Free Lunchers Must Show Their Cards

Slate's Daniel Gross demands Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and the rest of the free lunch Republicans show their cards on Social Security. I agree with Gross: it's time for the GOP to put up or shut up.

A Leader Named Sherrod Brown

Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) is one of the true progressive champions in Congress. He is leading the fight against the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. And amazingly, he convinced the "free" traders at the Washington Post to run one of his terrific op-eds. Go read it.

The Circle is Now Complete

I can't help but chuckle in reading this piece from the Democratic Leadership Council deriding Corporate America's influence on government. To be sure, it's a solid piece. But if you step back and consider where it's coming from, there is at least a bit of comedy to it: A group that made its name using corporate money to influence the Democratic Party is now deriding Corporate America's influence over the Republican Party. This is a sign progressives are winning the ideological battle - when those who formerly argued against us have no problem simply dropping their arguments - no matter how ridiculously transparent/opportunistic it looks - to join us.

In all, I'd rather have them fighting for the right things, than have them continue undermining the Democratic Party. So, seriously folks, this is a good development.

But it's still really hilarious.

Progressives & the Politics of Oil Drilling

The oil and gas industry's rampant disregard for private property owners may make you angry. But there's a good side - their misbehavior is opening up some very interesting opportunities for progressives in key states.

In the red swing state of Colorado, Republicans joined with the energy industry to kill legislation that would have forced Corporate America to pay more when they harm private property during energy exploration. Make no mistake about it - this is a big issue, as the energy companies are riling up folks in the traditionally conservative rural parts of Colorado. The Denver Rocky Mountain News has a big piece today exploring how land owners are often poorly compensated when oil/gas companies drill under their land - and how ordinary citizens' property rights are abused. And now a Texas company is attempting to open up Colorado's sacred Rocky Mountain Front to drilling.

This battle is also playing out in Florida. The Los Angeles Times reports that last week a U.S. Senate committee "backed a study to determine how much oil and natural gas lies off the coasts" – a step that "could lead to weakening the decades-old ban on new offshore drilling." While Florida's House delegation fought off a formal effort to allow drilling near the state's coast, the St. Petersburg Times notes that "Congress thirsts for oil drilling in Florida waters."

To be sure – this assault is bad news for the environment. But it is forging a new alliance between traditionally conservative property owners and conservationists. That is a huge opportunity for progressives to reframe the environmental movement in a way that plays offense in GOP territory. No longer is environmentalism just protecting endangered species (though that is clearly still important). It is now becoming about ordinary people's property/privacy rights – giving environmentalism that necessary twinge of short-term self-interest that can make it a populist issue, and allow us to play offense in GOP areas.

D.C. Elites: Lies About Sex More Important Than Lies About War

Atrios posts a 1998 story about the Washington, D.C. Establishment's outrage at Bill Clinton for his lying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. What is truly nauseating is not the corrupt and cliquey insiderism - it is the outrage over lying about sex, and the subsequent silence we've all experienced from the media/political Establishment when it has come to the current administration's lying about war.

Here are some choice comments from the 1998 article:

"There has to be a functional trust by reporters of the person they're covering. Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to." – Hardball's Chris Matthews

"The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them." – Reagan/Clinton adviser David Gergen

"What is troubling is the deceit, the failure to own up to it. Before this is over the truth must be told." – Sen. Joe Lieberman (who hasn't owned up to his own pre-war role pushing Bush administration lies about Iraq)

"The judgment is harsher in Washington. We don't like being lied to." - Washington Post columnist David Broder

"When you lie to the country, you are using your authority to undermine the presidency." – Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin (who, by the way, had no problem subsequently plagiarizing work and then lying about it).

Where is the outrage from these Beltway Establishment figures over the Bush administration's blatant lies about Iraq? Oh sure, you can find a scant example here and there, but generally, it's nowhere, especially considering the purported anger that D.C. elites claim to feel about being lied to.

If ever there was proof that these people are completely and totally out of touch with the rest of the country, this is it. And it will only get worse - the Washington Post is apparently going to run two "jumbo" stories on the Clinton lies, while continuing to relegate Iraq to the back pages. Because to insulated Beltway elites, lying about a personal sex scandal is more offensive than American troops dying for a pack of lies in Iraq.

Lies, Damn Lies, & the New Republic's War on the Left

The New Republic (aka. The New Republican), suffering a disastrous decline in circulation, produces a typical hatchet job on Matt Taibbi's new book, "Spanking the Donkey." The magazine's major criticism of Taibbi is their claim that his "politics are so far to the left of the mainstream - of the party and the country - that only a very small percentage of Americans are inclined to take them seriously." In the process, however, the New Republic embarrasses itself and proves what many critics have been saying for some time: many writers at the magazine have become so insulated and out of touch that the publication has been relegated to parroting dishonest right wing spin.

The magazine tries to substantiate its claim that Taibbi is out of the mainstream by criticizing his anti-war positions, and making fun of him for saying Democrats could win by "renouncing the WTO and NAFTA, creating a universal-health-care system, and slashing the defense budget." The neoconservative magazine – which still laughably claims to represent the left – also is angry that Taibbi "lambastes the Dems for supporting the Patriot Act [and] the No Child Left Behind Act."

For the sake of a little fact checking, let's just take a look at who is out of the mainstream – Taibbi or the insulated elites at the New Republic who criticize his positions:

WAR IN IRAQ: A May 2005 CNN/Gallup poll shows that a strong majority (57 percent) of Americans say they do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq. A February 2005 Harris poll found "almost six in 10 (59%) adults now favor bringing most troops home in the next year." MAINSTREAM: Taibbi; OUT OF TOUCH: The New Republican

TRADE: A January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority [of the American public] is critical of US government trade policy." A 12/15/03 Zogby poll found 55% of Americans believe NAFTA has resulted in fewer jobs in the United States, 50% oppose expanding NAFTA, and just 31% favor such a move. According to the 2/22/04 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a January 2004 poll found that just 38% of Americans said NAFTA's effects on America had been good, while 46% said the effects have been bad. And a Democracy Corps poll released last week showed Americans overwhelmingly approve a fair trade message to the current "free" trade message that our government espouses. MAINSTREAM: Taibbi; OUT OF TOUCH: The New Republican

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: According to a 2003 ABC/Washington post poll, almost two thirds of Americans say they prefer a universal healthcare system "that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers" as opposed to the current private, for-profit system. According to an article published by Physicians for a National Health Care Porgram in the conservative Journal of the American Medical Association, "more than half of academic physicians, including most medical school deans, now endorse single payer (national health insurance), as do 40% of small business owners." MAINSTREAM: Taibbi; OUT OF TOUCH: The New Republican

DEFENSE BUDGET: A March 2005 poll by the University of Maryland found the American public supports "deep cuts in defense spending," using the saved money for "a significant reallocation toward deficit reduction, and increases in spending on education, job training, reducing reliance on oil, and veterans." These changes "were favored by both Republicans and Democrats." Specifically, respondents would "cut on average 31%—equivalent to $133.8 billion" out of the Defense budget, with a full "65% of respondents cutting." The second largest area to be cut was" the supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, which suffered an average cut of $29.6 billion or 35%, with two out of three respondents cutting." Even former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense Larry Korb argues that the defense budget needs to be cut. MAINSTREAM: Taibbi; OUT OF TOUCH: The New Republican

PATRIOT ACT: A 2004 USA Today/Gallup Poll found serious public misgivings about the Patriot Act, with 71 percent disapproving of secret search provisions, and half uneasy about new FBI rights to search citizens' records. On 3/7/04, the Boston Globe reported that "analysts agree, the Patriot Act has become a symbol of general unease about whether the war on terrorism is curtailing individual rights." Meanwhile, a broad, bipartisan group of lawmakers have supported restricting the Patriot Act. MAINSTREAM: Taibbi; OUT OF TOUCH: The New Republican

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: On 9/1/04, the Wall Street Journal reported "polls show few voters are impressed with President Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' education effort." An August 2004 Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans had serious problems with NCLB testing requirements. Meanwhile, teachers, parents and administrators have all criticized the NCLB for create federal education mandates without including the necessary funding to fulfill those mandates. MAINSTREAM: Taibbi; OUT OF TOUCH: The New Republican

Let's remember - this isn't really about Taibbi in specific. It is about the broader question of what the media considers to be "mainstream." And to be sure, there are still some good writers at the New Republic. But as I have argued before, the publication has, on the whole, become extremely dangerous to the progressive movement, because it purports to speak in progressives' name, while giving credence to the worst conservative distortions. This article is emblematic of that problem, as it subtly seeks to reinforce all of the right wing lies about what Americans really believe. The fact that the article is so devoid of actual, statistical analysis to back up its point is just further proof that they have no desire to even substantiate their pathetic and unsupportable arguments.

Dems Get Red-State Reward for Populism

With Montana having a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature for the first time in years, the pressure was on for the new majority party to deliver. And deliver they did. Far from trying to govern as watered down Big Business Republicans, Democrats passed a slate of progressive populist reforms. For their effort, they are being roundly rewarded in public opinion polls.

According to a new poll by Lee Newspapers, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's (D) 57/33 favorable/unfavorable ratings are far higher than Gov. Marc Racicot's (R) poll numbers at the same time in his term (Racicot was one of Montana's most popular governors). The poll also shows that the 2005 legislature received "significantly higher marks than they did the previous two sessions." 49 percent of Montanans had a favorable view of the recent legislative session, while 45 percent had a negative impression. By contrast, in 2003, 70 percent of voters had a negative assessment of the Legislature, while 27 percent had a positive one. In 2001, 58 percent of voters had a negative evaluation of the Legislature, while 27 percent had a positive one.

This should serve as a model for other "red" state Democrats. Instead of trying to mimic Republicans, the party now has more proof that a strong, populist middle-class agenda can succeed in the heartland. It simply requires political leaders with courage.

NY Times' White House Team Breaks A Big One

America faces a health care crisis, stagnating wages, a pension implosion, and radical proposals for Social Security...So what is the New York Times using its limited White House resources to cover? Critically important and breathlessly effusive profiles of the President's personal butler, naturally. The paper's crack investigative White House reporter (the same one who admitted she was too afraid to ask questions before the Iraq War) breaks the story about how the butler courageously "holds Mr. Bush's speeches, notecards and trinkets," has a "wicked" sense of humor, manages a "perfect coif" and sports "immaculate good looks."

Seriously, folks - this is truly an embarrassment, especially for those reporters at the New York Times who still do serious work. Here's my question for the national press corps: after reading drivel like this Times story, do you really still wonder why you have become a complete and total laughingstock?

The Statistical Case for Economic Populism

The voices that say the Democrats must behave more like Big Business Republicans in order to win elections are many. They call this "moderation" - but there is little evidence it works (in fact, there is far more compelling evidence that it does the opposite). As columnist Bob Kuttner has noted, "for every Evan Bayh" who uses this "moderate" model to win a red state "there are two or three Byron Dorgans" - who use economic populism to do the same. And one interesting statistic shows how this actually works.

Pundits are quick to claim that when Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders crushes his Republican opponents, he does so only because Vermont is a "blue" state. But consider this incredible statistic from over at Paperwight's blog:

"Sanders won in 47 of the 48 Vermont precincts in which George Bush beat John Kerry. In all but three of those, Sanders beat the Republican candidate (his closest competitor) by double digit margins: he won ten precincts by more than 20%, fourteen precincts by more than 30%, and eleven precincts by more than 40%. Remember, those are precincts where George Bush won while Sanders split his vote with two non-Republican candidates, and Sanders didn't just beat his Republican opponent. Sanders destroyed his Republican opponent."

In other words, the progressive populist Sanders is not only cleaning up in the blue parts of Vermont, but in the very red parts of Vermont as well (and just head up to the Northeast Kingdom if you don't think there are very red parts of Vermont). Using economic populism on issues like trade and wages, he is able to attract culturally conservative, working-class voters to his side. That is what makes him such a force in his state - and what can make other Democrats more successful in their own.

Answering An Important Question About the Media

Over the last few weeks, I have tried to understand why the media seems resigned to downplay the Iraq War, epsecially with a strong majority of Americans now believing the war wasn't worth it. My friend Duncan Black over at Atrios does a good job of answering the question.

Analyzing the Wal-Mart Issue

The issue of Wal-Mart's effect on society is a complicated one. The company does bring lower-priced goods to a community - but those prices come at a cost in depressed wages, worse health care benefits, bankrupted local businesses, increased welfare expenditures, etc. The Christian Science Monitor today tries to take a look at all the issues - and does a decent job of presenting both sides of the argument. Check it out.

Attacking the Law Enforcers

The Financial Times has a fascinating piece on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's new priority: stopping state Attorneys General who are forcing Corporate America to start behaving itself. The move is likely targeted at people like New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D), who has been lauded for his "crackdowns in the mutual fund, insurance, pharmaceutical and financial services industries." A spokesman for Mr Spitzer said on Thursday: "It is sad that the chamber's leadership wants to return to the days of crooked accounting and conflicts of interest."

The chamber, which the FT notes is "the most powerful business lobby in Washington," is considering "supporting legislation that would protect federally regulated companies from the actions of state attorneys-general." Congress has already obliged in many ways. For instance, in 2003, Congress rolled back states' ability to pass and enforce tough financial privacy laws. And now Congress is pushing to limit states' ability to pass and enforce predatory lending laws. With the Chamber's new campaign, however, we are sure to see more of this consolidation of federal power from conservatives who previously purported to care about "states' rights."

POLL: On Trade, Follow Lou Dobbs not Tom Friedman

Democrats are still engaged in a debate about whether to continue embracing Clinton-style corporate-written "free" trade deals, or whether to start putting America's middle-class first. If there was any debate about where the right place to go politically is, a new poll puts it to rest.

Check out page 32 of this new Democracy Corps poll. It pits the New York Times' Tom Friedman's "free" trade views up against CNN's Lou Dobbs' views on fair trade - and it shows Dobbs views destroy Friedman's in the public's mind. (Note to those of you who take issue with Dobbs on immigration, this is only on trade policy - not on anything else).

Sadly, the former Clintonites/Beltway insiders who put together this poll (some of whom like Stan Greenberg I do really admire) couldn't prevent their own biases from trying to skew the result: they could only bring themselves to write a headline that said a huge 54%-40% gap meant that "Lou Dobbs is ahead of Tom Friedman FOR NOW." Nonetheless, this poll should serve as a big wake up call to Democrats: on trade, stop listening to the likes of Wall Street types like Bob Rubin and Tom Friedman, and start listening to Lou Dobbs' and those of us who have shown how powerful a populist message on trade really is.

IRS To Taxpayers: Deal With Red Tape Yourselves

Even as the tax code gets more and more complicated and screws more and more people, the IRS today announced it was closing 68 taxpayer assistance centers that exist to help ordinary citizens. These cutbacks comes at a time the IRS is increasing audits of the working poor, many of whom might need the assistance these offices provide. But then, we shouldn't be surprised. If you are a blueblood like George W. Bush, you never had to worry about filling out your own taxes or needing assistance from the IRS because your taxes were done for you by some expert accountant.

How to Play Hardball Politics...and Win

Want to know why progressives outside the Beltway should be feeling emboldened? Check out this story in the Staten Island Advance where GOP Rep. Vito Fossella gets muscled. After a massive grassroots campaign to force Fossella to repudiate the most extreme elements of President Bush's agenda, he publicly caved.

The paper reports:

"Yesterday, Fossella came out strongly against Bush's plan for progressive indexing of Social Security benefits as a means of keeping the system solvent. And testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, he expressed doubt about the president's proposal to let workers divert to private accounts money that ordinarily would go into Social Security."

The paper notes that since January, the In This Together Campaign "has been handing out leaflets at the St. George and Whitehall ferry terminals, writing hundreds of letters to Fossella, holding meetings and putting up signs asking: 'Where's Vito? Defend Social Security.'"

That's the kind of hardball politics unions and organizations like the Working Families Party have mastered in New York - and it should serve as a model for everywhere else.

How the Wealthy Rip Off the Social Security System

Nathan Newman points out that amid all the rhetoric on Social Security, the Bush Treasury Department yesterday admitted that the wealthy are regularly ripping off the system.

Specifically, Treasury's J. Russell George, who is the inspector general for tax administration, testified that high-income citizens were using the "S Corporation" designation to officially pay themselves low/no salaries to escape social security tax. They then declare all that income as "S Corporation" profit.

How much is this scam costing Americans? According to George, in the 2000 tax year, the owners of 36,000 single-shareholder 'S' corporations received no salaries at all despite each having operating profits of more than $100,000. As a result, there were no employment taxes paid on $13.2 billion in profits.

That's billions being stolen each year from the Social Security system as President Bush runs around the country saying we need to cut ordinary people's benefits. Then again, what do we expect? Bush, after all, let us know he has no interest in making people pay their fair share. As he said flippantly, trying to make people pay their fair share was wasted effort because "rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

Bush Prepares to Hit Family Leave Act

USA Today has the scoop on the Bush administration's preparations to restrict/reduce the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. Apparently, Corporate America isn't able to squeeze ordinary workers enough. Bush's Labor Department spokesman has the nerve to claim the law "can hurt profits" even though corporate profits are rising while wages are stagnating. Stay tuned - and keep an eye on whether Congress rebuffs the White House - or lets this happen.

The Blackout of the Iraq War is Now Official

A few weeks ago, I noted here that the media had started to offer public justifications for not covering the war in Iraq. Now we see just how far both politicians and reporters are going to prevent a real debate about the most pressing national security issue of our time. See this post for more.

Totally Out of Touch on Iraq

Polls show 57 percent of Americans believe going to war in Iraq was not worth it. Yet, this week, almost 70 percent of lawmakers (including, pathetically, top members of the Democratic leadership) in the House of Representatives voted against a bipartisan, non-binding resolution asking the President to submit a plan to Congress explaining an exit strategy from Iraq.

Possibly more insulting than the vote was the fact that Republicans actually equated asking for an exit strategy to abandoning America's troops. Apparently to the GOP, continuing to have no exit strategy at all and leaving our young men and women in a violent Middle Eastern quagmire is the real way to show our troops respect. Do these people have no shame?

Better News on Bolton

Between this morning and just now, Senate Democrats have apparently found a bit of a spine. They managed to delay the Bolton nomination - a good thing, considering the White House is refusing to turn over all the information that's needed for the Senate to make an informed decision.

The Misguided Desire to Seem "Hawkish"

Apologies for the length of this post, but the shortsightedness of the conventional wisdom that the Establishment regularly spews out never ceases to amaze me. Most of America's self-proclaimed political experts, of course, have never actually worked on a political campaign, yet purport to speak with the authority of gurus. Similarly, most never have to deal with the life-and-death consequences of their overheated rhetoric – a factor that often leaves their prose devoid of any real gravity.

Case in point is the conventional wisdom that claims the only way for Democrats to win is to be more "hawkish." This line of reasoning is best known to come from people like Peter Beinart – the self-righteous ivory tower editor of the New Republic (a publication that is, not surprisingly, steadily losing readership). And today, he is backed up by Kenneth Baer, who basically argues that Democrats need to be more hawkish to court Jewish votes (an underhanded insult to the intelligence of Jews). Baer is also joined by writer Matt Yglesias (a guy I happen to like), who bills himself as a "more 'hawkish' brand of liberal," and says the answer is to "convince more liberals that they should like" hawks.

Remember, it is easy to spew out tough-sounding talk when you don't have to actually deal with the life-and-death consequences of your rhetoric. And from the confines of their offices, these folks seem all-too-comfortable advocating for more war no matter what the reason, and more blood being spilled in the name of "hawkishness" and political expediency. After all, it's not their blood or their families' blood. And besides, writing this kind of crap let's them overcompensate for their clear personal insecurities and a pathetically sad desire to appear macho and "tough."

