Stimulus: Sanity returns -- briefly -- to the debate about fixing the economy

According to a report in this morning's Times, the Democratic majority is "short of the 60 votes needed to advance a $161 billion economic stimulus package toward approval in the Senate."

You may recall from civics class that it used to require a simple majority to pass most laws in the federal legislature. But since 2006, the Democrats have adopted a new theory of democracy under which no law can be advanced that is not veto-proof. The practical effect is to have the legislature held hostage by the president.

Some Democratic senators insist that the House stimulus plan, adopted under the super-majority theory, is a lousy bill that will benefit people who don't need help, hurt people who do, vastly increase the deficit, and not do much of anything for the economy.

Instead of crafting a responsible bill to address a perceived crisis -- and perhaps first determining whether there is a crisis, the House Democratic leadership, as is now its custom, caved in to the Bush administration's aversion to any economic program not made up primarily of tax cuts and payouts to the rich.

The senators are right. The House bill is pretty bad.

It creates humongous deficits at a time when we are already consumed with how we are going to continue to fund essential existing programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone find the resources for important new efforts, such as universal health care. Because it consists largely of tax cuts, the resulting deficits will cause long-term interest rates to go up, an outcome more likely to further slow down the economy than to stimulate it, and add billions to the deficit by greatly increasing the cost of servicing the national debt.

And, of course, by agreeing not to raise revenues to pay for the expenditures, the Democratically controlled Congress is irresponsibly compounding an already catastrophic problem, passing it on to future generations of Americans and, more to the point, future generations of politicians.

Most important, as the latest sally in the administration's class war, the package continues the policy of redistributing national resources to those at the wealthiest end of the economic spectrum, not only sending money in the wrong direction but in this case dispatching huge amounts of it there. The average tax dividend dollar will go to superrich recipients whose primary source of income is taxable dividends, in other words, to people who not only don't need it, but, belying the rationale for the stimulus, to people who will have no incentive to spend it.

Conversely, the House proposal doesn't include immediate infusions of cash into the economy, as an expansion of the food stamp program would do; doesn't offer help to those who would be hurt by a recession, as an extension of unemployment payments would do; doesn't help state governments -- already suffering from declining tax revenues -- that bear most of the costs of social programs; and doesn't include expenditures -- on infrastructure projects, for example -- that would create jobs and improve the longterm strength of the economy.
President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, and the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have all urged the Senate to adopt a slightly cheaper version of the stimulus plan that was approved by the House on Tuesday.

But Senate Democrats, including the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, have insisted on pressing ahead with their own package [is that sound the Times tsk-tsk-ing?], which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday.

Only 3 of the 10 Republicans on the committee voted in favor of the plan, though — an early sign that the bipartisan cooperation that drove negotiations over the stimulus plan in the House was crumbling in the Senate.

The Senate stimulus plan would cost nearly $200 billion over two years, about $30 billion more than the House package [tsk-tsk] — and Democrats said they still intended to offer amendments that could add even more to the cost [tsk-tsk].

Sixty votes are needed under Senate rules to shut off debate on a measure and move to consideration of the measure itself, a step known as cloture. Without cloture, opponents of a Senate bill would be able to prolong the debate indefinitely.
This pathetic charade is an example of the behavior that has led to the public's contempt for the legislature. The senators know as well as you do that the House bill is seriously flawed, but in an election year looking responsible trumps being responsible -- we have to do something, even if we all know it's the wrong thing -- and because "(w)ithout cloture, opponents of a Senate bill would be able to prolong the debate indefinitely," the leaders of the Senate have already indicated they, too, are ready to cave.

Here's Democrat heavyweight Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator:

“If it fails, we’ll pass the House bill. But we’ll give it a try.”

Wow. The Republicans must be quaking in their Berlutis.

In case you're keeping track, here's another name you won't find in the next edition of Profiles in Courage:
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant majority leader, said that Democrats’ strategy was, first, to seek approval of the Senate’s stimulus bill along with a small number of amendments. If that failed, he said, they would then turn to holding a series of votes to add components to the House’s version of the bill, and then ultimately call a vote on that plan.

