Head count

Democrats got a boost of one in the Senate today.

The newly elected independent from the State of Maine, Angus King, said he will join the Democratic caucus: "Affiliating with the majority makes sense." That gives Democrats 55 seats in the upper house, with 45 seats for the Republicans. 

Time was when that would have been perceived as a majority. 

We'll see.

Lesser of two evils? Really?

Like Bill Clinton as president (you remember: banking "reform," telecom "reform," welfare "reform," WTO, NAFTA -- that Bill Clinton), President Obama has tried to deflect criticism by adopting the policies of his opponents, in effect, as used to be said, being more Catholic than the Pope. In domestic affairs, this has led to passivity and inaction, allowing the Right to stake out the parameters of the political debate: the pursuit of austerity; the advancement of tax cuts (more of a muddle now that candidate Obama is a born-again populist); the promotion of the health of the insurance industry ahead of the health of the people; the setting "on the table" of cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

But, as troubling as the administration's domestic agenda has been, it is in the area of foreign policy that its behavior is most distressing. Not wishing to allow criticism from conservatives, Obama has not just continued George W. Bush's Long War, but has enlarged it both in scope and in ferocity. The legal and physical framework established during Bush's reign, from the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act thru Gitmo to drones, not only remains in place, but has been extended to include contract killings and a list of conflict points that looks like the departure board of an international airline.

So where does that leave the Left in November 2012? True to form, the presidential wing of the Democratic Party is campaigning on the shop-worn "lesser-of-two-evils" platform, even though it has become so threadbare the only part not in tatters is the fear-mongering about appointments to the Supreme Court. (And, by the way, how different is jazzing up the Democratic base over Roe V. Wade from the GOP's cynical use of "social issues" to get its base hyperventilating? Here's something you can put money on: whether Obama or Romney is president, the next appointee to the Supreme Court will be a reliable defender of corporate interests and the status quo.) Even if you're appalled, as you should be, by the idea of Mitt Romney in the White House (and Paul Ryan a heartbeat away), how can you vote for Obama without endorsing his policy choices?

The answer, of course, is that you can't. In 2008, it was possible to convince yourself that the Democratic candidate's general blandness ("hope," "change," "yes we can") and specific conservatism (missile attacks on Iran, more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, advocacy of the death penalty, deliberate blurring of the clear language of the 2nd amendment, bipartisanship as a policy goal) was a disguise intended to slip him past voters on election day, a "whites of their eyes" strategy as it is (now wistfully) described to get hold of the reins of power before turning the carriage of state down the road to peace and economic justice. In 2012, deluding yourself that Obama is the candidate of change is no longer possible. No wonder the campaign is spending its millions demonizing the hapless Romney (Obama has been supremely lucky in his opponents, but never more so than this season); what else is there to talk about?

If you're not a supporter of fiscal austerity except when it comes to funding endless war, what do you do? In some states, third party candidates will be on the ballot (in California, no joke, Roseanne Barr was nominated for president last week by the Peace and Freedom Party, which also has in Marsha Feinland a first rate candidate for U.S. Senate against that pillar of the status quo, Sen. Diane Feinstein; Barr is also working hard to get on the ballot in other states; and the Green Party has a worthy candidate in Dr. Jill Stein). In most of the places where where liberal disappointment in the president is greatest -- New York, Illinois, California, New England and the Pacific Northwest, the distortions of the electoral college have rendered votes in the Obama-Romney contest so meaningless that even progressives persuaded by lesser-of-two-evils argument can cast a third party protest vote without worrying. There also are numerous opportunities to affect the much more important matter of who gets to serve in the national legislature: in addition to such obvious choices as Sen. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Alan Grayson, scores of federal and local progressive candidates need your support: you'll find most (or all) of them at the fundraising site ActBlue. And you can work to build a third party more in tune with the your politics than the duopoly; get involved in local politics; join the struggle to create alternative power bases, for example in labor or community organizations; pursue change in specific policy areas (such as militarization or the environment); assist civil rights and civil liberties defenders like the Southern Poverty Law Center or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Or you can take to the streets.

What you can't do, it seems to me, is sit passively in the audience of our political theater; what you can't do is agree to business as usual; what you can't do is once again accept without resistance the lesser of two evils.

2012: Will voters "throw the bums out"?