Yet, amazingly, these arguments held sway during the 2004 presidential race, even as American support for the Iraq War deteriorated. As Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi noted, the media continued to write pieces "whose premise held that the Democratic Party – the Democratic Party! – needed to overcome its anti-war reputation" and Democratic candidates fell over themselves to agree, essentially giving the big middle finger to the growing majority that was opposing the war. Organizations within the Democratic Party itself even joined in. "If Gandhi were running in this race," Taibbi wrote, "the Democratic Leadership Council – bet on it – would be warning of a McGovern-like landslide defeat."

This "hawk" argument, however, is as hollow and pathetic as it is wrong. The question these Establishment voices never answer is why? Why do Democrats need to be supportive of irrational warmongering (aka. "hawkishness") when most Americans oppose the Iraq War? Do Democrats have to be "pro-war" to be pro-America? And, most importantly, is it really true that Democrats must be "hawkish" to project strenghth?

If you are an insulated pundit who never visits America's heartland and thus arrogantly thinks Americans are uniformly stupid, the answer is yes. But if you know that Americans are, in fact, quite smart, and already understand that irrational warmongering actually weakens our country, then the answer is no – especially now at a time when a majority of Americans oppose the war.

Democrats should not to try to out-hawk the Republicans – they should be focusing on articulating an entirely alternative foreign/military policy. This is a policy that says we will never pull punches in defending America, but part of that defense means the judicious – not irrational – use of America's military. It is a policy that is critical of sending American troops to die for bad or dishonest reasons – not one that simply says a "hawkish" willingness to bomb any country for no reason is a virtue. It is a policy that says the pursuit of peace is actually a way to better secure our country, one that says being against war unless absolutely necessary is actually a good thing, and one that says we shouldn't actually WANT to use our military to deal with every problem as "hawks" do.

Now I know – anytime you use the word "peace," these same insulated elites are quick to spew out red-baiting calls that you are "weak." Far from it. The current "hawkish" policies that we are living under now are what's weak – they weaken our security by overstretching our military and fueling anti-Americanism all over the globe. The alternative to this conventional "hawkishness" I have described, on the other hand, would make us stronger, as was forcefully laid out by respected figures like Sen. Bob Graham of Florida during his presidential run (and don't even try to claim that Graham's alternative foreign/military policy was the reason he lost the primary – he had other problems as a candidate).

In many ways, if the party continues to follow this "hawkishness" the logical conclusion is the bipartisan embrace of fascism. "If we accept the premise that campaigning against war is impossible," wrote Taibbi, "then it’s silly to lack a specific plan for how and where to attack. The Republican idea, echoed by most Democrats, is to sit around, wait for some dubious justification for the use of force to present itself, and then trot out some incoherent cover story on the eve of attack. What’s so tough about that? Why take the long way around? It’s time to make the world safe for America" by fully embracing world domination.

Sure, that's an extrapolation - but it points to how the real challenge for Democrats is to lay out an actual alternative. Instead of Democratic presidential candidates and self-proclaimed liberal pundits falling all over themselves to promise America Democrats will (as the GOP does) bomb, kill and maim anyone they please and send American troops to die for bad reasons, the party needs to have the guts to lay out an alternative. Democrats need to show a willingness to use the military - but only as a last resort - and stress the security virtues of actually preventing war. That is a foreign/military policy contrast to the Republicans that will be most patriotic and politically effective in the long term.

New Poll: Dems Must Fight for Middle Class

According to a new national poll, the American public desperately wants the Democratic Party to start showing some guts and stand up for America's middle class - something I and others have been screaming about for years. Here are some highlights:

- 56% oppose Bush's Social Security privatization scheme - Democrats have been terrific on this one, roundly opposing the Bush plan.

- 62% feel that our economy is not good for middle and working class people - here's where the record gets more mixed for Democrats. Supporting the bankruptcy bill and the class action bill, for instance, doesn't help Democrats make the case that they are listening to this 62%.

- 83% support a national commitment to energy independence - Democrats have a fairly good record on this, advocating for more investment in alternative energy and energy efficiency where Bush has tried to cut those programs. That said, the number of Democrats who support the industry-written Energy Bill that showers oil companies with tax breaks doesn't do the party any favors.

- 76% support guaranteeing health care to all through a program similar to Medicare - this is where Democrats have been largely absent, primarily pushing piecemeal programs that would address the health care crisis, but not in any fundamental, comprehensive way. Yes, some progressives have courageously pushed for a single payer health care system, but that has certainly not been a party position. Americans want bold initiatives on this issue - not pre-fabricated press conferences that deal with much smaller (though certainly important) issues.

- 76% want action to end tax breaks to companies that move jobs abroad and to provide incentives for those who create jobs here and allow unions to organize - Again, Democrats have a very mixed record on this. Congressional progressives have been very strong on things like trade and union rights, but they have often been undercut by other members of their party who keep pushing corporate-written "free" trade, vote for corporate tax cuts to job exporters, and undercut a strong message on outsourcing.

Being in the minority requirs a crystal clear message and contrast with the GOP. That means Democrats must start developing a strong record in ALL of these areas.

Bolton, Filibustering, & the Cowering Senate Dems

In my first post about the Senate filibuster "deal," I worried that Democrats had been emasculated because they would now refrain from using the tool, even in the most extreme cases, because they would fear the nuclear option would immediately be put back on the table. In a subsequent post, I tried to be optimistic about the agreement. But just days after the "deal," we now see that the further weakening of Democrats may be the real outcome.

Though Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is still calling for a delay in voting on the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador, the Boston Herald reports that she has, more importantly, "decided to drop her plan to use procedural delays" to stop the nomination altogether. Her decision came after conferring with that profile in courage, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Worse, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) came out to specifically reassure the public that "There is no desire for a filibuster."

Let's understand how sad this really is: the Democrats are backing down and cowering in a corner, EVEN AFTER top GOP Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) gave an impassioned speech begging Senators to stop the nomination. The Democrats, in other words, have all the cover they need - yet are trembling in fear, and backing off.

Contrast this behavior with that of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS). He was an ardent proponent of the "nuclear" option to end filibusters. And yet, he's now threatening a filibuster over stem cell legislation. Of course I don't agree with his filibuster, and think he's an unbelievable hypocrite. But, in a way, his tactical hypocrisy shows the difference between the parties: he's positioned himself as a conviction politician who is willing to fight with everything he's got - no matter how hypocritical in terms of tactics - on what he portrays as his principles.

Democrats, on the other hand, supposedly worked to protect the filibuster, but are now indicating an unwillingness use it even in extreme cases, where they have cover from other Republicans. If confirming right-wing judges and further emasculating Democrats is the prime result of the filibuster "deal," then we have a lot to be worried about.

UPDATE: CQ now reports that even more Democrats are capitulating on Bolton.

Big Business: "Jump!"; Congress: "How High?"

Happy about the Senate filibuster "deal?" Encouraged by the move to allow more stem cell research? Don't be too excited. Sure, they may be decent steps for now, but they underscore the fact that congressional action is still exclusively dictated by Corporate America. Read this post for more.

What's Happened to Barack Obama?

I have high hopes for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), and not just because he gave one good convention speech at the Democratic National Convention. As a civil rights lawyer who represented a working class urban district in the Illinois state legislature, Obama has all the trappings of a leader who could break conventions and be a serious voice for progressives on the national stage. Unfortunately, his first six months in office have given progressives a reason to be worried that he will be just another cog in the Establishment's machine, throwing his significant political capital behind some of the worst initiatives to move through Congress.

Despite his anti-war positions as a candidate in 2004, Obama's second vote as a U.S. Senator was in support of confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He also voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, despite Negroponte's involvement in Iran-Contra and other situations that clearly raise questions about his ethics and discretion. Obama also voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he helped vote down a Democratic amendment to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now, Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush's right-wing judges.

Sure, sure - some other Democrats have cast some of these votes as well. Doesn't that mean I'm just picking on him? No, of course not. Obama was supposed to be different - he was supposed to be a real progressive champion. Isn't that why so many liberals/progressives are so excited about him?

Speculation about why Obama has cast these votes centers around the typical posturing that has created the soulless image of the Democratic Party for the last few years - namely, that he's just opportunistically angling for higher office. One political scientist said "I think he’s moving to the center to position himself to perhaps run for president in 2012." Another said Obama "does not want to be seen as a maverick." If this speculation is really true, it's just another sad commentary on the state of the Democratic Party today. Did John McCain teach Democrats nothing about the potential appeal of a "maverick?" Do polling numbers teach Democrats anything about what the "center" really is? Do the Democrats not understand that their biggest challenge is convincing the public they stand for something more than just political calculation/aspiration?

Obama is a very smart guy - so let me say that I'm not sure higher office is the motivation for his votes. But if it's not, what is? Is it just that he's far more conservative than he let on? In many ways, that would be worse. I don't know which to hope is true. All I know is that his short time in office is a cause for great concern - or at least reason to limit my previously boundless optimism about a person who should be one of our next great leaders.

As Clintonian triangulation heartbreakingly taught us so well in the 1990s, sometimes politicians with the most talent to do the most good get so caught up in the failed Beltway strategy of so-called "moderation" that they end up never reaching their full potential to become historic agents of change. Here's one (albeit frustrated) Obama fan hoping that doesn't happen to the junior Senator from Illinois.

Trade Issue Hits a Bipartisan Boiling Point

Dow Jones' Marketwatch reports that a group of bipartisan lawmakers is courageously pressing to withdraw the United States from the destructive World Trade Organization. Though the corporate-owned House Ways and Means Committee voted their efforts down, this shows that the Establishment is starting to be fundamentally challenged about its shameless shilling for Big Business policies that destroy America's middle class. While some Clinton-era Democrats continue trying to ram this "free" trade malarkey down America's throat, and while the forces of fair trade lost the vote today, it is clear that more and more rank-and-file lawmakers are realizing that selling out Americans through "free" trade is not the way to build a strong domestic economy.

At Least Some Politicians Tell the Truth

For those who missed Gov. Brian Schweitzer's (D) appearance on Lou Dobbs' show last night, check out the transcript, or read the review in the local papers up here in Montana. It was quite a refreshing exchange - and shows that at least some politicians are willing to speak the truth about how Corporate America has hijacked our government.

My favorite part of the interview was when Schweitzer said:

"[We have] a government for where you get the most money. It's about getting reelected. It's about getting the special interest to pony up...Look, you've got to get the big dollars out of this thing...When I ran for governor of Montana, I said I'm not taking any PAC money. No PAC. It wasn't just corporate. No PAC money from any source. Because I wanted to be in a position after election of being able to say, look, nobody buys their way to the front of the line. We'll do what's right for the people of Montana...This whole business, these lobbyists, this has become almost legalized bribery. What happening is, these lobbyists they get special interests to hire them. And they give them large sums of money, six, 10, 12, $15,000 a month. And they get a dozen clients like that. And then those lobbyists in turn give money to the leadership PACs that these folks in Washington, D.C. have. So, all it is is a way of moving the bag money to a new source. This is a system that most people in America think is -- it smells pretty bad."

2006 Campaign: Bentley vs. Saturn

Vermont's Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders has been barnstorming the state holding town meetings about the problem of poverty in America. The meetings are bringing out hundreds of people - a good sign on the eve of his 2006 U.S. Senate run. Sanders commitment to these issues (which rarely get talked about in the corporate-owned U.S. Senate) is the cover-story subject of the new issue of In These Times magazine. Check it out here.

Another good sign for Sanders is his potential opponent, corporate executive Rich Tarrant, who is making news driving around his exotic new Bentley sports car. Last I checked, Sanders still drives a beat up Saturn. And in many ways that car contrast really tells the bigger story. If Tarrant is the GOP nominee, this will be a race between a wealthy fat cat and a common man of the people. That's the kind of contrast every progressive candidate for office should want.

Bob Kuttner Should Be Your Favorite Columnist

American Prospect founder Bob Kuttner writes a regular column for the Boston Globe, and consistently provides some of the most incisive analysis out there that never - ever - gets gummed up by Beltway groupthink like so many others (make sure to check out his new American Prospect cover piece). His column this week on the filibuster deal is particularly thought provoking: he comes down on the side of those who believe the deal wasn't as good as everyone wants it to be (something I initially explored in a previous post). And he says it shows how the GOP has mastered the art of appearing moderate, while lunging far to the right of the American electorate.

The deal is a problem because it "guarantees an up-or-down floor vote on three of the most reactionary judges ever to come before the Senate," writes Kuttner, while "Frist is free to revive the nuclear option any time he likes."

Worse, the Republicans who cut the "deal" are now being trumpeted by the Beltway media as "moderates." But, as Kuttner notes, "if these Republicans were genuinely moderates, they would not just be providing this parliamentary fig leaf; they would be voting against confirmation of these extremist nominees when they come up for a floor vote...If you want to look for profiles in courage, see whether 'moderate' Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island actually oppose any of these nominees. For the most part, these people posture moderate and then do Bush's bidding."

I think Kuttner is on to something, though I'm still not sure who this "deal" is a win or loss for in the long term (and by the way, for those of you who have criticized me for analyzing both sides of the deal, I would like to remind you that it is OK to withhold long-term judgement sometimes - one of the worst features of the 24-hour news cycle is the supposed requirement to have an instant, strident opinion, no matter how complex the issue). But Kuttner's piece is more important than just a debate about the filibuster "deal" - it gets us to the bigger story: the whole definition of "moderation" is being butchered.

The media keeps pushing a myth "that the country wants moderate policies but that both parties are at fault for moving to the extremes." In fact, as Kuttner notes, "the Democrats have moved steadily to the center on issues of social outlay, progressive taxation, and deregulation, while Bush has worked to energize his party's most extremist interest groups." In other words, Democrats have "moderated" on the issues the public wants MORE progressive policies, while the Republicans have moved farther to the right on the policies the public wants them to be more restrained on. And yet the portrayal of this reality is consistently blurred by the Establishment media who rarely - if ever - conveys this dynamic in its constant frothing about "moderates." And that permits the entire political debate in this country to shift far to the right of where most Americans are.

Clean Coal Technology

Posting is going to be light today...coming back from a funeral after a death in the family...but wanted to take a moment to share this new development out in Montana.

Gov. Schweitzer is working with experts to pioneer a new coal refining technology that could mean a huge boost to the state's economy - while helping get more and cleaner energy out of existing extractive resources. Check it out. The Helena Independent Record adds its voice of support to the plan in today's editorial - and it looks like Schweitzer is going to aggressively push this. Stay tuned.

Schweitzer On CNN Tuesday Night

Have to go on unexpected travel tomorrow for a family emergency...so posting on Tuesday will be light (will be back to normal Wednesday)...But wanted to let folks know about this...

CNN's Lou Dobbs on Monday used Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer's (D) quote about Washington as his quote of the day. Dobbs also announced that tonight (Tuesday, 5/24), Schweitzer is scheduled to be on Dobbs' show. Check the listings for times it will be playing in your area - and tune in!

Filibuster Fight: OK, It's Possible Rove IS Crying

Ok...I am still trying to digest and analyze this filibuster deal, so give me a little leeway here as I think out loud. My last post explored the idea that the whole filibuster fight may end up helping the GOP. It was designed to consider some of the shortfalls of the deal and potential traps that lay ahead - something that I think is particularly important for progressives to do (and all too often overlooked during short-term political squabbles). That said, let's take a look at the upside of the filibuster deal for progressives.

First and foremost - the radical right is freaking out. That means that, policy-wise, we've not only done something right by defeating the "nuclear" option, but politically we've opened up a divide between the lunatic fringe wing of the GOP, and the (albeit dying and tiny) mainstream wing. It also may split open a divide between the economic fat cats and the religious right that make up the GOP base. This is no small achievement - and bodes well for Democrats. As the Republicans themselves have shown in unfortunately splitting Democrats apart on core economic issues, when parties break apart, their own power is weakened.

Secondly, in the short term, the defeat of the "nuclear" option will be chalked up to moderation, and credited to Democrats. With polls showing disapproval of Congress at a high, that's especially good. The polls mean that people don't like what Congress is doing - and if Democrats get credit for stopping some of what Congress is doing, that's a positive, at least in the short term. As long as they don't get labeled obstructionist ON GOOD THINGS (like they dishonestly did on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security), that could also be a good thing in the long term, as long as Democrats play it right.

So between this post and the last post here's my bet - Karl Rove IS crying tonight...though I still maintain there's a chance he may be laughing about this if we don't play this really well moving forward. But it's true - that's a big if. At this point, if I were a betting man, I'd put my chips with the Democrats and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). They've shown tonight that they are learning how to win, at least in the short term; Reid is a skilled tactician who I trust; and the GOP recently has shown no ability to control its extremist impulses that turn off voters. In other words, I'm going suck up my worry for now, have faith, and be an optimist (something that doesn't come natural to me) - a cautious one, but an optimist. Here's hoping the party can turn this into a long-term victory.

On Filibuster "Deal," Is Rove Laughing His Ass Off?

Good news on the filibuster issue being resolved, at least for now. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic Caucus really managed to make the Republican leadership look like the extremist thugs they are. That said, however, here are the real questions no one seems to be asking - and the ones we should really be afraid of: What happens next time? And, was this exactly what the GOP wanted?

The success of this "deal" is up to the word of GOP Senators. And let's be honest - this GOP leadership is so extreme, that word will likely be broken and that means there is bound to be a next time with all of this - whether it's on judges or some other issue. Democrats at some point will inevitably be forced to use - or threaten to use - the filibuster, and then this whole issue will be brought up again. At that point, are we going to get another "nuclear option" fight?

And that brings me to what I fear: that this whole entire filibuster fight may have never actually been about ending the filibuster. It may have been about keeping the concept of a filibuster around for political purposes, but ending it for actual, real-world policy purposes. Here's what I mean:

The "deal" on the filibuster essentially lets Bush have a number of his most extreme judicial nominees, meaning policy-wise, Democrats agreed to let the filibuster as a regularly-used tool be weakened, or at least be frightened into a corner. It also could be eliminated (or severely reduced) in practice because now Democrats may refrain from using it for fear of raising another "nuclear" debate. The effect of all of this could be to kill/weaken the filibuster IN PRACTICE - one of the GOP's big objectives, so they can ram their agenda through Congress, and fire up their right-wing base.

However, the other goal of the GOP is to keep the filibuster around as a CONCEPT or threat - as a demon for conservatives to continue railing against. As Tom Frank aptly notes in his writings, the conservative movement does not function unless there is some target to run a permanent campaign against ("obstructionsts" is one of the big ones). The continuation of the CONCEPT or threat of a filibuster by Democrats - especially now that its profile has been elevated by the media - gives the GOP that target, even though it may not be used, and has been weakened in PRACTICE.

In many ways, this may be exactly what the GOP wants. Now that they control all three branches of government, they need SOMETHING to campaign against when voters do not like the results of their governance. And with the filibuster theoretically "surviving", they keep another "obstructionist" straw man around which they can roll out and blame anytime their policies aren't well liked. And the beauty for them is, they keep the CONCEPT of this evil filibuster around, while effectively weakening its actual EFFECT in stopping much of anything.

I'm not sure what the answer to all this is - the Democrats had to fight this tooth and nail, did a good job, and should absolutely be proud. They protected America from extremism and this is a major public defeat for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

All I'm really saying is that progressives must be careful not to declare too much of a victory, as it may make us look like we are celebrating the preservation of obstructionism (even though that tool to actually obstruct has been severely weakened). That is exactly what I fear the GOP wants. I have that sickening feeling as progressives celebrate tonight about preserving democracy, GOP guru Karl Rove is sitting in his White House office laughing his ass off because he knows policy-wise he got a win by weakening Democrats' willingness to use Senate power, while politics-wise he kept the "obstructionist" straw man around he needs to win campaigns. I sure hope I am wrong (and feel free to tell me if you think I am).

Populism Gets a Boost from the Chairman

In one of the little-noticed exchanges on Meet the Press this past Sunday, DNC Chairman Howard Dean showed that the Democratic Party is starting to finally realize that it needs to repackage its economic message. Granted, the exchange was only a semantic changing of terms - but it bodes well for those of us who know that the party needs to start standing up for the middle-class again if it ever hopes to regain power.

