VOTE ALERT: 28 Dems Block Crackdown on Corporate Tax Evaders

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D) last night offered her legislation to ban government contracts from going to companies that abuse offshore tax loopholes and evade U.S. taxes. In 2002, DeLauro actually passed this legislation as part of the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security, as Democrats stayed unified, and Republicans capitulated (unfortunately, it was later removed in the final bill). This year, however, 28 Democrats sold out to Corporate America, and helped defeat the legislation outright.

That's right, when DeLauro offered her legislation this time around, she attracted 20 Republican votes - plenty to pass the legislation if her own party had stood up and done the right thing. However, 28 Democrats voted against the legislation, siding with the companies that have the nerve to openly abuse tax loopholes. These companies want to be able to get fat off government contracts, even though they are ripping off U.S. taxpayers at a time of war and record deficits. Yet, instead of prohibiting those contracts from going to these unpatriotic companies, 28 Democrats joined with 203 Republicans to sell out and say bilking America is A.O.K.

Particularly confusing/disappointing was Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D-IL) vote against DeLauro's legislation. He actually penned a 2003 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he advocated "an aggressive attack on the tax code" that "should start with corporate expatriates" (you can also see the op-ed here). He chastised President Bush for "block[ing] Democratic efforts to stop American companies from incorporating through a postal drop in island tax-havens" and said he was appalled that "some corporations are actually rewarded with federal contracts while they move their corporate headquarters to Bermuda" - the very thing that the legislation he voted against would have stopped.

Emanuel also trumpeted himself as a great fighter against these loopholes, telling the Christian Science Monitor that "I think we should be the party of tax reform, massive tax reform, because the code is skewed to those who have lawyers, accountants, and people who can think of schemes. I know of no middle-class family that sets up a shelter in Bermuda to pay for college education for the kids." Yet, his vote against DeLauro's legislation puts him on the side of those who support rewarding these companies that abuse tax loopholes with government contracts.

Once again, a simple question hangs in the air: Do Democrats really wonder why America thinks they stand for nothing, and why they are thus in the minority? On almost every core economic issue lately, a handful of Democrats betrays the party and undermines any prospect of developing a message that shows Democrats will stand up for the middle class.

VOTE ALERT: Senate Sells Out on CAFTA

The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed the U.S. Senate last night by a vote of 54-45. Passing this corporate-written trade deal that sells out American workers proves, yet again, that the Senate is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America. For Democrats, this was particularly embarrassing, because 12 Republicans voted against the agreement. When 12 GOPers vote against something, Democrats have a chance to defeat it, make a strong pro-middle-class message, and win the day. Instead, 11 Democratic/Independent Senators sold out, and blew it for the rest of the party.

Who were these turncoats who sold out American workers and their party? See for yourself:

• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Jeffords (I-VT)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• Nelson (D-NE)
• Pryor (D-AR)
• Wyden (D-OR)

Remember, the Democratic Party is one that talks a lot about wanting to reconnect with working-class voters in red states. Yet, almost a quarter of its Senate Caucus just kicked those working-class voters in the face with this vote. Let's hope when CAFTA moves to the House, Democrats put up a better showing.

Burns Gets Burnt Down Over His Pesticide Vote

Montana Sen. Conrad Burns (R) is paying a price for selling out to the chemical companies with his vote to allow pesticide testing on fetuses and pregnant women. The Associated press reports that Burns claims that on his vote, "There's a lot of room for debate." No there isn't. State Senate President Jon Tester (D), who deals regularly with pesticides as a farmer, made that clear when he said simply, "you don't use them on women and children." Tester added that Burns' statement "goes to show you that he's out of touch with Montana."

State Auditor John Morrison (D) made said it was clear why Burns voted the way he did: "The only explanation for his vote I can think of is that he's collected thousands of dollars from pesticide company PACs." According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Burns has received $5,000 from Dupont and $2,000 from the American Crop Protection Association since 2000. The Environmental Working Group lists $122,000 in campaign contributions to Burns from pesticide industry groups from 1992 to 1996.

VOTE ALERT: GOP Kills Consumer Protection Bill

Last week, Democrats managed to pass a major consumer protection bill through the House Appropriations Committee cracking down on credit card companies' most abusive practices. I warned everyone to be on the lookout for the GOP to try to quietly kill this legislation, which was sponsored by Rep. David Obey (D-WI). And today, that's exactly what the Republicans did. Using their dictatorial powers on the House Rules Committee, the GOP leadership eliminated the provisions without even allowing a vote on it, putting them once again firmly on the side of the credit card companies against ordinary Americans.

In a press release today, Obey put it best: "We had an opportunity today to protect consumers who are sick and tired of being bullied by shysters who take advantage of the fine print on their forms that charge people an arm and a leg on their credit cards. But, without even allowing a vote, the House Republican leadership decided instead to protect big money special interests."

See how your Member of Congress voted on the issue go here. This was the key procedural vote that allowed the Obey legislation to be stripped out.

Why the Public Believes Dems Stand for Nothing

A new poll out tells us what we already know: though 56 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, more voters have positive feelings about Republicans than Democrats. As pollster Stan Greenberg notes, "Republicans weakened in this poll... but it shows Democrats weakening more" and that decline by Democrats is because people believe Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."

Most likely, the entrenched Democratic elites in Washington are shocked at this, especially with all the scandals surrounding top Republicans. But then again, these same elites are the ones who have helped run the party into the ground over the last decade – we shouldn't expect them to understand much more than how to protect their own careers in the Establishment.

So in the interest in boiling it down for these people, let's make it very clear as to why America still thinks Democrats stand for nothing:

- When you vote with Republicans for an energy bill that showers huge oil/gas companies with massive tax breaks at a time of record deficits, and that energy bill won't lower the cost of gasoline, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you ignore public demands for a withdrawal/exit strategy from Iraq, and instead vote against legislation requesting the President explain an exit strategy from the war, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you say you are for economic fairness, and then your top leaders start negotiating the elimination of the Estate Tax that falls on the wealthiest 2 percent of citizens, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you deride the fact that the Bush administration lied to the country about the war and about its behavior before 9/11, and then vote to confirm chief liar Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you claim to care about protecting ordinary citizens' economic rights, and then corral corporate lobbyists to help pass a bill allowing credit card companies to gouge those same ordinary citizens, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you say you want workers to be protected in their workplace, and then vote to limit workers' ability to fight for their rights in court, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you say you oppose unfair trade deals that sell workers out, and then refuse to voice any opposition to the latest corporate-written trade deal that sells workers out, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

Now, it is true – there continues to be a core group of committed progressives in Congress who fight everyday to bring the party back to its roots. And, there have been recent signs that these courageous leaders are having some success: namely votes to reforming the Patriot Act, and end massive corporate subsidies; the introduction of lobbying/ethics reform legislation; the roll out of the Progressive Promise platform; the tenacious opposition to CAFTA in the House; and the support of a bill to prevent Big Business from testing hazardous chemicals on humans.

But those successes are sill clearly overshadowed by this giant list of core sellouts, and Republican-lite capitulations. If the party really wants America to believe it stands for something, then the party has to actually stand for something – not just talk about standing for something. Americans aren't stupid – they know the difference between lip service, and action.

The arrogant and timid Democratic operative/adviser/elite class still arrogantly believes they can fool Americans with hollow rhetoric that makes it seem as if Democrats care about the middle-class. But that rhetoric is consistently undercut by actual votes - meaning the rhetoric ultimately becomes an insult to Americans' intelligence, because it shows Democrats think that ordinary people are so stupid, they don't know what's really going on. Newsflash: ordinary people DO know what's going on, and they don't like it when slick political hacks in Washington try to fool them.

And that leads us to the bottom line that the GOP knows so well: no amount of rhetoric can outweigh authenticity and conviction. This is not about embracing a more "liberal" agenda - it is about actually making principles dictate policy decisions, instead of continuing to be a party that is about nothing other than thumb-in-the-wind political calculation. The sooner our side learns that, the sooner we will really be headed back to the majority.

Kuttner to Democrats: Go West, Young Man

In the upcoming edition of the American Prospect, editor Bob Kuttner makes the case that the path to majority status for the Democratic Party runs through the Mountain West. "The Mountain West has trended - to put it mildly - Republican in recent decades." Kuttner writes. "But its progressive Democratic legacy is being rekindled." He says, "the West helps explode one of the great myths of this political era, of an American electorate hardened into red and blue voting blocs. In fact, there are plenty of independent-minded voters that an astute leader from either party can reach." It's a great piece - give it a read.

Permanent Minority vs. Toward the Majority

My latest "Permanent Minority vs. Toward the Majority" piece for the Nation Magazine is now online. Go check out who is in the dog house, and who are the heroes.

An Ode to Guest Bloggers

Just wanted to give a belated thank you to Matt Singer (pictured above) and Joel Barkin (pictured below) who guest blogged for me over the weekend. Matt runs Left in the West, a terrific blog about politics out here. And Joel is working to help elect New York State Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D) the next Manhattan Borough President. Both of them are helping to launch the Progressive Legislative Action Network. Thanks guys.

Bush and the Iraq Albatross Around His Neck

Why, more than any other President, is George W. Bush unable to sustain public support for his war? Find out here.

Democrats & The Rancid Politics of Retreat

William Greider explores why Senate Democrats are considering capitulating and supporting a full repeal of the estate tax, which falls primarily on the super-wealthy. He comes to an interesting conclusion: it is because "Dem leaders know they will likely offend rank-and-file supporters, but they also figure they can get away with it. Past experience tells them they will pay no real price beyond a certain amount of angry wailing for going against the party's popular base."

Greider calls this "the rancid politics of retreat" whereby Democrats "are allowing the weakest collaborators in their ranks to define the party's position" and "then wonder why the public doesn't think their party has any values." Such pathetic behavior "created the [Democrats'] minority status and promises to sustain it." He says "the party in Washington is not likely to change much until groups of aroused outsiders, progressives and others, are truly mobilized to punish their wayward and disloyal incumbents. That is, attack them frontally for selling out, run candidates against them in party primaries, weaken their public reputations...[Democratic leaders] believe they're free to serve up the high-minded rhetoric to the party's faithful foot soldiers while they work out the money deals with the other side."

I agree with him even though he also notes that "loyal Democrats are naturally reluctant to employ this hardball strategy for fear of further weakening the minority party." But that's the point - the party is in a perpetual state of weakness unless it actually starts taking real positions on key economic issues. And as Greider points out, "nothing changes minds in Congress like seeing one or two colleagues cut down by their own loyal constituents on matters of principle the pols didn't take seriously (this is essentially how right-wingers transformed the Republican Party)."

What this means is simple: keep your eye on which Democrats cave, support a full estate tax repeal, and thus sell out America's middle-class. This is a defining issue of fairness - and will show us whether the party has any ability to stand up for average Americans anymore.

"Pro-Lifers" Support Pesticide Testing On Fetuses

Check out today's Senate vote to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from using studies that expose people to pesticides when considering permits for new pest killers. It's good that the measure passed, but look at the 37 Senators who voted against this - it reads like a list of the Senate's most ardent anti-choice (aka. "pro-life") Senators. Why is that relevant? Because, according to the Assoicated Press, Mr. "Culture of Life" himself, President Bush, is pushing the EPA "to accept data from human tests on children, pregnant women, newborns, infants and fetuses...Even newborns of 'uncertain viability' could be tested." In other words, Bush and these 37 mostly "pro-life" Republicans, who claim they care about the unborn, support allowing corporations to test hazardous chemicals on fetuses and pregnant women.

Capitol Buzz has more on how absolutely disgusting it is for someone like Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) to have voted the way he did.

I have written before about how the GOP's ideology on social issues - which they claim is unwavering - melts away as soon as it is pitted up against the wishes of Corporate America. In this case for these 37 Senators and President Bush, the chemical/agribusiness companies won out against the GOP's rhetoric about supposedly being devoted to a "culture of life."

Bush Tries to Bury Report On CAFTA

AP has an explosive report about how the White House tried to bury a government-sponsored study of labor conditions in Central America, because it would expose the lies behind the administration's claims that the Central American Free Trade Agreement will help workers.

Here are the key excerpts:

The Labor Department worked for more than a year to maintain secrecy for studies that were critical of working conditions in Central America, the region the Bush administration wants in a new trade pact...Behind the scenes, the Labor Department began as early as spring 2004 to block public release of the country-by-country reports...The department instructed its contractor to remove the reports from its Web site, ordered it to retrieve paper copies before they became public, banned release of new information from the reports, and even told the contractor it could not discuss the studies with outsiders...At the same time, the administration began a pre-emptive campaign to undercut the study's conclusions.

Bush has made an art out of burying or hiding government data. Luckily, though, his dishonesty caught up with him BEFORE the final vote on CAFTA, not after it. Let's see if it makes a difference.

DeLay: Lawmakers, Not Ordinary Workers, Need a Raise

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R) today defended the fact that he helped orchestrate a raise for himself and other Members of Congress. He said lawmakers needed a $3,100 raise to make their pay $165,200 a year. "It's not a pay raise," DeLay said. "It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power." Funny, in blocking every serious piece of minimum wage legislation, DeLay hasn't felt that his rationale abour raises applies to ordinary workers, even though minimum wage is nearing a 50-year low in terms of purchasing power.

An Energy Bill Only Enron Could Love

Did you know that the Bush Energy Bill - which Senate Democrats mustered just seven votes against yesterday - quietly repeals one of the most important energy regulation laws in American history? It's true - find out more here.

