Instead of being an organization that advances a progressive agenda, MoveOn.Org has devolved into an arm of the Obama campaign. It wouldn't matter if MoveOn was backing Hilary Clinton or John Edwards, the effect would be the same: to reduce its members' influence on policy.
Candidates take seriously organizations whose support they have to court. What leverage is left to MoveOn in getting Obama to move to progressive positions on reducing military spending, on providing truly universal health care or on committing his administration to the fight for economic justice? None. Obama can now redirect his efforts to pleasing the DLC and the corporatists around Clinton. They're his natural constituency anyway, and they'll be the ones to reap the political benefits in the end.
"We are here to make clear," Barack Obama said in Virginia, "that this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white." As Gary Gordon reminds us, this sounds like a trope from one of comedian James Tripp's mock campaign speeches. It also brings to mind the scene in The Candidate when Robert Redford, sitting in the backseat of a car while running late to a TV appearance, does a "crack-up" monologue: "We cannot feed our feedless...."
The last thing we need is another run of The Candidate; we have had more than enough bloviation for one season from aspirants of both parties. If MoveOn was truly an issues organization rather than a tool of the Democratic Party, instead of advancing the interests of one centrist candidate over another, it would be trying to produce a revival of Gore Vidal's The Best Man, maybe with John Edwards in the title role.
2008: Like hope, but different ("McCain" video on YouTube)
John.he.is
Here's an attempt to create an Obama-style video on behalf of John McCain:
And here, for your delectation, is another spoof of Will.i.am's Obama canonization, "Yes We Can," this one taking The.Prez to task for his statement that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully:
Here's an attempt to create an Obama-style video on behalf of John McCain:
And here, for your delectation, is another spoof of Will.i.am's Obama canonization, "Yes We Can," this one taking The.Prez to task for his statement that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully:
quote unquote: Lincoln on political virtue
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln
The L.A. Times: No news would be good news
Friends at the Times (where I wrote about the magazine business in the long ago) keep me posted on what's going on there, but I rarely get exercised enough to write about it. The Times contributes so little to the political, cultural or social life of the county -- admit it, if it disappeared tomorrow, you wouldn't miss anything but the grocery store inserts, that it's hard to care very much about internal machinations that, although they may make the workplace more or less tolerable, are guaranteed to have zero impact on you or me.
However, the other Times, the real Times thinks it's news [Los Angeles Times Names New Top Editor by Richard Pérez-Peña (The New York Times, 2008-02-15)] that our fishwrap's publisher, David Hiller, decided to give the top editorial job to Russ Stanton weeks before Jim O'Shea was forced out for resisting another in the series of staff cuts that have decimated the paper.
Some of Stanton’s colleagues were disgruntled enough by the prospect, according to Pérez-Peña, to "have taken the extraordinary step of going to Mr. Hiller to ask him not to choose Mr. Stanton....[T]he concerns raised about Mr. Stanton were not about his ability, but about whether he had the stature and breadth of experience to run one of the nation’s most important newspapers."
I hear that the real story is that, in the wake of the Times' recent staffing problems, Stanton, who as the company's "Innovations Editor" (egad!) has been tasked with improving the paper's famously mediocre website, will be nothing more than a flunky for the publisher, who is regarded with contempt by most of the news staff. Stanton responded to that charge by asserting that the "circumstances under which Jim left...really hindered whoever was going to get this job, almost setting them up to be the publisher’s lackey.” Trying to find something nice to say, Pérez-Peña describes the new chief as a "little quirky; he keeps an extensive collection of Los Angeles Dodgers bobble-head dolls in his office."
You're far more likely to find the news you want in papers and websites out of New York, Sacramento and the Bay Area than from 1st and Spring, and from digital news outlets like The Huffington Post and Truthdig. If there's any good news it's that morale at the Times can hardly get worse. But further staff cuts aren't likely to improve either situation. Eli Broad and Ron Burkle ought to be relieved their bid to buy the Times was thwarted; if things continue along the same track, in a year or two they should be able to pick it up for a song.
However, the other Times, the real Times thinks it's news [Los Angeles Times Names New Top Editor by Richard Pérez-Peña (The New York Times, 2008-02-15)] that our fishwrap's publisher, David Hiller, decided to give the top editorial job to Russ Stanton weeks before Jim O'Shea was forced out for resisting another in the series of staff cuts that have decimated the paper.
Some of Stanton’s colleagues were disgruntled enough by the prospect, according to Pérez-Peña, to "have taken the extraordinary step of going to Mr. Hiller to ask him not to choose Mr. Stanton....[T]he concerns raised about Mr. Stanton were not about his ability, but about whether he had the stature and breadth of experience to run one of the nation’s most important newspapers."
I hear that the real story is that, in the wake of the Times' recent staffing problems, Stanton, who as the company's "Innovations Editor" (egad!) has been tasked with improving the paper's famously mediocre website, will be nothing more than a flunky for the publisher, who is regarded with contempt by most of the news staff. Stanton responded to that charge by asserting that the "circumstances under which Jim left...really hindered whoever was going to get this job, almost setting them up to be the publisher’s lackey.” Trying to find something nice to say, Pérez-Peña describes the new chief as a "little quirky; he keeps an extensive collection of Los Angeles Dodgers bobble-head dolls in his office."
...like Mr. O’Shea before him, [Stanton] faces an uphill fight to persuade the newsroom that he is not a puppet of Mr. Hiller.Typically, the local Times buried the story in the business section, but did manage to include the information that
...
A new regime, led by the real estate developer Sam Zell, took control of The Tribune Company in December, and gave more autonomy to each newspaper publisher and television station general manager in a company that had been very top-down. But the new leadership has also made it clear to each property that it must improve its bottom line if Tribune is to meet the heavy debt obligations from the takeover.
Tribune Company bought The Times’ parent company, Times Mirror, in 2000 and installed a widely respected editor, John S. Carroll. At about that time, the paper had a news staff of about 1,200 people.
