Agreed

Matt Singer tells it like it is.

Messaging or Ideas?

This Atlantic Monthly piece by Joshua Green is a good read, and quite interesting. My take is that Democrats need both: new messaging AND new ideas/positions. The two aren't mutually exclusive, as some Democrats seem to believe. The party can't just tweak its language here and there, and expect that to build them a governing majority. Voters will see right through that. Then again, they can't go super populist and present new ideas if they don't learn how to speak more effectively.

The one problem I see with all this talk about "messaging" is that Washington insiders think that is the MOST important thing. It is important, sure, but it really is secondary to more strongly defining the ideas that the party stands for (see my "Democrats' Da Vinci Code" for some proposals along those lines). As Green correctly notes, "Buzzwords are not going to rescue a failing party. That so many Democrats have achieved the Olympian state of denial necessary to believe otherwise suggests that the tempting abstractions of language and messaging have diverted them..."

Again, unlike Green, I do think messaging is important, and efforts to improve the language are well worth it. But I do agree with Green that defining the core principles and ideas of the party are the most pressing and immediate challenge right now - that's where most of the energy should be focused.

Taking the Initiative on Energy

Big news today on the energy front: Montana secured its first major wind-power project, as regulators approved a 20-year contract to let the wind energy be sold to Montana customers.

PPL Montana, the current energy generator, objected to the deal. But that's no surprise: they have an unregulated monopoly on the Montana market, and they don't want any competition. This is the same company that is trying to avoid paying most of its property taxes. They did the same thing in 2003. The Allentown Morning Call at that time reported the move "kept $7.6 million out of local government and school district coffers."

Montana really is at the forefront of trying to create more affordable and renewable energy. The Schweitzer administration is pushing a major ethanol energy package, and cities are exploring co-op power to prevent the kind of price gouging by private corporations that has plagued the Northwest.

It's the kind of thing that other states can pioneer as well - especially with the lack of leadership in Washington, D.C. In contrast to Montana, the Bush administration continues to say its outdated energy bill is the way to deal with America's energy challenges. They are so desperate to give away the farm to their energy industry donors, all they can come up with a package of tax breaks for oil companies - hardly a comprehensive energy policy. Then again, what else can we expect from an administration headed by two oil men, and run by appointees who came out of the oil industry?

They're Already At the Table

CLAIM:
"If you've got a good idea [about Social Security], we expect you to be at the table, we expect you to bring it forward."
- President Bush echoing GOP ads that claim Democrats haven't offered any Social Security proposals, 3/30/05

FACT:
Democrats have already brought forward a number of proposals today and in the past. For instance, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) has a plan endorsed by former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball that would use the estate tax to fix the shortfall. Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) also has a proposal he introduced almost a month ago. Before that, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) each had different proposals. The person who has not introduced a concrete proposal is President Bush.

18 Senators and a $2 Million Flip-Flop

They actually voted for it, before they voted against it. Why? Find out the details here.

More GOPers Saying No to CAFTA

Reuters today reports that Idaho Reps. Mike Simpson (R) and Butch Otter (R) and "declared on Tuesday they would not vote for a new free trade agreement with five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA)." They join fellow GOPers Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) in opposing the trade deal. This is very good news because, as Reuters notes, "opposition from labor groups, sugar producers, much of the textile industry, [and] most Democrats in the House of Representatives [means] the White House needs every Republican vote it can get."

Let's hope there are some pointed questions for new U.S. Trade Representative-nominee Rob Portman when he comes before the Senate for confirmation. He needs to explain why the White House is so determined to push these kind of free trade deals, even as they are ravaging America's economy, hurting our job base, and creating record trade deficits. And let's hope Democratic opposition to CAFTA remains strong, as it presents an excellent chance to play offense in "red" America.

Bradley Nails It

I was not a big Bill Bradley guy back in 2000, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have some good things to say. And his op-ed in today's New York Times about the Democratic Party hits the nail right on the head. Go read it.

Nothing is Beneath the Chamber of Commerce

The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein has a column today showing how, even in the wake of the Enron/Worldcom scandals, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "is still waging a rear-guard action against government regulators determined not to let it happen again."

Apparently, "chamber officials huddled yesterday to plan their assault on regulations requiring companies to implement and test" new auditing rules. But as Pearstein notes, their rationale is "based largely on the kind of anecdotal evidence picked up in country-club locker rooms" as they claim "the regulations have wasted corporate time and cash flow, discouraged risk taking, triggered mass resignations of corporate directors and dissuaded untold numbers of companies from going public."

It's really sad when a trade association like the Chamber of Commerce becomes so greedy for short-term profits, they can no longer see the long-term benefits of strong regulations that protect the marketplace. The fact is, without these regulations (and more like them), America would be hit with more scandals, hurting every business in the economy. As New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said,
regulation and prosecuting corporate crime "is an essential part of maintaining the integrity of the market" - and thus one of the key ways to keep capitalism working.

Guest Blogging

I am guest blogging today over at Facing South, the blog of the Institute for Southern Studies. Check it out.

Corrupt Cadillac Conservatives

The Cleveland Plain Dealer features a major expose showing exactly how today's Cadillac Conservatives in the Republican Party are living the good life, while screwing over average Americans.

Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH) is example A. As Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, he basically oversees most major legislation that is of interest to Corporate America - things like the bankruptcy bill, which he is sheperding through Congress and which hammers America's middle class. But forgive Oxley if he is totally out of touch with the people he's screwing over - he's busy spending $25,000 for "chauffeured luxury sedans around New York," taking more than 47 "excursions across the country on private jets," spending $63,544 on "ski trips to Vail" and hosting "golf outings in Scottsdale" - all funded not out of his own pocket, but from campaign contributions given to him by the industries he oversees in Congress.

Then there is Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who is using the money he shakes down from corporate lobbyists to finance his extravagant spending binges. He put down $53,000 for greens fees, and ran up a $47,000 bill at Sam & Harry's, a top Washington, D.C. steakhouse - again, paid for by the cash he raised from the industries he's supposed to oversee in Congress.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is also busy. This conservative whose party rails on California/Hollywood liberals is using the cash his corporate friends give him to spend $39,000 "on events and meals at Beverly Wilshire Hotel and Wolfgang Puck's Spago Beverly Hill."

We are living in an age where Cadillac Conservatives raise huge amounts of cash from the companies they are supposed to be regulating, and then are allowed to use that money to live like royalty. It is corruption, plain and simple. Read this story in full, and you will never again wonder why the GOP Congress is so grossly out of touch with the rest of America.

A Sleeping Giant on Our Hike

Here are some pictures from our hike right in our neighborhood at dusk. In this first shot, see if you can see Montana's famous Sleeping Giant...to see it, just click on the picture:



Here are some other shots:

18 U.S. Senators

18 U.S. Senators have a serious question to answer. Find out what that question is here.

Lou Dobbs is a Hero

Last week, I authored an op-ed on the need for Congress to reject Rep. Rob Portman's nomination as U.S. Trade Representative, and now I've gotten some welcome reinforcement from CNN's Lou Dobbs. In the new edition of U.S. News and World Report, Dobbs hammers the Bush administration for its nomination, saying the Portman nomination "represents the administration's allegiance to failed trade policies that have led to the loss of American jobs, record trade deficits, and mounting, unprecedented trade debt."

He accurately notes that, "Portman's votes for the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent trade relations with China, and all the recent bilateral trade agreements make clear that he is part of the problem, rather than an independent thinker who bases his policy decisions on the overwhelming evidence of the need for a solution."

More broadly, Dobbs points out that "Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Yet, "the United States continues to enter into similar free-trade agreements with countries and regions that allow corporate America to outsource plant, production, and jobs to other parts of the world."

I don't always agree with Dobbs on everything (take some of his rhetoric on immigration). But there's a reason why his ratings have gone through the roof. It's because he's speaking to average Americans' economic concerns in populist terms - something that most television blowhards are afraid to do. His work on trade has been heroic, and his column hits it right on the head. Congress must reject Portman.

Why We Fight

The Washington Post today sums up exactly why progressives must continue fighting, and continue putting pressure on BOTH Republicans AND Democrats who capitulate to Corporate America's every wish, no matter what the social cost. As the Post notes in its story about recent Big Business victories in Congress:

"In the end, the companies prevailed because the larger GOP majorities were joined by several pro-business Democrats...Many of these Democrats also received substantial campaign contributions from companies concerned about class-action cases, the Center for Responsive Politics found. The story is the same for the bankruptcy bill, which recently passed the Senate and appears headed to easy passage in the House and to Bush's desk this spring. United Republicans are counting on the support of enough Democrats to pass a bill that has been stalled since the mid-1990s."