The Democrats’ willingness to publicly discuss such a fallback strategy verged on the waving of a surrender flag: It indicated that they knew Senate Republicans could block the more expensive Senate stimulus plan, and that any delay in approving the House package would be dangerous politically, since it would leave the Democrats vulnerable to charges that they were impeding efforts to prop up the economy.
As it emerged from committee, the Senate bill that Durbin and Schumer have already abandoned is a big improvement on the Bush-league House bill. For example, the Senate proposal provides payments of $500 each -- not rebates, but cash that in most cases will be spent immediately -- to about 20 million low-income Americans over the age of 62 who survive on Social Security benefits, and to about 250,000 veterans dependent on payouts from a grateful nation. In a perfect example of what's wrong with the lower body's proposal, neither of these groups would receive a penny from the House.
Both stimulus plans are meant to encourage spending through a combination of income-tax rebates, tax incentives for businesses, and stipends for tax filers who report at least $3,000 in earnings but do not pay enough income tax to qualify for rebates.

The House plan was forged in swift negotiations among Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Boehner and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. In those talks, Ms. Pelosi ultimately [swiftly, is more like it] dropped Democratic demands that unemployment benefits be extended and food stamps be increased, in favor of sending rebates and stipends to 35 million low-income families that would not have received them under a Bush administration proposal.
You are supposed to be excited and uplifted by the sight Democrats and Republicans voting in large numbers for the same bill, as if bipartisanship and not policy was the point of this is exercise. We are expected not to notice that, like every outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington, the legislation is a by-product of the Democratic majority's abdication of its responsibilities in the face of intransigence by the Bush administration. The unpopular, failed, corrupt, incompetent, lame-duck Bush administration.

Instead of fighting for better policy, the Democrats have decided to play political games with the legislative process. Having conceded ultimate victory to the conservatives, the Democrats hope to use the committee's bill and amendments from the floor to make "some Republicans potentially [pay] a steep political price, by voting against amendments that would be popular in their home states."
For instance, the Democrats were nearly certain to propose an amendment to increase government assistance for rising home heating costs and other energy expenses — a program for low-income families that is hugely popular in the Northeast. Republican Senators up for re-election this year, like Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, would be forced to choose between casting a yes vote that would break with the Republican leadership or a no vote that would be unpopular with their constituents.
Not only is the Democratic plan cynical, it's a loser. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell already knows he's going to get the House bill. Do you think he won't free up his team to vote in favor of amendments their constituents favor? Sununu, for example, can vote for the heating fuel subsidy, thus gaining an advantage with the huddled masses in New Hampshire, then vote against the final version of the Democrats' bill in the name of, oh, i dunno, "fiscal responsibility."
Praising the House bill, Mr. McConnell said: “Republicans and Democrats rose above politics and put the people and our economy first.”

He continued: “Then all eyes turned to the Senate. Would we put our individual interests aside, or would we throw the whole plan into jeopardy by loading it down with gifts for anybody who came calling? Apparently the temptation for giveaways was too great for some to resist."
This is how "bipartisanship" works. The White House -- not the legislature -- decides what is "acceptable." Under the 60% theory, the majority introduces legislation that will head off the threat of a veto or, in the Senate, a filibuster (the 66% theory, I guess). I stress threat. Bush has vetoed only eight bills, and you could run a decent Democratic campaign for office on most of them (stem cell research, children's health insurance, health and human services expenditures, water resources, a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq). And while there have been a large number of cloture votes in this session, the Senate majority has not forced the minority to hold real, public filibusters with whatever political consequences such confrontations might hold. All you really need to do to intimidate the Democrats is to frown at them.

