Optimo

This is your intelligence community on potato vodka...

2009-03-08T13:01:00.000-05:00

Moscow is all gaga over Russian professor, former KGB analyst and foreign policy "expert" Igor Panarin. But elsewhere, he is not generating headlines of the flattering variety by any means. His claim to fame: predicting the U.S.A. will cease to exist as of next year. Apparently, demographic and social trends will lead to civil war as wealthier states secede from the union. Then, the country will split along ethnic lines and foreign powers will move in to claim the smoldering remains. Here's how the process shakes out in this starry-eyed Kremlin fantasy:

Let's recap:

1) South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky join the EU, under the same central government as Vermont.
2) Kansas and Missouri (not to mention Colorado Springs) become part of Canada, but Washington does not.
3) Texans voluntarily submit to the will of Mexico City bureaucrats.
4) Utah and Arizona are annexed by China.

Not to mention Alaska and all its oil goes to Russia, who can't even handle the territory it already has. But wasn't this the purpose of the Kremlin's exercise in silly geopolitical daydreaming to begin with?

Now the punchlines virtually write themselves, but I'll make a couple more serious observations under the assumption that this theory is anything but laughable and let you all add the jokes.

First, there are certainly demographic divides within the US, but they are more than canceled out by the economic benefits of a strong central government and nearly nonexistent interstate economic barriers. Meaning unity hasn't been a serious problem for the country for some time now.

Second, any political collapse in the United States would undoubtedly be accompanied by economic collapse. This would cause an alarming rise in instability in all of the countries mentioned as potential colonizers, including and especially the already unstable Russia.

Third, any of the colonial alliances portrayed in that colorful map above would present serious strategic problems for Russia. Most notably, the American east would immediately be the largest nation in the EU and would certainly push the consortium towards a more hawkish stance on Russia's bullyish extortion of Europe regarding natural gas. Also, about the last thing Russia needs right now is a stronger China to threaten its hold on Siberia.

If you've read this far, please feel free to add your jokes in the comments.

President Obama unleashes the fightin' words

2009-02-28T13:05:00.000-05:00

For a while, I was worried Obama was too conciliatory to accomplish the true progressive change America needs. That's why I didn't openly support him for most of 2007. And he certainly seemed to be excessively committed to bipartisanship at the expense of effectiveness in the earliest days of his administration.

But that seems to have changed dramatically in recent weeks. Check out the Weekly Address released today (using the Daily Kos version, which is in a more reliable format):

The key quote in my opinion:

"I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington....I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

"So am I."

You can read the full speech text at the White House blog.

Why Judd Gregg? A Wacky Idea...

2009-02-05T13:06:00.000-05:00

As half policy wonk and half progressive strategist, I have found it absolutely fascinating to try and figure out why the hell Barack Obama does half of the stuff he does. Like a master chess player, he seems to be consistently thinking a few steps ahead of the conventional wisdom, so some of his decisions make little sense unless you try to understand his ultimate goal.

The Judd Gregg pick as the new Commerce secretary is one such head-scratching move. Of course, there is the obvious play of trying to look bipartisan. Sure, we know Obama's made a concerted effort to do that, but Gregg is far from a natural choice when reaching across the aisle. He actually has quite a partisan record and is a renowned government-shrinking budget hawk. Like his former NH-Sen colleague John Sununu, Gregg has remained a relatively reliable Republican vote while his state has lurched hard to the left since 2004. For cryin' out loud, a few years ago Gregg even voted to eliminate the very Commerce Department he is now set to lead! A much better choice for this purpose would be Olympia Snowe or former Sen. Lincoln Chafee. So that probably isn't President Obama's ultimate motive.

Another obvious option is that Democrats want to pick up that all-important 60th senate seat. New Hampshire has a (at least nominally) Democratic governor who gets to appoint Gregg's successor, so it seems like a smart move, right? Well, not so fast. As you all know by now, Gregg made clear that unless Gov. Lynch picks another Republican to replace him, he will not take the cabinet position. So the pick turns out to be placeholder moderate Republican J. Bonnie Newman, who has never held public office. So much for picking up that extra seat (although it will create an open seat in 2010 that looks good for progressive Rep. Paul Hodes). While there is some modest benefit to Obama's political fortunes here, it's not a viable explanation for adding an anti-government Republican to his cabinet.

So here's my theory, which for the record I haven't heard anywhere else. Notice that Gregg voted in 1995 to eliminate the Commerce Department. Notice that the Obama Administration recently announced that the 2010 Census, traditionally under the jurisdiction of Commerce, will instead be reporting directly to the White House. Notice that President Obama has consistently talked about streamlining government and cutting out the waste. So with all this in mind, I believe that Obama picked Judd Gregg because he would be the best guy to dismantle the Commerce Department.

I mean, what does Commerce really do that couldn't be done in any other way?

Bureau of Industry and Security - move to Dept. of Homeland Security
Bureau of Economic Analysis - spin off into independent agency like BLS, or incorporate into Treasury
Economic Development Administration & Minority Business Development Agency - move to HUD
Int'l Trade Administration - move to Dept. of State
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration - move to Interior or a new Dept. of Science & Technology
Nat'l Telecom & Information Administration - spin off into independent agency, move to Dept. of Interior or to a new Dept. of Science & Technology
Patent & Trademark Office - spin off into independent agency
Nat'l Institute of Standards & Technology - move into Dept. of Education or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology
National Technical Information Service - spin off into independent agency or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology

Is this a feasible idea, or am I just high on cold medicine? Anyone who works in the Commerce Department, please feel free to flame away in the comments.

Where's That Forest Again? I Can't See Through All These Trees...

2009-01-28T13:07:00.000-05:00

From today's Roll Call($):

President Barack Obama drove to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for meetings with House and Senate Republicans, but his bipartisan outreach appeared to hit a speed bump. Still, the reason may have more to do with philosophical differences than partisan politics or “the old ways of Washington.”

Well gee whillikers, perhaps philosophical differences directly cause partisan politics?! But...but...that Darrell Issa is so nice to my Roll Call reporter friends at the cocktail parties. He couldn't possibly really believe all the bat$#!+ crazy stuff he says on the House floor!

Sometimes, the purveyors of Beltway conventional wisdom drive me to wonder if they even try to make logical sense.

The Wonders of Technology

2009-01-26T13:09:00.000-05:00

If you're bored at work or something, here's a great way to kill the time. Check out this amazing panoramic photo of the inauguration making its way around the intertubes.

If you zoom in right behind President Obama, you'll see that Justice Clarence Thomas is fast asleep. Classic....and so symbolic!

Another Example of Change

2009-01-21T13:15:00.000-05:00

What a day yesterday was in Washington! I hope all of you were able to fully appreciate the mayhem and exhilaration that enveloped the city and the nation on this historic day.

I just moseyed on over to the new WhiteHouse.gov, and the changes from the Bush Admin could not be starker. For example, you can download the official White House blog feed for your RSS reader.

While I'm here, I'll also post the Obama's first proclamation:

NATIONAL DAY OF RENEWAL AND RECONCILIATION, 2009

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

As I take the sacred oath of the highest office in the land, I am humbled by the responsibility placed upon my shoulders, renewed by the courage and decency of the American people, and fortified by my faith in an awesome God.

We are in the midst of a season of trial. Our Nation is being tested, and our people know great uncertainty. Yet the story of America is one of renewal in the face of adversity, reconciliation in a time of discord, and we know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven.

On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright -- it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more.

So in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, let us remember that: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

2009-01-18T13:16:00.000-05:00

In my previous post a few weeks ago, I made the case that Republicans seeking to redeem their public image and act in an important minority oversight role should be trying to challenge the nomination of Treasury designate Tim Geithner rather than Attorney General designate Eric Holder. I'm quite happy to see that despite Arlen Specter's hypocritical bluster (probably meant more to help stave off a 2010 primary challenge than out of any higher principles), Holder is virtually guaranteed to be confirmed. Yet I didn't imagine that Geithner might indeed end up being the controversial and embattled high-profile cabinet appointment.

Now I'm still not thrilled with Geithner, and his intimate ties to the failed leadership of Wall Street in the era of excess and subsequent bailouts are troublesome. I would've much rather seen a Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz or even a Jason Furman type in the post. But you really can't credibly argue he's not qualified for the job in a strict resume sense. And I can't say with any great confidence that Geithner isn't the best guy to restore confidence in financial markets, because he certainly knows what he's doing.

So I'm quite ambivalent over the developing controversies that may, but probably will not derail Mr. Geithner's nomination. If we are to trust President Obama (I'm preemptively dropping the "elect" a day in advance), we should want his Treasury pick to be confirmed since he has placed a lot of faith in the man. Unfortunately for me, I'm a skeptical New Yorker - not so quick to trust a favored authority figure. While I honestly couldn't care less about the undocumented immigrant housekeeper (in NYC it's actually hard to find a non-undocumented immigrant housekeeper), I think Geithner's tax troubles are a very serious concern considering the scandal encompass an area directly within Treasury's jurisdiction. If the man in charge of the IRS is seen as a miserly tax cheat who works on behalf of elite Wall Street interests and is staunchly supported by Mr. Obama, it will be that much harder for #44 to make a convincing case that we need to pay more taxes in the name of the common good.

I really hope I'm wrong.

Senate Republicans are About to Challenge the Wrong Cabinet Nomination

2008-12-25T13:11:00.000-05:00

I'm going to put on my objective policy analyst hat for this post, thereby pretending that Senate Republicans have the slightest interest in advancing the public interest rather than a nakedly partisan and ideological agenda. In this vein, I'd like to examine the announcement by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) and others that plans are being made to oppose the confirmation of Attorney General-designate Eric Holder.

There is little doubt that Mr. Holder has the experience to handle the job of reforming the broken Justice Department. Out of law school, Holder served for twelve years in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Later, as the US Attorney for DC he led the prosecution of Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski on corruption charges. He was also the Deputy AG under Janet Reno for most of President Clinton's second term. On a more interesting note, he recently represented the NFL in private practice during its efforts to punish Michael Vick for leading a dogfighting ring.

The point of all this is, it seems like Holder's approach to the law is from the perspective of a prosecutor and jurist rather than that of a criminal defense lawyer or politician. His record would portend respect for the rule of law at a time when we desperately need an Attorney General devoted to restoring the integrity of the Justice Department.

So why would Republicans oppose him? Again, I am approaching this question from an objective policy analyst perspective, thus putting aside any cynical tendencies to say Republicans are deathly afraid that Holder will lead an effort to investigate the legality of certain actions (especially torture) ordered by the outgoing Bush Administration and defended by its congressional allies. So with that explanation ruled out, they must see him as lacking the integrity or demeanor to restore the reputation of the Justice Department. That would explain why Senator Specter and friends are concerned about Holder's alleged involvement in the Marc Rich pardon. But as the Washington Post article linked above says:

...more moderate Republicans say that the pardon issue alone will not be enough to jeopardize Holder's confirmation.

Indeed. Sure it looks slimy, but is that enough to try and block the guy? So what else are Holder's detractors concerned about? And seriously, after getting strongly behind the embarrassments Alberto (Abu Ghraib) Gonzales and Michael Mukasey (not to mention Justices Roberts and Alito) and claiming Democrats should give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on appointments because elections have consequences?! This just seems a little hypocritical and shortsighted to me.

Instead, Senate Republicans would be better served to look at the qualifications of the nominee for Treasury, Timothy Geithner. Mr. Geithner has been President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank for the past five years, and in that role has had an enormously important role in overseeing the regulation (or lack thereof) of Wall Street and more recently helping manage the $700 billion bailout. He is a protege of leading Clinton economists Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, two fervent Wall Street supporters and advocates of financial deregulation. In light of recent financial market crisis and the unpopular bailout package, perhaps it is worth asking a few questions about Geithner's handling of the $700 billion and how he would have done things differently from Secretary Paulson and the Bush Administration. While they're at it, it would be useful to find out if he has any ideas why our financial markets have crashed so dramatically and what he thinks can be done to prevent this mess from happening again in the future.

Not to say Geithner is necessarily going to continue the trend towards financial market deregulation and allow the kind of extraordinary speculative bubbles we have seen in recent years to persist. But the public deserves to know exactly how he feels about these issues of enormous import. And Senate Republicans as the loyal opposition are in a natural position to launch such an inquiry.

Blagojevich Blagojevich Blagojevich

2008-12-10T13:17:00.000-05:00

Remember that scene from Being John Malkovich, where John Malkovich goes into his own portal and everyone looks like him, and all they say is "Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich"? I can't help but think that's not all that different from recently-arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's regular experience of the world.

Everyone in Illinois already knew that Blago is mind-numbingly corrupt. It's frankly a miracle he was re-elected in 2006, more of a testament to weakness in the IL GOP that his strengths as a politician. His approval rating then was around the low 40s; before he was arrested yesterday it was hovering in the 10-15% range. So it came as a surprise to precisely nobody that Blago had been under investigation by the feds for years now and knew about it, but just seemed to not care and went about his daily routine of being a huge jackass. Earlier this year, the state legislature was talking about impeaching him because on top of everything else he's done, he started doing the Bush signing statement thing and was basically either ignoring the substance of bills or inserting his own major legislation in an "amendatory veto". Like I said, he's a huge jackass.

Anyway, back to my original point. In the process of tracking down state budget cut documentation for work, I often have to visit state websites. I've noticed for some time that virtually every official state press release coming out of Illinois has "Governor Blagojevich" in the title. In light of recent events, I thought it'd be amusing to share a chronological listing of state releases. Mind you, this is not a pick and choose sample, but literally every article during a three-week period in November. And these are not Governor's releases, they are official Illinois news releases.

November 25, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Urges Illinoisans to Volunteer Time and Talents during the Holiday Season

November 25, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Approves Illinois Tollway Congestion Relief Green Lanes Plan

November 24, 2008
Governor and First Lady Blagojevich Launch Keep Our Kids Warm and Safe Campaign to Provide Winter Items for Needy Children

November 24, 2008
Governor Blagojevich’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force Moves to Protect Tenants from Eviction

November 23, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Reminds Illinoisans that Services are Still Available after Successful Workforce Outreach Days

November 23, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Urges Skilled Trades Workers to Apply for Illinois’ Home Weatherization Assistance Program

November 21, 2008
Blagojevich Administration Announces State of Illinois’ November “Veteran of the Month”

November 20, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Commends Illinois Tollway for Adopting $1.8 Billion Tomorrow’s Transportation Today

November 20, 2008
Statement from Governor Rod R. Blagojevich

November 20, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Restores Funding for Substance Abuse Addiction Treatment and other Critical Services

November 19, 2008
Governor Blagojevich to Sign International Declaration to Fight Climate Change

November 18, 2008
Governor Blagojevich to Sign International Agreement to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation

November 18, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Local Governments in Nine Counties Approved for Federal Assistance for September Flooding

November 18, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Plan to Manage Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Deficit

November 17, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Launches Partnership with CareerBuilder.com to Further Assist Illinois Workers

November 17, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Launches Workforce Outreach Days to Connect Illinoisans with Services during Poor Economy

November 17, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Click It or Ticket Enforcement Campaign this Thanksgiving Holiday

November 15, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Encourages Illinois Seniors to Apply for Illinois Cares Rx

November 14, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Proclaims World Diabetes Day in Illinois and Calls for a Stronger Focus on the Growing Diabetes Epidemic among Children

November 14, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Schedule for Illinois Poverty Summit

November 13, 2008
Governor Blagojevich urges people to prepare for dangerous cold temperatures during Winter Storm Preparedness Week

November 13, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Peoria County Approved for Federal Assistance Following September Flooding

November 13, 2008
Governor Blagojevich announces Landmark Lawsuit Settlement Empowering more People with Developmental Disabilities

November 12, 2008
Governor Blagojevich announces John Filan as the New Executive Director of the Illinois Finance Authority

November 12, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Plans for State-of-the-Art Biofuels Production Facility in Northern Illinois

November 10, 2008
Governor Blagojevich to Co-host Governor Schwarzenegger’s Historic Global Climate Summit

November 10, 2008
Blagojevich Administration Offers Financial Assistance to Nurses Working in Veterans’ Homes

November 9, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Nearly $200,000 in Research Grants to Study Alzheimer’s Disease

November 6, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Encourages Those Wanting to Find Birth Parents or Children to Sign Up for the Illinois Adoption Registry during Adoption Awareness Month

November 5, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat

November 3, 2008
Governor Blagojevich and Council of Economic Advisors Review Impact of National Slowdown on Illinois

A friendly reminder to the Pentagon...

2008-11-29T13:18:00.000-05:00

War is hell.

Some 15,000 soldiers are heading home to this sprawling base after spending more than a year at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and military health officials are bracing for a surge in brain injuries and psychological problems among those troops.
Facing prospects that one in five of the 101st Airborne Division soldiers will suffer from stress-related disorders, the base has nearly doubled its psychological health staff. Army leaders are hoping to use the base's experiences to assess the long-term impact of repeated deployments.
"I don't know what to expect. I don't think anybody knows," said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the Army, as he flew back to Washington from a recent tour of the base's medical facilities. "That's why I want to see numbers from the 101st's third deployment."

Why is this happening?

Noting that some soldiers in the 101st Airborne units have been to war four or five times, Chiarelli said he is most worried the military will not be able to find enough health care providers to deal effectively with the troops needing assistance.
Many of the military bases are near small or remote communities that do not have access to the number of health professionals who might be needed as a great many soldiers return home.

More than 63,600 active duty Army soldiers have done three or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is a nearly 12 percent of the total number of soldiers who have deployed at least once. Roughly four in 10 soldiers who have gone to war have served more than one deployment — and that number is growing steadily

Finally, Army leaders are starting to get their heads out of the sand and deal with the horrible psychological and emotional trauma experienced by multiple-tour Iraq vets.

For the first time, Thomas said, every soldier returning home will have an individual meeting with a behavioral health specialist and then go through a second such session 90 days to 120 days later.
The second one is generally the time when indications of stress surface, after the initial euphoria of the homecoming wears off and sleeplessness, nightmares, and other symptoms show up.

"We're seeing a lot of soldiers with stress related issues," he said. "They're not bipolar or schizophrenic. But they're deploying three and four times and the stress is tremendous. They're having relationship issues, financial issues, marital problems — all stress related."
More than 3,000 of the 15,000 troops returning home, Logan estimated, probably will experience headaches, sleep disorders, irritability, memory loss, relationship strains or other symptoms linked to stress disorder.

And as if that wasn't bad enough:

Medical staff at Fort Campbell say they also worry that there will be a new surge of suicides — an escalating problem in recent years, largely related to the stresses of war.
While soldiers have been routinely deploying for 15-month tours, most Marines serve about seven months and airmen deploy for about four months, although some may serve for tours of six months or longer.
Late this past summer, Pentagon leaders ordered a change, saying any soldier who deployed in August or after would serve 12-month tours. Army leaders say they want to reduce that to nine months, but doing so will be difficult considering the strains of fighting two wars at once.
Logan said that some 85 percent of those soldiers with stress disorder symptoms will recover with the help of some treatment or medication. But the other 15 percent will require more intensive help.

Remember back in the runup to the war, when the neocon cheerleaders, toady TV pundits, Pentagon shills and the 101st Division of Fighting Keyboardists were smugly claiming an invasion of Iraq would pay for itself?

In addition to the myriad other reasons that claim was entirely ridiculous on its face, I'd be willing to bet a nickel that not a single one of these warmongers accounted for the potential PTSD-related mental health care as a potential cost.

Lest we take our eye off of Iraq with so much else going on, I feel it is necessary to ask the Pentagon to please take care of our troops, and not force them into repeated deployment until the point of mental breakdown. If we can't find new men and women willing to fight, it's time to end this war.

Fixing Health Care: Expanding Coverage or Controlling Costs?

2008-11-23T13:19:00.000-05:00

I must admit I'm not an expert of any sort in the health care field. But I saw a very interesting panel discussion on Thursday at a work conference, about the challenges and expected priorities of the early Obama Administration, and one panelist named Chris Jennings talked in depth about what meaningful health care reform would look like. Apparently Mr. Jennings has been at the center of the national health care debate for a couple decades now and was a prime architect of the 1993 Clinton plan, so it can be assumed he is well attuned to the political realities of the situation and the potential pitfalls to avoid. His thoughts piqued my interest, so I figured I would share them here.

Here's the crux of his argument:

Health care reform is crucial to rebuilding the economy; without it America is operating at a major disadvantage in the global economy. The guaranteed free health care other countries provide is money employers in those countries don't have to pay for their workers.

The health care crisis has two major components: the massive amounts of uninsured and underinsured individuals unable to get quality care, and the pervasive skyrocketing costs.

Liberals usually focus exclusively on providing universal care while conservatives focus primarily on driving down costs. But it is nearly impossible to fix one problem without making significant headway on the other.

In other words, if we expand coverage to everyone without some mechanism to rein in the exploding cost of adequate care, American health care will face overwhelming financial strain and the system will implode before too long. Likewise, lowering overall costs through "market reforms" while millions of people remain uninsured will result in a massive reverse adverse selection problem - those that really do need quality coverage will be those least able to get it. This structure is also unsustainable in the medium-long run.

Makes sense intuitively. I've always figured an intrinsic advantage of government-provided health care is a much lower overhead cost. Insurance companies now spend something like 30% of their budgets on administrative and marketing costs, around half of that with bureaucratic mazes designed to keep people from getting care the company doesn't want to pay for and the other half telling you to ask your doctor rather suggestively about the LATEST COOL NEW DRUG!!!. Meanwhile, the overhead of Medicare is something like 3%. Between that and the promising potential of negotiating with Big Pharma for lower drug prices, It seems pretty obvious to me which is more economically efficient. Why would we not want a single-payer system based on that?

So.....does anyone who knows more than myself about health care policy want to react to this?

