Wyoming Almanac of Politics

Feb. 6, 2010

Auto Recalls and Recollections of an Accident

The on-going recall of various models of Toyotas has brought with it various unanticipated problems. Yesterday, a friend told me that he had received a call from his insurance company that his policy was in suspension until he could bring to their office a copy of the completed work order on the accelerator repair. With lines forming at the Toyota dealer, he may be without his vehicle for several days. Given that driving without insurance in Wyoming is a misdemeanor, he probably shouldn't chance driving it without his policy in force.

I've had some past experience with defective autos. 

On Sept. 6, 1985, while my wife and I were returning from a Saturday work-visit to my brother's newspaper office in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, the wheel came off of our 1981 Honda Civic. My wife was about to enter the doctoral program that month at the University of Washington and already had made plans for living there through the academic year.

As we came over a small hill near the railroad stop of Lookout, suddenly the car began bouncing and pulling like an airplane in severe turbulence. The brake was useless; so was attempting to gear down. The back right wheel had simply snapped off the strutt-axle assembly. With no way to either steer or come to a stop, we rode the car into the median where it rolled 3 1/2 times. When it was over, little was left of the car. I was mostly uninjured; my wife's seatbelt had pulled out and she was seriously injured. Now, 25 years later, she suffers from the effects. And, of course, whenever I'm driving that stretch of road and see the sign at Lookout, I speak the word with a shout, "Look Out!"

Naturally, I reported the incident as a mechanical failure in the hope that corrections to the bad part would be made and it would not happen to anyone else. The curious thing about the aftermath was that Honda denied such a thing as "mechanical failure" could have occurred. They claimed to have "no reports" of it ever happening before--ever. Not with this model nor with any other they had ever built. Further, our own insurance adjuster asserted that "wheels just don't fall off" and tried to come up with an alternate explanation--hard to do, given that the road was straight, dry, and it was windless September afternoon when the accident happened.

The driver had nothing to drink, was well rested, and had driven without an accident for some 20 years. (It was before the era of cellphones and he was not distracted by the radio--it was off--and there were no children or animals in the car. He was about to be bitten by a bee nor did he have a cigarette in his mouth--he never smoked. He neither eating a sandwich nor shaving or brushing his teeth).  No traffic was coming from the opposite direction (it was a four-lane stretch of US 30) and the landscape was flat. There was nothing on the road; the tires were nearly new.

Because of "regulations" and because we were both transported by ambulance to a hospital after the incident, I could not get the vehicle examined before it was towed into town. It was removed "as a traffic hazard" almost as fast as we were brought to the hospital. There in the junkyard lot, the officials who inspected it confirmed the wheel was broken off, but alleged that "it must happened while the car was being towed." Without the critical evidence and unable to pursue the matter further due to injuries and moving to another state, we accepted the insurance settlement and moved on. 

Ever since, however, I've wondered how many others had wheels fall off, perhaps while they were driving along the Columbia Gorge or at night along a crowded interstate highway. How many others might not have had the chance to make a living report?

Given our experience with Honda a quarter century ago, it is no surprise to learn that another auto company, this time Toyota, refused to admit there was a problem even after numerous complaints. Only after many reports of serious incidents confirmed that  the problem was not "driver error," federal officials finally got the company to issue a recall and to make corrections. 

Oddly, the recall is unfolding this week while other issues are being discussed in the media.  "Teabaggers" are decrying all federal regulation and Republicans are demanding "tort reform" (putting dollar limits on liability such as in this case so that a company can decide whether or not it is economically more advantageous to correct a defect or just pay minimal damages to survivors). As hard as it was to get the recall and at the cost in death and injuries that the flaws caused, the incident ought to be a strong message that "teabagger/GOP" approaches would be too costly and wrong for everyone but the unscrupulous who profit off the misfortunes of others.

Feb. 5, 2010

 Fired Up and Ready to Go? Or Needing a Backbone Transplant?

How much more clearly does President Obama have to put it in order for the big banks/insurance company Democrats in the Senate to get it?  (Of course, it didn't help for the President to have the triangulating Rahm Emanuel in the White House--an old Clinton left-over who helped many of us conclude a couple of years ago that we didn't need another Clinton in the Presidency).

Apparently, it will take a backbone transplant to get Democrats in the Senate finally to stand up to greedy, self-serving, owned-by-the-interests assholes like Lieberman, Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson and demand that the House health care bill get passed. How about some actoin, senators? Don't wait around for Senator Enzi or any of the other "gang of 6" that demanded concessions on the bill all summer only as a stalling tactic--with no intention of voting for anything.

Why can't the Senate Democratic leadership get fired up and ready to go? They need to show us we didn't make a mistake working for a Democratic majority. We got it, but what use is it if it isn't used?

Feb. 4, 2010

Disappearing Sell-Outs

What has happened to Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus and Ben Nelson? Before his great victories for the big banks, big insurance companies, and big foreign corporations, you'd see their smarmy faces all over the TV, posturing and lying through interview after interview. Now that they've won for their  big interest friends, why doesn't the media get them back to take credit for the mess they've created?  I can't stand watching the miserable little skunks, but still, I wonder why, once Lieberman, Baucus, Lincoln and Ben Nelson, successfully destroyed reform (or at least held it back), they ought to be asked about it.

What about it, national press? People need to hear how they successfully sold everyone out for their big banks and big insurance companies. I wonder why they're in hiding? Not very proud about selling out the voters?

 Feb. 2, 2010

President Obama Again Discovers that the GOP Defines "Compromise" as "Capitulation"

The President now knows that the stupid media talk about "compromise" and "bipartisanship" has no value whatever. To the Party of "No," any cooperation with the President is out of bounds. No matter how far he were to stretch, it wouldn't be enough for them. 

Look at health care, for instance. Bi-partisanship sure got results!  Sen. Enzi and the other "gang of six" slow-walked the Finance Committee bill sufficiently that nothing got done exact to load the Senate bill up with crap from the industry shills. The President and the Senate should have acted and passed the Health Committee's bill, under reconciliation if necessary, with a majority of 51.  But that was then....

Let's get Health Care reform passed and, this time, with the Senate majority (51) voting for the public option under reconciliation. Whining Republicans, who include the three on the "Gang of Six" from last summer, joined with insurance company shills in the Democratic Party like Baucus, Lieberman and Ben Nelson and dragged their feet, stalled, demanded concessions and then refused to vote for the bill even when the concessions were included. The President correctly must know it's time to put their foolish obstructionism to an end and get a good health care bill crafted by passing the Senate bill with reconciliation to add back what should not have been removed. 

Jan. 27, 2010

President Calls Out the Judicial Activists

President Obama finally showed how phony the Supreme Court's facade of being apolitical really was. They got away with making a purely political decision in Bush v. Gore. The majority apparently thought they could get away with it again--be political, but act like they were an apolitical third branch deserving of deference. Guess what, guys? YOU made the Court a political player in 2000 and again last week. Now, let's see how you can take the political heat that always comes with being a branch driven by politics and not principle.

 Jan. 27, 2010

President Called out the Party of "No," and the Lieberman/ Baucus/Ben Nelson Clique; Now, It's Time for Action!

We've heard the State of the Union and it was a dynamic declaration of moving forward on a number of important issues. It accomplished at least one thing--it exposed the Republicans as the party of "no" with virtually no integrity. However, now it is time for the "rubber to hit the road," particularly for "Democrats like Lieberman, Baucus and Ben Nelson who Obama needs to dope-slap if they don't start getting in step with the House Democratic bill. Let's get that public option in there. Let's put the heat on those "blue-dogs" who are utter opportunists and ought never to be elected to any office. President Obama, you articulated the goal. Now get out there and kick some Lieberman-Baucus-Ben Nelson butt.

Jan. 26, 2010

Who Won the Presidency in '08? Apparently, McCain, Lieberman and Herbert Hoover

Looks like the only people President Obama listens to these days are his political opponents. When a right-wing type screams about deficits, the President jumps. When Evan Bayh, who never supported Obama until Indiana voters foisted it on to him, shouts, Obama jumps. Forget about those who backed the campaign--diss the 50 or so progressives in the Senate.

If this continues to be the case, he'll likely be hearing a lot from people like me pretty soon.... But I doubt he'll do any listening. He seems only to listen to those who voted AGAINST him last time out. (Can't offend the Republicans or the only four "Democrats" that count--LIeberman, Bayh, Baucus and Ben Nelson).  I'll not be surprised to hear, in the State of the Union, those immortal words of Herbert Hoover: "Prosperity is just around the corner." 

Jan. 25, 2010

Obama as FDR? Sounds more like Obama as Herbert Hoover

Note to President Obama: You can't be the second FDR by adopting policies of Herbert Hoover.

 Jan. 21, 2010

Post-Election Hypocrisy

Now, we get to hear all of the hypocrisy about the Massachusetts Senate race.

