while Kucinich the fire-breathing liberal won. Go figure... and keep that in mind, candidates-in-waiting, as you think about whether you want to run in 2012 as an "Independent (democrat)" or a just plain "Democrat."

-----------------------------------
By the way, conservatives, instead of gambling on your extreme best-case scenario that the scientific consensus is wrong, climate change isn't happening, and oil will last forever, why not be real conservatives and join the Dems in this lame-duck session to pass serious climate change and energy security legislation?

Dennis Kucinich, Health Care Hero for South Dakota

While South Dakota Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin finds a convenient excuse on procedural matters to continue her opposition to health insurance reform, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich may actually save this legislation and save money and lives in South Dakota.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank can't resist taking cheap shots at my man Dennis (leprechaun?!? Really?) before acknowledging the biggest idealist in Washington is talking pragmatic sense. The Kansas City Star's Arturo Mora says Kucinich may make history as the man "who broke the Republican back on healthcare reform."

Mora skips the leprechaun jokes and notes Kucinich isn't the only Catholic getting behind this legislation. Ask the nuns!

Oh yeah, and we're actually talking about legislation that will make our lives better. The House Energy and Commerce Committee reminds us what the health insurance bill will do here in South Dakota:

• Improve coverage for 513,000 residents with health insurance.
• Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 217,000 families and 23,100 small businesses to help them afford coverage.
• Improve Medicare for 133,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole [Grandma, are you listening?!].
• Extend coverage to 45,000 uninsured residents.
• Guarantee that 11,500 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
• Protect 700 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
• Allow 67,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents’ insurance plans.
• Provide millions of dollars in new funding for 46 community health centers.
  
• Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $116 million annually [House Committee on Energy and Commerce, "The Benefits of Health Care Reform in South Dakota," March 2010].

That's a lot of good for a lot of people in South Dakota. And the report doesn't even mention the 50 South Dakotans who die each year because they don't have health insurance. (The number nationwide: one estimate says 27,500 a year. How many 9-11's a year is that?)

While Herseth Sandlin hems and haws, Dennis Kucinich appears to have the interests of South Dakotans in mind as he gets ready to vote for health insurance reform. Our respects and thanks, Congressman Kucinich.

p.s.: By the way, Mr. Newland, those doctors are bluffing. The Medicus survey is industry agitprop. Don't be fooled by The Man, Bob!

pp.s.: Oh, and this health insurance reform bill cuts the deficit. Cuts the deficit!

Pass ACESA, Part V: Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good

[Part 5 of a series based on my conversation with the gents from Repower South Dakota and the Environmental Law & Policy Center.]

Last month, Repower South Dakota held a forum on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, at the Rural Learning Center in Howard. Afterward, Heartland GM Mike McDowell told the Madison Daily Leader that ACESA is "one of the worst pieces of legislation that I've seen in my lifetime."

(Worst? Mike, did you see the Patriot Act? No Child Left Behind? the Big Pharma Medicare handouts in 2005? And people think I have a hyperbole problem.)

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

McDowell's skepticism seems odd, considering how his organization is desperately trying to save the failing Big Stone II coal plant, whose backers have claimed that ACESA would actually be beneficial to Big Stone II.*

Nonetheless, McDowell cites two major flaws in ACESA:

"It does not preserve or provide a system that will keep consumers' electricity rates affordable," McDowell said. "This bill attacks only one-third to 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions and leaves the rest of the emissions unregulated" [Elisa Sand, "Clean Energy Bill Draws Mixed Views at Howard Forum," Madison Daily Leader, 2009.08.24].

I'll address electric rates in a later post. For now, let's focus on McDowell's argument that ACESA doesn't do enough. I have to admit, I like it when McDowell sounds like my man Dennis Kucinich. But does McDowell really want to impose even stricter emissions caps, shrink offsets, and eliminate subsidies to coal? (Please, Mike, say yes!)

