As the next Congressional fight over payroll tax extensions and unemployment benefits and pipelines gets set up in the next few weeks for either its final chapter or to be kicked down the road a bit farther, one or the other, you're going to hear a lot from our Republican friends about how much they value work and workers; most especially, they'll tell you, they value American jobs for American workers.
After all, they'll say, creating American jobs is the most important thing of all.
But if we were to look back over just the last few months, some would tell us, we could quickly find examples of how Republicans promote ideas that don't seem to value work or workers at all, much less American jobs.
Well as it turns out, "some" seem to be right; to illustrate one of those examples we'll look back a month or two or three to a time some Republicans might wish was long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
We gotta grow some jobs, and that's a fact, and we probably aren't going to be able to do it with big ol' jobs programs funded by the Federal Government, what with today's politics and all, and that means if this Administration wants to stay in the jobs game they're going to have to find some smaller and more creative ways to do it.
They are also going to have to come up with ideas that are pretty much "bulletproof", meaning that they are so hard to object to that even Allen West and Louie Gohmert will not want to be on record saying "no no no!"; alternatively, solutions that work around the legislative process entirely could represent the other form of "bulletproof-ery".
Well, I have one of those "maybe bulletproof" ideas for you today, and it has to do with how "Made in USA" the things are that our Government buys.
It was just a couple of nights ago that Keith Olbermann was challenging us, in one of his "Special Comments", to rise up in the streets and take back this country.
He pointed out that the only way those on the left were going to be able to fight against those who are looking to get all "Tea Party" is to be as angry and as organized and as aggressive as the Tea Party community, and if we're smart, we'll take him up on that challenge.
But if you really want to push "professional" Democrats to the left, most especially this President, and you want to do it in time to impact the '12 cycle, the only way to do it is to run a candidate in primary contests that either moves the conversation your way...or leaves you with a surprising new Candidate.
And right here, right now, we actually have a chance to do exactly that - and that's why, in today's discussion, I'm going to challenge Olbermann right back.
Stanley Greenburg is a bit more to the right than I am, but he does make some very good points about
Why Voters Tune Out Democrats
Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don't trust the Democrats to carry out those promises.
SNIP
When presented with vivid descriptions of income inequality in America, people are deflated, rather than empowered to bring change. In surveys, they tell me that they think the politicians and the chief executives are "piggybacking off each other." They think that the game is rigged and that the wealthy and big industries get policies that reinforce their advantage. And they do not think their voices matter.
That government and the elite appear blithely to promote globalization and economic integration, while the working population loses income, makes the frustration more intense.
Our research shows that the growth of self-identified conservatives began in the fall of 2008 with the Wall Street bailout, well before Mr. Obama embarked on his recovery and spending program. The public watched the elite and leaders of both parties rush to the rescue. The government saved irresponsible executives who bankrupted their own companies, hurt many people and threatened the welfare of the country. When Mr. Obama championed the bailout of the auto companies and allowed senior executives at bailed-out companies to take bonuses, voters concluded that he was part of the operating elite consensus. If you owned a small business that was in trouble or a home or pension that lost much of its value, you were on your own. As people across the country told me, the average citizen doesn't "get money for free." Their conclusion: Government works for the irresponsible, not the responsible.
Everything they witness affirms the public's developing view of how government really works. They see a nexus of money and power, greased by special interest lobbyists and large campaign donations, that makes these outcomes irresistible. They do not believe the fundamentals have really changed in Mr. Obama's Washington.
SNIP
FYI, Stanley Greenburg is husband to U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd District).
I think Harry Belafonte sums up President Obama's problem and the problem of centrist Democrats the best...
"There has never been such a void in moral truth as it now exists," Belafonte said. "And what the expectation has been for many of us was that Barack Obama would bring to the table a great sense of moral fortitude. I think were he to apply that in the decisions that he would have to make, he would find that his presidency might touch on a level of greatness that he has not yet considered."
He added, "He (Obama) has only listened to the voices that shout the loudest, and it's all those reckless right-wing forces. It's almost criminal."
--Harry Belafonte, promoting his HBO documentary "Sing Your Song" about his career-long work alongside civil rights activists.
Harry echoes what George Lakoff says with his framing theory -- Democrats must communicate their values to the public in order to get elected and practice them when they govern.
What are the core Democratic principles that you fight for? You can find my core Democratic principles listed here.