President Obama told voters there: "Send Martha Coakley to the Senate so we can pass health care reform." Translation for voters: "Send Martha Coakley to the Senate so she can rubber-stamp the awful Lieberman-Baucus-Ben Nelson huge government give-away to big insurance companies bill."  (But you say she is for the public option like 52 other Democratic senators? Oh, that's nice, but we certainly don't want her there to undermine what we've crafted with our good buddies, Lieberman, Baucus and Ben Nelson who, along with Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu are the only senators who really count.)

Chris Matthews (before the election): There is one essential quality to be a U. S. Senator. You have to be a baseball fan. Martha Coakley obviously isn't a baseball fan. Thus, vote for baseball fan Scott Brown for the Senate.  Chris Matthews (after the election), to Howard Dean: Martha Coakley lost because she was for the public option and for health insurance reform and, therefore, those voting against her were voting against her stand on the issues.  Oh? Chris, what happened to your sole qualification for the Senate that you had set down just last week? Too embarrassed now to say that she lost because she wasn't a baseball fan?

John McCain, while his best friend and near-vice presidential choice Joe Lieberman was proposing awful changes to the Senate health care bill and getting them inserted, Not one word.  John McCain, to a reporter after the Senate election in Massachusetts: This shows that we have to start health care reform all over again because it was a bill crafted behind closed doors with bribes and threats and disregarding Republican concerns. He(also conveniently forgets to mention that four Democrats and four Republicans (including Wyoming's Sen. Mike Enzi) met for weeks last summer and fall, hammering out their right-wing version of a health care bill that became the basis for the awful Senate version now under consideration. McCain shows better sense than his buddy Lieberman. No one in his right mind would want to take ownership over the current Senate bill.

Howard Dean, arguing with an irratonal Chris Matthews on Hardball last night, had it right. Voters in Massachusetts didn't want the welfare-for-big-insurance-companies health care bill to pass that Martha Coakley would be expected to rubber stamp. They wanted real reform--a public option at the least if not single payer. When are the senators, the President, and the press finally going to get it?

Jan. 19, 2010

When the Base Stays Home.....

Note to President Obama. See what happened when you ran with the mainstream of the Democratic Party in '08?  And then what happened in Massachusetts after you threw in with the Republicrat/Blue Dogs like  Lieberman, Baucus and Ben Nelson over the past year?:

In the clutch, the tiny wrecking-crew of right-wingers in the Democratic Party aren't going to be enough to matter except to drive the majority of Democrats away--or keep them at home on election day. And as for expecting dependable support from those Republicrats like Lieberman....Well, this ought to be a wake-up call.  Can't you and your advisors finally see what happens when the mainstream liberal base stays home? 

Why did the mainstream voters stay home? Many saw you throw single-payer overboard at the start of the health care debate and then silently let insurance company shills in the Senate dump the public option. Others watched as your Republicrat treasury secretary threw in with the big banks and encouraged the top executives to reward themselves and others who caused last year's debacle with fat checks at our expense.. Still others watched as your administration handed the balance over every major Senate measure to clowns like Baucus, Lieberman and Ben Nelson in the tiny extreme right of the party.

If you want Democrats to win in November and for you to gain another term in 2012, you'll need to recognize that the Blue Dogs aren't the base and no matter how hard you run to the right, the tiny splinter at the party's edge are not going to be there when the chips are down. They'll label you a leftist even when you're in their back pockets.They don't want progressive ideas to succeed. It would be bad for their patrons among the corporate rich.

President Obama, come back home to the mainstream of the Democratic Party and quit flirting with the tiny band of extremists on the party right. If you quit following their agenda and become a mainstream Democrat again, the mainstream progressives will be there when you need us; the Republicrat/Blue Dogs won't and the Massachusetts result couldn't be a better demonstration.

Get back to the mainstream, Mr. President. You played along with the three clowns--Lieberman, Baucus, Ben Nelson-- and the other Blue Dogs who won big yesterday. But you and the American people didn't win. Time to tell that splinter on the party extreme right to peddle their big bank/big insurance company, anti-middle class crap on FOX. Rejoin the mainstream, A half dozen pseudo-Democratic senators don't make a majority. Mr. President. There's work to be done and the progressive mainstream expects some change we can believe in. It isn't too late, but it will be by November.

Jan. 18, 2010

Squandering the "Super-Majority" by Listening to Corrupt Clowns

The big problem for the Democrats in Massachusetts' Senate race on Tuesday is that the Obama administration squandered the super-majority by allowing the health care bill to be crafted by just three Senators--Lieberman, Baucus and Ben Nelson.

Thus, most voters are probably thinking, "Why send another Democrat to the Senate for the super-majority when all that will happen is the Obama administration types like Rahm Emanuel to continue to make deals with clowns like LIeberman rather than to do what is right by all of the other Democrats in the Senate?"

It is a shame that Republicans might get another obstructionist out of this. (I wonder if there were a Lieberman type, Obama's people would be working their butts off for him/her? After all, those are the types they seem to be courting.

In effect, it shows how crafty Lieberman, Baucus and Ben Nelson were in tying up the Senate for so long. They must have known that their patrons in the insurance companies would pay them well as long as the Obama people kept caving in to their craven plans and stiffing the far better health care plans in the House bill.  Rather than Obama proposing, as the first plan on the table, single-payer health care, they caved before the game even started.

And I'm tired of hearing the old lie from another member of the chattering class who keep saying that Obama "ran as a centrist but is governing as a leftist." It is absolutely untrue. When you let Lieberman-Baucus-Ben Nelson call all of the shots, that isn't moving to the left, except to check your left pants pocket to see if those thieves have lifted your wallet.

Jan. 15, 2010

Big Mistake to Tie a Coakley Victory in Mass. to  Passage of Senate's Flawed Health Care Bill

President Obama needs to rethink his strategy for campaigning for Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts.

The President is claiming that a Coakley loss would lead to defeat for health care reform, i.e., the Joe Lieberman- Ben Nelson "Hand-Over-Millions-of-Customers" to Insurance Companies to Fleece "health care" bill that is still stupidly supported by Senate Democrats. The bill would shaft the middle class, enrich insurance companies, and reward the fat-cat lobbyists that the House managed to resist. And despite suggestions for real reform, Obama allowed corrupt operators like Baucus, Lieberman and Ben Nelson to essentially write the bill for their true constituents, the insurance lobby. 

Maybe if the Senate Democrats were reduced by one, the influence of Lieberman and Nelson wouldn't be so important and the House bill, far better in every way, including the public option, would have to get passed through majority vote (51) in the Senate. (I'm no math wizard, but in my count, a majority of 100 is 51--not 60).

The phony effort for 60 has turned "reform" into a farce. It's a shame that it will take electing a reactionary to Ted Kennedy's seat may be the cost of waking up the Lieberman-lovers among Obama's advisors. But then, they probably think that Obama won't need my vote in '12 when he can count on Joe Lieberman's? It wouldn't be a choice I'd have made, given lying Joe's record of treachery.

Dec. 30, 2009

Chicken Hawk Cheney is Squawking Again

Pretty nervy for former VP (and five-time draft-dodger) Dick Cheney to accuse Obama of not knowing we're at war. I would think Cheney would prefer that we forget that we're at war-- in Iraq because of the lies he told and in Afghanistan, a place with eerie similarities to Vietnam in the early '60s where Cheney didn't want to serve because he "had other more important priorities."

What is most disconcerting about Cheney's statements is the obvious inference that Cheney can't wait for a terrorist attack to be successful. For America, it would be a tragedy; for Cheney, good politics. And what is the definition again of treason? I think it is phrased, "providing aid and comfort to the enemy." Mr. Former VP, you're getting close to the line.

Dec. 30, 2009

Obama Returns Transparency to Government; Good for Historians and for the Public Good

Praise is in order for President Obama for promulgating the new executive order to bring back transparency to government. It's about time. We've had three or four Presidents in a row who feared that the public might find out what really was going on in government. The past nine years amply demonstrated how flawed that thinking was.

Not only will this new openness help historians write the real history of the past half century or so, but, eventually, it will shed light on all of the dirty tricks that Bush/Cheney committed and then tried to hide by stamping it all as official secrets. Watch the Bush/Cheney legacy crumble like New Orleans after Katrina.

Best way to eliminate authoritarianism as advocated by such people as Dick Cheney is through opening government records; best way to tell the real history of the Iraq war, for example, is to know what the government was hiding and who was doing the lying.  It brings accountability--an essential element in any democracy.

Little wonder Cheney and his daughter have been working their butts off spinning the Bush/Cheney legacy in recent months. Both apparently hoped the truth never would be revealed so they could lie with impunity, thinking the secrets were hidden away in dark caverns of government forever. Well, guess what, former Mr. Vice President? You can go back to your hideout now because, thanks to open records, we'll be able to find out the truth without having to rely on your distorted version of the "facts." 