In our conversation about ACESA, Matt McLarty of ELPC responded with the pragmatist's position: We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Analogize it this way: suppose there's a flood coming. The National Guard pulls up with a few truckloads of old sandbags, enough to build dikes along 40% of the creek bank. Do we look at the troops and say, "No thanks, we'll wait until someone brings us enough sandbags for the whole creek... preferably the new fancy sandbags that don't cause calluses"? Heck no! We grab and stack and tell Sergeant Sandbag to get on the horn to HQ for more!

Another good pragmatist, RSD's Rick Hauffe, reminds me that there is a difference between the philosophy behind legislation and the strategy of crafting and passing legislation. ACESA doesn't have everything that either Mike McDowell or I want. No legislation ever will. The Clean Air Act of 1990 faced the same arguments from greenies like me that it didn't do enough:

But the proposal came under ferocious political assault during those months. The final bill reflected a series of compromises needed to keep the coalition supporting it together. But the sulfur dioxide cap, a roughly 50 percent reduction in emissions over the next decade, held. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that compliance with the program is close to 100 percent.

“Our proposal was at first ridiculed by environmentalists as little more than a license to pollute,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee and an early supporter of tradable permits. “But today, few dispute it is one of the government’s most successful regulatory programs ever” [John M. Broder, "From a Theory to a Consensus on Emissions," New York Times, 2009.05.16].

There are strong arguments that we would achieve more concrete results and show more global leadership if we adopted a tougher bill. We could do more, but as McLarty notes, more could be the federal government choosing to impose carbon taxes and fines. Instead, McLarty says, ACESA, like the Clean Air Act, chooses a compromise route, inviting industry to solve the problem in a market-based system that has been proven to work.

ACESA will not solve everything. There will still be lots of work to do after ACESA passes.

But in the meantime, hand me those sandbags.

-----------------------
Update 2009.11.03: Now that Big Stone II is dead, the project backers are scrubbing history and have deleted the page I linked. But you can read the same argument from Big Stone II spokesperson Dan Sharp in this July 2009 interview with the Minnesota Independent (hat tip to Badlands Blue!).

Health Care in the House: Not Single-Payer, But Good Enough?

Knowing amendments may pile up quickly, I hesitate to go too deeply into the details of the new health care bill before the House. But here are some praiseworthy bits I find in HR 3200:

1. A prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions.
2. Guaranteed issue and renewal: insurers can't drop you for getting sick; you lose your coverage only for not paying your bill or defrauding your insurer.
3. Insurers can charge you higher premiums as you get older, but the highest geezer premium can be no more than twice the best young-pup premium.
4. Health plans must cover mental health and substance abuse treatments, preventive care, and (here's the real pro-life policy!) maternity and well-baby/well-child care.
   
5. Cost-sharing—deductibles, copayments, etc.—on essential coverage is capped at $5K per individual and $10K per family, with annual increases tied to the Consumer Price index.

...and that gets me about a tenth of the way through the bill. Much more to read!

H.R. 3200 is not single-payer, so obviously, Dennis Kucinich and I are disappointed. but for those of you who think we can sit back, do nothing, and let the magical invisible hand solve everything, consider Rep. Kucinich's damning assessment of health care in America:

Medicine in the U.S. is a profit driven market commodity distributed according to the ability to pay rather than a basic human right distributed as a public service according medical need. No wonder that the United States ranks 47th in life expectancy and 23rd in infant mortality. In this profit driven, private insurance based system there are over 1400 manage care organizations and 5000 health insurance plans. We have the most expensive health care system in the world – over 16% of our GDP. Two point four trillion dollars a year goes to health spending and 1 out of every 3 dollars go to the activities of the for-profit system- for corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, and the cost of paperwork. Yet 47 million people remain uninsured and another 50 million are underinsured. I submit that there is a direct relationship between the for-profit health care system and the uninsured and the underinsured [Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), opening statement, House Education and Labor Committee, 2009.07.15].

The market isn't working. We need a public option—yes, one run by the government. The ideal would be single-payer, but if we can get even a partial public option to compete with the private insurers and put people over profits, we'll have made progress.

Obama Caving on Health Care; Let's Push Single-Payer!