But after being forced to shrink the newsroom, Mr. Carroll quit rather than carry out another round of reductions. A new publisher, Jeff Johnson, was sent out from the company headquarters in Chicago, and a new editor, Dean P. Baquet, took Mr. Carroll’s place. They made deep cuts in the newsroom but were fired in 2006 for refusing to cut still more.
Once again, the company sent Tribune veterans from Chicago to ride herd on The Times: Mr. Hiller and Mr. O’Shea.
Latimes.com, the paper's online edition, has been adding readers at about a 20% annualized clip recently, Stanton said. The print version of The Times, the nation's fourth-largest daily, however, has seen daily circulation fall to about 780,000 from a peak of more than 1.1 million in the early 1990s, though it has shown a slight improvement recently. The print newspaper generates more than 90% of The Times' revenue, but Hiller noted that the share from online publishing has been growing rapidly.That may explain how Stanton won the post even though he "doesn't have the same range of experience as many of his predecessors, who before moving into the editor's chair had won Pulitzer Prizes and other accolades for their own reporting or coverage they supervised." High-visibility assignments covering wars or Washington or seasoning by running other journals -- not auxiliary websites -- "traditionally have been steppingstones to the top job at The Times and other large newspapers."
You're far more likely to find the news you want in papers and websites out of New York, Sacramento and the Bay Area than from 1st and Spring, and from digital news outlets like The Huffington Post and Truthdig. If there's any good news it's that morale at the Times can hardly get worse. But further staff cuts aren't likely to improve either situation. Eli Broad and Ron Burkle ought to be relieved their bid to buy the Times was thwarted; if things continue along the same track, in a year or two they should be able to pick it up for a song.
The Senate Caves In Again to Bush on FISA
But the House shows a little moxie
The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248), an "updating" of the 30-year-old law that authorized a secret court to oversee intelligence operations by federal agencies, sailed through the "Democratically-controlled" Senate on Feb 12.
Intended to "modernize and streamline" provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, "and for other purposes" (italics added), the act includes a section authorizing warrantless wiretaps of foreign-to-foreign communications and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the administration to spy on Americans. The bill also states that the government will not need a warrant for foreign-to-American communications, with no privacy protections on the American end, and will allow the government to install monitoring stations in telephone and internet facilities inside the U.S., also without judicial review.
In effect, the statute provides retroactive immunity to government officials as completely as to the telecoms.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrat's narrow majority was diminished by the defections of a few conservatives like Lieberman and Salazar, but you'd be wrong. The vote wasn't even close.
Sixty-eight senators voted for the bill; only 29 said nay. To put it another way, 19 Democrats -- 40% of the Democratic delegation -- joined Lieberman and the Republicans in voting to gut the Constitution.
Three senators couldn't be bothered to vote at all. One was Lindsey Graham. No loss there. But the others were the two liberal champions who seek to be the leader of their party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's no wonder that millions of American feel disenfranchised by the current system. In the absence of party discipline, there is no downside to lying about who you are or what you'll do once you're in office. Voters pull the lever for a Democrat and wind up with a senator or a representative allied with the GOP and supporting a corrupt, incompetent and fascistic president. Why wouldn't they vote for Ralph Nader the next time, or just stay home? It shouldn't be a shock that more people vote for American Idol than for president; at least you can count on the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and Taylor Hicks to deliver as promised.
The problem with Washington is not that it is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nor is Federalism the problem. The problem is that the government -- all branches -- is firmly and utterly in the hands of conservatives. Nothing is changed by dispatching someone to the District for no more compelling reason than that s/he labels self a Democrat. We have to start choosing people who actually will take on the military-industrial complex, engage in the fight against poverty, expand democratic government, protect the environment, and rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure, regardless of party. We have to stop letting conservatives use the Democratic Party to camouflage their dominance of policy. There are no liberals in the Republican congressional delegation; why should conservatives be allowed to hide out among the Democrats? Party labels are just another way of keeping us from figuring out what's really going on.
Instead of sucking up to right wingers in order to cop the choice corner suites in the Senate office buildings, the Democrats should toss traitors like Joe Lieberman out on their Dumbo-sized ears. What has been gained by taking "control" of the Senate, beyond winning for the Democrats a share of the responsibility for the failures of George W. Bush and of the conservative majority that truly controls the legislative agenda? We would have a far more responsive, effective and democratic government if our elected officials were organized along ideological instead of partisan political lines.
With the White House already lost to the center-right, liberals, progressives, peace advocates, environmentalists, labor activists and such can more effectively deploy their time, talent and legal tender to reorienting the Congress than worrying over who's going to be president. Not that there aren't reasons to choose among them, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are more alike than they are different: none of them is going to tackle the radical adjustment in priorities needed if this is to become a just and democratic country. There should be no rush to choose one over another without getting concrete policy commitments in return.
In the matter at hand, for example, here is the list of nominal Democrats who voted with the Republicans to give the president the added power he craves: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV) -- the bill's sponsor, Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I'm not saying protecting your rights as citizens should be the only thing on your mind when you vote, but at least it ought to be a consideration.
Besides, many of these names -- Baucus, Casey, Conrad, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar -- come up over and over again as stalwart defenders of corporate interests and opponents of economic reform. Put a hand on your wallet and look around for a progressive alternative the next time they come conning for support in your precinct.
The list should give us pause in other ways. It turns out that a candidate's opposition to the war du jour may be an insufficient reason to endorse him if his objection to the conflict is that it has been mismanaged, the position of many corporatist Democrats, Jim Webb apparently among them. By the same token, it is hard to see what was gained by replacing the last liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, with the conservative Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (another possible warning flag to keep in mind this particular election season: the Rhode Island Democrat's campaign slogan was "Change the Senate").
In 2006, the Democratic Senate and House election committees systematically supported conservatives against candidates who ran on such issues as peace and economic justice. With many more progressives in primary races this time than last, activists need to be on the alert for a reappearance of similar tactics in upcoming contests.
The news isn't all bad.
Although the president was at his fearmongering worst last week, in a rare demonstration of backbone, the leadership in the House, balking at shielding phone carriers from privacy lawsuits and at warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of American citizens by their government -- took a two-week Presidents' Day vacation without reauthorizing last summer's temporary domestic wiretapping law.