VOTE ALERT: Congress Bars Nuclear Subsidy to China

Reuters and the Associated Press both report that the House last night passed the bipartisan amendment prohibiting U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to subsidize Corporate America's efforts to build nuclear plants in China. The amendment, authored by Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders (VT), drew the support of 313 members of the House of Representatives - an overwhelming showing. For background on the amendment, see this earlier post, or Lou Dobbs' interview with Sanders on the matter last night. And check here to see how your Member of Congress voted.

Notice how many "pro-national security" Republicans voted against this bill. Apparently to them, giving away taxpayer cash to wealthy corporations is more important than securing America.

This legislation follows the House passage of a bipartisan, Sanders-written amendment a few weeks ago that would reform the Patriot Act. Both of these bills show that with some creativity, progressives can forge new coalitions to press ahead with their agenda.

Stay tuned to see what the Senate does on both amendments - and whether the Republican leadership has the gall to strip out these measures in conference committee.

Post-Speech Memo: You Can't Sugarcoat a Lie

After finally arriving home, I decided to take a break from micro-parsing Bush's speeches tonight, and instead went to go see Batman Begins (a terrific movie). On the way over, though, I did catch some excerpts of the speech and it seems to me that beyond all the different lies in the text, Bush faces one very big problem: he gives us every reason why staying the course is good (freedom, democracy, stability, etc.) but no reason why staying the course actually fulfills the original mission, which was to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is the reason this president simply will never be able to control the message about the Iraq War or maintain public support - because the American public has now fully realized we were blatantly lied to about why we were going to war. And no matter how much sugarcoating Bush packages the war in, he can never escape that fundamental truth.

Why is this important now that we are so deeply involved in the war? Isn't that just an afterthought at this point? No. People don't like to be lied to. Sure, they like strong leaders, but they also like strong reasons for sacrifice and action. The fact that it is now clear we were deliberately misled, and thus there were no strong reasons for war, leaves the entire Iraq War without a real rationale in the mind of the public. Until Bush fesses up to that reality, his happy, subject-changing rhetoric will continue to do exactly the opposite of what he wants: it will make people more angry that he still refuses to admit he lied.

Didn't Biden Get In Trouble For Something Like This Last Time?

Didn't Joe Biden get in trouble for plagiarizing in his last presidential campaign?

"It’s not a blue America. It’s not a red America. It’s not a Christian America or a non-Christian America. It’s not a white or a brown or a black America. It’s not Republican or Democrat. It’s the America that I remember when I was a senior in high school..."
- Sen. Joe Biden, June 2005

VERSUS

"There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America."
- Barack Obama, July 2004

Sure, it's definitely not exact...but you gotta admit it's still kinda funny...And boy, if I had become famous for plagiarizing in my last presidential race, I would steer very clear of even coming close to repeating one of the most famous Democratic speeches in recent memory...but maybe that's just me...

Treatment of Veterans: Cause, Effect & Spin

CAUSE:
"In a rare move by a Cabinet member, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi told a House committee he had sought $1.2 billion more than President Bush was willing to put in his budget. 'I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received,' Principi said...Last year, Principi said the administration did not provide as large of an increase as he requested for the 2004 fiscal year."
- Associated Press, 2/4/04

EFFECT:
"The Department of Veterans Affairs announced in 2003 that it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system to some higher-income veterans."
- Washington Post, 1/17/03

EFFECT:
"President Bush's budget would more than double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using government health care."
- New York Times, 2/7/05

EFFECT:
"The legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America said the budget would force veterans hospitals and clinics to limit services."
- New York Times, 2/7/05

EFFECT:
"The Bush administration, already accused by veterans groups of seeking inadequate funds for health care next year, acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year."
- Washington Post, 6/24/05

SPIN:
"Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson promised lawmakers Tuesday that the budget shortfall will not affect veterans’ quality of care or access to doctors."
- Stars & Stripes, 6/29/05

On Salt Lake City, Billings & Afghanistan

I made it to Salt Lake City, where we hope to get to Helena by days end. I feel lucky - we weren't the most abused passengers on this journey. One guy was a soldier coming home to Helena from Afghanistan. Northwest told him the best they could do was drop him in Billings - but he would have to pay for the cost of the rental car to get him the final 240 miles. What a wonderful welcome home for one of our troops. Disgusting.

P.S. Question of the day: If they cancel your flight late at night, why can't they just re-schedule it for the morning, instead of making your trip worse by re-routing you, delaying you, etc.?

VOTE ALERT: Will Congress Subsidize China's Nuclear Buildup?

In previous posts, I have written about how Congress regularly gives away billions of dollars of taxpayer money to already-wealthy corporations. In the past, bought-off politicians in Congress have turned back bipartisan efforts to cut off some of the most egregious giveaways. Tomorrow, there will be another courageous effort on the floor of the U.S. House.

Specifically, a bipartisan group of lawmakers will offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that will prohibit the federal government's Export-Import Bank from approving federal loans or loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants in Communist China. Amazingly, the Export-Import bank has already given preliminary approval to these loans, ignoring all concerns about security or about wasting U.S. taxpayer money. The bipartisan legislation would overturn that Export-Import bank decision. The amendment is being sponsored by Reps. Bernie Sanders (I), Dana Rohrabacher (R), Tim Ryan (D), Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D).

But let's say you don't care about the serious security concerns these subsidies raise. And let's say you buy the spin that these subsidies will be going to help an American company, and thus will help create American jobs. Even that economic rationale doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Check out this factoid from a letter being circulated on Capitol Hill by the legislation's authors:

"Not only is this a terrible deal, the nuclear division of Westinghouse isn't even owned by a United States company. In 1998, British National Fuels, owned by the British government, purchased the nuclear division of Westinghouse. And, while a portion of this nuclear technology will be made in the U.S., the Chinese government has indicated that eventually all of this sensitive technology will be made in China. In other words, this U.S. taxpayer backed loan will be going to subsidize a
British-owned company for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Communist China that will end up destroying U.S. jobs."

The letter goes on to correctly say that such a deal "is absurd." Will Congress continue to be bought off and support this kind of corporate giveaway, despite its national security risks? Or will Congress actually stand up to Big Money and do the right thing? Stay tuned...

On Lies, Airport Floors & Corporate Abuse

You may have noticed by the guest posting over the weekend that I was away. That's why I write this blog entry from the floor of the Minneapolis Airport at 2am (no joke). I was at a friend's wedding this weekend in upstate New York. Seemed like it would be a nice respite from reality. Unfortunately, on my way back, I unexpectedly found myself on the frontlines in the battle against corporate abuse. And I am sad to report, I lost the battle.

The story is pretty brutal in its own sad, mundane, "it's disgusting this stuff happens everyday" sort of way. My connecting Northwest Airlines flight from Minneapolis to Helena got delayed. We then sat on the tarmac for 2 hours. Just before takeoff, the pilot came on and said the radar had unexpectedly died, and the flight was cancelled. Yet, when we got off plane, the corporate manager of Northwest at Minneapolis airport changed the code to say our flight was cancelled because of weather - a deliberate move to make sure Northwest doesn't have to foot the bill for a hotel...no problem anyway - all hotels are booked. Meanwhile, the folks at the Northwest desk told my wife and I with a straight face that the earliest they can get us into Helena is Thursday night (yes, tonight is Monday night).

Sadly, my story is not unique either on this day, or any other day. I was, not surprisingly, agitated at the whole situation - especially when the employees at Northwest contradicted the pilot, and lied to the entire plane's face in saying that the flight had been cancelled because of weather. Interestingly, my anger prompted an argument I had with someone who basically said that while the Northwest Airlines corporation screwed us, it was pointless to try to hold the employees who were in our face accountable.

That brings me to what really disturbs me about this whole experience - in today's day and age, corporations are allowed to essentially ignore ordinary people. They can do this because of their size, and because they give their workers who deal with the customers very little power. That powerlessness actually creates a SYSTEM of non-accountability, where the employees must tell customers they "can't do anything about it." In some sense, I still believe it is important to let folks who abuse you that what they are doing is totally unacceptable. But in another sense, I understand the point that it does no good because I know the system is RIGGED to make sure it is impossible to hold a corporation accountable, much less even vent your frustrations to someone at the corporation who can change anything.

I'm not really sure what the answer to all of this is, though it is especially insulting that this kind of thing regularly occurs in an industry subsidized by our hard-earned tax dollars. To be sure, this kind of corporate abuse is miniscule compared to things like Enron, etc. - but it is still corporate abuse. And as much as I tried my best to fight it, I - like millions of other ordinary citizens each and everyday in all different ways - was just more corporate roadkill. Figuratively, I wasn't much more than a speed bump on an airport floor as Big Business plowed over me and my wife in one of those beeping airline-owned golf carts - all to maximize one company's bottom line.

In my delirium, let me end this post with a bit of poetry, shamelessly stolen and butchered from the distinguished works of Robert Frost:

This airport is disgustng, I say with a weep.
But I have writing/blogging obligations to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep...

P.S. Needless to say, posting may be a bit light on Tuesday as I try to get home...

Searching For The Truth (by Joel Barkin):

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the nonpartisan research arm for Congress, is one of the best resources out there if you are looking for unbiased information. Trouble is, it’s almost impossible to search for any of their reports. This is not by accident either. Many of their reports expose the lies that members of Congress are trying to put over on the American public.
Since the Republican controlled Congress has given up on its oversight responsibilities, CRS is one of the few places we have left to hold our government accountable. It should come as no surprise that many members of Congress would want to make as difficult as possible to search around CRS.

Center for Democracy and Technology has stepped up and launched a great new website to search CRS reports:

AP:

WASHINGTON -- A new Web site aims to make widely available to the public certain government reports about topics from terrorism to Social Security that congressional researchers prepare and distribute now only to lawmakers.

The site, being announced Monday, is operated by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based civil liberties group. The project is a response to years of rumbling and wrangling by open-government advocates over a lack of direct accessibility to reports from the policy research arm of Congress

- Joel Barkin

Pennsylvania Republicans Turn on Santorum (by Joel Barkin)

The Republican controlled House of Delegates in Pennsylvania passed legislation this week that would limit cyberschool tuition payments only to children who actually live in the school district. You may remember a few months ago, Senator Scumbag Santorum came under attack because the Penn Hills school district had paid more than $100,000 over three years for Santorum's five school-aged children to be cyberschooled from home. Only problem was Santorum's kids don't live in Pennsylvania, they live in Arlington, VA. Even Santorum’s allies in the State House realize what a true dirtbag Santorum truly is. The legislation now moves onto the State Senate. - Joel Barkin

Putting the Fox in the Hen House (by Matt Singer)

President Bush has nominated a lawyer with ties to WR Grace to head up the enforcement division of the EPA. You may remember WR Grace from such environmental messes as those in Woburn, Massachusetts and Libby, Montana. The nomination isn't highly surprising, but it is a slap in the face to people who expect that the government help citizens and hold guilty parties responsible.

--Matt Singer

The Growing Reform Movement in Ranch Country (by Matt Singer)

The Associated Press has a great story on Leo McDonnell, a Montana rancher whose actions and organization are shaking up the beef industry. McDonnell is the President of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF), an organization helping lead the charge on trade issues and corporate accountability. For years, the meatpacking industry has simply dominated the ranch issue discussion in America. R-CALF, thankfully, is changing all of that.

R-CALF right now is fighting against the importation of Canadian beef, a fight that is pitting them against the heaviest hitters of the food processing industry, but that has inspired help from the National Farmers Union and sixty-six other organizations.

But this fight doesn't stop at the edge of farm country. For labor unions, human rights organizations, and consumer safety groups, organizing against food processors should be a major point for an urban-rural coalition, a blue-green coalition, an American populist coalition. The major food processors like Tyson (which now owns IBP, the largest beefpacking company) are notorious for running shops hazardous to workers' health. The factory-like slaughterhouses are disgusting from an environmental perspective. To boot, the workers are often unionized or represented by company unions, ensuring little respect, bad pay, and likely violations of American labor law. Even as Wal-Martization takes hold of the economy, it's been embedded in the food processing world for years.

Luckily, groups like R-CALF are standing up. A coalition between red state ranchers and urban workers could prove a formidable political force.

--Matt Singer

Promoting Hackery (by Matt Singer)

Several weeks ago, David was somewhat astonished that America's conservative infrastructure on college campuses was so soulless that conservative student leaders aspire to be pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Perhaps it is no surprise then that Paul Gourley was just elected Chairman of the College Republicans at a conference where the keynote speaker was America's own Tom DeLay. Gourley was involved in a fundraising imbroglio, in which he signed letters that confused senior citizens, apparently sending the letters under the banners of multiple organizations.

Gourley, demonstrating leadership, has since denied responsibility for the scandal, saying he signed the letters because no one else would. This, in itself, has to be a new defense for scandalous behavior. Others have argued that they did what they did because if they did not, someone else would anyways. Gourley's defense, on the other hand, is that he is not responsible for his actions because he is the only one who was willing to undertake them.

--Matt Singer

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People (by Matt Singer)

President Bush's approval rating has dropped to a mere 42%, a rather low figure by anyone's standard. That is not surprising, given that Bush has focused on the wrong priorities, trying to address Social Security, rather than the fiscal problems created by Medicare or his tax cuts; and bogging this country down in Iraq, while failing to deal with larger, more difficult problems in North Korea and Iran.

But perhaps most amazingly, independents are giving the President a lower approval rating than Democrats. Bush is still holding his base, the defend-torture crowd, but is being abandoned by the rest of the country. The recent moves by the White House and others to denigrate those that disagree with them is likely only to solidify these numbers, leaving us with what Jerome Armstrong sees as the coming 40-60 nation.