Make no mistake about it - the Democratic Party is still the major party in American politics that best represents the interests of America's working class, and the Republicans are the real threat to average Americans' economic interests. The Democrats have some of the most tenacious and honest fighters for progressive causes that we could ever ask for - that's why I am proud to have worked for Democrats, and worked on Democratic campaigns. But the Post shows how a small faction, when left unpressured, can do serious damage to the progressive cause, America's middle-class, and the Democratic Party itself, providing the crucial support that's needed for the Republicans to pass their hard-right agenda.

That's why it is so important for progressives to not only go after the GOP when they ignore average Americans, but also hold those who undercut the Democratic Party accountable. Doing that is GOOD for the party, and the progressive cause in general. Because when these wavering lawmakers are held accountable, we can hope for a day that they don't undercut the party, the party starts winning these battles, and the progressive cause is advanced.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)

Read this LA Times article...all of it...He's finished. It might not be today, might not be tomorrow or even next week or next month...but he is done. The hypocrisy on both the Schiavo issue and on tort reform is more stunning than anything I've ever seen. Add to that the corruption and ethics charges surrounding him, and I just don't see how he survives.

Michael Barone & the Cadillac Conservatives

One of the favorite attacks by Republicans is to label any of their opponents as wealthy billionaire liberal elitists. Everything, it seems, comes back to vilifying George Soros, as Tom DeLay most recently showed. And now look at Michael Barone's new column at the Heritage Foundation's website. Barone, you may know, is one of Fox News's favorite bloviating blowhards - a guy so stale from so many years insulated in Washington that all he can do is regurgitate the most recent piece of spin he heard at the last GOP cocktail party. Yet, because he works at U.S. News and World Report, he gets a free pass to turn that drivel into mainstream opinion and news.

"The trustfunder left," he writes this week, "has reached a critical mass and become a major force in one of our two great political parties" - the Democrats, he says. Who are the trustfunders? "People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard," Barone says, and then adds, "These people tend to be very liberal politically." His proof? Nothing more than the fact that some of the most stereotyped areas in America like Martha's Vineyard and San Francisco voted for John Kerry.

Barone's charicature shows he is either deliberately dishonest, or historically challenged (probably the former). Are we really supposed to believe that because San Francisco and Martha's Vineyard went Democratic, that that means the Democratic Party is run by the super-wealthy and the super-wealthy are universally liberal? No, of course not - it's the classic case where a dishonest right-wing pundit will use a charicature to try to trick the public into jumping to a conclusion that can't be jumped to.

The fact is, Barone conveniently forgets to discuss the integral role that an influential group of right-wing billionaires continues to play in today's Republican Party. Barone and his Cadillac Conservatives don't want people to know that today's far-right movement was built by the most elite segments of America. Richard Mellon Scaife, for instance, is the heir to the Mellon fortune, and has used that money to fund almost every major right-wing cause over the last 30 years. As People for the American Way note, "Scaife has given away at least $340 million dollars to promote right-wing causes." And there are a host of others family trust funds fueling the right - the Bradleys, the Kochs, the Olins, the Coors and more.

This is not to say that there aren't very wealthy people who support the Democrats. But trying to claim, as Barone does, that the Democratic Party is run exclusively by the rich, and that the rich are universally liberal is just downright false. And yet the stereotype continues with ever more fervor from the GOP. It is the same way someone will viciously attack an opponent for the very thing he/she is most embarrassed about.

What's really troubling about Barone's column is that it shows how many supposedly "legitimate" pundits/reporters are willing to ignore facts in pursuit of their ideological agenda, and yet are promoted by mainstream media organizations like U.S. News and World Report. It is emblematic of exactly why overall media coverage skews so harshly to the right.

Shared Risk vs. Social Darwinism

The debate over whether to privatize Social Security is really one about whether, when it comes to basic safety net issues, there should be shared risk, or survival of the fittest. The current system we have now is shared risk - we all put money into a big pool, and that means no one individual can really get too screwed over. Private accounts are in the spirit of Social Darwinism - everyone has to hope their individual accounts do well, or they are screwed, a casualty of a surival-of-the-fittest system. It's really a philosophical discussion.

I come down on the side of shoring up the current system, because Social Security is not a luxury item, or icing on the cake. It is the basic, bare minimum needed to retire, and when it comes to necessities like that, the less risk the better. I don't want just the fittest to survive, I'd rather everyone survive.

But that doesn't mean there aren't some creative hybrids that limit risk AND maximize returns. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), for instance, previously proposed to have an independent Social Security oversight board "invest a small portion of Social Security assets in broad index funds which track the market based on a fixed formula." In other words, a part of the big pool of money would be invested in the market. Because the money would be invested collectively - and not individually - the risk would be spread out, but the collective returns could potentially increase. And this is not a radical idea - as Nadler notes, "many state and local governments invest up to 60% of their assets in the stock market."

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has also proposed a similar plan. It additionally tinkers with the payroll tax so as to provide some relief for middle-income families from this regressive levy.

Sure, these two proposals are a few years old and have some outdated budget assumptions (namely, that there was a surplus). And yes, maybe they aren't perfect. But their underlying principle is clear - there are ways to pragmatically increase returns for the system, without disproportionately increasing risk to individuals. And they highlight just how radical President Bush's privatization proposal really is. If he was interested in shoring up returns and fixing the system he would have started pushing something like this. Instead, he's pushing a polarizing, far-right proposal designed only to serve the interests of Wall Street.

Using the Filibuster

Matt Miller, who is a colleague of mine at the Center for American Progress, has a very provocative piece in the upcoming edition of Fortune magazine. He says the filibuster that Democrats need to have is not necessarily about judges, but "about President Bush's request for $82 billion more for Iraq - or to put it more precisely, it's about the cumulative $300 billion tab we're slipping to our kids for a war we've chosen to fight but not pay for, even as we've cut taxes for the best-off."

Give the piece a read. Although I am not opposed to Democrats using the filibuster on judges as well, and although I don't always totally agree with Matt, he is (no pun intended) right on the money in saying the new war funding request is the exact place to have a debate about America's fiscal choices.

What Happens When the Oil Runs Out?

Princeton professor Kenneth S. Deffeyes has a provocative op-ed in today's New York Times in which he asks, point blank, "What happens when the oil runs out?" It's a good question - and one too many Washington, D.C. politicians are unwilling to address. In 2003, for instance, the Senate rejected bipartisan legislation to raise fuel efficiency standards in cars - the machines that account for the highest use of petroleum in America. Instead, they recently voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This was clearly an environmentally questionable move (and oil companies are trying to make the most of it - they are actually trying to now avoid even doing an environmental impact study of the consequences of drilling there). But equally as disturbing, drilling in ANWR won't address the America's real energy problems.

As Deffeyes notes, "The controversy over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a side issue" energy-wise. "The problem we need to face is the impending world oil shortage." (Deffeyes has a new book out on the subject called "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak")

Up here in Montana, some forward-thinking Republican and Democratic lawmakers are pushing measures to increase ethanol and wind energy production. And the opposition from entrenched energy industry interests is intense. But Gov. Schweitzer is putting the full force of his office behind the efforts, as he knows it is both important for America's long-term energy challenges, and for his state's rural economy. More Democrats should take a look at the issue - it is a way to tie environmentalism (cleaner fuels), conservationism (using less scarce petroleum), patriotism (getting America off foreign oil), and rural interests (building the rural economy) all together in one issue.

More Snow

More snow yesterday and today...here's the view from my home office window...

An Opportunity in Rural America

In my American Prospect article "The Democrats Da Vinci Code," one of the things I focused on was how successful red-state Democrats have made themselves the defender of the small family farm, in the face of big corporate agribusiness. The more Democrats do this, the better they will do in rural America.

And now, coming down the pike, there is a perfect opportunity for Democrats to ramp up this effort. First, as I've said previously, they can oppose Rob Portman's nomination as U.S. Trade Representative, because he is a free-trade zealot who has shown no regard for a trade policy that benefits small family farms. But equally as important is for Democrats to come out strongly against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that the Bush administration is pushing.