"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said of the House's presumption. "By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America."
The temporary provisions are set to expire at midnight tonight, but Democrats argued that the basic law will remain in effect and that the president wittingly manufactured the confrontation by threatening to veto a short-term extension that was intended to permit the Senate and House time to deliberate responsibly on revising FISA permanently. "He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times on Thursday.
In response to Bush's accusation that Democrats are imperiling the nation's security, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the president of "fear mongering."
"After refusing to extend current law, the president repeated today his untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps a Senate bill," Hoyer said. "In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and the intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation."
"This is not about protecting Americans," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, on Friday. "The president just wants to protect American telephone companies."
If the bill is so vital, some Democrats wondered, why not sign the measure without the telecoms' "Get Out of Jail Free" card and let the phone companies off the hook with separate legislation?
Whether the rare display of gumption by House leaders is evidence that the Democrats are ready at last to take on the worst excesses of the president remains to be seen. But so low are our expectations by now that it was gratifying to see them display even the faintest profile of courage, notwithstanding that to do it they had to get out of town.
Countdown Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist by Keith Olberman (CrooksAndLiars.com, 2008-02-14)
Putting the president above the law (International Herald Tribune, 2008-02-10)
Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger (AP/NYTimes, 2008-02-15)
Update: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance
The House approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin. (Salon.com, 2008-03-14)
The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248), an "updating" of the 30-year-old law that authorized a secret court to oversee intelligence operations by federal agencies, sailed through the "Democratically-controlled" Senate on Feb 12.
Intended to "modernize and streamline" provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, "and for other purposes" (italics added), the act includes a section authorizing warrantless wiretaps of foreign-to-foreign communications and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the administration to spy on Americans. The bill also states that the government will not need a warrant for foreign-to-American communications, with no privacy protections on the American end, and will allow the government to install monitoring stations in telephone and internet facilities inside the U.S., also without judicial review.
In effect, the statute provides retroactive immunity to government officials as completely as to the telecoms.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrat's narrow majority was diminished by the defections of a few conservatives like Lieberman and Salazar, but you'd be wrong. The vote wasn't even close.
Sixty-eight senators voted for the bill; only 29 said nay. To put it another way, 19 Democrats -- 40% of the Democratic delegation -- joined Lieberman and the Republicans in voting to gut the Constitution.
Three senators couldn't be bothered to vote at all. One was Lindsey Graham. No loss there. But the others were the two liberal champions who seek to be the leader of their party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's no wonder that millions of American feel disenfranchised by the current system. In the absence of party discipline, there is no downside to lying about who you are or what you'll do once you're in office. Voters pull the lever for a Democrat and wind up with a senator or a representative allied with the GOP and supporting a corrupt, incompetent and fascistic president. Why wouldn't they vote for Ralph Nader the next time, or just stay home? It shouldn't be a shock that more people vote for American Idol than for president; at least you can count on the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and Taylor Hicks to deliver as promised.
The problem with Washington is not that it is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nor is Federalism the problem. The problem is that the government -- all branches -- is firmly and utterly in the hands of conservatives. Nothing is changed by dispatching someone to the District for no more compelling reason than that s/he labels self a Democrat. We have to start choosing people who actually will take on the military-industrial complex, engage in the fight against poverty, expand democratic government, protect the environment, and rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure, regardless of party. We have to stop letting conservatives use the Democratic Party to camouflage their dominance of policy. There are no liberals in the Republican congressional delegation; why should conservatives be allowed to hide out among the Democrats? Party labels are just another way of keeping us from figuring out what's really going on.
Instead of sucking up to right wingers in order to cop the choice corner suites in the Senate office buildings, the Democrats should toss traitors like Joe Lieberman out on their Dumbo-sized ears. What has been gained by taking "control" of the Senate, beyond winning for the Democrats a share of the responsibility for the failures of George W. Bush and of the conservative majority that truly controls the legislative agenda? We would have a far more responsive, effective and democratic government if our elected officials were organized along ideological instead of partisan political lines.
With the White House already lost to the center-right, liberals, progressives, peace advocates, environmentalists, labor activists and such can more effectively deploy their time, talent and legal tender to reorienting the Congress than worrying over who's going to be president. Not that there aren't reasons to choose among them, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are more alike than they are different: none of them is going to tackle the radical adjustment in priorities needed if this is to become a just and democratic country. There should be no rush to choose one over another without getting concrete policy commitments in return.
In the matter at hand, for example, here is the list of nominal Democrats who voted with the Republicans to give the president the added power he craves: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV) -- the bill's sponsor, Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I'm not saying protecting your rights as citizens should be the only thing on your mind when you vote, but at least it ought to be a consideration.
Besides, many of these names -- Baucus, Casey, Conrad, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar -- come up over and over again as stalwart defenders of corporate interests and opponents of economic reform. Put a hand on your wallet and look around for a progressive alternative the next time they come conning for support in your precinct.
The list should give us pause in other ways. It turns out that a candidate's opposition to the war du jour may be an insufficient reason to endorse him if his objection to the conflict is that it has been mismanaged, the position of many corporatist Democrats, Jim Webb apparently among them. By the same token, it is hard to see what was gained by replacing the last liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, with the conservative Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (another possible warning flag to keep in mind this particular election season: the Rhode Island Democrat's campaign slogan was "Change the Senate").
In 2006, the Democratic Senate and House election committees systematically supported conservatives against candidates who ran on such issues as peace and economic justice. With many more progressives in primary races this time than last, activists need to be on the alert for a reappearance of similar tactics in upcoming contests.
The news isn't all bad.
Although the president was at his fearmongering worst last week, in a rare demonstration of backbone, the leadership in the House, balking at shielding phone carriers from privacy lawsuits and at warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of American citizens by their government -- took a two-week Presidents' Day vacation without reauthorizing last summer's temporary domestic wiretapping law.
"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said of the House's presumption. "By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America."