I'm now posting on GW's Policy Hippo blog

2008-11-18T01:30:00.003-05:00

http://policyhippo.blogspot.com/

This is the blog started by editors of the GW public policy school journal, Policy Perspectives, of which I now am one. I'll actually be posting there pretty regularly (I mean it this time!) so please check it out and comment freely.

If you pick up RSS feeds, you can subscribe to Policy Hippo here.

I'll still be posting as optimo.

President Obama's Inheritance

2008-11-17T13:20:00.000-05:00

No doubt, it feels good to be a progressive these days. Democrats have more control of the federal government than any time since just after the 1964 landslide elections. That was immediately followed by the enactment of Medicare and other key social safety net programs, so it is no surprise that many left-leaning advocates and engaged citizens are expecting big things from the upcoming Obama Administration.

Call me a downer if you want, but I'm not quite so thrilled about the prospects for immediate major advances. I'm certainly feeling an awful lot better walking by the White House these days, but that said, we are about to witness our nation's first black president attempt to maneuver an agenda through perhaps the most dire state of affairs this nation has seen since at least the Great Depression era. The global climate crisis, daunting economic inequality, the Iraq debacle and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, unsustainable energy consumption, a health care system in absolute shambles. Oh yeah, and there's that whole financial/economic meltdown thing. And that doesn't even bother with a whole host of other important issues that aren't quite as imminently crucial.

We know one thing: governing with be anything but a cakewalk, even with significant Democratic majorities in congress. The constraints on enacting common-sense progressive legislation extend way beyond the impressive ability of Republicans to obstruct. We are plagued by a wide variety of obstacles of all shapes and sizes: a trillion-dollar structural budget deficit ("structural" means it won't go away on its own when the economy gets better), factionalism within the Democratic caucus, loss of credibility around the world, and a continued public aversion to large tax increases. And it's not like most people are aware of these formidable constraints; after all, didn't you hear about Lindsay Lohan's latest drunken escapade?

Really, I'm not trying to be a downer. I just think it's of the utmost importance that highly educated folks like us are realistic in our expectations for the President-elect's job performance. It will take a heroic effort on Mr. Obama's part to:

get the economy back on track and create quality jobs,
shepherd a meaningful climate change initiative through Congress,
shepherd meaningful health care reform, hopefully providing universal coverage, through Congress,
get us out of Iraq and restore our standing in the world,
squash the danger posed by Islamic terrorists and al-Qaeda,
and get the budget under control.

I'm not sure any president has ever accomplished this much in one term. From everything I've heard in people's expectations, both implicitly and explicitly, Obama will need to accomplish most or maybe even all of these things to be considered a successful president and be re-elected in 2012.

Good luck, Mr. President-elect. You'll need it.

The price of GM's continued existence

2008-11-11T13:22:00.000-05:00

I was about to write a spirited rant about the blatant folly of bailing out disgustingly retrograde American car companies, but Lisa beat me to the punch. If you really want to know my thoughts on this, you can find them in a comment on Lisa's post.

But I do want to add one key point. If GM continues to exist and generally suck at making cars, it limits the abilities of more innovative startup companies to grow and gain market share. Companies making cars like the Aptera.

This beauty is actually ready for production, but auto industry regulations essentially written by GM lobbyists are making the producers jump through hoops just to get it on the road. Why does our government hate the car of the future?

Optimo's Official Election Recap

2008-11-06T13:26:00.000-05:00

There will be much time to talk about 2009 and the coming Obama presidency, but it feels right to start off with a recap of the election.

Obviously we know Obama won, and decisively so. He definitely has amassed 364 EVs and still could end up with 376 (Missouri and the single Omaha district remain too close to call). He outperformed John Kerry in just about every demographic group you can imagine. Check out the details, they're pretty striking. Obama won the 18-29 age group by an astounding 2-to-1 margin. Regionally, major gains were made in the coastal South, upper Midwest, Northeast and non-Mormon areas of the Mountain West. It's hard to see these gains fading away anytime soon if Democrats manage to deliver on at least some of their promises over the next few years.

In Congress, Republicans actually did a little better than expected. Although a few races in both chambers are still yet to be decided, they lost ground but managed to avoid a major landslide. As of now, the count stands at 22 seats flipping from R to D, 4 '06 D pickups flipping back to R, and eight still yet to be decided. If the eight remaining seats split 4-4, the final count will be 258-177.

The Senate saw at least six Democratic pickups in a very tough year for Republicans, while 3 races involving R incumbents remain too close to call. AK is waiting for all mail-in ballots to be counted, MN will go to a recount, and GA will go to a runoff election. If the D challenger wins in all three (which is very unlikely), then Democrats reach that supposedly magical 60 mark. Georgia would really be a shocker, and both sides will be throwing a ton of resources into the special December 2nd runoff election. My best guess for the final tally is 57-43: Franken wins in Minnesota and Lieberman bolts to the GOP. Again, both houses see non-negligible Dem majorities, but not large enough for the center-left governing coalition within the party to easily get legislation through.

The state level elections produced few surprises and was much more even. Democrats picked up the Missouri governorship which will impact policy there, but all other governor races stayed the same. Democrats picked up 5 state legislative chambers, including the NY Senate (as expected) for the first time in over a century, and Republicans surprisingly picked up both chambers in Tennessee along with 2 other bodies. New Hampshire now has the first majority-female legislative body in the country's history. Ballot initiatives were a very mixed bag. I won't bother with the details, but some nonpartisan review can be found here.

Election predictions

2008-11-03T10:12:00.006-05:00

Here is what I expect for tomorrow's election:

Obama wins 53-45 with 1-2% voting for someone else.
He will amass 359 EV's, by winning all the Kerry states and picking up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia.

Three other potential Obama states - Georgia, Indiana and Missouri - will be slight losses due to voting "irregularities". Each of these state governments is dominated by Republicans, and the urban minority areas will be plagued by massive lines, voter intimidation and potential other funny business.

In the Senate, Democrats will pick up eight seats tomorrow: Virginia (Warner), New Mexico (T. Udall), Colorado (M. Udall), Alaska (Begich), New Hampshire (Shaheen), Oregon (Merkley), North Carolina (Hagan), Minnesota (Franken). Georgia's race will go to an early December runoff, and odious incumbent Saxby Chambliss will prevail in a nailbiter. Lieberman will lose his committee chairmanship but will reluctantly decide to remain in the Dem caucus. Thus, Democrats will end up with 59 members, but still be able to break some GOP filibusters by flipping moderates like Snowe, Specter and, yes, the re-re-reinvented McMaverick.

The House is more nebulous (too many damn races to follow), but I expect around 30-35 D pickups and 2-4 R pickups.

Dems pick up the Missouri governorship, and all others remain in current hands. Dems pick up the NY State Senate and prepare to eradicate the state of all Republican congresscritters after the 2010 census.

California's Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) fails. South Dakota's abortion ban, designed specifically for a Roe v. Wade challenge fails. Affirmative action banning and anti-worker initiatives all fail. Massachusetts' measure eliminating the income tax fails, but marijuana decriminalization passes.

Can you say landslide?

Make your own predictions here.

$1,000,000,000,000,000

2008-10-08T21:30:00.003-05:00

That number, folks, is a quadrillion. A million billion. Bet you've never seen it before. I've only seen it in measuring distances in astronomy; the nearest star to the sun is about a quadrillion meters away from here. It seems like such an unfathomably large number that I wouldn't expect to ever encounter it associated with something here on Earth, something directly related to the human experience. But I saw it today.

You'll notice the number in the title has a dollars sign in front of it. That number represents the approximate amount of financial value tied up the derivatives market as recently reported by the Bank for International Settlements. Over fifteen times the entire world's GDP ($60 trillion). In other words, way more money is invested in these derivatives, which are best described in layman's terms as bets on bets, than actually exists.

Confused? Good. You're starting to get why we're in such a mess. See, the fact that these volatile markets hold a quadrillion dollars of value is not a dangerous thing in itself. The problem lies in the harsh reality that nobody has any f***ing clue what these things are worth. That's why everyone's so scared.

This can happen because there are no intrinsic checks and balances (aka regulations) on the derivatives market the way there are with banks. Institutional investors and speculators can leverage their real assets without limit, essentially creating vast amounts of financial wealth out of thin air. But because that wealth isn't backed up by any material assets, its value is both limitless and extremely unstable.

To better put this phenomenon into perspective, take a look at this chart:

More to come....

October 2008 Senate Roundup

2008-10-04T21:54:00.006-05:00

And down the stretch they come! The landscape hasn't changed drastically since the last update in June, although a few races have moved a category or two. If you can believe it, the situation has gotten even better for the Dem-held seats, as it looks like they will all be retained. Meanwhile, the hierarchy of GOP races has stayed much the same in terms of competitiveness, although three (Alaska, Georgia and North Carolina) have jumped two categories while three others (Idaho, Kansas and Maine) have fallen two categories. Dems are now poised to grab at least seven seats, and the ceiling at this point seems to be somewhere in the 10-12 range.

This will be my last full set of rankings, although I will post an update on competitive races during the week before election day.

Here's the key, same as usual:
1: 0-5% chance Dems will win seat
2: 5-15%
3: 15-25%
4: 25-40%
5: 40-50%
6: 50-60%
7: 60-75%
8: 75-85%
9: 85-95%
10: 95-100%

To the rankings!

Summary (pickups in italics)
10: AR, DE, IL, IA, MA, MI, MT, RI, SD, VA, WV
9: NJ
8: LA, NM
7: AK, CO, NH
6: NC, OR
5: MN
4: MS-B
3: GA, KY
2: ME, SC, TX
1: AL, ID, KS, MS-A, NE, OK, TN, WY-A, WY-B

Republican-Held Seats (23)

Virginia (OPEN): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Democratic Candidate: (Popular) Former Gov. Mark Warner
Republican Candidate: (Less Popular) Former Gov. Jim Gilmore
This race has been a foregone conclusion for some time. Organizing in northern Virginia, I have seen a whole bunch of Obama/Warner posters and yard signs. It's one of those rare instances where up-ballot coattails could help carry this all-important swing state for Barack. Another note: for some reason this has been one of the most often-polled Senate races. Pollsters should save their $$ - no poll has shown Gilmore within 20 points. The only question remaining is what committees Warner will get onto in the 111th Congress.

New Mexico (OPEN): 8 (Favored D)
Democratic Candidate: Rep. Tom Udall
Republican Candidate: Rep. Steve Pearce
A contest between two sitting Congressmen, this contest was bound to tighten a bit as election day drew nearer and voters started paying more attention. Nevertheless, Udall remains projected to win by a low-double digit margin (something like 56-44). The NRSC has written off New Mexico, seeing this seat as a lost cause. Really not much else to say...I think Udall will be a fantastic Senator.

Colorado (OPEN): 7 (Leans D) - slight downgrade
Democratic Candidate: Rep. Mark Udall
Republican Candidate: Former Rep. Bob Schaffer
Colorado is a top-tier presidential swing state this year, and its senate race has been no different; it has garned much attention from the DSCC and NRSC and has stayed consistently in single digits. Udall remains a clear favorite, but he has failed to pull away from the batnuts crazy Schaffer, whose views are even considered extreme as compared to the current group of shit-flinging howler monkeys (h/t Trapper John for that wonderfully descriptive term) known as the House Republican Caucus. Schaffer has also been caught up in numerous corruption scandals, the most notable being his ties to the infamous superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. Even though Udall remains up by mere single digits, it will take a dramatic game-changing event for him to lose.

Alaska (Ted Stevens): 7 (Leans D) - major upgrade
Democratic Challenger: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
This race was looking pretty good even before Stevens was indicted a couple months ago. Now Begich is clearly in the driver's seat. Even though the Alaska titan Stevens, who has been in the Senate almost as long as Alaska has been a state, may be able to beat his corruption charges, his brand is still highly tainted due to all the negative spotlight. And for reference, a perception of impropriety among the Alaska Republican establishment was precisely what swept Sarah Palin into office in 2006. Begich seems to have strong integrity, high name recognition and has some great ideas on energy and transitioning to a green economy. Another guy I would be proud to call a Senator.

New Hampshire (John Sununu): 7 (Leans D)
Democratic Challenger: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
Although Sununu's September attack ad blitz has tightened the race a bit, he still remains fundamentally unpopular, as he has consistently shilled for the horrendously unpopular Bush administration and continues to do so even now. It's hard to see how he overcomes that albatross with this election climate.

North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole): 6 (Barely D) - major upgrade
Democratic Challenger: State Sen. Kay Hagan
Over the past few weeks, Hagan has pulled into a definitive lead over the frankly incompetent Senator Dole. The DSCC has invested massively on Hagan's behalf, and their hard-hitting ads highlighting Liddy Dole's ties to George Bush, general ineffectiveness and questionable ties to North Carolina (her primary residence is DC's infamous Watergate Hotel) have clearly had an effect. Surely the Republican establishment will hit back on the incumbent's behalf, but it seems like the damage has been done.

Oregon (Gordon Smith): 6 (Barely D) - upgrade
Democratic Challenger: State House Speaker Jeff Merkley
This movement is really exciting to see; Merkley has the potential to be a great progressive Senator. He engineered a Democratic takeover of the Oregon State House in 2006 and proceeded to preside over one of the most successful legislative sessions in recent history. He has fantastic views on energy, transportation, social and economic issues - the whole gamut of domestic affairs. Smith could still win as polls are showing a virtual tie, but he has really disgusted some Oregonians by trying to heavyhandedly run away from his party. It is hard to see how he overcomes that loss of credibility.

Minnesota (Norm Coleman): 5 (Barely R)
Democratic Challenger: Al Franken
Notable Independent Candidate: Dean Barkley
I predicted a really nasty race, and am sorry to say I have not been disappointed. Coleman, the former radical hippie activist, is truly a worm. He catapulted into office on the back of faux GOP outrage over the injection of (gasp) politics into progressive hero Paul Wellstone's funeral following his tragic plane crash (I still suspect foul play). And Franken is the perfect man to pick up the Wellstone mantle, being a proud Democrat and not afraid to stand up for his values in the face of criticism. This election is looking much like a toss-up, and will greatly depend on Obama's ability to establish coattails for Franken. Note that Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley is generating a significant amount of support and may end up getting close to 20% of the vote.

Mississippi-B (Roger Wicker): 4 (Leans R)
Democratic Challenger: Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
Somewhat surprisingly, not much has changed overall in the dynamics of this contest. While Musgrove has generally run away from the national Democrats, his chances ironically still reside in the upswell in African-American voters from the Obama campaigns organizing efforts. If I had to guess I would say Wicker pulls it off, but this one is certainly a real Dem pickup opportunity. This would be the seat that gets the Dems to 60 Senators (including Lieberman), so expect ample national party committee expenditures in MS during the camapign's final weeks.

Kentucky (Mitch McConnell): 3 (Favored R)
Democratic Challenger: Rich Businessman Bruce Lunsford
Polls have McConnell ahead somewhere in the single digits, at it will likely remain that way through election day. It would be great to knock off the odious Senate GOP leader McConnell, but at this point a Lunsford victory would merely be the cherry on top of an already sweet election season. McConnell still has a ton of $ in the bank so he should be able to pull out a win.

Georgia (Saxby Chambliss): 3 (Favored R) - major upgrade
Democratic Challenger: Jim Martin
Libertarian Challenger: Allen Buckley
Wow. I really didn't expect this race to tighten, but it has. Obama's investment in Georgia, Chambliss' general arrogance and the deregulation-fueled financial crisis have driven a previously afterthought contest into competitive status. I will need to see a couple more tight polls to be convinced that Martin can win, but man would this be a pleasant surprise. Martin is actually a good, honest guy who would stand with the Dems on most major issues. Expect the DSCC to invest heavily, they really hate Chambliss and if they can siphon enough resources from other places like New Mexico and Maine, GA-Sen has a shot to be the shocker of the 2008 elections.

Texas (John Cornyn): 2 (Probable R) - slight downgrade
Democratic Challenger: State Rep. and Lt. Col. Rick Noriega
Yeah, it's Texas, and while making strides in the right direction, Texas is still unquestionably a red state. But Noriega is running as a proud netroots-style progressive and is gradually closing the gap on the odious chickenhawk Bush-shill Cornyn. While Noriega is badly outgunned financially, the race's margin now hovers in the high single digits. A strong finish by Noriega combined with huge youth and minority turnout could lead to a stunning upset and a great Democratic Senator from Texas. Oh yeah - Cornyn takes the honors for worst campaign ad of the 2008 election cycle.

Maine (Susan Collins): 2 (Probable R) - major downgrade
Democratic Challenger: Rep. Tom Allen
Oh how the mighty have fallen. Originally a top-tier pickup target, Maine's contest now ranks just 13th on the list of pickup opportunities. As much as they have tried, Allen and the DSCC simply have not been able to chip away at Sen. Collins' high approval ratings. I believe such popularity is thoroughly undeserved, but she benefits from the coattails of actually moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe and former liberal Republicans that historically dominated the state. It's hard to see how that changes with just a month until election day. Oh well.

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham): 2 (Probable R) - upgrade
"Democratic" Challenger: Bob Conley
Weird. Two recent polls have Graham leading the DINO (Democrat in Name Only) Conley by just nine points. Perhaps conservatives have been impressed by Conley's hardline stances on immigration and crime prevention - he's actually running to the right of Graham on these issues. Graham will almost definitely win, but it's interesting to note that some of this movement may be due to economic trends and a general "throw the bums out" kind of attitude.

Nebraska (OPEN): 1 (Definite R) - downgrade
Republican Candidate: Former Gov. Mike Johanns
Democratic Candidate: Scott Kleeb
Some lefty activists continue to hold out hope for Kleeb, but I just can't see it. The state is too deeply conservative and Kleeb just doesn't have the name recognition in the eastern part of the state that isn't quite so ruby red.

Idaho (OPEN): 1 (Definite R) - major downgrade
Republican Candidate: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch
Democratic Candidate: Larry LaRocco
I had hopes for this to be the stunning upset of the election cycle but it just never materialized. Idaho remains one of the most strongly Republican states in the country and LaRocco's support seems to be topped out at around 35-38%.

Oklahoma (James Inhofe): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: State Sen. Andrew Rice
Rice is a very intriguing young Democrat; in just his early 30's, he seems to have a very bright future and may indeed find himself in the Senate one day. But 2008 is not that day. While Inhofe is truly insane and Oklahomans should be embarrassed to have him as a Senator, they aren't.

Kansas (Pat Roberts): 1 (Definite R) - major downgrade
Democratic Challenger: Former Rep. Jim Slattery
During the early summer this race was showing glimpses of competitiveness and Slattery had the potential to be a solid candidate, but that did not hold. Roberts wil cruise to re-election.

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Bob Tuke
Nothing to see here. Tuke seems like a good guy, but hasn't caught any traction.

Alabama (Jeff Sessions): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: State Sen. Vivian Figures

Wyoming-B (John Barrasso): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Nick Carter

Mississippi-A (Thad Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Erik Fleming

Wyoming-A (Michael Enzi): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Professor Chris Rothfuss

Democratic-held Seats (12)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu): 8 (Favored D) - upgrade
Republican Challenger: State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy
Once seen as a toss-up race, Landrieu has done a great job so far and currently has a solid double-digit lead over the recent Democratic defector Kennedy. I am being cautious and still leaving Kennedy some room to claw his way back, but with so many GOP seats in jeopardy it looks like the NRSC will not have much $ left over to invest in offense.

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D)
Republican Challenger: Former Rep. Dick Zimmer
Polls here are actually closer than in Louisiana, but New Jersey has been the ultimate GOP tease in recent years. Karl Rove & Co. spent millions in the outrageously expensive state in both 2004 and 2006, and likely lost the Senate because that spending diverted precious resources away from Virginia, Montana and Missouri. Expect a 54-46 type victory for Lautenberg.

South Dakota (Tim Johnson): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Republican Challenger: State Rep. Joel Dykstra
There's really not much to say. The GOP really blew this one with a near-total recruitment failure. Johnson will cruise to an easy victory.

Delaware (Joe Biden): 10 (Definite D)
This one is only listed here because there will be an immediate special election to replace Biden when he becomes the Vice President. Note that all following races are in alphabetical order. None of the races from here on need any substantial comment. It is difficult to picture any of these Democratic incumbents winning by less than 15 points.

Arkansas (Mark Pryor): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: NONE (there is a Green Party candidate)
Mind you this is a red state. And the party couldn't find any challenger for a supposedly vulnerable Pryor? Good lord that's pathetic.

Illinois (Dick Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Steve Sauerberg

Iowa (Tom Harkin): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Christopher Reed

Massachusetts (John Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Jeff Beatty

Michigan (Carl Levin): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Jack Hoogendyk

Montana (Max Baucus): 10 (Definite D)
"Republican" Challenger: Bob Kelleher
This one is worth noting just because Kelleher is a really funny kook dude. He ran against Baucus last time in the Green Party. And he won a contested GOP primary. That's just sad.

Rhode Island (Jack Reed): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Robert Tingle

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Jay Wolfe
The only swing vote here may be among people named Jay.

Campaigning vs. Governing

2008-08-30T10:28:00.003-05:00

So now we have our full tickets: Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin. And they are very revealing about the nature of this election and the dynamics of the partisan landscape these days.
The most important revelation here further clarifies that Obama is running his campaign in a manner that sets him up to govern effectively, while McCain is simply running to win, governance be damned.

Okay, raise your hand if you'd heard of Sarah Palin before she became the VP nominee. Right. The buzz said Palin was a potentially smart pick because it shored up support for McCain among social conservatives and may be able to pick up some disaffected Hillary supporters because she is a woman. Which may be true. But the fact is, how the hell does she in any way pass the "commander-in-chief" test? This is the person who John McCain wants to take over the country should anything happen to him (he is a health risk after all)?! She is just over a year into her term as governor of a state with fewer people than Fort Worth, TX and a fantasyland welfare system driven by massive oil profits. In terms of governing preparedness and helpfulness to a potential McCain Administration, Sarah Palin is an absolute zero.