Bush won re-election by mercilessly attacking his opponent and denigrating Kerry's abilities, rather than relying on his own record. That success won him re-election, but the victory is proving pyrrhic. Like Gray Davis in California, who received a second-term only after a brutally negative campaign, Bush is going to end up in the tank himself.

The politics of negativitity and destruction, of fear and division, are failing.

--Matt Singer

Blame the Civil Rights Movement (by Matt Singer)

Years ago, my father, a moderate Republican, commented that he thought it was surprising how much Malcolm X's philosophy might find in common with the best strains of American conservatism. Then and now, I think there's a lot of truth to that. And then and now, I still find it hardly surprising that Republican efforts at outreach in minority communities do not go well. Campus Progress has two guest-bloggers embedded at the College Republican National Convention, which sounds like a real treat of an event (even though they would not accept this advertisement).

One of the infiltrators provided this report on the CRNC's speaker who was billed as the conservative answer to Jesse Jackson:

• "I am an American, not an African-American."


• The Civil Rights movement destroyed black people's sense of self-respect and their compass for what's right.


• The Civil Rights Movement took the men out of their homes and prevented black people from thinking for themselves.


• It is not racism but lack of moral character that causes problems for black people.


• The black leadership succeeds by keeping black folks angry.


• Now Muslim folks are moving in and trying to take over.


• "I don't care what people say, but (Muslim people) don't like us!"


• America has already given black people all it has to give.


• On reparations, he emphasizes the fact that all the slaves are dead.


• On those who want reparations, he says, "Instead of reparations, how 'bout a free ticket back to Africa?" (Raucous laughter.)


• "The Democratic battle is ordained by the devil."


• "It's not white vs. black, it's good vs. evil."


• "White folks need to get over their fear of being called a racist."

Huh.

--Matt Singer

First, Do Some Harm (by Matt Singer)

The New York Times is reporting this morning that "Military doctors at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have aided interrogators in conducting and refining coercive interrogations of detainees, including providing advice on how to increase stress levels and exploit fears, according to new, detailed accounts given by former interrogators."

So the federal government cracks down on medical marijuana, on medical care, and on medically-assisted suicide for terminal patients, but approves medical torture?

Sounds like the culture of strife put into practice.

--Matt Singer

The District Leaps on the Kelo Decision (by Matt Singer)

Mayor Anthony Williams of DC is quite pleased that the Kelo decision will allow Washington to displace property owners to build a stadium and a mall, The Washington Post reports. I argued yesterday elsewhere that regardless of the merits of the law and the Constitution, kicking people out of their homes to pursue large businesses is simply poor economic decision-making. My fellow Montana blogger granny insanity (who is, as her name suggests, an absolute ball-of-fire) put it this way, "cities can go to war against the public they have [in order] to attract the public they wished they had."

That summarizes it pretty well and it demonstrates exactly what is wrong with this notion of "economic development." Mayor Williams says he is improving a neighborhood, but he is doing it by getting rid of the people who use the neighborhood.

But this ruling is good news for George W. Bush. It means he didn't violate the Constitution in order to build a stadium for the Texas Rangers.

--Matt Singer

An Honest Phone Company (by Matt Singer)

Several years ago, I was talking on the phone with my mother when she started asking me about Working Assets. She was seeing advertisements, had checked on the rates, and was impressed by the whole package, but she didn't really trust it. She was surprised by how competitive the prices were, given the amount of money passed along to organizations. She was also impressed by the Ben & Jerry's offer (hey, who isn't).

I told her I'd never used Working Assets, but also that I'd heard good things. After a few more weeks of concern, she switched. Her phone bills went down, her money went to good causes, and she got her Ben & Jerry's.

At the time, I had just finished reading Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky writes about the need to choose tactics people are familiar with, because people respond illogically when confronted with situations they are not used to. My mom reacted illogically at first when confronted by an honest phone company.

What does that say about the state of American economy?

--Matt Singer

The Letter Democrats Should Send to Karl Rove

Here is a draft letter that all congressional Democrats should sign and send to Karl Rove, with a military enlistment form attached.

Dear Mr. Rove,

Your comments yesterday about the War on Terror seemed to suggest that you feel very passionately about defending America, and sending others into combat. As you know, America is facing a serious enlistment crisis right now, at the very same time more casualties mount in the Iraq War. Therefore, since you have said you are so committed to this war, I have attached this enlistment form from the U.S. Army for you to fill out and submit. You are still young enough to contribute to the military and to the frontline war effort you say you care so deeply about.

Clearly, if you support forcing others to risk their lives for your ideological beliefs (without even providing them proper armor and weapons), you will no doubt be willing to risk your own. And I am sure you would not argue that your responsibilities as a partisan political adviser to the president is more important than fighting in combat for your country.

Please let me know when you fill out the enlistment form, and drop me a line when you get to Iraq to let me know if your still believe we should be sending troops to die for a war you lied about.

Sincerely,
Member of Congress

Seriously - What the $@#?! is Wrong with House Democrats?

Let me sum up in my own way the question that is embedded in Josh Marshall's terrific post: Seriously, folks, what the #$?! is wrong with House Democrats? Where is the spine? Where is the backbone? Where is the willingness to swing for the fences when the tired hurler throws a hanging curveball right over the middle of the plate? Where are the guts that are necessary to be a conviction party that can actually WIN an election?

P.S. I'll still be posting sporadically today, but starting tomorrow, Matt Singer is taking over for fulltime for Friday and the weekend, and then my buddy Joel Barkin will have the reins on Monday. I'll be back Tuesday.

An Introduction (by Matt Singer)

Howdy. I'm going to be guest-blogging, filling in for David's expected absense, for the next three days. I'll be replaced next Monday by another guest. I hope I can live up to the high standards set by David.

A little quick background: I've been blogging for nearly three years now and am currently blogging at Left in the West. I also do some freelance writing, with one recent article up at CampusProgress. I've worked in the non-profit world in Montana and I met David when he moved here.

If you want to get ahold of me over the next couple days, feel free to shoot me an email. Thanks to David, and to all of you, for having me.

- Matt Singer

New Court Decision Dicey for Progressives

AP reports today that "the Supreme Court today ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development." Of note is the fact that the five justices who supported this, four were the court's "liberals. And with such a highly-charged debate over judges, that is likely to be unhelpful to progressives who are trying to forge new coalitions with people concerned about property rights.

A Note to the Chickenhawks: Enlist, or Shut Up

There are a lot of pathetic political hacks running around these days talking tough about fighting wars - and most of them have never fought in a war, avoided fighting when they had the chance, and have no family members fighting in our current war. When ultra-hawk Vice President Dick Cheney had the chance to fight in a war, he said he had "other priorities." When George W. Bush had the chance, he used his dad's name to get out of combat service. While Peter Beinart and the New Republic claim they truly believe in more hawkish policies, I don't see him or the magazine's writers lining up to enlist. And last I checked, the same Karl Rove who is attacking Democrats for questioning the management of the Iraq War, is the Karl Rove who has never served in the military in his life.

Now, as I wrote in a cover piece for the Nation magazine a while back, we shouldn't be surprised that these chickenhawks have no problem talking tough about war, while running away from it in their own personal lives. Tough talk about war, and criticism of those who oppose it, makes these pathetic souls feel stronger than they actually are - and they have used it quite effectively in the political arena.

But Steve Gilliard today really puts these chickenhawks in their place:

"If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not. Therefore, it is time to stop calling for more troops, or the US to make Iraq safe. We cannot do this and even Americans are refusing to join the fight. It is time to look at your actions and realize, that despite your ideals, you oppose continuing this war. In practical terms, you have decided that this war is not worth your life or anyone you know. And million of Americans have joined you in this decision. So, with this fact evident, it is time to call for US troops to withdraw from Iraq. Not save it, not add more boots on the ground. You have already voted by your actions. It is time that you match it with your words."

This is the way Democrats need to be talking about these issues – not cautiously asking for an "apology" from Rove. We don't want "apologies" – we want a real debate about this. That means it is time for Democrats to finally go for the throat and make clear that if you are going to vehemently advocate sending more and more innocent Americans to die in Iraq, you better be prepared to back up that rhetoric with some sacrifice of your own. And that goes especially for the inside-the-Beltway neocon crowd who makes decisions and spouts off opinions from the confines of the well-guarded cocktail party circuit, and thus never has to deal with the blood-and-guts ramifications of what they're talking about. If you are willing to ask others for sacrifice but evaded such sacrifice when you had the chance, and aren't willing to make any sacrifice yourself now - then sit down and shut up.

Scandal-Plagued GOPer Praises Scandal-Plagued GOPer

This is really rich: Scandal-plagued House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) defended the honor of scandal-plagued GOP Congressman Duke Cunningham (R-CA) today saying, "Duke Cunningham is an honorable man." DeLay's sentiments were no doubt heartfelt - he and Cunningham have shared similar experiences selling out to high-priced lobbyists and then evading questions about their integrity.

Rumsfeld: "No One Lied About WMD"

This in from Thinkprogress - Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld claimed today on Fox radio that "no one in the Administration lied about weapons of mass destruction."

I'm not going to fill this space with a litany of proof that Rumsfeld is now lying about lying. All I will do is point readers to this article that Christy Harvey and I put together in 2004. It should make Rumsfeld dishonesty patently clear.

Roll Call on PLAN

Roll Call Newspaper has a big profile on the rollout of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN). It's a pretty good piece that describes what we're going to do, and what challenges we face from conservatives.

Here are some excerpts:

"The idea is to seed simultaneous policy efforts in the states, providing legislators with model bills that can be passed with minor adjustments essentially anywhere. Organizers hope this strategy will generate momentum and help refine tactics. If that plan seems familiar, it is: It’s what the staunchly conservative American Legislative Exchange Council has been doing for the last three decades...

"Sirota and Doherty say they’re undeterred by the challenge of beating ALEC at its own game. They argue that it’s a perfect time to start organizing and energizing left-of-center state legislators. With the Democratic Party shut out of power in the White House and on Capitol Hill, why not head to the states to create the basis for a future renaissance? "I think we’re facing a problem, that the Democratic Party apparatus in Washington is dominated by Washington, D.C., elites," said Sirota, who has relocated to Doherty’s home state of Montana. "Frankly, our side as a whole will never succeed unless we really get out and use our grass-roots people and our state leaders."

If you have a Roll Call subscription you can see the full article here. If you would like to contribute to PLAN, see our website for details.

GOP Threatens Punishment Over Patriot Act Vote

The Hill Newspaper reports that the House Republican leadership is preparing to punish those Republicans who voted last week for legislation reforming the Patriot Act. The bill, sponsored by Independent Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders, forces law enforcement officials to get proper warrants before searching citizens' library/bookstore records. It drew the support of 38 Republicans lawmakers.

The first lawmaker in the crosshairs is Alaska Rep. Don Young (R), who may now be denied the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Pathetically, the ever-opportunistic Rep. Peter King (R) seized on the news for his own self-promotion. He claimed "I can understand someone being against it" yet then said "it’s difficult to understand someone being against it and then being chairman of the Homeland Security Committee." For a neanderthal like King, you are either for securing the homeland, or for defending citizens' rights to privacy - and you can't be both, even though America has managed to strike a decent balance for the better part of its 200 year history.

We'll see how this plays out - and whether the legislation survives the process as it moves to the Senate and then to a conference commitee. But with the New York Times' explosive report yesterday about how often the government is searching libraries, it seems both Democratic and Republican support for this bill is holding firm.

CLAIM vs. FACT: Bush on the Estate Tax

CLAIM:
"For the sake of family farmers, Congress needs to get rid of the death tax forever."
- President Bush, 6/14/05

FACT:
"Almost no working farmers [pay the estate tax], according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. 'It's a myth,' he said. Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes."
- NY Times, 4/8/01

Top 100 Film Quotes Misses a Big One

The American Film Institute has released its list of the top 100 movie quotes of all time. It's a good list, but regard it with caution - it is missing a very, very big one.

"I am your father."
- Darth Vader, Empire Strikes Back, 1980

CLAM vs. FACT: Priorities During War

CLAIM:
"Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes."
- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), 3/12/03

FACT:
"Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don't have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday."
- Boston Globe, 6/21/05

Democratic Idiots & the Parroting of Right-Wing Lies

Earlier this week, I chastised writer Ari Melber for his piece in the right-wing New York Post. Now we see just how the GOP spin machine uses people like Melber to perpetuate its most dishonest lies.

To review, Melber claims to be "progressive," yet had the Rupert-Murdoch-owned paper publish his piece that vomited up all the typical dishonest GOP stereotypes about Democrats and national security. And they were dishonest: as Ken Almquist shows, Melber deliberately misrepresented the polling numbers that his entire article relies on.

But the sheer lying isn't what's interesting about this - it's the exposure of the right-wing spin machine that is noteworthy. You see, the GOP feeds off of people who purport to represent progressives and Democrats, yet who carry the right-wing's most shameful lies/stereotypes. Conservatives have an entire infrastructure to get the criticism as far and wide as possible. It's why Melber's piece has now gone from the right-wing New York Post, to a prominent place in the fringe-conservative Washington Times today.

This is exactly how it's supposed to work for the GOP: they grab someone who calls themselves "liberal" or "progressive" (usually from a place like the New Republic). This person typically has little - if any - political experience in the real world outside of the Beltway, and is really only interested in promoting their name at the expense of others. Then they get that idiot to validate dishonest right-wing lies in the media. Finally, they then cite that self-proclaimed "liberal"/"progressive" as proof that the GOP's dishonest stereotypes are actually true, no matter how factually inaccurate. It's a brilliant machine, actually - but it is pathetic that so many people in the insulated Washington, D.C. Democratic Establishment play along.

