No Blogging for a While...

Everyone needs to take a break now and then, so I'm going to be off blogger for a few weeks, as I will be on and off the road...Headed to Montana Gov.-elect Brian Schweitzer's inauguration, getting married, going on a honeymoon, starting the book for Random House...see you mid-January!!!

When They Can't Win, They Try to Cheat...

From the we'll-try-anything-to-rig-the-election-outcome file, check out what's going on in Montana and Washington State...

In Big Sky country, the Republicans ended up losing a state Supreme Court case, and losing the one outstanding state House race, tying the House at 50-50. That should allow the newly-elected Democratic Governor to select the Speaker of the House, and turn over the House to Democrats...but as this fine posting shows, now the Republicans are apparently trying to steal even that outcome.

In Washington, losing Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, who lost a recount and then lost a second recount, asked Gov.-elect Christine Gregoire (D) to request the state vote all over again. But as Gregoire's spokesman said, "This ain't golf. No mulligans allowed here, folks. It's irresponsible to spend $4 million in taxpayer money on a new election just because you don't like losing this one."

Bush's Holiday Insult

President Bush issued a Christmas-day radio address in which he said he believed America needs to "help heal the sick, comfort those who suffer, and bring hope to those who despair, one heart and one soul at a time."

What he didn't say was that, in recent weeks, he has slashed funding for grants to low-income college students, reduced resources to charities that help feed the hungry, began preparing plans to gut health care programs for the poor, and prepared to re-launch an effort to cut funding for low-income housing.

GOP Getting Nervous

See this new AP story about how Republicans are getting increasingly nervous about Bush's Social Security privatization scheme.

Dems & GOPers to Watch on SS Privatization

In pushing the Democrats to be unified against the President's Social Security privatization scheme, make sure to see the 20 Democrats who voted against this bill in 2001. This was a vote on the Filner Amendment, which I helped write while working on the Appropriations Committee. As Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) noted in intoducing the amendment, his legislation would "prevent any funding being used for the purpose of implementing a Social Security privatization plan amendment." In other words, it would block any Social Security privatization plan.

These 20 Democrats who voted against the amendment are some of the key ones to worry about capitulating to the GOP. Among them is Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL), who already announced he would be the "chief sponsor" of Social Security privatization legislation.

For more, see Rep. Filner's special site on his amendment.

On the GOP side, there are new cracks in the pro-privatization ranks. Bloomberg reports "deficit concerns have sparked some resistance" to the Bush privatization scheme from people like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Charles Grassley (R-IA). The Providence Journal reports Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) indicated he felt "President Bush's plans to revamp and privatize Social Security are ill-timed and will be difficult to support in light of the country's burgeoning deficit and costly war in Iraq."

Correcting the DLC

The Democratic Leadership Council's Ed Kilgore has a new piece in the American Prospect responding to my article called "The Democrats' Da Vinci Code." Kilgore, who used to work for Democratic-turncoat Zell Miller (albeit before he officially left the party), tries to take apart my article. But after you read his piece, you realize how appropriate his last name is – the DLC's attacks on economic populism clearly helped Kill Gore – and other Democrats. Here is my take on his piece:

CLAIM: "[Sirota's] article, of course, also featured several gratuitous shots at the 'corporate-backed' DLC and at the "big-business agenda" of Bill Clinton -- the only Democratic presidential candidate to have carried more than one western or southern state since 1980."

FACT: My article does discuss Clinton - and goes out of its way to praise him for the kind of campaign he ran in 1992: "Clinton’s 1992 campaign was not the free-trade, Republican-lite corporate shilling that many propose as a Democratic panacea. It was, by contrast, populist on all fronts." Sure, I point out that Clinton then, in various ways, unfortunately abandoned that populism as president. But I believe Clinton's 1992 campaign was exemplary: if you run as an economic populist, you can win in red states and red regions.

CLAIM: "Sirota argues that red-state success for Democrats is actually pretty simple, if they will simply abandon any policy positions or messages that interfere with 100-percent economic populism...[That assumes] an economic message can serve as an electoral 'silver bullet'...[But] there's this little matter of national security..."

FACT: The second sentence of my article makes clear the article is dealing with economic issues specifically, not ALL the issues (how much can one article really tackle?): "Yet encrypted within the 2004 election map is a clear national economic platform to build a lasting majority." If Kilgore is criticizing me for not addressing national security (which is clearly a key issue and worthy of a whole other discussion) in an article about economic policy, why did the DLC just hold a forum praising Peter Beinart's national security article, even though Beinart's piece didn't touch economic issues?