I still miss Dennis Kucinich. He would not cave the way the Obama Administration appears inclined to do to the big-money interests in health care. Robert Reich doesn't mention Dennis, but he agrees with me about single-payer and the need to put ideals over compromise on this issue:

Many experts have long agreed that a so-called "single-payer" plan is the ideal, because competition among private insurers who pay health-care bills inevitably causes them to spend big bucks trying to find and market policies to healthy and younger people at relatively low risk of health problems while avoiding sicker and older people with higher risks (and rejecting those with pre-existing conditions altogether), and also contesting and litigating many claims. A single payer saves all this money and focuses on caring for sick people and preventing the healthy from becoming sick. The other advantage of a single payer is it can use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower prices from pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and suppliers.

Not surprisingly, insurance and drug companies have been dead-set against a single payer for years. And they've so frightened the public into thinking that "single payer" means loss of choice of doctor (that's wrong -- many single payer plans in other nations allow choices of medical deliverers) that politicians no longer even mention it [Robert Reich, "The Health Care Cave-In," TPMCafé, 2009.05.18].

President Obama won't even let single-payer advocates sit at the table. Reich complains that the Obama Administration is backing away even from a public plan designed to compete with rather than replace the private system. Reich makes a compelling argument that all of the compromise alternatives—regional and state-level public plans, national plan bound by private-insurer rules—would leave us in the same mess we're in now, with profiteers pushing costs and leaving people out in the cold.

Dennis, it's time for a little heck-raising in the House. Let's push for single-payer to pull the compromise back to our side.

Universal Health Care: When Opportunity Knocks...

What? Daschle's out at HHS? Dang! More on that later (after I check my 1040s). But for the moment, the most important question is, who will lead the Obama Administration's push for universal health coverage?

How about the man who has supported universal health coverage from the get-go: Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich!

Come on, Barack, you owe Dennis. Remember Iowa?

Everyone else you've picked has been a good pragmatic choice; throw us hardcore libs this one bone (or should I say kielbasa?), and double down on your commitment to real health care reform. Dennis for Secretary of Health and Human Services!

Bush Agrees with Kucinich: GM Needs Govt Funds

Wednesday evening, I heard two interesting sound bites on NPR. They were covering the House debate on the doomed automaker bailout bill. Republican Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia took the floor to argue against the bill. He asked why Congress should invest public dollars in GM and Chrysler when private investors were unwilling to put their money in those companies. Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio responded that the loss of 3.3 million jobs tied to the American automotive industry was simply "untenable."

The bill passed the House, but failed in the Senate. Now President Bush appears to be taking Rep. Kucinich's position, reversing earlier opposition and looking for a way to direct some TARP money toward GM—not much, maybe $4 billion and change, just enough to keep them afloat until Inauguration Day, when Bush can wash his hands of the problem.

Two ironies here: one, that George W. Bush is agreeing with Dennis Kucinich, and two, that I, a diehard Kucinich supporter, am not sure either man is right. I actually have some sympathy for Rep. Cantor's argument, as the free market still holds great appeal for me. The automakers' plans for restructuring were discussed publicly at the Congressional hearings; if those plans were so great, Wall Street should have responded, right? The market would have recognized the automakers' plan as a winner and started pouring private capital back into the automakers' coffers. That didn't happen (although we can argue chickens and eggs here: GM's stock did tick up on Monday, but investors were more likely betting on government aid, not faith in GM's vision).

Cantor's argument is free market fundamentalism at its finest: if the free market says die, let it die. And for the most part, when it comes to these greedy, mismanaged, short-sighted corporations, I agree. Workers and homeowners have to live and die by the market; why not corporations?

But let's remember: the free market isn't the final arbiter of value. Like Kucinich and now President Bush, Adam Smith saw the free market as a means to some but not all ends. Adam Smith recognized that government has a proper role in doing what the free market cannot. Among other things, the government has in Smith's economics a duty to support those great public works that the free market cannot, things like roads, bridges, and parks.

