"Leahy says Clinton should withdraw" - AP Headline (2008-03-28).
Sen. Patrick Leahy, in an interview with Vermont Public Radio Thursday, urged Hillary Clinton to throw herself on her sword for the good of the party. Leahy, who just happens to favor Barack Obama for the nomination, said that, since the Obama team has decided there's no way that Clinton is going to win enough pledged delegates to get the nomination, she should quit.
Another Obama partisan, Sen. Chris Dodd, expressed a similar sentiment the same day.
Reacting to polls showing that some Obama and Clinton faithful say they will vote for John McCain if their own candidate is not the Democratic nominee, Obama supporters argue that animosity from the primary fight could hurt Democratic chances in November.
Obama got another boost Thursday when party chairman Howard Dean called on the superdelegates to commit to one candidate or the other by June 1, he said in the hope of avoiding a divisive fight on the convention floor.
“You do not want to demoralize the base of the Democratic Party by having the Democrats attack each other....Let the media and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth. The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat,” Dean told the AP.
But it seems to me that Dean and the Obamanians are whining about a situation that actually works in their favor. The longer the race is undecided, the longer it will be before the Republicans and the corporate media have a clear idea whom they're supposed to bring down. If John McCain has gotten a free ride from the media in this campaign, as some media critics maintain, it's not because the Democratic contenders' internecine combat has impeded their ability to take on the putative Republican nominee (both Clinton and Obama did so Thursday, for example, when they attacked the Arizona senator's economic proposals, and they've been doing so for months).
Meanwhile the party of Roosevelt is free to pile on McCain. If they don't want to leave it to the candidates, the DNC could designate Bill Clinton a one man hit team to follow McCain around taking potshots at him, which would have the added benefit of keeping the Billster too busy to make further mischief within his own party. If that seems too undignified a task for a former president, even Bill Clinton, they could field an actual team of clever rhetoricians (Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich, come to mind) to do the job. Or Howard Dean's office could take a page from the GOP playbook and prepare a daily sheet of anti-McCain talking points to be distributed at the crack of dawn to every Democratic candidate, spokesperson, PAC and blogger in the universe.
In any case, McCain's free ride is likely to continue until the election is decided (David Brock has even written a book, Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, an expose of the press' coital relationship with the senator that every political junkie should read). It won't hurt McCain with the media that he is now the anointed candidate of the Right, but his greatest advantage is that reporters just like hanging out with the guy.
If the superdelegates settle it before the primaries are over, or if Hillary gives in to pressure to stand down, the effect will be to render the remaining tallies moot. You will recall that the party stripped Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates after those states tried to jump to the head of the line of voters in violation of party rules. Now they want to do the same thing to the Democrats who haven't voted yet.
So let me see if I have this straight. The voters in Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised because their state parties didn't follow the rules. And now, if Dean and the Obama team have their ways, because the primaries in these states are coming later in the process, the voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and so on are to be disenfranchised because their parties did follow the rules.
Seem fair to you?
Desire for Health Care Reform So "Universal," It Even Includes Doctors
Opponents of national health always cite the supposed opposition of medical professionals as one of the reasons it can never work here. But according to researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine,
More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.The rest of the story: Reuters.
The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.
Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
Loyalty, as defined by Democrats
Jeff Norman writes: According to a new Gallup poll, 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters say they will vote for John McCain if Barack Obama is the nominee, and 19% of Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. These people are, of course, DEMOCRATS whom one might reasonably EXPECT to show some allegiance to the DEMOCRATIC nominee. By contrast, Ralph Nader is NOT a Democrat, yet he was crucified for his "failure" to show allegiance to an OPPOSITION party, while no such public condemnation has been heaped on all these wayward Democrats. Why not? What about the importance of Supreme Court appointments and the whole "progressive" agenda, blah blah blah? Why is there no uproar about these REAL traitors? Could it be that Ralph was/is right, and Democrats and their enablers are a huge part of the problem? Nah, that couldn't be!
As the saying goes, read it and weep: <http://www.gallup.com/>
As the saying goes, read it and weep: <http://www.gallup.com/>
Election Year Actions for Peace
United for Peace and Justice's Carl Davidson has outlined an eight-point program for the peace movement in this election year (A Memo on UFPJ’s Antiwar Intervention in the 2008 Election Campaigns) that includes education and action components.
