Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Why Democrats Must Go It Alone

It has become abundantly clear that no progress is possible as long as Democrats try to include Republicans in their plans.  The reason they keep trying is they fear that they will lose votes, if the public perceives them as partisan.  A recent poll belies that fear.
polling The vast majority of opposition to health care and allowing gays to serve openly in the military is coming from people who already say there's no chance they'll vote Democratic this fall. That's an indication of minimal fallout for Congressional Democrats by acting on these issues.
37% of Americans say they will definitely not vote Democratic for Congress this year. 34% say they definitely will and that leaves roughly 30% of the country up for grabs.
Right now 50% of voters say they oppose President Obama's health care plan to just 39% in support. Digging a little deeper on those numbers though 64% of respondents planning or open to voting Democratic this fall support it with only 22% opposed. The overall numbers are negative only because of 94/1 opposition among folks who have said there is no way they'll vote Democratic this fall.
It's a similar story when it comes to the prospect of repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Over 54% of voters support it with 37% opposed. But among the voters Democrats need to make happy- the ones planning to or considering voting for them this year- there is 72/24 support for letting gays and lesbians serve openly in the military. The total numbers are brought down only because of 59/25 opposition with folks who will never vote for them anyway…
...Full results here. [PDF] [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Public Policy Polling>
Regular readers probably know that, before I became disabled, I worked in opinion research.  I examined the poll and found the questions worded and ordered in such a way as to be non-biased.  The only bias I found was in the demographics of the sample, as slight more self-identified ‘conservatives’ were included than liberals.  If the results are at all skewed, the actual situation is better than reported.
What Democrats should learn from this poll is that the people they would turn off by going it alone are people who weren’t going to vote for them anyway.
Rachel Maddow discussed the attempt by progressive Senators to pass the public option through reconciliation, which I reported yesterday, and also discussed reconciliation with Bernie Sanders.
 
She raises an excellent point.  It’s impossible to negotiate an agreement with someone who changes their policy every time you agree to their policy.  The bottom line here is that the GOP has only one policy: to disagree on everything.
Let reconciliation roll!

Olbermann on Corporate Takeover by Stealth

Grrrr!!

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I repeat… Grrrr!

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

GOP Hypocrites Begging for Stimulation

The stimulus is beginning to work.  There’s certainly more stimulus required.  How do I know?  If not, why are GOP politicians grubbing for the money?

roadtorecovery The Wall Street Journal has followed up on The Washington Times report about Republican lawmakers who publicly opposed the stimulus but privately sought stimulus funds to create jobs in their states and districts. Some nuggets:

Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs."

Republican Reps. Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Jean Schmidt of Ohio sent letters in October asking for consideration of funding requests from local organizations training workers for energy-efficiency projects.

The Environmental Protection Agency received two letters from Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asking for consideration of grants for clean diesel projects in San Antonio and Houston. Mr. Cornyn is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. One of the letters was signed jointly with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, also of Texas.

The agency also appeared to have received eight identical letters from Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah recommending infrastructure projects in his state, seven of which were sent before stimulus legislation was passed by Congress.

The entire congressional delegation of Alabama, including its two Republican senators, wrote to then-Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell asking for $15 million for cogongrass eradication and control programs in the state. The state ended up getting a $6.3 million grant.

It's not just the WSJ and Washington Times that are paying attention. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that Gov. Tim Pawlenty used stimulus funds to balance his state's budget. TPM notes new Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has privately thanked the administration for offering stimulus funds to his state.

Based on these and other reports, the Obama Administration is mounting an aggressive defense of the stimulus program, pointing to the 'slam it in public, beg for it in private' hypocrisy of its Republican critics… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

I know you’ve seen that chart before at other blogs, but the Democratic Party sent it to me in email and asked me to spread it around, and it does fit this article perfectly.  As bad as things still are, that condition is a result of the disaster Bush and the GOP left Obama and the Democrats to clean up.  Long term readers who were here during the previous incarnation of Politics Plus will remember that, during the last year of the Bush/GOP regime, I often speculated that the GOP, knowing they would face major losses in 2008, intentionally allowed the economy to tank, even including the misuse of their half of TARP spending, to leave a mess behind that was so bad that they could blame Democrats for the effects of their own policies and use that blame in an attempt to regain power.  While In have no proof that was their intent, inductive logic indicates likelihood.  Look at that chart again.  Things are not as bad as they used to be.

Bear in mind that these reports of GOP duplicity regarding the stimulus are not coming from left wing sources.  Both papers are bastions of the right.

Two of my favorite people had a field day with this story.

First, here’s Rachel Maddow with DNC Chair, Tim Kaine.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Next, here’s Keith Olbermann with Eugene Robinson.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I hope you watched both.

Now the next time a rabid right winger tells you that the stimulus is _________ [insert GOP lie at hand], you are now armed with the truth.  Let them have it with both barrels.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Good Bayh and Good Riddance

Bayh’s decision not to run was a real shocker.  He did not even inform the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, until well after the story had broken.