Dems & the Red-State Conservation Coalition

In articles I wrote for the American Prospect, the Washington Monthly and In These Times after the 2004 election, I said one of the keys for Democrats' is to "turn hunters green." By that, I meant trying to forge coalitions between hunters/outdoorsmen, ranchers/landowners and environmentalists who have similar interests. It is especially poignant now that our government is wholly taken over by Corporate America. And finally it seems the New York Times today has caught onto this storyline.

"For the first time, it is the Republicans who find themselves the target of angry speeches about lost property rights and tone-deaf federal land managers," writes the Times' Tim Egan. "And people who have been on opposing sides of the major land battles in the West - mainly property owners and ranchers versus environmentalists - are now allies." The piece goes onto describe an effort to "organize hunters to protest government plans for introducing gas wells into grazing areas for deer and elk" and other elements of a "sagebrush rebellion."

What is bringing all of these folks together? The Republicans' energy policy - and their brazen disregard for anything other than allowing big oil and gas companies to barge into communities and destroy the pristine environment. The Bush energy bill is just making matters worse, as are the GOP's tenacious efforts to oppose serious investment in any alternative energy sources that could avoid these conflicts. For instance, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is leading a high-profile fight against wind energy.

In their overreaching, however, the Republicans are helping to redefine the political issue of the environment on vastly different terms - terms that are very advantageous to Democrats in Congress, if they follow Democrats in the states who are pressing the issue.

Out here in the Montana, for instance, Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has made the preservation of his state's hunting/fishing access laws a top priority. In Wyoming, Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D) signed legislation giving citizens more leverage over oil and gas companies when those companies use their land. And in Colorado, Democratic legislators pushed legislation forcing oil and gas companies to pay up when they harm private property.

These are lessons for congressional Democrats looking to play offense in red-states in 2006, and at least some are already moving forward. For instance, Colorado Rep. Mark Udall (D) and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D) have strong, pro-hunter legislation on the table. The more focus on these issues from Democrats, the better.

"Schweitzer Dems" Cracking Down on Lobbyists

As discussed on this blog before, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) made the all-too-cozy relationship between lobbyists and legislators a major theme in his campaign for governor. In his first few months in office, he introduced legislation to crackdown on the undue influence of lobbyists, and has said he will push a statewide referendum on the matter. Now, Democrats in the U.S. House are following suit.

Roll Call reports that "Rep. George Miller (D-CA) is readying a bill that would bar lobbyists from giving gifts to lawmakers or their aides." Under the Miller proposal, Members of Congress "would be unable to accept gifts of any value." Miller said, "The time has come to make clear this isn’t why we came to town. So let’s just draw a bright line."

As argued here before, this is a terrific strategy for Democrats, especially in light of the scandals surrounding senior Republicans like Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Duke Cunningham (R-CA). Democrats are recasting themselves as the party of reform that wants to clean up politics, instead of continuing to make excuses for a truly corrupt system. If they start pushing bills to publicly finance federal elections, they can make this into THE issue in 2006.

Major Consumer Protection Amendment Passes

Word out of the House Appropriations Committee this afternoon is that Rep. David Obey (D) muscled through an amendment that will prevent credit card companies from using any unrelated negative information contained in an individual’s "credit report" to raise interest rates, unless that negative information was directly related to the individual’s account with that issuer. This would outlaw the so-called "universal default" practice whereby credit card companies jack up your interest rates because, for instance, you've paid an unrelated bill late.

Obey passed his amendment as part of the FY2006 Treasury Postal bill. The measure now moves to the full House and Senate, and then to a conference committee. Be on the lookout to see if the credit card/banking industry gets one of its bought-off Republican cronies to strip out the amendment before the bill passes Congress.

Progressivism vs. "Centrism"

This is the best defense of progressivism vs. the tired old arguments for "centrism" that I've seen in a long time:

"There is one point I want to make clear because all too often I see this discussion of progressivism vs centrism as merely one of gaining tactical advantage in an election. I am a progressive because that is what I believe at my core. It is not some position of convenience to be shed the next time some Washington wonk decides it's more advantageous to be a centrist. And in my experience, voters are much more sophisticated in being able to spot insincerity than those inside the Beltway give them credit for. When American people believe someone is truly fighting for them and their families, they respond."

Exactly. Read the full piece here.

The Progressive Promise

Roll Call and the Hill Newspaper report that "the Progressive Caucus next week will unveil a three-pronged issue agenda designed to appeal to core Democrats and highlight differences with the Republican White House and Congress." This is part of the CPC's efforts "to flex its political muscle within the Democratic Party."

The 57-member group next Tuesday will launch "The Progressive Promise," an alternate agenda to President Bush's "Ownership Society." It will "generally focus on three major themes: economic justice and security, civil rights and civil liberties, and global peace and security."

The Hill notes that "tensions between centrist and liberal factions among House Democrats came to a head in April during a whip meeting in which progressives voiced their displeasure that centrists had worked with Republicans on the bankruptcy reform bill, a measure progressives have vehemently opposed...That disagreement — especially the fact that centrists had urged House leadership to bring the bill to a vote without telling the rest of the party — 'lit the fuse,' a House Democratic aide said."

I'm glad the fuse was lit - and now it looks like the progressives in Congress are going to really start making their voices heard.

How Congress Gives Away Your Financial Info

Kevin Drum is right - in an age where stories about identity theft are exponentially increasing, there's no reason why credit companies should be able to give out your personal financial data to anyone who asks. Americans' privacy rights are increasingly under attack by the financial services industry and the Patriot Act. It's time for Congress to step up and defend our privacy. E-mail Members of the the House Financial Services and the Senate Banking Committee and tell them to pass a law that gives you control of your financial info - not some corporation that will hand it over it to anyone who asks.

Why Reforming the Patriot Act Is So Important

As discussed here, Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) passed an amendment last week forcing law enforcement officials to get proper warrants before obtaining a citizens' library/bookstore records. Why was that amendment so important? Read this to find out.

GOP Attacks Protections of Religious Freedom

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) is someone I am proud to have worked for. Today was just another example of why: he offered an amendment that would put Congress on record against "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing" at the Air Force Academy. This was a standup piece of legislation. Yet, the moment Obey offered it, the Republican lunatics tried to use it to defame Democrat as anti-Christian. "Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," said Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN).

Obey stood his ground, and ultimately forced Hostettler to retract his comments. But it shows the GOP's thinking: they will use anything they can get their hands onto to dishonestly claim Democrats are anti-religion - even if what Democrats are offering actually is designed to PROTECT religious freedom.

Democrats' Self-Promoting Sellouts

It is always depressing to me to see someone who says they speak for "progressives" and then goes out and publishes material in right-wing rags reinforcing all the dishonest, unfair stereotypes about progressives. Ari Melber is a great example of this - someone more concerned about his own self-promotion than about anything resembling progressive politics - even though he says he speaks for us. You can bet he will be the next hire at the New Republic, and bet that he's not enlisting in the military to go fight the wars he is so adamantly for.

Melber published a piece in the right-wing New York Post today basically saying Democrats are weak on national security. His proof? A number of polls showing that rank-and-file Democrats have serious questions about the Iraq War and the War on Terror. What Melber misses is the idea that having these positions doesn't necessarily mean you are "weak" - it just means you have a different definition of security. Polls show most Americans, for instance, think the Iraq War made America LESS secure.

The conflation of Democrats' questions about the Iraq War/War on Terror with a supposed weakness on security issues is, in truth, a purely right-wing creation - something Melber deliberately and disgustingly perpetuates with his piece.

Interestingly, the one poll number he doesn't cite is the one showing that most Americans think the Iraq War wasn't worth it, and that we need an exit strategy from Iraq immediately. And let's not pretend he didn't see those poll numbers - he just dishonestly chose not to address them. Because if he did, it would crush his entire argument that Democrats simply need to be more hawkish. If the population thinks the war was a mistake, and wants a withdrawal, then that means they want a party to articulate that position - not one that simply cowers in the face of right-wing arguments and parrots more hawkish rhetoric. This was exactly what John Kerry never realized in 2004 - and why he paid for it (big surprise - Melber worked on the Kerry campaign).

Finally, Melber will likely say that this is a debate Democrats need to have, and that Democrats have a "national security" gap. But it is the peak of disloyalty to have that debate in as right-wing a rag as the New York Post. And it is shameless for him to use his recognition from Moveon.org to attack the very anti-war movement Moveon.org has worked so hard on (see Melber's tagline at the bottom of his piece, which the right-wing New York Post no doubt was excited to use).

But then, this is what too many people in the Democratic Establishment do - they are more in it for the promotion of their name, than they are in the promotion of the cause. It is the New Republic phenomenon to a T - attack Democrats from the right, as long as it gets media attention, because for the arrogant Democratic glitterati, media attention is more important than the cause. Notice, its not that way on the other side - you don't see Republicans criticizing Republicans in, say, the Nation Magazine.

Melber's piece is just a sad cog in that soulless part of the Democratic Establishment more interested in individual self-promotion that promotion of the collective cause. It is more important, apparently, to Melber to see his name in lights in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and parrot right-wing malarkey, than actually engage in the harder work of trying to redefine the national security debate on our terms.It is ambition for ambition's sake - a perfect reflection of the way Democrats are perceived as a party today: standing for nothing other than their own advancement. Pathetic.

Sanders, Table for One

Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders, who is running for the Senate in 2006, is Josh Marshall's featured guest over at TPMCafe. Check it out here.

Democrats Say 'Viva the Same Consultants!'

After reading this Roll Call piece one thing is clear: few - if any - of the Democrats 2008 prospects read Amy Sullivan's piece about how the millionaire political consulting class has helped run the Democratic Party into the ground. Sadly, it seems we will face another election cycle where top Democrats refuse to use any new blood or new ideas, and instead rely on the same entrenched consultants as always.

A Pathetic Argument for CAFTA

The Washington Post explores both sides of the debate over the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The paper notes that "proponents say the main point is that by generating economic growth, CAFTA will do more for workers in Central America and the Dominican Republic than any law or regulation could achieve." Why? "Because worker rights are more likely to be strengthened when demand for labor is strong, thereby giving workers bargaining power." Sounds like a great argument - until you look at the facts on the ground.

Workers only can have "bargaining power" if they are able to organize into collective bargaining units. But earlier in the piece, the Post undercuts notes that "the region has a long record of hostility to unions." They use the word "region" as a euphemism for the repressive governments and huge corporations operating there that are allowed to run roughshod over people's rights.

"Union affiliates are sometimes threatened or fired and have their names placed on blacklists that make it difficult for them to find other jobs," the Post reports. For instance, "last year a U.S. union official organizing workers in El Salvador was killed." Meanwhile "no independent trade unions have been registered there in the past four years" while "in Guatemala, two collective-bargaining agreements exist in the country's more than 200 textile factories."

In other words, even if there is macro-economic growth in Central America because of CAFTA (which is debatable, at best), the region's hostility to unions will help prevent much of that growth from helping workers, because workers will have little ability to demand much of a share of any of that growth.

Then again, that's likely the reason why Corporate America and the Bush administration is pushing so hard for CAFTA - they know that Central America's hostility to unions means the region will be a prime place to find cheap labor - cheap labor that will allow companies to eliminate more good-paying U.S. jobs.

McClellan's Mom Runs Against Bush's Fmr. LG

Texas State Comptroller Carole Keeyton Strayhorn, who is the mother of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, announced she will challenge Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry in the Republican primary during Perry's re-election. Perry is George W. Bush's former Lt. Governor. Let's see how Scotty answers questions about this one at the next White House press briefing...

The Beltway Media's Sick Sense of Humor

I never quite understood why reporters guffawed when President Bush joked about not finding WMD in Iraq. Only people who never have to deal with the consequences of the administration's vicious lies could laugh. It is as if the war is one big punchline to many reporters.

The Identity Theft Double Whammy

The New York Times reports that MasterCard now admits that "more than 40 million credit card accounts of all brands might have been exposed to fraud through a computer security breach at a payment processing company." If you are worried about this, you should be: Amazingly, Mastercard and other credit card companies will be able to legally profit off this error because of Congress.

What am I talking about? Back in March, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) offered legislation to prevent credit card companies from taking advantage of you if your financial troubles are caused by identity theft. The measure was voted down, thanks to credit card industry-bought politicians. That means MasterCard can lose your information, and be responsible for your identity being stolen and finances ruined. And then - that's right - MasterCard can legally seize on the situation by charging you excessively high interest rates because your credit has been ruined by their negligence.

How to Build a Progressive Bench

Chris Bowers really nails it here. Though we do certainly have some great national spokespeople, progressives lack more because we haven't invested in the kind of infrastructure that the New Democrats/"centrists" have. To be sure - the New Dems/"centrists" have a lot more money at their disposal, because they allow their policies to be more heavily influenced by Corporate America. No one denies that, and it's no secret. But that doesn't fully explain the infrastructure gap.

Luckily, as Bowers notes, that gap is closing with groups like Moveon, Progressive Majority, the Center for American Progress (and, I hope, the Progressive Legislative Action Network). It is also going to close now that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has hired a full-time staffer.