I'm taken to task for having the temerity to suggest that Barack Obama may be held accountable for the nation's problems -- in the instance, for the decline in average American's income and net worth, and that there may be some justice in his impending political demise: "It's not Obama's fault. It's the policies, peoples." As if, I guess, it is John Boehner who is running the country.

It's true, though, that these "policies" are not Obama's alone. They have been been pursued through six administrations and a couple of dozen congresses controlled, it should not be forgotten, more often by Democrats than by Republicans. There is a lot of convenient buck passing in the nation's capital: the Republicans blame the Democrats for lack of "progress" on social issues; the Democrat's accuse the GOP of holding economic reforms "hostage;" meanwhile, the oligarchs dictate the outcome of the legislative process, and the two parties get to go back to the electorate every couple of years with the same unresolved set of issues (we forget that the GOP agitates its base with "lesser of two evils" rhetoric familiar to us from Democratic propaganda).

It was Democrat Bill Clinton, at the end of the day, who passed the stalled pro-corporate agenda -- banking "reform," telecom "reform," welfare "reform," trade "reform," NAFTA, etc. -- beyond the reach of Republican George Bush the Elder. It is Obama who has doubled-down on militarism and security abuses. As Bush the Younger did with al Queda, Obama inflated the GOP and the Blue Dogs for his own purposes, empowering them, attempting to partner with them instead of closing ranks with congressional liberals (and thus losing the House, just as Clinton did, and for the same reason: why vote for Democrats if they are going govern on behalf the corporate elite instead of the majority?), and blaming the conservatives as he caved on issue after issue without a fight.

If BHO was a liberal warrior in the mold of FDR, HST and LBJ, he would not be in danger of getting the boot in November, as he probably will. But the real victory this fall will not go to the Democrats or the Republicans; whether it is Obama or Mitt Romney who takes the oath of office in January, the true winners will be the militarists and the masters of the security state. Obama? Romney?: the victims of the shredded social contract, the unemployed and underemployed, the homeless, the graduates without prospects drowning in debt, the hundreds of thousands of youth whose futures are being sacrificed to the war on drugs, the young men and women who will die in exotic locales of interest only to war profiteers, the innocent victims of American guns and bombs and gameboy war toys, none of these will know the difference.
----
Return of the Body Count: Dissecting Obama's Standard on Drone Strike Deaths by Justin Elliott (ProPublica 2012-06-05)
Democratic Website Publishes List of Obama Accomplishments, Half of Them Are the Names of People He's Killed (Reason 2012-06-12)
Most voters favor slashing foreign economic & military aid; few would cut domestic programs like Social Security, education and health care (Good).

2012: Prop 29

I'm of two minds about Prop 29, the tobacco tax initiative.

Here's what's wrong with the ballot initiative process. More cancer research: great idea. Higher taxes: great idea. But: limiting the tax revenue generated by this measure to cancer research, anti-smoking programs and tobacco law enforcement is a bad idea; the money belongs in the general fund.

The whole point of representative government is to assure that tax revenues are allocated fairly across all needs and services and interests. Past initiatives have already made hash of the California budget process; do we want to make it worse?

Cancer research is vitally important, but is relatively well-funded; other diseases that are equally costly to society get far fewer dollars. Even limiting ourselves to a discussion of what to do about the harm caused by tobacco, we have to take account of the fact that Prop 29 does nothing to mitigate the huge medical costs already resulting from past and current smoking, and that's the point: We elect representatives to make those decisions; maybe anti-smoking programs are already well-enough funded -- they certainly appear to be -- but medical costs are under-addressed (they certainly appear to be); an informed legislature should make those choices.

Also: a $1 tax is insufficient, given the costs of tobacco to society; a referendum, if successful, will almost certainly close the door on higher taxes on tobacco products in the future.

Plus, this decision will be made by the tiny percentage of voters that bothers to turn out tomorrow, nothing like a majority.

Explanation of Prop 29 in the official CA state voter guide.