The temporary provisions are set to expire at midnight tonight, but Democrats argued that the basic law will remain in effect and that the president wittingly manufactured the confrontation by threatening to veto a short-term extension that was intended to permit the Senate and House time to deliberate responsibly on revising FISA permanently. "He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times on Thursday.
In response to Bush's accusation that Democrats are imperiling the nation's security, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the president of "fear mongering."
"After refusing to extend current law, the president repeated today his untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps a Senate bill," Hoyer said. "In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and the intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation."
"This is not about protecting Americans," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, on Friday. "The president just wants to protect American telephone companies."
If the bill is so vital, some Democrats wondered, why not sign the measure without the telecoms' "Get Out of Jail Free" card and let the phone companies off the hook with separate legislation?
Whether the rare display of gumption by House leaders is evidence that the Democrats are ready at last to take on the worst excesses of the president remains to be seen. But so low are our expectations by now that it was gratifying to see them display even the faintest profile of courage, notwithstanding that to do it they had to get out of town.
Countdown Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist by Keith Olberman (CrooksAndLiars.com, 2008-02-14)
Putting the president above the law (International Herald Tribune, 2008-02-10)
Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger (AP/NYTimes, 2008-02-15)
Update: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance
The House approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin. (Salon.com, 2008-03-14)
2008: Déjà vu all over again?
Unless there is a big change in the Obama campaign's approach to the issues that matter to me, I suspect that come November I will be voting for a third party or independent candidate. It is possible, I suppose, that, under the tutelage of Ted Kennedy, Obama can find his way to the left, but I doubt it. And so, once again, an independent candidacy is required.
Should it be a close election, and the Democrats lose to John McCain because the margin of victory has been ceded to an independent, perhaps, faint hope, I know, but perhaps the next time they will chose a progressive as their nominee instead of letting the media decide which dependable proponents of empire and economic oppression we can be allowed to consider.
Whom to vote for instead will depend mostly on who's on the ballot. There is a genuine possibility that the California Peace & Freedom Party will endorse Brian Moore, the nominee of the Socialist Party USA, making him much more of a national candidate. Should that happen, I plan to vote for him. In another scenario, Ralph Nader may be on the ballot in California as both a Green Party and a Peace and Freedom candidate, and a vote for him would also be acceptable.
In the meantime, I think the pressure should stay on the Democrats on the issues of empire and economic justice, including genuine health care reform. The American military budget now -- grotesquely, absurdly -- exceeds that of all the other nations of the world, combined. Neither Obama nor Clinton has indicated any objection to this state of affairs; on the contrary, each is a proponent of an aggressive, militarized foreign policy.
And so Brian Moore is submitted for your consideration. He certainly deserves at least a look.
Should it be a close election, and the Democrats lose to John McCain because the margin of victory has been ceded to an independent, perhaps, faint hope, I know, but perhaps the next time they will chose a progressive as their nominee instead of letting the media decide which dependable proponents of empire and economic oppression we can be allowed to consider.
Whom to vote for instead will depend mostly on who's on the ballot. There is a genuine possibility that the California Peace & Freedom Party will endorse Brian Moore, the nominee of the Socialist Party USA, making him much more of a national candidate. Should that happen, I plan to vote for him. In another scenario, Ralph Nader may be on the ballot in California as both a Green Party and a Peace and Freedom candidate, and a vote for him would also be acceptable.
In the meantime, I think the pressure should stay on the Democrats on the issues of empire and economic justice, including genuine health care reform. The American military budget now -- grotesquely, absurdly -- exceeds that of all the other nations of the world, combined. Neither Obama nor Clinton has indicated any objection to this state of affairs; on the contrary, each is a proponent of an aggressive, militarized foreign policy.
And so Brian Moore is submitted for your consideration. He certainly deserves at least a look.
2008: Electing a progressive Congress
John Edwards may have suspended his campaign, but he has not given up the fight.
In a letter to supporters on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Edwards promises that contributions to a fund targeted on the districts of the 29 Republican representatives -- a "stunning number," as the former senator puts it -- who have decided to abandon the sinking ship of conservatism by retiring from Congress this year. "I believe," Edwards writes,
In a letter to supporters on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Edwards promises that contributions to a fund targeted on the districts of the 29 Republican representatives -- a "stunning number," as the former senator puts it -- who have decided to abandon the sinking ship of conservatism by retiring from Congress this year. "I believe," Edwards writes,
the 2008 elections can truly transform American politics -- but only if we have the courage to act. We have to think big again, taking on fundamental issues like poverty and challenging injustice at every turn. And we have to seize every opportunity to move beyond politics as usual.2008 is providing a unique opportunity to remake the federal legislature. About the conservative Republicans scurrying for the exits, Edwards writes
They've stood in our way and now they're standing down. And we've got an incredible chance to replace them with strong Democratic leaders who will help end the war, achieve universal health care, challenge poverty, and reduce global warming.The DCCC is targeting Republicans, of course, but more importantly this election could change the ideological balance in Congress. No less than the Republicans, many Democrats have been corrupted by the business lobby. In the thrall of K Street, they vote for measures like estate tax repeal, changes in the bankruptcy laws, or special tax breaks for the superrich that harm the people they're pretending to represent. But primary victories, like reformer Donna Edwards' clobbering of trogloDem Al Wynn in Maryland, show that there is a price to be paid by congressmembers who put corporate interests ahead of the needs of the country or of their constituents.
Donate $30 or more to the 2008 Open to Change Campaign and your gift will be matched.
You and I know that we've got to put the White House in Democratic hands this year, [Edwards continues]. But, we've also got to strengthen our hold on Congress -- breaking the ability that special interests still have to throw obstacles in the path of progress. Your activism has helped put Democrats in a strong position. And in order to seize this historic opportunity, I'm asking you to step forward and stand together with our strong Democratic candidates so we can celebrate Democratic victories.
That's what the 2008 Open to Change Campaign is all about. The skilled, savvy and committed political organizers at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have developed a detailed plan. With our help, they can turn open seats into big changes.