So the question is not simply "Can GM survive in the free market?" The question is, "Is GM not just a corporation, but a great public work?" Does GM serve such an important public purpose—providing useful jobs, benefits, and products—that we should invest public dollars in it?

President Bush seems to be coming around to Rep. Kucinich's position that yes, GM is so worthy. Will wonders never cease?

Dennis Kucinich in NY Times: The Race He Could Win, The War We Might Fight

Hat tip to Ohio blogger Jill Miller Zemon!

Just in time for the Democratic National Convention, Dennis Kucinich gets some press in the New York Times, a friendly howdy from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Among the highlights of Deborah Solomon's Q&A:

Solomon: Before you ended your quixotic bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in January and continued on as a congressman from Cleveland, did you believe you could really be president?

Kucinich: No one runs unless they think they can.

Solomon: But you’re a vegan. Do you think America is ready to elect a non-beef-eating president?

Kucinich: I think America is ready for a president with a blood pressure of 90 over 60 who could beat most people half his age in a sprint [Deborah Solomon, "The Wild Card," New York Times, 2008.08.22].

Even my man Dennis can fall into some macho posturing. But it's not macho B.S.: 62 years old, no beer gut, still sporting that slim runner's build... put Dennis and any random sampling of Americans on a track, and he just might come out in the top 3 every time.

Of greater interest is Kucinich's worry that the Bush Administration may use the Georgia-Russia conflict to boost the McCain campaign:

Solomon: Are you saying the Bush administration is likely to declare war soon just to help Republican candidates pick up some votes?

Kucinich: Well, you know, they increased the funding to Georgia a while back for military purposes.

Solomon: You think President Saakashvili of Georgia was encouraged, possibly by the American government, to cry victim?

Kucinich: Look. Saakashvili had an American lobbyist who is now part of the McCain campaign, and I am sure he was given advice. The idea of striking during the Olympics would have to come out of Madison Avenue. We have to be able to see through this. And the one thing I have shown an ability to do is to cut through the b.s.

Kucinich's comments here complemented a discussion I heard on Friday night's BBC world news broadcast. Alexander Nekrassov, Russian investigative journalist, BBC commentator, and former Yeltsin advisor, sees the Bush Administration manufacturing the Georgian conflict to promote U.S. interests and blowing the crisis out of proportion to scare Americans into voting for John McCain to keep them safe in a new Cold War. Stay tuned on that one....

Solomon also notes that Kucinich is speaking to the DNC Tuesday. I don't see his name on the official schedule yet, but he's a superdelegate, so hey, Joe Prostrollo! Get me a Dennis photo!

Obama Needs Dose of Kucinich on FISA Reform

SD Moderate reminds me why I miss Dennis Kucinich. Barack Obama appears poised to cave on a pledge to filibuster any FISA reform offering retroactive immunity to the telecom corporations who have cahootsified with the government in trashing the Constitution and tapping our phones. Our own own Congresswoman has voted for that immunity.

Meanwhile Dennis Kucinich sticks to his principles and votes against the current legislation:



Thank you, Dennis. You need to pay a visit to Obama's office this week and remind him that compromise has its place, but not on Constitutional rights.

Of course, we all know where Senator McCain stands on immunity for wealthy interests who break the law....

Dems Unite Behind Obama

One of my commenters finds it "amazing" that I could be a staunch Kucinich man and still stand up for Senator Obama now. No more amazing than the fact that Senator Clinton, having lost her battle for the Democratic nomination, could today endorse Senator Obama and exhort her supporters to back his historic bid for the Presidency.

Said Jon Cardinal, a Clinton backer at her endorsement address today in Washington, DC, "This is a somber day.... It's going to be tough after being against Obama for so long."

I know what you mean, Jon. My wife and I still consider ourselves Kucinich Democrats, members of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, like Paul Wellstone and my new acquaintance from this week's blog convention, New Hampshire's Arnie Arneson. When Dennis dropped out in January, we were genuinely disappointed.

But sometimes you've got to back the horse you have rather than the horse you were wishing for. The Spurs didn't make the NBA Finals, but is that enough to make you basketball lovers skip watching the Celtics and the Lakers rekindle their historic championship rivalry?