Host Tim Russert asked Dean about his support for Vermont's Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders' race for the Senate in 2006. Russert - a classic regurgitator of conventional wisdom - immediately challenged Dean about supporting "a self- described avowed socialist" (I've gone over what this actually means in a previous post, though we shouldn't expect someone like Russert to ever want to probe much deeper than conventional wisdom).

What happened next was what's really important. Instead of running away from the question, Dean said Sanders "is really a populist" and went on to defend Sanders record standing up for campaign finance reform and for an agenda that puts the middle class first.

I've never seen a high profile Democrat like this defend Sanders in this way and formally use the term "populist" - and it is especially encouraging coming from someone who, during the interview, admitted that he and Sanders "have had our difficulties over the years" and "had our strong disagreements." It means something more than just a boost to Sanders (though it does mean that) - it means there are high-profile people in the Democratic Party like Dean who now understand the value of a strong economic message - one that actually challenges the corrupt, corporate hold on Congress that now exists on Washington. It shows there are leaders in the party who understand that Democrats need to rebrand themselves in the populist mold - and its chairman is clearly comfortable with putting populism out front.

That is a terrific development, a victory for those of us who have been arguing this for sometime - and, most importantly, a trend that we should continue to encourage.

New Evaluations Raise Questions About Owen

With the Senate going into high gear on President Bush's right-wing judicial nominations a little-noticed report somehow went unreported by the Washington, D.C. media. You know how President Bush and Bill Frist are telling America about how great a judge Priscilla Owen is, and how she therefore deserves a promotion to the federal bench? Well, according to a new official report from the experts who actually worked with her - that's a lot of crap.

A few days ago the nonpartisan Houston Bar Association released its biannual evaluations of all the judges in the state of Texas. These are the lawyers who actually work with these judges. And what do you know - Owen received some of the worst ratings of any of the six justices in nearly all categories. In fact, for "overall" scores, she has the highest "poor" rating on the entire Texas Supreme Court.

These ratings are based on poll data taken from lawyers which may initially lead to some skepticism regarding partisanship - but the majority of judges in the Texas courts and the Texas Supreme Court in particular are conservatives. If there was just political bias, Owen wouldn't stick out - but she does. And that raises some of the most serious questions yet about whether she should be elevated to the federal bench.

NY Times Creates St. Rick Santorum (R-Pious)

Per my last post about the NY Times profile of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), here's another thing that shows just how far out of its way the paper went to soften this lunatic's image before his 2006 election.

The times printed this big photograph to tell us how much of a pious, holy, spiritual man Santorum supposedly is:


(Credit this solid site for picking up on this)

This was a clear effort to claim Santorum isn't the insensitive right-wing lunatic he appears to be. He is instead, the Times seems to say with this picture and this article, just a very devout man.

Yet, buried as an aside in the story, the Times admits "Santorum is not a reader of Scripture" and quotes him saying "I've never read the Bible cover to cover." There's no fault in that alone, of course. The Bible can be a very important guide to people's lives.

But there is a fault in a Senator setting up a Bible on his desk when the cameras come in so as to portray himself as having scripture (and not Big Money/right-wing politics) guide him and justify his fringe-right-wing policies - even as he quietly admits he actually doesn't read the Bible. That is the kind of faux staged religiousity that actually insults people who really do rely on the Bible for guidance.

But even worse than a Senator trying to slimily repackage himself is the newspaper that KNOWINGLY aided and abetted this farce. The Times prominently displayed this photograph, even though it's reporter was well aware the Bible was being used a prop in a maginificently and cynically staged act.

All the Kneeling to Power That's Fit to Print

The New York Times is a newspaper I used to hold with the highest respect. And while there still can be some good stories from some of its more serious reporters (like Phil Shenon, Carl Hulse, Ed Andrews and David Cay Johnston), it is well on its way to becoming a laughingstock when it comes to political reporting. Its philosophy has crystallized around one singular axiom: don’t challenge people the political Establishment perceives to be all-powerful. The travesty is that this axiom is diametrically opposed to what the press’s mission is supposed to be.

First, we found out last year that before the invasion of Iraq, the Times’ top White House reporter flippantly justified not asking the President tough questions before the war was because she was simply too afraid to challenge the White House "at this very serious time."

Now, we have this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine profile of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). For Santorum, the piece was the equivalent of what Monica Lewinsky did to President Clinton in the shadowy confines of the Oval Office. For the public, it was pathetic pandering propaganda that insults people’s intelligence. This, apparently, is the reward the paper gives out when politicians like Santorum publicly equate it to the Nazis. Not a tough piece, not even a fair piece - an absolute whitewash, replete with an angelic cover photo of Santorum, as if God's light is beaming down upon him from Heaven.

There are so many blurred facts and gloss overs of Santorum’s record in this piece, one has to believe the reporter who wrote this was deliberately trying to deceive the public and help Santorum remake himself before his very tough election. Here’s just one that stuck out to me:

CLAIM: SANTORUM HAS A RECORD OF CARING ABOUT THE POOR

"'You hear public servant, and everyone just sort of blows over the servant part,’ [Santorum] said when I asked about the political motivations of his antipoverty initiatives. 'But I really do take it seriously. I want to make a difference in people's lives and serve others.'…'He was a singular voice in Republican leadership fighting for antipoverty legislation,' [former Bush official] Kuo said. ‘He kept pushing it. I was in meetings when people would start rolling their eyes when he started talking about it. It is very much at odds with the public perception of him. He fought behind the scenes where nobody could see it. His compassion is genuine.’…It is no easy thing [for Santorum] to be a low-tax, small-government Republican and an antipoverty crusader."
- NY Times magazine, 5/22/05

FACT: SANTORUM HAS TRIED TO MAKE THE POOR SUFFER

The supposedly "compassionate" Santorum - who supposedly cares so much about the poor that he is billed an "antipoverty crusader" by the Times - actually bragged about his efforts to make the poor suffer. In 2003, as he tried to cut welfare and child care funds, he said "Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing." And this year, he actually offered a bill to eliminate the minimum wage for up to 7 million workers.

None of this, of course, was mentioned in the New York Times whitewash. And this one example of deletion from this story is emblematic of the piece’s wider disregard for telling the real truth. Let's be clear - I'm not suggesting the Times should have penned a one-sided attack piece on Santorum. That's not the Times' role. But if something is going to be labeled "journalism," then it should at the very least tell the whole story – and not just provide us with 10 pages of overt fellating and genuflecting.

The Times motto may still be "all the news that’s fit to print" – but increasingly, it is "all the right-wing spin that is fit to kiss the rear end of those in power." That is doing great harm to journalism – and to American democracy.

Quote of the Day

"Maybe it's something in the water in Washington, or maybe it's all the expensive whiskey the lobbyists are paying for. I have a 72-hour rule. If I stay in Washington for more than 72 hours, I have to bathe myself in the same stuff I use when one of my dogs gets into a fight with a skunk — stuff to get the smell out."
- Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) quoted in USA Today, 5/23/05

Why Dems Must Crackdown on Lobbyists

I have argued in the past that the national Democratic Party has a real opportunity to become the party of reform - if it takes Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer's (D) lead and supports a lobbying/ethics reform package in Congress and in states throughout America. And today, the Denver Post published a story that supports my thesis.

The paper notes that lobbyists trying to influence the Colorado legislature "have earned more than $7.5 million so far this year, sending some of the most influential people at the statehouse well on their way to another year of record earnings." A comprehensive review of lobbyist records "shows that the special interests got their money's worth" - killing a series of bills aimed at protecting taxpayers and standing up for the middle class.

With lobbyist scandals still swirling around people like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), the time is ripe for Democrats to strike and nationalize this issue. It strikes to the heart of a new populist agenda, as it perfectly encapsulates how Corporate America has allied itself with corrupt politicians to rob America's government away from ordinary people.

But make no mistake about it - that will require a complete change of attitude from the insulated Democratic party Establishment - many of whose members (let's be honest) have been embarrasingly milking the system themselves. The Democrats need to take this seriously, change their own behavior (which is still much better than the GOP), and not just pay lip service to it. They need a federal lobbyist/ethics reform package, and they need statewide initiatives like the one Gov. Schweitzer will be pushing to galvanize the electorate. The Republicans are vulnerable - will the Democrats step up to the plate?

The CAFTA Victory Lap

I've taken some heat in recent months for having the nerve to call out Democrats when they sell out the middle class to Corporate America's profit-at-all-cost agenda. Some have said exposing Democrats when they sell us down the river doesn't do any good. To them I say, read this Washington Post article.

As readers of this site know well, I have been doing everything I can to pressure Democrats (and others) to oppose CAFTA - the Central American Free Trade Agreement (you can see some of the recent posts here, here, here, here and here). I've been one of many who has tried to make Democrats understand that taking a strong, pro-middle-class position on trade - and opposing efforts to sell out America with corporate-written trade deals like CAFTA - is key to the Democrats long-term success. And it appears that the party is finally starting to listen.

As the Post story notes "traditionally pro-business and pro-trade House Democrats have announced plans to vote against" CAFTA, even as Big Business puts the squeeze on. Even Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), one of the Democrats who has helped pass these terrible trade accords in the past, said the deal "has undermined the worker-protection precedents for domestic and foreign workers." He actually used the kind of populist rhetoric that the party has up until now refused to embrace. He said, "The Bush administration's goal is to take care of business first, second and last, and not do enough to make sure workers are getting their fair share." Right on - that's how to make a message that resonates, because, as polls show, Americans inherently know this to be true (see question 27 in this poll, for instance).

Smith says that in opposing these corporate sellout trade deals, "there is no question, it's a risky step." He's right - Big Business lobbyists may not like it. But it's not risky in terms of voters. People don't want their government selling them out - and they will respect a party that has the guts to protect ordinary Americans.

It's true - the outcome of the CAFTA vote is still in question. And, pathetically, the Hill Newspaper reports that House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said last week that "the Democratic leadership has not taken a position on the bill." But still - the fact that the most conservative factions of the Democratic Party are now moving to a more progressive position on trade is a HUGE victory for progressives - and bodes well for the party's long-term future. As I have argued in the past, Americans crave a populist party that will stand up for the middle class - and this is a step forward in bringing the party back to its roots (listen up, you potential '08 Democratic presidential candidates).

After being berated and insulted for my efforts on economic issues in the past, I, for one, am feeling pretty good about this victory - as should every other progressive who knows the Democrats need to start engaging in more of this kind of populism if it ever hopes to regain the majority.

One of the Few Serious Media Outlets Left

The media has become a laughinstock - few deny that. But that doesn't mean there aren't a few remaining outlets that are trying to preserve serious, hard-hitting journalism. My personal favorite among the mainstream media is Knight Ridder. Their reporters - certainly not the most high profile and definitely not the biggest names - consistently pound out the most substantive reporting around.

Last year, you might remember, Knight Ridder was honored for being one of the few news outlets to aggressively cover how the Bush administration used intelligence in the lead up to the Iraq War. While other major news organizations cowered in front of the White House, Knight Ridder plugged away.

They are also one of the few news organizations to devote serious resources to covering America's veterans. And their new story today shows that they are serious about covering how America's retirement/pension system is being destroyed - a topic often considered not sexy enough for glamour-driven Beltway reporters to pay any attention to.

To be sure - Knight Ridder isn't perfect. But if every major corporate/mainstream media outlet was even a little more like them, American journalism would be in a lot better shape than it is today.

What Playing Hardball Really Means

In his response to my last post about the NARAL controversy, Oliver Willis shows himself to be so completely divorced from reality inside the Washington, D.C. bubble that when I read his post I literally burst out laughing and crying at the same time. I laughed because I couldn't believe how out of touch people can become if they spend so much time in the D.C. echo chamber. I cried because Willis usually produces terrific material and I was saddened to see him resort to such regurgitated conventional wisdom and drivel.

The two points that he seems to forget are really very simple. First, a 5 second study of how conservatives (and thus Republicans) went from a minority party in the 1970s to the majority party today shows that they did it by investing in conservative, conviction infrastructure (as opposed to just the Republican Party) - one that wasn't afraid to go after both Democrats and moderate Republicans (this Washington Post article, David Brock's book, and Eric Alterman have all written extensively about this). That's the spirit of what the abortion rights group NARAL did today in its controversial decision that people have been screaming about.

Secondly, and more importantly, his assumption that the Democratic Party will always be pro-choice is really troublingly ignorant. Living out here in the kind of red state that the east/west coast liberals have too often disregarded, I have a good view of how shortsighted a statement like that really is. There is pressure from everywhere for Democrats to abandon their convictions on choice, with the party now running pro-life candidates in their top-tier races. Regardless of your feelings on whether that is a good or bad thing, the point is that, unlike Willis, a group like NARAL knows it can't simply take Democrats pro-choice support for granted. By once in a blue moon supporting a pro-choice Republican as they have done, they inherently put pressure on the national Democratic Party to defend pro-choice policies. And that was, most likely, the point. Whether you agree with their pro-choice agenda or not, NARAL made a hardball move designed to go beyond just helping this one Republican in Rhode Island - they threw a high and tight fastball at the national Democratic Party on their issue. They said to the Democratic Party that if you screw us by putting up pro-life candidates as you have in some high profile races, we will screw you back where we can. That's hardball. It may be painful, and we may not like it - but no one should blame them for that.

Again, I think it is perfectly legitimate to complain about NARAL's endorsement of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) if you have a problem with Chafee's record on abortion. I even think you can debate whether their tactical move was effective. But claiming that it has no merit and that they are selling out is just plain silly.

And let's be clear - none of this is limited to NARAL or the abortion issue. It is applicable to all progressive issues. For instance, there is a lot of pressure for Democrats to become more corporate. If that happens, does that mean labor should just keep giving all its support to Democrats because the Democratic Party will supposedly forever be good for labor? No, of course not - and one of the most powerful ways labor can prevent that is by once in a blue moon supporting a Republican who is their ideological ally. Doing that sends a message to Democrats that they better stay in line.

Now, I understand that there can be brain rot if you stay in Beltway Democratic circles for too long (I myself am still getting over that disease). But what I've described here is called hardball politics - its the kind of politics Karl Rove and Grover Norquist play - and its why they control all three branches of government. Until progressives are willing to play hardball (sometimes in the way NARAL did on this specific issue), we all better get used to being in the minority for the next few decades.

Santorum Likens NY Times to Nazis

No joke. Watch it in Windows Media format, or Quicktime format.

Thanks to Santorum Exposed for posting this.

Why "Conviction Infrastructure" Matters

There is a debate raging among some bloggers about whether NARAL - the abortion rights group - was out of line in endorsing Republican Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) in his re-election bid. My take is pretty simple: if they have a problem with NARAL endorsing Chafee because of Chafee's record on abortion, or because Chafee's challengers have far better records on abortion, that's perfectly fine. However, if they have a problem with NARAL endorsing Chafee simply because he is a Republican, that is not fine - it means folks still just don't understand how important an ideological (as opposed to partisan) infrastructure really is.

NARAL is a group whose mission is to support candidates who agree with their abortion rights positions. You can have all the debates you want about whether that's a good thing or whether its politically palatable - but they are NOT an arm of any party. In fact, if they behave as a partisan arm, they actually do damage to their credibility, and thus their effectiveness. And, most importantly, that goes for all issue/labor/progressive ideological groups. Why?

Simple - because if an issue/labor/progressive-ideology group reflexively and exclusively backs only one party all the time, they are taken for granted and thus lose their power to move the agenda. Consider, for instance, Democrats, labor and trade. There is a credible argument to be made that more and more Democrats have been permitted to stiff American workers by supporting corporate-written trade deals because labor hasn't been willing to punish them (the SEIU/AFL-CIO fight - however it shakes out - may mean that's changing). There is an argument to be made that if more Democrats felt some sort of pain for screwing over the labor movement, they wouldn't screw over the labor movement as much as some of them do

Conservatives inherently understand this - its why conservative organizations sometimes go after Republicans from the right, and its why groups like the Club for Growth saw the value in having archconservative Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) take on moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). The fact that Toomey lost didn't even matter to them because the message was sent to Republicans: if you don't stick to our conservative agenda, we will make your life difficult with well-funded primaries.

And make no mistake about it - this ends up benefiting the Republican Party far more than if these groups only acted as non-ideological partisan operations. These groups create conviction activists and political leaders who are unified around an ideology/issue, instead of what we have on our side too often: people who are ideologically fluid and don't know exactly what they stand for other than having a "D" after their name. Incidentally, this was one of the reasons why it was good for the Democratic Party to have progressives do something different by going after Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy bill.

The right understands that creating and fostering a conservative conviction/ideology naturally leads to political support for the Republican Party - and that political support is far stronger and more fervent than a blind ideologically-deprived loyalty to a partisan label. That investment in "conviction infrastructure" (aka. ideological/issue organizations) as opposed to investment exclusively in a partisan infrastructure (aka. the RNC, the Young Republicans, etc.) is one of the reasons why Republican politicians always seem to know where they stand - even on bills/issues they don't know much about. It is because they have an ideology (however disgusting) that reflexively guides them. It's unfortunately also why Democrats - who have too often invested in partisan and not conviction infrastructure - regularly fracture off into disunity.

Again, let me repeat: if folks have a problem with NARAL endorsing Chafee because of Chafee's abortion positions, that's completely legitimate. And there is a debate to be had about whether Chafee's overall support for a Republican leadership that is opposed to NARAL's should disqualify him from NARAL support, even if his own abortion record is congruent with NARAL (I'm actually unclear whether it is). But that is more of a political calculation by NARAL's leadership in this specific interest, and doesn't negate the broader, more important point: single-issue/labor/progressive-ideology groups do a disservice to their members, to their credibility, to their cause - and most importantly to their effectiveness - by behaving like wings of a political party.

When Politicians Step In Their Own Doo Doo

In this post and this post, Matt Singer really nails it. Note to politicians: don't step in your own doo doo.

Wal-Mart Shows Who Owns Our Government

Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) yesterday vetoed legislation aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to provide its workers with more adequate benefits. That wasn't a surprise - Ehrlich is the standard "corporate whore in politicians clothing" that now occupies many of our nation's highest public offices.

What is shocking, however, is how open he was about acknowledging that Big Business pulls all of the strings when it comes to public policy. As the Los Angeles Times notes, "Eduardo Castro-Wright, chief operating officer of Wal-Mart stores USA division, stood at the Republican governor's side as he signed the official veto." The photo at right captures it on film - Ehrlich, who has pocketed campaign cash from Wal-Mart, is waving after the veto, as the Wal-Mart executive prowls behind him.

This is, in no uncertain terms, an admission that we no longer have a government that could be called "of the people." Our democracy has been degraded so forcefully by Corporate America, that it's become standard operating procedure for corporate executives to be physically looming/lurking as one of their lackeys in high office spits on ordinary workers and does Big Business's bidding.

Doing Right By the First Montanans

Montana may not be famous nationally for its diversity, but the state has a significant population of American Indians - a minority all too often ignored by America and mistreated by the Bush administration. So it is inspiring to see the state's new administration doing everything it can to include the tribes as an equal and valued partner in moving Montana forward.

From the beginning, Gov. Brian Schweitzer pledged to include the tribes in his administration, and put tribal members in top positions in state government. For his efforts he has not only been praised by some of Montana's big newspapers, but also by the tribes themselves.

Case in point is today's Billings Gazette piece about Schweitzer being formally adopted into the Crow nation (see the picture from the ceremony on the right). As the story notes, Schweitzer makes a point of showing respect to the tribes: the governor "said he stands by his promises to work with tribes 'government to government' and that the front door to the Capitol is 'welcome to the first Montanans.'" The tribe's chairman said that after Schweitzer was inaugurated, the new governor told him at the Capitol, "No more will you have to walk through the back door. Come through the front door." At the ceremony yesterday, the chairman said "It's a great day in Crow country...This governor has opened the door for Indian tribes."

Novak Likens Filibuster Deal to a Nazi Death Camp

Eric Jaffa, the Carpetbagger Report and Media Matters point out that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Grover Norquist are not the only GOP hacks who have offensively invoked images of the Holocaust and the Nazis in discussing the filibuster. CNN actually continues to employ a top pundit who went on their airwaves and did exactly the same thing.