Farmers already know this deal will be a disaster for them. Just last month, a key committee of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture unanimously voted to oppose CAFTA. According to South Dakota's Aberdeen News:

"The vote sent shockwaves through the usually pro-trade NASDA whose members literally know the lay of the food and farm land in their home states. That's their job; looking farmers and ranchers in the eye everyday...Ag chiefs from coastal states worry about crop pests hitchhiking into the U.S. on food from Central America. Others say CAFTA's sugar imports will open the door to bigger sugar imports in future treaties. 'But my big problem with it,' said one state agriculture leader, 'is that CAFTA countries get access to U.S. food markets now and our access to theirs is phased in over 10, 15 and 20 years. For instance, their poultry tariffs won't be fully lifted for 17 to 20 years. That doesn't look like fair trade to poultry growers.' His point is even sharper if U.S. farmers view the trade pact as the White House views it: CAFTA is a small but necessary stepping stone to bigger trade bridges like the hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas and Doha's worldwide ag deal.'"

And these state officials aren't alone. The National Farmers Union recently held a Capitol Hill news conference to "voice strong opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which farm leader[s] believes would negatively impact U.S. farmers." They were backed up by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy which noted that "CAFTA Benefits Agribusiness Over Farmers" and that the "agreement would erode fair trade and farmers' rights."

Democrats - wake up. This is your red-state opportunity. Take it, oppose CAFTA, and start playing offense.

Do We Need More Proof About Fox?

In case anyone still had doubts about whether Fox News is a right-wing GOP spin machine, see this new book by Fox's chief political correspondent Major Garrett trumpeting Republicanism. It's called "The Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation."

Now, in fairness, I haven't read the book yet. But the reviews at Amazon give you a pretty good idea of what this is going to be. Booklist notes "Garrett, a reporter with Fox News Channel, credits the Republican Contract with America of the 1990s with an unacknowledged yet profound and enduring impact on American politics even a decade later." And it is praised heavily by archconservatives like George Will, Brit Hume, Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich.

Remember, the problem with this is not the book unto itself. Books can and should have slants, when appropriate. Heck, I'm writing a book with a certain tilt.

But I don't bill myself as an objective reporter. Garrett, though, does. And sure, his book may not be as hard-edged as it is being billed. But the mere fact that the higher-ups at Fox let one of their top political "reporters" publish a book called "Enduring Revolution" promoting the GOP agenda really raises a host of ethical questions about the entire network, especially when you consider all of the other proof of Fox's conservative slant. You'd think a network whose "fair and balanced" motto has been so tarred would be a little more careful. But apparently, they don't care. It's not about objectivity – its about a right-wing political ideology.

There's No Crying in Politics

In the movie "A League of Their Own," coach Jimmy Dugan tells his players "There's no crying in baseball." Well, there's also no crying in politics. In the few weeks I have been out in Montana, however, that cardinal rule has been broken at least twice.

Most recently, a small group of congressional Democrats are crying about me and others publicizing where they get their money from when they disregard America's working class, and undercut the courageous work of other Democrats. I'm not going to get into a debate about this one, even though I've gotten a lot of e-mail today about this. Instead, I'm going to let Matt Singer at Left In the West do the talking. He sums it up pretty well. For other takes on the situation, see Atrios and Americablog as well.

This all came just weeks after Montana's Republican legislators started whining like infants that Gov. Brian Schweitzer was "intimidating" them. Their bellyaching was so hilarious, newspapers across the state called them "pathetic."

I'm not trying to pick any more fights right now - I'm swamped writing my book. But I do have a message for both Republican and Democratic politicians. We can disagree on just about anything - that's all fair game. But if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And let me just say it one more time: there's no crying in politics.

Political Expediency in the Schiavo Case

Terry Neal has a terrific piece in the Washington Post about how both parties essentially screwed themselves in their behavior on the Terri Schiavo case. I talked with him for a while about it, and he quoted me. Here's what I said:

Democratic strategist David Sirota said the Schiavo case creates three impressions. "Firstly, Republicans are zealots," he said. "Secondly, where the hell are the Democrats? And thirdly, well, at least the zealots believe in something strongly. And that's the problem for Democrats right now on this issue, and a whole host of others. The party seems unwilling to stand up for anything controversial."

"The calculus by Democrats is that they don't want to offend anyone," Sirota said. "But in trying not to offend anyone, they lose support from everyone. What many Democrats haven't yet learned from Republicans is that it is better to be loved by some, and hated by others, than try to be liked by everyone. Because when you do that, you are liked by no one."

I really believe what I said is true - Americans, above anything else, want authenticity from their political leaders. When Democrats refuse to take controversial stands, they set themselves back in the quest to be seen as a party with conviction. That has to change.

Sending a Message on Trade

I wrote up a quick op-ed piece on Rob Portman's nomination for U.S. Trade Representative and how it offers Democrats a unique opportunity to speak to working class issues. You can see it here

A Badge of Honor

Byron York, resident lunatic at the National Review, has a new book coming out called "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" in which my name is emblazoned on the cover (along with some other progressives) in a sort of neo-Nixonian/McCarthyist tribute. I don't want to give this book free publicity, and in no way am I encouraging people to buy it - this guy has been a GOP hatchet man for a number of years and I'm sure he shamelessly distorts my work and my career to no end, as well as that of many others. Just look at the wild-eyed, raving subtitle of the book to know this guy has little - if any - credibility.

But take a look at the cover and see if your name, or your favorite progressive organization is there. And remember, anyone named there should not be cowed. They should see this as a badge of honor. This has far less to do with a so-called "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" (which, to my knowledge, is neither vast, nor a conspiracy, nor does it exist) and far more to do with the right-wing crazies getting nervous that progressives are starting to become more effective. Let's keep it up.

When Corporate Tax Cheats Complain

Well, it’s tax time, and apparently Corporate America doesn’t like the idea of having to pay up. Here in Montana, Big Business is howling mad about a bill by State Sen. Jim Elliott (D) and Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) that would crack down on Montana's growing problem with tax cheaters. As Elliott’s website shows, about half of the largest 500 companies doing business in Montana pay less than $500 in Montana corporate income tax.

Elliott's bill to crack down on corporate tax loopholes would raise $18.3 million in new revenue over the next two years from businesses and individuals not paying their fair share of taxes – and that’s a big amount for Montana.

Not surprisingly, the Billings Gazette reports that "lobbyists for a number of Montana businesses either sought to be exempted from Elliott’s bill or testified they hadn't had sufficient time to study the [bill]."

But as the Helena Independent Record editorial board notes, "major corporations doing business in Montana aren't what you might call babes in the woods when it comes to taxation imposed by the various states they operate in." The Daily Interlake, from the conservative Flathead Valley, agrees, saying, “it's hard to find anything wrong with Gov. Brian Schweitzer's multi-pronged plan to crack down on tax cheats.” And in case the GOP tries to distort the bill, the Interlake notes, “it is important to remember that the Schweitzer plan is not a tax hike of any kind. Instead, it simply would apply more scrutiny to certain taxpayers.”

As I noted earlier at Thinkprogress, this is a national problem. The General Accounting Office estimates that the federal government lost up to $85 billion over the past decade to improper tax shelters. And the Multistate Tax Commission estimates the states lost $12 billion in corporate taxes in 2001 alone.

Let's hope Montana has the courage to move forward and lead the nation in stopping the corporate tax ripoff. And let's hope Democrats throughout the country see this issue as a new way to talk about taxes in populist terms.

Listen to the Debate

The NPR debate I had with DNC Vice-Chair Susan Turbull and Henry Nicholas of the President of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees is now available online. We debated the future of the Democratic Party. Listen in, and let me know what you think.

Schiavo: Another Missed Opportunity

The polls make it very clear that most Americans are disgusted by what Republicans are trying to do with the Terri Schiavo case. And blogger Ezra Klein says this is a chance for Democrats to really seize the moment. "Here, finally, Democrats agree that the government is in full overreach," he writes. "We agree that in cases like this one, small government is better. Let's take this moment to draw the line."

First of all, let me say that I am disgusted that any political party is trying to make this tragic case a political opportunity. But with the Republicans forcing the issue, Ezra is right, there is an opportunity for Democrats. The problem is that Democrats, incredibly (and sadly), do NOT agree that the government is in full overreach, if their actions in Congress are any sign. Almost half of the House's Democratic lawmakers who were in DC for the vote actually supported the GOP's overreach - undercutting the courageous efforts of the 53 Democrats who stood their ground. In the Senate, the Schiavo bill passed unanimously - meaning not one Democrat objected.

How are Democrats supposed to show their support for privacy and antithesis for government overreaching with votes like this? Sure, the polls seem to suggest Republicans are hurting themselves with their actions, but that doesn't mean Democrats will capitalize on those polls if they continue to behave like this.