Dec. 17, 2009

New Definition for "Reform"?

Evidently, many Senate Democrats have a new definition of reform. "Re-form: forcing middle-class people to buy overpriced 'health' insurance with the threat of fines or jail if they don't, and taking the proceeds to line pockets of insurance company executives and lobbyists, thus 're-forming' the hard-earned dollars of most Americans into fortunes for fat-cat insurance execs."

Obama and the Democrats had better relearn their definition because in 2010, there won't be any followers for this type of "re-form."

Howard Dean is right. Democrats in the Senate actually have proven that there IS something worse than the system we have. Kill the bil and bring back "change we can believe in," please.

I didn't vote for Lieberman for President and, if the health care "re-form" continues down this path, I won't be voting for any "Democrats" for years to come (and not the one-term President Obama that he will be if it lets this happen). But they really don't need MY vote when they can count on getting Joe Lieberman's--just like they had his "support" last year. (And I thought I was the one who knocked on doors for Obama and voted against McCain!) Who'd have thought it now!

Evidently, these "Democrats" in the Senate have redefined the name of the party as "a politcal party that supports fat profits for insurance companies while threatening jail for those who refuse to be their customers."

Dec. 16, 2009

Tom Stroock: A Wyoming Original

I left Wyoming early this week to travel to Dubai for the holidays. On my arrival here in the Emirates, I was saddened to learn of the death back in Wyoming of my old friend Tom Stroock.

Over the course of the past two decades, Tom became a regular speaker in my history classes at the University of Wyoming and a good friend. He could be partisan, but consistently polite; combative, but always civil. He held strong views, but always expressed with a deep sense of justice and concern for what was best for Wyoming's citizens. His type is increasing rare--if not completely gone--in the Republican Party of today and he will be sorely missed.

Dec. 16, 2009

Lieberman: A Disgrace to the Senate

Joe Lieberman's recent arrogance concerning health care reform reminds everyone what a disaster a Gore-Lieberman administration likely would have been. Gore's choice made me question his judgment at the time. Now it seems obvious to all. Was there anyone in the entire country that Al Gore could have chosen as a running-mate in 2000 who was worse? In fact, the only benefit of having Dick Cheney as Vice President was that there actually was one worse possibility. Joe Lieberman could have been vice president.

Nov. 25, 2009

Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam

From all appearances, President Obama is hell-bent to become another LBJ. While the health care bill--with a robust public option--might give him a long-lasting legacy on the domestic front, if he turns Afghanistan into another Vietnam, his administration will be as reviled as Johnson's was when he left office in utter disgrace. Johnson backed an unpopular corrupt pair of brothers running Vietnam. Now Obama is backing an equally unpopular and corrupt set of Karzai brothers. Like LBJ did, Obama seems to be marching us straight into another quagmire. 

In fact, if Obama does fail to deliver a robust public option and sell out to the health insurance companies and keeps pampering Wall Street, he has the potential of being George W. Bush AND LBJ.  He needs to fire those Wall Street/Clinton triangulator advisers and return to the change that we expected a year ago. If he doesn't, his will be one of the longest one-term Presidencies in two generations as we drop into a foreign quagmire and bankrupt the nation with costs of a losing war.

Nov. 4, 2009

Lesson for Democrats from 2009 Elections?

A reminder, but no real lesson can be gained from the off-off-year elections around the country. The reminder? For "Blue Dog" Democrats, remember that in a  race between a Republican and a Democrat running like a Republican, the real Republican will win every time.Sell out the party on health care reform or job/mortgage relief for the middle class, for instance, and don't expect real Democrats to come out to bail you out in a race against any Republican. If you're a Democrat, vote and act like one.

Oct. 26, 2009

Lieberman sells out on the Health Insurance Bill: We could have had a WORSE VP than Cheney.....

Joe Lieberman has just demonstrated that even though Dick Cheney was the worst vice president in American history, we could have had one that was even worse. Why Al Gore ever opted to put this clown on the Democratic ticket in 2000 continues to puzzle me. He's a sniveling, self-centered, arrogant sell-out.  Dick Cheney didn't even stoop to those hypocritical depths. Where is the historians' poll of worst ever candidates for vice president? Joe has to be on top of that poll.

Oct. 10, 2009

Senator Enzi is a Supporter for a Single-Payer Health Insurance System?

I saw an ad on television last night sponsored by some group with the name "Medicare" in the title. The ad urged us to thank Sen. Mike Enzi for his support of single-payer health care. I wasn't aware that he favored single payer, but the ad asserted that he had stood solidly for Medicare, the single-payer system in this country for seniors that seems to work. I'm assuming he wants to spread those benefits to all through single-payer government health insurance? Odd I've not heard him say this yet.

Oct. 8, 2009

Pundits Continue to Prove They Can't Read Poll Numbers

It is amazing to hear "reporters" and other pundits still saying that the "only way" moderate Democrats can win reelection next year is to vote for a health bill that has no public option and yet delivers millions of customers to insurance companies to be fleeced with the power of jail if the new customers don't sign on. On the contrary. What voter will support ANY Democrat who votes FOR the insurance executives and against the public good?  The numbers are for the public option--at least numbers of votes. Sounds like the "numbers" these guys talk about are the millions of dollars coming into the pockets of those who vote against the public option and the public interest. These sell-outs opposing the public option had better cash in now because they're not going back after the next election.

Sept. 29, 2009

Democrats (so-called "moderates") committing Party suicide by "no" vote on public option--but they don't care....

Amazing how the Democratic Party, holding majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, is intent on committing suicide again. How many people will vote Democratic next time around when a "health reform" bill turns into the great insurance company bailout, enrichment of executives bill of 2009?  This is one that won't--ever--if the Democrats blow it this time.

"Reform" needs to be more than empty rhetoric. If the Senate Finance Committee prevails on this big giveaway bill, the result actually will be worse than what we have now. We'll be forced, under penalty of fines and imprisonment, to pay whatever the thieving insurers think they can get. The "reform" we were promised would, instead turn into nothing but enrich the greedy and screw middle America.

I can understand senators from states like Arkansas and Florida voting wrong on this. Senators from those states have tended to vote against constituent interests for the past century and a half. And Delaware--well, evidently, corporate fat-cats get half of the delegation.  But one senator each from North Dakota and Montana--those two guys (Baucus and Conrad) are disgraces to the reform heritage of their respective states.

Of course, those sell-out Democrats don't need voters like me when they can continue cashing fat checks from the insurance and health care lobbies. . If so, once the public option passes, there ought to be some bribery investigations launched.  If the public option doesn't pass, might it be time to find some real reformers and not phony tools of the corporations hiding behind supposed Democratic Party banners?  

 Sept. 16, 2009

Senator Baucus proves that it IS possible to come up with a worse plan than the current system

Sen. Max Baucus, an embarrassment to Montana and the Democratic Party, managed to stall health care reform sufficiently long that the nut-cases could come out of the woodwork and then drop on us a plan that is even more repugnant than the present system. Only three possibilities come to mind. Sen. Baucus is either utterly stupid, completely sold out to the insurance lobby, or duped into selling out his own party. In any case, he ought to turn his seat over to a Democrat and sign on as the paid insurance company lobbyist that he has proven himself to be. 

September 12, 2009

Listen to America's Majority--and Your Base, Mr. President

Why, as bad as he was, did Bush get re-elected in '04?   For one thing, whenever the crunch time came, he made sure he took care of his base. Shouldn't Obama take a lesson from this? 

Where will the Republicans and blue-dogs, who he seems to be trying like crazy to sell-out to right now, be in 2012?  Nowhere near him, is my guess.  If he throws away the public option on health care and, instead, calls for mandatory purchase of insurance (and, thereby, enriching those rapacious companies that have caused the problem to begin with), his base won't be there. And neither will most of other 70 percent of the public that supports the public option. There aren't that many insurance executives who will re-elect him in '12.

Too bad because a lot of us liked the "campaign Obama" --before he surrounded himself with morons who think you can kick your supporters in the teeth, sell out to the right-wing, and still expect for them to back you, no matter what.  If that's the strategy, think again, President Obama. Many us actually believed it was going to be change we could believe in. And you're where you are because of the progressives. It was because of your base that you're in office--not blue-dogs and Republicans. Now, don't keep selling us out. Give us that change you promised in the campaign, show some principle on the public option, and don't keep giving away everything to those who never will be in your corner.

September 6, 2009

 Obama Can Break the Health Insurance Impasse; He Ought to Expand Medicare to Cover Everyone

President Obama has the opportunity to make an obvious decision on health care this Wednesday. ,Iinstead of all of the tampering with public option and the various other adjustments to coverage, he ought to just declare that he will extend Medicare to everyone. Yes. Go to a single-payer system that is widely popular and has been shown to work.