Same for presidential politics... although the historic battle to come between Obama and McCain is much more than a game, and we are much more than spectators. It is a fight for the fate of our country, a fight we can't afford to sit out over sour grapes. Back in December, not one of the Dems (or the Republicans, for that matter) had a majority of the voters. Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards (Brownback, Huckabee, Romney...) -- there's no lack of voters who could sit back and grouse about how the best person didn't ascend to the top of the ticket. But if we all did that, there'd be about 10% of the population turning out to vote in November, and that's no way to play this game.

Obama vs. McCain: that's the big game in town. Let's suit up, play hard and play fair, and may the best candidate win!

Clinton -- The New Kucinich... or the New Nader?

Senator Clinton and her supporters are sounding more like my man Dennis Kucinich -- not on real universal health care, alas, but on why she should stay in the race until the very end. You don't tell the runner in second to give up, said one supporter on SDPB's Dakota Midday yesterday. You don't quit just because it looks like someone else is going to win. You keep running, keep fighting, keep adding to the conversation and giving voters a choice.

I would be curious to rewind the tape and find out how many of Senator Clinton's supporters offered the same defense of Dennis Kucinich in 2004, who was still campaigning against Senator Kerry at this point in 2004 and didn't endorse the presumptive nominee until July. Kucinich could at least claim to offer some clear and discussion-worthy differences from Kerry that were worthy of voters' consideration: the differences Clinton enunciates as her justification for remaining in the race are mostly personal -- electability, experience, being a fighter, etc.

Perhaps an even more potent comparison would be found in considering what Clinton has said about Ralph Nader's Presidential aspirations:

“His being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had, and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it. I’m pretty sad about that,” Clinton told reporters on the campaign plane as she was en route to several appearances in Rhode Island and Boston.

Clinton was unaware, until questioned about by reporters, that Nader had announced Sunday morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he had decided to enter the 2008 race, and she was clearly surprised at the news.

“Well that’s really unfortunate. I remember when he did this before. It did not turn out very well for anybody, most especially our country,” she said. “This time I hope it doesn’t hurt anybody. I hope it’s kind of a passing fancy that people don’t take too seriously” [Beth Frerking, "Clinton Slams Nader over Presidential Bid," Politico.com, 2008.02.24].

Indeed, how dare someone with little chance of winning divide the voters and cost the frontrunner the election....

Speaking of frontrunners, remember the good old days when Clinton was that frontrunner? Take a look at today's historical chart of the Real Clear Politics Poll Average for the Democratic Presidential nomination: Clinton peaked at 48.5% in October 2007, around the time Senator McGovern endorsed her. Obama was actually down from some initial buzzy ratings, around 21%. Seven months and millions of dollars later, Clinton hasn't managed to build any support. Her numbers have stayed stuck in the same 40%-45% range all this time. Obama, meanwhile, has produced a return on his investment, evidently drawing a lot of the undecideds and folks like me whose preferred candidates dropped out.

As a Kucinich man and as a June 3 South Dakota primary voter, I can't tell the second-place candidate to drop out. But understand: Obama is going to win in South Dakota and Montana in June, in Denver in August, and nationwide in November. If Clinton has something to add to the conversation about different visions of policy and mission for America, by all means, bring it on. I will respect that effort... but I will expect Clinton and her supporters to accord the same respect to the Kuciniches and Naders who will offer voters differing visions and choices in future elections.

p.s.: Kucinich remains an uncommitted superdelegate... have you called Dennis lately, Hillary?

----
Update 2008.05.25: Another hint of the Clinton-Nader parallel appaers on Dr. Blanchard's corner of SD Politics.

Navy Vet Calls for Department of Peace

There must be something about Lake Herman that turns old warriors into doves. My neighbor Gerald Lange served in the Air Force and now is a strong peace advocate. Another neighbor, Charles Stoneback, was a U.S. Navy Captain in charge of nuclear missiles who now advocates Dennis Kucinich's legislation (HR 808) to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Maybe Jimmy Carter should bring Hamas and the Israeli government to Lake Herman for a weekend. Maybe Howard Dean could bring Clinton and Obama to settle the nomination...