Dino Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Monday that he was fed up with Congress and wouldn't seek re-election this year, the latest in a series of retirements spurred by frustration with dysfunction in Congress.

"To put it in words I think most people can understand, I love working for the people of Indiana. I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress," he said in Indianapolis.

The two-term Democratic senator, 54, offered reasons that are increasingly commonplace among those familiar with the nation's legislature: "There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," he said. "Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done."

Bayh was comfortably ahead in recent polls; his Republican challengers, former Sen. Dan Coats and former Rep. John Hostettler, trailed by double digits. He won his previous Senate races handily: with 62 percent in 2004 and 64 percent in 1998.

His decision is a fresh blow to his party, which since the start of the year has been shaken by the surprise retirement announcements of veteran Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the decision of Vice President Joe Biden's son Beau not to seek the Delaware seat his father held for 36 years and Republican Scott Brown's win of the Massachusetts seat that the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy had held for 47 years. Democrats now control 59 of the 100 Senate seats.

Bayh's decision is a surprise, in part because he's been in politics his entire life. He was 6 years old when his father, Birch Bayh, won the first of his three Senate terms from Indiana.

Evan Bayh has been an elected official since he became Indiana's secretary of state in 1986, at age 30. Twice elected governor of Indiana before he went to the U.S. Senate, he was on the short list of possible vice-presidential nominees in 2004 and 2008, and was viewed as a potential White House contender.

Bayh is one of a shrinking group of eight to 10 Democratic centrists who've traditionally worked closely with like-minded Republicans, usually on spending and tax matters… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

When I first heard this, I heard a GOP pundit say Bayh is quitting, because Obama’s partisanship failed to unite the country.  That, of course, was a lie.  The specific example I heard Bay give in his speech later was of eight Senators who had cosponsored a bill creating a bipartisan commission on reducing the deficit, but later voted to kill it with a filibuster.  Bayh did not say so, but it’s public record that all eight are Republicans.  Another favorite line of pundits from both sides is that he was afraid of defeat.  There is no evidence to support this.  He is being accused of screwing his own party by the last minute announcement.  That does not hold water either.

bayh On a conference call with county Democratic Party chairs this afternoon, Sen. Evan Bayh and Indiana Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker declared that not having a Democratic primary to find a replacement for the retiring Bayh would have its upsides, according to a source who was on the call.

Bayh opened the call by repeating the reasons for not seeking reelection he mentioned in his press conference today, the source said. But in a message tailored for his audience of local party officials, Bayh said the timing of his announcement could be a positive for Democrats. The source said that Bayh told the call that the lack of a primary would mean that the Republican party candidates would attack each other on their own, with no Democrats to get in the way. On the Democratic side of the process, according to the source, Bayh said officials would choose a strong nominee from their "deep bench."

"He said, 'if this goes to the state committee then we'll have selected a candidate without a divisive primary,'" the source told me this evening.

With less than a week until the deadline for potential candidates to gather the necessary signatures to get listed on the primary ballot, it's unlikely that there could be a Democratic primary to replace Bayh even if Democrats wanted one. But, according to the source, Bayh and Parker suggested on the call that not having a public vote on who Indiana's next Democratic nominee for Senate will be could be a positive come November… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

The late timing also effectively locks Mike Pence out of the race, as he has no time to gather the needed signatures.  Pence would have been a much stronger candidate, but he was afraid to run against Bayh.  I have plenty of problems with Bayh.  He’s a DINO, whose cozying up to Republicans has aided them in their obstructionist tactics.  But I don’t think it right to accuse him falsely.

In my opinion, Bayh quit because of his own political ambition.  I had heard that he was disappointed not to get the Vice presidential nod.  I think he looked at the polls, saw how unpopular Congress is, and rather that be included as a recipient of public anger, decided to play it to his own advantage.  I expect him to run for Governor in Indians, followed by a presidential bid as early as 2016.

In any event, Indiana is not lost, and just maybe we’ll get a Democrat with sufficient integrity not to join GOP filibusters.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Palin for President?

I’d love to see her get the nod from the GOP.

PalinRun Hyper-partisan, painfully ignorant, pathologically dishonest, chronically unethical, intellectually unconscious, and jaw-droppingly stupid. And those are her better qualities.

Sarah Palin is so soulless that she traded away her credibility on the one issue on which she had any authority: her personal story about raising a child with special needs. That was it, the full sum of her sliver of sincerity. And she gave it up to offer political cover to an equally soulless ally.

In other words, she is the perfect embodiment of what her party has become. Unlike past nominees and potential candidates for 2012, Sarah Palin is a pure Republican, unable or unwilling to take any position on any issue that would put her at odds with her party. And that's why Sarah Palin should run for president.

And she thinks so too:

"I would, I would if I believe that is the right thing to do for our country and the Palin family. Certainly I would do so," she told "Fox News Sunday," in an interview that was taped before she addressed a Tea Party convention the night before. "I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I could potentially do to help our country ... . I won't close a door that perhaps could be open for me in the future."