Whereas with Joe Biden, Obama has added perhaps the foremost foreign policy expert in Washington to his team. It would be very difficult to say this pair is not capable of handling a crisis of foreign affairs (although Rove & Co will try). Biden is also extremely well respected on Capitol Hill and will help build unlikely alliances to shepherd through his boss's agenda. In short, this is a VP selection that will help with electoral politics, but even more so with effective governance.

This episode is further evidence that Barack Obama is not just trying to get into the Oval Office, but clearly wants to be a highly capable leader once there. We have seen that in the way Obama handled the primary debates, not seeking to sow hatred against fellow Democrats at any point even while his rival chose to take a different path. We have seen that in the ways Obama has handled rolling out his policy platform, refraining from ambitious policy proposals that he does not believe he can deliver. When pressed for specifics, he has stuck to the core aspects of his agenda and refused to pander to the base just to win an election. That is not "running away from his base", it's preparing for honest governance. As for those that say he is not providing specifics, I believe they are either partisan agents aiming to deliberately misinform low-information voters, or being played by those smear merchants.

John McCain, on the other hand, seems not to care all that much about governing; he is attempting to be all things to all people. I can't think of an issue (except arguably Iraq) where he has maintained the same position he held in 2000, when he ran as an actual "maverick". Abortion, tax cuts, immigration, torture, campaign finance....the list goes on and on. Furthermore, he has betrayed over the course of the campaign a fundamental lack of understanding of the key issues facing the nation today. He gets Sunnis and Shiites confused, or confuses them on purpose to make a warmongering talking point possible. He still says "everybody knows" that tax cuts raise revenues. He calls a salary of anything under $5 million "middle class". He has consistently opposed funding health care and body armor for the troops he continues to send into harm's way, supposedly claiming it abandons principles of fiscal responsibility while billions of taxpayer dollars go "missing" in Iraq and not a peep is uttered. He calls his wife a cunt and offers her services for a strip show but thinks feminist women will support him because Barack Obama is....smug? Worst of all, while jumping aboard the mantle of reform, he continues to staff his campaign heavily with corporate lobbying interests and disciples of the vermin that populated the vaunted Bush PR machine.

Talking points aside, it seems McCain really is running to continue the legacy of George W. Bush and the legacy of fundamentalist Republicanism, much to America's detriment. More politics over policy. That, above all, is why we cannot allow him the opportunity to pretend to govern.

Reining In the New Spoils System: A Proposal Part I: Defining the Problem

2008-07-28T11:48:00.005-05:00

I'm gonna introduce this topic with a favored boogeyman of the left - Halliburton. We all know the story: This all-purpose giant contracting conglomerate, formerly headed by Darth Cheney himself, is awarded massive no-bid contracts by the Bush misAdministration to perform various tasks traditionally performed by the federal government. Notoriously, billions of dollars go missing during the early days of the Iraq War, Halliburton subsidiary KBR is ostensibly deemed the culprit escapes any measure of accountability, and campaign contributions to Republicans rise substantially among the war profiteering sector.

Halliburton has become so notorious due to its sheer brazenness engaging in naked cronyism. They are an effective poster child for the rapidly expanding phenomenon of privatized government services. The GOP and other supporters claim it is more effective because private entities can perform services cheaper, thus saving taxpayers money. This theory has been proven incorrect in reality, but makes for an effective smokescreen argument. To quote the eminently quotable Paul Krugman, circa 2002:

So what's this about?
First, it's about providing political cover. In the face of budget deficits as far as the eye can see, the administration -- determined to expand, not reconsider the program of tax cuts it initially justified with projections of huge surpluses -- must make a show of cutting spending. Yet what can it cut? The great bulk of public spending is either for essential services like defense and the justice system, or for middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that the administration doesn't dare attack openly.
Privatizing federal jobs is a perfect answer to this dilemma. It's not a real answer -- the pay of those threatened employees is only about 2 percent of the federal budget, so efficiency gains from privatization, even if they happen, will make almost no dent in overall spending. For a few years, however, talk of privatization will give the impression that the administration is doing something about the deficit.
But distracting the public from the reality of deficits is, we can be sure, just an incidental payoff. So, too, is the fact that privatization is a way to break one of the last remaining strongholds of union power. Karl Rove is after much bigger game.
A few months ago Mr. Rove compared his boss to Andrew Jackson. As some of us noted at the time, one of Jackson's key legacies was the ''spoils system,'' under which federal jobs were reserved for political supporters. The federal civil service, with its careful protection of workers from political pressure, was created specifically to bring the spoils system to an end; but now the administration has found a way around those constraints.
We don't have to speculate about what will follow, because Jeb Bush has already blazed the trail. Florida's governor has been an aggressive privatizer, and as The Miami Herald put it after a careful study of state records, ''his bold experiment has been a success -- at least for him and the Republican Party, records show. The policy has spawned a network of contractors who have given him, other Republican politicians and the Florida G.O.P. millions of dollars in campaign donations.''
What's interesting about this network of contractors isn't just the way that big contributions are linked to big contracts; it's the end of the traditional practice in which businesses hedge their bets by giving to both parties. The big winners in Mr. Bush's Florida are companies that give little or nothing to Democrats. Strange, isn't it? It's as if firms seeking business with the state of Florida are subject to a loyalty test.
So am I saying that we are going back to the days of Boss Tweed and Mark Hanna? Gosh, no -- those guys were pikers. One-party control of today's government offers opportunities to reward friends and punish enemies that the old machine politicians never dreamed of.
note: text bolded by me.

This is why we care about Halliburton - we have seen this sort of cronyism multiple times before, and resoundingly rejected it as a nation each time. There is no reason to believe that the voting public would accept a return to a de facto spoils system, with trillions of dollars at its disposal, if they clearly saw it as such. Think about the following events that are emblematic of the traits most hurting Republican approval in recent years:

1) Katrina - with political cronies installed at the top of a disaster management agency, a city drowns while the federal government does nothing. President Bush and his Republican toadies blithely ignore the fact that FEMA has been gutted and "heckuva job, Brownie" becomes a catch phrase to symbolize the GOP culture of corruption.

2) Justice Department politicization - Thanks to the efforts of intrepid blogger/reporter Josh Marshall, the Bush misAdministration was exposed for morphing its Justice Department into a tool of the Republican Party under Abu Gonzales. Once the story hit the traditional media, the approval ratings of Shrub and his congressional bootlickers took a significant hit.

3) Elitist economic policy - After-tax income inequality has risen to its highest level since 1928. Republicans believe the economy is doing just hunky dory while those without a trust fund are stuck in neutral and sliding back. Here's Fred Thompson in one of last year's GOP debate, echoing the standard party line:

MR. THOMPSON: I think there is no reason to believe that we're headed for a recession. We're enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth that started in 2001, and then further in 2003 with the tax cuts that we put in place. We're enjoying low inflation. We're enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well. I see no reason to believe we're headed for -- (pause) -- for economic downturn.
MS. BARTIROMO: Senator, you've painted a very nice picture. The Dow and the S&P 500 today at new highs tonight, record numbers, and yet, two-thirds of the people surveyed said we are either in a recession or headed for one. Why the angst?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I think there are pockets in the economy. Certainly they're having difficulty. I think there are certainly those in Michigan that are having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy. I think that not enough has been done to tell what some call the greatest story never told, and that is that we are enjoying a period of growth right now, and we should acknowledge what got us there and continue those same policies on into the future.

In other words, all those useless poor and working-class people should quit complaining, suck it up and wait for the crumbs to trickle down. They just don't get it - if the rich are doing well, then you're just not working hard enough.

Why does this matter to the privatization debate? Because while most citizens won't openly express animosity towards the wealthy in general, an immense amount of rage can be generated towards those enriching themselves off the taxpayer's dime. This brings us to the next point:

4) War Profiteers - Not much explanation is needed. Even the most wingnutty Republicans won't dare to defend these loathsome maggots; all they can do is distract and change the subject. And - surprise! - government contractors pay their executives extraordinarily lavishly. Halliburton, for example, paid its CEO David Lesar a whopping $29,360,000 in 2006 alone. That's two-hundred and ninety-three MILLION taxpayer dimes. And they're honestly saying the government, who pays its top executives no more than $400,000, can't do the job just as efficiently?! Even the most accomplished BS artists can't possibly believe that deep down.

So we reach the key question: how to break through the smoke screen and start debating the privatization matter in honest terms? I'll present my proposed solution in the next post. Stay tuned.....

The media is making itself a political issue

2008-07-23T09:23:00.009-05:00

Media bias has been an increasingly important topic among progressive activists. The right wing has learned over many years how to manipulate the traditional media outlets into supporting their agenda. By continuously asserting a "liberal" bias and putting major pressure on any pro-Democratic or liberal coverage (real or perceived), the major corporate news networks have been trained to adopt and promote conservative frames while suppressing liberal ones.

Usually this phenomenon exhibits itself subtly. For instance, the Talking Heads continually refer to the estate tax as the much more nefarious-sounding "death tax" or refuse to critique a Republican's pronounced issue stances against their past legislative votes. And of course one can point out the myriad ways in which the corporate media has kowtowed to John McCain.

But every so often, an example of media bias comes along that is so blatant, so egregious and so misleading that it renders the "liberal media" canard utterly indefensible. Yesterday, Olbermann exposed a shockingly obvious whitewashing of a potentially self-damaging McCain quote by CBS.

From their exclusive interview:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

It just so happens that McCain's depiction of this "matter of history" is flat-out false. The Anbar Awakening happened months before the surge. Here's some clarification by EquationDoc at DailyKos:

The colonel was Colonel Sean McFarland, the head of 1st Brigade, 1st Division. They were redeployed to Iraq in January, 2006, in Nineveh province. In May, 2006 they were transferred south to Ramadi, in Al Anbar province, the site of the "Anbar Awakening." The 1st Brigade, 1st Division was redeployed out of Iraq in mid-February, 2007.

That is, the unit McCain is referring to left Iraq approximately one month after Bush announced the surge on January 10, 2007 (troop surge timeline). A month later, on March 20, troop strength was up from 132,000 (in January) to 152,000. Additional commitments to the surge would eventually bring the total to 168,000, in September, 2007.

The Anbar Awakening, or Anbar Salvation Council, was founded by Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi in September, 2006, again, long before Bush's January 10, 2007 announcement of the surge. And ironically, at the same time troop surge levels peaked and US casualties were in the process of declining, al-Rishawi was killed in September, 2007 by a roadside bomb in Ramadi. It's even more ironic when considered in the context of McSame's claims that we were "able to go out and protect that sheik and others."

In making a statement such as this, either McCain has memory issues or he is simply lying. An editor at CBS likely recognized the inaccuracy of his statement. Thus, CBS chose to scrub out these words and replace them with another, much more on-message answer from earlier in the interview:

Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

I dare Marlowe and any other McSame apologists out there to give me an explanation for this switcheroo other than that which I contend: pro-McCain and pro-Republican media bias.

We can see here why those in the traditional press are so condescending towards bloggers and the internet in general: We are a direct threat to their ability to control the narrative. I, for one, hope they keep it up. It will only lead us to shine a greater spotlight on their fatal flaws and ultimately expose corporate newsrooms as the largely charlatan operations that they have become. And when the chickens finally come home to roost, it must be acknowledged that this failing industry will have wrought its own demise by shilling for the followers of a failed ideology.

UPDATE:Here is the segment where Keith Olbermann exposes the story:

Conference Review

2008-07-20T12:37:00.002-05:00

As the Netroots Nation conference winds down, I feel a renewed sense of purpose in advocating meaningful change in this country. I was able to meet some real leaders, match faces and voices to screen names and eloquent digital rants, and network with other offline activists in the Beltway progressive circuit. I got to see Austin, a city to which I officially want to
move.... or at least visit again soon! And of course, I learned about new organizing tools and enhanced my depth of knowledge in issue areas like energy policy and campaign finance.

Here are some highlights of my experience at NN08:

The inspiring speech by Howard Dean Thursday night;
Al Gore's impromptu appearance yesterday morning, he is truly a political rock star;
The Energize America panel featuring the venerable Jerome a Paris and a trio of top-tier candidates;
Sharing a table with Leutisha Stills of Jack and Jill Politics as she vented out loud in advance of what would become a searing critique of the Kos-Harold Ford debate.
Getting the chance to hear Larry Lessig, an amazing presenter and former colleague of Obama's at Chicago Law School, now running a groundbreaking ethics reform operation called Change Congress;
A panel last evening with Ezra Klein and others about how to capture this unique opportunity for a dominant social democratic movement.
And of course, partying hard in the great city of Austin.

Next year in Pittsburgh!

Question for Harold Ford

2008-07-18T13:31:00.004-05:00

Here at Netroots Nation, we were just treated to a very civilized lunch debate between Markos and DLC Chair Harold Ford. In general, Mr. Ford was able to muddle the issues effectively enough to avoid drawing the ire of the (obviously) pro-grassroots crowd. One thing that particularly frustrated me, however, was his claim that he had to take very conservative positions on some issues because the demographics of his district demanded it. He represented Memphis until 2006 when he ran a less-than-spectacular failed senatorial campaign. Memphis is one of the most economically devastated inner cities in the nation, and experienced more foreclosures per capita than almost any other Congressional district. Mr. Ford voted for the anti-debtor bankruptcy bill, blocked lending and housing reforms throughout his congressional tenure, and continually supported free-trade, anti-worker policies. Ford now represents an organization that believes that in order to win, Democrats must take positions on many issues that look much like Republican stances. Now I've always been perplexed about this belief, and the following question occurred to me:

If DLC Democrats think conservative policies are so popular, then why do conservatives themselves find it so hard to speak about the issues in plain terms?

They resort to pithy, misleading catch phrases and outright personal smears to control the debate. Frank Luntz and friends have said outright that the country at large finds conservative policies unpopular if expressed honestly. Although I stood in line to ask the above question, I was unfortunately unable to do so due to time constraints. I hope that by posting it here, this question will reach Mr. Ford or one of his ideological brethren who can provide a legitimate answer.

Reporting from Netroots Nation

2008-07-18T09:28:00.002-05:00

I'm in Austin this week soaking up the ethos of the Great Orange Satan and the progressive blogosphere at large. Thursday was a kind of slow day, with mostly informal sessions of certain constituencies. I attended one morning group discussion of state-level bloggers and that was quite fascinating. The most poignant moment from my perspective was the discussion about the importance of local bloggers to move the national debate and expand the blogging universe in ways that the large national groups cannot. I also made a work-related connection that will help us better advocate for sensible revenue increases as a partial fix to California's budget crisis.

Aside from that, there wasn't too much of personal interest yesterday, so my friend Chris Colaninno and I saw the sights of summertime in Austin. After enjoying some yummy chicken-fried steak at a local restaurant, we took a tour of the state capitol. It's a very majestic building, with a dome similar to the national Capitol building, and the main atrium is adorned with pictures of each past governor going back to the days of the Republic of Texas. My favorite part: it is powered almost entirely by a beautiful array of solar panels.

The meat of the conference is over the next two days, and I'll be checking in periodically with updates on the various sessions I attend. So far today I have been to Energize America (which I'll report on shortly) and am currently sitting in a panel on a meaningful Middle Class policy.

Follow-up: stepping off the ledge

2008-07-03T10:51:00.002-05:00

I'm still a little frustrated with the Obama campaign's current "path of least resistance" strategy, as Chris Colaninno mentions in the comments of the previous post. But the past couple days have given me some cause for optimism (hopefully I can earn my pseudonym at least a little!).

First, in a press conference in Ohio on Tuesday, Barack backtracked significantly from his initial rejection of Clark's statements.

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” Obama said, responding to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn’t called on Wesley Clark to apologize for his remarks yesterday. “I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

While I would prefer to see Obama take charge of the issue head-on and confront the matter of McCain's military experience as automatic presidential qualification directly, this bob-and-weave strategy has been working for him and will continue to be effective. It actually mirrors his strategy on the Jeremiah Wright situation pretty closely, and I think he handled that about the best he could have given the fine line he had to walk. Also note that it took him a couple days to find a clear voice in the wake of the Wright "scandal", but thereafter he successfully redirected the conversation by straightforwardly and vocally refusing to acknowledge these petty attacks as a serious campaign issue.

As a corollary, I am becoming more and more convinced that General Clark would be the best choice for Obama as a running mate. This episode is solid evidence that the two can effectively play off each other going after McCain's record in a good cop-bad cop sort of manner. I still think Edwards would also be a great pick, of course for different reasons. However, Clark is probably the safer choice at this point, balances some of Obama's negative attributes (inexperience) and would allow Obama to focus almost entirely on offense. With the good General, the chances of a landslide would be pretty significant as McCain's true nature is gradually exposed.

Venting Some Frustration on Obama and controlling the narrative

2008-06-30T16:16:00.010-05:00

Oy. The past week or so has been a frustrating one in election land. Obama seems to be pulling the usual Democratic triangulation in order to stave off attacks against his perceived super-liberalism and lack of patriotism. Obama has recently straddled the issue on guns in reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the DC gun ban. He caved in on FISA after pledging just a few months ago to actively support a filibuster, and rubbed it into our faces by acting like Dems got something out of the "deal". To top it off, Today we find out that Mr. Civility has chosen to renounce a smart, legitimate attack by Wes Clark on McCain's presidential qualifications.

In a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."

To clarify, the crux of General Clark's statement yesterday was as such:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.
"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."

Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

So what about this doesn't Obama agree with? Does he believe that getting shot down does qualify McCain to be president? Does he think that going after McCain's history is out of bounds, even after McCain has made it a central part of his campaign? Or d0es he harbor the notion that refraining from direct attacks on John S. McMaverick is a safe election strategy? I worry it is that last point motivating Obama's thinking here. If this is indeed the case, he is ceding an crucial rhetorical point to the GOP, one that will hurt him later on.

See, McSame doesn't have much to run on, since he is a Republican and most voters that the current Republican president all but ruined the country.

The economy? A mess, and getting messier. McCain loses badly if this is at the forefront of voters' minds.
Ethics and fiscal sanity? Maybe 15 years ago, but not now, not as a member of the party of wide stances, lobbyist-sponsored brothels and a trillion dollar defense contractor boondoggle in Iraq.
The environment? HAH!
Immigration? Not an electoral winner, and McCain has a similar position to Obama anyway.
Guns? Long past its relevance as a mobilizing issue, and defused by the recent Supreme Court decision anyway.
God and Gays? Maybe effective to appease a chunk of the ornery GOP base, but definitely not enough to win a nationwide election by itself.

Military and security? Ah, now there's an issue in which McCain might have a prayer. McCain is a war hero and withstood torture in Vietnam, whereas Obama did not serve. That issue, if it becomes the defining issue of this race, will vault a clearly inferior candidate into the White House.

I suspect you all knew this already, but it's important to reiterate how crucial it is that Obama take on this issue headfirst, and not allow Sen. McOrnery to define the terms on this issue. The only way he challenges the media frame of Strong Republican, Weak Democrat is to boldly question the silly assumption that only war heroes can effectively lead a nation in wartime, and every war hero would make a superior president. Any thinking person can recognize that to be a gross oversimplification, even if it were true* (see below for more on this point).

Along those lines, one would think that sending out former military commander Wes Clark to challenge McHero's inherent qualifications would be a purely brilliant tactical move on the Obama campaign's part. So it utterly boggles my mind that the campaign would overtly shun such an effort. Sure, a jujitsu tactic would justify the Obama spokesman's reaction, but "of course rejecting" Gen. Clark's attack is way too heavyhanded if they are really pursuing the good cop/bad cop strategy. If this dichotomy continues further, then the line of attack on Obama as a slick flip-flopping double-talker with no substance will be enhanced immeasurably, and frankly he will deserve it. He will be no better a candidate than all the triangulating Dem nominees before him.

In my mind, the only way Barack comes out of this episode unscathed is by clearly yet subtly concurring with the General's take on McCain's qualifications. While it is not too late, I fear the opportunity to do so may be slipping from his grasp.

**************************
A follow-up note on military vs. civilian leadership: While not a disqualification in itself, a military perspective on governance can lead to skewed priorities. The current cadre of chickenhawk neocons notwithstanding, those more focused on conquest abroad than providing for the citizens at home have been of a military background, while those seeking to improve the quality of life of their people are often of a civilian, highly-educated nature. The argument can easily be made that right now, the American government needs to turn inwards and solve the growing problems of economic instability, health care and energy dependence right here at home.

Texas!

2008-06-25T10:05:00.004-05:00

As many of you know I believe Texas to be an important dark horse state in this election. It isn't among the best bets to flip among traditional red states.....those honors go to Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, the upper Prarie states and Alaska (I consider Colorado to be traditionally purple). But Texas' sheer size and importance as the crown jewel of the Republican electoral portfolio means it is a very worthwhile target. Plus it can be competitive under the right circumstances, which I outline below. When we talk about "expanding the playing field", I believe actively competing in Texas is a key component of such a strategy.

That's why I'm very excited by this new Politico article that discusses Obama's robust 50-state strategy and the plan to fully attack some GOP bastions like Georgia and Montana as well as all of the states mentioned above. But the article also contains a passage about Texas:

Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

...

Hildebrand’s plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama’s campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won’t necessarily produce electoral votes.

In Texas, for instance, Obama’s three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign’s challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states.

A promising start to a groundbreaking campaign. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the factions of the Democratic Party personified by Clinton (either one) and Obama. The former has an all-consuming goal of getting elected, and lacks an overarching vision or agenda beyond obtaining and keeping power. The latter still works hard to win their own election, but also expends considerable resources growing the progressive movement and building a lasting mandate for a focused agenda. Obama's campaign style demonstrates that he wants not only to win the presidency, but to accomplish great things once he is there. Having expanded Congressional majorities in both chambers will be a major boon to his chances of enacting sweeping systemic changes.

