Will Specter Figure Out That Democrats SUPPORT Working Families, Not Undermine Them The Way His Old Party Does?

First ever "Democrat" Hebiclens has agreed to photograph in full gear

Yesterday David Sirota made the point-- eloquently-- that every incumbent should face a primary challenge. He's especially eager to see vigorous challenges against reactionaries like Arlen Specter (PA) and Michael Bennet (CO) but his "support for as many vigorous primaries as possible may offend Establishment-minded activists, party-first sycophants, and other assorted incumbent-worshiping starfuckers, but that's fine with me because my support is based on the principle that the more democracy and elections and the less entitlement royalty, the better."

MoveOn is being more focused and it's Specter they have their eye on, joining a wide array of progressive organizations resisting the shameful efforts by suspect Insiders Joe Biden and Ed Rendell to clear the Democratic primary field for the Republican-turned-Democraticish Pennsylvania senator. 85% of their members want to see MoveOn consider supporting a Democratic alternative to Specter.

The group expressed concern over Specter’s vote against President Obama’s $3.4 billion budget just one day after defecting to the Democratic Party. MoveOn also cited comments Specter made in an appearance on “Meet the Press” last weekend suggesting he would oppose a public health insurance option that some Democrats would like to see included in any health care reform proposal.

But there might be a silver lining for the longtime Pennsylvania lawmaker: The MoveOn poll found that 90 percent of its members said they would support Specter if he chooses to align more closely with the president’s agenda.

Jane Hamsher spoke right to that silver lining today, pointing to a compromise that seems to have been worked out between labor unions, Specter and Dianne Feinstein. Coming to the realization that he's not going to be back in the Senate if he continues to piss off and completely alienate unions and progressives, Specter seems to have bought into Feinstein's solution to the Employee Free Choice Act "problems."

[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.

That may solve the problem of saving Specter's face (and possibly even his seat) but it puts WalMart's senator, Blanche Lincoln, in a real pickle. And another paid-off shill for Big Business, Ben Nelson (NE) went running to Fox to tell them the compromise is a fool's errand. "You  might think," their report begins, "that statement would come from a Republican, but it’s actually from a Democrat." Well, kinda/sorta. Nelson, who fundamentally opposes assisting working families has taken so much in legalized bribes from the anti-Employee Free Choice forces that he would be embarrassed to vote for it now. He's the worst of only 5 corrupt and reactionary Democrats-- the others being Evan Bayh (IN), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Byron Dorgan (ND), and Max Baucus (MT)-- who have voted more frequently with Republicans on core issues this year than with Democrats. Nelson is the only one who has actually voted more frequently with the Republicans than Specter, who has only been a quasi-Democrat for a week!


UPDATE: Arlen Specter-- The Personification Of Corruption

Usually when we talk about Specter's rampant and horrifying corruption we'll be referring to the millions and millions of dollars he's taken from banksters, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, war contractors and others with special interests business before the Senate. He votes how these people ask him to vote and this alone is enough of a reason to defeat him or send him back to the GOP where he belongs. But there's an even more disgusting and reprehensible form of corruption Adam Green just caught Specter in. Specter has disguised a fund raising website for himself as a website to raise money to fight cancer. When he was called out on it, he changed the website but refuses to give back any of the money he bilked from people who thought they were donating to cancer research but who, unbeknownst to them, wound up donating to a cancer on the body of American democracy.

How Do A Few Hundred Families Control American Financial Policies? Look No Further Than Corrupt Hacks Like Blanche Lincoln And Rob Portman

Big Business investments that have paid off well: Lincoln & Nelson

This month Blanche Lincoln, conservative Democrat of Arkansas is probably the most reviled senator among grassroots Democrats-- and the most beloved by plutocrats and the politicians-- of both parties-- they own. But it isn't only for the most obvious reason, her breaking with the other 57 (or 58, if you count Al Franken) Democrats in the Senate in regard to Employee Free Choice. Not only did Lincoln, at the insistence of her financial backers at the Chamber of Commerce and WalMart, declare that she would join the Republican party filibuster of Employee Free Choice, she joined with the extreme right of the GOP on another crucial matter: fair taxation or, as she and the right would like to see it, unfair taxation. Carl Hulse in today's NY Times explains how a gaggle of reactionary Democrats, in thrall to their wealthy campaign contributors, is endangering President Obama's agenda for change by demanding making the estate tax even less fair than it already is-- less fair the Republican way: more billions for the billionaires and multimillionaires.

Studies show that the tax hits merely a sliver of wealthy American families. A proposal by President Obama would leave it at current levels, affecting only estates valued at more than $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples.

But now some Democrats have joined Republicans to call for setting the threshold even higher, in a rebellion that could have important consequences not just for the future of the death tax but also for Mr. Obama’s efforts to pay for his ambitious policy agenda.

If that Republican-backed plan is approved, it could deprive Mr. Obama of about $100 billion for his initiatives on health care, energy and education when alternative sources of revenue are already dwindling. That prospect is plain outrageous to top Democrats, who see efforts to spare the wealthy as particularly ill-timed given the economic pain being experienced by many of lesser means.

“This isn’t for the wealthy, this is for the super-wealthy,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said as the Senate took up the estate tax issue during its budget deliberations. “Even in the best of times, there is no question that we could find a better use for an extra $100 billion.”

Lincoln enlisted 9 other Democrats in her pay-back to the Walton family, the WalMart heirs that have helped finance a political career that has been a catastrophe for Arkansas working families. Lincoln is using deceptive Republican Party talking points, pushed by right-wing Big Business interests-- the ones that have lavished millions of dollars on her career-- to describe the estate tax. She claims it is "devastating to family businesses that are a prime source of jobs in her state. 'In a time when our government has handed out billions upon billions to failed Wall Street banks,' she said, 'it is time we provide a little relief to our businesses on Main Street.'”

As she always does when supporting her wealthy campaign contributors, Lincoln is just plain lying-- and advocating another giveaway to the people who need it least and will do the least with it to get the economy going again, an economy suffering because of the greed-and-selfishness economic policies supported by the Republican Party-- and by a small handful of fake Democrats like Blanche Lincoln.

More Big Business investments that have paid off: Bush & Portman

The GOP is organizing around promising the super-rich that they will repeal the estate tax. One of their least attractive Senate candidates, the Bush Regime's favorite Ohioan, Rob Portman, has raised $1.7 million for his campaign in the first quarter and is being supported by Big Business interests from outside Ohio because he has a clear record of always supporting special interests against working families. Since first getting into politics Portman has taken in $910,349 from the FIRE (finance/insurance/real estate) sector-- and has repaid that investment many times over while he served in Congress's Ways and Means Committee and then in the Bush Regime as the U.S. Trade Representative, facilitating the off-shoring of American jobs and finally as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, where he played an active and decisive role in wrecking the U.S. economy. Observers expect that the current campaign for the Senate will double the total amount the FIRE sector funnels into his career and bring it more in line with other crooked politicians they can count on-- like the aforementioned Lincoln, who has benefited to the tune of $1,671,292 so far, a number that is also expected to rise dramatically this year as Big Business works hard to ensure her re-election.