CLAIM: "[The DLC has] relentlessly opposed...providing special access for lobbyists who supply campaign contributions."

FACT: The DLC has made its way in Washington, D.C. raising huge amounts of money from business beheamoths like Enron, Philip Morris, Merck and others. As one pundit noted in 2001, a dinner honoring DLC leader Sen. Joe Lieberman and sponsored by DLC-affiliated groups "raised $1.2 million dollars from the likes of Aetna, American Airlines, AT&T, Citicorp and GE." Now, the DLC and the politicians who lead it might claim that they are not giving "special access" to these corporate interests when they are raising money from them, but who really believes that?

CLAIM: "John Spratt of South Carolina is much better known in his district for his tough-minded defense views than for any votes he's cast against trade agreements."

FACT: Kilgore is dishonest on this one – and provides no evidence. First, I never once discussed John Spratt's trade position. Instead, I discussed his work on the deficit, which, as ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, he has made a national name for himself on. Second, he provides no evidence that Spratt is "much better known in his district" for issues other than his high-profile stance on budget/deficit issues.

CLAIM: "Democrats should agree that it's a good idea to frame economic policy positions in values terms, it's no substitute for coming to grips with cultural 'values issues' themselves...Sirota's account of the Schweitzer campaign, interestingly enough, doesn't mention the candidate's embrace of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, or his vocal opposition to any form of gun control."

FACT: As I made clear in my article, the example candidates I used varied on their stands on these cultural/social issues: "The progressive populists profiled do not uniformly hew to the standard liberal line on social issues: some are pro-life, some pro-choice; some pro–gun ownership, some pro–gun control; some pro–gay marriage, some anti–gay marriage; some vociferous about religion, some subdued." But, as I stated, the candidates "have shown that there is another path that moves past wedge issues if the party is willing to fundamentally challenge the excesses of corporate America and big money."

CLAIM: "We're all opposed to unfair trade deals"

FACT: Last I checked, the DLC strongly pushed NAFTA and China PNTR (and is now pushing the FTAA deal). These corporate trade deals have forced American workers to compete with workers that have little-to-no labor or human rights, in countries that have little-to-no environmental standards. That seems a tad "unfair" to American workers, as it provides incentives for Corporate America to troll the globe in search of the most despotic regimes to exploit the most desperate people.

CLAIM: "[Sirota's article says] Democrats cannot win in red states without decisively opposing any sort of trade expansion, a subject he returns to repeatedly. Indeed, his animus toward the DLC, reflecting a less clearly stated but unmistakable animus toward Clinton, appears based on the assumption that the only possible rationale for being pro-trade is slavish devotion to corporate interests."

FACT: I never said (nor do I believe) Democrats must oppose "any sort of trade expansion" – I said they should specifically oppose the kind of corporate trade policy the DLC has pushed for years – a trade policy which includes all the strict patent/copyright protections for large corporate-funders of the DLC, and little (if any) provisions making sure American workers don't have to compete with workers that have no labor, human rights or environmental standards.

Dem Supports Privatization; Others Following?

Per my last post, I wanted to point out that on December 8th, the first House Democrat came out in support of Social Security privatization. See Josh Marshall's post for more.

And today, the LA Times reports "there are now a handful of moderate Democrats, mostly from states Bush won in 2004, who are trying to keep an open mind about private accounts."

Not good.

Cause for Concern

There has been speculation around the blogosphere that some Democrats might actually try to help the Bush White House pass its Social Security privatization scheme. While I initially dismissed this concern as out of hand, my subsequent research into the situation now has me worried.

Check out this LA Times article from 2000 - it is important on a broad level, and also specifically on Social Security:

"DLC leaders such as Breaux and Will Marshall, the Progressive Policy Institute's president, say it's a mistake to transfer trillions of general revenue dollars into Social Security after 2011, as Clinton and Gore are proposing, without first restructuring the program. That's Bush's position too. He and the DLC both want to partially privatize Social Security by diverting part of the payroll tax into individual accounts that workers could invest in the stock market for their own retirement."

Also, see this piece by Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation from 1999. He specifically notes the DLC's work with Wall Street firms on privatization schemes.

I'm not quite sure where the DLC and other "centrist" organizations are right now on Social Security privatization - and if they've renounced privatization, that's a good thing. But if they are still pushing this position, it is a problem. First and foremost, this line of reasoning undercuts the argument that Social Security does not need to be radically changed and privatized because there is a huge crisis. The fact is, there isn't a major crisis, and the system can be fixed with a more rational plan - and Democrats need to make that clear to the public.