If our peace movement wants to make some far-reaching gains in the 2008 election cycle, it doesn’t have much time to waste. Texas and Ohio are over, Pennsylvania is on the horizon, the remaining campaigns will end in November, the war issue needs to be focused and linked to the economy, and critical events are moving at a rapid pace.You can read the document on the UFPG website.
Most important, ending the war in Iraq, inside and outside the electoral arena, needs to be a greater part of everyone’s political decisions in 2008 than it is now.
Access: Earthlink and its ilk back out of the deal
The Times reports that the goal of city-sponsored free or low-cost universal internet access has turned out to be a pipe dream (Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out by Ian Urbina, NYTimes 2008-03-22).
Cities and towns from Philadelphia to San Francisco promised they would make access available to everyone. "But the excited momentum has sputtered to a standstill," the Times finds, "tripped up by unrealistic ambitions and technological glitches. The conclusion that such ventures would not be profitable led to sudden withdrawals by service providers like EarthLink, the Internet company that had effectively cornered the market on the efforts by the larger cities. Now, community organizations worry about their prospects for helping poor neighborhoods get online."
But wasn't this entire effort premised on the idea of the free lunch? Politicians may have salivated at the prospect of a popular and necessary municipal service that could be provided without having to attend to the tedious matter of raising revenues to pay for it, but the viability of a system that depended on advertising or low-cost fees was never more than dubious. The only sensible way to provide universal internet access is through a public utility or a publicly facilitated cooperative, as is done in cities in Europe and Asia (in one of those twists you can't make up, USAID money -- your money -- is being used to provide universal access in other places).
I've posted about the topic of universal internet access over the years because the city where I live, a geometrically compact, wealthy, technologically sophisticated, politically progressive, college town, seemed uniquely positioned to provide free universal access, but, though there are a handful of municipal hotspots around town, it hasn't happened here, either; and if it can't happen here, it's hard to imagine where it can happen.
As we wake up to the reality that for-profit companies are not going to pay for universal access, supporters of internet access as a utility will need to redouble their efforts to prod American city and county governments to step in. Otherwise, the internet will just be one more area where we can't keep up with the rest of the industrialized world.
It is distressing to see us tumble again into the gap between what public services cost and what we're willing to pay for them. Every election cycle for three decades, we have fallen for the candidates who offered us what could be called representation without taxation, as if somehow we can have schools and libraries and roads and bridges and parks and fire departments and police protection and sewer systems and clean air and drinkable water flowing from the tap and all our other needs and expectation met without paying for them.
Sascha Meinrath, technology analyst at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research organization in Washington, told the Times,
The rest of the story: The New york Times.
Cities and towns from Philadelphia to San Francisco promised they would make access available to everyone. "But the excited momentum has sputtered to a standstill," the Times finds, "tripped up by unrealistic ambitions and technological glitches. The conclusion that such ventures would not be profitable led to sudden withdrawals by service providers like EarthLink, the Internet company that had effectively cornered the market on the efforts by the larger cities. Now, community organizations worry about their prospects for helping poor neighborhoods get online."
But wasn't this entire effort premised on the idea of the free lunch? Politicians may have salivated at the prospect of a popular and necessary municipal service that could be provided without having to attend to the tedious matter of raising revenues to pay for it, but the viability of a system that depended on advertising or low-cost fees was never more than dubious. The only sensible way to provide universal internet access is through a public utility or a publicly facilitated cooperative, as is done in cities in Europe and Asia (in one of those twists you can't make up, USAID money -- your money -- is being used to provide universal access in other places).
I've posted about the topic of universal internet access over the years because the city where I live, a geometrically compact, wealthy, technologically sophisticated, politically progressive, college town, seemed uniquely positioned to provide free universal access, but, though there are a handful of municipal hotspots around town, it hasn't happened here, either; and if it can't happen here, it's hard to imagine where it can happen.
As we wake up to the reality that for-profit companies are not going to pay for universal access, supporters of internet access as a utility will need to redouble their efforts to prod American city and county governments to step in. Otherwise, the internet will just be one more area where we can't keep up with the rest of the industrialized world.
It is distressing to see us tumble again into the gap between what public services cost and what we're willing to pay for them. Every election cycle for three decades, we have fallen for the candidates who offered us what could be called representation without taxation, as if somehow we can have schools and libraries and roads and bridges and parks and fire departments and police protection and sewer systems and clean air and drinkable water flowing from the tap and all our other needs and expectation met without paying for them.