I can't help but be nauseated by the fawning coverage of Lieberman's retirement. Perhaps Hearst's Brian Lockhart's article is the worst: "Lieberman's Legacy: Good and Decent Man."
Are you kidding me? Not a word about the more than 40,000 dead and wounded Americans from the senseless Iraq War that Lieberman helped lie us into; not a word about the hundreds of thousands more suffering from PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. Nope. Instead, Lockhart adds a quote from Sal Liccione that "This whole war stuff really tangled him up." That's it? Just "war stuff" that "tangled him up"?
"Mr. Lieberman, as a senator, was best known for his centrist positions and outspokenness on issues of morality."
Is he serious? Lieberman a centrist? No mention of his rock-solid support for Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neo-Cons' radical foreign policies that pushed us into Iraq? No mention of Lieberman's siding with the Far Right to kill the public option in 2009 by voting against cloture? No mention of Lieberman's support for the Far Right Sarah Palin? And just how "outspoken" was he on morality when he refused to condemn Linda McMahon's disgusting violent and sexist WWE business when she ran for Senate?
Think Progress does a far better job than the Connecticut press corps (naturally) in getting it right on Joe Lieberman. Here's are some of the things that our press corps really want swept under the rug:
Said progressive candidates would cower to terrorism: In an interview with Salon.com, Lieberman said, "I worry that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have a hard time scampering back to assure people that they're prepared to take on the Islamist extremists and [any] other nation that threatens our security."
Suggested that Obama could be a Marxist: When asked if Obama is "a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case," Lieberman replied, "Well, you know, I must say that's a good question." [4/14/08]
Linked Obama's policies to socialism: "There are ways I suppose you can make an argument that there are some similarities between what Sen. Obama is talking about ('spreading the wealth') and classic, what used to be known as socialist theory...[but] I'm not going to use the name calling," Lieberman said. [10/23/08]
Praised radical right-wing radio hosts: "I'm real proud of you," Lieberman told Glenn Beck. "You're a good man," he said to Hugh Hewitt. [11/04/08; 5/21/08]
Feared a 60-seat Democratic majority: Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying that he "fears" for the survival of the U.S. if Democrats break the filibuster threshold. [11/04/08]
Cited domestic priorities in supporting McCain: Lieberman claimed that the United States is going to "make progress on health care and the energy crisis and climate change" under a McCain administration. "John McCain is more ready to be president on foreign and domestic policy because of his extraordinary experience." [6/29/08; 8/03/08]
That is not the record of a "good and decent man." Good riddance.
This blog has been the center of much discussion recently regarding the merits of extending the upper-bracket tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
By now, we're all familiar with the argument in favor: even a slight, marginal increase in the tax burden levied on the top 2% of earners would be enough to depress a nascent economic recovery. Something that's also offered up is that the cost of a temporary extension --- somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 billion over two years --- is "trivial."
Yesterday came news that the House Democratic leadership was almost certainly going to punt on the tax cuts until after the election, missing an opportunity to call for a roll call vote on tax relief for the middle class.
What's not as frequently mentioned in the conversation about whether or not to extend the tax cuts, or what that would cost, is what else has been ruled "off the table" with a similar or even smaller price tag.
Consider the case of SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as food stamps. The moral and economic case for food stamps in a time of increasing poverty and decreasing wage stability for million of American families is clear: we have an obligation to ensure children and families don't go hungry in our country, and economists say that food stamps -- by giving money to people who will immediately spend it -- are the single-most effective form of stimulus.
Yet this year, the Democratic majority in Congress has passed or proposed a total of $27 billion in cuts to the SNAP program, whose budget was temporarily increased as part of the Recovery Act in 2009. To be sure, these cuts have gone to pay for other big-ticket items on the Democratic agenda: FMAP aid to the states, money to keep teachers in classrooms, etc. But the statement on priorities is remarkably clear: instead of raising taxes on those whose incomes have skyrocketed in the last several decades while their tax burden has diminished, instead of cutting farm subsidies to precious contributors like Monsanto and Cargill, instead of closing tax loopholes where billions of dollars of revenue disappears into oil and gas companies' offshore accounts, instead of doing any of those things, we will take money from families and children trying to put food on their tables.