It is amazing to hear critics of health insurance reform intone how they don't want government involved in health care, but those over 65 rarely offer to give up their Medicare coverage. Somehow, they fool themselves into thinking it is a non-government program. You don't hear many career military people offering to give up their medical care in military hospitals.Until the utter incompetence and unconscionable cost cuts made to the system under the Bush administration, VA patrons have enjoyed "single-payer." 

Obama ought to say, "OK. Medicare is universally popular. Let's just stop the debate over health insurance reform and the lies being hatched daily by its opponents. Let's just expand Medicare to all." That would be true reform--and almost certainly universally popular as well.

Republican operative Ed Rollins, probably inadvertently, made a case for single payer this morning on CNN. He stated that the public option for health care would not work because "just look at Amtrak, the Post Office." Anyone who has ridden Amtrak across country knows well what Rollins is talking about. Because Amtrak only owns the rolling stock and not the rails, its passenger trains have to defer to every slow-moving freight train on the line. The same with the postal service. It is obligated to serve areas of the country where it would be financially suicidal for a private carrier like UPS.

The same would happen with the public option. It would be required to cover the hard cases while insurance companies continued to skim off the cream by insuring only those who rarely need to submit claims.

That wouldn't happen with expanding Medicare, universally, to everyone. Oh, any insurance companies can go back to insuring against fires, floods, car accidents and lightning strikes. They would sorely miss the big bucks they now earn from selling health insurance, but sometimes, the public good ought to prevail over private greed. That would be change we can believe in.

August 31, 2009

I'm Still Proud of Wyoming, But Embarrassed by Two Who Claimed to Represent My State

While I frequently disagree with Sen. Enzi on many issues, until this weekend, I had respect for him and his good-faith efforts to represent his constituents. That respect disappeared this weekend when Sen. Enzi admitted that he entered into "negotiations" on health care without any intention to support any bill coming from it. One Wyoming principle is that one's word is one's bond. When a Wyomingite says he will do something, it ought not to even take a handshake for him to be bound to that promise.

Perhaps Sen. Enzi did make a promise, but he certainly kept it quiet with those with whom he was negotiating and those he was purportedly representing. That promise must have been made to the insurance giants and others opposed to making any changes in the current broken system. And he said he was against any bill on the very day that his Senate colleague (and, presumably, friend) Sen. Ted Kennedy, was buried.As made clear in the Kennedy funeral, health care reform was the central cause of his life. Some way to turn on a friend.

On the same weekend, ex-Wyomingite (now a Marylander and, from 1992 to last year, from Texas) Dick Cheney was justifying torture. Good thing he hasn't been "from Wyoming" since the early 1990s. Otherwise, this weekend would have been even more embarrassing for anyone actually from my state. It's bad enough that they both claim to be watching out for the interests of all of us.... 

August 18, 2009

Greed, Depression, and the End of

Wyoming’s Cowboy Health Co-operative

More than a century ago, a form of “universal” health care started right here in Wyoming—among cowboys and cattlemen on the open range in the middle 1880s. It is no surprise why or how it started, but its demise may be a cautionary tale for those advocating non-government co-ops instead of a public option for national health insurance reform.  A weak co-operative couldn’t withstand the pressures of corporate greed, high unemployment, and no government oversight.

 In 1885, during the height of the cattle boom on the Wyoming range, dozens of range cowboys and their employers got together and formed the “Fetterman Hospital Association.”  Each cowboy who subscribed would have $1 taken from his paycheck each month. It was a considerable sum when the average wage was, at the most, $80 a month. In exchange, the cowboy was promised the full range of medical services.

 During its first six months, the association signed up 219 individual cowboys. The 20 largest cattle companies in the area agreed to enroll each of their cowboys. Group rates ranged from $25 from the Douglas Willan-Sartoris ranch west of Laramie to $100 from the CY Ranch company owned by Joseph M. Carey.

 With the money coming from the ranch companies and the several hundred subscribers, the association bought an abandoned army barracks at Fort Fetterman, near Douglas, for their hospital. The association remodeled the building into a hospital and paid two attendants to staff the facility.

 For a medical doctor to take charge of the hospital, the association hired Dr. Amos Barber, a recent graduate of a Pennsylvania Medical School, who came out on the train to take the job. Barber was paid $100 per month. During his first year, Barber treated 149 patients—all but 14 were subscribers. The members were treated for free. Non-members were charged $2.50 per treatment and extra for surgery.

 Association records show how dangerous cowboy work was on the open range. Cowboys were most often treated for broken bones. That first year, Dr. Barber handled five broken arms and a fractured skull. Four were treated for “cold” and two for “poisoning.” Six were treated for gunshot wounds.

 In its second year, the hospital treated 340 patients, including six patients paid for by the county. Among injuries were several cases of rattlesnake bite.  Barber became expert at treating snake bites.

 The association thrived at first.  Cowboys saw health care as an important job benefit. But after the harsh winter of 1886-87, many cattle companies had to lay off cowboys. Paying a per capita fee for health insurance no longer was financially possible for many—and there were no incentives for them to continue the practice. After all, hundreds of cowboys were desperate for any job.  In fact, even some of the existing member big-ranch operations refused to pay their assessments and the association lacked the power to force them to do it.

 In mid-1888, after almost three years of successful operation, the association, losing subscribers from cowboys, advertised for subscribers outside of the cattle industry. Two small coal mining companies signed up their employees, but did so as “corporate” members, not signing on individual miners as voting members and, thus, apparently, quickly moving the association away from the cooperative model. The existing members seemed to lack the expertise to counter the influences of the corporate members who lacked the commitment to sustaining the organization for the benefit of individual cowboys.

 Meanwhile, the territory’s population was increasing and there was a growing shortage of qualified doctors. Sometime in 1889, Barber quit the association and started up his own practice in the nearby town of Douglas where his patient base became families of prospering businessmen and other professionals. This was the death knell for the cooperative.

 The association was solvent, but because it was unable to hire a replacement doctor, it dissolved.  Officers tried to interest the county in assisting with the operation, but commissioners showed no interest. The association was located at the far end of county, too distant for any of them to care.

 The association failed because of its small size against more powerful economic forces. And it moved toward more of a for-profit operation, briefly, when times got tough. Even as it changed, however, it couldn’t keep its doctor who knew he could make far more money practicing in the purely private sector. (By the way, Barber didn’t stay in medicine very long after quitting the association. He went into politics. He was acting governor of Wyoming during the Johnson County War in 1892).

 Today, were it not for the association's records in the Wyoming Pioneer Museum, Douglas, and newspaper clippings about it in various Wyoming State Archives files, the Fetterman Hospital Association would be entirely forgotten.

 Those rugged individualists, the open range cowboys, who were the first people in America to form a health care association, couldn’t keep the cooperative going.  It was too small and too susceptible to predatory factors. Lacking member commitment and doctor’s support, it couldn’t continue.

The cowboy on the open range of 19th century Wyoming was no fool when it came to health care, but bad economic times, individual greed, increasing corporate power, and lack of government oversight were too much for his tiny cooperative.  Those forces, still existing to this day, doomed the cowboy experiment with universal coverage and, likely, would doom individual cooperatives such as Sen. Conrad’s proposed alternative to a real public option.

(For an in-depth study of the Association's history, check out the longer article on my UW website, Phil Roberts Wyoming History, under Readings in Wyoming History). 

August 16, 2009

'Compromise' on Public Option Equals Capitulation on Reform

Real "reform" didn't even get a hearing. When this "debate" began, the public strongly favored a single-payer system. When Obama's administration now waffles on whether or not to even have the much watered-down public option, it is completely selling out on "reform." What remains would be simply a mechanism to enrich already bloated insurance companies and health providers by mandating purchase of insurance by everyone.

Regulation would be a joke, of course. The insurers would write the regulations and "enforce" them as well. Who believes they wouldn't keep raising rates and paying executives millions in annual compensation while returning as little as possible to policy-holders?  This "reform" would not be reform, but an even worse outcome than the status quo. Ask Dr. Howard Dean who has commented often about this.

What would result from Obama selling out on the public option?  He would guarantee himself one term. What insurance company lobbyist or Republican, intent on killing health insurance reform anyway, would "thank" Obama in '12 for doing what they wanted? (He might get a job from them later doing more lobbying for them).  Contrast that with the opportunity Obama has right now to join the likes of TR, FDR and LBJ in making the system better for the average American by truly reforming the health insurance system. Too bad that in trying to placate the hard-core right-wingers, he'll go down in history with the likes of James Buchanan, Warren Harding and U. S. Grant--failed Presidents who "compromised" away their opportunities for greatness, too. 

August 12, 2009

Single-Payer Makes Even More Sense Now.....