In terms of building that movement infrastructure, enthusiasm is truly paramount. Given the natural challenges to moving a progressive agenda through Congress, the progressive grassroots and donor base will need to be much more fired up than their conservative counterparts and keep constant pressure on their elected officials. While a decade-plus of failed conservative governance has assured the left of staying excited for the near future, conservatives still control a large swath of the country. I believe the Republican coalition needs to fully unravel for lasting political change to occur in America, and this is where Texas comes in. The symbolic importance of George Bush's home state to conservative identity should not be underestimated. If Democrats can seriously compete there or even turn it blue, that might be the straw that irrevocably breaks the elephant's back and leads the rats to desert that sinking ship.

Texans traditionally love to seize opportunities without hesitation. Isn't it worth an investment of $25 million, around 3-5% of Obama's expected campaign stash, to give the Lone Star State a chance to finalize this nation's utter rejection of modern conservatism?

Here's why I think Texas is in play:

1) The state's demographics are changing. Of course many older Texans will never vote for a progressive minority Democrat, but they are a shrinking segment of the population. Younger urban voters are growing in number and the ideological divide by age might be as stark in that region as anywhere else in the country. The 18-35 crowd there is as proudly liberal as most of the other places in America, with classic Texas swagger to boot. Plus, the Hispanic population is exploding and carries increasing weight in the voting population. They have traditionally been a swing segment of the electorate, but...

2) Texas Hispanics will be voting overwhelmingly D this year. I'm talking 80/20. First, you better believe they noticed the nativist bigotry flying around the GOP recently over immigration, and that probably alienated a good chunk of those voters for life. Also, the Democratic Senate nominee is a fellow named Rick Noriega, a State Rep and Iraq War vet who reminds me quite a bit of Jim Webb in political style. He is running a tough and coordinated grassroots campaign, is a proud Hispanic with appeal to white moderates in West and South Texas and presents a dramatic contrast to Chief Chickenhawk Jon Cornyn on just about every issue. Cornyn's approval is hanging around something putrid like 40-48 and Noriega isn't taking any of his swiftboating garbage. I think Noriega and Obama will both benefit from each other's demographic coattails and a revived grassroots Democratic base.

3) Along these lines, two polls came out within the past couple months that had both Cornyn-Noriega and Obama-McCain only down by single digits. Statistically competitive, before the general election campaigns heat up and the spotlight is shone on these two deeply flawed Republicans. From what I gather, non-firebreating Texans are really embarrassed of W (approval rating about 37%) and he has the same negative effect on his congressional enablers among independents as just about everywhere else in the country. So I don't think there's as huge a hurdle to overcome as would be expected for Texas.

4) The state GOP machine is corrupt, bloated and lazy. Obama is already sending 15 organizers into the state and may follow with further investment later on if things look close come September. Between that and the partisan energy gap I have a feeling the Republicans aren't prepared to fight a close battle based on retail politics, and will be caught off guard.

UGH - spineless Dems yet again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

2008-06-19T11:40:00.005-05:00

Karl Rove & Co is right about something: we have many spineless appeasers among the ranks congressional Democrats. The Neville Chamberlain wing of the party, unable to stand up for its beliefs and under the tragic impression that one can negotiate with terrorists, seems to believe that if one grants enough leeway to those who wish them harm, it will placate those forces and keep them at bay.

Those Rovian hatemongers are wrong about who those appeasers are, though. Ironically, the situation we see is that the true merchants of terror are those who would slander fellow Americans for partisan political gain. The real appeasers are the "Blue Dogs" who mistakenly think that actively enabling the agenda of the conservative establishment and the Bush administration will somehow exempt them from nasty attack ads in the fall.

And these milquetoast traitors have just shredded the fourth amendment because they're afraid to be called weak on terror by KKKarl Rove and his Very Serious Pundit Friends, who will attack them anyway.

Apparently, the loser "Blue Dogs" just can't handle doing their jobs and holding this criminal president accountable to the rule of law. Instead, they feel the need to capitulate on FISA and telecom immunity....after they had already won.

Steny Hoyer, I'm looking directly at you. You are the troglodyte who decided to unilaterally defy the vast majority of your caucus and value AT&T's profits over the American people's freedom. If you said no to them and the Bush junta, we would still have a recourse of action for illegal spying. We would have perhaps obtained evidence necessary to build an impeachment or criminal case against a president that you say you oppose. But that might make Sean Hannity mad, and we can't have that!

If Steny Hoyer remains the Democratic majority leader into 2009, it may be worthwhile for progressive activists to consider whether unconditional support for the Democratic Party is really the best tactic to achieve positive change in this country. Perhaps the Democratic Party just cannot be reformed into a strong voice for the American people.

I'd like to add one more thing. As the standard bearer of the party and likely the next president, Barack Obama has the power to stop this atrocity. He can make a few phone calls to his congressional colleagues and come out publicly to denounce the pursuers of capitulation. This is a major test of what kind of transformational leader Obama really will be. Here's hoping he comes out firmly on the side of the Constitution.

June Senate Roundup

2008-06-04T18:30:00.009-05:00

Honestly, I'm getting pretty worn out by the marathon presidential race and especially the unbearably long nomination process that's thankfully reached its conclusion. And based on what I'm hearing from those around me, you probably are too. So as a brief respite from the BIG race, here are my June Senate rankings and race updates. With almost all of the meaningful primaries also wrapping up yesterday on the Senate front, this is a good time for a full rundown.

The wonderful news for Democrats continues unabated, as quite a few races have been upgraded since the last update in March with a mere one looking better for the GOP. Getting to sixty seats is now looking distinctly within the realm of possibility, although Dems would have to knock off some tough incumbents to get there. As a baseline, we would be looking at something around 55-58 (including Lieberman) if the elections were today; that would mean a pickup of 4-7 seats.

To the rankings! As always, 1 means Definite R while 10 means Definite D
Races are ordered by chance of flipping. If "upgrade" is listed, the race got better for the Democrats.

Oh, this time Republican seats go first, because the D-held seats are almost all foregone conclusions at this point.

See the bottom of the post for a summary and the methodology behind my number rankings.

Republican-Held Seats (23)

Virginia (OPEN): 9 (Probable D)
Democratic Nominee: Former Gov. Mark Warner
Republican Nominee: Former Gov. Jim Gilmore
To put it simply, Virginians know Warner as the guy who cleaned up the mess that Gilmore made. Gilmore barely got the nomination Tuesday over a nobody state delegate. There's a good chance Warner will end up giving a hefty chunk of his campaign cash to the DSCC to fund other, closer contests.

New Mexico (OPEN): 8 (Favored D)
Democratic Nominee: Rep. Tom Udall
Republican Nominee: Rep. Steve Pearce
The conservative Pearce edged out faux-moderate Heather Wilson (of nipplegate fame) for the nomination. It matters little. A slew of polls have had Udall beating both by very comfortable margins. It may tighten a little, but right now it's hard to imagine Pearce winning.

Colorado (OPEN): 8 (Leans D) - 2 point upgrade
Democratic Nominee: Rep. Mark Udall (Tom's brother)
Republican Nominee: Former Rep. Bob Schaffer
This contest was shaping up to be a hard-fought nailbiter. That was before the torrent of corruption revelations began to hit Schaffer. The worst one: while in congress he went on a Jack Abramoff-sponsored trip to the Mariana Islands to "investigate" sweatshop conditions, and of course reported everything to be hunky-dory. Then, in Congress he once tried to say the U.S. should emulate its workplace regulations after those of the Marianas, known as one of the most cruel places for workers in the Western Hemisphere. In other words he's a transparent Grade A Dirtbag. To make matters worse, his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, handled Macaca Allen's implosion in 2006, so you know he can't handle PR crises particularly well. All I'm saying is, get out the popcorn, this should be entertaining to watch.

New Hampshire (John Sununu): 7 (Leans D)
Democratic Nominee: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
Sununu is a Bush toady representing a state that doesn't take well to toadies, and especially not the Iraq-enabling kind. Shaheen remains pretty popular and despite a few years out of the state, still has very deep roots in the NH political community. Polls have her consistently ahead by around 10 points and that probably will not change much as both have very high name ID. If McCain can sell his case on Iraq and wins the state, Sununu has a shot. Otherwise, stick a fork in him.

Alaska (Ted Stevens): 5 (Barely R)
Challenger: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
Boy, Alaska Republicans are a mess of corruption right now. Stevens, as the king of Alaska politics, heads the list of course with his notorious Bridge to Nowhere and much much more. Despite the good will Stevens has generated over the years, he is starting to be seen as a black eye for the state by its residents (those who pay attention, anyway). Begich, the son of beloved former congressman Nick Begich, is also well-regarded and already governs a large chunk of Alaska's population so is widely known. This matchup should be really fascinating and I expect it to resemble many of the '06 congressional campaigns. Gonna be a close one.

Minnesota (Norm Coleman): 5 (Barely R) - downgrade
Challenger: Al Franken
Yikes! After I gushed about Franken in the last roundup, a major story came to light about how he owed back taxes in 17 states. The story may have been blown a little out of proportion, but it seems like it stuck as a scandal and may have opened a door for Coleman to build a narrative of Franken as dishonest and flippant. Even though the story broke a month ago or more, it is still too early to tell whether Franken can weather the storm. All we know is, there will be more storms to come; Coleman is very sleazy (yeah, even among senators) and will throw the kitchen sink at his opponent. This race may be the ugliest and nastiest one of the whole cycle, and yes that includes the presidential contest. Now that we see some chinks in Franken's armor, all bets are off.

Oregon (Gordon Smith): 5 (Barely R) - upgrade
Challenger: State House Speaker Jeff Merkley
The more I see of Merkley, the more I like him. This guy is just a natural leader. He got past the first step a couple weeks ago by fighting off a spirited primary challenge from activist Steve Novick, who would've made a solid albeit different candidate himself. Merkley isn't the most fiery guy out there, but he's a true progressive with a track record of getting things done. I'm guessing the election will end up as a referendum on whether Smith is actually the principled moderate that he tries to come across as. At the moment, I'm cautiously optimistic, but at the moment the incumbent has to remain a slight favorite. Oh, recent polls have the contest locked in a statistical tie.

North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole): 4 (Leans R) - upgrade
Challenger: State Sen. Kay Hagan
We already knew Liddy Dole was a top DSCC target, and recent post-primary polls have vindicated their interest in the race. Multiple polls have shown a very close battle, with some actually putting Hagan on top. This is before she really starts the general election battle. Dole has a sizable campaign stash, so she has to be given a slight edge at the moment. But that could change as the summer unfolds. Dole has shown signs that she is running scared. I should mention, however, that Kay Hagan would not be a particularly reliable party line vote - she is actually opposed to SCHIP expansion.

Maine (Susan Collins): 4 (Leans R)
Challenger: Rep. Tom Allen
Amazing that the Maine race, considered early on to be at or near the top of the list of pickup opportunities, is now just 9th. That partially is a testament to Collins' ability to sell her moderate image despite a voting record to the contrary, but there are just so many other wonderful possibilities for Dems at the moment. Collins continues to hover just over 50% in polls, and this one will certainly tighten as November draws closer. If Iraq is still a major mobilizing issue in Maine, the solidly progressive Allen has a decent chance.

Mississippi-B (Roger Wicker): 4 (Leans R) - upgrade
Challenger: Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
There are two ways to look at this. One, Musgrove is kind of a schmuck. He would be rather infuriating as a Blue Dog senator, breaking with the party on many important issues. But on the other hand, he would be a Democratic Senator from deep red Mississippi. If you didn't hear, Democrat Travis Childers won a recent special election victory in Wicker's deep red former district, which is of course a fantastic sign. Wicker still has to be the favorite, but Obama coattails may just be enough to put Musgrove over the top.

Texas (John Cornyn): 3 (Favored R)
Challenger: State Rep. & Lt. Col. Rick Noriega
While not moving the Texas race up to Leans R, this race has definitely picked up some momentum in recent weeks. Two polls in May had Noriega within five points of the odious Cornyn. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Noriega's; he would be one of the more exciting Democrats to have in the Senate and is rock solid on all the major issues; plus he can likely appeal to disaffected Republicans in West and South Texas. Noriega is actually taking two weeks off at the moment to complete his annual National Guard training; how can chickenhawk Cornyn possibly match up with that? If Noriega can raise some serious $ over the summer and/or the DSCC makes a financial committment, this race moves up the ranks.

Kentucky (Mitch McConnell): 3 (Favored R) - upgrade
Challenger: Fmr Commerce Sec. Bruce Lunsford
I must admit I'm conflicted about this race. Same issue as Mississippi, really. Lunsford isn't so much a Blue Dog as just a classic pro-business "Republicrat". He's actually endorsed and donated to McConnell in the past. But then again, he may actually knock off the GOP Minority Leader. Revenge for Daschle in '04 would be pretty sweet, and polls have them running in a dead heat. Of course, McConnell has about $10 million to play with, or else a more competitive ranking would be deserved. Only time will tell.

Idaho (OPEN): 3 (Favored R)
Democratic Nominee: Fmr Rep. Larry LaRocco
Republican Nominee: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch
No real updates since the March version. LaRocco continues to rule and Risch continues to be a schmuck, but there hasn't been a poll of the matchup in a long time and no major stories have broken on either candidate. One potential issue lurks, however: Risch apparently is encouraging Kuwait to dump enormous amounts of radioactive waste in Idaho. I'm sure Idahoans will loooooove that.

Kansas (Pat Roberts): 3 (Favored R) - 2 point upgrade
Challenger: Fmr Rep. Jim Slattery
Talk about your turnarounds! As of my last roundup, it seemed that Democrats would be unable to find a credible challenger to relatively unpopular Bush enabler Pat Roberts, former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Then lobbyist and former Congressman Jim Slattery stepped up at the last minute. As lobbyists go, he seems to be okay and really gets it on financial regulation issues. He has only recently launched his official campaign, but a poll had him within just 12 with very low name recognition against the universally known Roberts (and Obama only down 9 to McCain!). Slattery has to prove he is willing to fight a nasty battle against a savvy politician likely to go hard negative, but if he has the drive and fundraising ability, he just may have a shot.

Note: I'd like to take a second and point out that Democrats are legitimately competitive in an astounding 14 seats. That makes the current ceiling 65 (with Lieberman) if everything breaks positively. Could we see a Constitutional Amendment or two pass in the next few years?

Oklahoma (James Inhofe): 2 (Probable R)
Challenger: State Sen. Andrew Rice
This race does have sleeper possibilities. Rice is an exciting young (meaning 32 years old) Harvard grad and popular state legislator from Oklahoma City. Inhofe is notorious for his staunch global warming denial. In addition, he very recently put out a campaign ad suggesting Iraq to be in Africa. If the stereotypes of Oklahoma as a state full of ignorant yokels are accurate, Inhofe is the perfect Senator for them. My co-worker and friend lives in Oklahoma, personally knows Andrew Rice and suggests he is light years too liberal to win a statewide election there.

Nebraska (OPEN): 2 (Probable R)
Democratic Nominee: Scott Kleeb
Republican Nominee: Former Gov. Mike Johanns
Kleeb is a netroots favorite, but like Rice he is really young to be running for the Senate. Johanns is a top-tier candidate for the GOP and while Nebraska may actually be somewhat competitive on the presidential level, it's hard to see Kleeb making Johanns seriously sweat barring some sort of scandal (which is certainly a possibility with any prominent Republican these days).

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander): 2 (Probable R)
Challenger: Former TN-Dems Chair Bob Tuke
Tuke will have to run a stellar campaign and/or a bombshell scandal will have to be unearthed on the relatively well-regarded Alexander for this to become a top-tier race. But hey, anything's possible.

Georgia (Saxby Chambliss): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: TBD (nominee not known until August 5th)
There are four or five viable candidates for the Democratic nod. Although national Dems despise Chambliss for the way he viciously smeared war hero Max Cleland in '02, it would probably take Cleland himself to make the race close. Cleland's not running, leaving a bunch of 3rd-tier candidates in the mix. One guy, former state rep. and Lt. Gov. nominee Jim Martin, could make things slightly interesting, but he's polling about third in the primary.

Alabama (Jeff Sessions): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: State Sen. Vivian Figures
There was a top-tier challenger flirting with a run in State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, but he declined in lieu of Ms. Figures. It's a shame, because Sparks was a very intriguing potential candidate. Figures, meanwhile, is African-American and therefore likely to lose big in Alabama along with Barack Obama. Sadly, it doesn't even matter how effective a campaigner she is.

Wyoming-B (John Barrasso): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Fmr State Sen. Keith Goodenough
Barrasso lucked out by avoiding a matchup with Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal and any serious primary competition in a special election. The Dem bench in Wyoming beyond the centrist Freudenthal is virtually nonexistent, so both Senate seats are virtual locks.

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Attorney Michael Cone
The biggest threat to Graham is in the GOP primary, from RNC member Buddy Witherspoon among something like eight other lesser-known candidates. Conservatives in SC seem very frustrated with Graham, but not enough to cost him his seat.

Mississippi-A (Thad Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Fmr State Rep. Erik Fleming
Cochran is an icon in Mississippi. He was thinking about retiring after losing his Appropriations Committee chairmanship as Dems took the Senate, but decided otherwise. A couple top-tier Dems decided to pass on a challenge. That's really all that matters here.

Wyoming-A (Michael Enzi): 1 (Definite R)
Challenger: Prof. Chris Rothfuss
Rothfuss is an interesting character, but that doesn't get him more than 30% in what may be the reddest state in the country. Hey, at least there's a Democratic challenger for every GOP-held seat, which is a pretty major accomplishment.

Democratic-held Seats (12)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu): 7 (Leans D) - upgrade
Challenger: State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy, turncoat Democrat
Landrieu has done a terrific job consolidating her support early on and has proven that Kennedy will have to step things up a notch to defeat her. She has a huge money advantage and has led in every poll taken thus far, including a couple by double digits. It really says something that this, the only realistic GOP pickup opportunity, may be starting to slip away a full five months before election day. Of course, that could change quickly as Kennedy goes on the attack, but for now one has to give a definitive edge to the incumbent.

South Dakota (Tim Johnson): 9 (Probable D) - upgrade
Challenger: State Rep. Joel Dykstra
At this point I would be shocked if this race ended up in single digits. Of course anything can happen and another health issue for Sen. Johnson, who suffered a life-threatening brain hemorrhage only 18 months ago, could make things more interesting. Nevertheless, Dykstra does not seem to have the name recognition or fundraising prowess to give Johnson any sort of scare in the absence of unforeseen events.

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D)
Challenger: Lobbyist & Fmr Rep. Dick Zimmer
After a ton of flux in this race until yesterday, I thought about upgrading this to a 10. Rep. Rob Andrews decided to launch a quixotic primary challenge to Lautenberg and lost by over 30 points on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the GOP barely avoided a major embarrassment by recruiting Dick Zimmer, an accomplished politician, into the race at the last minute. While he may be able to capitalize on an unforeseen event, Lautenberg is likely way too experienced and vetted for that to happen.

Michigan (Carl Levin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk
After the three races above, the field just gets embarrassing for the GOP. This should be around a 20-point blowout, and it only gets worse moving down the list.

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Jay Wolfe
Not really sure who this Wolfe guy is, but maybe some people will only look at their first names and get confused. Rockefeller is a household name in WV. Nothing to see here....

Illinois (Dick Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Dr. Steve Sauerberg
Sauerberg seems to have some money and will at least run an active race. Nevertheless, nobody short of Michael Jordan could beat the very powerful Durbin. Another blowout.

Montana (Max Baucus): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Challenger: Bob Kelleher
Wow, I'm really not sure what to make of this race now. Baucus has been pretty safe for some time, but Tuesday's GOP primary yielded a truly shocking nominee. Voters bypassed both of the leading candidates to pick the 85-year old retired attorney and activist Bob Kelleher. This race may actually turn out to be really fun; Kelleher once ran for Senate with the Green Party, and if he campaigns will probably be attacking Baucus from the left. He seems very, er, colorful on the surface (for comparison, imagine if Lyndon LaRouche won a major party Senate nomination), and may turn out to be the first Republican I've ever enjoyed following.
Oh, here's the official reaction from a leading progressive Montana blog:

OMG!!!!! Bob Kelleher. OMG!!!!!!

It's worth scrolling down through the comments of the linked post if you want a laugh.

Iowa (Tom Harkin): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Christopher Reed
Apparently Reed winning his primary yesterday was also an upset. Nobody really knows who he is. I don't think Harkin's had a truly easy victory in his long Senate career, so I guess he's due for a cakewalk.

Massachusetts (John Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: Jeff Beatty
Yet another huge embarrassment for the GOP. They had handpicked recent congressional nominee Jim Ogonowski to take on Kerry, and he had raised nearly a million dollars to this point. Well, the filing deadline was yesterday and guess what? The supposedly second-best NRSC recruit of the cycle didn't even qualify for the ballot. Truly pathetic. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Arkansas (Mark Pryor): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Challenger: NONE
Arkansas?! They couldn't find a live body who wanted to run for Senate in Arkansas?! Now this one clearly deserves a laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Delaware (Joe Biden): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: NONE
The real election may be in early 2009, after Biden is appointed to be Obama's Sec of State. We shall see....

Rhode Island (Jack Reed): 10 (Definite D)
Challenger: NONE

Summary
Democratic pickups are bolded
10 (Definite D): AR, DE, IL, IA, MA, MI, MT, RI, WV
9 (Probable D): NJ, SD, VA
8 (Favored D): CO, NM
7 (Leans D): LA, NH
6 (Barely D): NONE
5 (Barely R): AK, MN, OR
4 (Leans R): ME, MS-B, NC
3 (Favored R): ID, KS, KY, TX
2 (Probable R): NE, OK, TN
1 (Definite R): AL, GA, MS-A, SC, WY-A, WY-B

Methodology
1: 0-5% chance Dems will win seat
2: 5-15%
3: 15-25%
4: 25-40%
5: 40-50%
6: 50-60%
7: 60-75%
8: 75-85%
9: 85-95%
10: 95-100%

From the "Never Thought I'd Quote Him" Department

2008-06-03T08:26:00.004-05:00

Rahm Emanuel, a few weeks ago:

“The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November.”