I appreciate the progressive accomplishments of the 111th Congress and the young Obama presidency. I understand that the November election isn't solely a referendum on the extension of the Bush tax cuts. I think the Affordable Care Act will go down in history as a a landmark social reform, rife as it is with imperfections. But I think it is fair to ask for answers when an historically large Democratic majority thinks its acceptable to slash $27 billion from a program whose constituency is the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
The cheesy but effective "That's Why I Chose to Vote!" video (a play off of the Yale admissions musical, "That's Why I Chose Yale") is just the beginning.
The Yale Dems are developing major elections efforts for this Fall:
-A massive on and off campus voter registration drive on October 9th (we have already registered 122 new voters this semester)
-Weekly canvasses
-Tuesday phonebanks with Organizing for America
-A campus wide Elections Kick Off on 9/27 with Rep. DeLauro, AG Blumenthal, and many other elected officials and candidates
-Debate watching parties, rallies, insane GOTV operations and oh so much more...
It begs that question. Can we motivate students to become involved in this off year election cycle? There is no Obama. There is no Lamont-Lieberman. This could be a big lift. We at the Yale Dems, however, believe that by making elections work fun and by connecting students with candidates, we can move people to action.
Are you seeing students mobilizing around the rest of the state?
How do you think we can make these elections appealing to all of those students who turned out for Obama?
(If you are interested in attending any of our events, please contact Ben Stango at benjamin.stango@yale.edu)
Unions Find Members Slow to Rally Behind Democrats The Democrats will depend on labor unions - the shock troops of their political campaigns - to offset two new developments this election cycle: Tea Party enthusiasm and corporations' ability to spend unlimited amounts thanks to a Supreme Court ruling.
Labor leaders, alarmed at a possible Republican takeover of one or both Houses of Congress, promise to devote a record amount of money and manpower to helping Democrats stave off disaster. But political analysts, and union leaders themselves, say that their efforts may not be enough because union members, like other important parts of the Democratic base, are not feeling particularly enthusiastic about the party - a reality that, in turn, further dampens the Democrats' chances of holding onto their Congressional majorities.
SNIP
Two years ago, the big political problem many unions faced was persuading white union members to vote for Mr. Obama despite his race. This year the problem will be persuading union members to vote Democratic despite the bleak economy.
For the union brass, turning around voters like Mike DeGasperis, a steelworker from Martins Ferry, Ohio, could prove difficult. Mr. DeGasperis says he was "anti-Bush" over the past decade, but he now voices little enthusiasm for the Democrats.
"We heard everything was going to change, but there hasn't been much change and the unemployment is still bad and the area we live in is still really depressed," said Mr. DeGasperis, who was laid off for 10 months last year from his job running an overhead crane at a Severstal Wheeling steel mill.
Readers' Comments
He said he had not decided whom to back in the House, Senate and gubernatorial races - all key in Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state. "I'm going to keep my options open."
SNIP
I remember Howard Dean warning Democratic leaders that the reason to support Medicare expansion to 55 year olds and up was to have a big accomplishment to show to their base, but typical f*cking Rahm Emmanual and Blue Dog Dems, they didn't heed Howard's advice and looks like many will pay the price. Of course, we will all pay the price if the Republicans take Congress and stall government for 2 years, and that is the bitter fruit of bad leadership from our party.
Washington (CNN) - Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine plans to make what's being billed as a major announcement Wednesday about the future of the party, according to a Democratic source with knowledge of the speech.
The source tells CNN that Kaine will announce something that will excite Democrats across the country....
SNIP
Gee, wonder what rabbit Kaine has up his sleeve? Is Stephen Colbert becoming a Democrat? Or is he going to unveil a larger version of that dorky key chain that he gave Jon Stewart last week. Or is it the "We Suck less" campaign Stewart mentioned in jest?
Fewer Young Voters See Themselves as Democrats FORT COLLINS, Colo. - The college vote is up for grabs this year - to an extent that would have seemed unlikely two years ago, when a generation of young people seemed to swoon over Barack Obama.
Though many students are liberals on social issues, the economic reality of a weak job market has taken a toll on their loyalties: far fewer 18- to 29-year-olds now identify themselves as Democrats compared with 2008.
"Is the recession, which is hitting young people very hard, doing lasting or permanent damage to what looked like a good Democratic advantage with this age group?" asked Scott Keeter, the director of survey research at the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan group. "The jury is still out."