On the 5/14/05 edition of CNN's Capitol Gang, Al Hunt asked CNN's Bob Novak why Republicans would refuse an offer to solve the filibuster conflict. Novak responded:

"Because the whole system [is] like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber."

It's becoming pretty clear that all these guys are reading off the same talking points. They really have no concept of what is inappropriate and offensive. All they care about is their extremist agenda - no matter who it runs roughshod over.

This Guy Gets It, and Knows How to Write It

Unlike most journalists who cover politics, Matt Taibbi really truly gets what's going on - and isn't afraid to tell the truth. He's a terrific writer (everytime I read his work I feel like, compared to him, I can't put two words together). He gave a great Q&A about his new book "Spanking the Donkey" at Salon.com. Here are some of the best parts:

TAIBBI ON VOTER TURNOUT IN 2004: "When one hundred million people don't vote, the nation is not bitterly divided. The nation mostly doesn't give a shit."

TAIBBI ON THE DECLINE OF JOURNALISM: "There used to be different kinds of people who were journalists. There were real cynics, there were drunks, there were hardened smokers, and now there's this glamour and glow that goes along with being a part of the press corps. I guess what I'm trying to do is take away some of that glow and make it clear it's not quite as cool as they make it out to be. I don't know if that has an effect or not, but that's sort of the strategy."

TAIBBI ON WHAT IT IS LIKE TO COVER THE PRESS: "There was one guy from the Times who actually asked me to step outside. He complained that I had insulted Jodi Wilgoren because I said she looked like Ernest Borgnine, and he sent me an e-mail basically saying, 'Let's fight.'"

TAIBBI ON THE STATE OF AMERICAN POLITICS: "The genius of the Russian system was its appeal to people's laziness. They said, 'Look, get drunk, don't do any work at all, we'll give you just enough money to live, and we'll take care of everything else.' That's what Soviet Russia was all about: Live in your shitty village, we'll give you cheap vodka, and we'll take care of your medical bills, and you don't have to worry about all that other stuff. They counted on the fact that Russians would rather wallow in their own shit than organize and protest anything that's actually happening in their country. It is really kind of similar to what's going on here."

TAIBBI ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS: "If you look at the campaign, it's not an interaction between the candidate and the voters. The media is selling the campaign to its audience. It's a top-down process. The only time the public even appears is through poll numbers. It really is a giant commercial, and I spent most of my time trying to figure out what it was a commercial for."

Read the whole interview on Salon.com - it's terrific. He is one of the most talented writers working today - and his book is terrific.

GOP Offensively Invokes Nazis...Again

In an offensive insult to Jews, minorities, and America's WWII veterans, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) just went to the floor of the Senate and equated Democrats who oppose the filibuster powergrab to Adolf Hitler (See the full transcript here).

Frighteningly, Republicans are becoming quite comfortable using this kind of language that insults the millions of families who lost loved ones at the hands of the Nazis. For instance, GOP operative Grover Norquist compared the estate tax to the Holocaust - as if the modest tax on billionaires was as big a crime as murdering 6 million people.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, as there are even more examples of this kind of crass language. These extremists are so out of touch and out of control that they will say anything - no matter how offensive - to get their way, even if it means contradicting themselves in the process.

Will "Filibuster's Bar & Grille" Change Its Name?

With the media continuing to provide hyperventilating, wall-to-wall coverage of the filibuster fight, I am waiting to see the story about whether the Holiday Inn dive bar called Filibuster's in Washington, D.C. will change its name, should the filibuster be eliminated. Will they rename it "Nuclear's?" Or will they call it "Cloture's?" Those are the tough questions that ordinary Americans want answers to. Stay tuned for this breaking news - I am sure we will see CNN's Inside Politics continue to ignore major national issues and instead devote hours and hours to this most serious question...

Why is Domenici "Uncommitted" on the Filibuster?

As an addendum to my last post, I kept digging and I found that the conservative American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein wrote in Roll Call recently Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) is one of the "few [Senators who] are uncommitted on the question" of eliminating the filibuster. Why he is uncommitted, I'm not sure, considering his strong publicly-stated opposition to eliminating the filibuster.

On 6/13/94, Domenici came out strong against a plan to end the filibuster in Roll Call newspaper. He said, "There's no chance the U.S. Senate will go along with that."

Where is Domenici's rock-solid opposition now?

Some Important GOP Advice on the Filibuster

There is so much B.S. flying around on this ridiculous filibuster fight right now it's hard to know where to even find some rational analysis of the situation. So I decided to explore what some of the chief architects of the Republican Revolution have said about this in the past, and I came upon some thoughtful words from longtime Senate Majority Whip Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK). Up until last year when he resigned to become a lobbyist, Nickles had been one of the chief architects of the GOP's congressional agenda. Maybe the Senate Republicans should step back for a second and consider his well-thought out advice from 1995. Even as he was assuming majority control of the Senate in 1995, the archconservative and ultra-partisan Nickles had some choice words about the filibuster.

"I think it would be a mistake to eliminate all the rules of the Senate dealing with the filibuster...There's real wisdom in the fact that the Senate is a more deliberate body, that- not all legislation that we pass is good, and sometimes it makes good sense for us to look at it, and so, no, I wouldn't favor reducing the 60-vote margin to, basically, eliminate cloture or eliminate filibuster."
- Sen. Don Nickles, CNN, 1/5/95

By the way - big surprise here - Chris Matthews, that bastion of supposedly hard-hitting journalism, had Nickles on his show recently to specifically discuss the filibuster, and didn't even bother to ask Nickles about his comments. Oh, but how stupid of me to think Matthews or the crew at MSNBC would actually bother to take 5 minutes and do any homework/research before interviewing someone (the fact that Matthews still calls his political suck-up show "Hardball" instead of "Softball" or "Fluffball" still makes me laugh everytime I can have the masochistic urge and intestinal fortitude to watch it).

Military Officers Fill In Rumsfeld's Honesty Gap

The New York Times reports American "generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006." One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years." Another officer said "the success of American goals in Iraq was not assured." He said, "I think that this could still fail."

This is really bad news, both in terms of troops not coming home, and in terms of how badly the Bush administration screwed this all up in its pigheaded, pre-determined march to war. The only good news is that at least rank-and-file officers are willing to be honest with Americans where the Bush administration has made an art out of lying.

Then again, we should have known from the get-go that we would be misled about military engagements by incompetents in the Bush administration. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said at his confirmation hearing in 2001, "How would you characterize what success is? When you've done something, how do you know when you've done it that you've done what you went in to do, and what is success, and what's your exit strategy? When does it end? Is there some point where it's over, or is it interminable?"

Secretary Rumsfeld, you can continue to pretend you don't know what success is, but clearly, your own officers are far more willing to openly admit things may not be as rosy as you keep telling the public they are.

I Have to Go, I'm Due Back on the Planet Earth

In the movie Annie Hall, Woody Allen famously tells Christopher Walken, "I have to go now, because I'm due back on the planet Earth." That's exactly how those of us in the real world feel when we read the news reports from Washington, D.C. these days.

What am I talking about? Look at the Washington Post's latest piece about the filibuster fight, where it says there is a "nuclear cloud over the Senate." You see, lately out here on planet Earth (aka. the real world, not the Beltway echo chamber) we're worried about the adverse effects of real nuclear clouds that have harmed or killed thousands of Americans - not sensationalist, self-important bloviating from out-of-touch GOP politicians and media pundits in Washington, D.C.

Rational, serious people who care about real issues might consider devoting some real resources to covering life-and-death stories from the planet Earth like this. Ah, but I forgot - GOP politicians and the Beltway media/punditocracy have long ago stopped pretending to be serious people who care about anything other than their own breathless hyperventilation and ultra-insider storylines. Earth, shmirth, they say. War in the Mideast, a health care crisis, stagnating wages, poverty on the rise, actual radioactive nuclear fallout that has killed/maimed Americans - screw all that, we're told. What's important, they tell us, is a bunch of GOP politicians yelling, screaming, whining and crying that they need to change the rules of the game because they can't get their ultra-extremist agenda through Congress.

Seriously folks - is there any question as to why Americans have such a low opinion of Congress's leadership and the media?

GOP's Corporate Backers Threaten the Media

From the "if it smells like a conspiracy it probably is one" department, check this out. At the same time the corporate-owned Bush White House is desperately trying to intimidate the media, one of the Republican Party's major financial contributors is now threatening the media as well. It sure looks like one big, well-coordinated pile on.

As Daniel Gross notes, the financial firm Morgan Stanley is essentially letting publications know that they will be financially punished if those publications have the nerve to aggressively cover corporate scandals.

It seems Big Business and the Bush administration will only be happy if reporters write glowing stories about how everything is just dandy in America, how Corporate America is a bastion of honesty and how the Bush administration is led by angelic heroes. Maybe they'd like to simply eliminate news coverage altogether...we will see if the media cowers. Let's hope they don't.

Washington IS the Problem

Matt Yglesias claims that "Washington" has nothing to do with our political system being out of touch with America - only the Republican Party does. I agree with him that on specifically the filibuster fight and its disconnection with real America, that's true. This is a GOP creation through and through, as are much of the most recent examples of politicians ignoring our country's most pressing needs. However, the idea that "Washington" and the beltway insider culture isn't out of touch with America, well, that argument can only be made by someone from Washington in that culture who is out of touch with America.

How many examples do you need from BOTH parties AND the media to know the problem is the Beltway mentality? Last I checked, it both parties in Washington that has pushed "free" trade even as these policies clearly sold out ordinary Americans. Last I checked, there is almost never talk of universal, single-payer health care, even though most of the industrialized world has that one figured out. And last I checked, there is almost never a debate in the confines of Washington about how corporate power is at the core of many of our most pressing problems. In the insulated, lobbyist-prowling confines of Washington, such talk is considered out of bounds.

I used to live in Washington, so I've got some experience with this: I know what's it's like to be in an environment divorced from reality. That's why I got out as quickly as I could. Washington - most of its journalists, almost all of its pundits, all of its corporate lobbyists, and all but a handful of truly decent politicians - are out of touch. And any argument to the contrary made by people in Washington just reinforces the point even more.

An Addition to My Last Post

As an addendum to my last post, I just want to be clear: the point of what I wrote is to really try to break through and answer the question that people always ask - why don't people vote, why are Americans so cynical about the political process? On the filibuster, it isn't Democrats fault at all - they have to fight this, because it has been imposed on them. But just as important - they have to continue trying to get above all this as best they can.

The other point is that the media HAS to stop this and get a grip. They, the lobbyists, the pundits, the Grover Norquists, etc. are the ones that I refer to as the insulated cocktail party circuit - the people who spend all day only talking to one another, never having to go out to talk to real people. If there is any question about why TV news ratings continue to plummet, it is because the media is totally divorced from reality.

Note to D.C. Elites: You Are a Joke, Get a Freakin' Clue

Look, I don't want to downplay the importance of this filibuster fight - it is a clear example of the GOP trying to usurp power, and the blame for this fight goes squarely on the Republican Party. That said, however, the endless attention this is getting is really truly pathetic for both parties and the media. If the bloviating inside-the-beltway crowd can just step back for 5 seconds, they would see just how ridiculous this all is - and exactly how this hyperventilating, non-stop coverage is exactly WHY more and more Americans have become completely disillusioned with politics.

Every election, people wonder why so many Americans don't vote. Well, let me say that this filibuster fight is EXACTLY why people don't vote (yes, it is certainly possible that's really the point - real voter participation threatens the entire political Establishment - but let's assume for a second the validity of rhetoric from politicians claiming they think more voter participation is good). It isn't that people are stupid - it is that they see a political system so totally and completely divorced from their own lives that its not even worth it to go to the polls. As more and more pundits who never leave the confines of Washington ramp up their breathless rhetoric about the "nuclear option" and the "war in the Senate", more and more average people throw up there hands in desperation. There is a war going on in the Mideast, there is a major health care crisis burgeoning in our country, wages are stagnating while our government helps ship jobs overseas, poverty is on the rise - and all our politicians and media can do is focus on a fight about archane Senate rules and two or three extremist judges? Is this what it has come to? Have we become so overwhelmed by these huge problems in our society that we feel we must find some distracting conflict between out-of-touch politicians in order to divert our attention?

To be sure, there are still some courageous Members of Congress who are desperately trying to focus on these real problems. Though they are in the minority, they understand how corrosive all of this really is, and how this just makes ordinary more cynical about a political system that is supposed to be addressing real problems. I mean, I haven't bumped into one person - NOT ONE PERSON - out here in real America that has ever brought up the filibuster fight that the media and the Beltway elite has been obsessed with for months. Again, I'm not saying the filibuster issue isn't important and isn't an example of the GOP's excesses, and I'm not saying progressives shouldn't fight it tooth and nail - they should. This is a fight the GOP created and should be blamed for - and one that they should lose.

But if ever there was an example of why average Americans innately know that Washington, D.C. and the self-important snobs who occupy the halls of power are out of touch from America - this is it. It is as if our nation's capitol has been transformed into one giant soundstage for a reality TV show - only its not even reality TV - it's a depressing sitcom - almost like a fictional "Real World." Only instead of crying, whining and fighting about who is dating who, we have politicians moaning about Senate rules, and reporters self-importantly spending hours and hours and hours speculating on the outcome, as if "news" had become one of those rags where you can read up on the latest soap opera gossip. What a complete joke.

Here's my message to all of the dolts in Washington: get a goddamn clue. Calling a fight over Senate rules a "nuclear option" is an insult to millions of average Americans who want their political system to focus on REAL WORLD PROBLEMS. You in the media may breathlessly report every detail about this conflict, and you political elites may masturbate about how important you think you are to be involved in such a supposedly "historic" fight that you hilariously believe should evoke images of mushroom clouds - but you all look like a bunch of dolts. Get over yourself, get beyond your own egos, and try - please try, I know it's hard - to understand that there is more to life than the pathetic, limited universe of what you and your out-of-touch friends have deemed "important and legitimate political issues."

America has serious and severe problems - and the more you ignore them, the more people will continue to correctly believe that Washington, D.C. is nothing more than a bunch of self-important blowhards who are more concerned with their reputation on the cocktail party circuit than they are with our country's future.

Sen. Norm "Hunchback" Coleman (R-Notre Dame)

I'll plead guilty: I haven't much followed the oil-for-food story because I assume that if Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) is involved, it has to be a dishonest witch hunt. The guy has made a career off being one of the most disingenuous people American politics has ever seen - and that's saying a lot. So I had to laugh out loud when I saw this quote at Political Wire:

"To be accused of a lack of moral character by Senator Norm Coleman is a bit like being told to sit up straight by the Hunchback of Notre Dame."
- British MP George Galloway, on MSNBC's Hardball

Amen.

Straight Talk Where Few Politicians Dare to Talk At All

How will Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders force the U.S. Senate to deal with issues it rarely talks about if he is elected in 2006? Take a look at the video of his statement from his packed town hall meeting on poverty for a taste (on the bottom right at this link). Here's the most important excerpt:

"The issue of poverty is a difficult issue to talk about, and I will tell you why as someone who grew up in a family that didn't have a lot of money. Nobody wants to get up and say hey I am poor look at me. Nobody wants to do that, because there is an element of shame attached to that, an element of failure attached to that. But we have got to overcome that.

"What I want to say to people is that you and I know there are so many people in the state of Vermont who work day and night trying to be the best workers they can be, the best providers they can be, the best parents they can be. People are working one job, two jobs, three jobs, sacrificing for their kids, for their grandchildren trying to do the right thing. I know there are some people who don't work very hard, but those are a minority of people. The vast majority of people are struggling, they are working as hard they can and I don't want anyone who is in that position today to start blaming themselves, to start saying I am a failure in life. You are not a failure. Our system is failing the American people, you are not failing your family."

That's the kind of thing you rarely hear in Washington, where politicians are more comfortable publicly berating people who are struggling to get by. And that's the kind of thing a Senator Sanders will force the Senate to start dealing with if he is elected in 2006.

CAFTA: Fighting A Democracy to Spread Democracy?

CBS Marketwatch reports that Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick gave a speech at the fringe-right-wing Heritage Foundation today claiming that Congress will approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) because lawmakers "will want to provide a helping hand to the fragile democracies in the region." Zoellick "warned that the former Communist rebels and right-wing dictators of the region would be the biggest winners if CAFTA is defeated."

Apparently, Zoellick believes that the region's oldest and most stable democracy are "communist rebels and right-wing dictators." The fact is, the major opposition to CAFTA is being led by Costa Rica, the oldest democracy in Central America. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, "The reluctance of Central America's oldest democracy has surprised the White House and undermines one of its chief arguments for the pact: that Cafta represents an urgently sought benefit for the impoverished region." Polls show "Costa Ricans worry that Cafta may lead to the privatization of the country's free universal health-care system. Just "38% of Costa Ricans polled in February who had heard of the deal thought it would benefit the country, compared with 56% in January of last year.

This is yet another example of the Bush administration using "democracy" and "freedom" to justify any and all of its radical policies. And it echoes the Bush administration's claims that if you don't support their radical policies, you support America's enemies.

Whether it is war-for-oil in Iraq justified by "the pursuit of democracy" or this latest example in the CAFTA debate, the Bush administration has lost all credibility in claiming it is for anything other than Corporate America's bottom line.

Because We Need More Viagra/Cialis Ads on TV

The New York Times reports that the chief lobbyist for the drug industry said "drug companies were trying to develop a voluntary code of conduct for the advertising of prescription medicines on television and in print." This is the same drug industry that, in 1997, used its army of lobbyists to force the Clinton administration to loosen 28-year-old regulations on these "direct to consumer" ads that now flood our airwaves.

The rule was originally developed to keep complex medical decisions in the hands of doctors, and keep the drug industry from seizing on people's medical fears to drive up their spending on medicine. Now, not only has the FDA allowed these ads to proliferate, but they are barely enforcing the existing ad regulations on the books. That leaves us flooded with Viagra/Cialis ads at all hours of the day - even during times when children watch TV. And it leaves drug expenditures unnecessarily skyrocketing.

PhRMA lobbyist Billy Tauzin, who took his job immediately after leaving the chairmanship of the committee that oversees the drug industry, admitted that the drug industry's new move on ads is motivated by cynicism. As the Times notes, the "purpose is to fend off more stringent federal regulation." Because really, it would be awful if we didn't have to sit through all those Viagra and Cialis ads all the time...

NOW & THEN: Greenspan on Corporate Reform

There's really nothing like a politician gloating about the "success" of legislation they themselves did everything possible to weaken and destroy on behalf of Corporate America.

NOW:
Under the headline "Greenspan Praises Corporate Governance Law" the Financial Times reports Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said, "The act importantly reinforced the principle that shareholders own our corporations and that corporate managers should be working on behalf of shareholders to allocate business resources to their optimum use."

THEN:
As Congress was moving to enact strong corporate governance laws in 2002, the 7/19/02 Akron Beacon Journal noted that in official testimony, Greenspan "warned Congress to avoid an infectious response of its own, one that would produce an overrection to the corporate misdeeds." Thanks, in part, to Greenspan, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill was riddled with loopholes. Yet, apparently, that wasn't enough for Greenspan. He continued his efforts to eliminate serious corporate oversight. On 9/26/02 the London Independent reported that Greenspan gave a speech "warn[ing] against overregulation in financial markets despite corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom...[his] remarks ran counter to the prevailing mood that increased regulation and greater transparency are necessary to improve financial systems and lead to more stable wealth creation." Now, there are grumblings that the law could be further weakened.

Henry Bonilla & Democrats Rural Opportunity

Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) is a typical corrupt politician - this much is obvious. As chairman of the powerful Agriculture Appropriations Committee he sits at the legislative fulcrum where small farmers get regularly screwed over by the GOP's pro-corporate-agribusiness policies.

Yesterday, Bonilla was in top form. CQ reports that he "added language to a fiscal 2006 spending bill that would effectively delay implementing" congressionally-mandated rules forcing companies to include country of origin labels on meats. The rules were originally passed for two reasons: 1) it helps consumers know where their food is coming from - especially important considering recent Mad Cow scares and 2) it helps small American ranchers/farmers better market their domestically-produced products in America (ie. tapping a patriotic "buy American" sentiment).