Absurdity, Sarah? That doesn't begin to cover it. And that is why she is the ideal Republican candidate.

Thinks ACORN put Obama in the White House? Check.

Obama is a socialist? Check.

Obama wasn’t born in the United States? Check.

Obama loves terrorists? Check.

Abortion bad, death penalty good? Check.

Hates gay marriage? Check.

Creationism? Of course.

Jesus = Good? You betcha.

Against sex education? Obviously. Checkmate.

Plus secession points from the extra-nutty 40 percenters. And Governor Perry.

Sarah Palin dared to criticize Hillary Clinton for "whining" about sexism in the media, yet she hides behind that very criticism whenever the media dares to point out her lies, her contradictions, or her outright ignorance. Last month, she called out [Mooseolini delinked] women's rights groups for their "double standard."

...please concentrate on empowering women, help with efforts to prevent unexpected pregnancies, stay consistent with your message that for too long women have been made to feel like sex objects in our “modern” culture and that we can expect better in 2010.

Yet her policies and positions -- from opposing sex education to requiring rape victims to pay for their own rape kits -- do nothing to empower women, prevent unexpected pregnancies, or help to change the image of women as sex objects. After all, this is the woman who thought she could win a vice presidential debate with a short skirt and a whole lot of winking.

Sarah Palin cannot remember the six words that form her entire ideology. David Frum makes the ridiculous claim that Sarah using her hand as a cheat sheet was actually a brilliant chess move. Does anyone (other than Frum) really believe that Sarah Palin is capable of 11th-dimensional chess? She couldn't even get her crib notes right.

Sarah Palin slammed "bored...pathetic bloggers who lie," yet uses her Facebook and Twitter accounts to spread ludicrous lies about the president's policies. Who's the bored, pathetic one, Sarah?

After the President's State of the Union speech, she took to her Facebook page to criticize him:

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

Sarah Palin ran from her opportunity to demonstrate "real leadership" because "only dead fish go with the flow."

palin Sarah Palin knows nothing and is proud of it. And so is her party. And the Republicans are the party of Sarah Palin, even if some them are embarrassed to admit it. They should be embarrassed. This is what their cynical embrace of ignorance has wrought. It has wrought Sarah Palin.

We know, from Markos's poll, that the majority of the Republican party is crazy and stupid. Despite the whining [Faux Noise delinked] from the very merchants of stupid who have been so successful at pushing these memes, the poll reveals the depth to which this party of Lincoln (as they are so fond of saying) has sunk, willfully embracing hate and ignorance and things that are just factually wrong.

And that is why Sarah Palin should run for president and lead the Republican party's pursuit of pure teabagggery.

If this is the war the party of stupid wants, let them have it. Let us see what their rightwing insanity has sown. Let us watch Sarah debate President Obama, crib notes and all. Because even though the entire Republican Congress was outmatched in a battle of wits only a few weeks ago, Sarah, being Sarah, will strut into any debate thinking she has the upper hand. And America needs to watch that, the arrogance of someone so hopelessly out of her league that she doesn’t even realize she’s out of her league, daring to take on President Obama, daring to claim that she could do his job better as she spouts meaningless platitudes about budget tax cuts and energy and lifting American spirit. It doesn’t matter that she knows nothing. It doesn’t matter that she’s an embarrassment to herself every time she speaks. We need to have our options so obviously spelled out for us that there can be no mistake...

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Mooseolini would be the ideal candidate from our perspective.  We’d be far worse off it the GOP could manage to nominate a Machiavellian goose-stepper capable of pretending that he or she is a moderate, like GW Bush did.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Why Congress Doesn’t Stand Up to Wall Street

Robert Reich’s column on this is quite good.

corruption Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, scolded Wall Street representatives at a hearing Thursday for sending “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms” needed by the public. “The fact is,” Dodd said, “I am frustrated, and so are the American people.” He charged that Wall Street’s intransigence was the reason for Congress’s failure to pass any bill to regulate the Street. “The refusal of large financial firms to work constructively with Congress on this effort borders on insulting to the American people who have lost so much in this crisis.”

In other words, it isn’t Congress’s fault. It isn’t the Senate Banking Committee’s fault. It certainly isn’t Dodd’s fault. The reason more than a year has passed since the biggest bailout in the history of the world and nothing has been done to prevent a repeat performance — even as the biggest banks are doling out more than $30 billion of bonuses, even as Goldman Sachs is awarding its big traders $16 billion in bonuses (more than the $13 billion Goldman collected from taxpayers via the bailout of AIG), even as AIG itself is handing out bonuses — the reason is … what, exactly, Senator? Because the Street has sent an army of lobbyists to Capitol Hill?

Call me old fashioned, but I thought Congress was in charge of passing legislation, not Wall Street.

Dodd left out the most telling detail, of course. Wall Street is where the campaign money is. Dodd of all people knows that. He’s been on the receiving end of lots of it over the years.