How and whether millions of college students vote will help determine if Republicans win enough seats to retake the House or Senate, overturning the balance of power on Capitol Hill, and with it, Mr. Obama's agenda. If students tune out and stay home it will also carry a profound message for American society about a generation that seemed so ready, so recently, to grab national politics by the lapels and shake.
SNIP
I'm sure Gibbs would blame this on the "professional Left" but got news for the Obama Admin and the Democratic Leadership in general, look in the mirror and you will see the source of the problem. Making promises and then caving into Right Wing bullying does not inspire anyone, young or adult, to want to join you.
One of the questions that the poll presented was "Does the U.S. need to support Israel?" In August of 2009, 63% of Americans polled said that the U.S. does need to support Israel. In June of this year, 58% of respondents shared the same view; by July only 51% of respondents said the U.S. needed to support Israel.
Another question posed by the pole was "Is the Israeli government committed to peace with the Palestinians?" In December of 2007, 66% of respondents said that the government, then led by Ehud Olmert, was committed to peace with the Palestinians. In June of 2009, a month after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House, only 46% of Americans said they believed the Netanyahu government was committed to peace.
In the months of May and June, there appeared to be a positive change in American public opinion on the matter, with 53% of respondents saying they believe Netanyahu seeks peace. However, in July, only 45% of American said they felt Netanyahu was committed to the peace process. Thirty-nine percent responded that Netanyahu and his administration are not committed to seeking peace with the Palestinians.
This viewer has to hand it to Ned Lamont, who seemed move lively, energetic and full of ideas than Dan Malloy, who appeared almost somnolent at times.
Our field team is spread across Connecticut, and doing fantastic work. Over the last several weeks, they have recruited more than 3,000 volunteers, and together they have made more than 2 million calls and knocked on more than 150,000 doors.
And the results are showing. Despite two weeks of constant negative attacks by our opponent, Ned still leads in the recently released Quinnipiac poll 45-40, and Democratic voters believe Ned has the right positions on key issues, the right plan to turn the economy around, and the right character to be governor. And by a spread of 46-29, Democratic voters believe Ned is the best candidate to beat the Republicans in November and take back the governor's office for the first time in more than 20 years.
Every day, as each volunteer comes into our regional field offices, as we identify each voter, as we knock on each door and place each lawn sign, our momentum is growing:
DiNardo hasn't committed yet to attending the reception for Reid, saying that there is a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the same afternoon in New Haven.
So after derailing the public option, which would have been the most important public health innovation since Medicaid, campaigning virtually full-time for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, even after he had promised to work to elect a Democrat, after praising the far-right whack-job Sarah Palin, and implying that he supported Chris Shays for re-election against Democrat Jim Himes, not only is Harry Reid showing up with him in Greenwich, but state central committee chairwoman Nancy DiNardo is actually considering showing up.
GT's right-wing reporter Vigdor notes Reid's 33% approval rating, but conveniently neglects to mention Lieberman's own approval ratings:
Public Policy Polling in March put Lieberman's at 25%, with 67% disapproving. That put him third from the bottom in the entire Senate.
Quinnipiac had LIEberman at 39% approval for all Nutmeggers with 54% disapproving. Just 27% of Connecticut Democrats approved of Lieberman, while 67% disapproved.
Let's repeat that: two and a half times as many CT Democrats disapprove of Lieberman than approve of him. Or put another way, fully two-thirds of all of us Democrats can't stand him. So why is Harry Reid rubbing our noses in Lieberman? Again? And in Ned Lamont's hometown, Jim Himes' hometown (who had the courage to oppose Lieberman and strongly back Lamont early in 2006)? And Nancy DiNardo is actually considering attending?
Just what does it take to make people understand that we Democrats despise Joe Lieberman?
Today, Monday, June 1, 2009, Connecticut Democrats will be treated to a guest appearance from Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana at the 61st Annual JJB dinner. He's the first elected Democratic governor of Montana in 16 years and last year he won reelection and became a sensation at the DNC Convention .
I first heard about the good governor of Montana in 2004 from my favorite progressive journalist, nationally syndicated columnist, blogger, and cable TV guest commentator, David Sirota. David's article in The Washington Monthly titled "Top Billings" was written in the wake of John Kerry's Presidential loss to give Democrats hope and ideas on how to defeat Republican and Right Wing strategies. Sirota, who served as senior strategist on Schweitzer's successful 2004 gubernatorial campaign, used Schweitzer's campaign as a model that Democratic candidates should study.