But it's not only going to take infrastructure, it is going to take courageous leaders who are willing to risk their own hides and run for higher office. It's why I'm so thrilled Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is risking his House seat to run for Senate. That's why I would be thrilled if Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) ran for Senate in 2008 against Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH). And that's why we need to encourage progressive leaders at all levels. We need to encourage the ordinary progressive citizen to run for office, the great progressive school board member to run for state legislator, the progressive legislator to run for congress, the progressive congressman to run for Senate or governor, and then ultimately the progressive Senator or Governor to run for president.

And not only do we need to encourage them, we need to support them with new infrastructure, and grassroots support. Let's be clear - by grassroots support I don't just mean volunteering or blogging (although those are important) - I also mean financial contributions. True, not everyone has the ability to give large sums of money, but most people have enough to give a little. Progressives need to not look down on the idea of making an individual contribution to progressive political leaders - an individual donor who is an ordinary citizen may only be able to give a little, but a lot of little contributions goes a long way.

Look at Bernie Sanders - he's able to not accept corporate PAC money because he has built a base of small-donor support among ordinary people (yes, that is a not-so-subtle hint to go over and make a small contribution to his campaign). And until we have public financing of elections, that's the kind of model we need to emulate. Giving what you can to progressive political candidates - no matter how little - needs to be seen as just as much an obligation for being a committed progressive as everything else.

To conclude, progressives should feel emboldened by all the energy and movement building that is going on right now. We've got a long way to go, but things are looking up. It's time to put the nose to the grindstone, and start thinking not in 2 or 4 year terms, but in 10 and 20 year blocks. Two decades from now, let's hope we can all look back on this time and say it was worth all the hard work.

Name that Movie

Director Robert Greenwald (of Outfoxed fame) is working feverishly on his new movie about Wal-Mart. In the spirit of his grassroots ties, Greenwald is asking people to help him come up with a name for the film. I have suggested Unpatriotic: How Wal-Mart Sells Out America - it sort of goes along with the theme of other Greenwald movies like "Uncovered" and "Unprecedented" and "Unconstitutional." But you should offer up your ideas to Robert as well. Go to his website and send him your suggestions.

Fox News Says Congress Helps Terrorists

I don't watch Fox News a lot - so whenever I do, their disgusting brand of propaganda really sticks out to me (I haven't been desensitized to their nefarious tactics, I guess). I was watching Neil Cavuto interview with Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) after Sanders' Patriot Act amendment passed. And within a matter of minutes, the neanderthal Cavuto essentially accused Sanders and those who voted for his bill of helping terrorists.

He asked Sanders, "Are you concerned, though, Congressman, that, if there is another attack on this country, you might have, with the best of intentions, contributed to it?" Now I realize, he packaged his attack in a question. But that doesn't negate the fact that this is unacceptable. He essentially said that, if we are attacked again by terrorists, it would be legitimate to ask whether people who voted to simply make sure the FBI gets warrants on its searches contributed to the attack. Ridiculous.

Cavuto then dropped all effort to hide his right-wing smear efforts, saying "you are going to make authorities more leery of doing any [investigations]...and we will be hit again." (One side question: I wonder if Cavuto would have accused archconservatives like Republican Reps. Butch Otter or Denny Rehberg, both of whom voted for the measure, of helping terrorists?).

Fox News: They Distort, They Deride. Disgusting.

New West on PLAN

New West, the online magazine about (what else) the American West, has a good piece up about the Progressive Legislative Action Network. Check it out.

The Real Question About the Downing Street Memos

With the new revelations of the Downing Street Memos, the media now seems shocked - shocked! - that the President's decision to go to war was predetermined and that he lied to Congress. But let's be honest - the evidence was already out there. To catch you up, see this backgrounder, this piece I wrote for In These Times in August of 2004, and this piece on Condoleezza Rice's brazen lying about the decision to go to war.

Let me reprint the best excerpts, just to really prove my point that all this stuff was already out there long ago:

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]

RICE'S BRAZEN LIES ABOUT THE IRAQ DECISION: Throughout 2002 and early 2003, Rice repeatedly insisted that the Administration sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict and that war was only a last resort. In October of 2002, she said, “We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible” [CBS, 10/20/02]. Then in November of 2002, she said, “We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way” [Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed “we are still in a diplomatic phase here” [ABC, 3/9/03]. However, according to Richard Haas, Bush’s director of policy planning at the State Department, the decision had already been made by July of 2002. When asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. 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. And that was early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the President, in early August, 2002 [in which Powell persuaded Bush to take the question to the U.N.] the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how” [New Yorker, 3/31/03]

In all honesty, the question has never been whether the President misled Congress and the public about when he decided to go to war, even though the media pathetically refused to admit that. The question is why the people who were demanding answers about these lies were marginalized by the media and the political establishment before the war, when the conflict might have been prevented. The other question is whether the media will ultimately marginalize the people who are now demanding the Bush administration answer for its dishonesty, and provide Congress with concrete details about when our troops are coming home.

The Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN)

It's official - we have launched the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN) today. If you know a little about the right-wing's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), you know that conservatives have built up a very powerful infrastructure to pass their agenda at the state level. PLAN is going to counter that by marshalling progressive forces at the state level to fight back.

Make no mistake about it - this is a huge undertaking. But in looking at what's going on in some states, I am confident we can be successful. I am going to be co-chairing the organization with former Montana Senate Minority Leader Steve Doherty. This is going to be a 50-state effort - and we will need all the help we can get. Our kickoff event in Seattle on August 16th is going to feature Senator John Edwards, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, and former San Francisco Mayor and California Speaker Willie Brown. Check out the details at the new website at www.progressivestates.org

"Centrists" & Their Truly Pathetic Attacks

I like Josh Marshall a lot, but some of the people he has posting on his new website really seem to be comfortable vomiting up the most hackneyed conventional wisdom without spending more than 5 seconds actually trying to offer something new or honest. Take this person named Rick Heller. He calls himself a "centrist" (I put it in quotes because the term has become a misnomer). Today, he says - without any evidence whatsoever - that "Liberals are those who are a little softer on national security and perhaps not as budget conscious as we'd like." This is the same kind of garbage that self-serving self-promoters like Peter Beinart spew, while claiming to speak for Democrats. And that's what it is - garbage.

These same "centrists" said they were "stronger" on national security because they supported going to war in Iraq. Well, guess what, that war likely made us MORE insecure. These same "centrists" who say liberals aren't "budget conscious" are some of the same people who support massive corporate tax cuts at a time of budget deficits. They are also some of the same people who refuse to discuss things like excessive military spending, which, by the way, makes our country more insecure because we are wasting money on old systems, instead of new ones for the new War on Terror.

Let me take a page from Mr. Heller and throw it right back in his face. I say many (but not all) politicians/operatives who call themselves "centrists" are actually just people who are a little softer on being willing to take any sort of courageous stand or principled position on anything, and perhaps not as conscious about the effects of their out-of-touch policies on ordinary Americans. Why? Because most of the high-profile "centrists" are insulated in Washington, D.C. where they never have to deal with the real-world consequences of their policy proposals.

You may think that characterization is a little over the top - but it's far more honest and defensible than these "centrists" continuing to vilify people who want politicians to actually reflect average Americans' concerns.

Fixing Health Care: Even the Insured Have a Stake

Think that because you can currently afford private health insurance you don't have to worry about the burgeoning health care crisis in America? Think again - the fact that 85 million Americans go without health care at some point every two years creates higher premiums for everyone else. For the average family, the lack of a universal health care program to prevent massive numbers of uninsured patients costs almost $1,000 a year in additional premiums. In other words, when it comes to health care, we're all in this crisis together.

Government-Funded Propaganda Pushes CAFTA

If you were disgusted by the Armstrong Williams controversy, and nauseated by other columnists being bought off by the government, wait until you see this new piece from the Chicago Tribune.

Here's the excerpt:

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has churned out three dozen radio and television news segments since the first of the year that promote a controversial trade agreement with Central America opposed by labor unions, the sugar industry and many members of Congress, including some Republicans. Amid an intense debate over government-funded efforts to influence news coverage, the prepackaged reports have been widely distributed to broadcast outlets across the country for easy insertion into newscasts."

That's right - it's not enough that your government is pushing a corporate-written trade deal that sells America out. Now they are using your hard-earned taxpayer dollars at a time of budget deficits to fund advertisements that push that agenda.

The Paradigm Shift on "Free" Trade

Ron Brownstein's piece in the LA Times today about the debate over the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is really a piece over a paradigm shift going on within the Democratic Party. As Brownstein notes, the "Democratic Party is continuing to shift away from the free trade positions that President Clinton promoted in the 1990s." The opposition to CAFTA represents "a long-term shift away from the free trade views embodied by Clinton's support for NAFTA." This shift away from listening to Wall Street and towards listening to ordinary Americans is what is more commonly referred to in poltiics as "major progress," and Democrats should be commended.

One thing I find particularly interesting - Brownstein, like most reporters, only seems to think this is a story now that so-called "moderate" Democrats are falling in line. That negates the years-long efforts of people like Reps. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) to force the Democratic Party to shift away from corporate-written "free" trade deals that sell out American workers.

Yes, I am happy that former "free" traders like Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) are now against CAFTA, and I have applauded them. But let's not forget where the real fuel of this movement comes from: progressives. They should be proud of the work they've done - and be encouraged that the Democratic Establishment is repositioning itself. For too long, that Establishment has seemed more comfortable appeasing the fat cats on Wall Street with "free" trade deals that D.C. insiders never have to feel the real-world effects of. That is changing - and that is a good thing.

Proof That Political Hardball Works

As a follow-up to my last post about today's big Democratic victory on the Patriot Act, it is interesting to note how this issue proves the effectiveness of political hardball. Too often, Democrats shy away from trying to enforce party discipline and from really going after the GOP. It's a product of being a little too comfortable in the minority. That attitude has perpetuated a culture among some Democrats that looks down on cracking the whip and playing serious hardball. But as today shows, cracking the whip and playing hardball is exactly what we need more of - and exactly what can bring us real victories.

Take Washington Rep. Adam Smith (D). In 2004, he voted against the same amendment by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) that prohibited the feds from searching your library/bookstore records without a warrant. When he arrived home, he was hammered by constituents and by his local paper. Less than a year later, Smith took to the floor to speak in support of the amendment, and voted for it.

Same thing with California Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D). In 2004, she voted "present" on the amendment, allowing it to die on a 210-210 tie. Like Smith, she was met with outrage. Her local newspaper pummeled her. Today, she voted for the amendment.

And the effort worked in changing some GOP votes. Take Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). When she voted against the amendment in 2004, she was met with a big story in her local press that noted "Musgrave flip-flopped on a crucial vote to amend the USA Patriot Act, apparently due to pressure from House leadership." Today, she didn't make the same mistake, and she voted for the legislation.

This should be a model for the Democratic leadership: When people undermine the party's position on a key issue - whether Republican or Democrat - there should be a no-holds-barred attitude when it comes to getting them in line. That will take a major grassroots efforts, as well as encouragement from national political leaders. This is the kind of politics that is practiced by people who are serious about winning. For too long, that has meant only Republicans. But we need to see more of it like we did today from Democrats.

VOTE VICTORY: Privacy Bill Passes Over Veto Threat

A big victory today in the U.S. House of Representatives - Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) forged a bipartisan coalition to pass his amendment blocking the FBI/Justice Department from using the Patriot Act to search library/bookstore records without a warrant. What's amazing is how many Republicans defied the White House's veto threat to side with almost every Democrat to pass this measure. It shows that if Democrats are willing to show some guts and not be intimidated by the Bush administration's bullying tactics, they can win the day. Let's hope Democrats take heed - and follow the House's lead - when the bill moves over to the Senate.

See how your Member of Congress voted here.

A Question for Tom Friedman

NY Times columnist Tom Friedman offers up his usual fare of intellectually dishonest arguments...and Matt Yglesias has a very good question for him.

VOTE ALERT: Sanders Privacy Bill Draws Veto Threat

In a preview of the kind of gutsy moves he will take as a U.S. Senator, Vermont's Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders is preparing to offer an amendment today forcing the FBI to get a warrant before accessing citizens' reading habits at libraries and bookstore purchases. The USA Patriot Act allows the feds to do these kinds of searches with almost no judicial oversight - Sanders amendment would simply modify that specific provision to force more stringent checks on the federal government's power. Unfortunately, even though the President publicly says "there has got to be a certain sense of privacy," the White House is threatening to veto the bill if the amendment passes.

In 2003, Sanders and a bipartisan group of lawmakers tried to raise these same privacy concerns. The Justice Department opposed it, claimed "We're not going after the average American" and that "we respect the right to privacy" - and then refused to tell Congress how often it had used these new powers to secretly spy on people's reading habits. In fact, Judiciary Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) told the Associated Press "that the Justice Department was sharing so little information, he could not assess how the Patriot Act was working."

The numbers, however, have become clear. In a survey conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, about 550 libraries across the country reported receiving requests over the past year from federal and local investigators for records of patrons. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft soon admitted that he had more than tripled the use of these secretive searches without warrants.

The last time this was voted on, the House GOP leadership held open the vote in the House for 23 minutes while arm-twisting their members to vote against it. The measure lost on a 210-210 tie, meaning this upcoming vote should be very close again, especially considering some of the Democrats who didn't vote for it last time have since been embarrassed into changing their position.

Let's be clear - no one is saying the FBI shouldn't be able to search through library/bookstore purchase records when investigating terrorists. All this measure says is that they should have to get a traditional warrant from a judge to do so - not that hard to do if the feds are investigating the kinds of awful and dangerous terrorists they promise us they are.

This requirement, which the Patriot Act runs roughshod over, is what makes our system different from a third-world police state: we have checks on police power. Getting a real warrant is a pretty basic requirement in a democratic society - and not too much to ask in protecting Americans' civil liberties. Urge your Member of Congress to support this amendment.