In opposing improved legislation, McConnell, whom the Times, as is its custom, gives the most ink and the last word, caps a recitation of the usual refrain about Democratic profligacy with a final tip of the hat to the bi-partisan, i.e., Bush-certified, House proposal.
“As soon as the bill hit the Senate, it started to look a lot like Christmas over here. Chairman Baucus added 10 new provisions before the bill was even considered in committee. Three more amendments were added in the committee. You could almost hear Bing Crosby’s voice coming out of the Finance Committee.

“So the stimulus train is slowing, grinding to a halt here in the U.S. Senate, all of which only reinforces my view that the only way we’ll get relief to the people soon enough for it to work, will be to insist on speed over spending. And the only way to do that is to pass the bipartisan, House-passed bill.”
Bi-partisanship is a smoke screen used to obscure the fact that -- forget Democrats or Republicans -- the Congress is dominated by a conservative majority.

How about this instead:

Pass the best bill you can. If Bush wants to veto it, so what? If the Republicans want to uphold the veto, same thing. Whether they succeed or fail, go to the American people in November and let them decide. Draw a clear line between the party of the people and the party of the rich. If they have an unambiguous understanding of whom they're voting for, no matter how it turns out, at least Americans will get the government they deserve.

Action: Tell the FCC and Congress You Support Net Neutrality

Here is a special action page that pipes your personal comments into the FCC electronic filing system for public comments on net neutrality, and forwards your comments to all your members of Congress at the same time.

We have already seen blatant moves towards making a two-tier toll road out of our wide open democratic internet, as when Comcast started discriminating against particular users recently and Warner Cable began experimenting with metering. Nor have the service providers shied away from censorship, as when the AT&T blocked Pearl Jam's criticism of Bush, and when Verizon censored NARAL's pro-choice text messages. This is a chance to counter the high-priced lobbyists and the avarice of the telcoms and cable companies.

Net Neutrality FCC Comments (anyone can use this link):
<http://www.usalone.com/laesch/pnum786.php>

Facebook Users:
<http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum786>

Action: Tell the FCC and Congress You Support Net Neutrality

Here is a special action page that pipes your personal comments into the FCC electronic filing system for public comments on net neutrality, and forwards your comments to all your members of Congress at the same time.

We have already seen blatant moves towards making a two-tier toll road out of our wide open democratic internet, as when Comcast started discriminating against particular users recently and Warner Cable began experimenting with metering. Nor have the service providers shied away from censorship, as when the AT&T blocked Pearl Jam's criticism of Bush, and when Verizon censored NARAL's pro-choice text messages. This is a chance to counter the high-priced lobbyists and the avarice of the telcoms and cable companies.

Net Neutrality FCC Comments (anyone can use this link):
<http://www.usalone.com/laesch/pnum786.php>

Facebook Users:
<http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum786>

Huckabee Watch: Good Eatin'

"When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper." -- Mike Huckabee, on Morning Joe (MSNBC).

2008: Good Advice from MLK III

After meeting with him at the King Center in Atlanta, Martin Luther King III, the son of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., last week sent John Edwards a letter celebrating the candidate's commitment to ending poverty and to speaking out for those without a voice. King, leader of Realizing the Dream, praised Edwards for fighting for justice and equality.

"I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign," wrote King. "I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

"From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

"I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes."

You may remember that Edwards and King appeared together last year at Riverside Church in Manhattan where Edwards made an impassioned argument against the war in Iraq, citing Dr. King's speech on the Vietnam War four decades earlier, testifying that silence in the face of wrong is itself wrong, a message that Edwards has repeated throughout this campaign.

The corporate media have tried narrow the debate by limiting the choice only to candidates made viable by being certified as "viable" by the media. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul could be whited out completely, for example, but Edwards was a little too viable to be ignored, and so we got the "what's John Edwards so mad about" stories and the media's obsessive focus on the campaign strategies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama instead of on the issues that divide them. As King says, speaking up for the poor is not considered politically convenient or prudent, but it is still the right thing to do. In so far as this campaign has been about issues, it is because Edwards, not the media and not Clinton or Obama, has put them front and center.