 I'm tired of the screamers and intolerant loud-mouths using thug tactics and keeping representatives from holding civil conversations with constituents. (I know where they picked up the technique. They're like the insurance companies standing between patients and their doctors).

The longer it goes on with manufactured anger based on half-truths and outright lies leveled against constructive, minimal health insurance reform, the more I'm convinced that Obama's only recourse is to get off the defensive backing the weak-kneed Senate Finance Committee bill and declare for a single-payer system, also known as real reform. The status quo is unsustainable. The blue dog plans wouldn't do anything more than mandate increased profits for insurance companies.

And Obama ought not be satisfied with a "public option" that would still leave insurance companies skimming off the cream and leaving the hard-to-insure for the government plan. Time for single-payer--like Medicare, VA care and military medicine, and like lots of systems I've become familiar with that exist in countries where businesses have a huge competitive advantage over us as a direct result. 

If Obama were to ask for my advice (not even remotely likely, of course), I would tell him to forget about bi-partisanship, stop with the compromises with "blue dogs,", forget about public options and just come out and ram through a single-payer system. Like FDR and LBJ, he'd be celebrated for it by historians far into the future. He'd have a second term (with LBJ, 1964-type percentages) and unending public adulation.

Insurance companies (if they're competently run and not laying out millions for a few arrogant CEOs) won't go broke. They could still insure against hurricanes, fires, theft and car accidents. They could still offer life insurance policies, but there is no reason they should be involved in health care coverage. The companies still could ensure the customer against the eventuality of weather catastrophe, fires and thefts. But, currently,in the case of health care insurance, it appears they mostly insure AGAINST affordable health care. Let health care be handled, once again, by doctors in conjunction with patients without having the insurance companies standing between them, dictating treatment, costs and paying company executives millions in salaries from the escalating premium costs, requiring huge co-pays and diminishing coverage to the insured. Let's go to an uncomplicated, common-sense plan that is single-payer.

 August 2, 2009

Time for Single-Payer

Clearly, the best solution to counter the Republican/health insurance lobby is for Congress to adopt single-payer health insurance. It still works with Medicare (despite the best efforts of the Bush administration to destroy it) and it works well in other countries. Enough of the half measures that won't bring any support from the paid shills for the insurance crowd. The House and Senate ought to adopt single-payer and forget about compromise with obstructionists who don't want ANY change from the broken system we now have.

 June 19, 2009

A significant reason why the "supreme leader" of Iran doesn't want a "recount"? For such an event to occur, there had to have been a "count" in the first place. If he were to suggest even random samples for a "recount," the facts would have come out. This "election" will go in history as the most audacious theft in years. Stalin would be envious.

June 18, 2009

Where is the public option in the Senate bill?

Recent reports indicate that the Senate committee developing health care reform has left out a public option--at least, so far. It seems yet another example of the cowardice of Senate Democrats. What do they need to get progressive measures passed--a 100-vote majority?

Without a public option, what would change? Fortunately, the Democrats in the House do include the public option in a plan that actually will make a difference.

Absent a single-payer proposal--the only realistic long-term reform--a public plan would be partial mitigation. Were it not for the House Democrats, we'd be left with a scam to force people to subsidize the rich by being required to buy health insurance from the same crowd that has taken down the economy and with no competition to keep them reasonably honest. The Senate Democrats had better wake up on this. They weren't elected by the insurance lobbyists and, with 60 members, there is absolutely no need to cave in to the Republicans on this issue. If they do, not only will we never get true reform in health care, we'll be back to a Republican majority in the Senate next go-round.

May 28, 2009

World's tallest building and nearby skyline from Jumeira Beach, Dubai

Observations from the Middle East by a Western historian

I just returned to Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, from a few days in Athens, Greece. I've been in the Emirates since mid-May, returning to Laramie in early June. (Is there a better place in the world to spend a summer than 7,200-foot Laramie? Maybe inside the Mall of the Emirates' ski run, but it doesn't have the cool mountain breezes). As a historian of the American West, I continue to see comparisons between this vibrant part of the Middle East and the history of my region of America.

First, some observations about the Emirates. 

Much as changed in the months since I first returned last August after ten years away from this region. Bush was roundly hated in many quarters and America's repudiation was at an extremely low ebb. I noticed a great change in March. Nearly every expat and local I encountered expressed relief that the Bush-Cheney crowd was gone. In ensuing months, despite continuing downward pressures on the economy in the first quarter of this year here, Obama remains popular. There remains concern (call it unease perhaps) among many local business people over the ability of the administration to overcome the economic crises that has had such severe ripple effects in the Emirates. There are hopeful signs. The local stock exchange seems to have stabilized and, once again, there are signs of new construction, not only in Sharjah but in neighboring Dubai. Construction slowed to a near standstill last fall and the Dubai stock exchange fell to record lows before starting to recover earlier this year. Work continues on the Dubai metro system, now scheduled to open later this year.

US-UAE remain linked monetarily. The Emirates government pulled out of a plan to establish a regional currency when the voting members opted to place the financial headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, rather than in one of the Dubai cities where the majority of all banking activity in the region is conducted. Consequently, the UAE currency, the dirham, is still pegged to the dollar and likely will remain so for the near term. Dubai, less dependent on oil than the neighoring emirate of Abu Dhabi, suffered more seriously from the bank crises than the other emirates.  Dubai's real estate market, especially in the mid range, suffered huge sales declines. There are some signs of recovery although advertised home sale prices suggest that the bottom has not been reached yet.

Abu Dhabi continues buildng a closer connection with France. Recent news includes the ground-breaking for the Louvre Abu Dhabi and a branch of the Sorbonne to be opened in the nation's capital. French President Sarkozy was here for a state visit earlier this week during which both governments announced establishment of France's first military base outside Europe in this new century on the coast in Abu Dhabi. Press statements were unclear about the purpose although Sarkozy was quoted that the 600-man facility would provide support for the UAE as well as assist in possible piracy cases and "environmental situations."

On the other hand, the United States presence in Dubai seems to be strengthening. On the day following press accounts of Abu Dhabi's flirtatons with France, the press ran photos and a news story of the ground-breaking for a new United States consulate along the Creek in Dubai. The structure will be built on prime real estate close to the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 

Despite the UAE being a nation, the emirates retain some of the same types of autonomy as American states. If one to make comparisons, Abu Dhabi would more resemble Texas with a conservative social scene and a government solidly based in petroleum. (While Abu Dhabi's recent close affiliations with France wouldn't seem much like Texas, the action suggests the same skepticism of America as Texas Gov. Rick Perry has displayed with his talk of secession.

On the other hand, Dubai could be compared to a combination of New York (financial capital), California (innovation and less reactively conservative) and Nevada (the grandest hotels and over-the-top architectural projects). Like New York, California, and Nevada, the banking and housing crises hit Dubai with greater force than the other emirates. Nonetheless, as the world economy improves, Dubai will spring back more readily and, wisely, won't be tied as rigidly to the "natural resource curse" that its larger neighbor will continue to have to deal with as oil prices continue to fluctuate and alternative energy gains new market share worldwide.  

January 25, 2009

National Press Doesn't Want to Shake Their Stereotypical View of Wyoming as a State Full of Uninformed Morons 

Do we really deserve this?  Just because now, after a dozen years of using Wyoming only as his "undisclosed location," Dick Cheney waxes eloquent about his supposed love for Wyoming during a fast trip away from his multi-million-dollar home in McLean, Virignia?  Just because there seems to be a recent oversupply of self-serving, greedy newcomers who claim to speak for their adopted state by repeating stupid statements they hear on national talk radio?  

The national media continue to dredge up ignorant stereotypes from Wyoming who confirm their twisted view that, somehow, Wyomingites are all stupid cowboys who have swallowed the Bush/Cheney line over the years and still support the Rush Limbaugh defeatists in the country. Clearly, none of those being interviewed represent the real Wyoming. In fact, I wonder how long some of them have been away from Oklahoma or Texas? 

Speaking as a native (and third-generation Wyomingite), I can point to a very different "Wyoming way" than what these ignorant jerks are espousing for CNN and others in the media crowd who cling to their stereotypes. 

Take health care reform, for instance. How many of them know that cowboys on the open range in Wyoming in the 1880s joined together to form a health care cooperative, complete with a monthly "membership fee," a doctor and a fully equipped hospital --years before it was done anywhere else? 

As for banking regulation, how many of them remember that during the first four years of the 1920s, almost 100 banks in Wyoming failed because the state had no regulation and no rules for bank operations (no capital requirements, no reporting, no interest regulation)?  That situation was changed quickly and Wyoming's bank examiner was in place when the New Deal passed the federal banking laws with the support of Wyoming's members of Congress.

And how many of them remember that the discredited losers in the Johnson County War were the state "elites" at the time who dragged in a group of Texas gunmen who augment their ill-fated effort to kill small ranchers and allies in 1892?  (Actually, they might have learned the wrong lesson from the incident, given that the losers were able to obfuscate the facts within a couple of years and regain their political power). 