Sascha Meinrath, technology analyst at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research organization in Washington, told the Times,
true municipal networks, the ones owned and operated by municipalities, are far more sustainable because they can take into account benefits that help cities beyond private profit, including property-value increases, education benefits and quality-of-life improvements that come with offering residents free wireless access.So, the fight goes on, in this area as in so many others. Will John McCain, Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama sign on to a program that will address the ways we have fallen behind our friends and enemies in the industrialized world and, more revealingly, offer realistic ways to fund it? Or will we be forced to look outside business-as-usual for new leaders and new models of enlightened governance? Because we sure can't continue to let failed leadership turn us into a third-rate country.
Mr. Meinrath pointed to St. Cloud, Fla., which spent $3 million two years ago to build a free wireless network that is used by more than 70 percent of the households in the city.
The rest of the story: The New york Times.
The War: The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
Not only illegal and immoral, but stupid. -- J.
by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Washington Post, 2008-03-08)
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Washington Post, 2008-03-08)
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.
The rest of the story: The Washington Post
Vigils today commemorate the 5th anniversary of the tragic invasion of Iraq.
Ah, the war.
Or, far more accurately, the occupation.
Today is March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm. And so we will, each of us, do what we can to bring this particular Bush administration criminal enterprise to an end. Unfortunately, I'm on the road today, so my participation will be as spotty as it is heartfelt. More as the day progresses, I hope. In the meantime, a reminder:
MoveOn.Org is sponsoring candlelight vigils tonight to mark the fifth anniversary of the war's beginning on March 19, 2003. In my neighborhood, one is at 7 p.m. at the intersection of Lincoln Blvd.and Rose Ave in Venice.
Other west L.A. County vigils:
Santa Monica: 6 p.m., northeast corner of Santa Monica Blvd. & Lincoln Blvd.
Mar Vista: 7 p.m., corner of MacLaughlin Ave. and Palms Blvd.
Westwood: 6 p.m., northwest corner of Wilshire Blvd. & Veteran Ave.
Culver City: 5:30 p.m., Culver Hotel, Washington and Culver Blvds.
For more info and to find other events that are in your area, click here.
For links to other Iraq Blogswarm sites, from the highly political to the highly personal, click here.
Or, far more accurately, the occupation.
Today is March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm. And so we will, each of us, do what we can to bring this particular Bush administration criminal enterprise to an end. Unfortunately, I'm on the road today, so my participation will be as spotty as it is heartfelt. More as the day progresses, I hope. In the meantime, a reminder:
MoveOn.Org is sponsoring candlelight vigils tonight to mark the fifth anniversary of the war's beginning on March 19, 2003. In my neighborhood, one is at 7 p.m. at the intersection of Lincoln Blvd.and Rose Ave in Venice.
Other west L.A. County vigils:
Santa Monica: 6 p.m., northeast corner of Santa Monica Blvd. & Lincoln Blvd.
Mar Vista: 7 p.m., corner of MacLaughlin Ave. and Palms Blvd.
Westwood: 6 p.m., northwest corner of Wilshire Blvd. & Veteran Ave.
Culver City: 5:30 p.m., Culver Hotel, Washington and Culver Blvds.
For more info and to find other events that are in your area, click here.
For links to other Iraq Blogswarm sites, from the highly political to the highly personal, click here.
2008: Barack Obama's 'More perfect union'
Sen. Barack Obama's talk this morning in Philadelphia on race (transcript, YouTube) showed why he has gone from nowhere to become the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. It was the best address by any candidate so far in this campaign. If all there was to being president was speechifying, he would be unbeatable.
But to hold that Obama had to make this speech if his candidacy was to survive is not to give him credit for the brilliance and courage of his response to the biggest crisis of his campaign; whatever else you say about it, it's hard to imagine a better brief for the defense. This wasn't Mitt Romney trying to get around suspicions about his religion by denying that his faith means anything; Obama presents a nuanced outline of the bargainers case without pretending that the wages of race don't need to be paid. And of course he delivered it in at perfectly nuanced "quiet and thoughtful" pitch; to have used a "fiery tone" would have been like throwing on the house lights at a shadow play. It all may be calculated, but, unlike most political discourse to which we are subjected, at least it could never be called trivial.
Now can we get back to talking about the empire and the economy?