Bonilla made his controversial move to pay off the corporate agribusiness and food processing interests that finance his political campaigns. They want to be able to mix all sorts of different meats from anywhere in the world without any regulations, so as to save costs and maximize profits.

But in taking this action, Bonilla has highlighted a critical weakness for the GOP that Democrats can exploit. This is yet another example of a Republican Party that pays lip service to rural and small business interests - but uses its legislative power to run roughshod over those very same interests. The more Democrats can highlight this reality, the more they can start attracting support from the GOP's small business/rural base.

Already, some states are catching on. Out here in Montana, for instance, the Democratic legislature passed a strong country-of-origin labeling law over the objections of Big Business. The move allows Democrats to stand with the state's agricultural community and make a statement that screwing over ranchers and farmers is not the Montana way. Democrats in Congress can make a similar statement if they make this labeling fight emblematic of where the GOP's heart really is.

The Right Response to the Bush/Newsweeek Story

The Associated Press had this yesterday about the Newsweek fiasco:

"It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not...The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

The irony of this White House "outrage" in light of all the lies about Iraq the Bush administration has fed America is really incredible. A reader sent me a good response to this latest Bush administration rhetoric:

"It's puzzling that while the White House now acknowledged that they haven't found WMD or a link between Al Queda and Iraq, they have refused to retract their claims. I think there's a certain standard of governing that should be met and in this instance has not. The claims the administration used to send this nation to war has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

Safety Net Swing Voters

Businessweek is one of the best publications around, and this week is no exception. The magazine has a terrific article on how the GOP's extremist cuts to the social safety net are drawing the ire not just of liberals, but of conservatives as well. As the magazine notes, "Safety Netters include plenty of card-carrying Republicans and independent swing voters, and the group may represent a broader swath of America than the White House imagines."

Sure, "many members of Safety Net Nation have nothing against investing and choice" but "they're worried that the country's web of public and private social protections is fraying." But there is a general consensus that the Bush "ownership society" is a dangerous ploy to screw the middle class.

The polls bear this out: A Sept. 2-5, 2004, survey by the Civil Society Institute, a Newton Centre (Mass.) nonprofit group, found 67% of Americans think it's a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27% dissenting. Support for a government-directed universal insurance system is strong, despite GOP warnings about socialized medicine. Similarly, a Feb. 3-5 Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 47% of respondents believe the government ought to guarantee a minimum standard of living for retirees, vs. 35% who felt that was an individual's responsibility.

Again, the politics of this are quite different than might be expected. Sure, "the most predictable members of Safety Net Nation are liberals who favor activist government." But "the really crucial bloc is made up of those who backed Bush in 2004..This faction -- estimates range from 17% to 22% of the electorate -- rejects both traditional liberalism and conservative laissez-faire."

Why the concern among disparate ideological groups? Big swings in family income, according to studies by Yale University political scientist Jacob S. Hacker, have increased markedly over the past two decades as the finances of two-earner households have been stretched thin. That income volatility mixed with Republicans efforts to "offload ever more responsibility onto individuals" is creating a growing sense of panic that America is turning into an economically Darwinian society - with no safety net whatsoever.

Read the full article here.

Taking the "Small Business" Out of the SBA

Matt Singer and New West are highlighting an interesting story in the New Mexico Business Weekly that shows the Bush administration is using the Small Business Administration (SBA) to funnel taxpayer money away from small businesses, and toward some of the biggest multi-national corporations (many of which are Bush donors).

As the story notes, "in recent years, billions of dollars in federal contracts that various government agencies claimed were awarded to small businesses actually went to big companies like Titan Corp., Raytheon Co., General Dynamics Corp., Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Archer Daniels-Midland, and Hewlett-Packard Co." As the links show, those companies alone gave Republicans hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A few years ago, there was an effort to force more federal agencies to send small-business-earmarked dollars to actual small businesses - not just to huge corporate campaign contributors. Those efforts, not surprisingly, were voted down by Republicans.

Small businessowners may, demographically, be ideologically conservative, but they are the frontline casualties of a political system that increasingly only does the bidding of giant companies. As I have said before, this poses a major opportunity for Democrats to win over support from the small business community by showing exactly how the GOP's shilling for huge corporations often hurts small businesses on Main Street.

Local Restrictions Fuel CAFTA Revolt

Another day, another blow to the Bush administration's efforts to ram the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement down Congress's throat. This time, it's all about state and local rights - something the White House has paid a lot of lip service to, but is now trying to usurp through CAFTA.

First, New Hampshire became the latest state to pull its support for CAFTA. Specifically, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) was miffed over the pact's restrictive rules that prevent state/local governments from preferential purchasing from domestic/environmentally-friendly producers.

Second, the far-right Eagle Forum is urging Republican lawmakers to reject the deal, potentially peeling off critical GOP votes from President Bush. As the group's alert notes, "Under CAFTA, state legislatures would relinquish their right to regulate utilities, land use, and taxpayer-funded contracts." Additionally, "CAFTA would also prohibit any preference states could give to contractors in their state."

What ever happened to the "states rights'" Republicans? Apparently, when those rights get in Corporate America's way, they cease to be GOP priorities.

Three Books Everyone Should Read

Every now and again I get some time to read a book or two. I usually try to pick older books, or newer ones that the Establishment media is ignoring (remember, when the Establishment media ignores you, it usually means you are talking about issues that are so big and so pervasive that mainstream pundits are simply uninterested in devoting any short-term attention to them). So without further ado, here are three books I highly recommend.

First, I am in the middle of Matt Taibbi's "Spanking the Donkey" (which he hilariously self-reviewed here). This book is truly laugh-out-loud funny, as it has the guts to analyze many of our high-profile politicians and media pundits with the sharpness of a razor blade. It is refreshing to know that at least some journalists like Taibbi are really willing to tell the whole truth, no matter how embarrassing it is for the media/political Establishment. Taibbi is really an extremely talented writer - and his book is very worth the read.

Second is William Greider's "Who Will Tell the People" - it is a little dated, sure, but Greider's points are still very relevant. Its a tremendous insight into how our political process really works - and doesn't work.

Finally, I about to finish James Michener's "The Source." This is a very long, epic look into the history of the Middle East. It provides a rich history that is extremely important to understanding much of what is going on in the region today.

Progressives Ramp Up Congressional Operation

Roll Call reports that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has hired a full-time senior-level staffer "to help better coordinate the group’s message and wield more influence" among Democrats in Congress. The 55-member Progressive Caucus "has tapped Bill Goold, a longtime Capitol Hill aide and former AFL-CIO staffer."

This is a very encouraging step, as it means congressional progressives are preparing to really assert themselves. Lately, "moderate" Democrats have made a bad habit of voting with Republicans on key economic issues while publicly beating up on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D). And while sources may deny the hiring of a full-time staffer is not in response to this, progressives clearly sense the time is ripe to step up, and are now taking concrete steps to do so.

Check Out This Speech

There's been a lot of chatter recently about the bias in America's media. And this weekend, Bill Moyers gave quite a speech at the National Conference for Media Reform on the right-wing takeover of public broadcasting, and the future of America's media. Listen to/see his speech here.

Bush Owns Investments He Said Were Worthless

Daniel Gross points out this interesting note from an Associated Press piece on President Bush's personal finances:

"The president reported having at least $4.95 million in Treasury notes."

This is the same President who essentially said Treasury notes were just worthless IOUs, sparking outrage.

If he really believed these Treasury notes were worthless (and wasn't just saying that to scare Americans), why would he choose to own them as personal investments?

More Proof Iraq War Was Pre-Determined

The newly-released Downing Street Memo showing President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to go to war with Iraq in 2002 has once again raised the question of why the Bush administration lied to America in the lead up to the conflict. And amazingly, it is not the only piece of hard evidence proving that - well before the war (and during the supposed "diplomatic" phase) - the Bush administration had already decided to go to war in Iraq - no matter whether Iraq was really an "imminent threat" or not.

The background: Throughout 2002 and early 2003, the administration repeatedly insisted that they sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq question and that war was only a last resort. In October of 2002, for instance, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said said, "We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible" [Source: CBS, 10/20/02]. Then in November of 2002, she said, "We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way" [Source: White House Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed "we are still in a diplomatic phase here" [Source: ABC News, 3/9/03].

We know now, however, that was a complete lie, and that U.S. plans for war were being pushed before 2003, and even before 2002. It was a pre-determined strategy. Not only do we have the newly-released Downing Street memo, but we have other evidence as well:

TOP BUSH OFFICIAL SAYS IRAQ WAR PLAN BEGAN IN EARLY 2001: According to CBS 60 Minutes, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill admits that "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. He said that "going after Saddam was topic '10' days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11." [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 1/11/04]

CBS REPORTS IRAQ WAR PLANS ACCELERATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER 9/11: According to CBS News, "barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." [Source: CBS News, 9/4/02]

TOP AMBASSADOR SAYS BUSH-BLAIR DEAL WORKED OUT IMMEDIATELY AFTER 9/11: According to the UK Observer, British Ambassador to the U.S. Sir Christopher Meyer admitted that "President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001." [London Observer, 4/4/04]

RICE INDICATED TO STATE DEPARTMENT IN 2002 THAT IRAQ DECISION HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE: The New Yorker reported that Bush State Department official Richard Haass said he met with then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in July of 2002. At the meeting, he said, "I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath." [Source: New Yorker, 3/31/03]

BUSH SHIFTED KEY TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN TO IRAQ IN 2002: According to USA Today, "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." [Source: USA Today, 3/28/04]

Victory: ABC News Backtracks & Apologizes

Yesterday, I took ABC News to task for essentially helping create a justification for journalists to ignore the war in Iraq (see the key posts here and here). It was an abomination for any major news media to make such a statement, much less a publication that is designed to create/perpetuate conventional wisdom among beltway journalists. Many of you responded to this with emails, calls and blog posts of protest. And today, we see the results of that criticism, as ABC News has now formally apologized. From ABC News's The Note today:

"Yesterday, we wrote about how the war in Iraq does not dominate America's media the way it might. As can happen with The Note, we didn't explain ourselves well enough. What we meant simply was that the story does not get covered in certain media quarters commensurate with its importance."

I have no idea if this is genuine or just a face-saving reaction to hard-hitting criticism. But it shows that with enough tenacity from bloggers, media critics, and groups like the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, even the beltway media can be pressured to do its job and be objective (check out another good example of this today at MyDD). I for one think this is a victory, however small. Let's hope it means they are serious about providing America with the real story of what is going on in Iraq.

Wal-Mart Pushes CBC to Support CAFTA

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) recently took the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to task over the CBC's willingness to build ties to Wal-Mart lobbyists. The CBC, of course, has a strong pro-labor tradition. And therefore, after reading about the controversy, I had one question: why would Wal-Mart, a company with a horrific worker rights record, think a group like the CBC would be amenable to its agenda? In other words, what does Wal-Mart want?

The answer may be found in this new Hill Newspaper story. The paper reports that a dozen high-powered corporate lobbyists - including those from Wal-Mart - are embarking on a mission to pressure CBC members to support the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

These corporate lackeys likely will be making the same argument to the CBC that the shameless fat cat/moron/blowhard/jackass Dick Morris recently made. He claimed the bill is good for Hispanics. In a previous post, I've shown it is nothing of the kind. Congressional Hispanic Caucus leader Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) agreed, telling CNN last night that the deal is very similar to NAFTA. "I can see the same pattern occurring in Central America," she said. Corporations will use CAFTA to "drive down as much as they can the wages in Central America."

Thankfully, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) is leading the fight against the lobbyists. And again, the CBC has been one of the most rock-solid progressive institutions in Congress, so we should be fairly confident they will hold firm and not be spun by Corporate America's specious arguments. But this just goes to show you that no lawmaker is immune from being harrassed by Big Business when it is pushing its agenda. Corporations will stop at nothing to get their way - no matter what the cost to ordinary Americans.

CLAIM vs. FACT: Bush on Internet Privacy

CLAIM:
"President Bush grumbled recently that he doesn't use e-mail because he worries the exchanges could become public. 'There has got to be a certain sense of privacy,' he told a conference of newspaper editors. 'I don't think you're entitled to be able to read my mail between my daughters and me.'...Bush's passion for privacy extends to his policies."
- USA Today, 5/12/05

FACT:
"President Bush signed legislation Friday that expands the ability to tap telephones and track Internet usage...The bill, known as the USA Patriot Act, gives federal authorities much wider latitude in monitoring Internet usage."
- CNET News, 10/26/01

FACT:
"Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle today strongly questioned the need to extend a controversial part of the federal Patriot Act that allows Internet service providers to give e-mail messages and personal data to federal law enforcement without a warrant or any notification to the person in question."
- PC World, 5/5/05

Judge Who Let Cheney Off Linked to Major Oil Companies

Federal Judge A. Raymond Randolph yesterday ruled in favor of Vice President Dick Cheney in Cheney's efforts to keep his energy task force records secret. Cheney has already been cited by the GAO for allowing energy companies to write much of the task force's documents. So why would the judge make this ruling? Could it have anything to do with a sympathy for energy companies brought on by his close proximity to some of America's biggest oil companies?

Check out the details. Randolph serves on the Judicial Advisory board of George Mason's Law & Economics Center (he has apparently served there for at least a few years, and may still currently). This is the same Law & Economics Center famous for taking judges on training junkets and for being financed with huge amounts of cash from oil industry giants like Exxon. Randolph is also an adjunct law professor at George Mason University, a place that has taken millions from Koch Industries - another major oil company (for more on Koch's multi-million dollar ties to George Mason, see Media Transparency's special site).

For more, see this original post at Citizens for Legitimate Government.

Tax Reform that Actually Benefits Ordinary People

My boss, the progressive svengali John Podesta, presented the Center for American Progress's comprehensive tax plan to President Bush's "Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform" yesterday. Many believe Bush's panel is a front group to justify making the tax code even flatter than it already is, severely increasing taxes on ordinary Americans. That's a far more unfair plan than the CAP proposal, which starts to reward work, not just wealth. Check it out.

Media: Iraq "Is a Hard Story to Cover"

Per my earlier post about ABC News essentially justifying a media blackout of Iraq coverage, see this follow up I posted on Arianna Huffington's site. After hearing back from some reporters, I am even more nauseated about this story than I was early this morning.

Americans' Real Opinion of the Estate Tax

Economist Robert H. Frank has an interesting piece in the New York Times today noting that the right-wing is essentially lying about the public's support for a full repeal of the estate tax. Bought-off politicians continue to argue that eliminating the estate tax is widely supported in America - and that's simply untrue.

To help make his case, Frank asked the Survey Research Institute at Cornell to administer two versions of a national telephone survey. In the first, respondents were asked simply whether they favored or opposed the Bush administration's proposal. Typical of the findings in other, similar surveys, these respondents favored repeal by almost three to one. But, in the second version, respondents were reminded that the revenue shortfall from repealing the estate tax would entail raising other taxes, cutting government services or increasing federal borrowing. "Strikingly," he notes, "these respondents opposed repeal by almost four to one....Even among Republicans, 70 percent opposed its repeal in the second version of my survey."

These findings, while important, are not shocking, even if the media always portrays the American public as fully supportive of repeal. As a 2002 poll showed, Americans overwhelmingly support reforming the estate tax instead of fully repealing it (for more details on that poll, see these charts). When probed, the public understands that the estate tax affects almost no ordinary American - it only affects the super wealthy.

By design, right-wingers only cite polls that don't give survey respondents a choice between elimination and reform. And that means we get a dishonest story about where the public really is on the issue.

CAFTA & Giving Clinton Credit When Credit is Due

Here's the deal: I am not the biggest fan of Bill Clinton's trade policies (that's an understatement). I think in many respects, he only paid lip service to the concerns of American workers when pushing corporate-backed "free" trade deals, and that many of his trade deals have been disastrous for both ordinary Americans and our trading partners. That said, the man deserves some credit for his work on one trade pact from 1999 - one that can serve as a model for future trade accords that is far different from disastrous proposals like the Central American Free Trade Ageement (CAFTA).

The New York Times notes that "thanks to an unorthodox labor program backed by the United States and intended to improve working conditions, much of Cambodia's garment industry has been holding its own since the end of the global quota system that parceled out shares of the apparel and textile business country by country." And because of such a strong international movement to embarrass retailers into improving working conditions, "a majority of Cambodia's factories have retained the loyalty of major retailers around the world by appealing not just to their need for low-cost production but also to their desire to avoid the stigma of exploiting poor laborers in distant sweatshops."

The Clinton-backed program is pretty straightforward: it increased U.S. quotas on imports from Cambodia, but only if Cambodia's enforcement of worker rights/child labor laws were certified and monitored by the International Labor Organization. And Clinton ponied up, providing money for the ILO to conduct its inspections. Now, as quotas end, Cambodia has a stronger labor/worker rights movement - and better working conditions - than many other similar countries.

As Nathan Newman accurately notes, "the best approach is conditioning trade on countries meeting basic international labor standards." He says, "Cambodia is the poster-child for a country that has moved from the most horrific labor conditions possible under the Khmer Rouge to being a model of labor conditions, largely due to economic incentives offered by the U.S. and the international community to achieve that result." Unlike many other Clinton-negotiated trade deals, this pact helped raise the standards of our trading partner, while preventing Americans from direct competition with slave labor. While certainly not perfect, those are the first outlines of a progressive trade policy we should ultimately emulate.

ABC News: We're Not Interested in Covering the Iraq War

Why do Americans think journalism is a complete and total joke? Maybe because news organizations treat the most serious, somber news as a a complete and total joke. Just look at this from ABC News's "The Note" today:

"Brides gotta run, planes gotta stray, and cable news networks gotta find a way to fill a lot of programming hours as cheaply as possible...We say with all the genuine apolitical and non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq is truly staggering. And/but we are sort of resigned to the Notion that it simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations, or, for the most part, Americans...What is hands down the biggest story every day in the world will get almost no coverage."

Let me reiterate how unbelievable this actually is: A MAJOR AMERICAN MEDIA OUTLET HAS NOW DECLARED THAT THEY SIMPLY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN LETTING THE CARNAGE IN IRAQ "BREAK THROUGH" IN THEIR NEWS COVERAGE - AS IF IT IS SIMPLY NOT NEWSWORTHY. You can just imagine the pathetic newsroom attitude: we don't cover cats getting stuck in trees, we don't birthday parties at the local McDonalds, and we don't cover America's multi-billion dollar war in the Mideast.

Sorry America, the insulated, out-of-touch, Washington media is simply uninterested in providing any real coverage about the war. Because remember, the media has to be "very deferential" because "no one want[s] to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

Truly nauseating.

UPDATE: One thing to consider, in the interest of absolute fairness. ABC's The Note wasn't necessarily claiming THEY didn't take the Iraq War seriously "because it's hard." They were letting it be known that they thought the media as a whole won't take it seriously (which, granted, is still a troubling indictment coming from people in the media itself who do, in fact, know the thinking, and who do establish conventional wisdom for other reporters). That said, ABC itself has taken the war as seriously as the rest of them, and is, in general, no worse than the rest of them (in fact, in certain respects it has been better). But that doesn't undermine the overall point, which is not to target one network, but to try to let the media in general know that an attitude of complacency in the future toward the quagmire in Iraq is unacceptable. Let's hope they get the message that we are watching - and expecting more.

The Push for Public Financing of Elections

It occurred to me in reading the recent news about lobbyists buying off politicians, now is the time for Democrats to get serious about pushing legislation to publicly finance elections for all federal offices. How many stories do we have to hear about some corrupt industry/lobbyist showering a powerful politician in cash before we realize that its time for America to stop with these fake half measures, and start investing a little public money into cleaning up the political process? The only way to limit the influence of Big Money in politics and give citizens back their voice is to provide candidates with an alternative way to finance their campaigns - a way that doesn't force them to rely on money from the same interests who have business before Congress.