Keep in mind that the House has already passed, as part of the Budget, President Obama's proposal to keep the estate tax at a 45% on estates worth over $3.5 million-- keeping in mind that there is no tax-- not one dime-- on what you leave to your spouse up to $7 million. Lincoln and the other reactionary Democrats have joined with the GOP to demand a 35% rate and an exclusion for $10 million. This morning Toledo, Ohio's Blade, a newspaper unlikely to support Portman's bid for the Ohio Senate seat, made it clear what they think of treacherous Democrats like Lincoln who have gone over to the Dark Side and work on behalf of the three or four hundred wealthiest families this anti-Obama bill would benefit. The 9 other Democrats who signed on to Lincoln's special amendment for very rich campaign contributors are-- along with every single Republican, of course-- Max Baucus (MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Maria Cantwell (WA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Patty Murray (WA), Bill Nelson (FL), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR) and Jon Tester (MT).

Unemployment is up, the stock market is way down, the federal government is spending trillions to jump-start the economy, and deficits are being tallied in numbers too big to comprehend. But the United States Senate didn't let that stop it from offering a tax break to the wealthiest Americans.

The amendment was the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (home to the Wal-Mart owning, estate-tax-hating Walton family) and Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, home to a lot of retirees who mistakenly think reducing the tax will protect their families when they die. In fact, the change would help only about one-quarter of 1 percent of the nation's people, the superwealthiest, because nobody else is rich enough to owe the tax in the first place.

Entrenched interests blather about reducing or, better yet, repealing what they like to call the "death tax," allegedly to protect vast numbers of regular folks from having to sell family farms and small businesses to pay the tax.

But the Tax Policy Center says that only five of every 100,000 people who die this year-- that's .005 percent-- will be small business owners or farmers rich enough to owe the tax. And virtually none of them would have to sell their business to pay.

Tax opponents conveniently avoid mentioning that, or that right now no taxes at all are owed on the first $7 million couples are worth. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 15,400 people will have to file estate tax returns this year, and only 6,200 of them will actually owe any tax at all.

The don't-tax-the-rich crowd also ignores other deductions which typically lower the effective rate on estates to less than 20 percent. So, the tax burden on the nation's elite is much smaller than they'd have people believe. And lest we forget, philanthropy by the ultrarich often is driven by tax advantages that accrue from charitable giving. Reduce the estate tax and that incentive will decline as well, with devastating effect.

With the government bleeding red ink, the last thing senators ought to be doing is adding to the deficit by cutting taxes on those best able to pay their fair share.

Lincoln has nothing to worry about from the mostly brainwashed Arkansas electorate. The state doesn't have a functioning democracy and last year not one Republican challenged a Democratic incumbent and not one Democrat challenged a Republican incumbent for any federal office. Nor were there any primary challenges. In terms of democracy, Arkansas is in the worst shape of any state in the union-- and that's the way its feudal lords and ladies want it.

This is a good moment to point out an entirely different editorial than the one from today's Blade. You've read us talking about how the root of all political evil in this country-- including especially places like Arkansas-- is the system of legalized bribery that allows political whores like Rob Portman and Blanche Lincoln to sell out their constituents for career financing for the super-rich, who are then given license to systematically plunder the rest of us through the special interest legislation passed by the same legislators they have invested in. This week Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation explains the Fair Elections Now Act (and the grassroots Donor Strike) that is bubbling up from the progressive grassroots (while the Know Nothing grassroots buys into Fox's teabag parties). Katrina, as usual, "gets it":

At this perilous moment, as we face key battles on the economic crisis, climate change, healthcare, and a slew of other issues, it's important to recognize that these fights will not be settled in one fell swoop this year or next, but will play out over the coming decade or more. Working against bold, progressive solutions on all of these issues is a constant problem: big money donors hold sway, shifting the policy debate and shafting the common good. Only through real campaign reform will we level the playing field so that the voices of ordinary people are heard loud and clear inside the Beltway.

That's why it's so important that the Fair Elections Now Act has been introduced in both the House and Senate with bipartisan support, and that a savvy coalition is rallying public support for it, including: Change Congress, Public Campaign, Common Cause, Public Citizen, US PIRG, Brennan Center for Justice, Americans for Campaign Reform, MoveOn, and others.

Change Congress-- an organization launched by Lawrence Lessig and Joe Trippi to reduce the influence of money in politics-- has taken the lead on organizing an online strategy. Lessig said, "My view is it's finally time for us to do what Teddy Roosevelt suggested we do about 102 years ago, which is to bring about an election system where what's driving the results is fear about how voters in the district will respond, rather than fear about how the funders will respond."

The bill provides qualified candidates the opportunity to run with a mixture of small-dollar contributions and public money. Candidates who raise a large number of small contributions ($100 or less) from their home state qualify for a set amount of public money that will make them competitive. If the candidate chooses, he or she can continue to raise small donations and receive a 4:1 match-- up to a specified cap-- in order to compete on a level playing field with wealthy, self-financed candidates and those raising money in the traditional way. There are also resources in the bill for media time when candidates get to the general election. In determining the caps and amounts of money required to make candidates competitive, advocates did some good research on how states with these kinds of laws have worked and also examined the fundraising stats of past Congressional races.

This brand of public financing is different from campaign finance reforms that simply attempt to regulate the flow of money in the political process. Candidates participating in this system must rely exclusively on small donors. By matching small donations with public funds, it's a way of putting political clout in the hands of ordinary people.

This path creates a new world of possibility for up-from-the-grassroots political organizing and fresh-faced candidates. It plays to the strengths of community organizers and membership based organizations and could be a critical building block for progressive power across the country. David Donnelly, the national campaigns director for Public Campaign who has worked on this issue for decades, said that the bill "provides enough money for [participating] candidates to be competitive in just about every single race in the country."

The coalition is using the current two-week recess to get additional cosponsors for the House and Senate bills. One key strategy to push for cosponsorship is through demonstrating the electoral cost of a member's failure to support the bill. That's largely accomplished through Change Congress' Donor Strike.

The Donor Strike allows individuals to pledge to withhold money from any politician who doesn't cosponsor the Fair Elections bill. Based on the previous election cycle, the withholdings by donors taking the pledge has now crossed the $1.1 million mark, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein the biggest loser at $288,000.

If the Fair Election bill passes, people like Blanche Lincoln and Rob Portman will be replaced in Congress by political leaders interested in working for the betterment of the country, rather than the betterment of their wealthy donors. Take a look at the clip-- and then think about contacting your own members of Congress; everyone has three, a representative and two senators:

West Wing Stars Come Out For Employee Free Choice

Blanche, Ben and what makes their world go round

I'm guessing these guys won't be doing any benefit appearances for quasi-Democrat Blanche Lincoln (AR), who has very firmly gone over to the Dark Side. It wasn't enough that Lincoln joined Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to push for an end to the estate tax-- on behalf of the Walton family which has helped finance her miserable and shameful political career. She then announced to her Chamber of Commerce buddies that they could count on her to join the Republican Party filibuster of the exact same Employee Free Choice Act that she voted for in 2007. Funny what a few million dollars can do.

Political hacks like Blanche Lincoln belong in prison for taking bribes, not in the U.S. Senate polluting our democracy with criminal ethics. Needless to say, the ultra-corrupt Lincoln, whose career has basically been based on taking corporate money and then voting against the interests to ordinary American working families, is not a co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, although activists behind the bill think you can get her to change her mind. Good luck with that. One of the most corrupt members of Congress, Lincoln will probably be one of the least likely senators to ever sign off on anything like this; but try. On the other hand, there are scores of members of Congress who actually hate the culture of corruption that sleazy characters like Lincoln thrive on. Remember this:

Special interests pump millions of dollars into elections, giving them more influence over our political system than the rest of us. Until we fix our broken campaign finance laws, these special interests will block real change on issue after issue.