And sadly, this is becoming a pattern. In the last few months, we've seen a faction of Democrats capitulate on Condi Rice's nomination, the class action bill, and the bankruptcy bill - essentially damaging their ability to talk about the war, workers rights, and the middle class squeeze, respectively. Now this vote on the Schiavo issue. These votes undercut the very good work by many Democrats. When will the party be unified around these core issues?

The Hook & Bullet Vote

This story in Denver's Rocky Mountain News says it best - Democrats are learning how to use their solid environmental record to attract hunters/fishermen/outdoorsmen (aka. the "Hook & Bullet vote"). This is particularly important because its an area Democrats are playing offense - they are reaching into a constituency that, because of the NRA, has trended conservative/Republican in recent years. But folks are starting to realize that there's more to the outdoorsmen's agenda than just gun rights.

Read the article - it is one of the keys to the future for Democrats in "red" America.

When Does the War on Deficits Start?

Reuters this morning reports that according to America's top business economists, "the budget deficit has overtaken terrorism as the greatest short-term risk to the U.S. economy, and concern about the current gap is rising."

For President Bush, who has staked his legacy on fighting terrorism, that creates a big problem. As the Associated Press reports, "Bush’s legacy will be a swollen federal debt." What was once expected to be a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years is now projected to be at least a $4 trillion deficit by 2015 if Bush’s tax cuts are made permanent and his Social Security suggestions adopted. That's almost a $10 trillion decline in just 8 years.

Now, it's still possible Bush could realize just how much he's screwing up our economy for the long term. So the question for the White House is - when does the War on Deficits start?

The Republican Dems Should Want in 2008

U.S. News and World Report this week writes that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2008. This is TERRIFIC news for Democrats, as Barbour has more serious political liabilities than almost anyone.

HALEY BARBOUR, TOBACCO LOBBYIST: According to Public Citizen, "After Philip Morris was the top RNC donor in 1996, Barbour became a tobacco lobbyist." Time Magazine reported that during Barbour's tenure as a tobacco lobbyist, "two Republican Party officials" said Barbour deviously tried to slip a $50 billion tax break for tobacco companies into a budget bill. Now, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Barbour has used the governor's office to try to gut funding for Mississippi's award-winning youth tobacco prevention program. This, from the governor of the state that originally forced the tobacco companies to admit their products caused cancer.

HALEY BARBOUR, DRUG INDUSTRY LOBBYIST: Barbour was also a top lobbyist for the drug industry, at the very time the industry helped kill proposals to lower drug prices. The Washington Post reported that Barbour actually used his position as chairman of the Republican Party to intervene on a bill raising the minimum wage, and demand lawmakers include a massive tax break for the pharmaceutical industry. Barbour immediately returned to his lobbying firm after his stint at the RNC.

HALEY BARBOUR, ENERGY INDUSTRY LOBBYIST: The Associated Press reported that, as a lobbyist for large energy companies, Barbour "virtually papered the White House, from Vice President Dick Cheney on down, with a memo suggesting the president must provide a sound energy policy by not taking action against carbon dioxide." Time Magazine reported that Barbour was a key player in Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force - the same task force that conspired with Enron.

HALEY BARBOUR, INSENSITIVE TO MINORITIES: The Boston Globe reported that "a photo of Barbour is on the home page of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the racist group that is an offshoot of the old segregationist white citizens councils that tried to hold back the civil rights movement...Barbour is pictured along with five other men, including CCC field director Bill Lord." When Barbour was asked to respond, he refused to ask the CCC to take the photo off their website.

Barbour is the dream opponent for Democrats to run against in 2008, especially if they sharpen their economic message. Let's hope Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him.

Why Trade Is the Next Big Issue

For the last several years, Democrats' complicity with Republicans and Corporate America on the issue of "free trade" has severely weakened the party's ability to attract working class voters. That's why I have said Democrats must oppose Bush's new nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Rob Portman - it gives Democrats a platform to reform their support for free trade, and start once again speaking to the party's traditional blue collar base.

Consider just a few factoids about Democrats' need to re-connect with the working class, and how trade policy is a critical tool in that endeavor:

DEMS LOST MAJORITY IN DISTRICTS RAVAGED BY "FREE" TRADE: According to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress of the 88 congressional districts that shifted from Democrat to Republican from 1994 to 2000, 59 had average incomes below the national norm, and in 68, the percentage of residents with college degrees was below the national average. Many of these are the blue collar, working class districts ravaged by "free trade" deals that have shipped American jobs to cheap overseas labor markets.

DEMS "FREE" TRADE SUPPORT HURTS THEIR CREDIBILITY: With Democrats increasingly having no difference with Republicans on the issue of trade, 55 percent of white working-class voters trusted Bush to handle the economy, while only 39 percent trusted Kerry.

MOST AMERICANS WANT "FREE" TRADE POLICIES RE-EVALUATED: A January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority [of the American public] is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement."

TRADE WAS A HUGE ISSUE IN KEY RED STATE: According to an Associated Press exit poll, seven in 10 voters in Ohio voters blamed foreign trade for taking away jobs. Ohio, as we all know, was the key red state that tipped the election.

AMERICANS OPPOSE THE NEWEST "FREE" TRADE DEAL: 51% of Americans oppose the upcoming Central American Free Trade Agreement and that sentiment crosses party lines, with Republicans (47 to 37 percent) joining Democrats (53 to 31 percent) and Independents (53 to 32 percent) in opposition to the agreement. Overall opposition to CAFTA is stronger in red states (53 to 31 percent) than in blue states (48 to 34 percent). An overwhelming 74% opposed CAFTA when asked if they would favor or oppose the agreement if it reduced consumer prices but caused job losses.

All of these facts mean Democrats have a unique opportunity with Portman's nomination to re-assert themselves as the defenders of America's middle-class. With employment numbers still weak, and outsourcing increasing, how many more polls do Democrats need to see in order to realize that working Americans are desperate for political leaders to start addressing "free" trade as a serious problem?

Republicans for Government Waste

This is an interesting role reversal - Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has been pushing for $400,000 to commission a study on government waste over the next year and a half. The commission would find redundancies and waste in government, that could then be cut out in the next legislative session in 2007. You'd think he'd find some allies for cutting government waste and spending in the Republican Party. You'd be wrong.

U.S. Trade Rep. Rob Portman (R-Corporate America)

President Bush yesterday nominated Rep. Rob Portman (R) to be the new U.S. Trade Representative. At first glance, you might think it is encouraging that he signed up someone from Ohio for such an important position. Ohio, after all, has been ravaged by corporate-backed free trade deals.

But more than nearly any other Member of Congress, Portman is really a corporation. He is supposed to represent the people of Ohio, but he really has been a corporate lobbyist in Congressman’s clothing. He has supported every major piece of free trade legislation that’s come before him, while pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industries that push these deals. And he has done this as Ohio has hemorrhaged jobs. Worse, he has made statements that insult the public’s intelligence. For instance, he actually claimed "I don't think GM went to Mexico because of NAFTA" He said this even though studies showed that immediately after NAFTA passed, "GM jobs in the United States were cut by 38,000 workers."

But don’t trust me on Portman’s abysmal trade record. Trust the small manufacturers and businesses that have been ravaged by Portman’s free trade orthodoxy. According to the U.S. Business & Industry Council (the trade group that represents America’s family owned Main Street businesses), Portman is the lowest ranked member of the Ohio delegation in helping to create and protect good-paying American jobs.

Addendum & Shameless Plug

In my Butte/St. Patrick's Day stupor last night, I made one error from my last post. I should have included Thinkprogress in the list of blogs I love. Hell, why would I write for it if I didn't think it was an important project doing great work reaching out beyond the Beltway?

If you haven't checked it out - go do so right now. It's a great site to visit multiple times a day.

If a Blog Falls in DC, Does It Make a Sound?

Recently, the question of whether bloggers make a real difference in politics has been raised. Are bloggers really making a difference? Or are they just talking to themselves?

My take is pretty simple: most blogs are simply preaching to the converted – but not because that is inherent in the medium itself. The fact is, most bloggers are focused on inside-the-beltway topics, using such insular language, that they cannot connect with the average Internet users, much less the average American. Sure, maybe that’s not the point – maybe most bloggers only want to influence elite journalists (and that they have been fairly successful at). But as a grassroots communications tool, blogging still has a ways to go.