But anyway, Capt. Stoneback got the following letter published in that Sioux Falls paper* a couple weeks ago. I am happy to reprint it here as a yet another fine product of the Lake Herman Brain Trust (that's Lake Herman for you: seat of elitist radicalism that might save the world).

House Bill HR 808 would create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. The primary function will be to research, articulate and facilitate nonviolent solutions to domestic and international conflict. This bill to date has 68 cosponsors but unfortunately our Rep Herseth-Sandlin is not among them.

Although I am a retired U. S, Navy Captain who has spent many years in the submarine launched ballistic missile program I have become convinced in later years that neither war or the spending on our vast military industrial complex have made us a safer or richer nation. Our Civil War left a half million combatants dead but it wasn’t until the active nonviolent movement of Martin Luther King that our black citizens achieved a degree of equality. World War I was to end all wars but severe war reparations on Germany led to the rise of Hitler and an even deadlier war. The power of active nonviolence was proven most effective in two other post World War II situations. The first was Gandhi”s active nonviolent march in removing the British from India. The second was active nonviolence by Polish shipyard workers as well as citizens of East Berlin and Czechoslovakia and finally Russia in ending the Cold War. We claimed it was a just war in Viet Nam to save the world from Communism and another just war in Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. In Viet Nam our defeat resulted in a nationalistic independent nation and I suspect the same will happen in Iraq. Unfortunately we leave hundreds of thousands of collateral dead in addition to precious blood of our youth and trillions of dollars in debt to burden future generations.

Is it not worth spending a small portion of our defense budget to explore nonviolent solutions to conflict? If you agree, ask Rep. Herseth-Sandlin to sign on to the Department of Peace bill and to ask Senators Thune and Johnson to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.

Seems to me peace and nonviolence are pro-life issues. Maybe if South Dakotans would stop obsessing over sex and making women second-class citizens, we could make some real progress toward making life better (and longer!) for our soldiers and for people around the world.

Kucinich Out -- Where's a True Democrat to Turn?

My black veil, please: The bell tolls today for the Dennis Kucinich Presidential campaign. My man Dennis is on record in his hometown Cleveland Plain Dealer saying he is "transitioning" out of the Presidential race to focus on fighting a primary battle for his seat in Congress (that vote happens in Ohio March 4).

Two heavy sighs rise from the western shore of Lake Herman. A blunt "Good riddance!" probably comes from Cleveland transplant SD Moderate.

Unlike my friend Mr. Epp, who needed just one caucus victory to jump from Edwards to Obama, the Madville Times will need some time to reflect... and maybe gather some signatures.

Dennis, thanks for the effort. You're still the smartest Dem. We still love you here at Lake Herman, and that dinner invitation still stands for you and Elizabeth.

Photo courtesy of "Miss Ruby Foo" 2006.11.30

Update 2008.01.25 10:05 CST: SD Moderate weighs in, as expected:

So the universal heath care champion who didn’t even provide it for his staff has quit because of lack of campaign funds after blowing $27,000 on a re-count in a primary where he barely registered? No wonder Cleveland went belly up on his watch, good bye and good riddance Dennis. [Bob Schwartz, "If a Tree Fell in a Forest..." SDModerate.com, 2008.01.25]

SD Watch Bolts for Obama Bandwagon

...Madville Times remains "Voice of Kucinich" in South Dakota!

SD Watch disappoints me today. One caucus victory, a few strong polls, and the otherwise estimable Mr. Epp jumps ship from Edwards to Obama.

As much as I like and regard John Edwards, the candidate I have been supporting for the Democratic nomination for President, I think Barack Obama is the candidate of change. He is our era's JFK--young, handsome, articulate, charismatic--and most importantly--full of hope and inspiration [Todd Epp, "I Am Powerless Over Obama -- Todd's Man-Crush," SD Watch, 2008.01.08].