Charles Murray: Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant -- rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.The speech was especially interesting in the light of conservative polemicist Shelby Steele's analysis, published today before Obama's address, of the political advantages in being black. How do you turn race to your advantage?, Steele asks.
David Corn: ....a speech unlike any delivered by a major political figure in modern American history. While explaining--not excusing--Reverend Jeremiah Wright's remarks (which Obama had already criticized), he called on all Americans to recognize that even though the United States has experienced progress on the racial reconciliation front in recent decades (Exhibit A: Barack Obama), racial anger exists among both whites and blacks, and he said that this anger and its causes must be fully acknowledged before further progress can be achieved. Obama did this without displaying a trace of anger himself.
Peter S. Canellos: For perhaps the first time in the 2008 campaign, Obama presented a big problem as something to be confronted by average people -- the aggrieved white worker, the black person fuming about injustice -- who are part of his own political constituency. There was no corporation or lobbyist or rival politician in the picture.
James Fallows: It was a moment that Obama made great through the seriousness, intelligence, eloquence, and courage of what he said. I don't recall another speech about race with as little pandering or posturing or shying from awkward points, and as much honest attempt to explain and connect, as this one.
Andrew Sullivan: I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.
First Read: His tone throughout was quiet and thoughtful. The same speech could have been delivered in a fiery tone. But Obama chose one that was quiet and thoughtful. It did little to lessen the impact and may have added to the weight of his words.
Hillary Clinton: I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama’s speech, but I’m very glad that he gave it. It’s an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they have been complicated in this primary campaign. There have been detours and pitfalls along the way.
Marc Ambinder: How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone -- not just himself and the media -- to talk openly.
[And] I do think that Obama's speech was a marvel of contemporary political rhetoric. Politically, analytically and emotively, it hit many high notes. His acknowledgment of white working class resentments (busing) and about the perception that there's been no racial progress, his willingness to stick by his friends, his grasp of history, his sense that our views of race are cramped and caricatured... all of that is something that even those who disagree with the substance of his speech, can, I think, appreciate.
Oliver Willis: One of my personal maxims has been that politicians will disappoint you. The ones you like will have personal failings, while the ones you detest will fail time and time again. With Senator Obama, for the first time in my life, I have watched a political leader who I don’t worry if he’ll be up to the task. It’s like you had Michael Jordan in his prime or Joe Montana with 2 minutes to go. It’s that feeling where you say to yourself: Ok, breathe, he’s got it. Chill, Barack’s got it.
The answer is that one 'bargains.' Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.With his unique personal history, Obama understands the political role he is playing better than his opponents, which is why his candidacy has blind-sided them. Steele thinks that bargainers have an Achilles heel that in Obama's case may bring him down. "And yet, in the end," he says,
This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.
His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by 'change' or 'hope' or 'the future.' And he has failed to say how he would actually be a 'unifier.' By the evidence of his slight political record (130 'present' votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.
Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?
Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were 'challengers,' not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.It is why the revelations of Rev. Wright are so dangerous to Obama, why this is the most important speech he will ever give. Wright is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America"); it would sink Obama's campaign if he came to be associated with Wright's views, however valid they might be, however unexceptional they may sound to members of the black community.
But bargainers... succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, 'I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . .' And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a 'blank screen.'"
But to hold that Obama had to make this speech if his candidacy was to survive is not to give him credit for the brilliance and courage of his response to the biggest crisis of his campaign; whatever else you say about it, it's hard to imagine a better brief for the defense. This wasn't Mitt Romney trying to get around suspicions about his religion by denying that his faith means anything; Obama presents a nuanced outline of the bargainers case without pretending that the wages of race don't need to be paid. And of course he delivered it in at perfectly nuanced "quiet and thoughtful" pitch; to have used a "fiery tone" would have been like throwing on the house lights at a shadow play. It all may be calculated, but, unlike most political discourse to which we are subjected, at least it could never be called trivial.
Now can we get back to talking about the empire and the economy?
MoveOn continues to shill for Obama
So now MoveOn.Org wants you to "make a 30-second TV ad that tells the nation why Barack Obama should be our next President."
Not a spot that advances the cause of peace in the Middle East or takes on the military-industrial complex.
Not a circular setting out why we need single-payer, universal health care.
Not a plug for economic justice.
No.