It sounds like the same campaign is starting up here now--and the media and their stereotypical view of Wyoming enables them by interviewing the most ignorant, uninformed newcomer to the state and asseting he/she speaks for all of us. Pathetic. 

January 16, 2009

Wealthy, Stupid, Uninformed--or All Three?

While listening to public radio Friday morning, I was surprised to learn that, apparently, there are more multi-millionaire retired ranchers drinking coffee at Laramie McDonald's than anyone would expect. When asked by Addie Goss of Wyoming Public Raido about the policies of the incoming Obama administration, a self-identified retired rancher who had voted for McCain said he was afraid Obama would keep the estate tax. Given that the current level affects only those leaving estates, after deductions, in excess of $2 million, I wonder why the man was drinking coffee at McDonald's in Laramie in the middle of winter?  Evidently, there are some very rich people hiding around town that I didn't know about or else there are more ignorant people who have swallowed the Republican rhetoric in Wyoming than elsewhere. 

 January 6, 2009

Oil Prices Begin To Rise as Gaza Crisis Deepens

When the economy began its downturn, oil prices moved with it, dropping to close to $30 per barrel from a mid-summer high of $147 on the futures market. Now, tensions in the Middle East continue to rise due to the Israeli invasion of Gaza. With no end of hostilities in sight, we can expect the price to go back into the $60 range by Groundhog Day.

How these rapid fluctuations will affect Wyoming's economy, the housing market and the state's budget, is to early to say. In Dubai, where I am visiting right now, news reports say that real estate developers are changing sales tactics. The latest targeted customers here are "end-users," not the "speculators" that bid prices up to unrealistic levels during the third quarter of last year. 

The Obama administration needs to target America's "end-users" who bought their homes to live in. Handled properly, the targeted recovery funds won't be lining speculators' pockets, saving them from their own follies. The speculators who plunged in for quick profits ought to be allowed to sink--regardless of continent and irrespective of their numbers.  They had no intent to share the gains; they shouldn't expect making us share their losses. Too bad we didn't let the same market forces take care of the big greedy banks. So far, they've shown no inclination to loosen up the credit markets. They haven't been nearly so reticent about paying out huge salaries to executives.

January 2, 2009

New Year Optimism in Dubai

Since nearly everything that the Bush/Cheney administration tried was either wrong-headed in approach or incompetently executed, most here feel confident that things will get better after January 20. Bush goes out with the nation finally seeing the folly of handing over government to individuals who have nothing but contempt for government's role in helping its citizens. The US isn't center-right. That is true only in parts of the South, where the Republican Party has its only support. It won't be long before voters in Wyoming (the "Equality State") see the foolishness of supporting a regional party with roots now in the ant-government, racist-inspired slogans of Helms, Limbaugh and Rove.

Entrance to the headquarters of Sharjah's Poetry Society in Sharjah's Heritage Area. Phil Roberts photo.

The new Intercontinental Hotel in Dubai, next to Festival City Mall. Dubai, although impacted by the global slowdown, continues to thrive as a tourist destination and shopping destination.  Phil Roberts photo.

December 31, 2008

New Year's Eve Events in Dubai Canceled

Not that it impacts us (we don't go anywhere on New Year's Eve), but the Sheik of Dubai declared yesterday that no New Year's Eve events would be held this year out of solidarity with the people of Gaza. Regardless, we're here hoping that the next 19 days of the Bush administration will pass quickly and without causing further damage to the USA--as well as to the rest of the world.  Happy New Year, from the Emirates!

A game of cricket in the square of "Old Town" in the Heritage District of Sharjah, UAE. Phil Roberts photo.

December 30, 2008

Sharjah: UAE Cultural Center

In the beautiful weather of the Gulf, it is difficult at times to keep to the task of research and writing. During one break, I visited the Sharjah Cultural Center in the downtown area of the this city, just a few miles from the glitz of Dubai. The 1820 fort has been restored and other structures demonstrate what life was like before oil and international trade transformed this corner of the world. I even had a chance to stop for a cola in a cafe in the Souq.

December 23, 2008

Researching at American University in Sharjah

While snow and wind keep temperatures near zero back in Wyoming, I'm researching in the collections of American University in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. The new campus has spectacular architecture, beautiful fountains, and picturesque views of flowers and palm trees.At times, it seems hard, with temperature outside in the mid-70s, to sit inside, squinting at archives, but someone has to do it....

AUS main entrance, looking toward Administration Building, December 23, 2008. Phil Roberts photo.

December 20, 2008

Even in Dubai, Economic Worries and Hope for '09

The temperature is in the mid-70s, the desert is blooming after recent rains, and Gulf News contains more pages than ever. Oil, once key to economic success of the Emirates, now contributes less than seven percent of the GNP for Dubai. Gasoline prices charged by national companies haven't moved with oil price declines--they were low even when oil hit $140 per barrel. Yet, even in Dubai, the world symbol of consumerism, the great economic times seem to be fading. 

When I was here for several weeks in August, there was no sign of trouble. Just four months ago, boosters seemed smug about the 14 percent economic growth rate. After all, Dubai could point to the world's tallest building, under construction near downtown Dubai, the prodigious traffic jams, and construction of entire housing developments--in the desert and on newly-constructed islands in the Gulf. Prices on everything from real estate to luxury cars seemed incapable of decline. Dubai seemed immune from bank troubles developing on the other side of the globe.

It turned out that even here in Dubai, the credit crunch arrived, with ensuing job cuts and real estate declines.

In this morning's news, an expatriate Australian was quoted about being made "redundant" after job cuts in the financial services industry here. Another article warned that similar job cuts are coming in construction and real estate, much of it tied to the worldwide credit crisis. Another item mentioned that Abu Dhabi's sovereign account has invested at least $400 million with Madoff's hedge fund.

Nonetheless, even here in the Gulf States, there is an underlying sense of optimism about what the new Obama administration will bring. En route to Sharjah by taxi from Dubai International Airport, the driver told me, apologetically, that the government in his native Syria was "no good." He hesitated briefly and added, "Like yours is...but, in your case, Obama will make it good."

With a month to go and signs of a deepening depression, the stakes are high for America, Dubai and the world. Can Obama restore economic confidence, root out corruption and excess, and bring prosperity back? Like most Americans, many in Dubai are hopeful as we all wait out another 30 days to inauguration. 

November 30, 2008

Wyoming's Vote Percentage for Obama Higher Than For Any Democrat Since LBJ

While John McCain won Wyoming's three electoral votes, Wyoming Democrats can gain some satisfaction that Barack Obama performed better than any Democratic candidate for President since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.  Clearly, the level of support for Obama in Wyoming far surpassed any support Bill Clinton enjoyed in the state. As Wyomingites began feeling the same economic pinches as the rest of America now is encountering, I would expect Obama's support to increase in the state. Wyoming, as a prosperous energy island, probably won't be resistent to the economic downtown, now that oil prices are slipping to $50 per barrel. If energy prices continue downward, will Wyoming voters continue to endorse Bush administration policies?  I doubt it. By January 20, many more Wyomingites may be glad to see a new President taking the reins.

October 19, 2008

Will Wyoming Ever Be a "Battleground" State? 

I spoke to a group in Rawlins earlier this week about the history of the electoral college and Wyoming's electoral history. I asserted that the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to pay attention even to the smallest states. The power of each vote in those small states is greater than one in a more populous state. One person in the audience asked, "If that is true, why don't Presidential candidates visit Wyoming? We haven't had a campaign stop by either candidate this year (except for Obama right before the caucus)." She was right. As long as Wyoming is "in the tank" for one party, neither candidate will bother. "Don't expect Wyoming to host any Presidential campaign visits for a while," I concluded.

However, the excitement engendered by Obama's appearnace in Laramie on the eve of the caucus last March suggests that Wyoming could become a player in national politics. The continuing presence of Obama staff in the state and the active work being done in many counties for his campaign hints that such a time might be sooner than most people think. 

But for that to happen, Obama will have to win and the national Democratic Party will have to continue Howard Dean's 50-state strategy. An Obama loss would eliminate Democrats in Wyoming for another generation or more, particularly if the Clintonites were to regain control of what would be left of the state party. We'd be back to the old Clinton losing strategy of dissing Wyoming year after year. (During the Clinton presidency, Wyoming's Democrats were at their lowest ebb in the state's history).

I attended a party one night earlier in the month where a locally prominent Clinton Democrat was asserting that Obama was going to lose--because of racism apparently. She had supported Hillary Clinton in the caucuses. My sense was that she was intending to vote against Obama in order for Hillary's stock in the party to rise somehow for four years from now. In order to mask what she assumed would be a Hillary-supporter exodus, she'd have to assert a reason for it. Fortunately, she is the only person I've encountered expressing such a view. There may be others in the party, but once Obama wins the Presidency, I hope she and her ilk will find a home in the "Hillary party," made up of Geraldine Ferraro and a couple of dozen bitter old woman or whatever that small rump group numbers by then. 