This is not some crazy idea. As the nonprofit watchdog Public Campaign shows, there are some states that already have public financing systems in place, and there is federal legislation that has already been drafted. If Democrats really made this the centerpiece of their agenda, they would likely find traction, unlikely allies (John McCain?) - and a solid contrast with the GOP. They might also find that a system of public financing would be to their political advantage because they will always lose in the current system: few argue that the GOP will always have a huge advantage in raising big corporate money.

Sure, Democrats are not perfectly clean - they have taken lots of corporate money. But as McCain showed in 2000, that can be used as an asset. He was involved in the Keating scandal, and was able to use that experience to say he truly understood the danger of money in politics. Democrats can do the same by openly discussing how our system has become so corrupt that it is time for a change.

If we are spending billions to create democracies in far off places like Iraq, we should at least be willing to invest a fraction of that at home to make sure our own democracy starts working properly.

Ike Predicted GOP Demise Over Social Security

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

President Bush, a Texas oil millionaire, is trying to abolish social security as we know it, starve unemployment programs, weaken labor laws, and gut rural/farm programs. In light of this appalling record, let's hope Ike was right about his party's future.

Purple Populism Platform

In Missoula last night, I had the chance to meet with a terrific crowd of state legislators and activists from all over the region who were energized by the last election here in Montana. For details of the speech I gave, check out the coverage in today's Missoulian. As I have said and written before, the premise is pretty simple: if Democrats are willing to stand up for the middle class and use a populist economic message, they can and will be successful in the "red" states and start turning them into a new shade of blue. Not the east/west coast version of a blue agenda, mind you. A different color altogether. Call it the Purple Populism Platform.

The proof is in the pudding: Within his first days in office, our fearless Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) aggressively pushed a serious middle-class, populist agenda through the legislature. He has been rewarded with terrific support from Montanans. As a new poll shows, he is one of the most popular governors in the United States right now.

I think/hope the crowd enjoyed the speech, and it was good to see so many different folks actively engaged in politics out here. Among others, I caught up with my friend Jim Elliott, the state senate leader on taxes; my blogging colleague Matt Singer, and Courtney Lowry from New West. And I was happy to see State House Democratic Leader Dave Wanzenried (D) in the crowd. It shows that many Democrats outside of the Washington, D.C. beltway are ready to move a populist progressive agenda forward.

The DeLay Ratings

Public Campaign, a nonpartisan watchdog group, has set up a new website that tracks how close your Member of Congress is to ethically-challenged/scandal-plagued House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). The website is called www.InDeLaysPocket.com and is sure to be an important tool in the 2006 elections, especially considering new polling showing America's opinion of Congress has hit an 8-year-low.

DeLay's scandals and Americans belief that Congress is corrupt and inept sure does not bode well for Republicans in 2006.

Missoula Anyone?

For those readers who might be nearby Missoula, Montana tonight, come on over to City Hall. I am giving a speech on politics, "red" states and the alienation of middle-class voters from the Democratic Party. The speech will be based, in part, off my earlier "Democrats' Da Vinci Code" article. Should be a good time - and if you haven't been to Missoula, its a great town with great history - check it out.

The Anatomy of a Progressive Campaign

A new poll from the nonpartisan polling firm Research 2000 shows Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders is crushing all possible challengers in the 2006 open-seat Vermont Senate race. Sanders leads businessman Richard Tarrant (62% to 18%), Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (59% to 23%) and Major General Martha Rainville (61% to 18%). These are devastating numbers to Republicans, and certainly the main reason the Republicans recently lost their strongest possible challenger, Gov. Jim Douglas (R). The numbers are also devastating to any nominal Democrats who had been considering running as spoilers. Additionally, the new poll was followed by a strong endorsement of Sanders candidacy by DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

How has Sanders managed to rack up such huge support in Vermont? Take a look at today's story in the Rutland Herald for some clues - it provides a glimpse into the anatomy of how progressives can run and win grassroots campaigns. Sanders has spent years traveling the state holding town meetings on serious issues, making citizens feel they really have a line of communication to their political leaders. And just like "they came in droves" last night, they have come in droves for years.

Another good example is Sanders' efforts in fighting cutbacks to worker pensions. A few years ago, he held a town meeting where 800 traditionally-conservative IBM workers came out to rally against the cuts, and help Sanders push through legislation banning the type of age-discriminatory pension the company had proposed.

The Vermont GOP chairman Jim Barnett, not surprisingly, took potshots at the news of the Sanders' poll. But as Sanders chief of staff Jeff Weaver noted, Barnett is really just a "White House protégé" and a "Karl Rove character." Weaver said, "He can throw his bombs and we'll do our work for the people."

That's exactly right - because Sanders has built such a strong network of grassroots support, he doesn't have to pay attention to the petty attacks. He knows he has an army of supporters throughout the state that will walk through fire for him, because they know that in the Senate, he will walk through fire for them.

They Can Dish It Out, But Can't Take It

There's an old adage that says people tend to react most violently when they are told the painful truth about something they inherently know, but don't want to admit. So I was not surprised at the number of angry, outraged, oh-how-could-you-do-this emails I received from reporters after my post on the decline of American journalism.

One wrote, "I have written, literally, thousands of articles – interviewing, researching, checking my facts each time – putting a little bit of my soul into every one. And what’s most remarkable is that I am not remarkable. Most of my friends and colleagues have done all these kinds of things, too. Many have done much more than me...Ninety-five percent of the journalists I know, including myself, have not made big money, nor asked for power or fame."

I very much sympathize with this reporter - it really is tragic when you are a good, decent, thorough and honest at your trade, and yet the most high-profile people in that trade give it a bad name (it's why I actually said that yes, there are some good journalists working today). The good reporters, in fact, should therefore be even more outraged than me that so many of their colleagues embarrass their trade. And let's be honest - the media often seizes on this exact kind of thing to make its own points. As just one example, 99% of trial lawyers may be honest, hard working advocates for the public good - but that doesn't stop the media from portraying their trade as some sort of terrible evil.

Another was upset that I called most TV pundits "blow-dried robots on television." Again, its true - there are some very good television reporters out there (Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann, and Ted Koppel come to mind)...but come on - how can anyone really argue that most television news is dominated by a bunch of robotic drones who are more interested in hearing the sound of their voice than actually doing real, serious reporting?

Yet another reporter asked, "If we're all so lousy, why do you continue sending us your stuff?" This was the saddest question of them all - it shows that reporters today don't really even understand how today's corporate media has a monopoly on mass information flow these days. The reason bloggers send out information to reporters is because there are, unfortunately, fewer and fewer media companies controlling more and more of what the public reads, watches and hears. If you don't get into the corporate media today, you are essentially not in the debate. And if regular citizens don't try to push reporters to be more serious, scores of serious issues such as economic inequality will continue to be drowned out by stories of Michael Jackson and the First Lady cracking horse masturbation jokes.

Stepping back from all these responses, I find it hilarious that journalism, a field that can be so vicious about attacking its subjects, can't take even the most fleeting criticism without being offended. When the reporters get reported on, apparently they don't like it. But they should get used to it - people are starting to become keenly aware that the media has increasingly become another problem America faces - instead of part of the solution.

GOP Actually Prohibits Better Wages

Nathan Newman points out one of the more hideously pro-corporate-at-all-social-costs bills that just passed a state legislature.

According to the Macon Telegraph, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a law barring "any city from seeking to require their contractors to pay higher minimum wages to employees than the $5.15 per hour federal standard."

Atlanta had been considering requiring a $10.15 "living wage" for government contractors, but that was apparently unacceptable to Big Business - so they bought this wretched piece of legislation, meaning Georgia taxpayers have to continue subsidizing companies that provide poverty-level wages. This, in a state that is already plagued by companies that refuse to pay their workers well. A November 2004 New York Times article cites a study in Georgia that found 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were in the state's low-income healthcare program at a cost to taxpayers of $10 million a year.

But I guess that's how Georgia Republicans like it - low-wages for most people, as long as the big corporate donors are happy.

Today's Journalism: A Punchline, Not a Profession

As network news ratings continue to plummet, the audience for the Daily Show is surging. Let me first say clearly: I love the Daily Show. But still, there is something scary about the fact that the mainstream "news" media has become so insulated and out-of-touch with average Americans that people are tuning into a satire program on a comedy station to get their information.

The recent White House correspondents' dinner shows exactly how sad the mainstream media has become. As media critic Frank Rich notes, "once these dinners were just typical Washington rubber-chicken fare, unseen on television and unnoticed beyond the Beltway." Now, however, they are proof of "the Washington press corps' eagerness to facilitate and serve as dress extras in what amounts to an administration promotional video." First Lady Laura Bush's highly-scripted performance "prompted a ballroom full of reporters to leap to their feet and erupt in a roar of sycophancy like partisan hacks at a political convention." As long as these reporters got their exclusive tickets to the dinner, got to rub elbows with their powerful friends, they were sure to offer far more coverage to the First Lady's jokes about horse masturbation than anything serious like Iraq, Social Security, and other nuisances.

And its not just the elite beltway media. In a new Chicago Tribune op-ed, Douglas MacKinnon, former press secretary to Republican Sen. Bob Dole, tells reporters that their "continual focus on, and reporting of, missing, young, attractive white women not only demeans your profession but is a televised slap in the face to minority mothers and parents the nation over who search for their own missing children with little or no assistance or notice from anyone."

It's true - many reporters today are so completely out of touch with serious issues that journalism gone from a respected profession to a laugh-your-ass-off punchline. It has become such an insulated, insider club, that major networks still give airtime to arrogant unethical blowhards, even if they compromised U.S. national security in order to promote themselves. It is a profession where the top White House reporter of one of the biggest newspaper in America openly admits she didn't ask tough questions of the President at his pre-Iraq-invasion press conference because "it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there." Despite millions of Americans opposing the war at the time, she actually justified being "very deferntial" because, she said, "no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

Yes, yes - there are some very good journalists working today who do some very, very good work (I even praised one of the best recently, not just because he wrote a story I thought was important, but because he REGULARLY writes important, serious stories). Many of these, however, see their work buried, or are toiling at the various business trade publications, where they don't get as much play as the blow-dried robots on television. What's interesting is that at the business publications, the reporting is better because the narrow audience of readers demand the real factual stories because they are relying on the information to make their living. They can't accept swallowing the usual fare of regurgitated conventional wisdom/spin from some political pundit who has never been more than 5 miles away from Manhattan or Washington, D.C.

Which brings us back to the real point: by and large, the national media has become a national joke. It's such a joke, in fact, that I am actually embarrassed to tell people I once attended journalism school and had to spend time with folks who enter a profession that makes a mockery of our democracy and our country. And sadly, no one knows when this pathetic state of affairs will end. But until it does, Viva John Stewart and his crew for being one of the few outlets where we can get the truth.

Huffington Post Goes Live

Arianna Huffington unveiled her brand new Drudge-style website today, filled with breaking news and ongoing blogging by some pretty big name people (Walter Cronkite, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, etc.) Surprisingly, she also asked some very small-name people like me to contribute from time to time as well, which I am more than happy to do. I put up my first post today - check it out.

Ignoring the GOP, "Moderates" Insist on Crying

Democrats have a lot of challenges ahead - stopping the hard-right's agenda, fighting for the progressive cause, and pushing back against the GOP in Congress, to name a few. So it is truly disheartening to see today's new Roll Call story showing that, instead of fighting all these important battles, "moderate" Democrats are spending a huge amount of their time crying like infants and making baseless charges against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Remember, I recently praised these "moderates" for their announcement that they would be opposing CAFTA - so I'm not one who only bashes these folks, and never gives them credit. But enough is enough: this petty war these "moderates" are waging against the Democratic leadership is truly irresponsible and has become completely destructive.

It would be one thing if they had a serious, substantive complaint against Pelosi. Yet, according to Roll Call, these "moderates" are still whining simply because a few weeks ago Pelosi had the guts to tell the truth and level with Democrats who sold out the party by supporting the credit card-industry written bankruptcy bill. In other words, all she did was tell the truth and try to keep her party together - exactly what a LEADER is elected to do. For Democrats who desperately need to project strength and resolve, this whining and crying is just another example of "moderates" once again undermining the party at the worst possible time.

"Moderates say they are waiting for action, not apologies, from Pelosi," the story says about these political crybabies. "They say they want the Minority Leader to show that moderate and conservative Democrats are part of party decision-making..." Funny, last I checked, these "moderates" are not only "part of party decision-making" but they have actually taken over decision making for the party by abandoning the party on key votes, and therefore sending the embarrassing message to America that Democrats are divided on even the most fundamental economic issues. In fact, these "moderates" have been so assertive in making such destructive decisions on behalf of the party, the right-wing Washington Times is now bragging about them - a true sign of disgrace. The paper notes:

"So far this year in the House, 50 Democrats helped pass class action reform...42 joined in legislation repealing the death tax, 73 supported the bankruptcy bill...[and] 41 joined the Republicans on the final version of the energy bill."

Sadly, that sure as hell sounds like "moderates" are more than just "a part" of the decision making process.

Roll Call additionally notes that these "moderates" want to know that "that their views — even when different from the liberal majority of the party — are understood and respected." The flat-out answer here should be easy: NO. Pelosi is right to let her colleagues know that when they undermine the majority of Democrats who are courageously defending ordinary Americans, there will be no "understanding" or "respect." There will be exactly the opposite - that's the kind of tough discipline the Republicans used to build their majority, and that's how Democrats will ultimately build theirs. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership should ignore these sad crybabies who are undermining so many good Democratic foot soldiers in Congress, stay focused on the real problem (aka. the GOP), and press on the way they have been over the last few months.

NOTE: I put "moderate" in quotes because the term is a complete misnomer that really means Democrats who are willing to support the GOP's right-wing economic agenda when politically/financially advantageous. See my earlier piece in the Nation that more fully analyzes how the term "moderate" and "centrist" as used in today's political vernacular have nothing to do with reality.

NY Times Picks Up Sirotablog Scoop on Medicare

Forgive me for a bit of shameless, irritating self-congratulation, but this is some great news I just had to share because it gives us all hope that we can make an impact and occasionally break through the media din. On Friday May 6th, Sirotablog had an exclusive story uncovering evidence that the Bush administration is now telling Congress and the public that food stamp recipients could see their food stamp benefits eliminated under the new Medicare bill. The New York Times quickly got in touch with me for the details, and now has a prominent story on the scam in its May 8th newspaper.

The administration's efforts to cut food stamps for Medicare recipients stands in stark contrast to its earlier public promises that indicated food stamp benefits would be preserved. And while the mainstream media often ignores such hypocrisy, this time - thankfully - at least the New York Times did not. That's a major victory for the progressives and the blogosphere as a whole, because it makes sure thousands of people will see exactly how the Bush administration is waging an economic war on ordinary Americans.

See the New York Times' full story here. For more details, see the original Sirotablog post that exposed the Bush administration's scam here.

Rent-A-Gouger

The new issue of Mother Jones has a terrific piece on how Rent-a-Center has become one of the most aggressive loan sharks in America. Because the company technically classifies itself as a rental company - instead of a retail store that sells items on credit - it has managed to evade local/state usury laws and gouge unsuspecting consumers with up to 400 percent interest rates.

As the story notes, in the 1980s, the company succeeded in getting legislatures to protect them in every state except Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin. And the fight to shelter themselves in those four states continues. According to the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Rent-A-Center spent nearly $4 million between 1997 and 2002 trying to roll back consumer-protection laws in the states where it was still exposed.

Rent-a-Center should have no problem getting federal lawmakers to do their bidding, too. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) now sits on the company's board, and Congress has shown a sick affinity in pushing legislation that essentially legalizes loan sharking (see the Bankruptcy Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill, Part 2 for details).

Read the full Mother Jones article here.

New Medicare Guide Justifies Cutting Food Stamps

If ever there was an example of how the Bush administration robs Peter to pay Paul, this is it. Hard-right political hacks at the Department of Health and Human Services are actually sending out a fact sheet to Capitol Hill and the public about the new Medicare bill that justifies eliminating food stamp benefits to Medicare recipients. This is radical conservatism, without even a hint of compassion.

Specifically, page 2 of the fact sheet asks a hypothetical question that Medicare recipients might ask: "Will I lose my food stamp benefits if I apply and qualify for extra help paying for the new Medicare prescription drug coverage?" The Bush adminstration's answer: "With the Medicare prescription drug coverage, you may see your food stamp benefits go down" and even possibly eliminated. How could they be so heartless to do that? Because they say, "you spend less on drugs" and "the extra cash you will have to spend on food makes up for not getting as much in food stamps." Download the fact sheet sent out by HHS here and see this travesty for yourself.

In other words, for the poorest of the poor, the new Medicare "benefits" aren't necessarily an overall benefit, because the Bush administration openly admits they are taking that benefit out of poor people's ability to put food on their table. This comes on top of Bush's earlier proposal to gut food stamp funding. How disgusting.

Where are the Democratic Populists?

American Prospect writer Matt Yglesias poses an interesting question: have we seen a large-scale collapse in support for economic populism inside the Democratic Party? The answer, unfortunately, isn't clear - but the fact that there is even a concern is a troubling sign for the party's efforts to regain the majority.

Yglesias points to the failed candidacy of House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt in the 2004 Democratic primaries as an indication that we have. I would disagree that Gephardt is a good example - whereas in 1988 he ran a serious, populist campaign on his trade record (and almost pulled off an upset victory), this time around he sadly seemed a bit scared of his own shadow on these economic issues, and wasn't nearly the firebrand he had been before. As Ezra Klein notes, "we don't know how the party feels about populism because we haven't run a populist for quite awhile." My only problem with that statement is that, in a way, we have: his name was Bill Clinton. He ran successfully as a rhetorical economic populist, but unfortunately did not GOVERN that way.

That said, Yglesias is onto something. Why is the Democratic Party defined exclusively on its orthodoxies on social issues, but not on any orthodoxy on middle class economic issues? Why hasn't anyone made an issue of the fact that all of the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for president (with the fortunate exception of John Edwards) by-and-large all free trading economic "moderates?" If they were, for instance, all pro-lifers, you'd hear a huge outcry (and rightly so). But on economic issues, national Democrats are basically permitted to be Republican-lite with little question from the media and many Democratic primary voters.

Why is that a problem? Well, consider that in the last election, 55 percent of white working-class voters trusted President Bush to handle the economy, while only 39 percent trusted Sen. John Kerry. That means people simply don't have much faith that either party (and especially the Democratic Party) is standing up for ordinary people's economic interests, and thus people vote on intangibles like "moral values" (whatever that means). Also consider that, as I described in an earlier American Prospect piece, the Democrats who do manage to win in red regions usually do it with serious, old-school economic populism. In Montana, for instance, a major tenet of the successful Schweitzer for Governor campaign was serious, gutsy talk about corporations who are ripping off average people - not empty Tom-Friedman-esque platitudes about the wonders of the "new economy" that so many corporate politicians parrot. That posture not only showed that the candidate would stand up for the middle class, but also showed he had guts - a key intangible for any Democrat in an age where people too often see Democrats as lacking conviction.

If Democrats are to truly compete in those ever-growing "red" regions, they need to re-evaluate this destructive pattern of being defined only on social issues, and not on economic ones. And Democratic primary voters need to start prioritizing those issues when they choose their candidates. Otherwise, we continue to cede that vast swath of persuadable Ross-Perot-supporting Lou-Dobbs-watching voters who are key to bringing Democrats back to the majority.

Ethanol, Gas Prices & Oil Profiteering

According to a new study today by the Consumer Federation of America, gas prices could be reduced by 8 cents a gallon if oil companies used lower-priced ethanol as a fuel additive rather than higher-priced petroleum ingredients. But as the Kansas City Star reports, the report notes that "oil companies are keeping gas supplies tight and prices high even though ethanol is plentiful and available at prices that have dropped 40 cents a gallon or more since the beginning of the year."

Why would the oil companies resist using ethanol? Because the Bush administration refuses to force them to use ethanol, and, in the absence of a serious government mandate, they can continue price gouging Americans and raking in record-breaking profits.