With the primary schedule concluding tonight, and rampant speculation circulating that Clinton will throw in the towel, I remain more cautious in leaping to conclusions. She can suspend her public campaign efforts, which is all but certain. Yet that will not necessarily mean she supports the efforts of Barack Obama or even acknowledge that he is the legitimate nominee. Without a full and overt endorsement, followed by active efforts to build bridges, mend fences and other euphemisms for pursuing unity, Hillary Clinton's proclaimed exit from the already finished race will be meaningless. I worry that the Clintons themselves have little interest in seeing Obama reach the White House, but hope my hunch is proven wrong rather promptly.

Clinton's core supporters, on the other hand, perhaps should not be expected to come around so immediately. They are still working through the five stages of grieving and that process has to work itself out naturally for divisions among the party's rank and file to fully heal.

Hopefully by the time we reach Denver, this matter will be put fully behind us and every true Democrat will be pumped to clobber John McSame and the crumbling ~~conservative~~ reality-denying coalition.

A point on the Michigan & Florida issue

2008-05-29T19:09:00.009-05:00

So as you probably know, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee is meeting this Saturday in DC (an event I tried to get a pass for but they sold out in ten minutes). And in the meeting, the 30 members of this committee will decide the fate of 366 delegates from Michigan and Florida. More delegates than the total amount remaining from other sources. So the decision of the RBC will be very important in framing the remainder of the primary battle.

In case you've been living on Mars the past few months, both Michigan and Florida were stripped of all their delegates to the nominating convention for moving their primaries before February 5th. You can see a good timeline of the full MI & FL history here (hat tip to Mr. Super, who is an actual superdelegate from California).

The Clinton camp is fighting hard for a full seating of the delegates selected in these elections. The narrative seems to have coalesced around the point that some compromise has got to be reached. Some Obama supporters have even suggested that he should call Clinton's bluff and offer to seat the delegations in full as per election results. But such analysis ignores a key point regarding process, and one I feel is crucial to future reform of the primary system.

Both Florida and Michigan moved up their elections because they wanted to have more influence over the nomination process. They argued that the DNC rules prohibiting states from moving up before 2/5 were unfair, and in doing so both states directly challenged the DNC's authority to set the rules of the nomination process. Regardless of whether or not the DNC's rules are fair, they are the rules nonetheless, and therefore both elections cannot be considered legitimate.

The stakes of the party committee holding its ground on this matter are huge, and not just for Hillary Clinton. If DNC decisions about election process are viewed as something less than absolute, reformation of the primary process for 2012 and beyond will be nearly impossible. In such an atmosphere, we can expect Iowa and New Hampshire to pull out all the stops to maintain their first-in-the-nation status, setting a race to the front where many primaries could move deep into the year before the general election. That would be an absolute nightmare. And don't think the RBC and the DNC isn't fully aware of that point.

This doesn't mean that the original decision to strip the states of 100% of their delegates needs to be upheld; it just means that the elections cannot under any circumstances be recognized as fully legitimate after the fact.

Expect Florida to cut the delegates in half, but assign them according to election results to appease the Clinton camp. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but it seems to be the easiest way to keep both sides relatively satisfied. Okay, I don't think any hearing result will satisfy Hillary herself at this point, the key is satisfying her reality-based supporters as to blunt any argument that the election was stolen. Plus it maintains some form of penalty on Florida for breaking the rules.

Michigan, however, is much trickier. I believe the proper word would be "clusterfuck". Michigan's Soviet-style "election" in January yielded 73 pledged delegates for Clinton, and 55 for that formidable candidate Uncommitted. Obviously the Clintonian camp's claims that Obama deserves zero delegates from Michigan is obscenely absurd on its face. So a full recognition of the MI vote is virtually out of the question. It remains to be seen, however, whether they allow even partial recognition in determining if/how to seat the state's delegates. I hope they don't, cut the delegates in half and split the allocation right down the middle - 32 Clinton, 32 Obama. More likely we will see something akin to the 69-59 split proposed by the state Dem establishment, and hopefully cut in half to 35-29.

As the saying goes, we shall see...

Update: The entire RBC must have read this post and were deeply moved by my advice (hey, a guy can dream). On Saturday they decided to do exactly what was predicted above, although Michigan ends up at 34.5-29.5. This is a small numbers victory for the Clintonites, but way short of what they would have needed to stay relevant. Obama's magic number (before P.R.) is now up to 63. Clinton's is 240.5.

Update x2: Clinton wins huge in Puerto Rico, 68-32. Word is she pandered hardcore to the pro-statehood faction, which tends to vote much more consistently in statewide elections. Kudos to the Clinton campaign for pursuing a successful strategy for a change. However, Obama's magic number is down to 46. Expect him to get over the hump on Tuesday or Wednesday as superdelegates declare in droves.

See detailed delegate news & updates at DemConWatch

Why I don't subscribe to the Washington Post

2008-05-26T13:30:00.010-05:00

I'll admit it. I don't read the major newspapers all that much. I do read the Express, the free paper they give out at Metro entrances, regularly on the way to work. But I don't have any interest in buying any of the more "serious" daily papers. Today's leading media outlets have utterly failed to provide unvarnished truth and information in an atmosphere of increasing uncertainty; indeed many have willingly participated in the destruction of reality-based public discourse. In terms of failing to live up to its classic image, the Washington Post is the worst of all. Along with the New York Times, it is supposed to be the gold standard of quality reporting, hard-hitting journalism and timely analyses, transcending the partisan muck of Beltway politics. Yet its persistent tendency to obfuscate conflicts of interest, kowtow to a wildly unpopular White House and present opinions as news deeply belies such a reputation. Frankly, at this point I find certain blogs and independent newspapers to be much more reliable news sources than such a compromised tool of the cocktail-party circuit.

Although I don't subscribe to the Washington Post, my roommate ~~Brian~~ [update: apparently not Brian], however, does. A few days ago, I was eating breakfast and caught a glimpse of a headline starting at me from the other side of our kitchen table:

Obama Has the Upper Hand. But McCain Can Still Take Him.
by Dick Morris

I knew Dick Morris was a former Bill Clinton strategist and the kind that urged Democrats to reject liberalism, so I figured this would not be an article telling Obama to remain true to his grassroots-driven message of change. Little was I prepared, however, for the mind-boggling dishonesty, jaw-dropping stupidity and downright wrongness of the literary hairball Morris has coughed up with this column.

The first line of the article should have told me enough to avoid reading on:

John McCain is America's favorite kind of candidate.

Oh, you mean the angry old warmonger with the consistency problem kind? Or the ultra-partisan, lobbyist-loving and economically clueless kind? Please provide more specifics.

With his record of extraordinary patriotism and his distinctive Senate tenure, McCain is a nominee whom voters from both parties -- and independents, too -- could easily support.

Hmmm. The McSame campaign couldn't have said it better themselves. So we would expect an unbiased source to treat the Obama camp in a similar manner, right?

Meanwhile, McCain's likely rival, Barack Obama, has raised such doubts among voters that their concerns momentarily energized even Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging campaign.

Actually Dick, no, your perceived doubts about Obama didn't energize the Clinton campaign. In the two weeks prior to the publish date of this moonbat screed, 49.5 superdelegates publicly endorsed Obama, as opposed to just 7.5 for Clinton.

Obama
Clinton
Uncom-
mitted
Obama
Lead
Obama %

5/4 248 269 278
-21
48.0%

5/11 275 270.5 250
4.5
50.4%

5/18 297.5 276.5 222
21
51.8%

As you can see, Obama took the superdelegate lead during this period. Thus Clinton lost a major justification for continuing her campaign, that superdelegates would favor her come convention time. Furthermore, she now has a formidable war chest of around negative $10 million. Clearly, two "energized" weeks for this increasingly quixotic campaign.

That's just a small taste of the incomprehensibly inane offering Mr. Morris lays forth to the unwitting reader. Here are a few more classic lines.

To sum it up: A candidate who cannot get elected is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat.

Funny how Mr. Unelectable Scary Black Man is beating Mr. McMaverick in all the recent national polls, and an electoral analysis shows that a blowout victory (around 360-178) is well within reach for Obama. More analysis to come on that in the near future...

[McCain's] base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers. Wright has become the honorary chairman of McCain's get-out-the-vote efforts. The growing fear of Obama, who remains something of an unknown, will drag every last white Republican male off the golf course to vote for McCain, and he will need no further laying-on of hands from either evangelical Christians or fiscal conservatives. So McCain doesn't have to spend a lot of time wooing his base.

Yup, that's exactly why McCain is pulling only 3/4 of the recent GOP primary vote against Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, even with the latter having emphatically endorsed his former adversary. Also, maybe Dick Morris' friends play golf all the time, but believe it or not there are some white Republican males who think of golf as throughly elitist. Bloviating types tend to call them "Reagan Democrats". Ya know, the ones that Obama can't win. They've been Republicans for the past three decades. So either Mr. Morris either thinks it's 1976, or he is admitting that the only real Republicans are the rich ones.

If the GOP nominee were [anyone else], independents and Democrats might not vote Republican even if they became convinced that Obama is some kind of sleeper agent sent to charm and conquer our democracy.

Wow, what an ass. On another note of equal journalistic integrity, some people say that Dick Morris is in charge of a secret child pornography ring in Cambodia.

Earlier in the race, Iraq might have been a deal-breaker. But a kinder, gentler war has emerged. Still, most Americans don't like the war, and McCain must deal with their opposition if he wants to win.

That's right, it's the fault of the damn pinko hippies for not clapping loud enough. If only they were all "disappeared", then the war would be as popular as it should be. Nevermind the fact that our veterans get treated like and torture is now

Which brings us to George W. Bush, the least popular president of modern times. Unlikely as it sounds, the soon-to-be former president needs to get out of the White House, reenter the political arena (much as it will pain him) and go around the country telling us two things: First, we are winning in Iraq; second, the economy is not as bad as most people think. With the Dow at around 12,800 and unemployment at 5 percent, Bush can make a good case that things aren't really headed for the rocks.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh goody, yes, please do George! I'd love nothing more than for you to remind Americans that Republicans are responsible for the Iraq mess and the current state of the economy. Let's not forget to mention our friendly neighborhood oil companies and how well they're doing! Seriously for a second, it takes a special kind of Beltway obliviousness to think either of these issues can work to the advantage of any Republican.

Forget about the base. It will be there. Obama's liberalism, his pro-tax agenda and his proposed weakening of the USA Patriot Act -- as well as fears that he would appoint to office people such as Rev. Wright and William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground -- will all assure the full mobilization of the right. Immigration reform and McCain's other acts of apostasy will be forgiven for the sake of beating Obama. So McCain needs to go after the swing voters.

Again, the Patriot Act...there's another GOP political winner for ya! I do agree that immigration reform will be forgiven by the base - they don't really care that much about it anyway. How did Tom Tancredo do in the primaries? And honestly, the only reason why people might worry that Obama would appoint Scary Black Men to office is blatant fearmongering like yours, Dick.

[McCain should] go after the Democrats for their proposals to lower sentences for crack cocaine to make them equal to those for powder cocaine. (Instead, McCain should urge raising penalties for regular cocaine.)

That right, lock even more nonviolent offenders in jail and throw away the key. Inmates generally cost over $20,000 each per year. That's some solid fiscal responsibility right there!

The collected quotes of Rev. Wright will be a bestseller this summer. Obama once had to prove to us that he was not a Muslim; now he must convince us that he never really went to church much. Just as Sen. John F. Kerry was buffeted by veterans who had less than heroic memories of their service with him in Vietnam, so Obama will have to weather the recollections of his fellow parishioners. Count on several to surface and claim that they sat next to him during some particularly incendiary sermon.

Actually, media bias may become an issue as this plays out. Yes, I do count on something like UCC-Trinity Members for Truth to become a reality during the sweltering summer months. But the traditional media has the responsibility to expose their blatant lies, if they can be easily disproven, as such. It's important to point out that NONE of the Swift Boat Veterans were EVER ON A SWIFT BOAT, and therefore had no business commenting on "their service with him". The corporate media just parroted their talking points without ever stopping to question their validity. They may choose that path again in 2008, but trust me, they won't get anything remotely resembling a free pass if they do. This time, Dems and their base are prepared.

The American public will not ultimately doubt Obama's patriotism; that is a bridge too far. But we will come to think less of his credibility and strength as he fumbles his way through awkward denials.

So let me get this straight. The Manchurian Candidate garbage won't stick to Obama, but he'll be done in by failure to articulate fully why he isn't indeed a terrorist for the thousandth time?

Color me confused. Maybe I'm just not as intelligent as Dick Morris. I guess I just don't fully appreciate the potent bloviationary capacities unleashed by engaging in transparent cognitive dissonance.

After finishing the article, the scariest thought I had was that I was not that shocked by it. I have come to expect such useless tripe from the Washington Post.

P.S. Dick wants your feedback! I encourage you to tell him how much you loved his opinions at:
dickmorris@dickmorris.com

Response to a conservative friend

2008-04-03T00:00:00.008-05:00

I got this message on my Facebook wall today from a friend:

didnt realize youre an obama guy. doesnt the fact that he hates america bother you? he wont wear an american flag pin on his lapel, wont put his hand on his heart to sing the national anthem, and his wife isnt proud of her country, they go to a church where a leftwing demagogic nutjob says traitorous, antiamerican, and highly unpatriotic statements, spreading lies and distortions about his country and Israel. All of that is ok with you? Or perhaps you dislike America too?

Here is my response:

Wow, that came from nowhere. Mine was a civil gesture towards playful political banter, and I get a frothing-at-the-mouth response! Now, I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your tirade was indeed a playful taunt. I think you’re smarter than to actually believe much of what you said. But the suggestion that I “dislike America too” struck a nerve, so please bear with me as I respond with a raw reaction.

I actually appreciate your giving me this opportunity to practice exposing your talking points as the worthless piles of horse manure that they are. It actually amuses me that your heroes are so devoid of policy ideas that you have nothing to campaign on except to reflexively fall back on your tired old smears. That aside, you’ve got some fucking nerve questioning my patriotism. I’m sorry to inform you, but the right wing and the American Empire faction in particular DO NOT OWN PATRIOTISM. I certainly love this country, as do many of my fellow progressives. The Constitution after over two centuries remains unparalleled among governing documents in protecting fundamental liberty. The American people have an independent spirit and a moral resilience that is truly extraordinary. As a nation, we have demonstrated a remarkable and persistent ability to recognize our past sins and take painful steps to right those wrongs. But right now I feel that we are lacking in this introspective ability. Right now, I’m pretty damned ashamed of the American government. I worry that a dominant faction of the American political community, ironically those that claim be the true patriots, are unwittingly destroying the very fabric of what we know as America.

Many in the conservative movement and the Republican Party it has co-opted have lost touch with what has made America great. Their reflexive contempt for public sector activity and worship (note: word chosen very deliberately) of the free market is highly ignorant of the economic booms fostered primarily by direct government intervention in the economic realm. I know you’re rolling your eyes, but keep in mind that the greatest periods of economic success in the past century – the Roaring Twenties, the Postwar Boom and the Dot-Com Era – all were preceded by Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Reforms, the New Deal safety net and the massive military investment in communications infrastructure, respectively. On the other hand, the greatest economic scares – the 1929 stock market crash and bank run, the S&L crisis of the mid-late 1980s and the recent/current housing market woes - have followed periods of aggressive de-regulation by hyper-capitalist ideologue Republicans.

But it goes beyond economic policy. Conservative leaders seem to have decided that America can be a bully to the world and countries we occupy should throw rose petals at our feet. Conservative public appointees testify before Congress that they “swore an oath to the President”, not the Constitution. They treat the Earth as a garbage can and think it can go on this way forever. And worst of all, their political operatives have decided that it is an eminently preferred tactic to divide, distract and slander their way into power. They have become scarily efficient at demonizing certain segments of the population for political gain. That is a textbook characteristic of fascism.With that in mind, let us address the particular slanders of Barack Obama that you choose to highlight in your note.

Obama hates America? Show me the proof. Since when has the President of the Harvard Law Review chosen not to make a pile of money and instead serve his country in public life and, before that, as an educator? To me, that demonstrates patriotism. For that matter, since when does blue-blooded Harvard Law choose anyone but a man of impeccable moral credentials to lead its most prestigious journal? Are you saying they hate America too, or they’re just too stupid to see a Manchurian Candidate when they see one?

Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin? I direct your attention to super-patriot John McCain.

But…w-wait, there’s something missing. Is it possible that McCain HIMSELF isn’t wearing a flag lapel pin? Why does John McCain hate America? You can see how silly that one is.

He won’t put his hand on his heart for the national anthem? That reminds me of a similar line, that he doesn’t know the Pledge of Allegiance. Funny, he sure seemed to know the Pledge and put his hand on his heart when he led the U.S. Senate in both Pledge and Anthem numerous times.

Michelle Obama isn’t proud of her country? Yes, I can buy that. Based on one cherry-picked statement out of everything she has said over the course of two years. Her comment, discovered by a campaign intern given the specific task of searching for attack material, separated from all contextual meaning and trumped up into a blanket statement completely removed from reason, clearly is quite telling despite the lack of any further evidence in Ms. Obama’s words or actions. Ah, the classic anatomy of a smear.

That brings us to Reverend Wright. Needless to say, this instance also follows the classic smear etymology quite nicely. But I actually don’t see what’s that different about the Reverend from other prominent pastors. Demagogic? Nutjob? Okay, and that’s different from evangelical preachers - John Hagee, for example….how? Hagee is the guy who called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore”. Left-wing? Seems like a compliment to me! And please don’t try to tell me you’ve agreed with everything your EVER said. But you probably never left your over such disagreements. (note: specifics of religion generalized to protect identity of friend).

So why is Wright different? Could it be because he fits the stereotype of the Angry Black Man?!?! Do you really want to go down that road? Oh, right…. subtle racial identity politics is a proven winning political strategy for conservatives. But hell, you guys have demographics on your side; why would you bother with the wimpy pussyfooting? I say come out fully in support of White Power, that uppity Negro Obama needs to be stopped! McCain will win in a landslide!

Whatever. Regardless, Obama has made clear since before it was politically convenient that his draw to the Trinity United Church of Christ was based on its incredible ability to foster community and bring people of different backgrounds together in harmony. Yup, that church must have been led by a divisive, radical bigot in Rev. Wright. It’s amazing how successful slander seems to have this dramatic effect of utterly obliterating reason in the minds of its believers.

To be honest, I’m just happy you didn’t call him a Muslim. That would’ve really got me going.

Finally, although I didn’t feel like getting into exactly why I am an “Obama guy” here, definitely feel free to ask me why if you legitimately care.

Some food for thought on presidential "qualifications"

2008-04-02T09:46:00.009-05:00

Who would you rather have as your President?

a) A seasoned and highly respected politician who has been regarded as a hero in many circles for serving valiantly in an unpopular war decades ago. In addition to descending from a politically influential family, this man has served close to two decades in the Senate and even more time in Washington, and has effective working relationships with political leaders of both major parties. He is considered highly qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief during a period of great turmoil.

b) A relative newcomer to the national scene, with most of his prior professional experience arising from work in the Illinois state legislature and a stint as a private sector attorney. He has come to be renowned for his oratory prowess but is largely untested in matters of policy. Indeed, perhaps his most salient claim to fame is a speech he gave a couple years ago upon accepting his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate. Although he has the potential to enrich the national discourse and campaigns on the necessity for national unity, he is also lambasting a failed status quo and thus firing up supporters of change.

If you picked Politician A, congratulations. You just elected James Buchanan, widely considered one of the worst presidents ever, over Abraham Lincoln, his successor.

Lincoln's "speech he gave a couple years ago":

'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Remind you of anything? (hint: see the post immediately below this one)

Why I'm not worried about Obama (part 2)

2008-03-25T21:52:00.006-05:00

From the now-famous "A More Perfect Union" speech delivered last Tuesday:

We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

This passage is nothing short of kryptonite for conservatives. There's a reason I turned to my co-worker right after watching Obama's post-Iowa speech and said, "this man is our next president." The rhetorical tactics he uses are utterly brilliant, in polar opposition to the bland old talking points of other Democratic leaders. He manages to speak controversial truths while maintaining his low-key, folksy tone, and this enables him to subtly pull down the curtain of the conservative worldview, exposing the inherent inconsistencies of the Reagan/Bush coalition.

Here are a few of the main points that do so:

1) You can be patriotic and still wish to improve upon the status quo.

This is a crucial frame to advance in legitimizing progressive ideology to the country as a whole. It is the initial step in obliterating the "liberals hate America" smear, and makes people look past knee-jerk partisan identification to evaluate proposals. As many of my readers will agree, progressives have better proposals on most issues.

2) Regulating large corporations in the public interest is necessary to make capitalism function smoothly.

This is an extremely tough argument to make in today's political climate, and I'm not sure Obama is fully prepared to make it a central campaign issue. However, he is heading in the right direction by placing the blame for many of America's problems where it belongs: the overreach of unchecked corporate greed. In enumerating the things he believes we should focus on "this time", he is implying that his administration will not value the "profits over all" mentality over the public interest. Hence the heartfelt anger emanating from the Limbaugh faction following the speech.

3) Hate is not an acceptable campaign tactic.

By appealing directly to the more benign aspects of human nature, Obama is regaining the upper hand in the national debate. He knows that the ugly smears will come, even nastier than we have already seen. By preemptively defining all such attacks (especially coded racism) as dirty politics compensating for a lack of effective policy ideas, he will be then able to deflect them with a simple "here we go again." Not this time. Almost effortlessly, he jumps back in control of the conversation.

4) Faith does not belong exclusively to the merchants of hate.