You are invited to make a video that will "push Obama to victory," as if the triumph of the senator's DNC-lite politics is the best we can hope for from the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity provided by the failed presidency of George W. Bush.
You may see the need for profound, radical change if we are to recover from a half-century of failed leadership; what you are offered is a campaign whose ultimate success will do no more than validate the hypothesis that the only thing wrong with the John Kerry scenario was the casting.
With a deadline of April Fool's Day, MoveOn today launched an open call for online submissions to "Obama in 30 Seconds." The public will select a group of finalists from among the competing entries; a panel of "top artists, film professionals, and netroots heroes" will pick a winner from among the finalists.
Why celebrities -- the judges include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Naomi Wolf, Oliver Stone, John Legend, Donna Edwards, and Markos Moulitsas -- are better qualified than the organization's own members to choose among ads that are supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not explained.
MoveOn will sponsor airings of the winning commercial nationally, and the winner will receive a gift certificate for $20,000 in video equipment.
That members of the elite find Obama's pro-status quo campaign captivating should occasion no surprise. But on November 4, if he gets that far, middle- and working-class Democrats and independents will be invited to express their opinions about the senator's vaporous politicking.
And what they say then shouldn't come as a surprise, either.
Not a spot that advances the cause of peace in the Middle East or takes on the military-industrial complex.
Not a circular setting out why we need single-payer, universal health care.
Not a plug for economic justice.
No.
You are invited to make a video that will "push Obama to victory," as if the triumph of the senator's DNC-lite politics is the best we can hope for from the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity provided by the failed presidency of George W. Bush.
You may see the need for profound, radical change if we are to recover from a half-century of failed leadership; what you are offered is a campaign whose ultimate success will do no more than validate the hypothesis that the only thing wrong with the John Kerry scenario was the casting.
With a deadline of April Fool's Day, MoveOn today launched an open call for online submissions to "Obama in 30 Seconds." The public will select a group of finalists from among the competing entries; a panel of "top artists, film professionals, and netroots heroes" will pick a winner from among the finalists.
Why celebrities -- the judges include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Naomi Wolf, Oliver Stone, John Legend, Donna Edwards, and Markos Moulitsas -- are better qualified than the organization's own members to choose among ads that are supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is not explained.
MoveOn will sponsor airings of the winning commercial nationally, and the winner will receive a gift certificate for $20,000 in video equipment.
That members of the elite find Obama's pro-status quo campaign captivating should occasion no surprise. But on November 4, if he gets that far, middle- and working-class Democrats and independents will be invited to express their opinions about the senator's vaporous politicking.
And what they say then shouldn't come as a surprise, either.
Documentary: The War on Democracy
The War on Democracy is John Pilger's first film for theatrical release - in a career that has produced more than 55 television documentaries. Set in Latin America and the US, it explores the historic and current relationship of Washington with such countries as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile. "The film tells a universal story," says Pilger, "analysing and revealing, through vivid testimony, the story of great power behind its venerable myths. It allows us to understand the true nature of the so-called war on terror." Indeed it does. <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/>
2008: What's a poor progressive to do?
For me, Barack Obama's singular achievement has been to make Hillary Clinton look good. Say what you will about Hillary, as a lifetime wonkette, at least she has some politics.
That said, I want to pass along these off-the-cuff notes to portside from D.C. Statehood Green Party activist David Schwartzman (he's responding to a pro-Obama brief that I won't burden you with), that make a couple of points in favor of voting for Obama, at least in states that might otherwise go to John McCain:
The peace movement has already given up whatever leverage it might have had over the very junior senator from Illinois by prematurely -- is that the word? -- embracing BHO in order to stop Clinton. What possible reason does he have to meet their expectations now? Far more important to address the needs and wishes of the conservative congressional majority and the DNC who will be in a much better position than the peace movement to make his life miserable for the next four years.
With this caveat: Schwartzman is thinking nationally and as a Green Party activist; but it's true that, although its commitment to economic justice is essentially untested, for now the Green Party is the only potentially viable national party of the Left. In California, however, it may also be worth casting a vote to keep the Peace and Freedom Party alive. And in some states the Socialist Party USA is on the ballot. So if the Dream Team is not your dream ticket and you decide to look elsewhere for someone to support, consider all the options.