While Connecticut is labeled a "blue" state by the national media because it has voted Democratic in the last handful of Presidential elections and because its state legislature is controlled by Democrats, it has a Republican governor and one with an extraordinarily high popularity. Just like in 2006, Gov. Rell will not face a primary opponent, so her public image will not be marred by a brutal battle and she will have plenty of time to plan for the general election. The Democratic gubernatorial candidates, on the otherhand, will face-off in a tough primary battle in 2010.
So what should CT's Democratic Gubernatorial candidates learn from Gov. Schweitzer of Montana?
Many of you know that I've been a fan of Gov. Schweitzer (D-MT) since I first heard about him in 2004 from my favorite progressive journalist, nationally syndicated columnist, blogger, and cable TV guest commentator, David Sirota. David's article in The Washington Monthly titled "Top Billings" was written in the wake of John Kerry's Presidential loss to give Democrats hope and ideas on how to win against Republican and Right Wing strategies. Sirota, who served as senior strategist on Schweitzer's successful 2004 gubernatorial campaign, used Schweitzer's campaign as a model that Democratic candidates should study.
On January 21, 2006, I had a letter to the editor published in The New London Day titled Democrats, Fight Back Like Montana Governor where I promoted Schweitzer as a model for the 2006 Connecticut Democratic gubernatorial candidates. Over 3 years later, looks like the message got through.
In their first major decision since the election the Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid tell everyone to go eat a shit sandwich.
Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.
"This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward."
Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.
Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."
But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?"
"I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward."
(Update 1): Greg Sargent pretty much sums things up perfectly at the end of his write-up:
So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.
Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.
Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.
Here is an op-ed at the UCONN official newspaper, the Daily Campus, that talks of the Lamont/Kucinich event there back in April. FYI, to no ones surprise the author gets his facts wrong about the questioner mentioned in the commentary, and he tells liberals to "shut up"! http://www.dailycamp...
Of course there is a systematic suppression of political free speech at UCONN, including possibly fraudulent "noise complaints" against an October 2006 Ned Lamont/Wesley Clark rally from the UCONN School of Business. That "noise complaint" blocked the right of the UCONN Dems, rightfully according to the UCONN Student Union rules, to have music at later rallies with Ned Lamont and state Senate President Donald Williams. Of course, the UCONN School of Business has a clear bias:
The UCONN School of Business gets funding from the state budget, and maybe Donald Williams should know about their attacks and bias against his and the UCONN Dems' free speech!
You can send a note about these and other UCONN matters to the UCONN president Michael J. Hogan at:
president@uconn.edu
and Donald Williams at:
Williams@senatedems.ct.gov
the local Democratic state rep:
Denise.Merrill@cga.ct.gov
and the attorney general at:
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us
On Monday I attended an Edwards event at Exeter Town Hall in NH. It was NH Retail at its very best.
The Edwards stump has taken a major step forward since I saw him two weeks ago, the content has changed and the tone has shifted to that of an urgency in his current speech. The distinctions are now razor sharp between John Edwards and the rest of the field, "you have choices in this election and you need to be aware of them." The reality of where we are as a country today and the vision for where we all want to be as a people are now painted in excruciating and moving detail on one issue after another: universal health care; corruption; disenfranchisement of the citizenry; economic fairness; our two unequal school systems; global warming and conservation the list goes on ...
And it's only about 23 minutes so you can imagine, man. Follow me below the fold for the full video and the antidote.
A quick follow-up on yesterday's post about the primary in New Britain's 5th Ward. Democratic endorsed candidates Roy Centano and Lori Rocha won, leaving incumbent Democrat John Carroll off the November ballot.
Carroll campaigned with postcards and fliers, but he didn't have an army of door-to-door campaigning volunteers.
The town committee did.
"The Democratic Town Committee did me in," Carroll said after learning of the results. "I lost. No hard feelings. No remorse."
If anything, the primary resolved the question of just how powerful the Democratic Party machine really is, although Democratic Town chairman John McNamara was quick to say Tuesday that "it is not a machine; it is a group of dedicated individuals who work like a machine."
Today, Monday, June 1, 2009, Connecticut Democrats will be treated to a guest appearance from Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana at the 
I know some of you are not fond of 
On Monday I attended an Edwards event at Exeter Town Hall in NH. It was NH Retail at its very best.
MLN is powered by