In Montana, the new Governor and state legislature said enough is enough, stood up to the oil/gas industry, and and actually passed a bill forcing the oil companies operating in state to include a certain percentage of ethanol in fuels. That mandate creates a market for ethanol development, helping the rural economy and hopefully bringing prices down. Bush and the Republicans won't do something like that because they've long ago been bought and paid for by the energy industry.

CAFTA: White House Caught Peddling Corporate Invitations

A source just emailed me a message being sent out officially from the White House urging people to attend corporate sponsored events that trumpet the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Specifically, the White House is using taxpayer resources to urge people to attend events being put on by Fedex, Citigroup, and Western Union to promote this corporate-written free trade deal (you can see the official invitation being blasted out by the White House here in Word format - notice the corporate logos). Most brazenly, the White House asks that invitees RSVP directly to the White House - as if there is now no distinction between these corporations (who have given more than $2 million to Republicans in the last election cycle alone) and the White House.

It's one thing for the White House to lobby for an awful trade deal like this. But it is a whole new low to have taxpayer dollars being used to directly promote corporate-sponsored events, essentially eliminating the line between business and government.

UPDATE: A number of you have asked me how I know that invitation is being sent out by the White House. The source who emailed me that invitation received it from the White House. In other words, the White House PR shop is sending out the invitation to that corporate event, which is improper. The source, however, has to remain anonymous, so I cannot post the email from the White House publicly. Sorry.

Analyzing "Clintonism"...Honestly

Former Kerry aide Andrei Cherny has a piece in the New Republic that desperately - and quite ineffectively - tries to make the case for Democrats to return to an ethereal thing called "Clintonism." I put "Clintonism" in quotes because I think Cherny tries way too hard - and falls very short - in making the case that Clinton's record constitutes a "ism" that should - or even can - be followed as a bedrock ideology for the Democratic Party in the future.

If Clinton espoused anything, it was the need to have a deft sense of pragmatism and willingness to surf the political tides - skills that protected his own power and helped him achieve some good things, but certainly cannot serve as a coherent ideology for a national party. Even Cherny basically admits that, saying "if there is one central tenet of Clintonism, it is that we live in a fast-changing world, and we must forever be changing with it." Exactly, and his statement's contradiction in terms proves my point: an "ism" is defined as "a distinctive doctrine" and a "doctrine" is defined as a "principle" - something that inherently doesn't "forever change." If Clinton taught that Democrats must be forever changing, then his lessons do not constitute a real ideology, and certainly not a way back to the majority. The problem with Democrats these days is not that they change too little, it's that the public perceives them as being too willing to change their positions opportunistically for political gain.

To be sure, Clinton was a decent President (and compared to Bush, absolutely terrific). But he was anything but a movement builder. Thus, there really isn't much of a solid, replicable ideology for Democrats to return to, as much as Cherny would revise history and make us think there is. And his piece is filled with so many contradictions and questionable assertions that he essentially proves my point. Here are just a few that struck me:

- In one breath, Cherny urges Democrats to not prioritize economic issues, and instead follow Clinton's supposed "understanding of the bonds of community" which he said "was a critical part of the vision he presented to the country." Yet, a few paragraphs later, Cherny says Clinton taught that "from public schools to a failing health care system to, yes, Americans' retirement savings, Democrats need to offer a new vision of government that will put individual Americans" first. In other words, Cherny claims Clinton taught us we need to do a better job of promoting how we are all in this together (thus stressing things like public schools, Social Security, etc. that we all collectively pay for and benefit from), and then tells us Clinton taught us we supposedly need to promote "putting individual Americans" first, tacitly alluding to individual retirement accounts, private-ish health care, etc. that essentially constitute George Bush's so-called "ownership society" - the farthest thing from an "in this together" agenda (and, by the way, something I don't think Clinton actually espoused). Those two messages are contradictory and make no sense as a coherent ideology.

- Cherny lauds Clinton for thundering at those "'from Wall Street to Main Street to Mean Street' who cut corners, break the rules, and violate basic American values." He adds that Clinton "said it was time that all Americans - from corporate CEOs to congressional chieftains, from deadbeat dads to welfare moms - were held equally responsible for their actions." In some respects, Cherny's right - it was laudable that Clinton paid lipservice to these priorities, and people like New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) are showing how powerful it is when Democrats actually ACT on this rhetoric. But last I checked, Clinton primarily put that rhetoric into action when it came to deadbeat dads and welfare moms - not corporate CEOs or Wall Street. As just one example, take a look at tax policy. Under lax oversight by the Clinton administration, forty-one of the wealthiest companies in America reported $25.8 billion in total pre-tax profits between 1996-98, yet paid no income taxes. Then, on tax day, they received $3.2 billion in rebates. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times noted, most companies in America avoided all taxes whatsoever in the last years of Clinton's term. Sure, Clinton could argue that the GOP Congress might not have let him stop this "corner cutting" and "violation of basic American values." But he didn't spend much political capital trying – and that hurts Democrats' credibility on these issues. Clinton taught that there is power in talking about fundamental issues of economic inequality. But the more important lesson that Spitzer and others teach, is that there is even more power when Democrats are willing to act on that talk.

- Cherny likens Clinton to Teddy Roosevelt because, he says, they both "fought the powerful interests of their party." Besides the laughable comparison, Cherny and other "moderate" Democrats never explain why this is such a good thing, and why it will supposedly bring Democrats back to the majority. The Republican Party never "fights the powerful interests of their party" even though their base of corporate executives and far-right Christian conservatives are far more extreme than Democrats base of union workers, minorities and environmentalists. And last I checked Republicans are in the majority. Additionally, under Karl Rove the GOP has strengthened that majority by specifically REFUSING to wage war on their base. The opposite can be said for Democrats, who entered the minority after alienating parts of their base in pursuit of faux "centrism." After Clinton rammed NAFTA through Congress, the CEO of American Express put it best. Quoted in John R. MacArthur's "The Selling of Free Trade", the CEO proudly bragged that "[Clinton] stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies." That may have been great for this corporate titan's wallet. And some "centrist" Democrats may claim this kind of behavior from a Democrat is some sort of virtue. But no one has offered any substantive explanation of why running roughshod over working people, environmentalists, and other parts of the Democratic base is considered anything but destructive to the Democratic Party in the long term? Have we really learned nothing from Karl Rove?

- According to Cherny, Clinton believed "that America's increasing global interdependence meant that the nation's entire approach to economic policy had to change radically." This is true. But what he fails to note is that Clinton was elected as an economic populist who pledged to change the nation's approach to economic policies in a way that put the interests of America's middle class above everything else. Clinton was elected as a quasi-economic populist - not the sort of super-Wall Street free trader that many of his international economic policies embodied. For instance, in a classic biting-his-bottom-lip-in-empathy moment on the 1992 campaign, Clinton promised workers he would sign free trade deals "only – only – if [trading partner countries] lifted their wage rates and their labor standards and they cleaned up their environment so we could both go up together, instead of being dragged down." He also promised that "I wouldn't have done what [the first President] Bush did and give all those trade preferences to China when they're locking their people up." Yet, once in office, those promises were gone. He pushed NAFTA and the China free trade deal - pacts devoid of any serious labor, human rights or environmental standards. Yes, Clinton changed American policy on global economic policy. But as trade-related job losses continue to mount, Democrats should be very wary of declaring these policies a perfect model for long-term success.

Towards the end of the piece, Cherny says "Democrats themselves need to think hard about the legacies and lessons of Clintonism." I agree wholeheartedly, and again, I want to be very clear: I believe Clinton did a lot of good, was a decent President, and had a lot of positive lessons to teach about rhetorical populism and the need to connect with people in a personal way. Additionally, I think there are some solid nuggets/observations in Cherny's piece.

However, if we really are to glean lessons for the future from Clinton's tenure, we must evaluate the record – good and bad – honestly; not try to mythologize a mixed legacy into sparkling legend; and be cautious of pushing the party down a ill-defined path that leaves America with the perception that Democrats' only conviction is their own survival, instead of an eagerness to stand up for the middle class at any and all political cost.

One Step Closer to Senator Sanders (I-VT)

Progressives are one step closer to having Independent Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate in 2006, as word out of Vermont today says Sanders has apparently frightened another potential GOP candidate out of the race, setting up a primary between a corporate executive and a far-right Republican officeholder.

The Vermont AP reports that Maj. Gen. Martha Rainville, the commander of the Vermont National Guard, declared herself "a mainstream Republican" and said Thursday she was considering a run for the U.S. House, not the U.S. Senate - more proof that serious Republicans are frightened to take on Sanders, who has become a state and national political force. Interestingly, even as GOP Gov. Jim Douglas takes a controversial stand to stop health care expansion in Vermont, Rainville wrapped her political aspirations around the Governor, saying "I think I fit well in the company of people like Governor Douglas."

With Rainville out, the Republicans are left with a potential hard-fought primary between health care technology executive Richard Tarrant (R), and archconservative Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie (R) - a primary that is sure to further weaken a Republican candidate against Sanders, who has already started raising serious grassroots money and who has lined up support from national Democrats. Tarrant, a multimillionaire, has vowed to spend up to $5 million of his own money to try to buy the Senate seat.

Dubie, meanwhile, only attained statewide office because two other candidates split the vote (meaning institutional Democrats need to not field a candidate against Sanders and make this a three-way race). Dubie is a far-right conservative. According to the Burlington Free Press, he "opposes abortion and same-sex marriage," "he has said Vermont's civil-union law went too far, that the state ought to deregulate electric utilities and that he is 'philosophically opposed' to a single-payer health care system." He also brags about being a "George Bush fighter-pilot Republican" in a state Bush failed to break the 40% mark in 2004.

Either of these people would be a dream candidate for Sanders to run against. Tarrant would allow Sanders to stress his defense of the middle class and up-from-the-bootstraps story. Dubie, meanwhile, would allow Sanders to contrast his politics with that of an out-of-the-mainstream ideologue. Meanwhile, both candidates would have to explain why Vermonters should elect someone to validate the hard-right agenda of the congressional Republicans and President Bush.

As the Rutland Herald noted this week "Sanders is a uniquely popular politician, whose high standing with the voters grows out of the force of his personality and his commitment to the issues." Defeating him in an open-seat Senate race would have been hard for Republicans even with a top-tier candidate - and it will be even harder if his main opponent is one of these guys.

NY Lawmakers Put on Notice

NY Daily News columnist Albor Ruiz has a piece today noting that New York City's congressional delegation is being put on notice by local politicians and activists who don't want them selling out America's middle-class. Specifically, Ruiz notes that the grassroots is outraged at the passage of the credit card industry-written Bankruptcy Bill, and now the push for the Ney-Kanjorski Act, known in other circles as either the Bankruptcy Bill, Part 2, or the Predatory Lenders' Bill of Rights.

"The first blow against working New Yorkers who fall on hard times has been struck with the so-called Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act," said Bertha Lewis, executive director of New York's ACORN. "Now Congress is about to deliver the coup de grace in the form of the so-called Ney-Kanjorski Predatory Mortgage Lending Act. We need to hold our New York representatives accountable. They need to stand up for working families."

Queens Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D) was even tougher. "This new law does nothing but provide credit card companies and predatory lenders an easier opportunity to exploit this country's disadvantaged communities. It is unconscionable for any of our federal representatives to support this law. But especially for Democrats, who traditionally have represented the working class. It does not make sense to create a system with inadequate health care, little affordable housing and structural unemployment - and then punish [citizens] for the results of that same malfunctioning system that is beyond their control."

Monserrate and the activists "also warn that the Ney-Kanjorski Act does not provide meaningful consumer protections, yet it does preempt effective state laws like New York's Responsible Lending Act, which protects homeowners and prohibits deceptive and abusive mortgage lending practices that target lower-income seniors and families." For more on that bill see this earlier post.

New York City's delegation has for years been a force for progressive change in America, and it continues to include some of the best Members of Congress. Let's hope they take this message from the locals and run with it.

Social Security & Labor's "Fiduciary Obligations"

President Bush is back at his war against labor unions, this time promising them retribution if they continue to oppose Social Security privatization. GOP political hacks at the Labor Department sent the AFL-CIO a threatening letter claiming the union's opposition to Bush's plan may be breaking the law. Specifically, the administration charges that the union is violating its fiduciary duty by threatening to remove its pension investments from Wall Street firms that are actively lobbying for the privatization scheme.

Here's the thing with Bush's argument: the union has a fiduciary duty to make sure workers get the best return on their investments, and more broadly, the most generous overall pension benefits possible. Those overall pension benefits, however, inherently include Social Security because a workers' overall retirement pension is the mix of both their private pension, and Social Security. Thus, the AFL-CIO is perfectly justified in using workers' pensions to advocate for the policies that will best shore up Social Security for the long-term, and oppose those that will destroy the system. If, as Bush wants, the union continued to blindly invest worker pension money in Wall Street firms that were actively working to destroy Social Security, the union would be doing a financial disservice to the workers it is supposed to protect. In other words, the union would likely be violating its fiduciary duty if it DIDN'T do everything it could to oppose Bush's plan and try to make sure Social Security was preserved for the long-haul.

It is easy to see what Bush's move is all about, and even congressional Republicans admit as much. As the Times notes, "House Republicans viewed the warning as a shot over the bow of labor at a time when Mr. Bush's plan has largely stalled in Congress and when Wall Street firms have distanced themselves from it." His plan is so radical and controversial, the Financial Times this morning noted that even House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) is backing away from it.

Now, desperate for a lifeboat, Bush is going back to the doing what he always does when he is in a fight: attacking workers and unions. As I've shown in an earlier post, this is all part of Bush's desire to destroy the labor movement, and limit workers' rights. After all, at heart, Bush is a blueblood elitist who never had to do a days work in his life. To him workers' rights and interests are nuisances, not priorities. Too bad for him workers are fighting back with a vengence.

Left My Heart in San Francisco

I've gotten a bunch of email from folks about my last post, most of whom like it, except for my reference to Pelosi's San Francisco roots being a drawback for her as leader. Let me just clarify: I think San Fran is a great place. The only point I was trying to make was that there are special challenges in being the national leader of the Democratic Party when you come from a place the right-wing has (unfairly) spent years vilifying. It's the same way that Howard Dean coming from Vermont was perceived in some quarters as a drawback - fairly or unfairly.

That doesn't mean San Fran is a bad place, or Pelosi shouldn't be leader (in fact, I think I gave a pretty vigorous defense of her qualifications and performance). But come on folks, don't get so sensitive. Let's be real honest: being a national Democratic Leader and coming from San Francisco has at least some drawbacks/challenges. Even folks who live in San Francisco should be able to acknowledge that, without feeling like it denigrates their city. It doesn't!

Pelosi's Badge of Honor

Roll Call reports that with Democrats effectively hammering Tom DeLay for his ethics problems and bludgeoning the President's Social Security privatization plan, "Republicans in recent weeks have stepped up their individual attacks on Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)." Pelosi should walk tall and wear these attacks as a badge of honor for a number of reasons.

- First and foremost, when you are attacked by a bunch of radical elitist neanderthals like the congressional GOP, it means you are standing up for America's middle-class and doing something right.

- Second, Roll Call notes "GOP lawmakers and strategists have recently shifted their tactics toward highlighting the alleged distance between Pelosi and Members of her own party." Specifically, "Republicans have been touting several bills, including bankruptcy reform, class-action reform and the estate tax repeal, that each attracted more than 40 Democratic votes despite Pelosi’s opposition." Let's be clear: criticizing Pelosi for voting against the bankruptcy, class action, and estate tax legislation is essentially acknowledging that she's willing to take tough votes to stand up for average Americans. Those bills were written, bought and paid for by credit card companies, Big Business, and super-wealthy billionaires, respectively. Deep down in places they don't talk about at their cocktail parties, politicians/staffers/operatives in Washington, D.C. know that no matter how much populist rhetoric they put around these bills, they are designed to reward wealthy campaign contributors to the detriment of everyone else. Pelosi's willingness to vote the right way shows something Democrats could use more of: guts.

- As Roll Call reported earlier, Pelosi has had the backbone not only to take these tough votes, but to also call her Democratic colleagues on the carpet when they are selling out average Americans and thus hurting the party. For far too long, congressional Democrats have been allowed to stab their own party in the back with no consequences. The fact that Pelosi is letting it be known that such behavior will not be tolerated is a good thing, as it will build party unity. The majority only comes when parties stay together – and Pelosi's efforts to enforce unity means she understands that.

Hilariously, Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) claimed that those who defied Pelosi are "rank-and-file Democrats [who] abandon leadership to support marquee legislation that shows their constituents they’re working to help improve Americans’ quality of life." Quick note to these Democratic defectors Pryce refers to: when the fourth ranking House Republican is lauding you for voting for a bill to persecute debtors, limit people's legal rights, and give the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans a massive tax cut – that's a bad thing that helps keep the Democratic Party in the minority. Keep it in mind.

Remember, I am no shameless Pelosi partisan and don't pretend she's perfect. I agree that she's got some inherent drawbacks as leader, such as hailing from San Francisco. But she can't change - or be blamed for - these ascribed characteristics. In the areas that she can control, however, she has excelled in pushing the progressive cause and strengthening the party. I hope Ms. Pelosi opened up her copy of Roll Call today and felt good. She should walk tall, because she's standing up for the silent majority in America who Congress now screws over on a daily basis.

Congressman Jet-setter

The Washington Post today reports on 12 current or former House and Sneate leaders "each with exceptional power to determine the fate of legislation and regulation" who "flew on corporate-owned jets at least 360 times from January 2001 to December 2004."

Blunt and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) are the top two users of such jets among the current leadership, together accounting for at least 140 trips during the past two election cycles - an average of one flight every 10 days.

This reminds me of an earlier post I did about House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH). He used his campaign funds - much raised by corporate executives - to spend $25,000 for "chauffeured luxury sedans around New York," take more than 47 "excursions across the country on private jets," spend $63,544 on "ski trips to Vail" and host "golf outings in Scottsdale."

This travesty isn't limited to Members of Congress. Presidential candidates George W. Bush and John McCain made heavy use of corporate jets during their campaigns in 2000. But its really no surprise - these Cadillac Conservatives have made little effort to hide their elitist inclinations these days, passing all sorts of legislation that rewards Big Business and screws over America's middle-class.

Let Me Hear Your Comments...

My friend Matt Singer at Left in the West suggests that I let comments be posted on this site. I'm going to oblige, and try it out. He also suggests I get an RSS feed at my new Working Assets site. I have one here at this site, and we are working to put one up there as well. As for a blogroll...I'll also see what I can do over at Working Assets...

FYI - I had the comments feature turned on a while back, but what ended up happening was only two or three of the same people were commenting, and the comments were getting increasingly profane and sorta violent - that doesn't really add much to a site. That said, I'd be happy to give it another shot if people think its worth it. Do you? Comment away and let me know if you think a comments section is a good thing...

Inside the Wire

The New York Times reports that, according to a former U.S. Army interpreter, "a former commander of the Guantánamo Bay prison exaggerated the value of information gleaned from detainees and knew that aggressive intelligence teams were staging friendly interrogations for visiting lawmakers and senior military officers."

The revelations come in the new book "Inside the Wire" by Time's Viveca Novak. There are other sordid details about how the Bush administration has systematically violated the Geneva Conventions and thus mbarrassed the United States on the world stage. Check out the full article - and the new book.

Major CAFTA Victory; Where is the Dem Whip?

Great news and terrible news today from CongressDaily (sorry, no link as it is subscription only and was e-mailed to me):

THE GOOD NEWS: The newsletter reports on a major victory for progressives today, as the House New Democrat Coalition has come out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The group, "which has been courted for months by pro-CAFTA business groups," thankfully decided to come out in defense of America's middle-class, and oppose this corporate-written pact. Let's be clear – this has at least something to do with progressives' renewed willingness to pressure moderate Democrats to start standing up for ordinary people. The New Democrats were hammered for supporting the credit card industry-written bankruptcy bill, and this is a terrific sign they are starting to go in a much better direction. They should be roundly applauded for their announcement today. Special thanks should go to Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who CongressDaily reports not only is she opposing the deal, but will whip other New Democrats to oppose it (as this earlier Hill Newspaper shows, Tauscher clearly hates me personally – and that's just fine, as long as she's doing the right thing).