Donate $30 or more to the 2008 Open to Change Campaign and your gift will be matched.
I've seen it firsthand. I know how eager the American people are to take our government back and lead our country in a new direction. As a DCCC supporter, [you'll be] in the forefront of this movement for change. [Y]ou can help recruit, train, support and sustain strong Democratic candidates -- people who can win the seats that running for the hills Republicans have left open to change.
These kinds of open seat opportunities don't happen every day. Let's make the most of it.
Sincerely, John Edwards
First they ignore Giuliani. Then they dump Romney.
The arrogance of Republican voters, thinking they have the right to choose whomever they want to be their nominee. Why can't they just get with the program, like the Democrats?
What now?
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - or, the real nightmare, both - will be the Democratic Party's nominee. So the question we need to be asking is what we can do to insure that five years from now the Bush tax cuts are gone; our priorities have shifted from military spending to education, housing, jobs, water, alternative energy, transportation, the environment, and so on; we have universal single-payer national health; and we are truly out of Iraq -- no "counter-terrorism" units, no "advisers," no Taj Mahal-sized embassy, no Green Zone, no Halliburton-style contractors and no private security forces. Any ideas?
Why I'm (still) voting for John Edwards on Super Tuesday
Millions of Democrats continued to support John Edwards long after the media had conspired to make impossible his nomination by the Democratic Party. For many progressives, he was the embodiment of the desire for a new start after the corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian regime of George W. Bush.
Months ago, his campaign stopped being about electing John Edwards and became a crusade to force the Democratic party to live up to its history -- embodied in the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, and its ideals -- the vehicle used by generations of liberals and progressives to advance the causes of economic justice, civil rights, peace and the environment.
Whatever happens on Super Tuesday, progressive Democrats should continue to vote for John Edwards until the convention. It was Edwards, with his growing maturity in foreign policy and his focus on economic justice as the cornerstone of his effort, who thrust progressive policy proposals into the campaign. As Paul Krugman wrote in The Times,
But, with Edwards out, if the struggle for economic justice and the pursuit a more rational set of national priorities are to remain a part of this campaign until election day, Edwards delegates need to be at the convention in the largest numbers possible.
The empty call for "change" has become the buzz word of this election year. It's gotten so in the last couple months that you can't announce you're running for dogcatcher without issuing a press release assuring voters that you are a "change agent." The usefulness of "change" to a politician is obvious: it encourages each voter to see the candidate as a blank screen on which to project his particular hopes and dreams. But the endless mantra of change has left many citizens hungry for details.
With Edwards' run over, who among the major candidates can be relied on most to deliver the profound transformational changes we need? The next president will inherit a failed military policy; a looming disaster for the economy; the aftermath of decades of growing structural deformities in the economic system; a crisis in health care; a crumbling infrastructure...the list is longer than a bill coming out of the military appropriations committee.
The next president is going to be required to exhibit bold vision and provide tough leadership if s/he is to succeed in building the political and cultural consensus that will bring about the reform and rebirth of the American system. We are still learning who that person might be.
No hurry to choose
It isn't time yet for progressives to decide between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The rush of some liberals to endorse Obama in the hours leading up to Tuesday's vote has much more to do with stopping Clinton (and, honestly, I wish Ted Kennedy better luck with his Anybody-but-Clinton offensive than he had with his Anybody-but-Carter effort a quarter century ago) than it does with his goals or likelihood of success.
For now, progressives should withhold their support from both candidates until they make convincing specific proposals about what their administrations will do about health care, international trade, economic justice and job creation, infrastructure, runaway military spending, and the host of other problems that have been festering since the Reagan years.
Take the troubled economy. Hillary Clinton recently proposed (long after Edwards) a broad economic stimulus package that includes a $30 billion “emergency housing crisis fund” to help states rescue low-income families who are unable to meet their mortgage payments and a $25 billion budget item (ten times current federal assistance) to aid low-income families in paying heating bills this winter. She would also spend $10 billion to extend unemployment insurance.
Inevitably, Obama responded a few days later with his own plan, but as was true with other initiatives by Edwards and Clinton -- notably health care -- Obama's proposal mirrored theirs but was more conservative. The senator from Illinois, for example, doesn't include the alternative energy components that are in both the Edwards and Clinton plans, and he emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those contained in the agreement between the House leadership and the Bush administration, instead of direct aid to the hardest hit Americans that Clinton and Edwards favored.
This is not to say that either Clinton nor Obama wouldn't be infinitely superior as chief executive to John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. But, so far, both Democratic candidates appear to be cautious, middle-of-the-road politicians at a moment in our history when more is demanded, and there is no rush to decide Tuesday or anytime before the convention which of the two is better-suited or more likely to rise to the challenges the country will face in the next four years.
Edwards supporters were attracted by a campaign based on ideas, on specifics, and on progressive ideals. Why should we hurry to embrace a candidate who gets specific only reluctantly and who promises to rise above "partisanship," as though the ideas of the right and left are practically and morally equivalent and that what is missing is someone to moderate between them? If we've learned anything over the last several administrations, it is that bipartisanship is a code word for conservative rule. At the very least, it should be enough to give progressives pause before hastening to vote for him that in this campaign Obama has attacked Clinton and Edwards repeatedly from the right.
There are plenty of reasons that one might decide to support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, but a commitment to progressive politics is not one of them; there will be plenty of time between now and Denver for those who supported John Edwards to make up their minds which candidate offers the best hope for real change.
The media or the voters?
If you were an Edwards supporter, it is probably because you believed he best embodied your hopes for the future, but once again the media has decided whom you are permitted to consider for the nomination. Now that Democrats have accepted the proposition that only Obama or Clinton is worthy of the party standard, Democratic primary voters are told we must hurry up and choose between them, and our only basis for deciding is a guess about who will be strongest in November. The last couple of Democratic guesses haven't been so hot.
Many Democrats are strongly anti-Clinton. Edwards quit now so that he and Obama wouldn't split the anti-Clinton vote on Super Tuesday, and thus hand her the nomination by default. But with Obama surging in the polls in the weekend before the vote, there is no longer a danger that Clinton will sew up the nomination any time soon. There is no longer a reason, if ever there was one, for progressives to be pushed into deciding between them.