Especially as our nation faces an unprecedented economic crisis, now is the worst time for our politicians to spend their time begging for campaign contributions from the very special interests that got us into this mess.

We need a clean system of campaign financing-- one where politicians pay attention to regular people, the very small-dollar donors who made such an impact in 2008.

Reforming the system will never be Congress’s first priority until a grassroots movement gives politicians a choice: You can have our money or special interest money, but not both. Now is the time to push for this change, and that’s why the donor strike is important.

...The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act was offered last Congress, and was offered again this year by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Reps. John Larson (D-CT) and Walter Jones (R-NC).

Under this legislation, congressional candidates who raise a threshold number of small-dollar donations would qualify for a chunk of funding—several hundred thousand dollars for House, millions for many Senate races. If they accept this funding, they can’t raise big-dollar donations. But they can raise contributions up to $100, which would be matched four to one by a central fund. Reduced fees for TV airtime is also an element of this bill. This would create an incentive for politicians to opt into this system and run people-powered campaigns.

They have a great tool to help you identify your members of Congress and then to contact them about real campaign finance reform. It really is the root of all political evil. Now the movie:



And if that doesn't do it for you, how about something a little less pop and a little more populist? Ads like this should make hacks like Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter and David Boren realize that working families are onto them and their free ride days are long long gone:

Blanche Lincoln Announces She Will Join GOP Filibuster Against Employee Free Choice

Last week, when Arkansas' reactionary Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) teamed up with Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to push another tax reduction for multimillionaires on behalf of her WalMart patrons, we looked at her abysmally corrupt record as a pawn of the wealthy and a bane to ordinary American working families. Today Lincoln made it clear to her financial supporters that they could count on her to oppose Employee Free Choice, the only Senate Democrat vowing to stab working families in the back on this.

"While I may not have been clear about my position in the past, I am stating today that I cannot support Employee Free Choice Act in its current form and I can’t support efforts to bring it to Senate consideration in its current form," Lincoln said in a statement late Monday afternoon.

"I will consider alternatives that have the support of both business and labor but my pledge today is to focus my full attention on the priorities I have mentioned that affect every working family in Arkansas."

"In its current form? Its current form was what she voted for on June 26, 2007. There are no changes to the bill. The only changes were Obama, a supporter who will sign the bill, replaced Bush, an opponent who had promised to veto it. That makes each vote all that much more crucial to Big Business' anti-union efforts. And the other thing that has changed since June 2007-- the immense amount of legalized bribes Big Business has poured into Lincoln's coffers.

WalMart may be one of her top 5 contributors but that doesn't even scratch the surface of this execrable person's boldfaced corruption. Every special interest with business before the Senate has lavished her with hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a saner society, Blanche Lincoln wouldn't be disgracing the U.S. Senate; she would be rotting in prison for taking bribes and selling her votes. HMOs, Big Pharma, Oil companies, lobbyists, Insurance, bankers, real estate... every special interest looking to feed at the public trough finds its way to Blanche Lincoln's office with a checkbook in hand. So far the current cycle has seen her gobble up $6,922,733, very little of it from Arkansas voters. (So far in her entire disgraceful political career she's taken in a hefty $12,305,217. And the sector which has doled out the most? FIRE-- finance/insurance/real estate-- $2 million.

Today's Hill confirms what Democrats in Arkansas have feared-- Lincoln has sold out completely. She will join McConnell and DeMint in filibustering the bill when it comes up to prevent it from being voted on.

The decision represents a bit of a turnaround for Lincoln, who voted to proceed to a debate on card check in 2007. The statement on Monday indicated she would not support efforts to bring it up for consideration.

“I consider both the labor and the business communities to be my friends.  However, now that we need all hands on deck, including business and labor, to get our economy moving again, this issue is dividing us,” Lincoln said in a statement. “While I may not have been clear about my position in the past, I am stating today that I cannot support Employee Free Choice Act in its current form and I can’t support efforts to bring it to Senate consideration in its current form.”

What a waste for labor unions to have donated $544,395 to her campaign. I wonder when they'll ever learn. Speaking for the SEIU, Jon Youngdahl expressed disappointment: “Senator Lincoln’s decision to stand with Big Business over working families at a time when CEOs make 344 times that of their average employee, and as jobs disappear by the minute, is disappointing at best. Yet we share Majority Leader Reid’s belief that our efforts to improve the working conditions and lives of millions of Americans through the Employee Free Choice Act will not be derailed." The anti-union Chamber of Commerce was breaking out the champagne bottles and, no doubt, the checkbooks. Steve Law, union busting attorney: “This makes opposition to cloture bipartisan. We hope this will encourage others to take a public stand against this increasingly radioactive bill."
The Arkansas Blog has some mighty pissed off reactions from local Democrats. But if Arkansas Democrats don't have a Democrat to run, there might as well be a Republican in that seat. She doesn't deserve a penny or a vote from anyone who gives a hoot about Democratic values or, for that matter, clean government.

Joe The Plumber With Yer Cuppa Joe?

Sometimes when we have a humor story we save it for the end of the day. But last night we wanted to get out the more serious post about reactionary Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the GOP to make our cities' streets less safe from heavy weapons and to make women less safe in matters pertaining to their health. So this kind of silly post one got bumped to this morning. Claiming, although with no evidence whatsoever, that "the public loves Joe the Plumber" and that "they see him as a role model," an anti-union GOP front group in Pennsylvania, Americans for Prosperity has employed Joe the Plumber to run around the state lying about the Employee Free Choice Act.

I suppose it's good he's got some gainful employment now that his careers as an author, musician, journalist and consultant all fizzled so quickly... but what does Joe the Plumber know about Employee Free Choice? Republican Party talking points straight from the horse's mouth (Limbaugh), of course. He and lunatic fringe winger Pat Toomey will have a grand old time. In fact, Greg Sargent is reporting that actual plumbers are furious. A Plumbers Union official told Sargent that Joe "the Plumber" (who isn't a plumber) is "selling out real plumbers." Rick Terven, the political and legislative director for The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry:

Right now, labor law is stacked against real plumbers. Real plumbers want and need the Employee Free Choice Act as a way to empower themselves to join a union, without fear of intimidation or losing their jobs. Joe the Plumber doesn’t speak for real plumbers.

According to the GOP front group sponsoring Joe the Plumber, he'll be expected to remind Pennsylvania voters that they demand Arlen Specter-- who already raised the white flag earlier in the week-- to flip flop and join the GOP filibuster against Employee Free Choice. In case Wurzelbacher isn't a big enough draw, the Republicans are offering free food to try to get people to come to their rallies.

Specter's Anti-union Flip Flop Came On The Heels Of New Poll Showing Him Losing The GOP Primary To Far Right Extremist

The Pennsylvania Republican Party has shrunken drastically since Bush first stole the 2000 election. Moderates and mainstream voters have fled in droves, re-registering as Democrats or independents. The result has been not just losses for the GOP in presidential elections, but the loss of a U.S. Senate seat-- right-wing extremist Rick Santorum losing in a 59-41% landslide-- and the loss of five House seats, more than any state in the Union. 2004 also saw the GOP candidate for governor get swamped in a two to one defeat. McCain, who once predicted Pennsylvania would be the keystone to his victory, only managed 44% of the state's vote.