2012: Lets have a real debate in the California U.S. Senate race

The June 6, 2012 primary offers the voters of California a unique opportunity to stand against business as usual in Washington: with 24 candidates on the ballot for United States Senate, six of them Democrats, it's possible, at least in theory, that a unity candidate could win second place and the chance to debate centrist Diane Feinstein face-to-face in the run-off in November. Marsha Feinland of the Peace & Freedom Party would fill this role perfectly: she is articulate, personable, dedicated, and right (that is to say, Left) on the issues. It would be illuminating if, before she heads back to Washington to act in our name, our senior senator was required to explain her positions on such matters as international trade, military adventurism, immigration, homeland security and the bankster crime wave (she's for aggressively prosecuting Julian Assange for espionage, for example, but much less enthusiastic about putting financial crooks in jail), to say nothing of addressing unresolved allegations of corruption stemming from her days on a military appropriations subcommittee.With Democrats and Republicans divvying up the primary ballots, it might not take very high numbers to grab second place; it would certainly make for a livelier debate in the general election to have a representative of the 99% sharing the stage with Sen. Feinstein rather than another one-percenter like herself from the GOP.

Project VoteSmart's summary of Dianne Feinstein's key votes.

Empire: "They" just don't have our "values"

A benefit of Ron Paul's quixotic presidential run is realized when he asks his audiences to walk in the shoes of people on the receiving end of our program of "exporting democracy." How would we feel if a foreign army rolled down our streets, occupied our capital, used drones, missiles and Apache helicopters to rain terror on the heads of our children? As for the rest, as Winslow Myers writes,

candidate Mitt Romney demagogues the security issue by advocating more “full-spectrum dominance,” or candidate Rick Santorum waxes bellicose about doing more to stop Iran’s nuclear program; Barack Obama is forced to maintain his own cred by dubious if popular ventures like high-tech extra-judicial assassinations.

As we build toward a hot war with Iran, it is worth examining how our attitude toward nuclear arms is animated by the same cultural biases.

“Our” nuclear weapons are justified by our need for security, while “theirs” indicate an unacceptable aggressiveness.

Parenthetically, will there be a peace candidate -- will someone stand against militarism and empire -- in November?

The rest of the story: Occupying Fears About Iran by Winslow Myers (Consortium News 2012-01-07).

Winslow Myers, the author of Living Beyond War: A Citizen’s Guide, serves on the board of Beyond War, a non-profit educational foundation whose mission is to explore, model and promote the means for humanity to live without war.

See, also: Recognizing the "Unpeople" by Noam Chomsky (Truthout 2012-01-07)
End of the pro-democracy pretense by Glenn Greenwald (Salon 2012-01-03)

2012: If he wishes to continue in office, President Obama needs to get passionate about change.

Americans are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it -- more of the same -- any more.

If 2008 had been a normal political year, John Edwards would have been the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party. He was young, attractive, articulate, far more liberal than his opponents, and had been the party's 2004 candidate for vice-president; it would have been unsurprising if he had captured the top spot in 2008. Disastrous, too, of course, but we didn't know about Rielle Hunter then. In the event, Edward's log-cabin story was overwhelmed by two other narratives, those of the first woman and the first black to make plausible candidates for President of the United States.

As he prepares to run for reelection, President Obama apparently hopes to resuscitate the rhetoric of hope and change he used to sweet-talk his way to the Oval Office. But it is going to be a lot harder than the White House imagines to recast this business-as-usual politician once again as an agent of change. The big donors, the corporate shills and Blue Dogs in Congress, and the "pragmatists" running the campaign may think the president can ride the same hot-air balloon to victory, but the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will need something a lot more audacious than mere hope to get it fired up again.

As support for the Occupy protests makes clear, Americans still long for change. They want a government that treats them fairly and acts on their behalf; they want well-paying, meaningful employment; they want  criminals imprisoned rather than enriched; they want safe streets, functioning schools, bridges that don't fall down; they want those who benefit from the system to pay their fair share for its upkeep.

In 2008, I argued that Barack Obama had no "politics," meaning that he was not animated by a vision of a better America; that he was not driven, as were many who voted for him, to make our nation more equitable, more just, more democratic; that, despite all the talk, he had no passion for change. Having politics, in this sense, is not about pursuing a particular set of policies; it is certainly not about elections. Rather, it is a kind of faith in the transformative power of collective action, a belief that acting together we can make the world a better place. If he cannot find that passion in the next few months, it's very unlikely he will gain reelection.

Eight years ago at the Democratic Convention, accepting the nod for vice-president, John Edwards had that passion. As a child of the working class, Edwards understood that there were two Americas, one that was benefiting unduly from the system; one that was benefiting little or not at all. He believed, and he made you believe, that it doesn't have to be that way. "We have much work to do," he told the convention.

Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet.

It doesn't have to be that way.

It doesn't have to be that way, he said. And it's wrong, he said. Inequality is wrong. Poverty is wrong. Lack of opportunity is wrong. Injustice is wrong. John Edwards had the passion -- the anger, the commitment -- we require now in our president. Barack Obama needs to get angry. Not annoyed. Not testy. Not petulant. Outraged. Pissed off. Passionately, righteously angry.

Barack Obama needs to get mad as hell. Or he's not going to be president any more.

There is very little time left for the president to "get it." If Obama had lost in 2008, it would not have been because he is too much like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, but because he is too much like Al Gore and John Kerry. Inaccurate or unfair as this may be, he comes across as cold, aloof, arrogant, privileged; he does not appear to understand the fears and hopes of ordinary people. He was quick to rescue the miscreants who nearly broke the system; he has still not responded adequately to the need to create jobs and to help folks whose lives were damaged or destroyed by the financial crisis. More people are living in poverty today than were there at the start of his term of office; this is not a fit record for a Democrat to run on. The perception is that Obama fought passionately for Goldman Sacks; now he needs to tap in to some of the passion that made ordinary people believe that John Edwards was mad enough to fight for them.

Barack Obama has been very lucky in his opponents. Taking nothing from his fine-tuned operation in 2008, the candidate had only to get past Hillary Clinton's disastrously managed effort before he was up against the hapless duo of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Also filling his sails were an imploding economy, an unprecedented advantage in fund-raising (tellingly, mostly from Wall Street and Big Pharma), unpopular wars, and what was viewed at the time as a failed Republican incumbency. And he had a large portion of the voting public ready to indulge a candidate who based his appeal on the promise that this time would be different. Yet, in the perfect political storm, he couldn't crack 53% of the vote.

This time, opinion is widespread that he is the failed incumbent. He now owns the war in Afghanistan, and if things go wrong in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or Libya, he'll own them, too. He also owns the economy. If the jobless rate is still eight or nine percent at this time next year, well, he's the president. Though he has not been unproductive as chief executive, he has spent far too much of his political capital legitimizing his opponents instead destroying them. Until Occupy changed the topic, he and the Republicans were bickering about budget caps and spending cuts, not jobs programs and infrastructure spending, austerity not prosperity.

A lot of energy that went into the Obama campaign in 2008 will be focused this year on issues campaigns, Occupy, and retaking the House of Representatives. And while it can be said that Obama is still lucky in his opponents, unfortunately the least clownish of the Republican aspirants appears destined to be the GOP candidate (the Mormon cult may be an issue in the primaries, but the conservatives will anoint the Church of Latter Day Saints a mainstream Christian faith within 24 hours of Romney's elevation).

While it's possible that Mitt's empty suit will leave room for the president to squeak past, it's more than likely that Romney's blandness and serenity will make him hard to beat. The former governor is presenting a facade strikingly similar to the blank slate Obama displayed three years ago. If you, the average voter, are offered two candidates with more or less the same personality who appear to favor more or less the same policies, do you pick the one who has presided over four years of decline and is surrounded by controversy -- he's a socialist; he's from Kenya; he wants to take your guns; he wants to raise your taxes; he favors death panels and death taxes; he has no birth certificate? Of course not. Where there's smoke there could be fire; you go with the new guy.

2012: Imagine President Cain

You don't even want to try

It's true that in a newspaper column limning Christ as the "perfect conservative" (He came up with all those loaves and fishes without any help from an oppressive central government), Herman Cain claimed that a "liberal court" killed Jesus (ThinkProgress.org). But, honestly, how can that hurt him? It only underscores how thoroughly he belongs in the pack of fact-phobic, anti-science, climate change-denying, Bible-thumping, creationist Republican presidential postulants.

Now the front-runner, Cain may be just self-infatuated enough to sit comfortably for four years as one of our serial royals. Take, for example, this passage from his optimistically titled This Is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House (talk about your audacity of hope):

I was sitting in my new office on the 31st floor of the World Headquarters one day when I looked out the window and saw that the inflatable dome of the new Minneapolis stadium had collapsed. I realized, as I sat there, staring out the window, that what had kept me happy and motivated was the excitement, challenge, and risk of the past few years.