Despite Obama's victory in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton is still likely to be the Democrat's nominee. Should she also get past Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney or John McCain, however, you have to wonder if her inauguration will be the best thing for the country. Her husband was the greatest Republican president we ever had (okay, besides Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, but it works better rhetorically the way I said it). He succeeded, as George Bush I was unable to, in giving us NAFTA, welfare reform, banking reform, a beefed-up military, almost daily assaults on the people of Iraq, and the effective end of a 40-year commitment by the Democratic party to single-payer universal health care...just to get the list started (a personal favorite of mine was The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 -- limiting appeals in death penalty cases, expanding the number of death penalty-eligible crimes, prohibiting fund-raising for vaguely defined "terrorist" organizations, and loosening rules against the deportation of legal immigrants -- that prepared the ground for the even more repressive provisions of the Bush-era USA PATRIOT Act).

Whether you consider class inequality and economic justice, government programs against poverty, the rights of women and minorities, or the aggressively interventionist foreign policy, the generalized ruling-class offensive in the U.S. didn’t pause between January of 1993 and January 2001, but continued unabated throughout the Clinton years. There are some differences between the radical and incompetent administration of Bush II and Clinton's, but it is nearly impossible to discern where Bush I ends and the beginning of what we may come to think of as Clinton I.

Add to all this the mean, bullying, and self-pitying Hillary Clinton campaign of the past few weeks and it becomes difficult to be very cheerful about a second Clinton presidency.

With its focus on the poor black woman, torn between voting her color or voting her gender, press coverage of this campaign was never more vapid or more unsavory than in the lead up to South Carolina, as if it was impossible for the media to countenance the thought that she might be undecided about the issues. Just because the media tries to slap down ideas any time they rear their pointy little heads, it doesn't follow that the voters are similarly indifferent to what's at stake in these primaries. Ultimately, this election will be decided on what Americans think -- about the war, the economy, jobs, education, health care. Could it be that I am undecided not about which candidate has the same coat of paint or the same plumbing as I do, but about which one will make the best leader of the country?

It is slur on every black supporter of Obama and every woman who wants Clinton to imply that their endorsement is contingent on other than wanting to do what's best for the country (and what about all those whites and men opposing Clinton and Obama -- including, one expects, by September the vast majority of the punditry who will rediscover, in the wake of the conventions, McCain's experience, Romney's moderation (sic) or Huckabee's, um, well, no doubt a careful reconsideration of Huckabee will find him infinitely more worthy of the trust of the people than the Democrat -- what do we imagine motivates them?).

King, who clearly knows who the fighter in this race is, concluded his letter by telling Edwards to press on. Let's hope he does.

Here's the full text of King's letter:
January 20, 2008

The Honorable John R. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III
The letter can be downloaded (pdf) at:
<http://www.johnedwards.com/news/20080121-mlk-iii-letter.pdf>

Wanna bet?

"They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other." -- Bill Clinton on Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain (CNN).

Media: Times' Shakeup # 2,143

As reporting goes, this is pretty cheesy (on my part), but what the heck: daily journalism being essential to a viable community life, you need to know that
A source told E&P [Will LAT's Stanton Replace O'Shea? (E&P)] that Russ Stanton is the frontrunner to replace James O'Shea, who was fired over the weekend in a shakeup at the Los Angeles Times. Stanton has been innovation editor at the paper since January 2007, and is in charge of editorial content at latimes.com. Before that he was business editor. Forbes: The honeymoon is over at Tribune, writes Louis Hau. NYT: The ousted editor of the Los Angeles Times on Monday offered a scathing critique of the newspaper industry and specifically his longtime employer, the Tribune Company, arguing that cost cuts, a lack of inve stment and an aversion to serious news was damaging the business. LAT: Tribune Co. chairman Sam Zell on Monday backed Los Angeles Times publisher David D. Hiller's decision to replace the newspaper's editor. LA Observed: O'Shea's remarks to newsroom. E&P: Former Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll said the weekend dismissal of editor Jim O'Shea "affects morale." Chicago Tribune: Hiller said in an interview Monday that he would "love to say we can spend more or spend the same every year, and I don't th ink that's realistic" given the economic realities of the news business.
This comes from MediaBistro's Daily Media News Feed, essential reading for anyone in journalism, tv or public relations in any of the municipalities where such crimes occur.