If you feel strongly that the war should be ended as soon as possible, say within Edwards' proposed ten months, why be in a hurry to decide between candidates who expressly support continued counter-insurgency efforts and the presence in the Middle East of "advisers," counter-terrorism units, and Halliburton-style private contractors? Getting the combat troops out in 12 months, as Clinton says she will, or in 16-to-18 months, as Obama plans to do, is a distinction without a difference if four years from now we are still dumping people and money into the Green Zone.
As Dennis Kucinich repeatedly pointed out during this campaign, a permanent war economy, that directs more than half of federal discretionary funds to the military, leaves no room for needed social programs. Progressives should reserve their support for whichever candidate is most willing to offer concrete programs for revising -- for changing -- our priorities.
The last thing the Democrats should want to face is the nightmare of an election night in which the pundits are happily puzzling over how Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have racked up enough votes to make John McCain the president.
Not Edwards but Edwards-ism
Every four years, the left of the party is cornered into supporting a moderate who either loses, because he fails to distinguish himself from his GOP rival, or wins and turns out to be no change agent, after all.
Some former Edwards supporters now resist the idea of marking the spot next to his name. Many invested enormous quantities of time, money and emotional capital because of his promise that he would fight 'til the end. To them, he now appears to be just another hack politician whose words cannot be trusted. But a vote on the Edwards line on the ballot is no longer an endorsement of Edwards himself. It is a vote for the issues that led us to support him.
Should the Democrats arrive in Denver with neither Clinton nor Obama in control -- a virtual certainty, the progressives in attendance will be in position to negotiate a stronger platform and specific commitments on the war and on domestic spending. As Clinton said in Nevada, “This is ultimately about delegates and how many delegates every one of us have.” Edwards may have been willing to squander his influence on Obama's behalf this week without getting anything in return (that we know of), but there is no reason for Edwards' supporters to do the same thing.
In a close race, an uncommitted 15 percent or so of the delegates could have the power to decide the nomination (for example, by voting yay or nay on seating the Michigan and Florida delegations). Don't forget that, because a fifth of the seats at the convention are occupied by so-called superdelegates (members of Congress, governors and other party officials), in order to arrive at the convention with an insurmountable lead, a candidate must win about 62% of the delegates in the caucuses and primaries, clearly an impossible chore for Clinton even if Obama's recent surge ebbs as completely as it did in New Hampshire (despite Clinton's "victory" in New Hampshire, for example, at the end of the day she and Obama each walked away from the Granite State with 9 delegates - and Edwards got 4).
Based on the polls at the time he pulled out, Edwards might have had as many as 300 convention delegates. While there is no way anything like those numbers can be achieved now (made even more difficult by primary rules designed to discount insurgent campaigns), it remains important to remind the party that the issues we cared about a week ago are still the issues we want addressed by this campaign. When the serious delegate wrangling begins in Denver, a block of independent progressives of any measurable size will be able to negotiate significant concessions.
Until South Carolina, an argument could be made that supporting Obama was a way to stop the Clinton juggernaut. But it has been stopped. Now the job is to prevent the Democrats from repeating the mistake of running a cautious, neo-Republican campaign that will end, as it did for John Kerry, in victory by the bona fide Republicans.
The personal charisma of the Democratic nominee will not be enough to assure election, and if not-being-George-Bush wasn't enough to elect John Kerry last time, it alone certainly won't be sufficient to propel Clinton or Obama in to the Oval Office now that Bush is history. Since the heyday of Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater, Republicans have become expert at demonizing their opponents, as the Swiftboaters did so effectively to Kerry. Clinton has been subjected to this treatment many times over and you can be sure the Republican hit teams are in maneuvers somewhere, but should Obama stop Clinton, don't be surprised at how quickly the conservative talking heads, now beaming on him as the embodiment of Anyone-but-Clinton, will discover that he is the Spawn of Satan.
Even now, despite the nearly universal animus toward the incumbent president, the polls show McCain as tied with or narrowly beating Obama or Clinton. When they address policy, however, the same polls give the edge to the Democrats by significant margins. If the Democrats win, the irony is that it will because they embraced the ideas advanced by John Edwards; it follows that Edwards supporters need to be in Denver to keep the focus on those ideas.
Unanswered Questions
Five years ago, during his aborted run for the Democratic nomination, Howard Dean asked a series of questions that still need to be answered:
The press liked to ask why John Edwards was so mad. The more interesting question is why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren't madder.
If they are outraged that the United States spends more on its military than all of the rest of the world combined, they haven't said so. Are they revolted that preemptive war and the torture of prisoners are official policies of the United States? What are they going to do about repeated and extended service deployments; Walter Reed, military suicides and PTSD; and medical care, jobs and education for veterans? Are they ready to return the Constitution to its central place in our political life, by respecting the Congress and the Supreme Court as coequal branches, by appointing judges who will uphold the law, by renouncing signing statements as a way of getting around the people's representatives, by respecting the separation of church and state, by reining in the intelligence agencies?
Are they outraged that any American must die because he doesn't have access to food or housing or health care? Are they offended that the professional bureaucracy and the balanced budget bequeathed by the administration of Bill Clinton have been replaced by cronyism and incompetence and the biggest budget deficit in history? Do they intend to restore the progressive tax system? Will they renegotiate trade agreements to protect jobs, worker safety and the environment? Are they going to take on big oil, big pharma, and the agri giants, fight for affordable universal health care, back the development of alternative energies, rebuild an infrastructure that has been in decline since Reagan?
Enquiring primary voters want to know.
John Edwards has abandoned his campaign of ideas. That makes it more important than ever to vote for him.