While not directly mentioned in the above passage, Obama addresses the issue of faith in this speech with a sophistication unique to modern American politicians. In discussing his connection to Rev. Wright, he implies, "Sure my pastor said some things I disagree with, but hasn't yours?". First, kiss goodbye to the Muslim smear. Second, and more subtly, he is driving a neat wedge into the Christian community, isolating the fundies from the more moderate churchgoers that represent a vast majority of the Christian faith. If Obama and his ideological allies can neutralize the party identification gap among non-extremist churchgoers, the GOP is dead meat for a generation.

Update (sunday evening): Sure enough, the Yahoo front page features this headline: Religious vote fragmenting in U.S. presidential election. The fourth point that I mentioned may already be proving important to the dynamics of this election season.

Fatcat executives - at nonprofits?!

2008-03-17T20:45:00.005-05:00

The health care industry is a lucrative one. The stories about the massive profits at insurance and drug companies have piled up in recent years. Companies like Aetna, Merck, Hospital Corporation of America, HealthSouth, etc have done exceedingly well, in part by denying people care and thus limiting costs. It makes for a lousy health care system, but an excellent profit-generating business. If you've seen Sicko, I need not explain further. If you haven't, I'll just mention that about 15% of a normal insurance company's budget goes toward finding reasons to deny people coverage while still taking their money.

As with any smart business, the industry has attracted executives skilled at maximizing profits, and many of these executives are rewarded with lavish pay packages. For example, health care CEO Cliff Killingsworth made off with a cool $3.6 million in 2007, including a $1.8M performance bonus.

Mr. Killingsworth runs Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield. A nonprofit company.

A recent Boston Herald article shone the spotlight on the outrageous executive pay practices of Blue Cross and other nonprofit health care providers in the state. It wasn't just Mr. Killingsworth that made a tidy sum as a Blue Cross executive; the politically connected conglomerate paid million dollar packages to nine employees and two other nonprofit health care CEOs in the state were paid over $1M. Furthermore, a few of the Blue Cross board members were paid around $50,000 last year. For seven board meetings.

What, exactly, did all of these folks do to deserve their salaries? This is actually a legitimate question, not rhetorical, because I'm truly perplexed. They didn't have dividend-seeking shareholders to please. They didn't have to outperform much competition in the marketplace.... many Blue Cross customers are locked into the program through their government or union jobs.

I hate to say this, but could it be that the culture of executive excess has gotten so extreme that executive pay packages are no longer tied to any measure of productivity? Rather, are bosses determining their own salaries simply based on what they can paying themselves without inciting an uproar? If so, whose responsibility is it to do something about this?

Well, according to the Herald article linked above, state legislators are starting to ask these kinds of questions:

The pay packages are drawing increasing scrutiny on Beacon Hill as lawmakers debate ways to curb the exponential growth in health-care costs. Legislation being considered today would force insurers and health providers to publicly document reasons for increasing costs of insurance and medical procedures.
----
“These salaries are out of control,” said state Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford). “They don’t pass the smell test or the laugh test. These insurers are hiding behind the veil of their not-for-profit status.”
----
“It’s egregious,” said state Sen. Steve Baddour (D-Methuen). “Here we are, fighting to keep down costs amid double-digit increases, and how many millions are these nonprofits giving out? They should add it all up and return it in rate relief.”

What to do, in that case? This is where it gets quite tricky. Does it make sense for the government to place strict salary caps on compensation for nonprofit CEOs? Would it even be deemed constitutional by the courts in today's pro-business climate? Could we place limits on the amount executive salaries can grow from year-to-year in a tax-exempt organization, as is often proposed with state government budgets? These are all legitimate questions to consider.

That said, my personal proposal, while certainly not borne of expert knowledge on the subject, arises from some past work on income inequality and CEO pay research. A bill has existed for some time now in Congress, recently introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), that would limit tax deductability of CEO pay in a given company to 25 times the pay of that company's lowest-paid worker. This is a good step in the right direction.

Taking that premise to the next level and applying it to nonprofits, it seems reasonable that a nonprofit working to uphold the public good should see more wage parity than for-profit corporations now do. Thus, for an organization to receive tax-exempt status, it should not be able to pay anyone on its staff or board more than, say, 8 times the amount of its lowest paid worker (including benefits). Considering many nonprofits pay entry-level salaries of around $25,000, that means that no person in that typical organization could earn more than $200,000. About the salary of a military General, member of Congress or cabinet-level executive branch official. If that salary is sufficient for some of the most powerful people in society who shoulder an immense amount of responsibility, it should be sufficient for nonprofit leaders of any ilk.

Eliot Spitzer: A Greek Playwright's Dream

2008-03-13T19:51:00.007-05:00

It's one of the oldest stories known to humanity: the classic tragedy. Man rises to power, accomplishes a few great things, gets lost in his own hubris, and proceeds to bring about his own downfall by clouding good judgment with excessive arrogance. Usually, lack of respect for tradition plays a role as well. A couple millennia ago, Euripides perfected this storyline in the Bacchae among other works. It is incredible how aptly this model of tragedy serves in summing up Eliot Spitzer's public life.

Eliot Spitzer's life has not been a rags-to-riches story. His father's, however, was. A New York real estate tycoon living in Riverdale whose parents were Jewish immigrants from Austria, Bernard Spitzer raised his son to be a leader. The beneficiary of an Ivy League education, Eliot was smart as a whip and seemed to have a disdain for entrenched wealth. Within a few years out of law school, he had successfully brought leaders of the notorious Gambino crime family to justice.

Soon afterward, Spitzer became New York's Attorney General with a track record for busting corporate crime. It is in this role that he developed into the man we know, a modern-day Elliot Ness with little respect for authority, a mean streak and sky-high personal aspirations. He quickly became a top nemesis of Wall Street executives and other fatcats extraordinaire. At the same time, he was able to tap into a sense of public frustration with widening income inequality and the extreme excess at the top of the economic scale. As the newfound champion of the little guy, Spitzer was poised to achieve greatness.

However, the attributes which served him so well as a prosecutor have proven to be ill-suited for the executive branch. Being elected in a historic landslide with nearly 70% 0f the vote, Spitzer might have thought he didn't owe anyone any favors. Nevertheless, a cardinal rule of maintaining political power is "don't piss off your allies!". The moment I knew he might be over his head was when he chose to directly butt heads with the most powerful union in the state, SEIU1199, by proposing to cut over $1 billion from Medicaid and hospitals in his first budget recommendation. Immediately before that he had deeply upset Assembly Democrats by failing to support the appointment of one of their own, Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli (D-Long Island), to the open Comptroller's job. As with most other instances where Spitzer quixotically attempted to ramrod controversial proposals through the political process, he lost both of these battles. Following another highly contentious fight over driver's license for undocumented immigrants (he backed off of that proposal with his tail between his legs), the Governor's approval/disapproval rating had just about flipped in less than a year.

Ultimately, Eliot Spitzer was so weakened that this week's revelations proved an almost fitting end to his spectacular flameout. He was already a lame duck just a year into his term, had made enemies of nearly everybody in Albany, and Wall Street had a virtual bounty on his head. It was very difficult to see how Spitzer would have made it through his term even if his "Mr. Clean" image had held up. What better way for him to depart the scene than with the revelation of a perfectly insidious behavioral streak borne of pure hubris?

Somewhere, an ancient Greek tragedian is smiling.

Note: Dan Cantor of the Working Families Party just wrote an excellent review of the Spitzer regime and its implications for the economic justice movement, and I encourage you to take a look at that for a better idea of the NY activists' perspective.

Cutting through the Hillary-induced mayhem

2008-03-07T00:56:00.007-05:00

There seem to be an awful lot of polemics floating around following last Tuesday's elections. Among my favorites:
-The race is thrown wide open! Anybody could win!
-Obama is in deep trouble!
-Hillary might steal the election with the superdelegates!
-A prolonged election will tear the party apart and deliver it to McCain!
-And my personal favorite: Hillary Clinton WON HUGE on Tuesday!

I have one simple reaction to all of the Chicken-Little reactionaries: PLEASE. CALM. DOWN.

Thankfully, every single one of these arguments is complete hooey. It'll take a couple posts to fully explain why, but this one will elucidate why Obama is still holding a commanding and likely insurmountable lead.

First off, I do give the Clinton campaign credit for keeping up the fight and staying alive with a big win in Ohio (notwithstanding some potential funny business in Cleveland). Yet Clinton by no means cleaned up overall that night, and as we shall soon see, is actually worse off now than she was on March 3rd.

Regardless of what the Very Serious talking heads would like you to think, math matters. Ultimately, this is a delegate race, and Obama has actually gained 13 delegates overall since last Monday. Let's break it down.

First, the big 3/4 elections (plus Wyoming):
OH - O66, C75
RI - O8, C13
VT - O9, C6
TX - O99, C94
WY O7, C5
Total - O189, C193

Next, the superdelegate endorsements:
Obama
DNC Carol Fowler (SC), 3-4-08
Mary Long (GA), 3-4-08
Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX), 3-4-08
Rhine McLin (OH), 3-5-08
DNC Jane Kidd (GA), 3-5-08
DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL), 3-5-08
DNC Connie Thurman (IN), 3-6-08
Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), 3-6-08
DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV), 3-6-08
DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA), 3-7-08
Rep. Bill Foster (IL), 3-9-08
DNC Mary Jo Neville (OH), 3-9-08

Clinton
Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), 3-6-08
DNC Mona Mohib (DC), 3-6-08
DNC Aleita Huguenin (CA), 3-7-08
DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA), 3-8-08
Total - O12, C4

So far, Obama has gained four delegates since the sky has fallen on him. Then, factor in the fact that the certification of the California results transferred four delegates from Clinton to Obama, netting him eight more in the process (he gains four, Clinton loses four). Finally, odd caucus rules dictate that Wyoming pledged delegates select another at-large delegate who will almost certainly support Obama, bringing his total gain up to 13 during the period in question.

So Hillary has lost ground where it counts, in the delegate race. Meanwhile about a third of the remaining pledged delegates were selected last Tuesday. With Obama expected to win big tomorrow in Mississippi, she faces an extremely difficult uphill battle where she must win close to 70% of remaining delegates to catch Obama. Given the makeup of the delegate selection process, this is just about impossible. Even if Obama somehow implodes and she wins by 25% in all the remaining elections, she will gain a mere 40-50 delegates. More likely, things will remain about even or Obama will slightly expand his lead.

But wait, Pennsylvania is huge and a Clinton stronghold! Even if she wins comfortably, it's not big enough to overpower Obama's significant advantages in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and perhaps Indiana.

But wait, what about Michigan and Florida? First of all, there is no way the Michigan delegation is seated as is. The accusations that Clinton is cheating would be deafening. With Florida, at least Obama was on the ballot, but it still was not a fair and representative election. Expect a re-vote, where Clinton gains maybe 15-20 net delegates between the two states. Expect Obama to actually pick up a few delegates in Michigan unless state party leaders execute a solid GOTV operation for Clinton like in Ohio (her campaign simply can't do it on its own).

But wait, what about the superdelegates?! She might "steal the election from the voters" there, her campaign is openly supporting their goal of doing so. Well last time I checked, superdelegates are elected officials and party loyalists. Whether or not they support Clinton or think she's more electable (assumptions for which there's absolutely no evidence), they will not destroy the long-term health of the party and their own careers by alienating passionate young voters, subverting what passes for a democratic process in the state primaries and caucuses, and rewarding Clinton's snakelike campaign tactics that reinforce right-wing frames of politics-as-usual. Not a chance.

To sum all this up, for all the smoke screens the formidable Clinton PR machine has emitted in recent weeks, time will prove the current haze over the status of Obama's nomination to be nothing but hot air. I implore you, please don't waste your energy fretting over the last throes of a Clinton campaign unwilling to accept the inevitable.

March Senate Rankings and race updates

2008-03-01T11:50:00.012-05:00

With all the hubbub about the presidential contest, I'd like to point out that the shape of Congress will determine how effective the next president will be. Dems are just about guaranteed to keep control of both chambers, but the question is whether or not they will have a working majority, especially in the Senate where a vigilant minority can stop legislation in its tracks. Thus it is worth tracking the Senate landscape. Things have crystallized in a few races, but not much has changed on the overall board. The story is still an abject failure of Republican leadership to recruit top-tier candidates, while Democrats have done moderately well on that front. It also seems many of the Dem challengers could benefit from an electorate fed up with the GOP as well as Obama's potential coattails. Here are the updated rankings for the 2008 Senate races.

Other places to obtain info about the 2008 Senate picture:
http://www.senateguru.com/
Wikipedia entry on the elections
CQPolitics ratings page
Chris Cilizza's The Fix top ten senate races

The rankings this time will still be arranged by party, but this time the order will be based on the chance of flipping parties.
Current breakdown: 49D, 49R, 2I

Democratic-held Seats (12)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu): 6 (Barely D)
Key Challenger: State Treasurer John Kennedy
A few months ago, Karl Rove convinced Kennedy to switch parties for this race. It takes a special kind of stupid to switch to this GOP at a time when they're in free fall. Nevertheless he is a top-tier candidate and this will be by far the toughest seat for Dems to hold. I think Landrieu will ultimately win, mostly because she will outspend Kennedy, perhaps significantly so including help from the national parties. Much hinges on how effectively Kennedy can campaign on a message of reform.

South Dakota (Tim Johnson): 8 (Favored D)
Key Challenger: ex-Lt. Gov. Steve Kirby (considering), ???
Boy, has this been an embarrassment for the GOP Senate campaign committee (NRSC). Kirby is their eleventh choice, after the first ten declined to run. Kirby has been defeated easily in two past statewide elections, and he owned a business that scraped skin off cadavers for elective surgery (eg penis enlargements). I REALLY hope he does decide to run, he will make for great comedic material. A recent poll has Sen. Johnson beating him 70-19, so, yeah. If nobody else steps up soon Johnson will run away with a race in which he was previously in serious jeopardy.

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D)
Key Challengers: Real estate developer Anne Evans Estabrook, others
Amazingly, this is the only other state with a legitimate challenger and a somewhat vulnerable incumbent. That said, Estabrook has never run for political office and Dirty Jerz has showed no signs of supporting a Republican at the national level. Lautenberg's approval ratings are pretty weak, somewhere in the mid-40s, but that's actually better than just about every other politician in Jersey.

Arkansas (Mark Pryor): 9 (Probable D)
Key Challenger: US Attorney Chuck Banks (considering)
Via Wikipedia -

Mike Huckabee ruled out a run on February 23, 2008, saying, "It's more likely I'll dye my hair green, get a bunch of tattoos and go on tour with Amy Winehouse."

HAHA. Considering he was basically their only chance, it looks like smooth sailing for the savvy Pryor.

Montana (Max Baucus): 9 (Probable D)
Key Challenger: none of note
As most people who follow politics closely know by now, Montana is becoming a purplish-blue state. Baucus was a popular senator even when the state was deep red, so there is no reason to believe he'd be in any trouble now. Yet again, no legitimate challenger has emerged for the GOP.

Iowa (Tom Harkin): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challengers: TBD
Harkin has proven to be a consistently solid progressive voice during his years in the senate, and is pretty popular in IA (approval ratings around 58%). A couple GOP congressmen have expressed vague interest in a run, but nothing definitive is on the rumor mill at the moment. Even if one were to step up, they would be very unlikely to keep Harkin below 53%.

Michigan (Carl Levin): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none of note
Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has become one of the most powerful people in Washington. It is not surprising that he has not drawn a significant challenge. A couple state Reps. will vie for the right to get clobbered in November.

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none of note
Needless to say, Rockefeller is a pretty esteemed name in WV. He is expected to win easily.

Massachusetts (John Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: Jim Ogonowski
Republicans think Iraq vet Ogonowski could be a formidable candidate. He did come close in a recent special congressional election, but against a very weak Democrat in a relatively conservative district. I'm hoping the NRSC backs up their words and wastes some money in the expensive Boston media market.

Illinois (Dick Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: Steve Sauerberg, MD
Majority Whip Durbin should win handily this November. At least give the GOP credit for fielding a respectable candidate with personal wealth to put into the race.

Delaware (Joe Biden): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none
After Biden dropped his presidential bid, he settled back to the Senate knowing he will be there as long as he wants. Nothing to see here.

Rhode Island (Jack Reed): 10 (Definite D)
Key Challenger: none
Reed is a very popular senator in probably the bluest state in the country. You do the math.

Republican-Held Seats (23)

Virginia (OPEN - John Warner): 9 (Probable D)
Key Democrat: Former Gov. Mark Warner
Key Republican: Former Gov. Jim Gilmore
It looks like a Warner will remain in this seat. Mark Warner remains incredibly popular while Gilmore, well, isn't. The VA-GOP made a big mistake in leaning towards the more conservative Gilmore over moderate Rep. Tom Davis, who is now retiring. Meanwhile, Warner would be the odds-on favorite to be Obama's running mate if he weren't a virtual shoo-in for this seat.

New Mexico (OPEN - Pete Domenici): 8 (Favored D)
Key Democrat: Rep. Tom Udall
Key Republicans: Reps. Heather Wilson, Steve Pearce
This is a wild one; all three of NM's sitting congresspeople are in this race. Sen. Domenici was an icon in the state but retired due to declining mental health and involvement in the US Attorney scandal, which also hurt Heather Wilson. Udall has a clear path to the nomination, while Wilson and Pearce are locked in an ugly primary battle. Polls have Udall consistently beating either one by double digits. Things could change, but at this point Udall seems relatively safe.

New Hampshire (John Sununu): 7 (Leans D)
Key Challenger: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
This is a rematch of the 2002 contest, where Sununu won narrowly. He is facing a much different political environment this time around, and his unwavering support for the Iraq War will hurt him badly in a fiercely anti-war state. Shaheen is a very savvy politician and should win rather comfortably unless somehow McCain wins the state and delivers Independent voters to Sununu in droves.

Colorado (OPEN - Wayne Allard): 6 (Barely D)
Key Democrat: Rep. Mark Udall
Key Republican: Former Rep. Bob Schaffer
Udall seemed to have an early lead, but recent polls have showed a tight race. Schaffer might be a little too conservative for what is now considered a swing state, and Udall is quite popular. As well, the financial states of the national parties and the potential for Obama coattails suggest Udall is in a good situation here.

Minnesota (Norm Coleman): 6 (Barely D)
Key Challengers: Al Franken, Mike Ciresi
I am very pleased to say Franken is gaining momentum and becoming more and more formidable as the race progresses. He has shown he can be taken seriously and is building an effective grassroots operation. The state party has been gradually lining up behind him. A recent string of polls has him beating Coleman in a head-to-head matchup, and it seems he is pulling away from Ciresi in the primary race. However, Coleman is an extremely talented politician and will definitely not go down without an ugly fight. Whatever happens, this will be one of the highest-profile races of 2008.

Alaska (Ted Stevens): 5 (Barely R)
Key Challenger: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
Stevens is the elder statesman of the Senate GOP caucus, and at 85 he has filed to run for re-election. He is also incredibly arrogant and openly corrupt, digging in his heels to secure the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and getting caught in a major bribery scandal. Voters in Alaska are starting to turn on him, and he has drawn a very tough challenger in the popular mayor Mark Begich, who already has solid name recognition statewide and just announced his long-rumored candidacy. This used to be a darkhorse race, but now it is simply a top-tier one. Alaska could undergo a blue tidal wave in 2008.

Maine (Susan Collins): 4 (Leans R)
Key Challenger: Rep. Tom Allen
This is one of the two key bellwether races of the 2008 cycle. If Allen defeats Collins, the Democrats will come very close to, and perhaps reach, the magical 60-seat threshold. Allen is a top-tier challenger, but Collins has a very moderate image and is popular. Then again, so was Lincoln Chafee. If Allen can tie Collins to Bush and make the election a referendum on the Iraq war (easier with McCain on the presidential ticket), he can pull it off.

Oregon (Gordon Smith): 4 (Leans R)
Key Challengers: State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, activist Steve Novick
See above. This is the other key bellwether race. Merkley will likely be the Democratic nominee and give Smith a run for his money if he can challenge the incumbent's moderate image. In this case, Merkley's hot button issues will be more focused on economic and environmental policy than the Iraq war, as ol' Gordo has been a key ally of polluters and mining/logging interests. Time will tell on this one, and it will not fully heat up until the Dem primary.

Mississippi-B (Roger Wicker - formerly Trent Lott): 3 (Favored R)
Key Challenger: Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
If this wasn't a deeply Republican state, the race would be labeled at least a toss-up. Musgrove has much higher name recognition than Wicker and remains somewhat popular. Yet a controversy over the special election date has yielded a date the same as the general election. Things are still in flux and much may depend on Wicker's performance as a first-year senator.

Idaho (OPEN - Larry Craig): 3 (Favored R)
Key Democrat: Former Rep. Larry LaRocco
Key Republican: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, many challenger candidates
Democrats shouldn't have any chance here, right? I mean, it's freakin' Idaho! Well, happenings in a Minnesota airport bathroom changed all that. With Larry "wide stance" Craig retiring, Risch has become the frontrunner in a wild GOP primary. Larry LaRocco was already in the race, and has been campaigning fiercely for a year now. He has been championing a libertarian populist message similar to the kind that worked so well for Brian Schweitzer in Montana. Meanwhile, Risch's naked personal ambition has alienated a lot of people within the ID GOP. Many commentators have this as an easy Risch win, but don't be surprised if it turns out to be close. With the x-factor of Obama coattails thrown in, this could turn out to be a major sleeper race of 2008.

Texas (John Cornyn): 3 (Favored R)
Key Democrat: State Rep. Rick Noriega
Democrats shouldn't have any chance here, right? I mean, it's freakin' Texas! However, Cornyn is one of the least popular sitting senators with approval ratings in the low 40s, and can be tied to Bush more closely than almost any other person in Congress. Noriega, an Iraq war vet, is well-situated to attack Cornyn's chickenhawk foreign policy and has proven himself to handle attacks well. Last month, when the Texas GOP publicly demanded that Noriega release his military service records to them (presumably for Swiftboating material), he responded as such:

The Republican Party of Texas, and by extension, Senator John Cornyn, has requested that I release my military records to them. I am astounded and outraged at the implications of this request. Over the past few years, some Republicans have conducted the most dishonest and disreputable attacks on veterans that our nation has ever seen.