Todd has written a check to Obama. The Edwards banner still flies on SD Watch (as of this posting), but Todd has changed his text to declare his support for Obama.

Now I can't blame a guy for changing his mind and being willing to declare that change publicly. But if we're talking change, Dennis Kucinich remains the only candidate to outline serious policy changes for America:

1. Real universal health care -- not this private-insurance Romney/Clinton-care malarkey, but the good guaranteed single-payer not-for-profit stuff they have in France that puts them at the top of the world's health care rankings and would save 101,000 lives a year in America.
2. Department of Peace -- no war forever, troops home ASAP, total paradigm shift in foreign policy from anyone else in the race.
3. Repeal the PATRIOT Act -- who else has the guts to defend the Constitution that passionately?

You want change from the last seven years? You've got to look past image and good press.

If we are witnessing a Clinton collapse (and I'll admit, I'm hoping so), then what a perfect time for the Kucinich insurgency to pick up all the new undecideds! We might be duking it out right to the South Dakota primary (and that's what I'm really wishing for).

If Obama ends up the nominee, I'll be able to get behind him (especially if he picks Kucinich as his running mate -- show me real change, Barack!). But until then, I will continue to proudly fly the Kucinich banner (and so should you!). Hooray for exciting elections!

Zaniya-Romney-ClintonCare No Help for Farmers

The Access Project produces more evidence that the private market fails to provide "affordable, comprehensive" health insurance coverage to our farmers and ranchers. Among the lowlights (as reported in a summary on Nebraska.TV): farm families buying their own insurance spend $4,359/yr more for their health insurance than those who can get insurance through off-farm employment. Neither option is good: either a farm family puts itself at a $4k+ competitive disadvantage by buying its own overpriced insurance, or they send someone to town to work just for insurance, thus depriving the farm of valuable labor. Either way, the family farm takes one more hit in its battle against the big corporate operations.

Mitt Romney says farmers and ranchers and their like aren't being responsible enough and ought to be forced to buy private insurance, like the plan he imposed in Massachusetts; Clinton's faux-universal care offers the same sop to the private insurers. The Zaniya Project considered it (see recommendation #14), then backed off (see recommendation #4, p. 8), but the idea is still going to be floating out there in our Capitol full of insurance agents.

"Solving" the lack of access to affordable health care by requiring people to buy insurance makes as much sense as solving hunger by requiring people to buy food. It's also an insulting dismissal of working people who find they can't afford anything but the stingiest, highest-deductible plans the private insurers will offer. Requiring people to buy health insurance is also a failure of political courage and imagination... although the rest of the industrialized world, as well as Dennis Kucinich, has already done the imagining for us.

I've said it before (when the first Access Project brief on this topic came out), and I'll say it again: our farmers and ranchers don't need to be told to be more responsible for their own health care. They're already doing everything they can. Our political leaders need to find the will to create a system that does what insurance was meant to do: guarantee access to health coverage while protecting the family farm's financial security. The status quo does neither. A single-payer, not-for-profit, genuine universal health care system isn't socialism; it's common sense, and a restoration of competitive advantage for our independent family farms and ranches.

Kucinich: Head and Heart, No Horsehockey

Hey, Iowa readers! Denise wouldn't mention him yesterday on SDPB in her discussion of your crazy-early caucus (save Christmas from campaign ads -- set a national primary for June), but I will: Dennis Kucinich is still the best choice for President. See the PBS NewsHour interview from Oct. 4. There is no other candidate who knows this much, who speaks this straightforwardly, and does it without a huge staff telling him the answers they think the voters want to hear.

Kucinich for Farmers, for Workers... for President!

While the Washington Post trumpets the entry of "Populist Edwards" into the 2008 Presidential race, the Madville Times proudly throws its support behind a real populist, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Of particular interest to South Dakotans should be the Cleveland congressman's views on saving family farms and rural communities by promoting local economy. And Dennis, if you're listening, come on out to South Dakota! We'd love to have you over for dinner and help you round up some primary votes in 2008!