Standing Up for Women’s Rights

Let’s put this nonsense to bed forever. If the opportunity comes up to stand up for women’s rights – the only moral reaction is to seize that opportunity and fight to win. Failing to do so is not shrewd, playing to the middle, or anything other than weakness.

Digby:

For the sake of victims of domestic violence, VAWA should be reauthorized as soon as possible, but Democrats need to remember that we all know they’re in the midst of a tough election contest, too. Fight the good fight for women, but please, leave the noble posturing at home.

That’s right, it’s a tough election fight and the last thing Democrats need is to look like all they care about is a bunch of whiny bitches. Let’s not lose our heads here. 

Believe me, this is not an uncommon reaction. How do I know this? Because I’ve been watching this go down for my entire adult life. Any time “women’s issues” start to become prominent, a certain kind of liberal male gets very nervous. The stuff I heard during the 1992 “year of the woman” election was enough to curl my hair. And I see no reason to believe anything’s changed. I’ve already seen plenty of evidence that it hasn’t.

This is a noble fight. Advising Democrats to pretend it isn’t kills your credibility.

Act Blue Turned Conservadem

I was reading a post on Crooks and Liars about Maddow blasting Conservative Democrats when a familiar name popped up (source TPM):

“Conservadems like Jon Tester and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are siding with the Republican senators, who are siding with no voters — not even their own!” Maddow exclaimed, noting a recent CNN poll that found that 63 percent of Republicans favored saving the jobs of teachers and first responders.

That name rang a bell… Oh right here he is, and again here with other “netroots” candidates.  What should we do with outsider candidates we vigorously supported and helped win office, when they turn directly against us once in office?

Help vigorously support their primary opponents.

Obama the Compassionate Compromiser

August Pollack nails it:

The 2012 Republican nomination race seems to be a battle over which candidate has the most proven record of being horrible to people. Thankfully, the president feels that we can reach a compromise and only kick people in the head instead of the balls. I am so ready to win the future.

Make the compassionate choice: concussions over nut-kicks.  Just as Bush was dubbed a “Compassionate Conservative”, Obama has proven himself a “Compassionate Compromiser”, a tool of corporate interests and no friend to privacy rights.  He’s up against what is looking like a truly horrifying Republican field with the two most likely candidates, Bachman and Perry – full on psychotic theocrats hell bent on a Ultra Conservative Christian Nation.

Here is our choice in 2012:

Obama on the Debt: Weaker Than Weak

Boehner walked away from debt talks with Obama.  Given how insanely far Obama has bent, this is madness.  Or maybe just good strategy.

Obama has ruled out the simple answer, the constitutional option.  However that, coupled with how this damning quote (emphasis mine), slams home the reality that our President wants to sabotage his own efforts:

“Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending. Both domestic and defense,” Obama told reporters in a hastily-arranged White House press conference.

“It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal and frankly, if you look at the commentary out there, there are a lot of Republicans puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done.”

He said the American people were “fed up” with political posturing, and said he was willing “to sign an extension of the debt ceiling which takes us through 2013.”

The nation needed to do more, Obama added, though adding that he would accept a fallback option if that was the best deal lawmakers could strike.

That’s a fallback that would go beyond the already overly conciliatory and generous offer the President made.  This is not the first time this kabuki dance has taken place on the national stage, but it is strikingly naked.

How Obama is Working Hard for President Huckabee or Romney

When President Obama was elected he had several key things going for him:

1. He wasn’t the Republican heir to George W Bush
2. He represented a party that stood for economic issues near and dear to the vast majority of the voting public
3. He promised to cut down on lobbying and corruption
4. He was a brilliant public speaker
5. He promised to fight bipartisan bickering and give us a functioning government

Based on the combination of his anti-lobbying anti-partisan approach, he framed himself successfully as a new kind of politician.  He was able to excite his party base with his oratory, his youthful energy, and the fact that he wasn’t George W Bush in a nation decidedly sick of the man.  He didn’t just win, Obama enjoyed a telling victory in 2008.

Let’s look at those same points now.