Secondly, if Democrat-affiliated groups help justify private accounts - even if their proposals are more responsible than Bush's - they will create a rationale for "centrists" to capitulate when the Bush proposal comes to a vote (see the end of my last post for more on how watering down the party's message creates an environment for capitulation). If there are too many Democratic defections, ultimately the Bush privatization scheme will pass. And that would be a real tragedy.

Why The Fight Is Worth Having

Over the past few weeks, I have published a number of pieces that lay out an alternative vision for the Democratic Party. Some say they don't want such an intra-party debate to take place - but I believe, especially after such a crushing loss this year, it is absolutely essential. And that is why my writing specifically tries to challenge the stale thinking of the inside-the-beltway cabal of consultants, career operatives, and left-leaning Washington pundits. I knew the pieces in the Washington Monthly, the American Prospect, and The Nation would cause debate, and controversy. And I knew it would evoke strong criticism of me personally by the likes of the DLC (example 1 & 2), and others (example 3 & 4) - and a less-than-subtle pressure from many quarters in Washington just to keep my mouth shut.

These voices represent more of a nay-saying, status-quo point of view – they have been the ones controlling the party or making a living in Democratic circles for years, and thinking outside-the-box is usually resisted by conventional thinking and the powers that be. Nonetheless, these forces absolutely have every right to argue for their positions.

But as I leave the arena for the next month for my wedding and honeymoon, I thought it was important for those who have read my pieces and seen the debate to know that I think this is all healthy, and all, ultimately, positive - and I hope my opponents do too.

I make no apologies for saying some of the taboo things Democrats’ have for too long ignored (ie. corporate money has hurt the party, support for a corporate free-trade policy has hurt the party's ability to communicate with working class voters, etc.), and I make no excuses for naming names. I have made a career fighting in the trenches of the partisan wars – on Capitol Hill, on campaigns, and in my writing. My loyalty to a Democratic Party that has the guts to stand up for working people is clear.

It is in keeping with that loyalty that I engage in this current debate. The party will only get stronger if it finally has a discussion about what has happened to its core ideology, and how to get it back. Many of the debates over the DNC chairmanship and direction of the party right now are focused on a shallow debate over “new” vs. “old" - with Beltway-centric Democratic elites shamelessly bashing grassroots organizations like Moveon.org and other constituencies. As this USA Today story shows, the debates among the party’s elites still seems more like a forum for shamelessly self-promoting operatives to try to grab power, rather than a discussion about the fundamental principles of the party and its leadership moving forward.

But in my writing, and the back-and-forth with my hard-fighting opponents, I am trying to push a debate about more than just which hack is going to get ahead, and which operative is going to climb the ladder. I am trying to get us all talking about what the party actually believes in. And the more we have this discussion now, the stronger the party will be in the future.

From my progressive point of view, I think this is especially critical. The DLC is not all evil – I’ve never said it is. And I am heartened to see it now trying to brandish its (albeit too few) credentials on, for instance, issues of corporate power.

However, the underlying point in my criticism of that organization and its “centrist” ilk is that I believe they have watered-down Democrats’ core ideology to the point where the party appears lost, and now party leaders are more prone to capitulating to the GOP. My advocacy for a sharper, more progressive, more populist ideology - and my willingness to punch hard at some corporate Democrats - is not just some vindictive spasm. It is motivated by a constructive desire to both re-connect the party with its working class roots, and also start sending a message to weak Democrats who capitulate to the GOP. The message is that Democrats should stand strong, and that if they don’t, there is finally going to be some serious, energetic public outrage from within the party. Because if there isn't, Democratic capitulations will come with more dire consequences than ever. With Bush trying to privatize Social Security, rig the tax code, and potentially push us farther into a Mideast quagmire, the stakes are higher than ever.

Some may see my recent writing as disloyal to the Democratic Party. In fact, it is the opposite, especially if you look at what the GOP did over the past decade. When Clinton won in 1992, the GOP didn’t make the argument they should water down their ideology – instead, they sharpened it, and let their capitulators know there would be a price to pay for not being a team player (as just one small example, see today how the Club for Growth's Steven Moore regularly goes after GOP moderates). That ultimately (and unfortunately) led the GOP to a sturdy and lasting majority. Our side can do the same – but only if we have our debates now, and only if the progressive side begins fighting hard for the party to re-connect with its core ideology.