That said, there are a very few blogs that are transcending this paradigm and trying to speak to average Americans (Atrios, Daily Kos, Altercation and MyDD, for instance)…but many other prominent blogs are still caught in that insular Beltway world that makes it impossible for them to reach out beyond that same scope of regulars on the Washington cocktail party circuit. Sure, they may reap awards from their friends on the Beltway cocktail party curcuit. But that's exactly the problem. As Garance Franke-Rutka recently wrote, "top bloggers in America often know one another, sit on panels and in greenrooms together, and go to lunches and dinners together over time." In other words, despite all the accolades, most blogs are not really serious about trying to connect with average, ordinary Americans outside of a 10 mile square radius of Washington, D.C.

That’s actually part of the reason why I decided to leave Washington, D.C. in the first place, and why I’ve tried to make this blog different. Rather than look down upon the "masses" as so many Washington insiders do, I realy believe this medium is a way to circumvent the corporate media filters and the pathetic you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours world of Washington to really communicate WITH the masses.

I’m not sure how successful I’ve been – but its why this site is a bit different from other sites. Here, I try to stick to core principles, rather than just partisan motives (it’s why, on occasion, I go after Democrats who sell out). The fact is, most people don’t think in exclusively partisan terms – they think of their positions on issues first, regardless of party.

That’s why I try to be as direct, straight forward, and hard-hittting as possible, no matter what party or what politician I am talking about. That’s where blogging and the Internet can take the next step from preaching to the converted, to really speaking to America as a whole. Because if authors/bloggers are willing to speak truth to power, and speak to average people outside the Beltway, we will find a whole new audience beyond our own hilariously insular spheres whose importance we so often overstate.

Viva Butte & Anaconda

Just got back from my quick trip down to Butte and Anaconda for St. Patrick's Day - what an experience. If you've never been to these two towns, you really are missing something. Filled with gritty character and history, they explode in full color on St. Patrick's Day, with a blustery parade and throngs of people out and about. I was told Butte has the highest per capita population of folks with Irish ancestry, and though I've never been to Ireland, it really seems as if Butte really is "Ireland's Fifth Province." I joined in the fun, having some Jameson right after breakfast...what a blast...

Here are some pictures from the parade:





Here's (from left to right) State Auditor John Morrison, Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger, and Gov. Brian Schweitzer before they headed to the M&M Bar:



Here are some pictures from inside the historic M&M Bar:













Here's a shot at the beginning of the Anaconda parade:

Off to Butte for St. Patty's Day

Just finished a chapter of my book, and am taking the day off to head for Butte to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Gov. Schweitzer, as I've noted on this blog, just re-opened the M&M Bar in Butte, and the town is supposed to be quite a scene on St. Patty's Day. I'm bringing my camera, and hope to have some pictures from my adventure.

Amen Harry Reid

"Wealth and power control most everything in this country. But one thing they do not control -- wealth and power does not control the Internet. Through the Internet, regular ordinary people have a voice. That’s why I go out of my way to communicate any way that I can on the Internet and I think the blogs are a tremendously important way for the American public to find out what’s really going on."
- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), 3/16/05

Bush Appoints Telecom Industry Lawyer to Head FCC

The Associated Press reports President Bush is appointing Kevin Martin to head the Federal Communications Commission - the agency that oversees, among other things, broadcasters and cable programmers. Martin, of course, is no stranger to those issues. According to the lawfirm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding where Martin used to work, Martin spent his early career "work[ing] primarily for broadcasters and cable programmers" - most likely, representing them at the lawfirm. Oh, and according to Communications Daily (a trade publication) he also did a stint in Kenneth Star's Office of Special Counsel.

In a sense, Martin is the perfect Bush nominee - someone with both close ties to the industry he's expected to regulate (and thus won't regulate), and a experience pushing an extremist partisan agenda. And make no mistake about it - this is an important appointment because the FCC is playing such a critical role in weakening cross-ownership rules and allowing more media consolidation. During debates over the last few years, Martin used his position as one of the five FCC commissioners to tamp down criticism of the administration and spearhead that deregulatory scourge.

What's the Matter With Democrats?

Boston Globe columnist Bob Kuttner does a fantastic job exploring what the hell is wrong with Democrats these days. While most of the party's members in Congress are fighting the good fight, Kuttner notes that the party still doesn't have a coherent message because there are still a cadre of Democrats who regularly bail out and vote for legislation that persecutes the middle class (see the recent bankruptcy bill as a good example).

Why is this? "Dozens of Democratic legislators vote with Bush, usually to curry favor with organized corporate business interests that write these bills (and campaign checks)...This blurs the distinction between the parties and leaves the impression that Democrats don't know what they stand for. Nobody wants to follow a wimp."

Second, "center-right Democrats urge their party to avoid 'populism.'" But as Kuttner notes, "sticking up for the economic interests of ordinary people is not populist in the sense of class warfare. It's the essence of what once made Democrats the majority party."

Read the whole article - it's powerful.

Dictators Get Privacy...What About the Rest of Us?

If you are an ordinary American, your bank may think nothing of losing your private personal financial information, and putting you at risk of identity theft.

But if you are a brutal, murderous dictator, your financial dealings are safe and sound. As the Associated Press reports, a group of U.S. banks Allowed Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet "to use phony account names, offshore companies and other deceptions to hide an estimated $13 million or more from U.S. examiners and from international prosecutors."

The hypocrisy never ends...

A Truly Out of Touch Republican Party

MAINSTREAM:
A February 2005 poll found “only 12 percent of Americans say they would support cutting Social Security benefits to retirees; a full 85 percent would not, including: 83 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of Independents; 82 percent of 18 to 34-year olds, 83 percent of 35 to 44-year olds, 85 percent of 45 to 54-year olds and 87 percent of those 55 years old and older.”
- Newsweek poll, 2/5/05

OUT OF TOUCH:
On March 15th 2005, 90 percent of Senate Republicans voted against legislation encouraging the Congress to “reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.”
- Senate vote #49, 3/15/05

Sign Up for Regular Updates

I have just added a neat little feature to the site (on the right) whereby you can sign up for regular e-mail updates on politics, progressive issues and breaking news, some of which I will post on Sirotablog, some of which I'll just send out on e-mail. See the subscription form in the right sidebar of the page - and don't forget to send back the confirmation email you will receive.

U.S. Senate Supports Identity Theft

Unbelievably, this was sort of lost in the whole bankruptcy debate over the last few weeks...

On March 1st, Bank of America announced it had lost personal financial data of more than 1 million customers, meaning a huge amount of people might experience identity theft, including thousands of federal employees, and even potentially Senators' own staff members. Often times, when you get your identity stolen, it destroys your credit and your entire finances. That’s why two days later Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida introduced legislation to exempt debtors from tougher bankruptcy laws if their financial problems were caused by identity theft. But in a Senate apparently owned by credit card companies and banks, it was voted down by a wide margin.

Consider how disgusting that really is (beyond the truly unfathomable fact that the Senate didn't even care about its own staff members): Your bank can be responsible for losing your personal information and having your identity stolen, and then, when you are faced with the financial consequences of identity theft, your bank can actually use the situation to milk you for more money, because you now have almost no bankruptcy protections.

If, on the other hand, Nelson's amendment had passed and banks were not able to go after you when they contribute to your identity being stolen, Congress would have created a big financial incentive for them to protect your private information. They would know that if they lost it, their own bottom line would be threatened, because they wouldn't be able to go after your debts.

But Congress actually created an incentive (or at least no disincentive) for the opposite – banks can lose your information, and then use their own negligence as an opportunity to bleed you dry with higher interest rates, late fees, and all the other horrible things that are heaped upon citizens as they accrue debt.

Finally Some Snow!

In the midst of a terrible drought in Montana that threatens to create a bad fire season, we finally got some snow in Helena and other parts of the state yesterday...



Let's hope for more!

Has Santorum Violated the Constitution?

Article 3, Section 3, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution says “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum bills himself as a strict Constitutional constructionist. The question, however, for Santorum is whether he violated the Constitution?