Populism and Evangelicalism: A Winning Combination?

Will Huckabee's candidacy create a new majority coalition in 2008?

One of the phenomena hardest for progressives to comprehend is the alliance between working- and lower middle-class social conservatives and the economic/foreign policy conservatives who have made the GOP what Mike Huckabee has called "a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street."

Aside from sharing the word conservative as their last name, these two groups have very little in common.

Polls show, in fact, as common sense suggests, that a majority of evangelicals do not embrace the Republican pro-Capitalist agenda. According to a survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, more than two thirds of social conservatives agree that big corporations make too much money; almost three quarters -- 72% -- say too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few large companies; 78% want to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25; and 59% support having the government guarantee health care for all citizens.

No wonder the corporatist power brokers are freaked out by Huckabee's neo-populism. A Huckabee win could signal that the unholy alliance between the evangelicals and Wall Street is over.

It is likely that it is Huckabee's populist rhetoric, not his opposition to gay marriage and abortion, that is exciting his followers (in fact, as he has ratcheted up the red meat Christian rhetoric since Iowa his support has appeared to recede somewhat) . After all, his was not the only hand that was raised when the Republican presidential wannabes were asked who believed the biblical account of creation to be literally true, and with the exception of John McCain, the rest of the candidates have exceeded him in their zeal to take reactionary cultural, economic and political positions. But, tellingly, it is Huckabee who emerged from the pack.

Much has been made of McCain's narrow win in South Carolina, but it's worth noting that, although the Arizona senator did slightly better, both candidates got about one third of the vote, even though Huckabee was vastly outspent, faced a hostile conservative press, had Fred Thompson flanking him on the right, and had to rely on a relatively amateurish campaign staff. The campaign is far from over and, and despite corporate media animus toward him, Huckabee can be expected to do well. Even if McCain or Mitt Romney eventually prevails for the top job, it will be surprising if the former governor and televangelist is not on the ballot in November.

Although the economic conservatives regard him as practically a New Dealer, it goes without saying that not all of Huckabee's economic views are progressive. He supports, for example, a regressive consumption tax -- he gives it the Orwellian name FairTax -- that would pick the pockets of the low- and middle-income voters he is courting. Still, Huckabee is running against the standard-issue conservative trickle-down economic scripture, arguing that conservatives need to "quit being a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street, or else we're not going to win another election for a generation." He favors increasing the minimum wage and wants to provide health insurance to more children, positions that put him at odds with traditional economic conservatives.

And he is equally in conflict with many established religious leaders allied with the GOP. The editor of the National Review, who thinks Huckabee is a closet "liberal," is terrified of the governor because "he takes the Sermon on the Mount seriously," and indeed, this does seem to strike at the heart of his differences with the religious bosses who oppose him. Pat Robertson, for example, Rev. Ike-like, finds it convenient to quote Matthew ("To everyone who has shall more be given") rather than Luke ("From everyone who has been given much, much will be required"); the late Jerry Falwell found evidence in the Old Testament that capitalism is "part of God's plan for His people;" and Jim Wallis tasked Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, for placing Republican ideology ahead of biblical principles of justice.

Yet evangelical leaders such as these, and not just the dead ones, no longer command the following they once did. More importantly, they never accurately reflected the economic views of most evangelicals, who are not worshippers at the altar of economic conservatism but rather hold a wide range of views on economic issues roughly similar to other Americans. Among economically progressive evangelicals, Jim Wallis is hardly a lone voice. And Huckabee, more in tune with evangelicals than other, more ideologically righteous economic conservatives, doesn't make them choose between their social and their economic beliefs.