THE BAD NEWS: The newsletter also reports that "House Minority Whip Hoyer said Tuesday in a news conference that no decision had been made as to whether the Democratic leadership would whip against" CAFTA, even though he admitted most Democrats were against the deal. Hoyer, you may remember, refused to whip Democratic opposition to the Bankruptcy Bill, and supported the Australian Free Trade Agreement, even though that supposedly "free" trade pact included drug industry-written provisions preventing Americans from importing cheaper medicines from abroad. Some folks have lately been calling for Hoyer's resignation from his leadership position (I'm not sure if that's warranted, as Hoyer has been a solid lawmaker for years). And his unwillingness to take a stand even at this late hour is disheartening. If he ultimately doesn't whip on this bill, that will only fuel those calls for his resignation. Let's hope he gets in line and starts doing what he was elected to do: lead.

For background on why CAFTA is so bad both for Americans and Central Americans, see this earlier post and this post.

The Bankruptcy Bill, Part 2

After the passage of the credit card industry-written bankruptcy bill last month, you probably thought Congress was through screwing average Americans, at least for a little while. You were wrong. Now, we have the "Responsible Lending Act" from Ohio Rep. Bob Ney (R). Though Ney is from the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the country, he's working to make sure banks can continue ripping off unsuspecting consumers.

The bill essentially cements into law the rights of predatory lenders who seize on financially vulnerable Americans that have less-than-perfect credit records. This is a $9-billion-a-year industry – but apparently, these sharks want to cheat hard-working people out of even more of their home equity. And the supposedly "up-from-your-bootstraps" Republicans are helping create a system that actually kicks people in the face as they are earnestly trying to climb the ladder. Here are some of the worst features of Ney's bill:

RAISES FEES: The bill allows lenders to tack on another 2 percent in fees on subprime loans offered to people with less-than-perfect credit.

PENALIZES PEOPLE FOR SUCCEEDING: The bill allows lenders charge big penalties for paying off a loan early, essentially locking buyers into high-interest loans even if they have the money to pay it off. Additionally, as the Center for Responsible Lending notes, it actually lets banks "pay bonuses to brokers for steering buyers into expensive loans."

HIDES EXORBITANT FEES/SURCHARGES: The bill allows a lender to roll predatory lenders' exorbitant fees into the someone's loan. Sounds good, right? Not really: as the nonpartisan Center for Responsible Lending notes, "in many high-cost loans, borrowers never realize the significance of the exorbitant hidden fees on the loan because they don't pay for them in cash, but instead finance the points into the loan." In other words, not regulating this gives predatory lenders a devious way hide their high fees, but still make you pay them.

LIMITS CONSUMER RIGHTS: The bill actually limits borrowers legal rights in seeking recourse when predatory lenders screw them over. Disgusting "tort reform" efforts never cease to rear their ugly head in any of these bills.


PRE-EMPTS STATE LAWS THAT PROTECT CONSUMERS: Perhaps worst of all, the bill essentially pre-empts state laws that regulate predatory lending. We've seen this happen before from the House Financial Services Committee (which, with the exception of a few members, should officially be declared a subsidiary of Corporate America). In 2003, Congress passed legislation to pre-empt state laws protecting consumer privacy ("states rights" apparently only applies when it means persecuting minorities - it doesn't apply when it would mean protecting consumers).

There's an alternative to this bill being pushed by some Democrats on the Committee that is far better (see a side-by-side comparison of the two bills). It is based, in part, on North Carolina's tough state law which studies prove reduced predatory lending but preserved consumer choice (North Carolina's law will be pre-empted if Ney's bill passes).

The problem is, just as we saw a faction of Democrats screw the middle class and support the bankruptcy bill, there is a faction of Democrats supporting Ney's bill. The question really is simple: how come there are still some Democrats who don't understand that the reason the party is in the minority is because on core economic issues, these weak-kneed factions make the party appear so willing to abandon America's middle-class?

Go to this website and take action now - tell your Member of Congress you don't want them selling out America's middle-class again.

GOP Sees Public Service as Cash Cow

With news today that former Bush Commerce Secretary Don Evans has accepted a top corporate job, a clear (but not surprising) pattern has emerged: Top Republicans are now making an art out of selling off their government experience to the highest bidder.

DON EVANS: Goes from Secretary of Commerce which oversees U.S. industry, to CEO of the Financial Services Forum. There, he will "interact closely with the CEOs of the largest financial institutions in the world" and push their agenda.

TOM RIDGE: Goes from Secretary of Homeland Security to corporate board member of Savi Technology, a company that the New York Times noted has won more than $100 million in government contracts for security technology. This one really is no shocker. As CBS News reported, "the day after President Bush named him homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge visited the Arizona home of a friend whose lobbying firm represented companies that were later awarded contracts by Ridge's department."

TOM SCULLY: Goes from head of Medicare, to health care lobbyist immediately after using his government office to help pass the health care industry-written Medicare reform bill through Congress.

BILLY TAUZIN: Goes from chairman of the committee that oversees the drug industry, to the head of the drug industry's lobbying association.

ARI FLEISCHER: Goes from top White House spokesman to opening "Ari Fleischer Communications" - a firm the New York Times reported on 7/14/03 "that will advise corporate executives."

JOHN ASHCROFT: Goes from Attorney General to K street lobbyist/consultant for corporations on security issues.

CHRIS WRAY: Goes from Bush's top corporate cop to top corporate criminal defense lawyer.

RUDY GIULIANI: Goes from Mayor of New York to high-paid consultant for the pharmaceutical industry. He also does security consulting work.

Ridge, Ashcroft and Giuliani are particularly shameless. They went from using their platforms to raise fears of terrorism, to then going into industries that are making a millions off those fears.

Bush's Sunset Blvd.

Rolling Stone magazine finds a frightening little clause tucked away in President Bush's new, 2,000-page budget. In one single paragraph, there is a provision that could eliminate all of those pesky environmental protections, workplace rights, and consumer regulations that Americans support - but Bush and his lobbyist pals hate.

Specifically, the Bush budget "would give the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the 'Sunset Commission." Sounds benign, except for the fact that this commission would essentially be able to terminate any federal program it wants. Every 10 years, the commission would "systematically review federal programs." Any programs that the commission said was "not producing results" (deliberately vague language) would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them."

As Rolling Stone points out, "with a simple vote of five commissioners - many of them likely to be lobbyists and executives from major corporations currently subject to federal oversight - the president could terminate any program or agency he dislikes." Forget about your elected representatives in Congress, elections about issues, or anything else like that. This Commission would essentially supercede all that democracy, and put huge decisions in the hands of a few unelected hacks.

Make no mistake about it - this Sunset Commission might look as beautiful as Sunset Blvd. to Corporate America. But you can bet its going to be Skid Row for the rest of us (Ok, that's a shamefully putrid analogy, but I had to try).

Working for Working Assets

Today, I became the blogger for Working Assets, the advocacy organization/phone company that devotes millions of dollars to progressive causes. You've probably been to their site - it gets hundreds of thousands of visits a month, and now Sirotablog will be featured on the front page.

I will still be posting to davidsirota.com, and most of the stuff I post at davidsirota.com will simply be syndicated to a larger audience at Working Assets. However, some of the personal political campaign-related material I post will just be at davidsirota.com, so keep an eye out for that.

Additionally, I will still be sending things out to my e-mail list (subscribership has skyrocketed - go sign up for free in the upper right-hand corner). But the Working Assets site is going to include some new features and interactivity, so check in over there from time to time as well. They also have a tremendous amount of great material throughout their site, so explore.

As always, if you have tips for things to post about, just email me at david@davidsirota.com or sirota@workingassets.com.

Fox Calls the Kettle Trash

You can't make this stuff up. A Fox executive was quoted today criticizing the network's competition, saying "I am quite surprised and disappointed ABC is devoting an hour of its prime time programming to air tabloid trash."

This coming from the network that brought us Celebrity Boxing, The Littlest Groom, Bridezillas, and The O'Reilly Factor.

Should America Fear a "Socialist" Senator?

Lots of folks have emailed me asking whether Vermont's Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders, who is running for Senate in 2006, is really - gasp! - a "socialist?" And if so, should America listen to conservative political hacks and fear that "socialist?" The American Prospect today takes a crack at answering those questions and more.

Sanders is very frank in his interview with the magazine, explaining that he doesn't consider himself a liberal - he considers himself a "democratic socialist" (as opposed to a Stalinist socialist). Why? Because:

"I approach politics primarily through economic perspectives. My major concern right now is that we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth (and an) equally unfair distribution of political power. I want to see that change. I want to see a more egalitarian society."

That doesn't sound so scary, now does it? No. Because, as the Prospect notes:

"So do most Democrats, lots of independents, and even a few Republicans. What once distinguished a socialist was support for a centrally planned economy in which most goods and services were produced and distributed by publicly owned entities. Sanders is not for that...Real socialism is an idea whose time has come and gone. What Sanders and others now call democratic socialism is social democracy."

In other words, what some call "populism" Sanders labels "socialism." Big deal. Sure, it may seem like a politically unpopular label, but all it really means for Sanders is that he's willing to talk about things others don't talk about at their fancy Washington cocktail parties – issues related to wealth inequality and class in America. That's why a - gasp! - "socialist" not only is popular in progressive parts of Vermont, but also among working-class conservatives in the conservative Northeast Kingdom region. It's because the way Sanders describes "socialism," it really means just being willing to stand up for average people in the face of a corporate-owned government.

It's why Sanders has been able to forge bipartisan coalitions in Congress to reform the Patriot Act, and repeal unfair trade deals that shaft America's middle class. And it's why high-profile Democrats in Vermont are coalescing around his candidacy. As Peter Welch, the majority leader of the state Senate said, "Bernie has enormous voter support and a substantial funding base and a Democratic voting record." The Prospect notes that Welch's comments mean "the message [is] clear: We're for Bernie; no others need apply." And "without a divided opposition it's going to be tough for any Republican to get elected to federal office in Vermont."

CAFTA: Does "Free" Trade Help Our Partners?

President Bush, desperate to pass his corporate cronies' "free" trade agenda, has resorted to ethnic appeals in pushing the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Specifically, he is courting Hispanic lawmakers by claiming CAFTA will help build the economy of Central America. The sales pitch is so dishonest that Hispanics should be insulted.

As the Wall Street Journal notes today, CAFTA is actually being opposed by Costa Rica, the region's oldest democracy. "Costa Ricans worry that Cafta may lead to the privatization of the country's free universal health-care system," the Journal reports. "Just 38% of Costa Ricans polled in February who had heard of the deal thought it would benefit the country, compared with 56% in January of last year, according to a study by the CID/Gallup polling firm."

The Journal also notes that behind closed doors, free traders' warm promise of prosperity transforms into icy cold threats. Two free-trade Members of Congress actually went to Costa Rica last week and warned that if Costa Rica's legislature didn't approve CAFTA, "Congress would eventually cut off existing trade preferences." Their message was clear: submit or you will be crushed. And yet some still wonder why anti-Americanism is growing in Latin America.

Costa Rica is not stupid. They know that this deal is going to be a disaster not only for American workers, but for their economies as well. My suggestion to any lawmaker who thinks their support of CAFTA is doing a favor to Central America: Buy the movie "Life & Debt" at Amazon.com and watch it before you cast your vote. It is a documentary about the real-world effects of America's corporate free trade policy on small, impoverished nations. It is not pretty. And until we stop this kind of free trade madness, its only going to get uglier, both at home and abroad.

Guv/Anglers Take on Huey Lewis & Make News

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has joined with Montana anglers in going head-to-head with Huey Lewis, and the news is quite interesting. The guv is hip to be square in protecting hunting/fishing access rights. That's just the power of love for the outdoors that Schweitzer has. He's just workin' for a living as a governor who is serious about making good on his campaign promises.

(If you think this post is strangely written, it's because I thought it would be fun to try to put in as many references to Huey Lewis song titles as possible - they are in bold...sometimes even I want a new drug other than this blog).

Please Let Haley Barbour Be the '08 GOP Nominee

Newsday and the New York Sun are the latest to talk up Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour as the Republicans' 2008 Presidential nominee. As I've noted before, this would be a dream come true for Democrats. We could only hope to be so lucky to get a candidate with such massive liabilities.

Democrats' Minimum Wage Opportunity

More "red" state progressive populism, this time in New Mexico, where the Albuquerque Tribune reports that City Councilor Martin Heinrich has introduced a proposal to raise his city's minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.15 an hour. The bill "was created with small businesses in mind, exempting those with fewer than 10 employees and giving credits to those that pay for health care." Heinrich notes "the increase would bring the pay of a single mother with two children from just below the poverty level under current minimum wage laws to just above it."

Henrich has a compelling case. As he notes, the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute reports that since 1997, places that have boosted their minimum wage have created jobs faster than those stuck at the lower federal level. And, in case anyone says his proposal is "anti-business," Heinrich points out that states with higher minimum wage levels saw over 300% more growth in the retail sector than those states that remain at the federal minimum wage. He also notes that "during the first six months of Santa Fe's increased minimum wage, the city has experienced a 5.7% increase in the retail sector, significantly outpacing inflation." It makes sense - when middle-class families have more money in their pocket, they spend it on necessities, boosting the economy.

This proposal stands in stark contrast to the one that Republicans tried to ram down America's throats in March. Then, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) actually proposed eliminating all minimum wage protections for almost 7 million workers. But that wasn't really a surprise now was it? After all, he is the same Senator who said that "making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing."

Heinrich's proposal is exactly the kind of legislation that progressives should be pushing at the state and local level. Its good policy, and its good politics, as it draws a sharp distinction between Democrats as the party of the middle-class, and Republicans as the party of fat cats.

Vote Sanders in Online Poll

The Rutland Herald is hosting an online poll, asking readers who should be the next Senator from Vermont. Go here to vote for Bernie Sanders (scroll down the page - it is on the right).

Ashcroft Naming Contest

Submit your nominations over at Think Progress.

Social Security: We Get What We Don't Pay For

The Financial Times reports that Social Security "is one of the least generous public pension systems in advanced countries." The "average employee in an advanced country can expect a government pension of 70 per cent of his or her after-tax earnings at retirement compared with 39 per cent for an equivalent U.S. citizen."

There are a lot of reasons for this disparity - but the biggest is clearly that while our government is happy taxing the middle-class, it refuses to adequately tax the wealthy and large corporations, and then claims budget deficits mean we don't have enough money to shore up Social Security. As Citizens for Tax Justice notes, America has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004 that most U.S. corporations paid absolutely no tax during the 1990s, often using shady tax loopholes to dodge their responsibilities. The U.S. also has one of the lowest income tax rates in the world (and our President recently signaled he's not even interested in making the wealthy pay their fair share). That's quite a distinction: usually an industrialized country has low taxes in one area or the other - not both.

Don't be fooled - the low overall income tax rate doesn't mean its low for ordinary people. As the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, our tax system is not nearly as progressive as other industrialized countries (especially with the recent Bush tax cuts), meaning taxes are crushing our middle-class. Compound that crushing tax burden with the reduction in services and our inadequate pension/Social Security system, and we've got our government waging a full scale war on America's middle class.

Report Shows Santorum Smells Defeat in 2006

A Roll Call report shows that the Senate's resident wild-eyed right-wing lunatic, Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R), is starting to get extremely nervous that he is going to get booted out of office in 2006.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Santorum's opponent, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bobby Casey (D), already has a 14 point lead over Santorum. Santorum has responded by deploying his media consultant to attack Casey for supposedly not answering questions. This, despite Philadelphia Daily News columnist Gar Joseph writing Friday that he got straight answers from Casey when he called to ask his position on five controversial issues. "We got straight answers. No spin. No Kerry-style nuance,” Joseph wrote. That apparently bothers the extremist Santorum, whose consultant actually criticized Casey for being "so adept at taking the middle positions." As if it's a bad thing to be a mainstream politician instead of an insane ideologue like Santorum.

Santorum has a lot to answer for in his upcoming race. It was the supposedly "compassionate conservative" Santorum who publicly said he wanted poor people to suffer. "Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing," Santorum said in justifying his efforts to slash welfare. It was Santorum who crassly likened homosexuality to bestiality, prompting criticism from his own party. It was Santorum who tried to eliminate all minimum wage protections for roughly 7 million workers. And it was Santorum who tried to rip off taxpayers by attempting to force a Pennsylvania school district to pay for his children's education, even though he has abandoned his home state and become a fulltime resident of Virginia.

This guy is a neanderthal-esque hypocrite of the worst kind. He is totally out-of-touch with the concerns of ordinary people. I realize Casey isn't perfect on every issue, but he is tremendously better than Santorum. Mainstream Americans should do everything we can to finally end Santorum's political career in 2006.

When Companies Leave Communities for Dead

Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" is a landmark work on the economic consequences when Corporate America picks up and leaves a community for dead. But equally as devastating is the health and environmental damage that occurs. Case in point is my new home state of Montana.

The Los Angeles Times today has a fascinating piece on Butte, Montana – better-known to locals as "Butte, America." If you haven't been there, you really should go. It is a case study in contrasts. Its citizens are a tribute to the wonderful, hard-scrabble spirit of Americans. But its history is a reminder of the tragic consequences of corporate greed and negligence. As the Times details, mining companies now owned by British Petroleum have essentially left a giant hole in the earth called the Berkeley Pit, where highly-toxic water is filling up at an alarming rate. As the piece notes, "the wine-dark water is as acidic as Pepsi, filled with heavy metals." The water is so toxic that when birds migrating from Canada to California set down on the lake, they never took flight again. Autopsies "showed burns and sores in their esophaguses and stomachs from drinking and feeding in the water." And the water is rising to a level where it "could begin seeping into a nearby aquifer," contaminating the town's drinking water.

It's true, ARCO (the affiliate of British Petroleum that is responsible for this mess) has been forced to put in $1 billion or so for cleanup. But as the Times notes, that "cleanup is far from perfect and much of the pollution will be around forever," plaguing the citizens of Butte for eternity. The company surely could put in more to make the situation right - British Petroleum reported more than $5 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2005 - a 29% increase. But don't hold your breath.

This is no different than other stories around the state. In my new hometown of Helena, Montana, the local newspaper reported in 2002 that Asarco "notified the Environmental Protection Agency that the company no longer can guarantee its financial ability to pay for the continuing costs of cleaning up contamination from its lead smelter." In 2004, state officials discovered that the company was had not cleaned up potentially deadly chemical pollutants in its now-defunct plant outside of town. And Asacro has agreed to kick in only a measly $450,000 to help remove toxic lead from soil all over town, despite pumping about 1,200 pounds of lead per month into the atmosphere before it shut down. Remember – this is a company whose parent corporation, Grupo Mexico, pocketed a quarter billion dollars in profits in just the first quarter of 2005, according to the 4/22/05 edition of the Latin America News Digest.

In 2004, there was clearly a backlash to this in Montana, as voters roundly rejected a referendum that would have allowed corporate polluters to engage in even more environmentally-hazardous behavior. And this year in Colorado, some state legislators are trying for their own crackdown, pushing legislation to force more companies to pay more when they harm private property. Unfortunately, it was defeated by big corporate polluters. But these recent efforts show that even in "red" America, people are getting sick and tired of huge companies ignoring the human costs of their irresponsible behavior, and they are expressing that disgust to their legislators and at the polls.

Former Montana Congressman Pat Williams, who hails from Butte, summed up this new attitude pretty succinctly in the LA Times piece: "There's two types of environmentalists, a Walden Pond environmentalist and a Berkeley Pit environmentalist," he says. "One wants solitude, and one wants to make sure that the environmental damage that came from extraction industries never happens again." That's a new kind of populist environmentalism that is starting to boil - and politicians of both parties better take heed.

Why Is Schweitzer in the National Spotlight?

Why is Montana and its new Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) in the national spotlight so much lately? Read this story to find out.