While there is no daylight between him and the other GOP nullities on policy, he has shot to a lead in the polls because he comes across, despite significant barriers of logic and language, as nicer and funnier than his cohort. What other candidate of either party is capable of this?:
Herm Cain is our Jimmie Davis, our Michel Martelly. This is better than Bill Clinton Plays the Blues, better than if John McCain, Orrin Hatch and John Ashcroft started a band (and you know you want to hear them harmonize For What It's Worth).

Next up: Herman Cain's rendition of Revolution No 9-9-9.

For the video complete with the Godfather Singers & Dancers, see Herman Cain channels John Lennon by Dan Case (Dan Casey's Blog/Roanoke Times 2011-10-12)
And before we get too carried away: Herman Cain: ‘I’m Very Proud Of The Relationship That I Have With The Koch Brothers’ by Alex Seitz-Wald (Think Progress 2011-10-18)

2012: talk is cheap

The Democrats are circling Zucotti Park like cold-eyed vultures hungry to feed on the flesh of its idealism and passion. Already, bits and pieces of the heartfelt conversation inside the Occupy Movement about purposes and principles are being cut-and-pasted into the stump speeches of Democratic pols from Barack to Barney. But we are long past talking about hope of change.

"The country needs," Franklin Roosevelt said in May 1932,

and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands, bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.

Roosevelt in 1932 was no more a radical than was Obama in 2008. But FDR demanded solutions. He made plenty of mistakes in his fight for a new deal for the American people, but unlike Obama he was hamstrung neither by lack of imagination nor an obsession with process. It's still a long time until the 2012 election. Are we in for another 12 months of homilies about the need for change? Or will Barack Obama flex the powers of his office and "try something?"

2012: Straight talk on the campaign trail

Elizabeth Warren is leading débutant Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In case you're wondering why:

I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
- Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren: "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own" by Lucy Madison (CBS News 2011-09-22)
Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts (campaign site)
Donate to the Warren campaign (ActBlue)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and I'm probably the Labor Movement.

If there had a been a political version of the reality TV show "Biggest Loser" during the 2008 presidential race, the hands down "winner" would have been the unions. While the rest of us projected our hopes and dreams onto the blank face of the Obama campaign, Big Labor was trading phone banks, door knocking and hard cash for influence. But while the rest of us have only ourselves to blame for conjuring up a fantasy hero to change everything in Washington, Big Labor got snookered. As Randy Shaw wrote this week,

...labor is the big spender on the left, and as 2012 approaches, are unions really going to pour another $200 million into Obama’s campaign? And millions more into Senate Democrats, not one of whom (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who did speak out, is not a Democrat) spoke out strongly and tried to organize actions against the debt deal?

Labor made the right decision to pour massive resources into electing Democrats in the 2008 elections. But this strategy failed. Now unions must redirect resources to ongoing organizing, and make it clear to Obama’s campaign that it should look to the “independents” whose support it so desperately seeks, rather than the union members whose agenda it scorns, for money and volunteers in 2012.

At least some unions seems to have learned a lesson from shadow boxing with the Democrats. The International Association of Fire Fighters, to take one example, decided in April to pull back from national politics (as Jeanne Cummings reported in Politico):

As newly elected Republican state legislatures aggressively push a slew of anti-union measures, the International Association of Fire Fighters is freezing its federal political spending and shifting all resources toward its beleaguered state and local colleagues.

“With the survival of our union and the ability to preserve and protect the rights, wages, and benefits our members deserve in jeopardy in the states, we have re-evaluated how to get the best results from our political dollars,” IAFF President Harold A. Schaitberger said...in an email blast to members....

The fire fighters' PAC spent more than $4 million in the 2010 midterms and was still writing checks at the beginning of this year. “But until we see our friends in Congress be as committed to standing and fighting with us with the same level of intensity and ferocity as our enemies are trying to kill us, I’m turning the spigot off,” Schaitberger told Politico. Cummings reported Schaitberger was particularly ticked off that Senate Democrats killed a firefighter grant program that his members had helped push through the House despite GOP control.

Not every spark turns into a firestorm, of course. But where there's smoke there's fire. Okay. Whatever. The point is that 2012 may not be a repeat of 2008. Even if the Democrats manage to scare many progressives to vote for their ticket on election day with phantasmagoria about the demons on the other side, it's already clear that there will be less enthusiasm, and less money than in 2008. Obama couldn't crack 53% in the political equivalent of the perfect storm; the Democrats will find it hard to repeat even if the Republicans offer another unattractive and transparently incompetent contender, their typically empty-suitor.