A poll released today by Quinnipiac, shows that it would be next to impossible for long-time Republican Senator Arlen Specter to win a closed Republican primary against radical right former Congressman Pat Toomey.

Toomey, who is currently the president of the conservative Club for Growth, beat the senator 41 percent to 27 percent among registered Republicans in the poll. Toomey, who came within two points of defeating Specter in the 2004 GOP primary, has indicated he is likely to challenge Specter again in 2010.

Specter's problems lie in the state's conservative Republican base. Statewide, Specter performs well, with 52 percent job approval. But the same percentage of Republicans disapprove of his performance, his worst performance among the GOP since Quinnipiac began polling in Pennsylvania in 2002. Under Pennsylvania election laws, only registered Republicans may vote in the state's GOP primary.

The most shocking statistic in the poll: Nearly a quarter of Republicans don't know enough about Toomey to form an opinion and he is still beating Specter by 14 points.

Toomey is viewed as utterly unelectable in a statewide race, where his extremist views are far from the mainstream. By taking the Republican nomination away from Specter he will doom his own party to defeat in the general election. RNC Chairman Michael Steele has exacerbated the situation by threatening to help finance a challenge against Specter who he considers "too moderate" to be a Republican senator. Other far right politicians and Republican Party front groups weren't won over by Specter's flip-flop and are as determined as ever to end his shameful political career. All he seems to have accomplished was to alienate union members who have supported him in the past.

The Senate Today: Specter, Bunning, Coleman Share Desperation

Hand jive from the walking dead

There were no votes in the Senate today. But there were plenty of fireworks. The biggest news of all was Arlen Specter's (R-PA) declaration of war against organized labor (and honor). In 2007 Specter was the only Republican to vote against the Republican filibuster against Employee Free Choice. It didn't do any good because the Democrats only mustered 51 votes, instead of the 60 needed. But one of those votes they needed was the then hospitalized Tim Johnson, a working family supporter from South Dakota who is now ready to vote for Employee Free Choice. And 7 anti-working family Republicans have been replaced by pro-working family Democrats. Instead of Wayne Allard, Colorado elected Mark Udall; Norm Coleman was defeated in Minnesota, although more on that below; Liddy Dole was ousted by Kay Hagan in North Carolina; instead of reactionary Pete Domenici New Mexico has Tom Udall; Oregonians replaced violently anti-labor Gordon Smith with ultra-pro-workers Jeff Merkley; I don't remember if Ted Stevens is in prison or not yet but Mark Begich is the new senator from Alaska; New Hampshire dumped Chamber of Commerce shill John Sununu for Jeanne Shaheen; and Mark Warner replaced John Warner in Virginia.

The math says that if Ted Kennedy is healthy enough to vote and Al Franken gets seated and all the Democrats-- including Evan Bayh's anti-Obama bloc-- all continue to back the bill (even WalMart's cowardly Democrats, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor), then Employee Free Choice passes if Specter sticks to his guns. With today's craven and cowardly announcement by Specter, more worried about his primary challenger from the fringes of the Republican right than about his own dignity or, more important, Pennsylvania working families, the Democrats will either have to put off the vote until after the 2010 election or persuade either Olympia Snowe (R-ME) or retiring George Voinovich (R-OH), neither of whom is a union-hater, to switch their votes.

Actually, there is another possibility-- however implausible. Everyone in Washington-- and Lexington-- knows there's no love lost between vulnerable Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning and Kentucky's other Republican senator, Miss McConnell, and that Bunning has been threatening to retire and let Democratic Governor, Steve Beshear, replace him with a Democrat-- the 60th vote. According to today's Lousiville Courier-Journal that scenario may actually be moving along. Bunning went nuts today (again), complaining that McConnell is sabotaging his efforts to raise money for his re-election battle and recruiting primary opponents to run against him.

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell again today of trying to derail his fundraising efforts, this time by trying to raise money for his own campaign account just as Bunning is gearing up his own efforts for his race next year.

...Bunning said his decision on whether to stay in the race will probably made in the next three months.

After earlier setting a goal of raising $2 million by the end of June, Bunning has since scaled that back, saying that McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have harmed his fundraising efforts.

The third piece of this puzzle is the Republican Party conspiracy to keep Al Franken from taking his Senate seat. They've helped finance idiotic challenges and a frivolous lawsuit by loser Norm Coleman and today Coleman says he'll appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Coleman and the GOP know he has no chance to win but they just want to delay Franken's seating, in no small part because of Employee Free Choice.

Yep, keeping workers from forming unions is that important to the big money behind the Grand Obstructionist Part. Here's the press release from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney:

Today’s announcement by Sen. Specter-- a sponsor of the original Employee Free Choice Act who voted for cloture in 2007-- is frankly a disappointment and a rebuke to working people, to his own constituents in Pennsylvania and working families around the country.

The fact is the Employee Free Choice Act has more support than ever-- large majorities in both houses of Congress, the President and Vice President, 73 percent of the public. We will continue to work with
Democrats and a number of Republicans to create commonsense solutions to the decades of corporate power. 

We do not plan to let a hardball campaign from Big Business derail the Employee Free Choice Act or the dreams of workers.      

There are deep flaws in our labor laws, as Sen. Specter acknowledged today. The freedom to join together and bargain with employers for fair wages and better benefits is critical to rebuilding our middle class-- and now is exactly the time to do it, as we begin to revive our economy in a way that works for everyone. In the coming weeks, we will be escalating our campaign and finding the best ways forward to a balanced, strong economy.

 
Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, had a similar statement today:

In the middle of this economic crisis, passing the Employee Free Choice Act is exactly the right thing to do to give workers the chance to level the playing field. Majority Leader Reid said today, and as even Sen. Specter acknowledges, we need strong labor reform. Now more than ever, America's workers need a choice, free from intimidation and harassment, to bargain for job security, better wages and health care. Our President, Vice President and majorities in both houses of Congress share this goal, and we will not stop in our efforts to achieve it.

In an essay Senator Specter recently wrote for the Harvard Law Review, he states that for people like himself, "finding a practical solution is more important than political posturing." That's why we're dismayed by those who say they support the democratic process, yet refuse to allow meaningful debate and a democratic vote on critical legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act.

It's simple: If you support democracy, you should support the right to debate legislation that could improve the lives of millions of working Americans, pump $49 billion into the economy at a time when we desperately need it, and that's supported by the vast majority of the public.

UPDATE: BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

And did we mention (this week) that North Carolina reactionary Republican and obstructionist fanatic Richard Burr is toast? Last week we reported on how unpopular he is in the state and too far down in the polls to recover in time for the 2010 midterms. A new poll today, shows the likely Democratic nominee, Attorney General Roy Cooper, beating him 41-38%.

Do You Recall The Story Of The Trojan Horse?

It was actually a big wooden Greek horse that the Greek army used to trick the Trojans into opening themselves up to a massive defeat. Corporate America, compliments of snazzy looking Costco, Starbucks and Whole Foods, is offering the Democrats a Trojan horse of its own, as reported by corporate America's very own Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Three big retailers are expected to back an alternative proposal next week on a hotly contested bill that would make it easier to unionize workplaces, a move some experts said would bolster the legislation's chance of passage.

Costco Wholesale Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc. are supporting the alternative proposal, according to someone familiar with the effort. Ray Krupin, a management labor lawyer in Washington said the most likely compromise would allow employees to unionize if 70% of them sign union-authorization cards, as opposed to 50% as currently proposed in the Employee Free Choice Act.
On Saturday, a person close to the discussions denied that the proposal backed by the three companies included a plan to let unions organize workers if 70% sign cards.