Wall Street firms and their executives have been uniquely generous to both political parties, emerging recently as one of the largest benefactors of the Democratic Party. Between November 2008 and November 2009, Wall Street firms and executives handed out $42 million to lawmakers, mostly to members of the House and Senate banking committees and House and Senate leaders. During the 2008 elections, Wall Street showered Democratic candidates with well over $88 million and Republicans with over $67 million, putting the Street right up there with the insurance industry as among the nation’s largest equal-opportunity donors.

Some Democrats are quietly grumbling that all the tough talk emanating from the White House in recent weeks — the President calling the Street’s denizens “fat cats” and threatening them with limits on their size and the risks they can take, even waiving a watered-down version of Glass-Steagall in their faces — is making it harder to collect money from the Street this mid-term election year. And the Street is quietly threatening that it may well give Republicans more, if the saber-rattling doesn’t stop.

Congress isn’t doing a thing about Wall Street because it’s in the pocket of Wall Street. Dodd’s outburst at the Street is like the alcoholic who screams at a bartender “how dare you give me another drink when all I’ve done is pleaded with you for one!”…

Inserted from <Alternet>

He’s right.  We have the best Congress money can buy… and has.  The only way to return government to the people is 100% public financing, at least at the federal level.  Until and unless we accomplish that goal, Congress will represent those who bought them, not those whop voted them in.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Rep. Donna Edwards Proposes Constitutional Ammendment

On the issue of corporate advertising, Donna Edwards says no.
Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards turned to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis for guidance in framing the Constitutional amendment she proposed Tuesday as the right and necessary response to the decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and a high court majority to abandon law and precedent with the purpose of permitting corporations to dominate the political discourse.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both," said Brandeis, the lion of law whose defenses of freedom of speech and the right to privacy renewed and extended the American experiment in the 20th century.
Brandeis knew that giving corporations monopoly power over our economic life or our politics would be deadly to democracy.
Unfortunately, that truth is lost on the current Supreme Court's activist majority.
Edwards is relying on Brandeis as an intellectual and legal touchstone as she launches the boldest congressional response yet to last month's Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC.
"The ruling reached by the Roberts' Court overturned decades of legal precedent by allowing corporations unfettered spending in our political campaigns. Another law will not rectify this disastrous decision," Edwards said Tuesday. "A Constitutional Amendment is necessary to undo what this Court has done. Justice Brandeis got it right: ‘We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.' It is time we remove corporate influence from our policies and our politics. We cannot allow corporations to dominate our elections, to do so would be both undemocratic and unfair to ordinary citizens."
Edwards explains the amendment in a powerful video where says: "You don't amend the Constitution often, but the Supreme Court really has left us with no choice but to change the Constitution and make sure that people own our government and our elections -- not the corporations."
Edwards does not stand alone. In addition to an array of public interest groups including Public Citizen, Voter Action, The Center for Corporate Policy and the American Independent Business Alliance, the congresswoman's proposed amendment is being backed by House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who is the dean of civil libertarians in Congress.
Conyers has signed on as an original co-sponsor of the amendment to address the court's move to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.
"The Supreme Court's idea that corporate political speech is no different than an individual citizen's political speech was not the law when the Constitution was written, was not the law before the Supreme Court's decision two weeks ago, and should not be the law in the future," says Conyers. "I look forward to working further with Ms. Edwards and my other colleagues to use every tool at our disposal to make sure that elected representatives are accountable to voters, not corporations."…
Inserted from <The Nation>
Here’s the video:
 
Click through to the article for the full text of the amendment.
For the long term, I agree with Edwards, but think she should go ever further to address that earlier wrongful decisions that a corporation is a person and that political expenditure equals speech.
For the short term, we need a law to serve as a poison pill to corporate spending.  Congress maintains the power to tax corporate activity.  I propose a 500% tax on all corporate spending for advertising, with the receipts split evenly between reducing the national debt and the funding the campaign committee of the opposing party.  Here’s a hypothetical example.  Let’s say Goldman Sachs spends $1 million in eleventh hour smear ads against Donna Edwards.  The Extreme Court decision makes it impossible to block the ads, Edwards is defeated.  Then Goldman Sachs has to pay a $5 million tax assessment.  Of that, $2.5 million goes to reduce the national debt, and $2.5 million goes to the DNC.  Thus, every time corporations try to buy an election, they provide 2.5 times what they spend on that to fund the campaigns of opponents and, at the same time, help pay down the national debt they created with the help of the GOP.  What do you think of both ideas, hers and mine?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The First Corporate Candidate

It happened sooner than I expected.

roberts_evil No matter how much Alito may bobble his head in disagreement with the President over the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, this is the next logical step in affirming corporate personhood.

Corporation Murray Hill, Inc. has decided to run for the Maryland's 8th congressional district seat, one currently held by DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen. Murray Hill, Inc., will be running as a Republican(s?). From their corporate website:

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video on www.youtube.com/user/murrayhillcongress

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.”

Murray Hill Inc. agrees. “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?”