This is bad news for progressive Democrats. With their party apparently headed toward nominating one of the two candidates from Wall Street (or, in a real nightmare, having them both on the same ticket), the potential to elect a progressive congress next fall could be seriously compromised if Huckabee's populist brand of compassionate conservatism catches on. There will be little incentive for alienated Democrats who have been voting Republican for decades -- and in even larger numbers not voting at all -- to turn out and pull the lever for progressive Democratic congressional candidates if, once in office, those legislators will be, as they were during the Clinton years, triangulated into impotence by the leader of their own party.

Happy Anniversary: Roe v. Wade

I picked this up from "Miss Laura" on DailyKos; I'd think it was important enough to reprint it here, even if it didn't reinforce my argument that progressives are making a huge mistake if they don't advance the Edwards candidacy as far as possible and even though it undermines my position that Clinton and Obama are Tweedledum and Tweedledee:

As we reach the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade here are some important things to remember:

  • John Paul Stevens is 87 years old.
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74 years old.
  • Stephen Breyer is 69 years old.
  • David Souter is 68 years old.

By contrast,

  • John Roberts is 52 years old.
  • Samuel Alito is 57 years old.

One of these candidates will almost certainly determine the Court's tipping point on choice for a generation to come:

  • Hillary Clinton:

    "I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches."
    — Statement on the Nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice, September 22, 2005

  • John Edwards:

    "I must oppose [Judge John Roberts'] nomination to be our country's Chief Justice...I do so because we do know the views and positions he took prior to the recent hearings. Judge Roberts opposed efforts to remedy discrimination on the basis of sex and race. He opposed measures to protect voting rights. He denigrated the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose."
    — E-mail to Supporters, September 21, 2005

  • Barack Obama:

    "I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy, and I think that's where most Americans are."
    — Democratic debate, April 26, 2007

  • Mike Huckabee:

    Sometimes we talk about why we are importing so many people in our work force. It might be because for the last 35 years we have aborted more than 1 million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed of Supreme Court ruling in 1973."
    (Excerpts from speech to Family Research Council Values Voters Summit, 10.20.2007)

  • John McCain:

    "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
    (Jim Davenport, Associated Press, 2.18.2007)

  • Mitt Romney:

    "You cannot have a litmus test. But you can appoint justices that follow the Constitution and if they do that they'll overturn Roe v. Wade."
    (Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, 9.5.2007)

Elections are not the only meaningful part of protecting women's right and ability to choose abortion - far from it. But they matter.

Miss Laura is correct, of course. But we must also consider poverty, universal health care, NAFTA, the WTO, the war machine, Iraq, and the environment, to name but a few.

Who you gonna call?

L.A.Times: When we lament the loss of newspapers, we're not usually thinking of the Times

As reporting goes, this is pretty cheesy (on my part), but what the heck: you need to know that
A source told E&P [Will LAT's Stanton Replace O'Shea? (E&P)] that Russ Stanton is the frontrunner to replace James O'Shea, who was fired over the weekend in a shakeup at the Los Angeles Times. Stanton has been innovation editor at the paper since January 2007, and is in charge of editorial content at latimes.com. Before that he was business editor. Forbes: The honeymoon is over at Tribune, writes Louis Hau. NYT: The ousted editor of the Los Angeles Times on Monday offered a scathing critique of the newspaper industry and specifically his longtime employer, the Tribune Company, arguing that cost cuts, a lack of investment and an aversion to serious news was damaging the business. LAT: Tribune Co. chairman Sam Zell on Monday backed Los Angeles Times publisher David D. Hiller's decision to replace the newspaper's editor. LA Observed: O'Shea's remarks to newsroom. E&P: Former Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll said the weekend dismissal of editor Jim O'Shea "affects morale." Chicago Tribune: Hiller said in an interview Monday that he would "love to say we can spend more or spend the same every year, and I don't th ink that's realistic" given the economic realities of the news business.
This comes from MediaBistro's Daily Media News Feed, essential reading for anyone in journalism, tv or public relations in any of the municipalities where such crimes occur.