Then he released his records to the public to show the contrast with Sen. Chickenhawk. This episode shows that this should be a very fun race to watch, and has great sleeper potential.

North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole): 3 (Favored R)
Key Challengers: State Sen. Kay Hagan, Businessman Jim Neal
The DSCC has made clear that they consider Dole a vulnerable candidate, and while neither of the leading candidates for the Dem nomination are of the top-tier variety, either could still keep it close. The primary race seems to have an insider-outsider dynamic, with Hagan representing the party insiders and Neal more of the activist variety. It remains to be seen who emerges from the primary contest, so a more clear analysis of the race should develop once there is a nominee. Either way, Dole will likely have a sizable money advantage, so she has to be the clear favorite at this point.

Nebraska (OPEN - Chuck Hagel): 2 (Probable R)
Key Democrats: Scott Kleeb, Businessman Tony Raimondo
Key Republican: Fmr Gov. & Sec. of Agriculture Mike Johanns
This race showed a flash of top-tier potential at one point; right after Hagel announced his retirement, Former Gov. Bob Kerrey seriously considered entering the race and would have been an early favorite. However, he decided against a run, as did popular Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey. Yet many party activists view Kleeb as a rising star and were excited when he recently decided to jump in. His primary opposition, Raimondo, is basically a wealthy Republican who decided he'd have a better shot to win as a Democrat. Ugh. Methinks Kleeb could make it somewhat close if he gets out of the primary, he's a fiery young outsider who seems to have a finger on the pulse of the Cornhusker State, whereas Johanns has spent recent years engaged in Beltway politics. For now, Johanns is a heavy favorite.

Oklahoma (James Inhofe): 2 (Probable R)
Key Challenger: State Sen. Andrew Rice
Inhofe is the prime exemplar of the Republican head-in-the-sand approach to climate change. He is somewhat of a joke, dumb as a rock and has approval ratings under 50%. The 32-year-old Andrew Rice is definitely a rising star in the state and has consolidated support among party leaders and national activist groups. If he can capitalize on the backlash against two certifiably crazy Sooner senators and gets some support from the national party, it could become very interesting. Nevertheless, it is Oklahoma so Inhofe will likely retain his seat.

Kentucky (Mitch McConnell): 2 (Probable R)
Key Challengers: Businessmen Bruce Lunsford, Greg Fischer
In an otherwise successful year for the DSCC, Kentucky has been a major recruiting disappointment. A few strong challengers declined to run, even when polling had them competitive with the Senate Minority Leader. Instead, KY Dems get to choose between a couple of businessmen, and the frontrunner Lunsford has personal wealth but a truckload of baggage. National Dems will invest moderately in the race but the ruthless tactician McConnell will likely spend over $10 million to defend his seat, and barring some sort of scandal it is hard to see how he loses.

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander): 2 (Probable R)
Key Challenger: Former TN-Dems Chair Bob Tuke (considering)
After the top Dem choice, Mike McWherter, declined a run, it looked like Alexander might go without a serious challenge in his first re-election bid. He is also the #3 ranking member in the Senate GOP caucus and appears to be a formidable candidate. But it looks like Dem party insider Bob Tuke will run for the seat. We don't know what kind of candidate Tuke will be, but chances are Alexander wins easily.

Alabama (Jeff Sessions): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challenger: State Sen. Vivian Figures
There was hope of a serious challenge to Sessions in state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, but Sparks decided to avoid a bruising primary fight with Figures and bowed out. Figures is a smart campaigner and solid Democrat, but unfortunately cannot win a statewide election as an African-American progressive woman. She may hold Sessions below 60%, however, which positions this seat as the least guaranteed among the "sure thing" list.

Wyoming-B (John Barasso): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challenger: Fmr State Sen. Keith Goodenough, Atty Nick Carter (considering)
Barasso was appointed last year by Gov. Dave Freudenthal after Craig Thomas passed away, and he has not drawn significant opposition for November's special election. At least he will have some Dem opposition. The only chance this gets interesting is if Freudenthal decides to run, which is extremely unlikely.

Kansas (Pat Roberts): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challenger: none of note
Roberts is not particularly popular with approval ratings hanging in the upper 40s, but no viable Democrat has stepped to to challenge him. It looks like he will coast to re-election.

Georgia (Saxby Chambliss): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: Vernon Jones, Dale Cardwell, Josh Lanier
Democrats truly despise Chambliss for the loathsome smears he launched against former Sen. Max Cleland last time around, questioning the patriotism of a Vietnam Vet and triple amputee. However, Georgia is one of the few states still trending towards the GOP and no top-tier or even second-tier challenger has emerged. Whomever emerges from the Dem primary, expect Chambliss to win by a 2:1 margin.

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: Attorney Michael Cone, many angry Republicans
Graham is in no danger whatsoever of being defeated by a Democrat. He may be challenged from the right, however, as he has a horde of primary opponents including RNC member Buddy Witherspoon. He should be fine, although it'll be fun to watch the fireworks attacking Graham for not being crazy enough.

Mississippi-A (Thad Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: Former State Rep. Erik Fleming
Cochran, the Appropriations Committee Ranking Member and former Chair and a long-time Senate veteran, will coast to another easy victory.

Wyoming-A (Michael Enzi): 1 (Definite R)
Key Challengers: none
Enzi, unless he unexpectedly retires, will likely go unopposed in his run for re-election.

Whew! So there you have it. The totals:
(Republican seats bolded)
Definite Dem: DE, IL, IA, MA, MI, RI, WV
Probable Dem: AR, MT, NJ, VA
Favored Dem: NM, SD
Leans Dem: NH
Barely Dem: CO, LA, MN
Barely GOP: AK
Leans GOP: ME, OR
Favored GOP: ID, MS, NC, TX
Probable GOP: KY, NE, OK, TN
Definite GOP: AL, GA, KS, MS, SC, WY, WY

Prediction: 7 Dem Pickups and Lieberman caucuses with Republicans.
Final result: 56D, 42R, 2I

Updated Senate Rankings - October

2007-10-06T11:57:00.000-05:00

Senate Rankings, 10/5/07

Dem Seats (12):
Arkansas (Pryor): 9 (Probable D) - Purplish red state, no strong Republican challenger has emerged. Pryor might also benefit if Clinton wins the nomination.
Delaware (Biden): 10 (Definite D)
Illinois (Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Iowa (Harkin): 9 (Probable D) - GOP would love to challenge Harkin but don't seem to have good candidates and the incumbent is pretty popular.
Louisiana (Landrieu): 6 (Barely D) - Treasurer John Kennedy recently switched parties and is looking like the top challenger at the moment.
Massachusetts (Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Michigan (Levin): 9 (Probable D) - If they couldn't make it close against Debbie Stabenow last year, they certainly won't beat the powerful Sen. Levin.
Montana (Baucus): 8 (D Favored) - Surprisingly, it looks like the GOP won't put up a strong fight for this seat. Baucus has done a great job of scaring away potential challengers.
New Jersey (Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D) - Lautenberg is unpopular, but so is every other NJ politician. Rove badly miscalculated by gunning for Menendez last year.
Rhode Island (Reed): 10 (Definite D)
South Dakota (Johnson): 7 (Leans D) - Johnson is healthy and likely running again; his brain hemorrhage has actually served as a political boon in defusing GOP attacks. No elite challenger has emerged and chances are none will unless he retires.
West Virginia (Rockefeller): 9 (Probable D)

Dem Seat Totals (12):
Definite D - 4
Probable D - 5
D Favored - 1
Leans D - 1
Barely D - 1
Estimated GOP Pickups: 0-1

Republican Seats (22):
Alabama (Sessions): 1 (Definite R) - Dems lost hope of getting this seat when Ron Sparks declined a challenge.
Alaska (Stevens): 3 (R Favored) - An institution in Alaska and probably the most corrupt Senator, Stevens continues to be embroiled in scandal and it remains to be seen whether he can survive politically. Dems' top hope is Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, who is still deciding whether to jump in. The dynamics of this race could change significantly over the next few months.
Colorado (OPEN): 7 (Leans D) - This is a battle of two Congressmen, Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R). Udall is quite moderate in this purple state while Schaffer is, well, not. Schaffer also is involved in a developing scandal involving kickbacks while on the state Board of Ed. Either way, this is Udall's race to lose.
Georgia (Chambliss): 1 (Definite R) - Democrats hate Chambliss for comparing wounded war vet Max Cleland to Osama in his 2002 race, but it's Georgia. 'Nuff said.
Idaho (Craig?): 3 (R Favored) - This one gets more and more fun to watch. With Craig now finishing his term, it looks like a really bloody GOP primary is in the cards (think 10 candidates who all believe they rightfully deserve the seat). And with this in mind, Craig may decide that he can win a primary in a divided field and things would get really interesting. Meanwhile, Democratic former Congressman Larry LaRocco is crisscrossing the state, building name recognition and championing a strong populist message. Stay tuned.
Kansas (Roberts): 2 (Probable R) - It remains to be seen whether Dems can field a challenger capable of knocking off Roberts, but if ever possible it will be this year. Roberts has never been more unpopular among Kansans. Rumors have former Rep. Jim Slattery jumping in.
Kentucky (McConnell): 3 (R Favored) - Democrats see McConnell as potential payback for then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle's defeat in '04. They have a solid candidate in Atty General Greg Stumbo. Can they keep up with McConnell in the money game? That will likely decide whether this race is serious or not.
Maine (Collins): 5 (Barely R) - I see this as a major bellwhether race of the Senate '08 elections, along with Oregon. Rep. Tom Allen is a top-tier candidate and this will be a tough, close, nasty race. Senator Collins has this moderate grandmother image but if the Dems can make this a referendum on Iraq, Allen wins. And Collins' recent dirty attacks on Allen may make it possible for Allen to debunk her reputation as a consensus-builder.
Minnesota (Coleman): 6 (Barely D) - Al Franken gets a slight edge here for outraising Coleman two quarters in a row, even with Bu$h coming to town in August. It is actually a great sign that Franken's name has been off the radar recently; this means he's playing the grassroots game and building local relationships Wellstone-style. Franken has a legitimate primary challenger in attorney Mike Ciresi, but Franken's name recognition and reputation as a fighter should win him the nomination. In any case, this will be a nasty race.
Mississippi (Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Nebraska (OPEN): 5 (Barely R) - This will probably be a close race, with two top Republican candidates and former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey likely to run. However, too many x-factors here to get a definitive read.
New Hampshire (Sununu): 7 (Leans D) - Oddly, the incumbent Sununu is a clear underdog now that popular former Democratic Governor Jeanne Shaheen is running. This is her race to lose.
New Mexico (OPEN): 5 (Barely R) - The pieces are still falling into place following Pete Domenici's recent retirement announcement. Republican Rep. Heather Wilson is in, and her GOP colleague Rep. Steve Pearce might run as well. Wilson is moderate but plagued by the same US Attorney scandal that brought down Sen. Domenici, and Pearce may be too conservative to win a statewide race. While top Dems Gov. Richardson and Rep. Udall have declined a Senate run, Lt. Gov Diane Denish and Albequerque Mayor Martin Chavez are considering bids and both would make solid candidates. Stay tuned.
North Carolina (Dole): 3 (R Favored) - Dole is very vulnerable, but still no serious Democratic challenger has emerged. This will have to move down to a 2 if none steps forward soon.
Oklahoma (Inhofe): 2 (Probable R) - It's Oklahoma, but Inhofe is crazy enough to be susceptible to a challenge from a fighting reality-based Democrat. State Sen. Andrew Rice is only 34, but could make things interesting given the right circumstances.
Oregon (Smith): 4 (Leans R) - Along with Maine, this is a top bellwether race of '08. The Dems got their top challenger in State House Speaker Jeff Merkley. Smith will be very well funded and will definitely fight for his seat, but the R next to his name might be too much to overcome. We shall see. If Merkley wins, expect Dems to get close to a 60-seat supermajority.
South Carolina (Graham): 1 (Definite R) - Lindsey Graham's only real challenge may come from the right. A bruising primary is likely.
Tennessee (Alexander): 3 (R Favored) - It looks like businessman and Gubernatorial son Mike McWherter is going to run, and he has the finances and name recognition to give Alexander a run for his money. Stay tuned.
Texas (Cornyn): 3 (R Favored) - Most sane people hate Cornyn, a bully-like hyperpartisan and Bush crony. State Rep. Rick Noriega is running a smart grassroots campaign, and seems to be holding his own in fundraising. He faces a primary challenge from attorney Mikal Watts, but Noriega is the guy who can take down Cornyn.
Virginia (OPEN): 8 (D Favored) - This seat should remain in the hands of a guy named Warner, but it will be a different Warner. With John out and Mark in, the highly popular former Governor is the clear favorite no matter who emerges from a nasty GOP primary.
Wyoming (Enzi): 1 (Definite R) - Probably will be the only unopposed Republican.
Wyoming (Barasso): 1 (Definite R) - John Barasso, the appointee to this seat following the death of Sen. Craig Thomas, might face token opposition from the Democrats, but the only seemingly decent challenger on the D side, Gary Trauner, is running for the House.

GOP Seat Totals (22):
Definite R: 6
Probable R: 2
R Favored: 6
Leans R: 1
Toss-Ups (Barely R or D): 4
Leans D: 2
D Favored: 1
Estimated Dem Pickups: 5-9

111th Congress Estimated Party Breakdown: 58 D*, 42 R
*D's include Independent Sens. Sanders and Lieberman

my new op-ed piece

2007-08-15T14:56:00.000-05:00

Corporate Priorities in the Post-Enron Era

by Jeremy Koulish

August 15, 2007

Ford Motor Company is struggling through a period of great turmoil. Due to changing market dynamics and increased global competition, Ford suffered losses of $12.6 billion last year, the largest of any Fortune 500 company.

To rehabilitate its bottom line, Ford hired Alan Mulally as its new President & CEO starting September 1^st, 2006. But given its financial woes, the company rewarded the incoming Chief Executive much too lavishly.

In addition to a cash hiring bonus of $7.5 million, Mr. Mulally received $11 million as restitution for forfeited stock options at Boeing. He was also awarded a $666,667 salary and stock and option grants of an additional $19.6 million. For the cherry on top, Mr. Mulally has taken advantage of perks like personal use of the company jet, relocation reimbursements, temporary housing, free tax preparation and even a 401(k) contribution. His total earnings for four months of leadership came to $39,128,100₁.

Such generous perks undermine the reason for Mr. Mulally’s hiring. He was brought in to oversee a cost-cutting strategy that involves layoffs and decreased production. Originally employing 99,500 people in North America in December 2005, Ford plans to lay off around 40-45% of those workers and close nine factories by the end of next year.₂ Towns such as Maumee, Ohio will be left economically devastated by the departure of their largest employer₃; thus, Mr. Mulally’s “success” has hastened the erosion of communities his company has helped to thrive for the past century.

Now how does it look when employee layoffs follow Mr Mulally’s hiring perks? While it is tempting to scapegoat Ford’s Board of Directors, they are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value at the expense of all other priorities, and the ethical problem of mass layoffs must not stand in the way of this goal. And a massive payday for their incoming CEO is the rule rather than the exception. In the company’s own words, “these terms were necessary, competitive, and appropriate to attract an executive of Mr. Mulally’s talent and experience.”₄ Thus, is more usefully seen as an instructive example of how much of America’s corporate culture has lost sight of its accountability to the public good.

Sadly, instances of such unethical behavior are all too easy to find in this post-Enron era. Granted, tightened SEC regulation has limited the market instability caused by the accounting magic of Enron and others.₅ Yet today, examples of other forms of malfeasance seem endless: using government connections to secure lucrative no-bid contracts,₆ forcing call center workers in India to fake Midwestern accents₇, handing out Medicaid applications to new employees₈, paying an incoming CEO $39 million while laying off 40,000 workers. One cannot help but feel that the concept of getting ahead by playing by the rules has disappeared from mainstream corporate ideology.

With selfishness running rampant, tax structures have followed suit. In 1957, at the midpoint of the Eisenhower administration, Americans earning the equivalent of $5.2 million paid 51.6% of their incomes in federal income tax. Today, those making a similar amount pay a paltry 26.7%.₉ Factoring in government policies that have steadily eroded the social safety net, it is clear why the richest 1% of Americans have accumulated six times more wealth since 1983 than the poorest 90%.₁₀

But does inequality really matter? After all, many pro-market cheerleaders would have us believe that placing checks and balances on the financial activities of America’s economic elite will eliminate incentives for wealth creation and lead to Soviet-style stagnation. However, several studies have shown that inequality itself can harm the economy’s efficiency. Renowned management guru Peter Drucker has said that no CEO-worker pay gap could be over 20-to-1 without damaging company morale and lowering productivity.₁₁ That gap is now 364-to-1.₁₂

Thankfully, some viable solutions are already on the table. As a first step, the US House recently passed “Say on Pay” legislation that grants shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation, and other introduced legislation would restrict the tax deductibility of a CEO salary to 25 times the earnings of that company’s lowest-paid worker. Various proposals have suggested restructuring the corporate tax framework to reward socially responsible policies rather than the use of loopholes.

Then there is the ultimate solution: raise taxes on the extremely wealthy and treat capital gains as income. Not only would this fundamental reform restore the federal budget to a solvent level and open up funds for regulatory and social welfare programs, it would help restore the trust and sense of shared responsibility that characterize any truly healthy society.

If this were the case, perhaps Ford would have chosen to take that $39 million and hire back some 1,324 of its laid-off employees.₁₃

Sources

₁ Obtained from an Associated Press study of executive pay for leading US companies, released June 11, 2007
₂ Ford’s 2006 Annual Report, page 13
₃ Julie M. McKinnon, “Small Towns in Area Feel Sting of Job Losses”, Toledo Blade, October 20, 2006
₄ Ford’s Definitive Proxy Statement, Schedule 14A, released 4/5/07. p.42
₅ Greg Farrell, “Sarbanes-Oxley Law Has Been a Pretty Clean Sweep”, USA Today, July 29, 2007
₆ Michael Dobbs, “Halliburton’s Deals Greater than Thought”, Washington Post, August 28^th, 2003
₇ From the author’s own experience
₈Susan Chambers Memo to the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, New York Times, 10/26/05
₉ Sam Pizzigati, “What If? Imagining a More Equal America”, Too Much Newsletter, Summer 2002
₁₀ Edward N. Wolff, Recent Trends in Households Wealth in the United States, The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Working Paper No. 502, June 2007
₁₁ John A. Byrne and Lindsey Gerdes, “The Man Who Invented Management: Why Peter Drucker’s Ideas Still Matter”, Business Week, November 28, 2005
₁₂ Calculated by the authors of Executive Excess: The Staggering Social Cost of U.S. Business Leadership, Institute for Policy Studies, August 2007
₁₃ Ibid. Average hourly wage for US manufacturing workers was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and used in calculating this figure

Defending Rangel on the Draft

2007-05-09T14:51:00.000-05:00

I was talking with a co-worker today about American military policy and the draft. He likes the idea of ending the war and scaling down the size of the military, which would be expected from someone working for Save Darfur. He then proceeded to deride my NY Congressman Charles Rangel for introducing a proposal to bring back the draft. "Under no circumstances," he said, should anyone be forced to participate in war."

My response: yes and no. As with most issues, the situation fails to fit neatly into a black-or-white worldview. Certainly war is hell, and someone unwillingly dragged into battle can be seen as the victim of a grave injustice. Not to mention a less efficient warrior than a volunteer soldier, and thus harmful to the goals of a nation. However, we must be aware of a different view of the warmongering impulse in contemporary American society. A worldview that champions a policy of aggressive empire rather than acknowledging military action as an undesirable failure of diplomatic finesse and a last resort. These factions currently control the foreign policy apparatus of the US government, and wish to reap the benefits of war without sharing in the sacrifice.

Getting around the usual media distortion, bickering in the left and cheerleading in the right blogospheres, it is clear Rangel is focusing on this second point when he advocates bringing back the draft. He, like myself, is tired of "chickenhawks" who cheerlead and manage the war from afar but do not help pay the costs through higher taxes and family members in combat. The online contingent of chickenhawk apologists has been slapped with what I consider to be the most harshly hilarious of any political moniker I have heard: The 101st Division of Fighting Keyboardists. Re-institution of a draft, and the accompanying potential for responsibility on the part of said chickenhawks, would evaporate support for the Iraq War faster than you could say "JESUS SUPPORTS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!"

I may be biased as a (kind of) constituent, but I'm pretty sure Rangel doesn't actually intend for there to be a draft. He envisions a very uncomfortable scenario for GOP warmongers when this bill is considered, followed by some beautiful campaign fodder for '08. Besides, a reality-based discussion is long overdue regarding how neocons plan to execute the future wars of conquest their grand plans have in store.

Just picture this scenario. Rangel joins with some hawkish Republican (Duncan Hunter?) in introducing a bipartisan measure that will reinstate a universal draft. No lottery; EVERYONE must perform at least two years of national service, be it with the military or performing community service. While not openly advocating for the implementation of the draft, House Dem leadership backs the move, proclaiming it a good tool with which to discuss the prospects of future threats and the national security needs of the United States.

In this discussion, we could finally talk plainly about the empty words of Republicans. How they claim to support the troops, but do no such thing. They stretch out enrollment and force multiple tours of duty on young men and women, capitalizing their patriotism while wearing it thin. Top generals are now openly advocating in support of the Democratic position on the Iraq Fiasco. Maybe Democratic leaders can whip their caucus on this point. It is time to take a stand, and either support and a draft or leave Iraq.