It's unclear whether the proposal addresses a thorny section of the bill that would have a government arbitrator draw up a contract if unions and companies can't agree to terms within 120 days.

Ah... the rub. While the Greeks hide in the high reeds, grumbling that they oppose leaving such a lovely, costly horse to the tenacious damn Trojans, the modern day Trojans-- or at least the labor unions (if not the Bayh Bloc weak-kneed Democrats) have already figured out the trick. Yesterday the AFL-CIO let the Chamber of Commerce type Dems know that they're not buy into any so-called "compromise" that still allows management to subvert the will of the majority and still allows them delay contract negotiations ad infinitum since without that first legally binding contract the union is still at their never-tender mercies. AFL-CIO's first response to the trial balloon:

The Employee Free Choice Act is about protecting the fundamental freedom of workers to bargain with their employers for a better life and to join a union without corporate interference and harassment.

The proposal being circulated by these companies falls short of meeting these standards.

We are open to discussing the legislation with parties who are legitimately concerned with protecting workers. However, a proposal coming from corporations, some of whom have their own history of
violating workers' rights, is simply not an alternative that lives up to giving workers back the freedom to form unions.

Of particular concern is the removal of majority sign up-- which exists under current law-- and the removal of the arbitration provisions. Removing the arbitration provisions will allow companies to continue to stall and delay and refuse to negotiate a contract in good faith.

"Their own history of violating workers' rights?" Surely they can't mean the hip and cool Starbucks, Costco, and Whole Foods, right? Wrong. The 3 companies have long and bitter histories of being basically as anti-union as the rest of them. After reading how much better Costco is towards unions than WalMart and other slave labor big box stores, I went over to the Costco in my neighborhood and talked to some of the workers. They laughed at my questions and said management is as anti-union as anywhere else. They get slightly better wages than in the other big box stores but collective bargaining is extremely discouraged.

As for Starbucks, they've been in a year-and-a-half brawl with the IWW and have fired pro-union employees. The National Labor Relations Board has already found them guilty on several charges of illegal union-busting. They were ordered to reinstate the 3 illegally fired employees-- and give them all their back wages-- and "to end discriminatory treatment of other pro-union workers at four Manhattan locations named in the case."

And Whole Foods is the worst of the lot. John Mackey, the reactionary/libertarian CEO-- and managers at every level-- are violently anti-union, as bad as any corporate criminal enterprise in the country... even if they do sell some organic produce sometimes. After being warned by Ken what a rip-off they are, I stopped shopping there long ago.

This morning's account of the Trojan horse strategy is pretty clear in this morning's Washington Post, especially when you see who's being paid to lead it: reviled Democratic Party Judas goat Lanny Davis, one of the most corrupt and untrustworthy characters Inside-the-Beltway.

[T]he companies' CEOs say that they also recognize that just opposing the legislation, dubbed "card-check," is not enough, because of the widespread perception in Democrat-dominated Washington that there is not a level playing field between labor and business. So the CEOs have come up with ideas they hope will form the basis of new legislation.

Their proposal would maintain management's right to demand a secret ballot election, and would leave out binding arbitration. The proposal would keep the third main element of the "card-check" bill-- toughening the penalties for companies that retaliate against workers before union elections or refuse to engage in collective bargaining. But it would also toughen penalties for union violations, and it would make it easier for businesses to call elections to try to decertify a union.

To address labor's concern that businesses intimidate workers before elections, it would set a fixed period in which an election must be held, limiting the delays that give employers time to exert pressure. The proposal does not specify what the time period should be.

The proposal would also provide unions equal access to workers before elections-- for instance, by allowing organizers to address workers on a lunch break in the company cafeteria just as management can.

"We wanted to see what we can do to come up with a compromise position that is going to address the concerns of labor and also protect the sanctity of the collective bargaining process and secret ballot," said Costco CEO Jim Sinegal.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz cast the proposal in more defensive terms. "The way the wind is blowing we're heading toward a bill that is not the right approach," he said. "My responsibility is to not be a bystander but to offer a voice of reason offers a more positive alternative that levels the playing field."

The effort is being led in Washington by Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton. Davis said he has approached about 20 Senate offices and gotten an overwhelmingly encouraging response. The Employee Free Choice Act has majority support in both chambers, but there are signs it may have trouble getting a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate, where several centrist Democrats who previously supporting it are expressing reservations.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), a centrist ambivalent about card-check, praised the companies' proposal. "I appreciate good faith effort that could result in a reasonable compromise on what has become a highly polarizing matter," he said.

Davis said he thought that the proposal would intrigue Obama, who was a co-sponsor of the card-check bill in 2007 but signaled in an interview before his inauguration that he was also open to other proposals to help organized labor. "This is consistent with President Obama's overall approach of avoiding polarized positions and looking for third way ideas," Davis said.

And who better to go to than a senator who justifies telling his constituents he believes in a talking snake in the Garden of Eden by admitting-- or even bragging-- that "you don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate." Pity.


UPDATE: PROGRESSIVE LEADERS TURN DOWN CORPORATE TROJAN HORSE

Working families' biggest champions in Congress didn't fall for the bullshit "compromise" offered by anti-worker CEOs.

“This proposal is unacceptable. It was written by CEOs for CEOs. It is not a serious attempt at labor law reform because it fails to fundamentally address key problems that currently prevent workers from being able to join together and bargain for a better life,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in a joint statement.

Shameless corporate shill, Lanny Davis, a well-paid tool of WalMart, is still trying to appeal to the anti-Obama Democrats led by Indiana reactionary Evan Bayh to help undermine the right of working people to unionize. Using the obscene tactics he's learned for his pals at Fox, Davis oozed with dishonesty as he claimed “We believe our role is trigger the conversation between business and labor, to end this polarization and level the playing field;" kind of like Bush's definition of bipartisanship.

Wingers Now Admit Employee Free Choice Act Doesn't Eliminate Secret Ballots After All-- After 3 Years Of Lying About It!

Although the Republican talking points laid out for Republican members of Congress by Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck, claiming that the poor caused the housing crisis have been thoroughly discredited and debunked, it took the editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal to finally lay to rest the equally false Limbaughism that the Employee Free Choice Act would end the secret ballot in the workplace.

In a piece titled "Unionize or Die," the conservative, business-friendly scribes of the Journal admit that the legislation will not eliminate the secret ballot but rather allow workers to choose between that or a majority-sign up election to unionize.

"The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act," reads the editorial, "but in practice makes it a dead letter."

That's quite the stark admission from Big Business' own newspaper-- especially when you consider that even if it was Limbaugh who got the ball rolling, it was the Wall Street Journal that gave the lie some degree of intellectual credibility and made it "ok" for hacks and propagandists to repeat it (virtually non-stop) on cable TV. It's a shame the Journal didn't admit Employee Free Choice didn't eliminate secret ballots before they wrote that "Democrats in the House passed the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure that rewrites the rules for union organizing by eliminating secret-ballot elections" two years ago, or "Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s" last October, or "Big Labor's drive to eliminate secret ballots for union elections has united American business in opposition" last week.