Obama isn’t the Republican heir to George W Bush

Still true, but only because he has become the Democratic heir to George W Bush, and Dick Cheney (Glenn Greenwald @ Salon):

But the crux of Bush/Cheney radicalism — the mindset and policies that caused much of the controversy — continues and has even been strengthened.  Gen. Hayden put it best, as quoted by The Washington Times:

“You’ve got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram [in Afghanistan],” Mr. Hayden said, listing the continuities. “And although it is slightly different, Obama has been as aggressive as President Bush in defending prerogatives about who he has to inform in Congress for executive covert action.”

And that list, impressive though it is, doesn’t even include the due-process-free assassination hit lists of American citizens, the sweeping executive power and secrecy theories used to justify it, the multi-tiered, “state-always-wins” justice system the Obama DOJ concocted for detainees, the vastly more aggressive war on whistleblowers and press freedoms, or the new presidential immunity doctrines his DOJ has invented.  Critically, this continuity extends beyond specific policies into the underlying sloganeering mentality in which they’re based:  we’re in a Global War; the whole Earth is the Battlefield; the Terrorists want to kill us because they’re intrinsically Evil (not in reaction to anything we do); we’re justified in doing anything and everything to eradicate Them; the President’s overarching obligation (contrary to his Constitutional oath) is to keep us Safe; this should all be kept secret from us; we can’t be bothered with obsolete dogma like Due Process and Warrants, etc. etc.

He’s extended the same Bush Tax cuts he campaigned against.  In fact his rush to compromise and fiscal conservatism masquerading as bipartisan centrism has been so severe that it has crushed the second key thing he had going for him.

Obama represents a party that defends the economic interests of working people

With revenue cut and war/terror spending increasing, there was bound to be a collision.  Couple that with the President’s obsessive need to appear as the bi-partisan philosopher-king, and you get negotiation tactics so inviting to the opposition it makes John Boehner look like a teary Jack Donaghy.

The quaint term “austerity measures” doesn’t capture the human cost of paying for tax cuts and tax evasions for wealthy individuals and large corporations.  Those cuts are already being felt, and will be even more severe when 2012 rolls around.  They aren’t just budget cuts, they are deep cuts into the voting base for Democrats across the country, and those cuts are going to badly injure Obama’s re-election chances.  (John Amato @ Crooks and Liars):

Every poll shows quite clearly that even Republican voters do not want a cut in these benefits.

If Sperling’s argument is about reforming Social Security and Medicare without taking away from them, then OK, but that’s not what I’m reading here. Do these creatures only listen to Villager gasbags who want working-class Americans to be the only people to “share” the sacrifice and suffer in America after Wall Streeters and their partners caused the Great Recession?

Obama is casting himself as the friend of the wealthy and the enemy of the working class at a time he needs to do the opposite.  His hands are tied by his bipartisan image at a time he desperately needs to break free.  But you get the sense he likes it that way.  Obama has become the willing prisoner of a small aspect of his election campaign – unable and unwilling to break free and become true to what he ran for.  This is especially clear when one considers lobbying.

Obama promised to cut down the influence of lobbyists and K-Street

Obama has

• Given away concessions to the pharmaceutical lobby before the health care fight began
• Hired RIAA lawyers for the Justice Department
• Publicly attacked lobbyists, then turned around and gave them access
• Hired the chief executive of GE – a company that attacks unions and paid nothing in taxes
• Hired a Raytheon lobbyist for Deputy Defense Secretary
• Hired a number of lobbyists throughout his administration
  

All of this casts his much touted ethics reform in such a harsh light the reform isn’t even visible to the voting public anymore.

Where does this leave us?

Obama is still fighting the supposedly good fight on being bipartisan.  As Digby has observed over and over, this is a one sided battle.  The Republicans – down to their votes – don’t give a damn about being bipartisan and compromising.  They care about winning.  That imbalance will surely lead to the Democrats losing.  Obama is still an amazing public speaker but with the way he’s been running things you have to ask – who is going to go hear him speak?

Regardless of whether the religious right, the corporations, or the tea party are able to exert enough influence to secure the Republican nomination in 2012 one thing is clear.  If Obama doesn’t change course they will secure more than just the primary.