Let's Make a Deal with Sen. Joe Biden

Sen. Joe Biden (D) is continuing his self-serving, arrogant and conceited attack on DNC Chairman Howard Dean, this time telling Don Imus that "The Democratic chairman does not speak for me, an elected United States senator. No party official speaks for me anytime, anyplace, under any circumstances. And I think the rhetoric is counter-productive."

All good Democrats and progressives should make a deal with Biden: he can continue stabbing his own party in the back with impunity for his own self-promotion, and say his party doesn't speak for him. In exchange, Biden should agree to never, ever claim to speak for Democrats. Remember, this is a Senator who (among other things) led the fight to pass the bankruptcy bill, voted against limiting the interest credit card companies can gouge consumers with, voted against limiting predatory lending, voted against protecting consumers when their identity is stolen, voted for the Iraq War and voted to confirm Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This says nothing about him perpetually floating his name for President, even though the last time he ran, he got caught pathetically trying to plagiarize people's speeches.

Is it a deal, Joe? We won't speak for you, as long as you never, ever try to claim your record is representative of us. Sounds pretty fair - and believe me, in the long run, the Democratic Party would be getting the better end of the bargain.

You can contact Senator Biden at his website - write him an email or a letter and ask him if he accepts this simple deal.

"Frivolous Asbestos Claims"

"Frivolous asbestos claims..."
- President George W. Bush, 2/3/05

VERSUS

Almost 10,000 Americans die each year due to asbestos exposure. Instead of focusing on helping those victims, Bush's allies on Capitol Hill are pushing a bill to shield companies that exposed workers to asbestos from litigation, saving the industry more than $20 billion in damages it would have to pay.

Food for thought: if George W. Bush or one of his family members worked in a mine and was forced to inhale asbestos, do you think he'd be calling legal actions against the offending employer "frivolous?"

The Crowley Amendment

Rep. Joe Crowley (D) and I have had our differences over the last year, but he's pushing a good amendment right now that Democrats can rally around. Crowley voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq - which was truly pathetic. However, his legislation shows that just because you voted for the war doesn't mean you need to continue being pathetic. My issues with Crowley aside, every single Democrat needs to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, or whatever other legislation that is out there like it.

Kerry CAFTA Amendment Fails on Tie Vote

Word out of the Senate Finance Committee is that Senator John Kerry's (D) critical amendment on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) failed on a 10-10 tie vote. Apparently, all Democrats on the committee voted for the measure (which is terrific), as did one Republican - Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. But tie votes are defeats in committee, so the legislation died. I'll try to get more details.

UPDATE: Here's the AP story on the Kerry amendment.

The Triumph of an Ideological Infrastructure

I have written in the past about just how brilliant conservatives have been in investing in ideological/conviction infrastructure (conservative instutions like the Heritage Foundation) rather than just partisan infrastructure (places like the Republican National Committee). They have createad an army of ideological foot soldiers that are not only conservative, but natural Republicans - killing two birds with one stone.

In reading the New York Times piece about the Heritage Foundation's sophisticated system of incubating young fascists, you can really see how successful they've been. Look at this excerpt:

"Katherine Rogers, a junior at Georgetown, is spending the summer in the Keith and Lois Mitchell room, on the Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Smyth floor, just upstairs from the Norma Zindahl Intern Lounge, which is adjacent to the William J. Lehrfeld Intern Center. Ms. Rogers's father is a longtime Heritage donor, and she is working in donor relations, which she thinks will be useful in her intended career as a pharmaceutical lobbyist."

If you are a right-winger and can get a college student to ASPIRE to be something as disgusting as a drug industry lobbyist, you have done something right. Oh sure, you are helping destroy our country by spreading a destructive "greed is good" mentality - but that's exactly the point for conservatives.

If progressives could replicate this even slightly, and get boatloads of young people to aspire to be, say, union organizers, we'd be on our way to taking this country back.

VT Democrats Unifying Behind Sanders in '06

When Democrats and progressives split the vote and lose to Republicans, that's a bad thing - especially if it happened in a race for an office as important as U.S. Senator. That's why it was good news that 25 prominent Vermont Democrats signed a letter endorsing Vermont's Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders in his 2006 bid to replace retiring Senator Jim Jeffords.

True, some second-tier Democrats continue to threaten to run in an effort to split the vote and throw the race to the GOP. But clearly not the mainstream Democratic leaders in the state. Sanders has long been a fighter for middle-class issues, and has consistently voted with Democrats on key issues in Congress. Democratic efforts to weaken his candidacy are silly, and only help the GOP. Luckily, the state's Democratic leadership realizes this - and is getting on the moving train.

Sanders will be one of the few dyed-in-the-wool progressives in the U.S. Senate - but he's going to need all the help we can give him, as he refuses to take corporate PAC money. Join me in kicking in a few bucks to Sanders' campaign so that we make sure we make the most of this historic opportunity to elect someone to the Senate who speaks for ordinary Americans.

Kerry to Force Key CAFTA Vote

I have not always agreed with Sen. John Kerry (D) on trade and I happen to believe the failure of Democrats to articulate a strong position against corporate-written "free" trade deals has been a disaster for the party since Bill Clinton rammed NAFTA down America's throat in the early 1990s. That's why Kerry's move on Tuesday to force a critical vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is so refreshing. It shows that the Democratic Establishment is starting to figure out that trade is becoming one of the most critical political and economic issues in America.

Kerry's amendment in the Senate Finance Committee is simple - force CAFTA to include stronger provisions to protect American and Central American workers. Specifically, while the bill contains measures to allow corporations to challenge violations of patents and intellectual property, it does not contain the same measures for workers to challenge violations of labor laws. The Kerry amendment simply extends the same protections that corporations get to ordinary workers. To read more about the amendment, see this letter from House Democrats in support of it.

Kerry's amendment is not without precedent. America's trade agreement with Jordan has these protections in it. Thus, the question for Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee is cut and dry: are you going to follow Corporate America's orders and sell out average American workers who are already being ravaged by past trade deals, or are you going to actually stand up for America's middle class?

The vote is scheduled in the Finance Committee for around 10:00 am on Tuesday, June 14. Senators be aware: America is watching to see who you side with.

Democrats Are Waking Up on Iraq

Per my last post about whether Democrats are waking up on the Iraq issue, it appears they actually might be. Keep your eyes on this in the coming weeks.

Iraq: Six in Ten...Will the Democrats Wake Up?

USA Today reports, "Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003." Where is the Democratic Party?

The GOP-Dem Contrast on Worker Rights

There's a lot of talk about the need for a contrast between the two parties. Well, here's a good one. Republicans reward corporate criminals who violate labor laws with more and more federal contracts. Democrats, on the other hand, say there's going to be no taxpayer dollars given over to those who mistreat workers.

The Nation's Megaphone

The Nation magazine is one of the highest-circulation weekly political magazines in America, so I am thrilled that lately I have had the opportunity to write so much for them. This week was no different: check out my regular minority/majority section, a special writeup I did about the Howard Dean dustup, and the interview I did with Radio Nation on the Watergate issue.

The Return of Eugene Scalia

This is just ridiculous:

"Wal-Mart executives met Wednesday with Eugene Scalia, the attorney who will defend the company in a legal battle against self-proclaimed whistle-blower Jared Bowen, a former vice president the company fired in April. Scalia was lead attorney at the U.S. Department of Labor between 2001 and 2003. During that time, he helped implement the very law that Bowen is now using to sue his former employer."

The Vapid Punditry of "Free" Trade

Matt Yglesias says the debate over "free" trade is essentially unimportant. His claim that bad trade deals only mean marginal job loss shows how incredibly vapid some writers can be about economic issues. "Free" trade deals do more than just eliminate jobs, they depress wages and benefits, and create pressure to eliminate environmental, workplace, and wage laws. And politically, the issue is already a key issue in many "red" states.

Either Yglesias doesn't know about these real-world effects of "free" trade policy. Or, from the confines of his own life as a Washington pundit, he simply doesn't care, because it has no real effect on his life. Whichever it is - he's sadly walking down the same path blazed by increasingly irrelevant pontificators like Joe Klein and Tom Friedman.

Straight Talk About Howard Dean

I did an interview on National Public Radio about Howard Dean today, and how the controversy about him shows that Washington, D.C. elites who are used to running the Democratic Party unfortunately view him as a threat. This highlights the big question the party is struggling with: will it be a party run by insulated folks in Washington, or will it be a true party of the grassroots? Here's hoping for the latter.

Listen to the NPR story here.

Incidentally - Sens. Harry Reid (D) and Dick Durbin (D) deserve a lot of credit for standing up for Dean this week.

The Rise of the Schweitzer Democrats

I have written in the past about the need for national lawmakers to follow Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer's (D) lead in making lobbying/ethics reform a national issue - especially in light of the scandals surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R). Now, thankfully, that seems to be happening. Let's hope this rise of reform-minded "Schweitzer Democrats" continues.

86 House Members Stand Up for Ordinary Citizens

Eighty-six Republican and Democratic members of the House of Representatives took a stand today by voting to force the United States to renegotiate the pacts creating the World Trade Organization. As Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told CNN's Lou Dobbs today, that's a major increase from the last time this measure was voted on. That's good news - it means that more Members of Congress are starting to wake up and realize that selling America out with corporate-written "free" trade deals is unacceptable.

See how your Member of Congress voted here.

Redefining "Corporate Governance"

In case you thought the concerns of ordinary, hard-working Americans were even slightly represented by our current government, check out this piece from today's Christian Science Monitor.

Here are the excerpts:

"In what could be the most business-friendly climate since the days of President McKinley, President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress are moving to extend corporate tax breaks, pass pension reforms, allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and limit lawsuits - including a settlement of asbestos litigation...Most encouraging to business lobbyists are prospects for a less visible agenda: a lighter hand on regulation well into the future. The resignation of William Donaldson as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, effective June 30, sent a signal to Wall Street that the post-Enron crackdown on corporate accounting tricks may be winding down. His proposed replacement, Rep. Christopher Cox (R) of California, is expected to be open to business concerns."

This redefines the term "corporate governance." It used to mean how corporations ran themselves. It really means how corporations run America.

No Montana Commonsense in the U.S. House

Here in Montana, Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) crafted a law to force food processing companies to provide country-of-origin labels on their meat. It's a commonsense, pro-consumer measure that simply gives people the information they deserve when deciding on their food choices. In Congress, though, anything "commonsense" or "pro-consumer" these days is usually overrun by piles of corporate money. And yesterday was no exception: the House voted down bipartisan legislation to enact a federal country-of-origin label law.

Hmmm...is there any doubt that the huge amount of food processing industry campaign cash given to Members of Congress had anything to do with this insulting vote? Of course not. Just look at Rep. Henry Bonilla (R), chairman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Committee. As one of the most corrupt, bought-off lawmakers in Congress, he has made a career out of sucking campaign cash out of the food processing industry that he regulates. Now, thanks to him, American consumers will continue to be denied basic information about what they are buying at the grocery store.

Traveling...

Will be traveling today...posting will be light...

The Myth That Populism & Anger Lose Elections

One of the big arguments by the Beltway elite against Democrats embracing a new economic populism says a political party must always be FOR something, not just against things - and always avoid any tinge of populist anger. Joe Klein's column this week railing against populism epitomized this argument perfectly. As he wrote, "pessimism, anger and unsubtle divisiveness tend to be total nonstarters in American politics" (this line of reasoning, by the way, is not limited to Klein - it is conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C.'s elite media/political circles). Now, I'm not saying Democrats need to fully embrace a politics of "pessimism, anger and divisiveness" - but the idea that they should be so afraid of that kind of populist politics because it doesn't work just doesn't pass history's smell test.

Does anyone really believe that the modern Republican Party - which now controls all three branches of government - hasn't ascended to power on "pessimism, anger and divisiveness" and on being against things? Think about it. Their party is based on these tenets: government is bad (pessimism/against government), you are being ripped off by taxes (anger against taxes), those evil "others" - minorities, gays, immigrants, liberals, etc. - don't share your values (divisiveness/against the "other"). Similarly, Newt Gingrich's Contact With America was all about pessimism, anger and divisiveness. Hell, Tom Frank's book is ALL ABOUT the success of what he calls "backlash" conservatism. That term is another way to describe transforming people's pessimism about their situation into a populist anger against the system, and using it for the GOP's divisive purposes.

To be sure, the GOP has expertly crafted its populism in a way that allows them to raise huge amounts of corporate cash. And the new form of Democratic populism that is bubbling up will never be able to thread that kind of needle - which is why so many of the party's insiders in Washington are nervous about it, and why, in order for it to succeed, the grassroots must continue re-emerging as a significant force in Democratic politics.

But the idea that voters are inherently turned off by any form of populism because it might be construed as angry is a very, very poor argument from very, very out-of-touch people who either haven't talked to average working stiffs at the local diner, or haven't spent much time thinking about what's really happened over the last 20 to 30 years in this country.

Contemporary American political history is a history OF populism and OF the Republican Party becoming a channel for average people's (albeit often misdirected) anger. The sooner Democrats face that reality and start to become comfortable being a conduit for at least some of the anger that average Americans justifiably feel at being ripped off by health care companies, high energy prices, "free" trade deals, corrupt government and corporate greed, the sooner the party will be on its way to being a more relevant force in our country's politics.