So again, I don’t apologize for the tenor and vigor of the debate I’ve tried to spur, nor the positions I advocate – and I honestly appreciate the DLC and others engaging energetically in it as well. The discussion will eventually create a stronger movement for our side in the ultimate fight against the right-wing conservative movement that is now in control.

Debunking "Centrism"

Here is my new piece in The Nation that debunks the corporate-backed Democratic Leadership Council and media's definition of "centrism." As you can see, the definition of "centrism" in Washington's money-drenched cocktail party circuit is very different from that the definition in mainstream America.

For background on each of my main assertions in the piece see the following backgrounder:

DLC ATTACKS DEMOCRATS FOR WAGING "CLASS WARFARE"

"DLC members complained Gore in 2000 reverted to a tired class warfare message, and at the 2002 DLC meeting, Lieberman triggered an ugly split when he accused Gore of ignoring the DLC message."
- Hartford Courant, 5/7/04

"Angry DLC leaders ganged up on Al Gore, charging that his leftist, class-warfare, anticorporate message in the 2000 election turned off millions of middle-of-the-road, investor-class voters. It was bad enough the founder of the centrist-leaning DLC, Al From, and its national chairman, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, both attacked the former Democratic presidential nominee. But, Mr. Gore's former running mate, Connecticut's Sen. Joe Lieberman, also stuck the knife into the man who put him on the ticket."
- Washington Times, 8/5/02

DLC ATTACKS DEMOCRATS FOR BEING "ANTI-CORPORATE" DURING ENRON SCANDAL IN SUMMER OF 2002

"Angry DLC leaders ganged up on Al Gore, charging that his leftist, class-warfare, anticorporate message in the 2000 election turned off millions of middle-of-the-road, investor-class voters."
- Washington Times, 8/5/02

"Lieberman went out of his way several times in the course of his speech to urge Democrats not to appear anti-business."
- Fox News, 7/29/02

"'You can't be pro-jobs and anti-business,' said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Lieberman, a potential 2004 presidential contender, warned of 'the twin dangers of doing too little [on Enron] and doing too much.'
– AP, 7/11/02

LIEBERMAN ATTACKS DEMOCRATS FOR EFFORTS TO REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS

Lieberman “ripped Dean and Gephardt for promising to repeal the Bush tax cuts.”
- Fox News, 7/25/03

DLC ATTACKS SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE PROPOSALS

"The DLC renounced [single-payer type proposals] and endorsed a more moderate proposal that did not provide universal coverage."
- The New Republic, 11/16/98

In "the earliest days of the DLC...it sharpened the rift between southern conservatives such as Cooper and party liberals who back the Clinton health plan or a government-financed single payer system."
- Washington Post, 12/7/93

Read the DLC's official 1994 attack on single-payer health care proposals.

DLC LEADERS WAGE FIGHT AGAINST DRUG REIMPORTATION

"Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), a leader on healthcare issues who has worked closely with the White House, said, "I think the president would probably veto it" if it passed the Senate. "You don't solve the problem just by reimporting drugs." Breaux has repeatedly voted against reimportation.
- The Hill, 6/1/04

"Evan Bayh [is] against reimportation."
- Indianapolis Star, 9/17/03

Senators Bayh and Breaux – both DLC leaders – were the only two Democrats to vote against bipartisan reimportation legislation in 2000. Just 23 Senators voted against the measure.
- Senate Roll Call Vote #217, 7/19/00

DLC AGAINST BLANKET RAISE IN CAFE STANDARDS FOR FUEL EFFICIENCY IN CARS

"The main tool Congress uses to curtail tailpipe emissions -- corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards -- wasn't properly designed for the job."
- DLC, 3/23/04

DLC LEADS FIGHT FOR NAFTA, CHINA MFN, FTAA DEALS THAT SELL OUT AMERICAN JOBS

"The FTAA has not been in the headlines, its creation is critically important to our future economic well-being."
- DLC, 1/1/2000

"Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman [a founding DLC leader] supports liberalized free trade with the Peoples Republic of China, and voted for the World Trade Organization as well as NAFTA. Like former President Bill Clinton, Lieberman was a leader in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC correctly saw Democratic support of open trade as a river of corporate money to obliging candidates."
- Buffalo News editorial, 11/17/03

"The DLC's commitment to free and open trade has really been second to none. And this debate over trading authority is nothing new to each of the people in this room. The DLC was fighting for fast track as long ago as 1988. From NAFTA to GATT to MFN, you have all been with us in the trenches and your contributions have been immeasurable."
- Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, 10/27/97

Bush Laughs At Victims

According to Knight-Ridder, Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli and President Bush took turns bashing trial lawyers and their work defending victims "to laughter" from the audience at the White House economic summit yesterday.