DC Should Suspent Garbage Collection for Congress

Since Congress is going to shut down to appease the Republicans (who will settle for nothing less than complete Democratic obedience) – this means DC will need to cut services:

The city would close Department of Motor Vehicles locations and suspend public works operations like street sweeping, and the city would let a week go by before collecting trash, Gray said. All of D.C.’s libraries would be closed, as would the city’s recreation centers.

Why not cut off trash collection and cleaning for Congress (and all congressional offices) until the budget has been passed?

Pocket Guide to the Budget Debate

Here’s what you need to know when engaging with Republicans and ConservaDems on the budget.

Our deficit is about $1.2 trillion a year.

We are spending just over $1.2 trillion a year on our military.  We are basically spending our deficit every year on our military.

Extending the Bush Tax Cuts is costing us $860 billion a year.

Corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes, costing us billions more a year in lost revenue.

Republicans (with support from many Democrats) want to enact “austerity measures” – which basically means “cuts for the poor and middle classes”.  These measures total $61 billion, a dollar amount spread thin over a massive number of programs:

From education to job training, the environment and nutrition, few domestic programs were left untouched – and some were eliminated – in the measure

If we did away with the Bush tax cuts, lessened loopholes corporations exploit, and trimmed programs for the military (like their sponsorship of NASCAR) we could totally eliminate the federal deficit.

As it stands today the likelihood of this happening is nil: the intelligence, foresight, and will to enact an approach like this is missing in Washington.  Instead we will reap the benefits of tax immunity for corporations and the wealthy, and austerity measures for everyone else: decreased spending power in an economy that relies primarily on spending power to function.

Republicans vs Democrats in a Nutshell – DC

DC is taxed – but does not have representation in Congress.  Its such an established problem their license plates read “taxation without representation”.

Democrats have in the past tried to fix this by working to get them representation, but have failed in their attempts.  Partially because of opposition from Republicans concerned that DC will tip the balance in favor of the Democrats.

So a Republican has proposed ending the taxation.  How perfectly conservative – drain the federal budget, avoid solving the root problem, further institutionalize the deprivation of voting rights for a group of people who trend Democrat, and snag some stellar PR at the same time.

Expect the Democrats to raise a few lion like mews and maybe put up a kabuki fight, then lose.  Or hell, they might actually fight it by pushing back against the specific proposal.  Imagine if they had the guts and strength to turn this into an issue of giving the residents of DC representation instead?

 

Exposing Tort Reform as a Sham

It sounds reasonable: “People are suing for crazy-pants reasons!  Its out of control and we all pay for it!”.  Except its all bullshit.

Pajiba is more of a place for excellent movie reviews than politics, but when they do dive in damned if they don’t get it perfect.  On Tort Reform:

Tort reform is a sham, folks. It was something dreamed up by huge billion dollar conglomerates in order to increase their profit margins. Really, all you need to know is that one of the major engineers of tort reform law in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s was Karl Rove. Guess who benefits the most from tort reform? People like Karl Rove. Big oil. Credit card companies, The insurance industry. Tort reform was basically designed to take the jury out of the equation.

Dead on (emphasis mine):

There’s such a huge corporate-funded marketing campaign behind tort reform that few people understand the reality: It mostly benefits corporations at the expense of taking away a jury’s right to make a decision. A jury can still decide if someone can get the death penalty, of course, but apparently, a jury is just too wild and unpredictable to be allowed to decide how much an insurance provider has to pay if 1,000 kids get sick because of lead in toys. They tried to give Stella Liebeck $2.7 million, or two day’s worth of profit on McDonald’s coffee as a message to the restaurant to lower the temperature of its coffee (it has since done so) and to improve the lid design so that even more people don’t end up with severe burns. How unreasonable!

Support for Tort Reform is unapologetic class warfare favoring the corporate class over the rest of us.  So how do you respond when your “reasonable” centrist or republican friend brings up tort reform?  How do you respond when they complain jury awards are “out of control”?

First – make the above point clear – “How are juries responsible enough to determine the death penalty – but not to determine a fit punishment in a “Company poison’s water” case?”.

Next, you have a few options.