Judge Demands Answers In Bush's Tobacco Move

Earlier today, I noted that the Bush administration's retreat from the case against Big Tobacco was clearly motivated by cold, hard campaign cash. And now the federal judge overseeing the case seems to be thinking the same thing. Specifically, the Associated Press reports the judge questioned whether "additional influences" prompted the government's withdrawal, especially since the Washington Post earlier reported that "the Justice Department offered little explanation" for its actions.

Along with $10 million in tobacco industry campaign contributions to the GOP, Thinkprogress notes another possible "influence": namely, the fact that the government's lead lawyer in the case used to be a partner at a big law firm that represented tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds.

As I said before, this is pay-to-play at its worst. It smells as bad as the smoke from the cheap cigars that Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are probably smoking in celebration of their brazen giveaway. Let's hope the judge in the case doesn't let the Bush administration get away with it.

What Does Outrage Mean Anymore?

It's a good question. Read to find out.

NOW & THEN: Reporters' Double Standard

The New York Times top White House reporter lies about her paper's coverage of Presidential lies. In the process, she shows us just how much journalism has gone down hill in the last few years.

NOW:
"[Journalists] can’t just say the President is lying."
- NY Times White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller on covering President Bush, 11/4/04

THEN:
"The judge said the lawyers were entitled only to fees and expenses for the period beginning Dec. 23, 1997, when President Clinton first lied about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky."
- NY Times news report, 7/30/99

What this really shows is the double standard that has evolved in the press. Reporters were/are more than happy to declaratively say President Clinton lied about a personal sex scandal (which he did). But they are simply unwilling to say the Bush administration lied in taking America to war - no matter how clear the evidence that he did.

$10 Million & the Great Tobacco Capitulation

In 2001, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales told CNN that "the White House drives a lot of policy on issues that affect the tobacco industry" and that "we want to foster an atmosphere of cooperation" with Big Tobacco. The industry took the hint: over the next five years, Big Tobacco threw about $10 million of campaign cash at the Republican Party in an effort to define what "cooperation" really means. And we see the fruits of their labor today: the Bush administration has announced it has reduced by 92% the amount the government is seeking in damages from the industry for its efforts to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking.

This is one of the most egregious examples of pay to play - one that shocked even the industry itself. "We were very surprised," said Dan Webb, lawyer for Altria Group's Philip Morris USA and the coordinating attorney in the case. "They've gone down from $130 billion to $10 billion with absolutely no explanation. It's clear the government hasn't thought through what it's doing." Meanwhile, "the Justice Department offered little explanation."

I'll give you the explanation: The Bush administration is setting a new legal precedent that says if you are an industry that has lied to America and caused vast damage to our health care system, all you have to do is cut a nice fat check to the Republican Party, and suddenly, your troubles are over. You can bet President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales are lighting up a big, tobacco-stuffed stogie to celebrate their move.

Ignoring Bipartisan Backlash to the Patriot Act

383 communities that represent 61 million Americans have passed resolutions demanding Congress limit the most offensively invasive provisions of the Patriot Act that tresspass on Americans' privacy rights. These include some of the "reddest," most conservative places in America like Idaho, Montana, and Alaska. Yet, incredibly, the Associated Press reports a Senate committee quietly "expanded powers [under the Act] to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury."

Democrats should be particularly ashamed of their colleagues who supported this. Privacy issues are one of the GOP's biggest vulnerabilities - especially in conservative and swing states (Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold actually aired ads in the swing state of Wisconsin trumpeting his opposition to the Patriot Act). And thanks to bipartisan legislation in the House, Democrats even have cover to go after Republicans on this issue. Yet they buckled. Will anything change?

VOTE ALERT: Will Congress Stand With Workers?

Happy with a skyrocketing U.S. trade deficit? Pleased with more and more good-paying jobs being outsourced to cheap overseas labor markets? Thrilled that corporate patents and copyrights are protected on the international market, but not human rights, environmental regulations and wage standards? Excited that corporations can use international trade organizations to undermine the sovereignty of your state? Then you are either a corporate executive, or a business lobbyist working feverishly to make sure Congress votes against a resolution tomorrow that would force the United States to renegotiate its unfair trade policies.

That's right, a bipartisan resolution is scheduled to hit the floor of the U.S. House tomorrow asking the President to withdraw the United States from the destructive World Trade Organization and renegotiate the pact that created the business-dominated body so that it treats American workers better. This is truly a critical vote: will Congress continue taking its orders exclusively from Corporate America and vote this measure down, even though polls show Americans want a new trade policy? Or will it take a stand on behalf of ordinary working stiffs and say enough is enough, its time to re-evaluate this destructive "free" trade policy foisted on America by the fat cats on Wall Street?

Stay tuned. The bill is H.J. Res. 27. Keep your eye on it, and keep your eye on how your Member of Congress votes tomorrow. It is not expected to pass, but it is an important statement that will show us exactly which Members of Congress stand with ordinary Americans.

With Friends Like These, We Don't Need the GOP

Just as Democrats were building serious unity in opposing President Bush's latest corporate-written free trade deal, we see this drivel. With friends like these, we really don't need Republicans, do we?

Interestingly, the DLC is now at odds with their own congressional adherents, who have said they will vote against CAFTA. That's great news. Why should Democrats oppose CAFTA? See here, here, here, here and here for reasons.

Dems Move to Draw the Economic Contrast

Last month, a post of mine prompted the New York Times to break the story that the Bush administration was attempting to cut food stamps for recipients of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Now, Democrats are moving to fix the problem with a new bill in Congress.

New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt (D) is pushing a bill that would specifically address the problem - and force the Bush administration to cease and desist from cutting off food aid to the poor. Every Democrat should be on this bill to make a statement that the administration's economic war on ordinary Americans is unacceptable. This is a bill that starts drawing a bright line between Democratic and Republican priorities. That's exactly the kind of thing the party needs to be doing as we gear up for the 2006 election season.

Corporate Infestation in a State Capital Near You

Want to know how Corporate America rams its agenda through state legislatures all over the country? Read this story at Stateline today - it describes the "American Legislative Exchange Council" (ALEC), which is a front-group for Big Business to push its legislative agenda.

As the article notes, "the organization is composed of 2,400 conservative state lawmakers, plus representatives of some 300 corporations." The organization enlists corporate lobbyists to write model legislation which is then pushed by right-wingers in state legislatures. They have 10 "task forces", "each of which is co-chaired by a legislator and an industry representative." The article points out that while ALEC keeps its donor list secret, "some of ALEC's corporate members and funders include Wal-Mart Stores, the Chlorine Chemistry Council [and] insurance and financial services corporation AIG" - which is under investigation for fraud.

I guess "front-group" is really a misnomer - ALEC doesn't do much to hide the fact that their overarching goal is to blur the line between state legislators and Big Business to the point where lawmakers are acting as corporate agents and introducing corporate-written legislation in state capitals throughout America. For too long, our side has watched as ALEC has become more and more powerful - but that is about to change.

Conviction or Triangulation?

Conviction or triangulation - that is the big question Democrats seem to be in the process of dealing with.

Bush Energy Bill Gives Millions to Former Enron Execs

This is truly unbelievable. Public Citizen has discovered a provision buried in President Bush's energy bill "that provides hundreds of millions of dollars worth of federal loan guarantees for a power project apparently to be built by four former Enron executives." In fact, "one of the former executives is Thomas White, former head of Enron’s retail and energy trading in California during the energy crisis who later served as President Bush’s Secretary of the Army." See the full report here.

Who put this provision in there? Was it the White House? Or was it one of the White House's allies in Congress? The American people deserve to know before this bill is passed.

When the Homefront Calls, the GOP Attacks

Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) has taken the courageous step of demanding the Bush administration return Montana's National Guard troops from Iraq to help deal with the upcoming fire season (which is expected to be bad). The move highlights how the Iraq War is draining resources from the homefront in critical ways. Unfortunately, the GOP has responded with pigheadedness and attacks.

Specifically, the Pentagon has rejected the request, and the GOP has unleashed its local partisans to attack Schweitzer. What are they accusing him of? Having the nerve to be governor, yet still be a regular guy by wearing jeans. Pathetic.

Note to Dems: If Possible, Shut Bob Strauss Up

In today's Roll Call newspaper, former DNC Chairman Robert Strauss pens a long op-ed defending the lobbying industry, which he has made so much money off of. He says "the growth of lobbying has been a healthy process with positive results." Note to Democrats: this is neither true, nor a winning message. Rather than follow Strauss - the embodiment of the corrupt revolving door - follow people like Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) who is doing everything he can to crackdown on lobbyists' abuses.

Joe Klein's Elitist "Party of Insanity"

Rarely can I bring myself to get through the usual Joe Klein column - there is only so much insular punditry from the confines of New York and Washington I can take on a weekly basis. But today, a friend of mine said I had to read Klein's new piece. By the time I was through reading it, I was literally laughing out loud at how the chattering class can keep regurgitating their own self-serving crap, no matter what the hard data says.

The basic premise of Klein's piece is that populism doesn't work - even though polls say Americans want the parties to start speaking up for their economic rights, and even though Democratic politicians in "red" states are using populism to win where the national party has failed. Klein essentially says America needs "a Party of Sanity" which he defines as one "representing the pragmatic centrism of the business and professional elites." Notice that just like other bloviating blowhards, he uses the term "centrism" yet provides absolutely no evidence that the Big Business agenda is anywhere near what mainstream America supports. Why? Because there is no evidence. He then says the "path out of the current morass is for the Party of Sanity to regain control of the political process" from the grassroots.

If that wasn't arrogant and elitist enough for you, he then disparages populism, saying people who want the parties to be more populist "tend to believe that the system is rigged by dark and powerful forces that prevent the little guy from getting ahead." He says this as if it is inaccurate and conspiratorial.

Apparently, Klein hasn't been reading his New York Times or LA Times over his breakfasts at the Regency Hotel lately. If he had, he might have seen the 9 part series the Times is running on economic class in America, or some other interesting stories. In case you have a moment to step away from your schmoozing at the country club, Joe, here some of the highlights:

- "New research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than. In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined."

- "The share of the nation's income earned by those in the uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980...The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell."

- "Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."

- Corporate profits are skyrocketing while wages are stagnating. As just one example, the LA Times reported "CEOs at California's largest 100 public companies took home a collective $1.1 billion in 2004, up almost 20% from 2003. That compares with the 2.9% raise that the average California worker saw last year."

In other words, Joe, the data shows the system IS rigged, no matter how much you and your rich friends are desperate to make Americans believe it isn't. You don't even have to believe these statistics either, Joe. If you spent a day or two to actually leave the plush confines of your office, drive out to the American heartland, and talk to AVERAGE people, maybe you'd suddenly be embarrassed at how out of touch with reality you really are.

It's true - Klein has long been considered more of a punchline than a serious journalist. But still, I am always amazed at how people like Klein and his buddy Tom Friedman have absolutely no problem denigrating ordinary citizens who simply want to see their government start standing up for the middle class. You might think they would be aware of how patently transparent it looks to be a high-paid cushy columnist ripping on the desires of ordinary working stiffs. But apparently they are so consumed by their power lunches, hobnobbing with corporate CEOs, and palm pressing with powerful politicians that they have become totally and completely oblivious to their own arrogant and insulated stupidity.

CNN Breaking News: CNN Is Great

War in Iraq. Health care crisis. Energy prices skyrocketing. Does Bill Schneider, CNN's chief political analyst, have nothing better to do with his time?

Better question: With this kind of crackerjack reporting, does CNN really wonder why its ratings are plummeting?

My Take on Howard Dean

I've been closely observing Howard Dean for a lot longer than most national political watchers. I first ran into him when I worked for Vermont's Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders. There, I got a close-up look at his governing style. Then, like everyone else, I watched his run for President and DNC Chairman. I'll be really honest - for a long time, I had mixed feelings about him. For many reasons, I never really got on the Dean 2004 bandwagon, even though I was impressed with him in a lot of ways (I think it was mainly because I had trouble pinning him down ideologically). But in recent months, I really have been impressed with him. And after spending some time with him yesterday at the DNC's Western Caucus meetings here in Helena, I've decided my recent inklings about him really are true. Dean, even with his minor imperfections, is very good for the national Democratic Party.

Dean governed Vermont as a moderate, but ran for President as a populist progressive - which tended to confuse me. But when his progressive message caused controversy and when the media pressure was on for him to abandon that message, he essentially stuck to his guns in trying to give voice to the progressive fight.

In doing so, of course, Democratic "centrists" viciously attacked him during the Presidential campaign (I put "centrists" in quotes because I think the term is a misnomer). And now, former GOP/Christian Coalition operatives like Marshall Wittman - who hilariously call themselves Democratic "centrists" and pretend to speak for Democrats - continue to underhandedly attack Dean even today. These "centrists" think they do themselves a favor with such disloyalty. But what they have actually done is unify a strong contingent of the Democratic base around Dean. For his part, Dean understands that these centrist elites will never be his base of support within the party - nor should a chairman want them to be. So he has a political incentive to stay on the populist progressive message as DNC Chairman. In other words, the grassroots and the progressive wing of the party have become crucial to his political career/survival - and that's who he is going to fight for. Say what you will about his transformation from governor to DNC Chairman, I'm glad he's on progressives' side.

Certainly, that is scary to the insulated Washington, D.C. Democratic establishment. For years, these insiders have been able to handpick chairmen to make sure the party doesn't move back to its grassroots, middle-class roots. That explains their anger at him, and their subsequent attacks.

Fortunately, Dean is not responding in kind. In his speech yesterday to party officials here in Helena, he took the high road, going out of his way to stress that the party is a big tent. But he also made clear that he understands the party needs to go in a new, more populist direction. In talking with him one-on-one, I really got the sense that he's serious about this.