1990:
“A Republican challenger, Rick Santorum, is claiming home is not where Rep. Doug Walgren's (D-Pa) heart is…Santorum's spot is the essence of simplicity. Strange music plays while a picture of an attractive white house is shown. The announcer says, ‘There's something strange about this house.’ The reason is because Walgren lives in McLean, which is ‘the wealthiest area of Virginia’ rather than his suburban district.”
- Roll Call, 12/5/90

1995:
“Rick Santorum, the state's junior U.S. senator, has moved his family to Farlington, a northern Virginia suburb of the nation's capital, according to Mike Mihalke, Santorum's press secretary. Santorum and his wife, Karen, have put their Mt. Lebanon, Pa home up for sale.”
- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3/19/05

2004:
“Rick Santorum of Leesburg, Va., is saying that he is and he isn't a resident of Pennsylvania…The senator has to prove to the people of Pennsylvania that he is one of them, not just a visitor from the state of Virginia.”
- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/19/04

Google Ads

I read this USA Today story on Google's AdSense program and figured I'd give it a whirl, that's why you may be seeing a strip of text ads up top (I can't vouch for what the ads are on a given day...and some, strangely, are even for GOP memorabilia!)...I figured if I am lucky, I might generate enough income to pay for the cost of hosting the site each year...I'm not holding my breath...

Purple Mountain Strategy

Salt Lake Tribune columnist John Yewell has this interesting piece about why the West is the most fertile ground for Democrats to reclaim the majority.

In his follow-up post about the article on New West, Yewell notes that "Westerners are not proselytizers - they believe in live and let live," an attitude that is increasingly at odds with the GOP. Because of this, he writes:

Democrats nationwide are wrapped up with figuring out what to believe in that will appeal to voters. I think that’s the wrong question. They should be asking: How do I learn to live with people I disagree with, and still reach out to them, still help them, still find ways to make this complicated country work together. What is the right way to live? Westerners can teach Democrats the answers to these questions.

Yewell is definitely on to something here - and the sooner national Democrats recognize it, the better.

Read It And Weep

Check out my good friend Matt Villano's new essay in this week's edition of Newsweek. It's on major league baseball's erosion through everything from over-commericalization to the recent steroid scandals. It's a sad commentary that makes us fans of the game long for eras past.

My only problem with it was it didn't mention my own pet peeve: baseball's decision to corrupt the playoffs with all this wild card nonsense. I'm more of a traditionalist who liked the regular season to mean more, and liked that when a team actually made the playoffs, it meant something very, very special. But then again, that's just my own issue.

In all seriousness, give Matty's column a read - its a great one.

Re-Opening the "Ideal Bar"

Though I haven't been yet, I hear the M&M Bar in Butte is an institution, and I'm glad to hear it re-opened this week. Jack Kerouac once described it as "the end of my quest for an ideal bar." Check out this AP photo from Gov. Schweitzer's trip down to re-open the bar.



As the AP reported, he took a shot of scotch to celebrate, and then said, "It's great to have it open again. May she never close."

A Solid Step on Trade

There is a lot of nasty debate between free traders and fair traders these days, especially with news of the U.S.'s record-breaking trade deficits. but it is nice to see that at least some Members of Congress are trying to find common ground on the issue. Check out this press release from Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Evan Bayh (D-IN). As it notes, while massive government subsidies are illegal under current trade law because they create unfair advantages, "current trade law does not allow the U.S. to enforce these laws on countries that traditionally operate under a state-controlled economy." The Bayh-Collins bill would "update the law to take into account the fact that many of these countries, like China, now allow their manufacturing industries to operate as relatively free markets engaged in international trade."

Blogger Matt Yglesias, who I usually agree with on stuff, uses an unfair stereotype, claims this bill is "anti-trade" and then says he's against it because he wants to buy cheap goods. What he seems to ignore - or just not care about - is the unfair disadvantage foreign subsidies create for American workers and businesses. The fact is, the very least our trade system requires is a fair playing field.

He also goes on to say that "unfairly cheap goods and services are exactly the kind of goods and services I want to be buying." He's allowed to have an opinion, of course, but I disagree - I don't want to be buying goods made artificially cheap because dictatorial regimes like China and others abuse trade law and subsidize these products in order to usurp economic power and put American workers out on the street.

This is real progress - members of both political parties, and even some free-trade Democrats, are finally starting to realize that the trade playing field needs to be made fair for American workers. Sure, this isn't a panacea for all the problems that come with free trade, and the free-trade vs. fair trade debate will continue, but this is a very good step.

Mitt Romney: Invertebrate

CLAIM:
"Most people who have been successful in the public arena have a position that people understand and appreciate. It doesn't change depending on the crowd."
- Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) promoting what he says are his positive traits, 3/1/05

FACT:
"Governor Mitt Romney backed away yesterday from his proposal to give the state's top revenue official new discretion to pursue corporations that lower their tax bills by transferring profits outside Massachusetts, as national antitax groups chastised the governor for his broader, three-year quest to close what he calls tax loopholes benefiting corporations."
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2005

"They're Pathetic"

Republicans have been manhandling and intimidating Democrats for years. Yet now, Montana Republicans are crying about being pushed around by Gov. Schweitzer in a series of press stories (See Exhibit A and B) . Apparently, they think it is out of line for a governor to aggressively press his agenda through the legislature.

But as the Missoulian notes in its editorial today, "they make it sound like Montana's brawny new governor is serving up knuckle sandwiches in the foyer." But, "as it turns out, all they're whining about is that the Democrat threatens to campaign against Republicans when they run for re-election if they don't support his proposals...They call that harassment? They're pathetic!"

The editorial concludes by saying "We certainly have more respect for Schweitzer and his willingness to push for something he believes in than we do for Republican legislators who whimper about intimidation rather than standing up for what they believe in."

Amen.

The Populist Agenda In Action

What's going on in Montana is truly amazing. The state has its first populist governor in a long time - and the agenda moving through the legislature is setting a standard for other populist reformers throughout the country. Just look at what's going on - it is a model for others:

REDUCING CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT: Bills are being pushed to remove the influence of corporate lobbyists on government.

CRACKING DOWN ON WEALTHY TAX CHEATS SO NO TAX INCREASES ARE NEEDED: Bills are being pushed to crack down on wealthy and corporate tax cheats, so that Democrats can figh any tax increases on average citizens.

FORCING THE DRUG INDUSTRY TO START BEING ACCOUNTABLE: Bills are moving through the legislature to force drug companies to start disclosing how much money they are spending to corrupt medical decisions.

REDUCING DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL: Bills are moving through the legislature to build a renewable wind/ethanol energy industry, so as to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, while building Montana's economy.

HELPING MAKE COLLEGE AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE - NOT JUST THE WEALTHY: Bills are on their way to passage that would provide new college scholarships to hard-working students that are in financial need.

This is not just me personally liking Gov. Schweitzer - this is very real, very serious progress in building a populist agenda, coming from a conservative Democratic governor and his legislative allies in a red-state. I hope other states take heed - and replicate it.

Guilty As Charged

DLCers in Congress have claimed for years they really aren't corporate shills, but now we have proof in this press release from the New Democrat Coalition - the DLC's congressional arm:

Washington, D.C.--With consumer debt reaching record highs of more than $2 trillion, members of the New Democrat Coalition (NDC) sent a letter today to Speaker Dennis Hastert, urging him to schedule House action on the bankruptcy reform legislation as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The letter, signed by twenty NDC members, including the four NDC leaders, reiterates New Democrats' long-standing support for common-sense bankruptcy legislation and states an intention to work across the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law.

"I'm pleased to see so many New Democrats band together in calling for a mainstream solution to bankruptcy reform. I hope Speaker Hastert will heed our calls and move promptly to bring this legislation to the floor soon," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher.

See more here...

Look no further for why Democrats are in the minority. When you sell out America's working class over and over again as the DLC/New Dems do, this is where you end up.

NOTE: In my last post, I should have added Noam Scheiber to the list of TNR writers who manages to keep it real over there.

The New Republican

Since I've gotten such a tremendous outpouring of support for calling out the New Republic for parroting the worst right-wing caricatures of the left, I wanted to point folks to this terrific piece by my friend Eric Alterman from 2001.

Frankly, I used to like the publication on some issues, and I still think it has a few very good reporters like Ryan Lizza and Jonathan Chait. But the publication as a whole has clearly sold its soul to various questionable and hard-right causes (here's just one example) under its new leadership. As Alterman notes, TNR is a magazine now funded by "a major funder of the right-wing Manhattan Institute and the American Enterprise Institute." It has "helped launch the careers of a bevy of hawkish writers who have carried the talent for malevolent invective with them like a communicable disease." Many of their writers "do their best to revive the tactics of Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn during this war" - such as editor Peter Beinart, who essentially says that if you aren't a hard-right neo-conservative you are weak.

It's no problem, of course, that TNR is a conservative publication. There are lots of them. But its a problem for them to continue trying to speak on behalf of "liberalism." As the evidence shows, they are anything but. Maybe this intellectual dishonesty and backstabbing is why its circulation has dropped so precipitously over the last few years, at the very same time magazines like The Nation have increased their subscribership.