But if you ask scores of ordinary American shoppers and workers killed or maimed at Home Depot – or hurt by poisonous Home Depot products - they might not think bashing people's legal rights and protecting innocent victims is so funny. Please see this groundbreaking expose on how scores of innocent people have been killed or maimed because of Home Depot's safety record – and the company's merciless crusade to bully victims into keeping quiet. It may shed some light on why Nardelli, a top Bush campaign fundraiser, is pushing for so-called "tort reform."

Home Depot: Danger in the Aisles

Accidents Claim Lives of Home Depot Shoppers

Home Depot OSHA Violations Jumped 45 Percent

How Home Depot Keeps Store Accidents Secret

Home Depot Targeted for Using Poisonous Wood

Green + Red = Blue

Here is my latest column for In These Times that discusses how Democrats are using the environmental issue to their advantage in conservative regions throughout the heartland.

The Power of Populism

The debate rages on about whether to embrace the DLC's Republican-lite policies. My friend Mike Tomasky has an interesting piece in today's Daily Prospect responding to my original cover story in his magazine. I agree with most of what he says, except for the idea that economics is only the Democrats' third tier concern. See this excerpt from the San Jose Mercury News for why I disgagree:

"Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, who advised the Kerry campaign, said his post-election polling showed that a strong economic message could have trumped social issues with many voters who were vacillating between the two candidates in the final 10 days of the campaign. But when Kerry did not deliver the message, focusing instead on Iraq and national security, those voters -- mostly rural whites who were strongly affected by the economic troubles of the past few years -- chose Bush based on 'moral values.' Greenberg's poll found that just 47 percent of voters thought there were big differences between the candidates on the economy, a remarkably low number."

This is exactly what I was talking about in my article, "The Democrats Da Vinci Code." Without a strong, populist economic message, the Democrats are lost. And until the Party confronts that reality - and the forces that have pushed it to embrace a corporate agenda - they could face a very long road through the wilderness.

Attack of the DLC

In response to my new American Prospect cover story, the corporate-backed Democratic Leadership Council has responded with a pathetic and laughable attack on me that is so defensive/dishonest/factually inaccurate it reeks of desperation. For those who are interested, here is a quick "Claim vs. Fact" on the DLC's attacks on me:

DLC CLAIM: "I hate to sound like a pointy-head here, but the argument Sirota's making--that economic 'populism' of the most atavistic sort trumps cultural conservatism--has been around for a long time, dating back at least to the early '70s."

FACT: The implication here, in classic-DLC denial, is that economic populism was tried and it failed. Yet, what goes unmentioned is that when the Democratic Party did fracture and factions did embrace the DLC's corporate model, Democrats lost the congressional majority for the first time in 40 years, and are now, unnecessarily, on the verge of permanent-minority status.

DLC CLAIM: "Schweitzer blasted Montana Republicans for corporate subsidies, government inefficiency, etc....[this is a] strateg[y] the DLC has strongly and repeatedly endorsed."

FACT: As just one example of how false this statement is, according to the New Democrat Coalition (the DLC's congressional arm) "New Democrats have long been supporters of the Export-Import Bank, and it has been a key part of our pro-trade agenda. This year, 96 percent of NDC Members supported the conference report on Ex-Im reauthorization." As you may recall, 80 percent of Ex-Im money goes to Fortune 500 companies including Boeing, General Electric, Catepillar Inc., Mobil Oil, Westinghouse, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Enron, IBM , FedEx, General Motors, Halliburton, Siemans, Raytheon, and United Technologies (many who bankroll the DLC). These companies are some of the biggest job cutters in the country, yet when progressives tried to prevent Ex-Im subisidies from going to companies that are sending jobs overseas, they were voted down with the help of DLC leaders in Congress. Even the Cato Institute notes that "the Export-Import Bank is corporate welfare - it benefits a small number of private businesses at the expense of other businesses and taxpaying citizens."

DLC CLAIM: "It's pretty clear Schweitzer himself didn't think populism made it unnecessary to deal with cultural issues on their own terms."