That is an easy choice for Democrats if the vote hits the floor. At least it better be. Unanimous NAY to the bill in question, possibly excepting Rangel himself. The choice for Republicans, however, is much more excruciating. Support a measure that if adopted would guarantee the hemorrhaging of a whole generation of young adults from the party, or open themselves up to attack as not truly caring about our national security by overstretching the military. Either way, '08 Democratic challengers have generated a brutal attack ad, with little electoral harm done to their incumbents.

Of course, this would be the smart thing to do and requires that Democrats act together. Naturally, Speaker Pelosi and other party leaders blasted Rangel and shot down the idea from the git-go. It is frustrating to see Republicans pull off the jujitsu strategy again and again, the most prescient example being the Tort Reform movement. Please note, Ms. Pelosi: jujitsu can work wonders, if you just give it a chance.

Bees Disappearing?!?!?!

2007-04-23T14:04:00.000-05:00

Okay, I don't like bees. Never have. But this is just freaky.

VISALIA, Calif., Feb. 23 — David Bradshaw has endured countless stings during his life as a beekeeper, but he got the shock of his career when he opened his boxes last month and found half of his 100 million bees missing.

In 24 states throughout the country, beekeepers have gone through similar shocks as their bees have been disappearing inexplicably at an alarming rate, threatening not only their livelihoods but also the production of numerous crops, including California almonds, one of the nation’s most profitable.
“I have never seen anything like it,” Mr. Bradshaw, 50, said from an almond orchard here beginning to bloom. “Box after box after box are just empty. There’s nobody home.”
The sudden mysterious losses are highlighting the critical link that honeybees play in the long chain that gets fruit and vegetables to supermarkets and dinner tables across the country.

Apparently, the experts still have no idea why this is happening. Via DailyKos, here is an account of ongoing efforts at solving this alarming riddle.

Do any of you know more about this? If so, please post a comment or e-mail me whatever you know and I'll post an update.

Gonzo's Last Stand

2007-04-18T16:13:00.000-05:00

Today, Alberto Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The embattled Attorney General has a chance to explain his true role in the US Attorney Scandal and clarify conflicting statements that have been made by numerous administration officials. Gonzales faces a daunting task: clear his own name and save his job, all the while avoiding language that would incriminate his superiors (Bush, Cheney and Rove). Given the deluge of contradictions in the magically shape-shifting official administration story, this may be nearly impossible.
Via Media Matters, just some of the misinformation peddled by the administration:

1. Attorneys were dismissed for "performance-related" issues
2. Bush dismissals comparable to Clinton's '93 dismissals
3. Clinton fired Arkansas U.S. attorney to avoid Whitewater investigation
4. McKay shirked responsibility to investigate voter fraud allegations
5. Under new law, Bush still cannot appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely
6. Since the president has the authority to fire any or all U.S. attorneys, the administration's only problem is a failure to be "forthcoming"

There have also been massive inconsistencies as to Gonzo's role in the UNPRECEDENTED firings: he has said at different times that he made the decision, he approved the decision, and that he was not involved in the decision-making process.

We will see how deep and probing the questions get in clarifying said role, and hopefully our Senators will not accept repeated talking points that have already been refuted. Unfortunately, something tells me that not only will the follow-up questions from most Senators be limited in calling "BS", but some will actively mimic the talking points du jour (Cornyn, Sessions).

But let us not forget: this testimony at its core is about so much more than this singular scandal. It strikes at the heart of the Bush Administration's core governing philosophy. Gonzo, aka Abu Gonzalez, has been at the core of this administration's disdain for the rule of law and the oversight role of Congress. This man has been the prime architect of the current US government approval of torture, arguing that the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties do not apply to those swine who may have *gasp* wished harm upon the United States. Needless to say, this is an untenable and hypocritical argument. He has strongly argued and acted in accordance with the concept of the Unitary Executive. No matter how much he denies involvement now, Gonzo has repeatedly advocated the need for greater Presidential power in ability to conduct foreign policy, declare war, choose when to follow or disregard laws, and appoint officials without Senate approval.

Let us hope this testimony will represent the rock finally beginning to be turned over, exposing the dark underbelly of the Bush Administration's gutting and politicization of government agencies. It started with the EPA in 2001, and has moved on to almost every agency in the nation. This damage may take at least a generation to fix; sadly, this will be the lasting legacy of the Bush Presidency.

The time to start reverse the damage has come. Let it begin with Gonzales' removal as Attorney General.

Ridiculously Early Senate 2008 Roundup - D Seats

2007-04-17T18:51:00.000-05:00

This is part 2 of my Senate roundup, which looks at the 12 Democratic seats up for re-election and analyzes each individual race. The Republican outlook predicts 5 Dem pickups, and (at the risk of spoiling the rest of this post) 1 GOP pickup, bringing the total for the 111th Congress to 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. If Lieberman switches sides, then he can go Cheney himself and enjoy irrelevance in the minority party.

And just in case you were wondering, all the analysis and ratings are my own.

Once again, the ratings go from 1-10, in this case 1 is a definite R pickup and 10 is a definite D hold. The list is in alphabetical order by state.

Here goes:

Arkansas - Mark Pryor (seeking 2nd term)
Key Republicans: Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (maybe), Lt. Gov. nominee Jim Holt, etc.
Notes: Much of this race depends on what Huckabee decides. At the moment, he seems to be pursuing a run for President and getting absolutely nowhere. It's still highly possible that Huckabee goes for this Senate seat, at which point it becomes a top-tier race. Otherwise, Pryor is a solid favorite.
Rating: 8 (D Favored) - would become a 6 if Huckabee switches gears.

Delaware - Joe Biden (seeking 7th term)
Key Republican: Rep. Mike Castle
Notes: Biden still seems to think he's running for President. It shouldn't have any bearing on his Senate seat though, since the filing deadline in Delaware is well after the primary process is finished. He'll win again if he runs as expected. If he doesn't or becomes Secretary of State in a Democratic administration, his son Beau Biden will take on Castle in an interesting matchup.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

Illinois - Majority Whip Dick Durbin (seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: no frontrunners, many possible
Notes: Durbin became an key player in Congress with the Dem takeover of the Senate. In addition to his Beltway status, he is pretty popular back home. Since the Illinois GOP seems to be slowly crumbling away, I can't see him going anywhere.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

Iowa - Tom Harkin (probably seeking 5th term)
Key Republicans: Reps. Steve King and Tom Latham, Businessman Steve Rathje
Notes: Harkin hasn't officially decided whether he'll run again, but he'd be crazy not to. He should win if he does, he's beaten sitting Republican Congressmen four straight elections and is great on agricultural subsidies, probably the most important issue in Iowa. Even if he's on the fence, Schumer will convince him to jump back in. I also want to mention he was a key establishment endorser of Howard Dean's campaign in '04.
Rating: 9 (Probable D)

Louisiana - Mary Landrieu (seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: many
Notes: This is the first top-tier target for Republicans, and their most likely shot at defeating a healthy incumbent. Landrieu won her 2002 re-election with just 52%, and that was before Katrina and the exodus from heavily Democratic New Orleans. Yet Landrieu has handled her situation with savvy and finesse, rebounding nicely in the polls due to her visibility in seeking federal aid for victims and rebuilding efforts. Her most formidable potential challenger, Rep. Bobby Jindal, is looking like he will be elected Governor this November, and the Republicans lack other top-tier candidates. However, this will still be a tough race given the political climate in a state trending red.
Rating: 7 (Leans D) - The one seat in which the DSCC will need to devote massive resources to playing defense (with the possible exception of NJ).

Massachusetts - John Kerry (seeking 5th term)
Key Republicans: Swift Boat Veterans Founder Jerome Corsi (because there's really nobody else)
Notes: Zzzzzzz. Many of us Bay Staters don't really love Kerry that much, especially after his pathetic performance in '04. But luckily for him, he's in Massachusetts. 85% of both legislative houses are Dems, we just elected an (allegedly) progressive Dem Governor, and all twelve federal elected officials are Democrats. Get the point? Massachusetts is a one-party state, and this is Kerry's seat as long as he wants it.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

Michigan - Carl Levin (seeking 6th term)
Key Republicans: no frontrunner, but many strong potential candidates
Notes: Now Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Levin is a solid Democratic loyalist who has been a strong critic of the Iraq war. That is a plus in Michigan, a state that had been flirting with purple-dom until about a year ago, when the state's voters seemed to remember that Republican politicians hate the working class and that's why they always vote D. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, Levin should be fine.
Rating: 9 (Probable D)

Montana - Max Baucus (seeking 6th term)
Key Republicans: Rep. Denny Rehberg (maybe), other strong potential candidates
Notes: Baucus, known primarily as a centrist budget hawk, is an anomaly in Montana politics as a long-standing popular Democrat. Although the state has been trending towards the Dems in recent years with the elections of Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sen. Jon Tester, it is still a tough political landscape for Baucus. He only beat Rehberg by 20,000 votes in 1996, and a rematch could be just as competitive in the right environment. However, I believe the issues that propelled Tester to victory (corruption, big government) will work to Baucus' advantage this time around and ensure his re-election.
Rating: 7 (Leans D)

New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg (seeking 5th term, 2nd in this seat)
Key Republicans: Tom Kean, Jr. (2006 Senate nominee)
Potential Democratic Challengers: Reps. Robert Andrews, Frank Pallone
Notes: Lautenberg is unpopular, but so is every other politician in Joisey. I really hope the GOP thinks they can take this one and wastes a bunch of $ in NJ's expensive media market, further jading already cynical voters with filthy attack ads while not doing anything to change their minds.
Rating: 8 (D Favored)

Rhode Island - Jack Reed (seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: Former Cranston Mayor and 2006 Senate Candidate Stephen Laffey
Notes: Reed has one of the highest approval ratings of any Democratic Senator, as a leading voice on military issues and loyal Democrat. Preznit Bush has approval in the mid-20s. You do the math.
Rating: 10 (Definite D)

South Dakota - Tim Johnson (likely seeking 3rd term)
Key Republicans: Gov. Mike Rounds (undeclared)
Key Democrats (if Johnson doesn't run): Rep. Stephanie Herseth
Notes: Easily the strangest situation I've seen since I started following politics. Okay, maybe the '04 race in Illinois where the waters seemed to part for Obama was in the same ballpark. But Johnson's stroke throws a extra kink into an already complicated situation. Ironically, his health issues may work to his advantage, as Republicans have been forced to hold off the attack dogs for fear of looking callous and cruel. Hahaha. This should be their top target this year, since Johnson was already endangered before his stroke. If Gov. Rounds enters the race it will be at least a toss-up. Johnson seems to be preparing for an election race and has been raising money. However, if he is unable or otherwise chooses not to pursue re-election, Rep. Herseth would make a formidable challenger. Like I said, it's a strange situation with a ton of question marks.
Rating: 5 (Toss-Up) - No matter what, this race will probably come down to election day turnout.

West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller (seeking 5th term)
Key Republicans: Rep. Shelley Moore Capito; '06 Sen. nominee John Raese (neither has declared)
Notes: Capito may have a chance, but may not want to sacrifice her relatively safe House seat unless she really thinks she can win. If she decides otherwise, Rockefeller should win with 58-60% of the vote.
Rating: 9 (Probable D) - Unless something drastic changes in the national landscape, this seat stays D.
-------
So there you have it. Anybody who made it this far, please comment with thoughts/suggestions/rants.

Ridiculously Early Senate 2008 Roundup - R Seats

2007-04-13T23:12:00.000-05:00

Just in case the presidential horse race weren't enough to deal with in an "off" year, I figure I'll provide an overview of the Senate landscape for the junkies out there.

Things are looking extremely positive for the Democrats, with 21 GOP Senators up for re-election and only 12 Dems. That would make for a promising outlook even in any year, but 2008 will be no ordinary year. The issues that plagued the Rs this past November will get no better, I really can't see how ANY of them possibly could, and the Iraq Debacle should continue to fester.

And here's some more food for thought. The six seats that flipped in '06 were in a much tougher year: 15 GOP seats and 18 Dem. If as in the past election cycle Dems take 40% of the Republican seats and hold all their own, they will be sitting pretty at that magical 60-seat supermajority. With a Democrat in the White House, the Repugs will be all but powerless.

Let's run down each race one by one, by state alphabetical order. Each race is ranked 1-10; 1 being definitely GOP, 10 being definitely Dem. These are completely my opinions, based on what I have read and seen. Here goes:

Republican Seats

Alabama - Jeff Sessions (seeking 3rd term)
Key opponent: Ron Sparks, State Agriculture Commissioner
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - Sparks could make it interesting, but it's still Alabama

Alaska - Ted "aluminum tubes" Stevens (seeking 7th term)
Key opponent: none as of yet
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - In AK, competence or integrity seems not to be an issue

Colorado - OPEN (Wayne Allard is retiring)
Key Democrat: Rep. Mark Udall (Williams grad!) - son of the legendary Morris Udall and damn popular in his own right
Key Republican: former Rep. Scott McInnis
Rating: 7 (Leaning D) - I'm already ready to call this one for Udall

Georgia - Saxby Chambliss (seeking 2nd term)
Key opponent: no clear favorite, but decent crop
Notes: Democrats are chomping at the bit over this one; Chambliss was the fellow who beat Max Cleland in 2002, using dirty campaign tactics that questioned the patriotism of a triple amputee war veteran.
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - Chambliss unfortunately is pretty popular, as Georgia is one of the few states still trending red.

Idaho - Larry Craig (may not seek a 4th term)
Key Democrats: Rep. Larry LaRocco
Key Republicans: Rep. Mike Simpson; Fmr Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez
Notes: This race will be very hard to rate if Craig declines a run. Most are saying, however, that he will probably in fact run, so the current rating is under that assumption. LaRocco, a Veteran, will having to run in the style of Jim Webb to have a chance.
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - LaRocco could be a decent challenger, but Craig is well-liked, and is the clear favorite if he chooses to run.

Kansas - Pat Roberts (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats: none to my knowledge
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - Forget this one. Roberts is a legend. Like Stevens, he's a horrible man but great politician.

Kentucky - Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader, seeking 5th term)
Key Democrats: ?????
Notes: Dems would LOVE to exact revenge for Daschle in '04 and take down the other party's top dawg. McConnell is the king of an imploding KY GOP, so it could be interesting. However, most of the top D prospects are balking at this race, looking more at the Gov race this year or Bunning's much more vulnerable seat in '10. My guess is at least one of these prospects jumps in and makes it a race. Stay tuned.......
Rating: 3 (R Favored) - This one could get interesting, but will only flip in another wave election.

Maine - Susan Collins (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrat: Rep. Tom Allen
Notes: This is a first-tier race. Allen is a popular six-term House incumbent with solid statewide name recognition. Look for an insane amount of $$ per capita to get pumped into this state come fall '08.
Rating: 6 (Toss-Up) - Collins is my top pick to get Chaffee'd, a popular moderate GOP Senator in a state rapidly trending blue.

Minnesota - Norm Coleman (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: Al Franken, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Attorney Mike Ciresi, etc.
Notes: More than anybody else, I personally want to see Coleman's head on a skewer. So do many Minnesotans, after the circumstances of his previous victory. If it weren't for Paul Wellstone's tragic plane crash on the eve of the '02 election, he would be the overwhelming favorite to once again retain this seat. The sketchy circumstances of Wellstone's death and the Republican smear job in the aftermath of his memorial service are probably what has prompted Franken to run. Man, would it be fun to see him on the Senate floor.
Rating: 5 (Toss-Up) - If Franken proves he can be taken seriously, this becomes a 7. If not, it's anybody's race.

Mississippi - Thad Cochran (seeking 6th term)
Key Democrats: State Atty General Michael Moore
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - Assuming Cochran doesn't unexpectedly retire, forget about this one and move on.

Nebraska - Chuck Hagel (possibly seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats: Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey
Notes: This situation is too nebulous to tell for sure. Hagel may or may not run for President, and at the same time may or may not run to keep this seat. Either way, it will probably stay in Republican hands.
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - I can't see a way this becomes a D pickup unless something drastically changes.

New Hampshire - John Sununu (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand; Katrina Swett
Notes: Sununu is undoubtedly a top Democratic target. Given the '06 tidal wave that gave Gov. John Lynch (D) 71% of the vote, flipped both Congressional seats to the Dems and saw unbelievable D gains in the state legislature, it will be hard for Sununu to win without further distancing himself from the national party.
Rating: 6 (Toss-Up) - Too early to get a sense of who will be giving Sununu the fight of his political life.

New Mexico - Pete Domenici (may or may not seek 7th term)
Key Democrats: Rep. Tom Udall; Atty General Patricia Madrid; Albequerque Mayor Martin Chavez
Key Republicans: Rep. Heather Wilson, Rep. Steve Pearce
Notes: This one is completely in flux. If Domenici runs as he has said he plans to do, he probably wins. But he is waist-deep in the US Attorney scandal and rumors have been circulating that his mental faculties are declining. If he retires, this could go either way.
Rating: 3 (R Favored) - I'm splitting the difference between a definite Domenici win and a toss-up. Hopefully both he and Heather Wilson get dragged down in Attorneygate.

North Carolina - Elizabeth Dole (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: no standouts as of yet. Popular Gov. Mike Easley is not interested.
Notes: Dole is considered somewhat vulnerable, but it will take the right candidate and situation for her to be beaten. There are many possible challengers out there, but nobody stands out as a true superstar. For now, Dole has to be considered a clear favorite.
Rating: 3 (R Favored)- This is a sleeper race. Stay tuned.....

Oklahoma - James "Global warming and evolution are hoaxes" Inhofe (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats:???
Rating: 1 (Definite R) - Inhofe is certifiably nuts, but it's Oklahoma. Not a state I'll be visiting anytime soon.

Oregon - Gordon Smith (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer; many others
Key Republicans: Antitax zealot Bill Sizemore
Notes: The antitax group Club for Growth has announced they are targeting Smith in this election. Keep in mind they backed Steven Laffey in RI against Chaffee, and almost knocked off Arlen Specter in '04. Smith is the favorite here, but in the end may not be able to withstand spirited attacks from both sides.
Rating: 3 (R Favored) - If Blumenauer runs, this probably becomes to a 4.

South Carolina - Lindsey Graham (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: ?????
Key Republicans: none yet, but primary challenge possible
Notes: For some reason, Graham is considered a maverick and may draw a challenge from some moonbat Bible-thumper. I'm not too worried about him. My advice to Democrats: don't waste your energy here.
Rating: 2 (Probable R) - Nothing much to see here. Will probably become a 1 soon.

Tennessee - Lamar Alexander (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: likely no top-tier challengers
Notes: While Alexander can probably be beaten, there's just nobody to do it this time around.
Rating: 1 (Definite R)

Texas - John Cornyn (seeking 2nd term)
Key Democrats: many, but no top-tier challengers
Notes: God, I hate Cornyn's guts. To give you a sense, he was a leader in the Senate effort to push through radical conservative federal judges in '05. And he was on the Texas Supreme Court with Abu Gonzalez in the '90s. I hope somebody gives him a run for his money, but I just don't see it right now.
Rating: 2 (Probable R)

Virginia - John Warner (may or may not seek 6th term)
Key Democrat: Mark Warner (prob only runs if John doesn't)
Key Republican: Rep. Tom Davis
Notes: Like in NM, everything rides on whether John Warner runs again. Warner will be 80 on election day and may not have the stomach for what will be a bruising election battle. Mark Warner is the other real x-factor here, since he may opt to seek the Vice Presidential slot or run for Governor in '09. My guess is he only runs in an open seat where he is the clear favorite.
Rating: 4 (Leaning R) - This rating is a placeholder until the race becomes more defined.

Wyoming - Michael Enzi (seeking 3rd term)
Key Democrat: '06 Congressional nominee Gary Trauner (may choose House rematch)
Notes: Trauner was a hair's breadth away from winning a statewide Congressional seat in this reddest of red states, and is the only Democrat at this point with any prayer of taking out Enzi. My guess is he goes for the rematch against Barbara Cubin, and wins this time.
Rating: 1 (Definite R)

Summary: 12 Safe Republican, 5 Possible Pickups, 3 Toss-Ups, 1 Likely Pickup

Estimated Pickups: 5

Welcome

2007-03-30T22:55:00.000-05:00

Hi all! I thought it might be fun to try out the blogging world, and see if I can put some of my news reading time to good use. Ideally, I am hoping this forum can be used for three things:

1) Be a news source for those who don't have hours to search the papers or the cyberpapers for those juicy nuggets, and distill the real stories and narratives from all the fluff out there in the corporate media. The corporate "mainstream" media falls short in many ways, the most egregious being its inability/unwillingness to check the factual accuracy of statements and claims by those in power, and its utter failure to establish context within a historical and cultural framework. I will attempt to compensate for these shortcomings with analysis of important news I come across. Anyone else is free to contribute to this effort if they so choose.

2) Act as an informal policy incubator, where open and honest discussion leads to concrete policy solutions. We are stuck in an age of partisan squabble, and much of this partisanship re-enacts the battles of generations past. It is time to move on. The American people, and especially Northeastern liberals like most of the expected readers of this blog, are ready for fresh ideas. Some of us are ready to create and discuss fresh ideas, some have one or two particular issues in which they feel able to contribute to this effort, and others would like to work toward getting them enacted (undoubtedly the most important variable in the equation).

That leads us to the final purpose of this blog: action alerts. I assume anyone who is reading this is either furious at the state of our nation's political landscape or just wants to learn and help however they can. Maybe both. Well I hope to provide ways for folks like yourselves to take action in a productive manner. The time for complaining and discussion is over. We need to act, and we can. We can call and write our representatives, talk to our friends and family, volunteer in local elections and community actions, and most importantly, vote. They say democracy is not a spectator sport, but there are too many mere spectators when the stakes are higher than anytime I am aware of. If I can activate even one member of the populace to stand up for his or her values in full force, this blog will have been worth it.