Stop Crying, Start Shaking...And Dems Will Start Winning

There's been a lot of vitriol lately coming from the political Establishment aimed at progressives and the grassroots elements of the Democratic Party. Despite Democrats' now assuming a seemingly permanent-minority position, it seems progressives are shunned or vilified anytime they speak up about how sellouts who claim to be Democrats are a big part of the party's problem.

Believe me - you should see the email I've gotten for having the nerve to point out that the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Republic are making their name these days reinforcing conservative's dishonest stereotypes, and shamelessly attacking the Democratic Party. You should see the nastiness (both private and public) directed at me when I've proposed alternative, constructive ideas that have been tested in the heartland. Most of the email from outside Washington has been laudatory, but there has been some of it from within the Washington media/political Establishment that has been harsh (don't worry, I take it as a compliment).

You see, the conventional wisdom among the class of political elites that helped drive Democrats into the ground is that progressives should just shut up and continue playing dead as right-wing forces speak in our name. Worse, they say progressive grassroots elements of the left should be purged from the Democratic Party because the cocktail party elites in Washington know what's best. That, they say, is the way for Democrats to win back the majority.

Let me be crystal clear in where I come down on this one: a person who describes themselves as a Democrat or a “liberal/progressive”, yet who advocates purging the grassroots while pushing a right-wing agenda on fundamental issues is just as dangerous - if not more dangerous - to both the progressive movement and the Democratic Party's long term viability than any Republican. Why? Because they use the guise of speaking for the Democratic Party to attack it, giving those attacks a false sense of credibility, when in fact they speak for no one except the tiny cadre of insulated snobs who barely ever travel more than 5 miles outside of Washington, D.C.

Because of this insular Establishment, the Democratic Party is now at rock bottom. Yet the same Establishment that got us here now rails against progressives, parrots right-wing language, and reads the grassroots the riot act. Are we really supposed to just shut up and take it? No. Its time to finally have the debate between the Establishment and the progressives they demonize, and its time for us progressives to not FEAR having that debate, no matter what the tired old pundits and political consulting class says about it being "counter-productive." The fact is, the conservative Establishment is the one most viciously engaging in these attacks. And they believe they - AND ONLY THEY - have the exclusive right to attack their opponents, and to ruthlessly call for purges of the party. Standing up against this kind of behavior and this weakening of the Democratic Party's principles is anything but “counter-productive” – it is vital to the future of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party’s long-term viability itself.

Again, this is not about just railing on the Establishment just because it is fun. It’s far more important than that – it’s about reconnecting the Democratic Party with its working class roots, and thus bringing it back into the majority. That means having the guts to look at the current situation honestly, instead of constantly pretending there's no problem. It’s about calling out the sellouts for what they are because they hurt the cause, instead of pretending everyone is "on the same team." It's about admitting there's a problem when when people who claim to speak for liberals/progresives are being promoted by the far-right.

Remember, just because you call yourself a "Democrat" or on the "left" or a "liberal/progressive" doesn't mean you really represent the party of the working class, and doesn't mean you are on the same team as everyone else. The recent Democratic votes on bankruptcy and class action reform, for instance, should make that point loud and clear. If those examples don't make the point, then just think back to how Zell Miller referred to himself as a Democrat, even as he took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

So to all my friends in the Establishment who think they can push the grassroots and the progressives around, I say, fine, have at it. But quit behaving like a pathetic bully who pushes people around, and then cries when we fight back. Stop your crying and instead start shaking in fear, because you know very well how your leadership has driven the Democratic Party into the ground over the last decade, and you hear the footsteps of change coming.

Populism 101: Crackdown on Tax Cheats

In my earlier article for the American Prospect, I discussed how red-state progressives were using economic populism. And out here in Montana, Gov. Schweitzer is giving national Democrats a fine display about exactly how to do that. Today, the Associated Press reports that he unveiled a plan "to crack down on cheating taxpayers that he said could mean an additional $20 million in tax collections for the state over two years."

"The long-term consequences of abusive tax shelters could be severely detrimental to Montana's economy," Schweitzer said, invoking populist themes. "Montana's hardworking and law-abiding citizens do not deserve to be ripped off by high net worth individuals and multistate corporations who aren't playing by the rules."

This is a perfect example of how progressives don't have to avoid tax issues - they can take the lead on them in a way that appeals to most hard-working citizens. All it takes is a little courage.

Is Peter Beinart a GOP Operative?

New Republic editor Peter Beinart has been showing up on television and in the newspaper purporting to represent “liberalism” and Democrats in general. But a comparison of his rhetoric and language with that of the far-right’s spin machine begs a very simple question: is he just a Republican operative in disguise?

“LIBERAL” PETER BEINART ON NATIONAL SECURITY:
"Many Americans have questions about the degree to which liberals are willing to defend the country.” - Peter Beinart, 3/6/05

RIGHT-WING SPIN MACHINE ON NATIONAL SECURITY:
“The problem the Democrats have is, no one really believes they're authentic patriots and they would ever say that any war in defense of America is the right war at the right time in the right place. They wouldn't fight any place. Everyone knows that Democrats won't fight a war.” - Ann Coulter, 10/6/04

“LIBERAL” PETER BEINART ON TAXES:
Liberals must ask themselves “Does a tax credit do something better or does a government program?” - Peter Beinart, 3/6/05

RIGHT-WING SPIN MACHINE ON TAXES:
“[Liberals] just want money to spend on more government programs, which results in a permanently bigger government. That's why they want to reduce the tax cut.” - White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, 4/9/01

“Democrats don't like tax relief. They want unfair taxes taken in an unfair way from the American people to be brought to Washington and spread around in the Washington government programs the way they want it. They hate tax cuts.” - U.S. Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), 2/6/01

“LIBERAL” PETER BEINART ON THE MILITARY:
“Democrats have been alienated from the military since Vietnam.” – Peter Beinart, 3/6/05

RIGHT-WING SPIN MACHINE ON THE MILITARY:
“Half of the [Democratic] base hates the military, hates America.”
- Rush Limbaugh, 9/17/04

Executives Raise Own Pay, Lobby Against Min. Wage

FYI - as Big Business executives lobby furiously against a proposal in Congress today to raise the minimum wage, it is important to see today's USA Today story about how many of these same executives are jacking up their own pay.

As the story notes, "the average director's pay at Fortune 200 companies could surge to $200,000, up 14% from 2004. This salary for what essentially amounts to part-time work, even as these same companies say American workers should continue to have a minimum wage below the poverty line.

Sen. George Allen: "I Don't Give a S__t" About My State

CLAIM:
“I don’t give a shit about Community Development Block Grants. Virginia doesn’t see any of that money.”
- Virginia Sen. George Allen (R)
Source: Roll Call newspaper, 3/7/05

FACT:
In 2004 alone, Virginia received almost $50 million in Community Development Block Grants for priorities like affordable housing, neighborhood security, and small business assistance.
- U.S. Government Budget, 2005 State-by-State tables
Source: President Bush's Office of Management and Budget

FACT:
President Bush’s proposed 2005 cut to Community Development Block Grants “could derail dozens of local efforts [in Virginia] to create jobs, increase homeownership and restore areas.”
- Hampton Roads Daily Press, 2/25/05

Montana and Red-State Political News

As I settle down in Helena, I've been finding some great websites about Montana and "red state" politics in general. Here are the ones I've been reading most frequently - take a look, they are great:

Left in the West: A great blog about Montana by Matt Singer, who also writes for Campus Progress.

New West: A new site run out of Missoula devoted to western states. It was co-founded and edited by the same guy who ran the magazine The Industry Standard.

Western Democrat: A site about all things Democratic in the West by Mandate Media's Kari Chisholm, who is based out of Portland, Oregon.

Facing South: Chris Kromm of the Institute for Southern Studies runs this blog that looks at how progressives are making advances in the South, despite the media's portrayal of the region as a conservative monolith.

Swing State Project: A site dedicated to the political happenings in all the "purple" states.

How Iraq Affects The Homefront

Here in Montana, the big worry these days is the upcoming fire season. Because of one of the worst droughts in the region's history, it could be a very bad one. But that's only part of why the situation could be particularly bad. The other factor is that Montana's National Guardsmen are deployed in Iraq.

That's why Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) today demanded that President Bush return the Montana National Guard from Iraq to help fight the upcoming fire season. While President Bush falsely claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to our security, Schweitzer notes that the fires are a real imminent threat to thousands of citizens.