Are you dealing with a numbers person?  Go into the incredibly small size of the largest jury awards when compared to actual income for the guilty company. Ask what is going to give a company incentive to stop their criminal behavior if the penalty is small enough to be considered a minor tax increase?

Are they concerned about frequency?  Ask what it means for consumer protection in this country if so many companies are successfully sued?  Just what the hell is going on here?  If they are truly liable for doing this much damage – why the hell aren’t they being regulated more?

Tort Reform opens the discussion to how the American public is largely left unprotected from the abuses of corporations.  This is the corporate world’s attempt to strip away even that last remaining shred of protection.

Obama: Campaign Promises vs Actions

Clarence Jones has a thoughtful piece over at the Huffington Post on whether Obama has lived up to his campaign promises.  My friend Marco asked me to take a look at it, and a rather long email turned into this post.

The article itself suggests Obama’s achievements with the stimulus, health care reform, and DADT merit recognition.  Surely even a baby step in the right deserves acknowledgement, but within the bigger picture.  A baby step is amazing because for a baby its a big deal.  Obama campaigned successfully as a bit more than a political infant – in fact he had to to counter his relative inexperience.

In fact Obama campaigned not just as an experienced and effective politician, but as a different kind of politician.  One who was not beholden to special interests and lobbyists.  A pro-transparency Presidency.  In addition to specific policy goals like the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Health Care Reform, Obama brought an army of young progressives into the political arena.  Much of that leading edge that pushed Obama into office was made up of enthusiastic hard working young people – who were able to mount a ground game of get out the vote in states that had previously never been “competitive”.

That enthusiasm is now dead – with grave implications for Obama’s 2012 run.

Its More Than an Enthusiam Gap, Assholes

Wow the One Nation Rally beat out Glenn Beck’s Rally.  Big Newz Camperz:

Enthusiasm gap, schmenthusiasm gap. Without the benefit of months and months of advertising and promotion on Fox News Channel (in fact, I’m only aware of Ed Schultz on MSNBC doing any kind of TV promotion), the One Nation Working Together rally in Washington DC has gathered more supporters than Glenn Beck’s much ballyhooed rally, which I will lovingly refer to as “Whitestock”.

Preliminary satellite estimates put the crowd size at 175,000 to 200,000 at about noon EST.

The Democrats celebrated by promising not to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the ultra wealthy, and to expand the War on Terror to one more mystery country in 2011.

And yes, I was reminded once again that, for whatever disappointment we may feel with the way the progressive agenda has been stymied and diluted the past couple of years, every progressive voter needs to ask him/herself: Do I want to spend the next two years playing offense or defense?

Playing offense obviously.  Against ALL politicians who continue to grind America into the ground with their rush to the conservative “middle”.

Then get out in November and do the right thing.

Seriously, fuck you buddy.  The Democrats have screwed the base out of existence.  I’m gonna vote against Republicans, but no fucking way am I voting for a Democrat.  I will work as hard as I can to smash Democrats in the primaries.  I will let the assholes who get in know that their hostility to liberal American values will cost them their seat in the future.  But fuck them for thinking I’ll do this shit with enthusiasm.  I’ll just try my best to keep from puking.

As for the One Nation Rally, I’ll leave you with this:

The agenda of One Nation has always been secondary to the desire to reinforce support for President Obama and urge him and others to move their agenda. The underlying belief of the largest organizations mobilizing for October 2nd is that Obama is just like Roosevelt, and that people need to “make him do it”. This is a poor, myopic reading of history, and demonstrates the poverty of leadership of these huge organizations.

…

That the Democratic Party rarely acts upon, or even articulates, the concerns of most or any of the constituencies headed to Washington demonstrates that the leadership of the One Nation organizations are holding onto a past conception that no longer, and perhaps never, was true: that the Democratic Party is one for the working people of the country.

That last part really struck home for me.

Democrats Aren’t Democrats

Hahahha, time for a dose of reality dear readers!

From the daily WTF pile over at Digby’s residence:

Quick question for those who believe that criticism of the the president and the Dem leadership is what’s depressing the Democratic base: is this criticism a problem?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is giving Democratic candidates a free pass to run against her and other party leaders.