The Media: Fox News vs Ron Paul

Two candidates are driving the Republican party establishment bonkers: Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee (it can't be said they like John McCain much either). Of the two, Huckabee is the greater threat to their hold on the reins of power. But it is their reaction to Paul -- the anti-war, anti-fearmongering candidate -- that is most revealing. The Giuliani network, Faux News, has been especially unfair to Paul, even deleting his name from an AP news story, like Big Brother revising history in 1984, but it sure has been fun to watch. Here are some YouTube videos that reflect the Murdoch network's efforts to suppress Paul:
Sean Hannity Flees Ron Paul Supporters
Hannity's Response
Ron Paul and Sean Hannity 'Get Into It' After Debate
Fox Chatheads Aghast at Ron Paul's Appeal
Ron Paul wins debate !!!!!!!!! 9/5/2007
Ron Paul NH Debate 9-05-07 Real Crowd Applaud: Not Altered

Universal Health Care update

This is from a press release, but, as the political ads say, I approve of this message:

The California Nurses Association is always thinking up creative ways to demand universal health care for all Americans. Their latest effort is a follow up to the brilliant full-page newspaper ad, saying that Dick Cheney, with his history of heart problems, would probably be dead by now if he were an average American <http://www.calnurses.org/>.

Now, they've launched the National "Cheney Care" Campaign
<http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/>.

Please take a moment today to visit their website and sign the petition* that
will be delivered to the 2008 Presidential Candidates, telling them that we
want the same access to health care that they-- and Dick Cheney -- have.
* <http://ga1.org/>

2008: Green Party Event (Bay Area)

This was sent over by our friends at the Green Party:
Green Campaign 2008: A Presidential Debate that Matters

Come See And Hear . . .

Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Jared Ball, Kent Mesplay, Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson

. . . Talking about the issues of the day!

All seven people who are on Green Party's February 5th California Primary Ballot have been invited to the Debate. The six people named above have confirmed their participation (previously announced speaker Elaine Brown has withdrawn from the race).

Hosted and moderated by

Cindy Sheehan, Aimee Allison, Gayle McLaughlin, Ross Mirkarimi, Mark Sanchez, Matt Gonzalez

Sunday, January 13, 2008 2 PM

Herbst Theater, Veterans Memorial Bldg, 401 Van Ness (opposite
City Hall), San Francisco (3 blocks from Civic Center BART
station)

--- $10-$25 Donation at the door (sliding scale) ---

<http://www.acgreens.org/debate>

The Right: Heeee's Baaaack!

Tom DeLay, having risen from the political dead, is back with a new, right wing version of MoveOn -- MoveBack? RaveOn? -- that he promises has found "the Democrats'Achilles' Heal" (sic). Enjoy: http://tinyurl.com/2btrth"

2008: Another progressive with a shot at winning a seat in Congress

Nothing would set the tone for the upcoming primaries and the fall election more than strong early wins by progressives in the Democratic primaries.

In four weeks there will be a special primary election in Illinois' 14th Congressional district to find a replacement for Dennis Hastert, who just ducked out the door, conveniently in time to beat the new law extending the waiting periods for special interest lobbyists.

One of the candidates in the race is John Laesch, who as the Democratic nominee in 2006 pulled 40 percent in the general election against that very powerful incumbent. With numbers like that, and especially given the shift in public sentiment in the last two years, the Laesch campaign thinks this is a very winnable race.

Laesch supports an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq, wants to shut down NAFTA, will vote for single-payer health care, and favors a host of other progressive positions. He spoke out in favor of impeachment two years ago and wants hearings in the House Judiciary Committee now.

These early elections are important because strong showings by real progressives will put immense pressure on all sitting Democratic members to start listening more responsively to their constituents. It will also discourage the Senate and House campaign committees from supporting conservatives against progressives in primaries as the Schumer/Emanuel-led committees did in 2006. A new member of Congress will be seated no later than March 8. A huge victory for John would send a real message to the do-nothings in the legislature that the days of ignoring the people are over.