This is a perfect example of exactly how the war in Iraq has drained resources from pressing concerns at home. Will President Bush move to help states like Montana and Idaho which supported him so strongly in 2004, or will he ignore Schweitzer and let the fires simply burn without sending in the necessary reinforcements?

74 U.S. Senate Usurers

USURY:
"An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money."
Source: American Heritage Dictionary

USURERS:
74 Republican and Democratic U.S. Senators who yesterday voted to kill legislation "to limit consumer interest rates at 30 percent."
Source: Associated Press, 3/4/05

Reid Tells the Brutal Truth About Alan Greenspan

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) today did what very few Senators do in modern politics - he spoke truth to economic power by breaking protocol and calling out Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan for what he is - an economic elitist of the highest order. "I'm not a big Greenspan fan," Reid told CNN. "I voted against him the last two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."

What was Reid talking about? Take a look at just some of the ways Alan Greenspan continues to insult average Americans in his quest to ingratiate himself with his rich friends:

GREENSPAN INSULTS AMERICAN WORKERS: "I would say that if I had my choice, the answer is, of course, yes." - Alan Greenspan acknowledging his support of abolishing the minimum wage, 7/18/01

GREENSPAN INSULTS BLUE COLLAR WORKERS: "I think you can argue it does not really matter whether or not you produce [manufacturing jobs in Ameica] or not." – Alan Greenspan, 7/15/03

GREENSPAN INSULTS ALL AMERICAN WORKERS: "If I had my choice, the answer is of course [I would abolish the minimum wage]." – Alan Greenspan, 7/18/01

GREENSPAN SAYS SENIORS SHOULD PAY FOR MILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS: "Greenspan told the House Financial Services Committee last week that Congress should make President Bush's tax cuts permanent and -- here's the political bombshell -- pay the $1 trillion cost by cutting Social Security and other entitlement programs." – Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 2/18/04

GREENSPAN INSULTS MILLIONS OF WORKERS WHO LOST THEIR JOB BECAUSE OF THE RECORD TRADE DEFICIT: "The widening to record levels of the U.S. [trade deficit] has been seemingly uneventful." – Alan Greenspan, 2/20/03

GREENSPAN INSULTS MILLIONS OF CITIZENS PLAGUED BY HIGH CREDIT-CARD INTEREST: America’s record breaking $2 trillion in consumer debt is "not a significant cause for concern." – Alan Greenspan, 1/5/04

Reid Tells the Brutal Truth About Alan Greenspan

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) today did what very few Senators do in modern politics - he spoke truth to economic power by breaking protocol and calling out Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan for what he is - an economic elitist of the highest order. "I'm not a big Greenspan fan," Reid told CNN. "I voted against him the last two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."

What was Reid talking about? Take a look at just some of the ways Alan Greenspan continues to insult average Americans in his quest to ingratiate himself with his rich friends:

GREENSPAN INSULTS AMERICAN WORKERS: "I would say that if I had my choice, the answer is, of course, yes." - Alan Greenspan acknowledging his support of abolishing the minimum wage, 7/18/01

GREENSPAN INSULTS BLUE COLLAR WORKERS: "I think you can argue it does not really matter whether or not you produce [manufacturing jobs in Ameica] or not." – Alan Greenspan, 7/15/03

GREENSPAN INSULTS ALL AMERICAN WORKERS: "If I had my choice, the answer is of course [I would abolish the minimum wage]." – Alan Greenspan, 7/18/01

GREENSPAN SAYS SENIORS SHOULD PAY FOR MILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS: "Greenspan told the House Financial Services Committee last week that Congress should make President Bush's tax cuts permanent and -- here's the political bombshell -- pay the $1 trillion cost by cutting Social Security and other entitlement programs." – Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 2/18/04

GREENSPAN INSULTS MILLIONS OF WORKERS WHO LOST THEIR JOB BECAUSE OF THE RECORD TRADE DEFICIT: "The widening to record levels of the U.S. [trade deficit] has been seemingly uneventful." – Alan Greenspan, 2/20/03

GREENSPAN INSULTS MILLIONS OF CITIZENS PLAGUED BY HIGH CREDIT-CARD INTEREST: America’s record breaking $2 trillion in consumer debt is "not a significant cause for concern." – Alan Greenspan, 1/5/04

Rolling Stone Distorts Moveon

This piece in Rolling Stone about Moveon, while generally positive, concludes by parroting a right-wing charicature of the group, even though it previously acknowledges there is no data to back it up.

Rolling Stone writes: "MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated."

But just a few paragraphs earlier, Rolling Stone acknowledged that there is very little - if any - demographic data on who Moveon members are. Furthermore, there is absoultely no basis for Rolling Stone to claim "Moveon's values aren't middle-American values." As hard polling data from this earlier piece in the Nation Magazine proves, the whole idea of "middle-American values" and "centrism" continues to be distorted by the mainstream corporate media and right-wing punditocracy.

Again, the Rolling Stone article was generally complimentary. But it should get its facts straight before parroting the same tired, old and dishonest Beltway characterizations of what is a massive grassroots, citizen-driven organization.

Salazar Steps Up

A few weeks back, I criticized Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) for helping the GOP confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. It was a troubling sign from the freshman Senator that I fear boded poorly for his first term in office.

But there has now been a very encouraging development - Salazar is out leading the fight against President Bush's extremist judicial nominees, despite being courted heavily by the White House. Specifically, CNN reports that Salazar "urged President Bush to withdraw all of his renominated judicial candidates, a blow to Republicans who had hoped to get the lawmaker's support to break possible filibusters."

This is a terrific sign from a "red-state" freshman Democrat, especially considering the courage it takes to make this kind of stand when his state is the headquarters for right-wing groups like Focus on the Family. Let's hope Salazar's example is an inspiration for other Democratic freshman whose voting records so far have been less than stellar.

NPR Tonight

I will be doing the taping of NPR's Justice Talking tonight - send in questions, or come to the taping!

No Surprise From the DLC

Just when I thought the right-attacks-on-the-left within the Democratic Party were over, the Democratic Leadership Council is at it again, once again attacking Democrats. The DLC's latest daily installment of vitriol and backstabbing comes from Al From and Ed Kilgore, who are calling for a purge of the left in the party, while laying down cover for those who might bail out on the party's core principles.

Some people seem surprised by that. But let's be clear - its no secret that the DLC is a corporate-funded institution designed to stealthily corporatize the Democratic Party. Like a bad virus, they exist solely to infiltrate and destroy the party from within. As From's totally out-of-touch comments show, their insular, snarky, and self-righteous operation in Washington is increasingly threatened by the grassroots outside the Beltway to the point where they are openly demanding a purge of critical parts of the party, while defending potential turncoats.

On Social Security, for instance, the DLC is already laying down cover for people like Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is flirting with selling out and supporting Social Security privatization. But we should not forget that the DLC has pocketed cash from Wall Street - the very monied interest that stands to benefit from privatization. Lieberman and the DLC have also been on Enron's dole, so their scruples about money and politics is questionable anyway. In other words, the DLC has become about one thing, and one thing only: being a vehicle for Corporate America's cold hard cash to water-down the Democratic Party.

And it doesn't stop with Social Security. Just look at this new article from the American Prospect. The DLC and its "New" (read: corporate) Democrats, "led by former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, have been cheerleaders for the class-action bill" which limits citizens rights to defend themselves in court against abusive corporations. "Dellinger, of course, now works for Exxon and other large companies backing the tort-reform movement...Likewise, the DLC’s Progressive Policy Institute recently teamed up with Common Good, a corporate-funded tort-reform group that refers to the justice system as 'a tool for extortion,' to push a measure that would take malpractice lawsuits out of the hands of juries.'"

So before anyone gets too crazy or upset about the DLC's latest display of selling out - remember, that's their job. It's our job to expose them for what they really are, and fight for real progressive politics.

Standing Up and Fighting

There's been a lot of talk about Democrats need to stand up and fight. And while some Democrats are taking up the call to arms, some still seem to cower when it comes to confronting President Bush's most extreme policies. Just look at the contrast from this LA Times piece.

In one corner, you have Gov. Bill Richardson (D) of New Mexico (a fine fellow, and decent governor) saying how "gracious" Bush has been in his discussions about slashing Medicaid and Social Security.

In the other corner, you have Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D), who pulls no punches. He comes right out and likens Bush's dishonesty to trying to a livestock auction that fails to tempt buyers.

No disrespect to Richardson, but I'll take Schweitzer's way to fight in a heartbeat - its the only way Democrats are going to make a real come back.