I have an idea for them. Perhaps they should hire an ombudsman, someone who always gets everything just right. Well, maybe someone who occasionally gets part of something right. Like Michael Steele! He's going to be looking for a new job soon. In fact the GOP's embedded propagandist at Politico penned what sounds like a eulogy for the befuddled and besieged RNC Chairman-- whose only sign of doing anything remotely useful at the RNC is redecorating his office:

To me, the real question is not whether the Republican Party should find itself another chairman but whether the chairman should find himself another party.

I am finding it difficult to discern exactly what wing of his party Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, represents.

In recent weeks, Steele has said that abortion is a matter of “individual choice,” that Rush Limbaugh is “incendiary” and “ugly,” that homosexuality is not a matter of choice but of nature, that the party needs a “12-step program” and that people “have absolutely no reason-- none-- to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

There is a name for people who believe these things. They are called "Democrats."

As one would expect, Steele has gotten into terrible trouble with Republicans for saying a lot of this and, according to the Washington Post, he has “called a halt to his television appearances and curtailed national media interviews.”

Unfortunately, a major part of Steele’s job is being the “voice” of the Republican Party, and it is very hard to be a voice when you are spending a major part of your time shutting up.

Well, let the Republicans, Limbaughists and Wall Street Journal editorialists work on their obstructionist stratagems while the rest of us concentrate on cleaning up the mess they made, and figuring out how to prevent them from doing it again. I hope this helps:

Is Anti-Wall Street/Anti-Bankster Populist Rage Spilling Over To Sink Republican Pretentions?

Will Pandit's big bankster bucks sway Arlen?

Americans have their dander up now and we're focused on who the real enemy is. It's politically-connected crooked banksters and Wall Street corporate criminals. They've wrecked the economy and driven nearly a million American families out of their homes and left millions more unemployed. But CitiGroup CEO Vikram Pandit still personally sucked up $10.8 million in 2008-- while taxpayers pumped $45 billion into his company to keep it from succumbing from his atrocious leadership and abject failure. That's nearly $30,000 a day every single day, including weekends. Excessive? America's business and political elite have led the country back into a boom-bust 1920s environment which features an unconscionably large discrepancy of what the top 2% of wealthy families have and what the rest of us have. After the 1920's FDR set about rebuilding and then strengthening the middle class. His reforms, which were viciously obstructed by the Republican minority, were the main targets of the Bush Regime and the Republican ideologues of Greed and Selfishness have left us on the doorstep of another Depression. I know the number is staggering and hard to believe, but the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate industries, which are at the root of our current economic meltdown, have spent $2,210,699,682 on legalized bribes to federal elected officials since 1990, much of it to persuade our political class to wreck society's regulatory system against the interests of their own constituents.

The biggest recipients of that $2.2 billion include influential lawmakers sitting in Congress today-- on both sides of the aisle: John McCain (R-AZ- $32,212,409), Chris Dodd (D-CT- $13,158,156), Chuck Schumer (D-NY- $12,817,946), Joe Lieberman (I-CT- $9,978,024), Arlen Specter (R- PA- $5,694,160), Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $5,001,478), Lamar Alexander (R-TN- $4,847,475), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX- $4,682,238), Max Baucus (D-MT- $4,630,243), and Richard Shelby (R-AL- $4,383,492) and Charlie Rangel (D-NY- $4,275,926), Spencer Bachus (R-AL- $3,789,474), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA- $3,176,964), Eric Cantor (R-VA- $3,119,188), and John Boehner (R-OH- $3,048,809) in the House. For those following Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's dubious ethics, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, scooped up $1,554,571 from this sector which he's supposed to be overseeing on behalf of the American people.

Today the GOP is reading out of the same playbook their party used in the 1930's-- and it isn't working for them. Another indication of their failure is the popular support the Obama Administration is finding for the tools it's asking for to start the process of rebuilding, once again, what the Republicans have wrecked. Big Business' jihad against working families will be dealt a severe blow if Employee Free Choice becomes the law of the land. And this morning an independent poll from Gallup indicates that Americans are not buying into the far right's anti-union propaganda.

Despite having spent millions of dollars-- some of it illegally-- on their anti-EFCA crusade, the Republican position hasn't persuaded many Americans. Democrats and Independents favor it and even 40% of Republicans aren't convinced by Big Business' lies or hysterical warnings and threats. Gallup found that 53% of Americans favor the law and 39% oppose it.


With battlelines drawn along the partisan split in Congress, much will depend on the ability of working families champions to hold onto 3 weak-knee-ed Democrats with strong Chamber of Commerce ties, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, plus Nebraska's Ben Nelson; on seating Al Franken-- which the GOP has vowed to prevent at all costs; and on holding onto Arlen Specter's support. The AFL-CIO has offered to support Specter in his bid for re-election, as they did in 2004 when he last ran for office, and the right-wing within the Republican Party has vowed to defeat him if he doesn't drop that support.

Specter has been told by several of his most faithful GOP backers in Pennsylvania that they'll abandon their support if he votes for a union-rights bill working its way through Congress, an ultimatum that carries significance both for the measure and for Specter's reelection next year.

...Allegheny County Republican Committee Chairman Jim Roddey said he's been hearing about Specter throughout the Pittsburgh area.

"If he votes for the [measure], he is going to have a real, real difficult time with the base of the party," Roddey said.

Roddey said he has spent the last several weeks meeting with Republican committees in Allegheny, where four out of five people he has spoken with have said they will vote for someone else in the primary if Specter supports the measure.

Sam Stein over at HuffPo is predicting that today's polling numbers have given Employee Free Choice backers "a big boost." Joe Biden joined other top Democrats to try-- unsuccessfully so far-- to persuade Specter to abandon the GOP and become a Democrat (again). Biden may be having more success in Arkansas, where his huge fundraising effort for Blanche Lincoln is also thought to be a help in creating momentum for Employee Free Choice. On the other hand, Republicans also have a prospective fence jumper. Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK) is one of the most reactionary Democrats in the House and a violent opponent of the aspirations of working families, a total shill for his big corporate donors. He's already announced that he will join Republicans in opposing Employee Free Choice.

Some Unions Their Own Worst Enemy In Florida Senate Race

Meek, along with Debbie Wasserman Schultz declares he won't support Miami Democrats against Republican incumbents

I remember last year when Blue America was trying to help Georgia state Senator Regina Thomas oust reactionary Blue Dog John Barrow, we ran into some surprising difficulties. Here was a politician who has shown again and again that his sympathies are, at best, very conflicted between the special interests and the interests of working families and yet he has always counted on easily duped and somewhat politically naive organized labor to underwrite the part of his campaign that the special interests don't.

For example, in 2007 Barrow signed on as a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act and, in fact was among the 228 Democrats who voted for passage on March 1-- all but two Democrats. However, Barrow didn't totally let down his Chamber of Commerce anti-union supporters either. Just moments before the final vote, the House Republicans tried killing Employee Free Choice with a motion to recommit. Barrow and a dozen other reactionaries joined 189 Republicans in voting for that motion, which would have killed the bill. This year Barrow and most of those reactionaries, at the urging of the Chamber of Commerce and other Big Business interests, have refused to co-sponsor the exact same bill. The other anti-union Democrats who voted to recommit in 2007 and refuse to co-sponsor this year, are Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN), Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC) and Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS). Counting Barrow, that's just 10. What about the other 3? The other 3 Democrats who voted to kill Employee Free Choice, Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL), Nick Lampson (Blue Dog-TX) and Nancy Boyda (KS), were defeated at the polls in November-- no thanks to organized labor, which cluelessly supported each of them-- $239,250 for Mahoney, $245,000 for Lampson and $193,800 for Boyda.