John Laesch donations: <http://www.usalone.com/donations_laesch.php>

See Bitter Primary to Succeed Hastert (Washington Post)

OpEd: Blogging About John Edwards

Forgetting for the moment that no one knows what Barack Obama really means when he uses the word, the "change" candidates, John Edwards and Obama, are winning handily over the "experience" (i.e., status quo) candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. The thing is, we do know what Edwards means by change -- out of Iraq by December 2008, universal health care (a wonky version, but I doubt he's wedded to it**), a New Deal-Great Society type assault on poverty and joblessness, an environmental program that takes on big oil and the polluting industries, and a reining in of the excesses of the free market. If you're a little disheartened by Hillary's comeback, DailyKos has some blog comments you may find inspiring:
John Edwards decides 2008 on the DNC floor
Why Edwards Supporters are Sticking to Their Guns
Chris Floyd ties Bush and BCCI to Sibel Edmonds bombshell
Don't jump ship on Edwards
Today makes me support Edwards *more*, not less.
I Voted for John Edwards Yesterday
Obama vs. Edwards, not an equal choice...

** As it turns out, he's not: "Former Senator John Edwards does not discount the possibility that his health care proposal, which would allow Americans to buy new government insurance packages modeled on Medicare, could evolve into a federalized system like those in Canada and many European countries. And if it does, Mr. Edwards said he would be just fine with that." NYTimes, 2008-01-25.

Action: Universal Cheney Care

This is from a press release, but, as the political ads say, I approve of this message:

The California Nurses Association is always thinking up creative ways to demand universal health care for all Americans. Their latest effort is a follow up to the brilliant full-page newspaper ad, saying that Dick Cheney, with his history of heart problems, would probably be dead by now if he were an average American <http://www.calnurses.org/>.

Now, they've launched the National "Cheney Care" Campaign
<http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/>.

Please take a moment today to visit their website and sign the petition* that will be delivered to the 2008 Presidential Candidates, telling them that we want the same access to health care that they -- and Dick Cheney -- have.
* <http://ga1.org/>

Equal Access: Meraki to Tackle City-wide Wi-Fi for San Francisco

If municipalities in Europe and Asia can routinely provide wi-fi, sooner or later we will be forced to catch up here. Could it be that this is a service, like water, power, police and fire protection, education, parks, libraries and prisons, that is better suited to organization as a public service than a business?

City-wide Wi-Fi might not be a pipe dream for San Francisco residents after all. After successfully rolling out mesh networks in 6 San Francisco neighborhoods, Meraki Inc. has announced its plans to blanket the entire city with coverage by the end of 2008.

Google and Earthlink hatched a similar plan for a municipal Wi-Fi project last year that ultimately fizzled. However, Meraki believes that by bypassing coverage for the public safety sector, relying on volunteers, and installing dozens of wireless gateways on rooftops it can rapidly roll out coverage.

...be sure to visit Meraki's website.

The rest of the story: Wired

2008: Inevitable?

Aside from the admirable traditional Democratic attributes that favor the selection of John Edwards, here is the question of John Edwards's To-Do Listthe day -- Has Hillary Clinton truly changed? -- as posed this morning by Maureen Dowd in The Times:
Has Hillary truly changed, and grown from her mistakes? Has she learned to be less stubborn and imperious and secretive and vindictive and entitled? Or has she merely learned to mask her off-putting and self-sabotaging qualities better? If elected, would the old Hillary pop up, dragging us back to the dysfunctional Clinton kingdom? She is speaking in a soft, measured voice in these final days, so that...you have to lean in to listen. But is she really different than she was in the years when she was so careless about the people around her getting hurt by the Clinton legal whirlwind that she was dubbed the Daisy Buchanan of the boomer set?
How much are you willing to risk to get the answers to these questions?

The rest of the story: Deign or Reign? (The New York Times, 2008-01-02)
 
Related Posts with Thumbnails