The national Democrats' difficulties are not a problem but an opportunity. Even if Obama had been the second coming of FDR, wresting control of the Democratic Party from the banksters and their cohort would have problematic; having a corporate Democrat in the White House makes it impossible. But should the Democrats lose the executive, the way may be clearer to increasing Labor's sway over public policy.

From: Labor Idle As Obama, Democrats Back “Raw Deal” for Working People by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-08-04)
See, also: Labor's Revival Depends on Workplace Organizing, Not Electoral Politics by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-06-13)

2012: Are progressives learning how to get their message out?

Although the decline of the middle class has been discussed for decades, if Netroots Nation is any indication political progressives are settling on the notion of the American Dream as their metaphor for what's at stake in the current struggles in state and federal legislatures over issues like taxes, public spending, union rights and gay marriage, and what can be won or lost in the next election. Van Jones has been advancing the idea (here is the closing section of his speech this weekend at Netroots) of branding the hundreds -- thousands? -- of progressive organizations that work for change the American Dream Movement (apparently, Equal Rights-Economic Justice-Labor-GLBT-Women's-Peace-Reproductive Rights-Environmental-Veterans-Corporate Accountability-Death Penalty Movement is seen as unwieldy).

Throughout the Netroots gathering, restoring or reviving the American Dream was used as a shorthand by union and economic justice activists to describe their determination to upend the Right's assault middle and working class Americans. Just today, Change to Win, a labor research and organizing coalition that focuses on the plight of middle class, introduced this video:

This afternoon in Minneapolis, progressive congressmembers, represented today by Reps. Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison and Jared Polis, launched a series of teach-ins -- Speakout for Good Jobs Now: Rebuild the American Dream -- that will travel the country in the next few months to hear how the economy is affecting average people and to build support for progressive Democrats running for Congress.

On Thursday at 8pm (est), Jones will join MoveOn.org Civic Action and others to launch a Rebuild the Dream campaign to kick start  the American Dream Movement.

The American Prospect devoted its March 2011 issue edited by Robert Kuttner to America's Endangered Middle Class: Why saving it is ground zero of American Politics. If progressives want a winning theme that the Right can't match, as Jacob Hacker argued in the issue, this is it.

Update: Sen. Al Franken was joined by AFSCME Secretary-Treasurer Lee Saunders, Wisconsin Education Association Council President Mary Bell, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, UFCW President Joseph Hansen and Bob Kuttner for a keynote session entitled "Attack on America's Middle Class and the Plan to Fight Back," moderated by Ari Melber of The Nation.

Watch live streaming video from freespeechtv at livestream.com

See, also: Progressives Push For Job Growth On Tour by Sarah Kenigsberg (Huffington Post 2011-06-18).

2012: Apparently, we can't

Okay. Let's get this out of our system now. Because in just a few months we're going to be invited again to ignore our lying eyes and vote to extend for four more years what historians will one day call the Bush-Obama Era. And it would be nice, wouldn't it, if we didn't fall for the same bullshit twice.

2012: The United States is an economic basket case.

This can't be good for incumbent Democrats.
Despite what you read in the funny papers, the U.S. economy is still plummeting down Corbet's Couloir. During the 23 months of the bogus "Obama recovery," the average number of jobs created has been about 23,000 a month, a fraction of the 150,000 or so jobs a month it takes just to keep up with population growth, let alone grow the economy. Spending on infrastructure, a key to both job and business recovery, is virtually nil. "In 2010," writes Michael Snyder, "more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before."

The rich are getting vastly richer while average Americans struggle to get by. Yet the Democrats are betting that the electorate won't be able to stomach pulling the lever for one of the graduates of the GOP's political clown school. But in 2012, once again only one item will be on the agenda: jobs, jobs, and jobs. And if past history is any guide, voters may once again think their only choice is to opt for "change."

The rest of the story: 20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over by Michael Snyder (Business Insider 2011-05-30).

2012: Who will represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?

Barack Obama's feckless leadership, apparently intended to position him as a moderate in his bid for a second term, won't get him reelected. The Republicans know that nothing they can throw at him, no matter how ridiculous or how ugly, will blow back on them. And covered as he will be in GOP crap, he won't pass the "smell test" for many voters; they won't be able to tell you exactly what, but something surely is wrong with a guy who causes this much controversy. Whoever the GOP nominee is, he won't need to begin every morning of the campaign by hosing off yesterday's political dirt.