And last year labor unions donated $231,500 to Barrow, one of the most reactionary, anti-working family Democrats in Congress, who, although he represents a reliably Democratic district, regularly crosses the aisle on core issues to vote with the GOP. What was especially frustrating is that Regina Thomas is a staunch supporter of organized labor, not just in words but in deed. She wasn't given one thin dime by an Inside-the-Beltway labor movement thoroughly co-opted by the Democratic Party Establishment incumbent protection racket. Barrow, as well as other reactionary special interest Democrats, were also collecting money, quite openly, from one of organized labor's bitterest political enemies, far right Republican Party front group, BIPAC.

That said, it should come as absolutely no surprise at all that several big unions have lined up behind moderate and tepid Democrat Kendrick Meek, who is the very picture of a non-leader and certainly an untested quantity who has virtually no chance to wrest the Florida U.S. Senate seat being abandoned by Mel Martinez from the GOP. A scandal-plagued mediocre rubber stamp, Meek is a blue print of what the Democrats don't need more of in Congress. But he's a loyal Insider and the Beltway Establishment is rallying round the flag, regardless of the fact that there is a proven progressive leader with a real chance to actually win the seat in the race, longtime labor ally, state Senator Dan Gelber. Here's a perfectly pathetic example of organized labor shooting itself in the foot again with absolutely execrable political decision-making. Of course only Meek is the godfather of one labor leader's son. What will they do next-- start supporting Republicans against Democrats? Why not; it's not such a big step from supporting Blue Dogs and other non-progressives over progressives.

Miss McConnell Wants More Delay In Minnesota-- Will He Ask Coleman To Appeal To The UN Next?

McConnell knows he can deliver China's vote for sure

The Republicans know as well as anyone that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate seat. But the national party-- not caring a hoot about Minnesota or Minnesotans, of course-- has an agenda that precludes allowing Franken to be seated. And smack darn in the middle of that agenda is their rabid hysteria about working people being able to form unions to negotiate with business interests. Al Franken is a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act. His would be the 60th vote that would shut down the Republican obstructionist filibuster.

The 7-week trial for Coleman's frivolous lawsuit against Franken just ended and now the two parties will present their one-hour long closing arguments (today) and the judges will rule... soon. Miss McConnell isn't interested in what the judges have to say, since they are likely to rule against Coleman.

Instead he just wants to protract the process as long as possible to keep Franken from voting-- for Employee Free Choice and for other parts of Obama's agenda to rebuild the middle class which Republicans see-- and rightly so-- as the death-knell for their party's status as a viable, national political entity. McConnell is urging Coleman to appeal all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court so that it drags on for months more.

McConnell said he would urge Coleman to take his legal fight to the federal courts, which could delay the outcome of the Minnesota Senate race for several more months.

“I don’t know when this ends,” said McConnell. “It seems endless at the moment.”

If the battle went all the way to the Supreme Court, the result could be a long delay.

Democratic leaders have said they expect the Minnesota Supreme Court to declare Franken, the Democratic challenger, the victor by the end of April.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the former chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told reporters earlier in the week that they are very optimistic about the prospect of Franken soon joining the Senate.

It's not likely any federal court will take this "case," regardless of all the wishful thinking and huffing and puffing Miss McConnell wants to do. Besides which, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled that once the state courts have finished with the case, the governor and secretary of state have no choice but to sign the certification of election. I guess McConnell could inspire Gov. Tim Pawlenty to stage a protest action since his approval ratings are now so low that almost nothing could get them lower.

Infact, McConnell's approval ratings aren't exactly something to write home about either. Even Republican voters rate Miss McConnell a disaster. A recent poll shows that only 40% of Republicans have a favorable impression of him-- 5% better than Boehner, but nothing like Democratic leaders in Congress, who are viewed positively by a majority of Democrats.

Banksters Using Taxpayer Funds To Fight Against Workers Again

I want to put up Mojo Nixon's "I Hate Banks" video again, but I can't imagine anyone who reads this blog hasn't already seen the clip. Are we in-- or about to be in-- a Depression? Probably, although most Americans say definitely. But that doesn't mean there isn't still tremendous wealth in this country. Unemployment may be around 10%-- more in Michigan, South Carolina, Rhode Island and California-- but that means around 90% of workers still have a job. And just look at those gargantuan bonuses-- billions of dollars the big Wall Street firms and the banksters have been giving themselves! Sure, household net worth has sunk by 2% ($11.2 trillion)-- Bush's farewell present to America in his last quarter of misrule but... well let's just look at the Bank of America bonuses for a second. Under TARP, the government gave Bank of America $25 billion in bailout funds-- and at Republican insistence, with no strings attached-- to jump-start the economy by unfreezing the credit stream. Instead Bank of America bought foreign banks, bought corporate jets-- and gave top executives at Merrill Lynch (which it bought) $4 billion in "performance bonuses." Had that money been evenly divided among every person-- all 247,000 of them-- who is employed at Bank of America, each person would have walked away with $16,000-- a significant amount, not just for them and their families, but for their communities and for the country. According to a salary survey by PayScale.com, the median salary of BofA bank tellers was $23,597 a year as of December 28, 2008. By comparison, Bank of America's crooked CEO Ken Lewis took home $99.8 million in 2006, more than four thousand times as much as a BofA teller.

Every single dollar that goes into workers' wages generates $4 worth of economic activity, more than enough to stop the economic downturn dead in its tracks. But the wealthy and powerful who have done so very, very well under Bush misrule, like the way the country's wealth has been skewered in their direction over the last couple of decades. That's why they are so hysterical about stopping Obama's plans to regenerate the middle class. And part of that regeneration is giving workers an opportunity to organize and bargain collectively again.

The right-wing mania against Employee Free Choice-- with its attendant smear campaign against unions-- is a manifestation of a failed power elite to hold onto the undeserved gains they gobbled up under Bush. They brought on the economic meltdown because of their unregulated greed and avarice and now they're claiming that rebuilding the middle class will bring about Armageddon. The fact of the matter is, they already brought about a kind of economic Armageddon by refusing to pay workers fairly and by forcing them to borrow money-- at usurious interest rates-- to keep their families going. Until workers can afford to pay their bills, the economy is doomed. The Employee Free Choice Act is meant to level the playing field a bit between the top 1% of families and the rest of society.

This morning at HuffPo, intrepid reporter Sam Stein exposed Citigroup's latest attempt to beat down workers with some of that $50 billion in taxpayer dollars they got their grubby paws on. Yesterday they hosted a private war-room call about how to manipulate politicians and public opinion in regard to the Employee Free choice Act.

The call, which came just one day after the labor-backed legislation was introduced in Congress, represents a growing effort on Citi's behalf to air concerns about the bill, which would make it easier for employees to organize. On Tuesday, the bank downgraded Wal-Mart's rating over fears that the Employee Free Choice Act could pass.

Wednesday's conference call was led by Glenn Spencer, a senior executive at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an ardent EFCA opponent. It was promoted as "An Update on the Employee Free Choice Act," but much of the content was focused on demonizing the legislation. EFCA will "inhibit flexibility," "hamper companies from competing effectively," and prove "cumbersome" for business, declared Spencer. "From the Chamber's perspective, and I would say probably from the whole business communities perspective, there are really no amendments you could make to this bill that would make it acceptable."

