« War vs. Cosmopolitanism | Main | Help Democrats Take Back the House »
Friday, August 18, 2006
Packing Them In: Yesterday's Pelosi-Madrid Rally
| www.flickr.com |
House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared at a packed, raucous, rowdy rally at the IBEW hall in Albuquerque yesterday with NM-01 Congressional candidate Patricia Madrid. They rocked the cheering crowd and skewered Heather Wilson's love affair with the oil companies, bigtime. (Click on photos for larger versions.)
Skyrocketing gas prices? Heather doesn't care. She voted to give oil companies massive tax cuts despite the unprecedented profits they're making off the unnaturally high price of oil.
Global warming? Heather doesn't care. She's against almost everything that would slow down the process.
The urgent need to develop alternative energy sources? Heather doesn't care. She helped Bush run up a humongous deficit caused by everything from unaffordable tax cuts for the wealthy to the incompetence and dishonesty that's on display in the Iraq War. We won't have many resources left to tackle these kinds of problems with the Iraq debacle sucking $250,000 a day out of our coffers.
Bottom line: Heather cares about the same things Bush cares about: heaping more money on our wealthiest citizens and our most unscrupulous corporations while ordinary Americans and the common good suffer.
Here's the lame response from the Wilson campaign to the rally:
"Nancy Pelosi is a liberal with a liberal agenda and she aggressively recruited Patricia Madrid to run so that they can advance their liberal agenda together," said Wilson's campaign manager, Enrique Carlos Knell.
That's right, Enrique. We're Democrats. We're "liberal" because we're dissatisfied with the failures that make up the current status quo of the Bush team (including Heather). After all, "liberal" is defined as:
- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Some synonyms for "liberal" include: advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, enlightened, flexible, free, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, interested, magnanimous, rational, reasonable, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced. Not a bad bunch of adjectives, are they?
Basically, the word "liberal" refers to an open-minded problem solver. And Madrid certainly is that, as evidenced by her long public service career. If you can relate, go help her beat the Heather-Bush-Rove cabal: https://madridforcongress.org/. Help steer our nation in a Democratic New Direction, where open-minded problem solving returns as the defining American M.O.
August 18, 2006 at 01:52 PM in Candidates & Races, Visuals | Permalink
Comments
and while we're looking up appropriate definitions, Patsy's foe brought this one to mind
nincompoop:One deficient in judgment and good sense
Posted by: suz | Aug 18, 2006 2:50:37 PM
I loved when Pelosi called Wilson a "handmaiden for the oil companies." Oh yeah.
Posted by: Madrid Fan | Aug 18, 2006 3:44:27 PM
Hey Carlos, see how this definition of Liberal works for ya!!" If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- ... then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
John F. Kennedy
Posted by: VP | Aug 18, 2006 3:46:03 PM
Compare the synonyms for liberal with these for the word "CONSERVATIVE":
controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, hidebound, inflexible, obstinate, old guard, timid, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, bitter-ender, fossil, obstructionist, old fogy, reactionary, stick-in-the-mud
Like it's an insult to be the opposite of these characteristics!
Posted by: | Aug 18, 2006 3:54:31 PM
I was there and the only thing I disliked was the part of the Dem Six Pack that calls for "rebuilding" the military. Aren't we spending enough on that already? We need to rebuild our domestic vitality, not our military capabilities. Enough already.
Posted by: JLC | Aug 18, 2006 5:18:01 PM
Why do they always have to hold rallies and such on days when I actually have plans?
Looks like a fun time was had by all.
Posted by: | Aug 18, 2006 6:51:19 PM
I'm all rah-rah for Madrid v. Wilson, but the high gas prices zinger has always made me a bit uneasy.
I want gasoline prices to be high. Higher than they are now. $5-$6 a gallon. High enough to change transportation habits in the U.S. (which I know ain't gonna be easy).
On the happier, lefty side I also would prefer we nationalize the energy industry in this country. Since that is about as likely as the KC Royals winning the World Series at this point, perhaps special taxes could be put into place solely for the oil industry in which those companies would have to basically pay for all the wars/invasions/occupations made necessary by our reliance on foreign oil.
So, getting back to Madrid/Wilson...I know I might be a bit naive, or really really naive, but I wish we could elevate /expand the discourse on this issue a bit beyond "gas prices high/oil companies bad". But, then again, I don't see why "American Idol" is a popular TV show, either.
Posted by: | Aug 19, 2006 8:49:41 AM
It's easy to say you want gas prices high when you have the spare cash to pay for it. However, there are many Americans who make very little money and live in places where public transportation isn't available. What are they supposed to do to get to work, to the grocery store, etc? The average income of middle class and working class people has been going down in real dollars for some time now. They can't afford large increases in fuel costs.
Also, high oil prices affect almost everything we use as so many products are made from petroleum based substances, so much is transported by air or truck, etc.
I think a better approach would be to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and use them to fund projects that decrease the use of oil, like public transportation, alternative energy vehicles, expanding and improving rail service for transporting goods and people, etc.