Beyond the obvious reasons why Obama needs to win this year--the economy, health care, war in Iraq--an Obama Presidency would help Democrats here. Wyoming would stand a chance at becoming a two-party state once again. 

October 19, 2008

General Election Observations:

Trauner to Win; Obama to Finish Strong in Wyoming 

Two weeks and two days before the general election and the race for Wyoming's lone seat in the U. S. House of Representatives remains a dead heat. Democrat Gary Trauner has run an energetic, well-organized campaign that has provided Wyomingites with sound alternatives to the normal Republican rhetoric floating around out there from his Republican opponent, Cheyenne resident Cynthia Loomis. While Trauner talks about making the economy work for everyone, Loomis stubbornly insists that Social Security ought to be privatized--despite what would have happened to the value of the system over the past two weeks had such a course been taken. Earlier, she claimed "transplants from the East" shouldn't be representing Wyoming. Republican Sen. John Barrasso fits that category far more obviously than Gary Trauner!  What was Loomis saying about one of her fellow Republicans? Trauner ought to win this one by several percentage points.

For the first time since senators were elected by popular vote, Wyomingites get to elect two in the same election this fall. Republican incumbent Mike Enzi looks pretty safe against little-known Laramie resident Chris Rothfuss.  John Barrasso, appointed to fill out the remaining months of the first two years of Sen. Craig Thomas' term after the senator's untimely death a year ago, is less secure. Gillette resident Nick Carter, who appeared with Barack Obama at the pre-caucus rally in Laramie last March, has campaigned statewide. Time will tell whether he can neutralize the huge Republican registration margin in his home county. Campbell County, according to statistics kept by the Secrtary of State's office, showed the greatest increase in party registration for Republicans in the past year of any county in the state.  (Democratic registration is up everywhere, but most significantly in Teton and Albany counties). If Campbell County Republicans cross over to vote for a "favorite son," Carter will make a race of it.

USA Today ran a story on Thrusday about Wyoming politics. The writer concluded that McCain would have an easy victory in the state, after interviewing mostly oilfield workers in Natrona County. Polling would seem to confirm this view, but from conversatons with long-time Republicans, I'm convinced that the margin will be far closer than anyone thinks. As I told the USA Today reporter, Wyomingites don't support candidates with a "religious right" agenda. I called them "Al Simpson Republicans" who are moved by mainstream conservatism and not religious zealotry.  The "new" McCain sold out to the religious right in order to gain the nomination this year. The move lowered his stock in Wyoming, with the unfortunate Palin choice making it even worse. I won't predict an Obama win in Wyoming, but don't be surprised if the McCain margin in Wyoming is the lowest of any Republican in many decades.

September 12, 2008

 Wyoming's Worst Governor Was Never Chosen to Run for Vice President 

Many historians rate Nels Smith, governor from 1939-1943, as the worst governor in state history. Some of the reasons for this rating? For one, Smith once was asked by friends to take action against two game wardens who had the audacity to enforce the game laws--against them. Smith called the Game and Fish director and demanded the men be fired. When the director refused, Smith fired him. (The Game and Fish Department became a semi-autonomous agency soon after, shielding directors from such arbitrary decisions). Smith also tried to fire the president of the University of Wyoming and, when told that only the trustees could do that, used as a litmus test for appointment to the trustees whether or not the candidate would fire the UW president.

Smith wasn't shy about seeking federal government aid to drought-stricken cattle ranchers, even though he disdained federal funds for the waning New Deal programs. Such "pork projects," however, he opposed as wasteful government spending. Historian T. A. Larson concluded that Smith's primary problem was that he thought he could run the state like he ran his ranch. 

But, at least, it is said that Smith "looked like a governor." He looked great on a horse--like the ideal image of a "cowboy governor." Just folks, essentially. In some respects, not unlike an Alaska governor who eats moose stew.

But after watching Smith's performance for four years, voters didn't reward it. He ran for reelection and lost.  Wyomingites almost universally condemned the actions for what they were..

How times have changed! Nowadays, he might have been tapped to be John McCain's running mate. After all, truth, competence, integrity, apparently aren't as relevant now as they were in Smith's day. From what we've been seeing on TV the past couple of weeks, all that counts nowadays is image.

And one other difference between now and then, Smith and Palin. Smith, whatever his faults, was not a liar. 

August 11, 2008

"Exotic" for Visiting Hawaii?  Only for a Washington Pundit....

Evidently, if you visit anywhere west of Missouri (or north of Washington, D. C.), you must be going somewhere "foreign."  So says Cokie Roberts this morning on her NPR commentary, expressing mock concern about Obama's visit this week to Hawaii. She finally admitted that Hawaii "is a state."  Gee. Some admission that is.

Meanwhile, a piece by Thrush of Politico this morning pressed the old Clinton line that a Democrat can win this year, but not Obama who is "showing weakness." What are the Clintons and their pundit-allies up to?  A theft at the convention at this stage will doom the Clintons to electoral infamy for all time so it can't be that.  It only seems to confirm what we've known all along== that they prefer a McCain win so they can get back in power in four years. With four more years of McBush, what makes them think they'll be anything left? And what makes them think they'd get any support from Democrats (under the age of 80) if they do pull such a stunt? 

August 10, 2008 

Note to CNN Commentators: Georgia Crisis Not Simulation to Test Candidates' Leadership 

CNN's commentators on the Russian invasion of Georgia this morning made some comments that were laughable were it not such a serious situation. With serious faces, they seemed to contend that the crisis is a simulation of some sort about how each of the current presidential candidates might react in a crisis someday. What about the guy with the more than seven years of experience who happens to be President at this moment? All I saw was Bush smiling with Putin at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and, as the crisis deepened, playing volleyball with a group of girls on a Beijing beach somewhere. Shouldn't CNN pundits assess the response of the actual serving President before making wild assertions about how this is a "test of leadership" for each of the candidates for the office? 

August 2, 2008

Shortages of Labor and Equipment, Not Places to Drill

The problem with oil production in America does not lie in a shortage of leases--either on land or off-shore. Thousands of leases have not even been explored yet. Oil field equipment is at a premium and skilled workers in the field are difficult to find. Both of these problems can not be solved by opening up new places for drilling.

The major oil companies have a long history of locking up possible oil lands with long-term leases. It is a means of keeping possible supply for the future in the ground while, at the same time, keeping competitors from capitalizing on the resource. We all remember the bribe-induced leasing of the Naval Petroleum Reserves that became the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s.

During the 1920s and 1930s, Shoshone and Arapaho on the Wind River reservation in Wyoming had to sue repeatedly to force oil companies to drill at Maverick Springs after they discovered that the Bureau of Indian Affairs had agreed to a lease without a timely production clause. Similar badly-drawn federal oil leases in recent years led to huge losses in federal royalty payments. It didn't lower the price, of course. What was saved from not paying federal royalties simply went into more company profits.

Political candidates would be wise to learn where the bottlenecks in domestic production exist (in equipment and labor) and read up on the history of oil leasing before agreeing to "compromises" on offshore drilling. Given the lack of public knowledge and the media's inability or unwillingness to explain it, the problem is too easy to demagogue as we're seeing John McCain and his spokesmen doing.

July 4, 2008

Back from the History of Wyoming June Tour 

For the first time in several years, I took a systematic tour across a big chunk of Wyoming during June. (I've been everywhere in Wyoming in recent years, but one destination at a time mostly). This time, it was on a tour bus with 36 other people in a very well-planned "History of Wyoming" tour of the state expertly organized by the UW Outreach School. I was the history guide.

The itinerary for the seven-day trip included stops of many significant historic sites, but even for that length of time, many places and a big piece of Wyoming (the southwest quarter) had to be left off.

Biggest surprise? The lush green grass across the Powder River Basin, the Big Horn Basin and even along the eastern border. While Casper-Shoshoni didn't look a lot like Ireland, there were parts of northern Niobrara County and Johnson County that did (and not through one's sunglasses either). The last time I remember it as green was in the middle 1970s.

The weather wasn't entirely kind to our tour. On June 13, when we were about to depart Cody for Mammoth Hot Springs in the Park, we were told that both passes in the Park were closed by snow--eights inches, according to one report. We had to settle for a quiet day at Old Faithful and, unfortunately, skip the history of old Fort Yellowstone on the site of Mammoth.