That said, I want to pass along these off-the-cuff notes to portside from D.C. Statehood Green Party activist David Schwartzman (he's responding to a pro-Obama brief that I won't burden you with), that make a couple of points in favor of voting for Obama, at least in states that might otherwise go to John McCain:
Obama "progressive" ?!!! To argue that Obama is the best choice out of the three offered by the two war parties is well supported, but lets be clear why. It is not because he is "progressive," unless in some Bizzaro World being progressive includes support for expanding the military-industrial complex, the death penalty, the US/Israeli axis of human rights violation, voting for funding the war and the Patriot Act, opposing a universal single payer health plan, pretending clean energy includes nuclear power and corn ethanol, i.e., having a platform almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Rather, Obama is preferable because:Actually, I disagree with this part of Schwartsman's argument: because, when he was their president, Bill Clinton was able to neuter Democratic progressives in Congress; there is no reason to believe this would not happen in a triangulating Obama administration actively pursuing a consensus with the GOP.
1) He is a Democrat, so with a Democratic President and Congress there will be no more excuses that it is all the Republicans' fault that the Iraq War/Occupation continues, urgent domestic needs are unmet, etc.
2) He is more likely to beat McCain, according to most polls.Not to be argumentative, but Obama has enjoyed a free ride up to now: there is no telling what his standing in the polls will be after the Right's slime machine is through with him.
3) Expectations are higher that he will end the Iraq war/occupation, hence a case can be made that the millions inspired by Obama's campaign will hold him accountable after his election with the help of the real progressives and thereby avoid more imperialist interventions.Okay. By now you're wondering why I'm sending you this piece at all. It's because I think Schwartzman does make the best case there is for supporting Obama. However:
The peace movement has already given up whatever leverage it might have had over the very junior senator from Illinois by prematurely -- is that the word? -- embracing BHO in order to stop Clinton. What possible reason does he have to meet their expectations now? Far more important to address the needs and wishes of the conservative congressional majority and the DNC who will be in a much better position than the peace movement to make his life miserable for the next four years.
4) And last but by far not least, the election of an African-American as US President will be an historic blow to racism despite his colorblind campaign.True enough, except the exact same argument can be made about Clinton and gender bias. But, and here's the real point,
preferring Obama should also mean voting strategically, so that the only really progressive party on the US scene, the Green Party, can grow and challenge the corporate duopoly. Hopefully many voters especially in safe states will make that choice by voting for the Cynthia McKinney for President, assuming she will be chosen by the Green Party Convention, and putting more Greens into local office.Hear, hear.
With this caveat: Schwartzman is thinking nationally and as a Green Party activist; but it's true that, although its commitment to economic justice is essentially untested, for now the Green Party is the only potentially viable national party of the Left. In California, however, it may also be worth casting a vote to keep the Peace and Freedom Party alive. And in some states the Socialist Party USA is on the ballot. So if the Dream Team is not your dream ticket and you decide to look elsewhere for someone to support, consider all the options.
Democrat Wins Hastert's District in Illinois
It's not worth more than any other seat in the House, but still, it was satisfying to watch Saturday as Illinois 14, the roost of former House speaker Denny_Hastert, fell to the Democrats. Despite gerrymandering in the 90s designed to protect the seat for the conservatives, wealthy Democratic scientist and businessman Bill Foster captured 53% of the vote to beat wealthy Republican businessman Jim Oberweis, a richer-than-smart perennial political wannabe who has previously lost two primaries for senator and one for governor.
According to the AP, "Republicans had been hoping to hold on to the district that President Bush easily carried in 2004 with 55 percent of the vote."
Although enjoyable, the victory could be short-lived. The special election was held now because Hastert abandoned the position early in order to avoid new lobbying regulations that would have limited his ability to cash in on his Service to the People. Both candidates are already back on the trail in what promises to be a hard-fought rematch in November.
Even if he wins, though, Foster won't threaten the conservative majority in Congress. In a repeat of 2006, Democratic kingmaker Rep. Rahm Emanuel is working overtime to assure that the Democrats who are added to the majority in the fall are reliable supporters of the status quo. For the GOP, on the other hand, Foster's win isn't good news. If they can't hold a "safe" district that has been receiving millions of dollars in pork and earmarks for decades from the longest serving Republican speaker in history, what can they hang on to?
Karl Rove was right that he and George Bush would leave behind a permanent political majority in Washington. He just got the party wrong.
According to the AP, "Republicans had been hoping to hold on to the district that President Bush easily carried in 2004 with 55 percent of the vote."