FACT: No one said that economic populism made it wholly uneccessary to deal with social issues. As the Prospect article specifically said, "The point is to follow red-region Democrats who have diminished the electoral impact of traditional social issues by redefining the values debate on economic and class terms. Granted, the progressive populists profiled above do not uniformly hew to the standard liberal line on social issues: some are pro-life, some pro-choice; some pro–gun ownership, some pro–gun control; some pro–gay marriage, some anti–gay marriage; some vociferous about religion, some subdued. But they have shown that there is another path that moves past wedge issues if the party is willing to fundamentally challenge the excesses of corporate America and big money."

DLC CLAIM: "Sirota goes on to list a lot of other red-state Democrats who have succeeded by defying the 'corporate/DLC argument,' and most of them are actually politicians with long-standing close connections with the DLC: Ken and John Salazar of CO, Janet Napolitano of AZ, John Spratt of SC, Eliot Spitzer of NY, and Stephanie Herseth of SD."

FACT: This shows how the chameleons at the DLC have shamelessly name any up and coming politician a "New Democrat" so as to cover their own hide inside the beltway - even if those politicians reject huge portions of the corporate DLC agenda. For instance, Sen.-elect Barack Obama rejected any “suggestion” that “inclusion of my name” on a DLC/New Democrat membership list amounted to “an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform.” Similarly, with the exception of Spratt, the leaders cited in the Prospect article broke with the corporate/DLC model in defining themselves, instead raising their profile on a populist progressive message. The Denver Post noted that Ken Salazar won his "Senate seat with [a] populist campaign" – not the DLC's Republican-lite model. CBS 4 Denver reports John Salazar won by "hammering home a populist message that included bashing tax cuts for the rich" – the same kind of "class warfare" the DLC criticizes. Janet Napolitano built her record going after big corporations like Arthur Andersen, who had contributed lavishly to one of the DLC's key leaders, Sen. Joe Lieberman. She also built up a record prosecuting Qwest, a company that has been a major backer of the New Democrats. Wall Street, which contributes heavily to the DLC, sees crusader Eliot Spitzer's "as a meddler poking into issues best left to federal regulators and as a rabble-rousing populist," according to the Washington Post. And Stephanie Herseth hammered her opponent for supporting pacts like the Australia free trade deal, while the DLC applauded its passage.

DLC CLAIM: "You don't have to be a political whiz to know that Rep. Bernie Sanders is the at-large Congressman from Vermont, a state that gave John Kerry a 20-point win over George Bush. That state's relevance to a discussion of "red-state and red region" Democrats is mystifying, to say the least."

FACT: This shows how dishonest – and desperate – the DLC has become. The article wasn't talking about Vermont as a whole - it was talking specifically about Sanders' success in Vermont's "'Northeast Kingdom,' the rock-ribbed Republican region along the New Hampshire border. Far from the Birkenstock-wearing, liberal caricature of Vermont, the Kingdom is one of the most culturally conservative hotbeds in New England, the place that helped fuel the 'Take Back Vermont' movement against gay civil unions." The DLC offers no refutation that Sanders continues to win big in this region despite its "traditionally conservative" slant.

DLC CLAIM: "The only way to shoehorn Sanders and [Rep. Gene] Taylor as fellow "populist progressives" is to make opposition to trade agreements the sole definition of both 'populist' and 'progressive,' and sometimes that seems to be the thrust of Sirota's argument."

FACT: Sanders, Taylor, and other populists have worked together not only on trade legislation, but on preventing tax subsidies to job exporters, protecting citizens' privacy, and increasing funding for veterans' benefits. That is, in part, the definition of a populist – though it is not surprising that the well-heeled suits at the DLC who have never been outside of the Beltway don't quite understand that.

The Democrats' Da Vinci Code

Check out my new cover story for the upcoming edition of the American Prospect. It delves into how Democrats are already winning in red regions throughout America, and how the party should follow its success stories. As the article points out, those who are most successful are the ones who are rejecting the corporate model pushed by sellouts like the industry-backed Democratic Leadership Council, and instead embracing the mantle of economic populism.

Read the whole article online here.

Bush Privatization to Create More Debt

Our "fiscally conservative" President is now admitting that his plan to privatize Social Security will grossly expand the deficit, essentially passing on today's costs to future generations. Here's the Reuters excerpt:

"The White House said on Monday it would borrow money to help pay for adding personal retirement accounts to Social Security, after ruling out tax increases to finance a transition experts say could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years."

This, from the same President who less than two months ago said "the job of a President is to confront problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations."

Back from Vacation

Sorry it's been so long since I posted - took a much-needed post-election rest and extended Thanksgiving.