A number of moderate Democrats are running against her, portraying themselves in ads as a check on the liberal House speaker from San Francisco.

Pelosi is giving them free rein to do this, so the party has no problem with it. But what if Raul Grijalva and Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold did the same thing from the left?

Answer: The Democratic party would stab them in the eye.

This is proof positive the party is utterly non-liberal.  Our country is ruled by a far right Republican party who is only concerned with how to move further right, and a Democratic centrist party obsessed with following them at a “safe” distance.

For all the talk about the “Democratic Base” this one basic observation has been missing.  There is no Democratic Base.  Not anymore.  The Democrats represent an increasingly slim number of actual moderates in a rapidly polarizing country.  The only reason liberals vote for their sorry asses is to stave off the violent theocracy Republicans would put into place otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong, many of us did get our hopes up with Obama’s 2008 campaign.  He’s done everything to be a true Democrat and crush liberal hopes and dreams over the past 2 years.  The Democratic leadership – in the party, Congress, or in the White House – has successfully alienated liberals of all stripes.  Telling us to “Stop Whining” and “Buck Up” hasn’t motivated us to work harder.  Its motivated us to separate ourselves utterly from the failing Democratic brand.

Time for some soul searching dear readers.

On Obama, Gay Marriage, and Prop 8

A Quick Hit:

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead.

Now their son opposes Gay Marriage.  Prop 8 has been struck down, but this battle brings the fight to White House.  Obama must weigh in, and his backward, incoherent and irrational opposition to marriage for some US citizens but not others will once again be brought into the light.  His ironic position is that of “separate but equal”.  The only equality he is defending to place the demands of theocratic bullying on the same level as the rational, compassionate, popularly supported desire for true equality for people of any sexual orientation.

As Keith Olberman said:

This is about the… human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not… understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Well Mr President?  Will you step up to the ethical plate and take a swing for equality?  Or will you continue to cower and let theocrats – who harbor no intentions of ever supporting you or your party electorally – dictate the policy we all have to live with?

Will We Get a Public Option?

That depends on you, dear reader.

It looks like the White House really does oppose it (Majikthise). This sounds far more credible than I find comfortable.

So what to do? Via Pandagon, Bitch Ph.D. has some suggestions:

Lookie here: the Blue Dogs have a handy little “contact us” page. One imagines that if they, like the White House, get a ton of pressure from Democratic voters–especially if the individual members also get a lot of emails, letters, and phone calls from constituents in their state.

Even if the fuckers are too beholding to the insurance companies to be swayed, I bet we can make them verrrry uncomfortable. They deserve it.

Call your congress critters! Go to local town hall meetings and speak out for a public option. The health insurance industry and their allies in congress have had their say. Let’s have ours, and let’s have it loudly.

Health Care Reform in a Nutshell

The Republicans are engaging in fascist tactics to repress town hall Democracy while spitting out the most vicious and fearful lies they can think up.

The misnamed center straight up wants to kill health care reform.

The Democrats are working to ensure whatever reform exists will have as little meaning as possible, keeping the control with a handful of private for profit companies that literally get away with murder. (Which boils down to the essential question, what do we do to stop the systematic betrayal by people we fundraise, organize and vote for?)

The President is on a promise breaking spree, trying to see how firmly he can fasten the phrase “have politics as usual” onto the end of “yes we can”.

Privileged members of the press with access to influence public opinion fundamentally do not understand health care as a basic human right.

Health Care in this country managed by companies that exist to make money, not to ensure Americans get health care. Health Care costs are such that individual Americans cannot hope to afford their care without outside assistance. Thus even covered Americans have no protection against the whims of insurance executives. What they do directly amounts to murder.

Yet our reform process is being led by Democrats willing to make concessions on vital points, and then give those up at even the appearance of opposition. It is being opposed by Republicans, the health care industry and a media willing to go to any length to prevent meaningful change, including lying and inciting violence. What little hope we have in government is in the timid Progressive Caucus. Health Care is a human right, and absolutely every power player in this game is working to ensure we change nothing of substance.

Funny that, in a country where 72% of the nation wants health care reform. Makes you wonder why WE aren’t on the streets protesting. Makes you wonder a lot of things.