Update: links about similar thoughts by JRE supporters who are voting for him today or in upcoming primaries:
Benny's World
Acebass at the Daily Kos
BruceMcF's Midnight Oil at the Daily Kos
Montana Maven
NcDem Amy at JRE's blog
Ted Daley at Alternet
Sarah Lane at Lefty Lane
Surburan Guerilla
Vyan at the DU
Ellinorianne at the Daily Kos
Months ago, his campaign stopped being about electing John Edwards and became a crusade to force the Democratic party to live up to its history -- embodied in the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, and its ideals -- the vehicle used by generations of liberals and progressives to advance the causes of economic justice, civil rights, peace and the environment.
Whatever happens on Super Tuesday, progressive Democrats should continue to vote for John Edwards until the convention. It was Edwards, with his growing maturity in foreign policy and his focus on economic justice as the cornerstone of his effort, who thrust progressive policy proposals into the campaign. As Paul Krugman wrote in The Times,
Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.The issues remain
But, with Edwards out, if the struggle for economic justice and the pursuit a more rational set of national priorities are to remain a part of this campaign until election day, Edwards delegates need to be at the convention in the largest numbers possible.
The empty call for "change" has become the buzz word of this election year. It's gotten so in the last couple months that you can't announce you're running for dogcatcher without issuing a press release assuring voters that you are a "change agent." The usefulness of "change" to a politician is obvious: it encourages each voter to see the candidate as a blank screen on which to project his particular hopes and dreams. But the endless mantra of change has left many citizens hungry for details.
With Edwards' run over, who among the major candidates can be relied on most to deliver the profound transformational changes we need? The next president will inherit a failed military policy; a looming disaster for the economy; the aftermath of decades of growing structural deformities in the economic system; a crisis in health care; a crumbling infrastructure...the list is longer than a bill coming out of the military appropriations committee.
The next president is going to be required to exhibit bold vision and provide tough leadership if s/he is to succeed in building the political and cultural consensus that will bring about the reform and rebirth of the American system. We are still learning who that person might be.
No hurry to choose
It isn't time yet for progressives to decide between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The rush of some liberals to endorse Obama in the hours leading up to Tuesday's vote has much more to do with stopping Clinton (and, honestly, I wish Ted Kennedy better luck with his Anybody-but-Clinton offensive than he had with his Anybody-but-Carter effort a quarter century ago) than it does with his goals or likelihood of success.
For now, progressives should withhold their support from both candidates until they make convincing specific proposals about what their administrations will do about health care, international trade, economic justice and job creation, infrastructure, runaway military spending, and the host of other problems that have been festering since the Reagan years.
Take the troubled economy. Hillary Clinton recently proposed (long after Edwards) a broad economic stimulus package that includes a $30 billion “emergency housing crisis fund” to help states rescue low-income families who are unable to meet their mortgage payments and a $25 billion budget item (ten times current federal assistance) to aid low-income families in paying heating bills this winter. She would also spend $10 billion to extend unemployment insurance.
Inevitably, Obama responded a few days later with his own plan, but as was true with other initiatives by Edwards and Clinton -- notably health care -- Obama's proposal mirrored theirs but was more conservative. The senator from Illinois, for example, doesn't include the alternative energy components that are in both the Edwards and Clinton plans, and he emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those contained in the agreement between the House leadership and the Bush administration, instead of direct aid to the hardest hit Americans that Clinton and Edwards favored.
This is not to say that either Clinton nor Obama wouldn't be infinitely superior as chief executive to John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. But, so far, both Democratic candidates appear to be cautious, middle-of-the-road politicians at a moment in our history when more is demanded, and there is no rush to decide Tuesday or anytime before the convention which of the two is better-suited or more likely to rise to the challenges the country will face in the next four years.
Edwards supporters were attracted by a campaign based on ideas, on specifics, and on progressive ideals. Why should we hurry to embrace a candidate who gets specific only reluctantly and who promises to rise above "partisanship," as though the ideas of the right and left are practically and morally equivalent and that what is missing is someone to moderate between them? If we've learned anything over the last several administrations, it is that bipartisanship is a code word for conservative rule. At the very least, it should be enough to give progressives pause before hastening to vote for him that in this campaign Obama has attacked Clinton and Edwards repeatedly from the right.
There are plenty of reasons that one might decide to support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, but a commitment to progressive politics is not one of them; there will be plenty of time between now and Denver for those who supported John Edwards to make up their minds which candidate offers the best hope for real change.
The media or the voters?
If you were an Edwards supporter, it is probably because you believed he best embodied your hopes for the future, but once again the media has decided whom you are permitted to consider for the nomination. Now that Democrats have accepted the proposition that only Obama or Clinton is worthy of the party standard, Democratic primary voters are told we must hurry up and choose between them, and our only basis for deciding is a guess about who will be strongest in November. The last couple of Democratic guesses haven't been so hot.
Many Democrats are strongly anti-Clinton. Edwards quit now so that he and Obama wouldn't split the anti-Clinton vote on Super Tuesday, and thus hand her the nomination by default. But with Obama surging in the polls in the weekend before the vote, there is no longer a danger that Clinton will sew up the nomination any time soon. There is no longer a reason, if ever there was one, for progressives to be pushed into deciding between them.
If you feel strongly that the war should be ended as soon as possible, say within Edwards' proposed ten months, why be in a hurry to decide between candidates who expressly support continued counter-insurgency efforts and the presence in the Middle East of "advisers," counter-terrorism units, and Halliburton-style private contractors? Getting the combat troops out in 12 months, as Clinton says she will, or in 16-to-18 months, as Obama plans to do, is a distinction without a difference if four years from now we are still dumping people and money into the Green Zone.
As Dennis Kucinich repeatedly pointed out during this campaign, a permanent war economy, that directs more than half of federal discretionary funds to the military, leaves no room for needed social programs. Progressives should reserve their support for whichever candidate is most willing to offer concrete programs for revising -- for changing -- our priorities.
The last thing the Democrats should want to face is the nightmare of an election night in which the pundits are happily puzzling over how Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have racked up enough votes to make John McCain the president.
Not Edwards but Edwards-ism
Every four years, the left of the party is cornered into supporting a moderate who either loses, because he fails to distinguish himself from his GOP rival, or wins and turns out to be no change agent, after all.