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

Damn straight. I think this is an excellent way to illustrate just how short-sighted and dangerous the SCOTUS decision was…

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

Here’s the video:

 

What say you?

Friday, January 29, 2010

10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics

Here are some practical ideas to mitigate the effects of the extremist, ideologue fascist five SCOTUS Justices’ assault on freedom.

FatCat2 The recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in politics just may be the straw that breaks the plutocracy’s back.

Pro-democracy groups, business leaders, and elected representatives are proposing mechanisms to prevent or counter the millions of dollars that corporations can now draw from their treasuries to push for government action favorable to their bottom line. The outrage ignited by the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission extends to President Obama, who has promised that repairing the damage will be a priority for his administration.

But what can be done to limit or reverse the effect of the Court’s decision? Here are 10 ideas:

  1. Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that corporations are not persons
  2. Require shareholders to approve political spending by their corporations…
  3. Give qualified candidates equal amounts of free broadcast air time for political messages…
  4. Ban political advertising by corporations that receive government money…
  5. Impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions…
  6. Prohibit companies from trading their stock on national exchanges if they make political contributions and expenditures…
  7. Require publicly traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products…
  8. Require the corporate CEO to appear as sponsor of commercials that his or her company pays for…
  9. Publicize the reform options, inform the public of who is making contributions to whom, and activate the citizenry…

The measures listed above—and others that seek to reverse the dominance of money in our political system—will not be easy. But grassroots anger at this latest win for corporate power is running high… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Alternet>

What I’ve done here is to include only the headers and minimal explanation from each of the ten items.  I strongly recommend that you chick through to the original for the meat of this.  I don’t agree with all ten.  I think that the first would take too long, if possible at all.  I like the sixth the best, except that it should be contributions and advertising.  Cousin FatCat disagrees with me.

Good night! (see today;s open thread).

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Oregon Voters Raise Taxes on Corporations and the Rich

Five days ago I encouraged support for Oregon Measures 66 and 67.  I’m happy to announce that both passed.

Yes_for_Oregon Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.

The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits.

The results triggered waves of relief from educators and legislative leaders, who were facing an estimated $727 million shortfall in the current two-year budget if the measures failed.

"We're absolutely ecstatic," said Hanna Vandering, a physical education teacher from Beaverton and vice president of the statewide teachers union. "What Oregonians said today is they believe in public education and vital services."

The double-barreled victory is the first voter-approved statewide income tax increase since the 1930s. Other states, facing similar budget woes, are watching the outcome closely because Oregon, after all, is a state that capped property taxes and locked a surplus tax rebate program into the constitution… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

The people of Oregon, although progressive in many ways, have a long standing antipathy to taxes.  Nevertheless, we recognized that it’s time for the rich, including corporations, to pay more.  We saw through an onslaught of rabid-right advertising laden with lies.  We have set the example for America.  Follow our lead!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Haliburton/KBR Slime Jamie

This is a story I keep coming back to revisit, because it keeps getting worse.  The last time I talked about Jamie was here.

jamieleighjones In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. The attack occurred while she was out with a “small group of Halliburton firefighters,” just four days after her arrival in Iraq. After taking a few sips of her drink, she later woke up in the barracks, “naked” and “severely beaten.” Her “breasts were so badly mauled that she is permanently disfigured.”

In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter.

Jones tried to sue the company for failing to protect her, but KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract — created for the company under the tenure of then-CEO Dick Cheney — warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration, without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. Basically, KBR argued that Jones’ brutal rape was a workplace injury — nothing more. But in September, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jones. “Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract,” wrote the court.

war criminal2 KBR is now petitioning the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. The contractor is personally going after Jones’ integrity to argue that she shouldn’t have a fair and open hearing. Stephanie Mencimer from Mother Jones reports:

On Jan. 19, it petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing Jones to press her case in a civil court rather than in arbitration. Among its many arguments in favor of a high court hearing: that Jones is a relentless self-promoter who has “sensationalize[d] her allegations against the KBR Defendants in the media, before the courts, and before Congress.” … KBR also suggests that much of Jones’ story is fabricated. The company says in a footnote, “Many, if not all, of her allegations against the KBR Defenandants are demonstrably false. The KBR Defendants intend to vigorously contest Jones’s allegations and show that her claims against the KBR Defendants are factually and legally untenable.”

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 signed into law by President Obama in December contained an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) — inspired by Jones’ story — that prohibits defense contractors from restricting their employees’ abilities to take workplace discrimination, battery, and sexual assault cases to court… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

I’m not going to vent my anger over this case at you today.  You’ve seen it several times before.  But I want you to consider something.  Given Al Franken’s heroic role in this affair, how good a chance do you think he will have in 2014 when ChickenHawk Cheney’s corporate criminal cronies are allowed to take vengeance against him by pouring $millions into ads against him?

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

It’s Time to Dump Reid!!

The Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Read has been too busy spinelessly humping GOP and Blue Dog legs to be an effective Majority Leader in the Senate:

Reid-LegHound Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 9/18-20. Likely voters. MoE 4% (8/31-9/2 results)

Harry Reid (D) 41 (40)

Danny Tarkanian (R) 52 (45)

Reid (D) 42 (41)

Sue Lowden (R) 51 (44)

Yeah, incumbents usually don't come back from numbers like that in the best of times. In this political environment? Brutal. Reid's favorability rating of 34 percent, compared to 55 percent unfavorable, doesn't give him much room for improvement. Among independents, that number is 26-61. Definitely brutal.

This isn't the first poll showing Reid in trouble, there are plenty of those floating around. So we decided to look for a Democrat that could hold the seat for us.

Oscar Goodman (D) 44

Tarkanian (R) 41

 

Goodman (D) 44

Tarkanian (R) 40

 

Shelley Berkley (D) 40

Tarkanian (R) 46

 

Berkley (D) 40

Lowden (R) 45

 

Ross Miller (D) 36

Tarkanian (R) 44

 

Miller (D) 37

Lowden (R) 43

Miller is the Nevada Secretary of State. With name ID of only 38 percent, he's unknown, but has potential upside. Berkley is a congresswoman, and tainted with DC. That association is toxic.

Then there's Oscar Goodman, the mayor of Las Vegas who recently left the Democratic Party to run for governor as an independent. The flamboyant politician certainly carries none of the stench of DC's failed political culture on him, making him the most electable Democrat in the state. And he's not even a Democrat anymore...

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Since it seems clear that this jellyfish cannot even hold onto his own Senate seat, Nevada Democrats need to run a candidate with a better chance at winning the seat, and leave the Majority Leadership to be filled by a Democrat with sufficient spine to stand up to the GOP.

GOP Defrauds America!

Michael Steele, Obersturmfuhrer of the RNC, set a new record for disingenuous sleaze by disguising a GOP propaganda and fund raising mailing as the US Census.  Rachel Maddow has the story:

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Are you as disgusted as I am?

Friday, January 22, 2010

100 Senators Named LIEberman

Traitor Joe LIEberman, the senator from Aetna, may become the template for all future politicians.  Meet Majority Leader LIEberman and Minority Leader LIEberman.  Say hello to the chair of all committees, LIEberman.  What a disgusting thought!

aetna-lieberman-palin The Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back campaign finance restrictions that were meant to limit corporate and union influence on elections. The decision potentially unleashes a flood of corporate cash during elections, threatens state limits in Wisconsin and elsewhere and strikes down part of the McCain-Feingold law that bans certain issue ads in the days before an election.

Writing for the majority in the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that Congress cannot choose an "unconstitutional remedy" to curtail "improper influences from independent expenditures."

"It is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule," he wrote. "An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical pre-election period is not a permissible remedy."

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissent for the minority.

"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation," he wrote.

The court's ruling on Citizens United v. FEC has been highly anticipated by political operatives, unions, corporations and advocates on both sides of the debate over campaign finance reform.

Supporters of campaign finance limits criticized the ruling, predicting that the decision would diminish the average citizen's influence in elections.

"This is the Supreme Court run amok," said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, who vowed to begin working with colleagues to pass legislation restoring restraints on "corporate control of our elections."

GOPSCOTUS "Corporations and unions now will be able to buy up all the television time and block average citizens and potentially even candidates to get the message out," he said. "It could have a very, very negative impact on the system."

But Feingold noted that the decision does not affect his measure's soft money ban, which prevents companies from making political donations to political parties.

Critics of stricter limits welcomed the decision, arguing that limits amounted to unconstitutional restraints on free speech. The ruling boosted the idea that the government can't regulate speech based on who is making the statements, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former Federal Elections Commission member.

"I think this is a terrific decision because it restores parts of the First Amendment that were stolen by a very bad law that set up the FEC as a censor," he said.

Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and former FEC chairman, said the decision would lead to more ads.

"Speech is important and this will be good in allowing union and corporations to speak," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy in the majority opinion. Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, joined Stevens as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in the dissent… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <JSOnline>

Needless to say, Republicans goose-stepped for glee:

...

workharderSen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “It is about a nonprofit group’s ability to speak about the public issue. I can’t think of a more fundamental First Amendment issue. … [The ruling could] open up resources that have not previously been available [for Republicans].”...

Rep. Steve King (R-IA): “The Constitution protects the rights of citizens and employers to express their viewpoints on political issues. Today’s Supreme Court decision affirms the Bill of Rights and is a victory for liberty and free speech.”...

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): “If the freedom of speech means anything, it means protecting the right of private citizens to voice opposition or support for their elected representatives. The fact that the Court overturned a 20-year precedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.”...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The court took a step toward “restoring the First Amendment rights [of corporations and unions]. … By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers.”...

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, serves as an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment. Free speech strengthens our democracy.”...

Senate Candidate Marco Rubio: “Today’s SCOTUS decision on McCain-Feingold is a victory for free speech.”...