I was also, frankly, impressed with his candor. Quite unexpectedly, I ended up sitting next to him at dinner where he was peppered with questions from folks at our small table. He never tried to dodge a question (and there were some tough ones). Far from arrogant or prickly (as he was unfairly described as during the campaign), he was genuinely interested in learning from the grassroots people out in the field.

It's true, some of Dean's best qualities are double edged swords. Outspokenness can sometimes lead to mistakes. Candor can sometimes lead to giving voice to a truth the political Establishment just doesn't want to admit. But that's really no excuse for high-profile Democrats to publicly attack him in the press as they have recently.

First and foremost, Dean's candor is a quality the Democrats need more of - how many polls do we have to see showing the public thinks Democrats stand for nothing? Secondly, the party is supposed to be a team. When top officials go to the media and attack their chairman, they do nothing but weaken the party as a whole. Can you imagine the Republicans ever doing such a thing? No, because they wouldn't. Finally, Democrats criticizing Dean for being too tough on the Republicans seem to forget that, in some ways, that's a DNC Chairman's role. Sure, some of his comments weren't perfect. But one of the chairman's key jobs is to put the wood to the GOP in a way that elected officials can't.

Again, Dean's not a perfect person (is anyone?), and he has a long path ahead of him in his new job. But all in all, he was a damn good choice for DNC Chairman. He seems to understand his limits and understand regional sensitivities both to his own image, and that of the national Democratic Party. Most importantly, he - more than anyone else - can re-open the party to its own grassroots, and help project a new image of conviction that Democrats desperately need. That can be nothing but good in the long run for a Democratic Party that has become all too dominated by insulated elites.

This Headline Says It Best

In case you were wondering who SEC-nominee Chris Cox will be representing in his new position, just read this headline.

Everything You Wanted to Know About CAFTA

Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) has a new special site devoted to the struggle over the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Check it out - this fight is starting to really heat up.

Tom Friedman's Hatred of Workers

The disdainful contempt with which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman looks at average people is really stunning. His newest column should be seen as an absolute insult to ordinary working people everywhere.

That may sound surprising, considering his piece is on Europe. But just look at what he says. He chastises the French for "trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day." He says that trying to preserve that work week means Europeans are "los[ing] their appetite for hard work." Essentially, he's saying that Europeans are lazy because their people support workers' rights.

Look, I have my problems with the Europeans - but that's not what this is about. In this column, Friedman's total insulation from the tribulations of hard working people - and his hatred for ordinary workers - really comes into relief. Because places like China and India have little worker protections, he is saying the industrialized world has to follow suit, or their people are lazy. If Friedman were around at the turn of the century, you could well imagine that we'd be reading columns of his where he criticizes American workers for pushing laws that outlaw sweatshops or child labor, and created the 40-hour work week and the weekend.

Friedman may call his column "Race to the Top" - but what he's describing in no uncertain terms is a race to the bottom. I'd like to see him work 70 hours a week at a minimum wage job while trying to balance family needs, and then see whether his attitude might change a bit from the well-paid confines of his cushy job as a columnist.

Dems & the Self-Defeating Worship of Elites

Despite polls showing Americans overwhelmingly believe the Iraq War was a mistake, pundit Matt Yglesias justifies Democratic Party still flailing around for a real position on the situation. He writes, "Far too large a proportion of the party's rank-and-file are anti-war for a nominee to position herself as a credible Iraq hawk. Conversely, far too large a proportion of the party's national security elites were pro-war to put together a viable anti-war team."

Maybe it's just the mountain air out here in Montana...but I just can't get over how insulated D.C. pundits can spout off and claim that a handful of Beltway elites should be viewed with the same significance as the millions of people out in the American heartland who constitute the "grassroots." Beyond even the national party's lack of a position on the war issue, this is a classic symbol for what's wrong with many Washington, D.C. insiders who claim to speak for progressives: they look at ordinary people with disdain, while self-importantly pumping up the significance of the elites that they are surrounded with. It is exactly the opposite of what the Republicans do. It is arrogant, it is pathetic, and it is, well, elitist - and it's one of the big reasons national Democrats keep losing elections.

GOP Opens Door for Dems on Public Financing

This is pretty big news: the GOP Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell, has endorsed legislation that would publicly finance state elections there. Though there aren't yet details of her proposal, she's talking tough, and it seems real. She said, "Get rid of political action committee dollars, get rid of state contractor dollars to campaigns. Get rid of the lobbyists' money."

As I have written before, Democrats must seize the mantle of reform and push hard for public financing of elections all over America, and in Congress. The lobbyist scandals surrounding Tom DeLay makes this a perfect time - and now we have a high-profile Republican governor pushing the issue, with backing from people like Sen. John McCain (R). Now is the time for Democrats to make the issue their own.

Organized Money vs. Organized People

In many states, workers are under attack by right-wing extremists who seem willing to do anything to pay back their wealthy corporate campaign contributors. They have found their direction from the top, as the Bush administration has long been waging a war on working people.

Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R), for example, just vetoed a package of pro-worker bills. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) and Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R) all rescinded collective bargaining rights for their state workers. And California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is waging a full scale assault on unions.

That doesn't mean workers are taking this sitting down - they are fighting back where they can. In Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed a package of pro-worker legislation into law. And with the Bush administration refusing to raise the federal minimum wage, more states are taking the matter into their own hands and raising the rates themselves.

Organized money, of course, will always be powerful - that will never change. And the corrupt politicians who are waging this war on working people have a very simple goal that transcends their specific policies: vilify unions and make "labor" a bad word in America so that the corporate agenda has a legislative justification. But the fact that workers are fighting back where they can is encouraging, and it sets up what is becoming an epic battle for America's economic soul. Will our country continue down the path towards another early-20th century Gilded Age where corporate barons ran everything? Or can we turn it around and start making our government and our economy work for workers? That's the fundamental question - and the struggle for the answer is clearly on.

The People I Read and Listen To

When I point out problems with today's national press corps, I always try to let it be known that there are still some good reporters out there. And after my American Prospect piece today, some folks have asked me which journalists I read and trust. So in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I figured I would follow up my media criticism with a list of some journalists I think are actually doing a terrific job.

Remember, this is a list of reporters, not opinion writers, and in no special order. They are the people/publications I stop to regularly read not because they agree with my political perspective (many of them don't), but because they cover the serious issues:

- Knight Ridder's Washington, D.C. Bureau: no news organization come close to the kind of serious reporting these guys do on the most important issues.

- Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker: No matter what criticism he gets, he still breaks real stories.

- David Cay Johnston, New York Times: The best tax reporter in America. Period.

- Daniel Gross, Slate: Always has the incisive take on the days economic news that other reporters miss.

- Robert Pear, New York Times: The longtime expert on health care and labor issues as they relate to Congress.

- Bill Moyers/PBS Frontline crew: This one doesn't need an explanation.

- Ellen Schultz, Wall Street Journal: The best reporter in America when it comes to the unglamourous yet critical task of covering retirement/pension issues.

- Matt Taibbi, New York Press/Rolling Stone; Frank Rich, New York Times; James Wolcott, Vanity Fair: These are the few big journalists willing to write honestly about how big of a joke the national media has become.

- Tom Edsall, Washington Post: One of the few who actually takes reporting on the connection between money and politics seriously, and doesn't treat it like a punchline.

- Dana Milbank, Washington Post: Where other reporters cower, he has never, ever been afraid to challenge the White House.

- Connie Schultz, Cleveland Plain Dealer: She won a Pulitzer Prize for taking on the powers that be. Enough said.

- David Rogers, Wall Street Journal; Dan Morgan, Washington Post: These guys are among the last to do the kind of hardscrabble reporting on Capitol Hill politics that gives people a glimpse into what really goes on in Congress.

- Businessweek Magazine: People who need accurate information-based news in order to make a living aren't interested in what's on the President's Ipod, and they aren't interested in self-important punditry. Businessweek caters to people who want real news, about real issues.

- Ron Brownstein, LA Times: I don't always love what he has to say, but he is probably the best-informed television pundit/news analyst out there. Yes, he (like most in his genre) is a little too obsessed with the horse race of it all - but I respect him because he's serious about doing his homework and he always provides a wealth of information.

- Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: I have trouble watching television chat shows anymore because they have become so inane - but Olbermann does his best to cut through the crap and tell it like it is.

- William Greider, The Nation: Putting aside the fact that I agree with his political slant, it's hard for anyone to argue that this guy is not a great writer. You may not agree with him, or you may always agree with him, but he's always interesting, and he's always covering the most important issues.

- Michael Hersh, Newsweek: While Iskioff gets most of the headlines (and is a good reporter, despite the recent flap), Hersh doesn't get as much ink. But he's a very good reporter - especially his stuff about national security issues.

- Ted Koppel, Nightline: Again, no description needed. He asks tough questions. Period.

- Bill O'Reilly, Fox News: JUST KIDDING! (Did you really think I was serious?)

This is by no means a comprehensive list - it's really just off the top of my head. But as I put it together, I realized something quite interesting. Most of these reporters are issue/beat reporters or investigative journalists, meaning they have a specific ISSUE focus of their work. That stands in contrast to the general "political" reporters whose main focus is covering the horse race and actually IGNORING issues. It is these "political" reporters where the problem really lies - these people have no expertise in any ISSUE at all. Their expertise is on the soap opera. And its a big part of the why much of today's national political coverage is vapid.

To be sure, there are many more decent journalists working in the trenches. And that's really the larger point than a list. Few argue that the national press corps as a whole has done great damage to American journalism and to our political system. But in every barrel of rotten apples, there are still some good ones. And they should give us hope that things still can change for the better.

NEW: Watergate's Lost Legacy

After watching all the media coverage about Deep Throat, I put together a short article called "Watergate's Lost Legacy" for the American Prospect. It's out today - check it out.

The Cox in the SEC's Henhouse

AP reports that President Bush has chosen California Republican Rep. Chris Cox (R) as his nominee to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Big Business, still looking to evade even the weak post-Enron reforms, could not have asked for a better corporate shill than Cox.

During his career, Cox has taken more than $640,000 from the securities, insurance, finance and commercial banking industry.

He has also led the fight to protect Big Business from shareholder actions that would have forced companies to start following the law. As the Orange County Register reported on 7/20/02, in 1995 "Cox took a lead in legislation" called the Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act that was designed to limit shareholder lawsuits against companies. As one market analyst notes, Cox's bill "paved the way for corporate chieftains basically to lie without fear of being sued." Though President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill, Cox followed Corporate America's orders and helped make sure the veto was overridden.

On Enron, it was much the same thing. The Los Angeles Times reported on 1/22/02 that Cox told reporters he "rejected the notion that Enron's meltdown should cause Congress to rethink deregulation." He said this even though his state had been gouged by energy companies, thanks to deregulation.

To Bush's fat cat donors, this nomination is a salute that when it comes to a serious crackdown on corporate crime, there's nothing to worry about - it's going to be business as usual. Unfortunately for the rest of us who want to see a more honest system, this nomination is just another slap in the face.

Why Sen. George Allen Should Give a &?#$!

A few months ago I did a post noting that Virginia's U.S. Sen. George Allen (R) said "I don't give a sh-t about Community Development Block Grants." Via Matt Yglesias, I just saw this article from the Richmond Times Dispatch showing exactly why Sen. Allen - and others - should give a sh-t about these grants and the proposed cuts to them. Check it out.

Another Sign of Permanent Minority Status

If, as a progressive, you can get through this article without vomiting, more power to you.

Here are the lowlights:

"A significant number of votes in the GOP-controlled House are passing with broad Democratic support...The recent votes with Democratic support include issues backed by pro-business lobbyists: $70 billion in tax-cut provisions in the fiscal 2006 budget resolution, tightening rules for people who file for bankruptcy protection, and limiting class-action lawsuits. Democrats have also lined up with Republicans on some issues important to social conservatives."

Some days I think Democrats could take back the majority soon...but after reading things like this, I reconsider...As the Big Lebowski said, "With friends like these..."

NEW MOVIE: Wal-Mart & The High Cost of Low Price

My good friend Robert Greenwald (of Outfoxed fame) today publicly announced that his next documentary will be about Wal-Mart's unpatriotic behavior. Check out information about the movie, see the trailer, and help Robert collect as much information as possible about Wal-Mart.

It's no secret that Wal-Mart sells out average Americans. Though the company executives have always tried to wrap themselves in the flag, those PR efforts have been exposed as total shams. Wal-Mart is one of the big beneficiaries of corporate-written "free" trade deals with China - using those deals to help eliminate U.S. manufacturing jobs and exploit China's slave-like conditions. Not surprisingly, the company is now aggressively lobbying to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) - a deal that once again sells out American workers.

Wal-Mart also drives down U.S. wages. It pays its own workers so poorly, in fact, they are among the biggest recipients of welfare. This, at the same time it uses huge campaign contributions to coerce politicians to shower the company with taxpayer handouts.

It takes a lot of guts for Robert to go up against Wal-Mart - but everything he's done has been a success. I have high hopes this will be one of his best movies yet. But he's going to need our help, as this is an independent movie. Join me in making a small financial donation to the film so that it gets made as quickly as possible and gets out to as many people as possible.

Protect Your Kids' Personal Information

Did you know that President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act allows high schools to turn over personal student information - including that of minors - to military recruiters, often without the knowledge of their parents? It's true - and there's something you can do about it.

Attend an Opt Out event in your local community on Wednesday, June 1st, and change this. See Working Assets' campaign page for details and local listings.