Although enjoyable, the victory could be short-lived. The special election was held now because Hastert abandoned the position early in order to avoid new lobbying regulations that would have limited his ability to cash in on his Service to the People. Both candidates are already back on the trail in what promises to be a hard-fought rematch in November.
Even if he wins, though, Foster won't threaten the conservative majority in Congress. In a repeat of 2006, Democratic kingmaker Rep. Rahm Emanuel is working overtime to assure that the Democrats who are added to the majority in the fall are reliable supporters of the status quo. For the GOP, on the other hand, Foster's win isn't good news. If they can't hold a "safe" district that has been receiving millions of dollars in pork and earmarks for decades from the longest serving Republican speaker in history, what can they hang on to?
Karl Rove was right that he and George Bush would leave behind a permanent political majority in Washington. He just got the party wrong.
The Best Man?
"If Clinton or Obama cannot find some miraculous way to lock down a nominating majority in the remaining primaries and caucuses, look for undecided super delegates to opt for the easiest way out and urge them to run together for the November election." - Craig CrawfordOn her victory lap around the talk show circuit this morning, a reborn Hillary Clinton allowed "the possibility of sharing the Democratic presidential ticket with Barack Obama, but says voters still have to decide the party nominee," according to reports by the New York Times and others.
"That may be where this is headed," Clinton said, "but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket," adding that the voters in Ohio, at least, have decided that it should be she.
It may be true that Clinton's comeback on Super Tuesday, The Sequel makes a joint ticket "the easiest way out," but here's a better idea. At the convention, after neither senator has achieved a majority on the first ballot, the candidate with the fewer votes, presumably Clinton, makes a dramatic move.
Howard Dean has taken the chair as the second ballot begins.
"Mr. Chairman, Alabama yields to New York."
Hillary Clinton steps up to the floor mic in the New York delegation, to ululations from all around Pepsi Center.
"Mr. Chairman," the senator begins. "This has been a long and hard-fought campaign. All of the candidates for this party's nomination have made us proud to be Democrats. It was an honor to stand with them -- Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, ..."
Swelling applause.
"...Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Barack Obama..."
The delegates rise to their feet, cheering.
"...All of them, myself included, are ready to take back the White House for the American people."
Wild cheering.
"And on November 4th, we will! We will win a secure majority of the Senate. We will win an even bigger majority of the House of Representatives. AND WE WILL ELECT THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."
Pandemonium.
After Dean finally restores order, Clinton continues:
"It has been a great campaign, but it is time to bring it to an end. It is time for us to pick a nominee who will unify the party, to choose the candidate who will lead us to victory. Mr.Chairman, the New York delegation proudly casts its 232 votes for the next president of the United States, JOHN EDWARDS."
As if out of nowhere, Edwards signs sprout all over the hall.
Chants of "John Edwards, John Edwards" shake the rafters of Denver's convention center.
Once again, Dean restores order and the count continues. The Edwards' tally increases as the Clinton delegates switch, until the chairman calls "Illinois."
Barack Obama is at the microphone.
"Mr. Chairman, America is at a turning point. We have made history in this campaign. We have shown that we are a people united. We have shown that it is not a person's gender that matters; we have shown that it is not a person's race that is important; we have shown that we Democrats judge a person only on the soundness of his or her ideas, on the quality of his or her character, on whether or not she or he is a leader who will bring about much-needed change. Hillary Clinton would make a great president..."
"Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton..." chant the delegates.
"I would make a great president..."
"Yes we can, Yes we can, Yes we can..." the delegates yell.
"...But it is time to bring the debate to an end. It is time to come together as Democrats. It is time to bring the troops home. It is time to put an end the corruption and incompetence in the Oval Office. It is time to restore honor to the White House. It is time to send to Washington a great leader and a great American. Mr. Chairman, Illinois is proud to cast 153 votes for THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, JOHN EDWARDS."
After the delegates quiet down again, Indiana yields to North Carolina whose chair moves to make the nomination unanimous.
In November, John Edwards wins, bringing a, um, new deal to the White House. The Democrats retain the senate seats in New York and Illinois, thus protecting their control of the upper body. Hillary Clinton goes on to a long and distinguished career as a United States Senator. Barack Obama begins planning for 2016. We are spared John McCain.
I know, I know. But, hey, it could happen.
2008: MoveOn -- move back to issues
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