Inserted from <Alternet>

I cannot help being shocked by the irony that this should come down on the day that Obama demonstrated that he actually has a pair.  Rachel Maddow discusses bankster regulation with my choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Did you notice how Warren said that bib banks captured the regulatory agencies?  What better examples could there be than Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke?

When it comes to taking an issue and stripping it bare, nobody does so like Keith Olbermann.  Here is his special comment:

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

See?  You’ll get used to all those Senators named LIEberman, because if you’re dog catcher is elected, his name will be LIEberman too.

Now you’re probably asking me what can be done.  I’m not sure yet.  This is going to take a lot more research.  Corporations are not people.  SCOTUS erred in giving them personhood over 100 hears ago.  When John Roberts was concerned, he spoke of Judicial Restraint.  The pig lied.  This is the exact opposite.  It is extreme judicial activism.  The obvious solution is to change the makeup of the Supreme Court.  That’s tough, because the new reactionary GOP correctly decided that they could goose-step with far greater ease by appointing young Justices.  Roberts (Bush2) is 57.  Scalia (Reagan) is 73.  Kennedy (Reagan) is 73.  Thomas (Bush1) is 61.  Alito (Bush2) is 56.  On our side, they are older.  Stevens (Ford) is 89.  Ginsburg (Clinton) is 76.  Breyer (Clinton) is 56.  Sotomayor (Obama) is 55.  The first two justices likely to retire are Stevens and Ginsburg.  If the GOP replaces either, the country is forever lost.  To tip the court back, a Democrat who is not a complete corporate toady will have to replace the next three justices.  Congress could increase the number of Justices from nine to eleven, but that is not likely to survive a filibuster from the GOP and LIEberman.  So we will have to overcome all that corporate money from the grass roots up.

I did find one thing to offer you, though.  I found a website dedicated to curtailing corporate power.  They have a ton of useful information.  I’ll be going back to to peruse them in more detail and I recommend that you do too.  They are: ReclaimDemocracy.org

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Research 2000 Poll Confirms My Analysis

Yesterday I posted a major editorial in which I analyzed the causes of Coakley’s defeat in the Massachusetts special election for the Senate.  Since then, I have heard pundit after pundit stating the need for more bipartisanship, the exact opposite of my conclusions.  However, a new poll of Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama in 2008, but either voted for Brown or stayed home Wednesday backs my contentions.

opinion-poll Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election.

A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.

It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday's vote was cast in protest.

The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.

Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.

The firm Research 2000 conducted the post-election survey Tuesday night on behalf of three progressive organizations -- the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org.

Taken from interviews of 500 Obama backers who voted in the Senate election and 500 Obama backers who sat out the election, the firm discovered that 18 percent of Obama backers who voted in the Senate race ended up casting ballots for Brown.

Of that group, 82 percent said they favored a public option for insurance coverage, with 14 percent opposed. Of those who sat out the election, 86 percent favored the public option, while only seven percent opposed it. The findings suggests that progressive arguments that disappointed Obama supporters deserted have serious merit... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Just a moment ago, I heard Bitch McConnell say that the results of the election clearly show that the American people don’t the government taking over health care.  Either he is lying, or he is a fool.  Probably both.  These results clearly show that the voters who gave Obama a landslide victory in that state oppose the health care bill because they favor a public option.

The voters sent a clear message.  They are not happy with business as usual.  They want change we can believe in.  If Obama and the Democrats don’t get out of bed with the Banksters and the Corporate Criminals of Health Care, there will be hell to pay.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Editorial: What Happened and Now What?

Tom122007 Other than the Open Thread, already posted, this will be today’s only article here.  I’m sure you all know that the unthinkable has happened.  Scott Brown has defeated Martha Coakley for the Senate seat previously held by Teddy Kennedy and JFK before him.  The spread was five points, so it wasn’t even close.  I knew it was over when I heard the recriminations coming out of MA, even before the polls closed.

First, lets take a look at what happened.

The problem began during the primary, when the Massachusetts party and corporate Dems threw their weight behind Martha Coakley, when the more progressive Michael Capuano could have better represented the party’s progressive agenda.  Capuano had the support of Michael Dukakis and Nancy Pelosi.  As a candidate, Coakley was a disaster.  She actually went on vacation from 12/19 through 1/5.  That’s half the final month’s campaign time!  She displayed all the charisma of a wet dishrag.  Brown, like other accomplished con men, drips charisma.  She did not take take Brown seriously.  She allowed him to define himself and did not expose his record that proves that, when he says “the people’s seat”, the “people” are all rich, white, sexist, homophobic bigots.  She did not make herself available to voters and, when asked to define her views, she answered in political doublespeak.

MASS-Shame We could not have put up a worse candidate, and the national party took the seat for granted as she did.  However, this election goes way beyond Coakley.  She was running against Scott Brown, for goodness sake!  If the Democrats put up a mentally retarded, flatulent chimpanzee, with halitosis and BO, who masturbates in public and throws feces at the crowd, any fool in their right mind would vote for that monkey over Scott Brown!  Why didn’t they?