I was surprised that most of my fellow travelers were UW alumni, some from as far away as Oklahoma and Minnesota. Consequently, it was no wonder that, at any given site, one of the travelers would have specific insider knowledge that she/he would share with the rest of us. At every destination, we met or renewed acquaintance with many people, demonstrating once again Wyoming's one degree of separation. Why would anyone be surprised that the flagger on the highway construction project on Togwotee Pass was one of my students? Or that the museum director at Meeteetse's nicely organized Charles Belden museum was the mother of my former debate partner in high school?  Nearly everyone else had similar spontaneous meetings with old friends along the way.

One regret is that we didn't get to see everything on the schedule. I made some miscalculations about how long we'd stay at each historic site, thus having to leave off the last site or two on the planned itinerary on a couple of days. No matter how often I travel my state, I'm always learning more about it.  Maybe, if the interest exists, we can do it again next June.

 WYOMING ALMANAC REVIEW:

POLITICS IN WYOMING HISTORY 

When Wyoming Almost Repealed Women Suffrage

The first Territorial Legislature in 1869 passed the suffrage bill, giving women the right to vote for the first time anywhere in America. But it almost didn’t stay that way. Two years later, the second legislature nearly repealed the law. In fact, repeal failed by just one vote.

William Bright, the South Pass City Democrat who introduced the suffrage bill in 1869, didn’t run for re-election, but Ben Sheeks, his South Pass City colleague who opposed the suffrage bill in 1869, did win another term.  Sheeks was the only incumbent House member in the second legislature.      

Just as soon as the second legislature convened, newly elected Uinta County House member C. E. Castle said he intended to get the suffrage law repealed.

Why did the 2^nd legislature try to repeal women suffrage?  Castle did not state a reason, but historian Dr. T. A. Larson claimed it was because of alcohol.  Many men believed that women voters favored “Sunday closing” of saloons, a very unpopular move in the hard-drinking railroad towns in southern Wyoming.

Gov. John A. Campbell, the man who made history on Dec. 10, 1869, by signing the suffrage act into law, urged legislators not to repeal the law. “…women have voted in the territory, served on juries, and held office,” Campbell pointed out. “It is simple justice to say that the women entering, for the first time in the history of the country, upon these new and untried duties, have conducted themselves in every respect with as much tact, sound judgment, and good sense, as men.

Nonetheless, Castle introduced the repeal. The next day repeal passed the House by a vote of nine to three with one member absent and not voting. When the bill went to the Council, it passed there by a narrower vote of 5-4. It looked like Wyoming’s two-year experiment with women suffrage would be coming to an end.

But Gov. Campbell had other ideas. He vetoed the repeal attempt, returning the bill to the House. Both houses needed two-thirds votes to override and House Speaker Ben Sheets immediately sought to override the veto. On Dec. 9, just a day short of two years since Wyoming had become the first place to give women equal rights, nine legislators voted to override the governor’s veto--voting to repeal women suffrage.  Just two voted “no” while two others were absent and not voting. The House had mustered the necessary two-thirds vote. The veto override went to the Council.

There, on the 32^nd day of the session, the five Council members seeking to repeal suffrage voted to override the governor’s veto. The four who had voted against the bill when it first came before the Council again voted to keep women suffrage.   The override effort failed, falling just one vote short of the necessary two-thirds.

The opponents of women suffrage had taken their best shot and narrowly lost—by one vote. The four supporters of suffrage in the Council held firm and Campbell’s veto kept women suffrage part of the territory’s laws.

In 1873, Campbell told the legislators in his joint message: “. “Two years more of observation of the practical working of the system have only served to deepen my conviction that what we, in this Territory, have done, has been well done, and that our system of impartial suffrage is an unqualified success.”

From that day on, no serious effort was ever mounted to repeal the suffrage law, granting women the vote and equal political rights. Wyoming entered the Union on July 10, 1890, and embedded in its Constitution was the suffrage bill in the form of Article 6, Section 1, guaranteeing equal political rights for all.

First Woman to Vote in America Lived in Laramie  

In coming weeks, we will highlight 52 brief biographies of little-known historical figures from Wyoming history.  This weekly series will be based on original research done in the collections of the American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, and the Wyoming State Archives collections in Cheyenne.  Political commentaries will continue, but these historical features will be interspersed with those entries on current events and opinions.

Louisa Swain was the first woman to vote in a general election in the United States. She voted on Sept. 6, 1870, in Laramie.

Born Louisa Gardner in Norfolk, Va., in 1801, she was the daughter of a sea captain who was lost at sea while she was a child. She and her mother moved to Charleston, S. C., where her mother died. Orphaned, Louisa went to Baltimore to live with an uncle, Ephraim Gardner. While in Baltimore, she met and, in 1821, married Stephen Swain who operated a chair factory. When their fourth child was six weeks old, Stephen Swain sold the chair factory and the family moved, first to Zanesville, Ohio, and later to Indiana. Soon after their son Alfred and his young family moved to the new town of Laramie, Wyoming, in 1869, the Swains joined them.

On Sept. 6, 1870, Louisa Swain rose early, put on her apron, shawl and bonnet, and walked downtown with a tin pail in order to purchase yeast from a merchant. She walked by the polling place and concluded she would vote while she was there. The polling place had not yet officially opened, but election officials asked her to come in and cast her ballot. She was described by a Laramie newspaper as "a gentle white-haired housewife, Quakerish in appearance." (Laramie Daily Sentinel, September 7, 1870). She was 69 years old when she cast the first ballot by any woman in the United States in a general election.

Soon after the election, Stephen and Louisa Swain left Laramie and returned to Maryland to live near a daughter. Stephen died Oct. 6, 1872, in Maryland. Louisa died Jan. 25, 1880, in Lutherville, Maryland. Her body was buried in the Friends Burying Ground, Harford Road, Lutherville. A statue in her honor, by sculptor John Baker, was dedicated in front of the Women's History House, Laramie, Wyoming, in 2005.

 Dec. 26, 2007

New Coal Gasification Project Will Force School Board to Reopen High School/Junior High in Medicine Bow 

The new coal gasification project announced earlier this month ought to bring many people back to the towns of eastern Carbon County--to places emptied during the last bust of the 1980s, In at least one case, Medicine Bow, the town declined even further because of poor decisions by school officials. In coming months, new residents will need houses to live in, stores to patronize, and schools to educate their children. Recipients of such growth likely will include Hanna and Rock River, but in the center nearest the project site is Medicine Bow.

Fortunately, the Medicine Bow school building, closed as a high school and junior high arbitrarily back in 1998 by the absentee-controlled Carbon County School District #2 board, remains standing.  In coming months, the school board may have a chance to reconsider that poorly made plan and reopen the Medicine Bow High School and junior high. Fortunately for quality education, this board is not made up of the same members as the one that so callously destroyed Medicine Bow by arbitrarily closing the school back in '98.

It isn't too late to correct the bad mistake. The board ought to plan now to reopen the school in time to meet the projected educational needs. Such a move will give the town another chance at growth, but more important, provide the opportunity for children of workers on the coal gasification plant to be educated close to home. Today's education theorists now believe smaller schools are better than mega-schools.  Combine that pedagogical truth with the much higher costs of fuel--both for workers who may decide to live far away if there is no school or school buses, needed to transport students to distant schools, and the decision ought to be clear. With any luck, the new board will take action now. Reopening Medicine Bow's schools will be a win for everyone all the way around.

Who We Are

Wyoming Politics: An Almanac Blog of Current Events, History and Opinion  The opinions expressed here are the views of Phil Roberts and do not represent the views of his university, his family, or any political party, interest group or candidate.

For in-depth information about Wyoming history, check Phil's University webpage: http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/ROBERTSHISTORY/

Books by Phil Roberts

Readings in Wyoming History, edited by Phil Roberts, is a book consisting of essays by numerous historians covering various aspects of Wyoming history. It is primarily designed as a book for instruction in Wyoming history. The 5th revised edition will be available soon.

A Penny for the Governor, A Dollar for Uncle Sam: Taxation History of Washington. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002). The book tells the story of why Washington is one of just seven states not having an income tax and how politics has influenced tax policy in that Northwest state since the Civil War. 

Wyoming Almanac, soon to be released in its sixth revised edition, is a book of facts about the Equality State/Cowboy State. It has no connection to this site except that Phil Roberts is a co-editor of the book, along with his two brothers, David L. Roberts and Steven L. Roberts.

David is assistant professor of journalism at Missouri Valley College and former publisher/editor of the Medicine Bow Post, a prize-winning weekly newspaper he founded in 1977 in Medicine Bow, Wyoming. Steven L. Roberts works for the U. S. Postal Service in Denver. He formerly taught high school and coached in Wyoming high schools. 

Wyoming Politics: An Almanac Blog of Current Events, History and Opinion is a website featuring comment and opinion about everything involving Wyoming. Some pages contain factual data, history, or feature stories about the state. Primarily, however, this site presents observations and analysis of Wyoming politics, mostly from a historical perspective, written by a long-term observer of that subject.