Not to say the president won't win another term. He's been very lucky in his opponents thus far -- Hillary! McCain!! Palin!!! -- and there is no reason to think that the Republicans won't help him out again, as they did when they selected John McCain over Mike Huckabee. The GOP doesn't have much of a bench to draw on, after all, so whomever they nominate is unlikely to stand up well cara a cara with Obama. Even so, the Democrats like to run with a handicap by obscuring their differences with their opponents or campaigning on Republican ideas, as if it would be unfair somehow to give the voters a clear choice (between Social Darwinism and, say, the New Deal). Instead of drawing parallels as he seems determined to do between himself and the great bloviator Ronald Reagan, if Obama is looking for a role model he might do worse than to look to fighting Harry Truman, a leader who didn't need Gangs of Six to tell him where the buck stopped.

Can Bloomberg Run as an Independent in 2012?

This is a long shot, but "[l]ooking to 2012, with no real standout on the right, while Pres. Obama continues to struggle and the economy dipping again, there is a growing vacuum in the political dialogue for an Independent candidate to rise up. Of course, we’re talking about Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a potentially dangerous opponent for both big two parties, because not only will Bloomberg have many business and Wall Street allies on his side, but he’ll take his share of the Jewish vote as well. Howard Wolfson made an appearance on 'Morning Joe' Friday, acquitting himself very well as deputy mayor and someone who would be an able asset to Bloomberg if he does jump in. After his leadership on the Cordoba House, New York’s mayor also likely made some Muslim friends in Michigan."

The rest of the story: 2012: Room for growing as an Independent by Taylor Marsh (Taylor Marsh from Washington D.C. 2010-08-22).

2012: Heeeeeeere's Sarah

I don't often agree with Tony Blankley, but he's right that Sarah Palin is far from "washed up" despite her resignation as Alaska's governor (she actually got a boost among Republicans by quitting). While it's doubtful she will be the Republican standard bearer in 2012, with the inevitable talk show on Fox or CNN, a huge campaign chest, and hundreds of grateful GOP candidates from U.S. Senators to dog-catchers, she may be in position by then to determine who is.

From here, it's difficult to see how Palin has hurt herself, except with people who already disdain her. No longer "part of the problem" as an incumbent politico, she'll be free to scurry from fund-raiser to fund-raiser piling up truck-loads of dough as she rails against big government. Conservative candidates at every level will be indebted for the cash and attention she'll win them in 2010. In 2012, well-funded and with a hard-core following, she will be key to the success of the eventual nominee -- whether it's Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or, as I fear, despite his high negatives, Newt Gingrich -- who will have to court her if he wants to hold on to the base. None of the other GOP presidential wannabes connects with the paranoid Right with the intensity of Sarah Palin. They adore her. As a result, she may more than influence the final outcome of the GOP competition; she may be the kingmaker.

For the nonce, a Rasmussen poll finds Palin in a virtual tie for Republican affections with Romney and Huckabee  (although her negatives are much higher than theirs). Romney is fully up to the job of sacrificial lamb, the next Walter Mondale or Bob Dole, but even though, currently, he seems to offend the fewest members of his party, it's difficult to picture him as the GOP standard bearer, if, as seems likely, the party appears to have a real shot at winning. Barring some unforeseen scandal, I think it will come down to Huckabee vs Gingrich; the former Arkansas governor wouldn't gain much from adding Palin to his ticket, but the slick ex-speaker sure would. And Palin's most likely path to the Oval Office is still through Number One Observatory Circle.

Gingrich-Palin 2012.* You read it here first.

Haven't had enough?: Part 2 of Sarah Palin's resignation press conference.

Update: another non-obituary of Sarah Palin -- She Broke the G.O.P. and Now She Owns It by Frank Rich (NYTimes).

Update: fortunately for us, we have Conan O'Brian and William Shatner to decipher Palin's speech:

* As a prophylactic, I thought I might register some urls. Guess what. Gingrich-Palin.com, GingrichPalin.com, GingrichPalin2012.com, and a host of other combinations are being husbanded by entrepreneurial types (or, possibly, political cranks)  in places like Tampa and Scottsdale. You've been warned.