The demographics of the election were clear.  There was a strong voter turnout among Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  The Democrats were heavily in favor of Coakley, and the Republicans goose-stepped behind Brown.  There’s nothing unexpected there.  With three times as many Democrats as Republicans, that was good for Coakley.  But the race turned on the independents, who comprise 51% of the electorate.  They voted heavily for Brown.  Why would they do that when these same people delivered Obama a huge spread just over a year ago?  They are angry, and that anger goes beyond the inept Martha Coakley.

When Barack Obama campaigned for President, he promised “bipartisanship” and “change we can believe in”.  Readers of the previous incarnation of this blog will remember that I repeatedly said that the two are mutually exclusive.  One cannot effect change while attempting bipartisanship with an entity that refuses to compromise on anything.  Obama had a choice.  He could choose bipartisanship or change, but he tried to have both.  The result was “business as usual”, not “change we can believe in”.  Now I’m not saying that Obama accomplished nothing.  He accomplished quite a lot.  But his attempts at bipartisanship foiled the major items on his agenda.

On health care, Obama promised a national plan that covered everyone and provided the choice of a public option, paid for by raising the income taxes on people making over $250,000 per year.  Instead of designing what he wanted and pushing it through Congress, he left it to Congress to craft, eventually turning it over first to Max Baucus.  Instead of Obama’s plan, Baucus delivered BARF (Baucus Against a Real Fix), which is now the basis of the Senate Bill.  From there the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, humped every GOP and DINO leg in the Senate, weakening the bill even further and loading it with special deals to buy votes.  The resulting bill is a monstrosity that voters cannot understand.  Therefore they were easily confused by the lies from big health care and the GOP, and over 50% now oppose it in its present form.  In Massachusetts, this was exacerbated by voter fear that they would have to pay more for others’ health care when they already have their own universal plan.

repo2 On the economy, Obama promised to side with Main Street against Wall Street.  Instead he associated himself with Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke, the same corporatist conservatives who enabled the Wall Street banksters’ greed that caused this financial crisis.  He allowed Republicans and DINOs to reduce the amount of and water down the stimulus package.  He did these things in the spirit of bipartisanship, and bipartisanship defeated change.  Now the banksters are reaping huge bonuses from profits earned speculating with our money while refusing to lend that money to Main Street.  When voters see this, they feel justifiably angry that this is not the change they voted for in 2008.  It’s the business as usual they rejected.  In Massachusetts, the economy was the key issue.  Brown presented himself as the “change” candidate.  The voters, desperate for change and seeing business as usual, fell for the lie.

On foreign policy, Obama did promise to expand the war in Afghanistan, and at the time, the majority of Americans supported it.  In the spirit of bipartisanship, Obama has kept Gates at Defense and left the Bush/GOP ideologue generals, Petraeus and McChrystal in charge.  Since then, the corruption of the Bush/GOP puppet, Karzai has made that expansion untenable, and the majority of Americans have turned against the war.

On transparency, Obama promised it, but he has shielded the Bush administration from investigation and prosecution by continuing to cover-up their crimes in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Progressives, feeling abandoned, were not energized to work to convince Independents to vote for Coakley.  This may have been the principal difference in the race.

Now it may appear that I am blaming Coakley’s defeat on Obama.  I am not.  In my opinion, Obama has depended too heavily on the wrong advisors.  They have led him astray.  Obama needs to become the strong leader he promised to be.

Second, let’s look at where we go from here.

First, we need to start to enforce party unity.  We no longer need traitor Joe Lieberman to be the 60th vote.  Since he is the principal reason the health care bill became such a mess, the time to strip him of his Homeland Security Chair is now.  In addition, Senate Democrats need to be informed that siding with Republicans against Obama’s key priorities will cause them to be stripped of their leadership roles and cut off from party funding when they face reelection.

Second, we need to pass health care reform.  There are a couple ways we can go.  One is to pass BARF as is in the House, coupled with a deal to fix it using the Reconciliation process, including the addition of a strong public option.  The alternative is to start over using Reconciliation.  That has the disadvantage that certain reform elements, such as the ban on denial of coverage for preexisting coverage and rescission for illness, cannot be included.  They would have to be proposed separately, subject to GOP filibuster.

Third, we need to fire the corporatists in Treasury, regulate Wall Street seriously, impose a steep windfall profits tax on banksters, and increase the income tax on the very rich.  We can use the money to reduce the deficit and fund jobs programs.

Fourth, we need to start withdrawing our military from Afghanistan.

Fifth, we need to deliver on the transparency Obama promised.

Sixth, and perhaps most important of all, we need to abandon bipartisanship completely.

I’m sure there is much more that I have not covered, but to summarize briefly, unless the Democrats actually become the party of change promised in 2008, we will face severe losses in 2010, and in 2012 we will return to No Millionaire Left Behind, with a generous dose of Theocracy, as we goose step into the future at gunpoint.