Posted by: Old Dem | Aug 19, 2006 10:12:17 AM
Old Dem:
You raise a point that illustrates why I'm more Independent than Dem. I frankly tire of the argument that some can't afford higher gas prices. I figure if a person drives less that will save them money.
If it doesn't, then maybe that inconvenienced person will change transportation habits whether they be lower, middle or upper class. The inconvenience doesn't have to be price, of course. Increasing gridlock works just as well, I guess.
The argument that economic hardships hit "working families" more is: 1. so obvious that it's not really helpful in forming policy at this point; 2. being used to perpetuate reactionary short-term policies (gas prices high...must lower gas prices) instead of creating profound, meaningful long-term solutions.
Posted by: | Aug 19, 2006 1:47:44 PM
The problem with attacking the energy problem by depending so much on higher prices is that, of course, it affects our poor and working class citizens in their ability to get to work, school, grocery stores etc., while not stopping the biggest consumers of oil and energy -- the upper classes -- from cutting down at all. Why should the poor be expected to make most of the sacrifice when it's the expensive SUVs that are slurping most of the gas?
This is why many Democrats are addressing the problems on many levels. There's public transportation, miles per gallon efficiencies in vehicles, alternate fuel and engine development and open-ended research on energy issues. You can't attack the problem on any one front and expect any real change. We need a big change in many areas.
If there is no public transportation in an area, how are people supposed to get to where they need to go if gas prices are so high the less fortunate among us can't afford it?
I think many who call themselves "independent" aren't willing to do the work necessary to change minds and get candidates and others to see the light. It's kind of a cop out. "They don't believe what I believe so I will take my ball and go home (or be an independent)>
Why not work for what you believe in?
Posted by: Old Dem | Aug 20, 2006 11:36:11 AM
Old Dem:
I've enjoyed the exchange, but we both understand that in our little back and forth we're sure to oversimplify on both sides. Of energy policy is a big problem, and I agree we need to address it on many fronts.
In fact, I think we're agreeing on quite a bit here. We do have, it seems, different interpretations of certain aspects of the problem (for instance, I'd argue SUV sales are highly gas-price sensitive, as evidenced by Ford's decision to slash production of them), and differing levels of belief in the power of dramatically raising gasoline prices (I find it interesting, for instance, that scooters are already becoming much more popular with gas at only $3/gallon).
More than anything, we seem to have differing interpretations of today's Democratic Party. You see, and rightly so in part, a Party seeking to change energy policy through meaningful proposals and discussion. I see a Democratic Party whose inability to stay united helped pass the horrific Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Given the lack of dependability offered by the overall Democratic Party, some of us prefer the term Independent. Or Green. Or, perhaps more importantly, Non-Voter.
I'm all for a Democratic Party that proposes and implements the energy policy ideas that you state in your comment. Of course, I'd go beyond that but I know you were limiting your remarks given this "comment" forum.
Unfortunately, I see your Party currently focusing very little on the progressive ideas you bring up and much more on the simple "gas prices high/oil companies bad". That combined with the fact that some Democrats helped give us that Energy Bill in 2005 makes me less than excited about prospects for truly profound energy policy even in a Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
In sum, I guess my short-hand answer is that I have more belief in the power of $5/gallon gas than I do in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: | Aug 20, 2006 12:44:44 PM
Again, you don't address poor or moderate income people.
I agree that many Dems don't work for what I believe in. That's why I work within the Party to change that. If you don't vote, you're not in the game. If you don't vote, politicians can ignore your positions. If you don't work to make change, it won't happen.
Posted by: Old Dem | Aug 20, 2006 1:16:22 PM
Old Dem:
In trying to keep my posts under 5,000 words per (a problem of mine), I'm not getting to everything.
Quickly though...I think many, many "middle class" people drive SUVs. Using SUV ownership as the defining criteria to categorize a person as "rich" doesn't match the reality. I don't have figures, but I'm guessing the collapse of SUV sales with higher gas prices is especially true with middle class owners.
As for the poor, higher gas prices affect them the most, especially as many poor folks are forced to drive older, inefficient cars with lousy gas mileage. At the same time, even poor people make economic decisions in response to the change in prices. Bus ridership goes up, people move closer to work or their jobs closer to their homes.
Many of us reading this fine blog were at one time poor, and I can remember changing lifestyle choices based on simple facts like my old beater car blew up and I couldn't afford to fix it. Individuals, even poor ones, are capable of devising alternatives when it comes to transportation.
Okay, I've gone on long enough again..but I did want to finish by complimenting your ideas on how oil companies could be forced to pay community mass transit costs with their obscene profits. I'm all for that. And I'd vote for someone who proposed and implemented a plan like that in a heartbeat.
And finally, speaking of voting...I do vote. I was only bringing up the GOTV question and the importance of non-voters in any race, especially one as close at Madrid/Wilson.
Posted by: | Aug 20, 2006 2:25:53 PM
