Eric Sapp: October 2008 Archives

Marta Cook over at Faithful Democrats just did a great post on the differences between how American families fared during the Clinton and Bush years.

She based her post on a report by Third Way (my favorite of the progressive think tanks).  It's well worth the time to read the entire post (and report, for that matter), but here are a few of the highlights from Marta's post:

If income growth into the Bush years had kept up with the overall rate of growth during the Clinton years, the average American family would have pocketed $58,945 more from 2000 to 2008.

Between 1992 and 2008, gas prices have nearly tripled in real dollars. Third Way concludes, "The typical household will have spent $5,069 more for gas over the past eight years than it did from 1993 to 2000-or enough to pay nearly one year's tuition at a public university".

If the economy had kept up the same rate of growth during the Bush years as it did the Clinton years, America's economy would be larger, to the tune of $1.017 trillion. In addition, between 2000 and 2006, the number of uninsured Americans increased by 8.56 million.

To be fair, there are always other factors than the President that affect these things, but imagine how different our world would be if only a few hundred little old ladies in FL had not voted for Buchanan...

The Danville Register and Bee--the paper that originally broke the story about Rep. Virgil Goode's connections with the "gay coming of age" movie, Eden's Curve, and Goode's earmarks to its producer--just released a very good editorial explaining their reasons for running the original story and why they believe there are serious ethical issues at play here. 

The Charlottesville paper also added to the story by pointing out that, not only was the earmark given to the theater operated by the producer of the movie, but the man paid to do the $3.5 million renovation the earmark was for is one of Goode's biggest campaign contributors. 

Goode is saying he has no idea why he was thanked in the credits of the movie and had no idea the kind of movies being made and shown in the theater he earmarked tax-payer dollars for, despite the fact that his press secretary and wife both sit on the theater's board and his press secretary had a speaking role in the film.  In an attempt explain how this could be so, Goode's press secretary is now saying that he never read the entire script of the biggest film he has ever been a part of and never actually watched the movie he acted in.  

The issue here is the hypocrisy of it all, and the lies and cover-ups that follow.  Rep. Goode has been fanning the anti-gay flames in his district for years.  He beat his last opponent by going after the fact that he had a gay daughter, and Goode led off his attack against his current opponent in this race by hitting him on gay marriage.  Now Goode is being called not only for his cronyism and misuse of tax-payer dollars, but for the consequences of cronyism: taxpayer money isn't spent on things that align with their priorities and values.  It's fitting that Goode is starting to reap what he sowed.

OK, I'm not making this up.  But it just came out that Rep. Virgil Goode, notorious for leading the protest against Rep. Ellison's desire to be sworn in on the Koran and for being an outspoken opponent of gay rights, was involved in the making of a soft gay porn film...and earmarked $150K to the writer and producer of the film!  Goode's press secretary had an acting role in the film as well.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.  The film, Eden's Curve, for which Goode gets special thanks in the credits, describes it's plot thusly:

It is 1972 and muscularly handsome blond Peter heads off to an exclusive Virginia university, unsure of what to expect. He joins a fraternity house where he meets William, a classics major who has a strong attraction to him. Despite their flirting the reserved Peter becomes romantically involved in a menage a trois with his roommate Joe and Joe's girlfriend Bess. When the trio's social blis is disrupted by a violent episode Peter is taken in and protected by Ian, his poetry professor. Recuperating at Ian's idyllic country house, Peter soon falls in love with his hunky professor. Of course, their hot and heavy affair which includes skinny dipping, passionate sex and bathing outdoors is taboo. When jealousy rears its ugly head, Peter and Ian's happiness is threatened.

And this is a film that gives Goode and his wife special thanks in the closing credits.  The local paper, The Danville Register and Bee broke the story today, and you can read the entire thing HERE.

The Democratic challenger, Tom Perriello, was closing in on Goode...and my guess is that this will put him over the top.  The values issue Southside will be huge (Goode's first attacks against Perriello were over Perriello not being a strong enough opponent of gay marriage!), but Goode also has a long history of misusing earmarks to help cronies and was involved in the MZM scandal that brought down Duke Cunningham.  Interesting times in VA!

Tabitha Knerr at Faithfuldemocrats.com just posted a great piece on all the many ties between Republicans and the gambling industry that are starting to pop up in races around the country.  I commented recently on the effect Sheldon Adelson--the GOP operative behind Freedom's Watch, who made his billions owning Vegas casinos and investing in the Chinese regime--is having on Congressional races. 

Tabitha connected a lot more dots than I did and demonstrated that, despite the fact that Abramoff is still just settling into his cell, Republicans are quickly reestablishing their ties with organized gambling from the McCain camp down to the Republican running to reclaim Mark Foley's old seat in FL (she included a bunch of links to all the buzz being generated by Christians pushing back against this trend through local blogs and the media).  

But more than just pointing out the political implications, she provided a very good perspective on why this trend is so troubling...and why Christians should be paying attention.  I've included an excerpt below (click here to read the entire post):

There are two key issues at stake here: Gambling & Special interest lobbying:

Special Interests 

Not all special interests are bad. The American Cancer Society is a special interest. Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a special interest. Disabled American Veterans is a special interest. I am not opposed to these organizations talking to my Representative and reminding them of the impact that legislation will have the sick, the grieving, and the forgotten. We should not buy into the McCain rhetoric that all special interests are bad.

But some special interests are less beneficial, less concerned with the common good, less concerned about the least of these than they are about protecting their worldly riches. Some special interests are downright dangerous. The difficult part about being a responsible citizen is that you must engage in the complicated task of separating the sheep from the goats. Luckily for us, we were given some instruction in how such decisions are made...it is indeed worth finding out which special interests [candidates] are tied to. Will we support a candidate who has a "special interest" in promoting addiction, greed, and recklessness? Or a candidate who has a "special interest" in caring for the hungry, the sick, and the imprisoned?