..."Citigroup and the Chamber of Commerce have no shame," said Stephen Lerner, director of the Private Equity Project at SEIU. "One day, Citi issues a report claiming it would hurt the stock of the Billionaire Walton family if free choice passes and workers win decent wages. Then they follow it up with a conference call where the Chamber of Commerce claims paying workers a living wage is bad for the economy."

Fox TV is already strategically at work spreading the misinformation and outright lies that came out of the Citigroup conference call.

Yesterday Kai Ryssdal interviewed former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on NPR's Marketplace. If only political leaders like Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer could express themselves as clearly as Reich. Maybe their hearts need to be in it a little more.

The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of average Americans. One way to do this is to expand the percentage of Americans in unions.

Go back 50 years, when America's middle class was growing and the economy was soaring. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs. At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going.

But now, fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized. Middle-class wages slowed so much in the intervening years that most Americans could maintain spending only by working more hours and then, this decade, going deep into debt. But then the bubble burst, and now there's not enough purchasing power to keep the economy going.

The decline of unions isn't the only reason for the long-term slowdown in American wages. Much of what Americans used to make can now be made more cheaply abroad or by automated machines. But the vast personal-service sector of the economy is not affected by imports or automation, including millions of jobs in big-box retailers, fast-food outlets, hotel chains, hospitals, construction, and transportation.

Few of these jobs are unionized. All too often, that's because employees who want to form unions are threatened by their employers. And if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal. I saw this when I was secretary of labor over a decade ago.

We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.

The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights. The sooner it's enacted, the better-- for American workers and for the American economy.

That pretty much says it all. If you live in Arkansas, try explaining it to your two waivering senators, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. If you live in Pennsylvania or Ohio, let Arlen Specter and George Voinovich, two Republicans who don't reflexively undermine the aspirations of working families at every opportunity the way most of their Republican colleagues do. And think about participating in the mass demonstrations at banks on March 19 nationwide. Meanwhile, they sure have bought Chuck Grassley lock, stock and barrel: "It won’t become law because we’ve got 41 Republicans sticking together against it. And it’s my understanding that we have some Democrats that are nervous about it, too. I don’t see how you can get around a filibuster. And it will be filibustered.” In 2007 Arlen Specter (R-PA) voted for Employee Free Choice. He says he hasn't made up his mind (on the identical bill) this year but... deals are being made. And finally someone is explaining what the bill really is about and not just allowing right-wing propaganda to mis-define it:

Will Obama Get An Opportunity To Sign The Employee Free Choice Act?

Forget Kansas; what's the matter with Arkansas?

The story-- at least part wishful thinking-- in today's Wall Street Journal started ominously: "Key Senate Democrats are wavering in their support of legislation that would give more power to labor unions, dealing a setback to labor's top priority as businesses warn of the damage the bill would cause."

At least six Senators who have voted to move forward with the so-called card-check proposal, including one Republican, now say they are opposed or not sure-- an indication that Senate Democratic leaders are short of the 60 votes they need for approval.

The legislation is divisive and distracting, said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in an interview Monday. The Democratic lawmaker, who was previously seen as a supporter, said the Senate should focus on creating jobs and improving the U.S. economy. "I have 90,000 Arkansans who need a job, that's my No. 1 priority," she said. The legislation, she said, would be "divisive and we don't need that right now. We need to focus on the things that are more important."

Sen. Lincoln is one of several moderate Democrats expressing doubts about the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join. A second provision would give federal arbitrators power to impose contract terms on companies that fail to reach negotiated agreements with unions. Both provisions are strongly opposed by business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor are among the Democratic lawmakers who have backed off their previous support.

...Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is another key member who is wavering. Though he voted with Democrats in 2007, he now says, "I'm still thinking about it." He added, "I'm being lobbied on it very, very heavily."

It's well known on K Street and throughout Washington that Specter, Landrieu and the two schlubs from Arkansas are 4 of the Senate's worst money-grubbing, stand-for-nothing hacks. Specter has taken more than a million dollars in "donations" from lobbyists, from the Insurance Industry, from the Real Estate Industry, from Wall Street, and from Big Pharma. Although few senators have sucked up legalized bribes as voraciously as Specter, Landrieu has done pretty well for herself and has taken huge sums from Big Oil, Real Estate, lobbyists, Wall Street and Big Pharma. The two sad sacks from Arkansas don't have the kind of clout that either of the other two crooks do but both have managed nicely. Wall Street has bestowed $462,490 on Lincoln and $373,090 on Pryor; lobbyists gave Lincoln $376,771 and $321,009 to Pryor; Big Insurance gave Lincoln $440,030 and Pryor $205,690; Big Oil gave Lincoln $268,375 and Pryor $137,900; and BigPharma donated $386,749 to Lincoln and $92,650 to Pryor. This morning over at Firedoglake, Jane Hamsher asks the question many have asked before her... and for many years: Who owns Blanche Lincoln?

Today Citigroup lowered its rating on Wal-Mart from a buy to a hold because of the Employee Free Choice Act, "citing concern that legislation intended to make it easier for employees to unionize would raise the retail giant's labor costs and hurt its competitiveness."

This is startling for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that they're downgrading the stock based on an assumption that a piece of legislation will pass that hasn't even been introduced yet.

The Citigroup analyst, Debora Weinswig, said Employee Free Choice (EFCA) "could be a significant drag to earnings."

It's hard to view this as anything other than a reckless and overt political act on the part of a company, Citigroup, that has made stupendously bad business decisions with dire economic consequences necessitating billions in taxpayer bailouts, at a time when the market can ill-afford it.

...Blanche Lincoln has been one of the wobbly Senate votes on Employee Free Choice, and she's pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of Wal-mart. One has to wonder if this isn't an overt attempt to influence her vote.

EFCA was re-introduced into both houses of Congress today. In 2007, when the Senate last took up the House-passed Employee Free Choice Act, not only did these four vote for it, it had a majority in the Senate. That wasn't enough because Mitch McConnell led a filibuster against organized labor-- the irony of his "wife" being the Secretary of Labor at the time, lost on no one. The Democrats needed 60 votes but only wound up with 51, although one of the bill co-sponsors, Tim Johnson (D-SD) was in the hospital and unable to vote. This year, the Republican Party has put forward a campaign of exhaustive and frivolous challenges to EFCA supporter Al Franken and he may not be allowed to take his seat in time for the crucial vote. Nevertheless, there are 8 right-wing Republican union-bashers who were either defeated or retired in 2008-- Wayne Allard (CO), Norm Coleman (MN), Elizabeth Dole (NC), Pete Domenici (NM), Gordon Smith (OR), Ted Stevens (AK), John Sununu (NH) and John Warner (VA)-- all of whom opposed Employee Free Choice. Four of them have been replaced by Democrats who are now co-sponsors of the bill, Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mark Begich (D-AK) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). The other Democratic replacements have all indicated that they would also vote for the bill.

So... if Blanche Lincoln intends to remain a Democrat in her quest for easy re-election, and doesn't duck out, and if Snarlin' Arlen stands his ground and doesn't allow Club For Growth neo-fascists to bully him, and if Al Franken is finally allowed to take his seat (in time), Democrats should be able to shut down the de facto filibuster McConnell is planning again-- even without votes from other Republicans. Voinovich, for example, who is retiring and no longer has anything to fear from the far right, could vote for the hard-hit working families in his state. Olympia Snowe is already a target of the bullies and loons of his party and in very pro-union Maine she would make points for standing with working families at this rough juncture.