Some former Edwards supporters now resist the idea of marking the spot next to his name. Many invested enormous quantities of time, money and emotional capital because of his promise that he would fight 'til the end. To them, he now appears to be just another hack politician whose words cannot be trusted. But a vote on the Edwards line on the ballot is no longer an endorsement of Edwards himself. It is a vote for the issues that led us to support him.
Should the Democrats arrive in Denver with neither Clinton nor Obama in control -- a virtual certainty, the progressives in attendance will be in position to negotiate a stronger platform and specific commitments on the war and on domestic spending. As Clinton said in Nevada, “This is ultimately about delegates and how many delegates every one of us have.” Edwards may have been willing to squander his influence on Obama's behalf this week without getting anything in return (that we know of), but there is no reason for Edwards' supporters to do the same thing.
In a close race, an uncommitted 15 percent or so of the delegates could have the power to decide the nomination (for example, by voting yay or nay on seating the Michigan and Florida delegations). Don't forget that, because a fifth of the seats at the convention are occupied by so-called superdelegates (members of Congress, governors and other party officials), in order to arrive at the convention with an insurmountable lead, a candidate must win about 62% of the delegates in the caucuses and primaries, clearly an impossible chore for Clinton even if Obama's recent surge ebbs as completely as it did in New Hampshire (despite Clinton's "victory" in New Hampshire, for example, at the end of the day she and Obama each walked away from the Granite State with 9 delegates - and Edwards got 4).
Based on the polls at the time he pulled out, Edwards might have had as many as 300 convention delegates. While there is no way anything like those numbers can be achieved now (made even more difficult by primary rules designed to discount insurgent campaigns), it remains important to remind the party that the issues we cared about a week ago are still the issues we want addressed by this campaign. When the serious delegate wrangling begins in Denver, a block of independent progressives of any measurable size will be able to negotiate significant concessions.
Until South Carolina, an argument could be made that supporting Obama was a way to stop the Clinton juggernaut. But it has been stopped. Now the job is to prevent the Democrats from repeating the mistake of running a cautious, neo-Republican campaign that will end, as it did for John Kerry, in victory by the bona fide Republicans.
The personal charisma of the Democratic nominee will not be enough to assure election, and if not-being-George-Bush wasn't enough to elect John Kerry last time, it alone certainly won't be sufficient to propel Clinton or Obama in to the Oval Office now that Bush is history. Since the heyday of Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater, Republicans have become expert at demonizing their opponents, as the Swiftboaters did so effectively to Kerry. Clinton has been subjected to this treatment many times over and you can be sure the Republican hit teams are in maneuvers somewhere, but should Obama stop Clinton, don't be surprised at how quickly the conservative talking heads, now beaming on him as the embodiment of Anyone-but-Clinton, will discover that he is the Spawn of Satan.
Even now, despite the nearly universal animus toward the incumbent president, the polls show McCain as tied with or narrowly beating Obama or Clinton. When they address policy, however, the same polls give the edge to the Democrats by significant margins. If the Democrats win, the irony is that it will because they embraced the ideas advanced by John Edwards; it follows that Edwards supporters need to be in Denver to keep the focus on those ideas.
Unanswered Questions
Five years ago, during his aborted run for the Democratic nomination, Howard Dean asked a series of questions that still need to be answered:
What I want to know[, Dean said in part], is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq...And Dean was speaking before we knew how complete the failure in Iraq would be, before we understood that we are enduring the most inept, mercenary, and tyrannical government in our history, before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, before waterboarding, before illegal spying on Americans, before the suspension of habeas corpus, before the obscenely large deficit.
What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting tax cuts, which have bankrupted this country and given us the largest deficit in the history of the United States...
What I want to know is why the Democrats in Congress aren’t standing up for us, joining every other industrialized country on the face of the Earth in providing health insurance for every man, woman and child in America....
The press liked to ask why John Edwards was so mad. The more interesting question is why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren't madder.
If they are outraged that the United States spends more on its military than all of the rest of the world combined, they haven't said so. Are they revolted that preemptive war and the torture of prisoners are official policies of the United States? What are they going to do about repeated and extended service deployments; Walter Reed, military suicides and PTSD; and medical care, jobs and education for veterans? Are they ready to return the Constitution to its central place in our political life, by respecting the Congress and the Supreme Court as coequal branches, by appointing judges who will uphold the law, by renouncing signing statements as a way of getting around the people's representatives, by respecting the separation of church and state, by reining in the intelligence agencies?
Are they outraged that any American must die because he doesn't have access to food or housing or health care? Are they offended that the professional bureaucracy and the balanced budget bequeathed by the administration of Bill Clinton have been replaced by cronyism and incompetence and the biggest budget deficit in history? Do they intend to restore the progressive tax system? Will they renegotiate trade agreements to protect jobs, worker safety and the environment? Are they going to take on big oil, big pharma, and the agri giants, fight for affordable universal health care, back the development of alternative energies, rebuild an infrastructure that has been in decline since Reagan?
Enquiring primary voters want to know.
John Edwards has abandoned his campaign of ideas. That makes it more important than ever to vote for him.
Update: links about similar thoughts by JRE supporters who are voting for him today or in upcoming primaries:
Benny's World
Acebass at the Daily Kos
BruceMcF's Midnight Oil at the Daily Kos
Montana Maven
NcDem Amy at JRE's blog
Ted Daley at Alternet
Sarah Lane at Lefty Lane
Surburan Guerilla
Vyan at the DU
Ellinorianne at the Daily Kos
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.
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:
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."
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.”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.
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."
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.Bi-partisanship is a smoke screen used to obscure the fact that -- forget Democrats or Republicans -- the Congress is dominated by a conservative majority.
“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.”
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>
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>
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:
<http://www.johnedwards.com/news/20080121-mlk-iii-letter.pdf>
"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, 2008The letter can be downloaded (pdf) at:
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
<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.
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:
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.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.
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
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/>
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:
<http://www.acgreens.org/debate>
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)
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.
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/>
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?
The rest of the story: Wired
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
