Why It Makes No Sense To Travel With A Conservative, Even A Nice One

When I was 13-- and all my friends were studying for their bar mitzvahs-- I was making my first big hitch-hiking excursion. My grandparents were in South Beach, which was very grandparent-friendly back then, for Easter and I decided to see what hitching would be like. Brooklyn to Florida with $20 and a toothbrush in my pocket. I got as far as the New Jersey Turnpike and got arrested. They made my father come pick me up. He gave me the dough for a Greyhound. But it wasn't about the destination. I wanted to try out hitchhiking. I had plans.

A couple years later-- having sent farming implements and seeds ahead, care of poste restante-- I set out for Tonga. This time I think I had nearly $90… and it was for life. I said goodbye to everyone and hitched to California and stowed away on a boat bound for New Zealand, where I planned to stow away on another boat bound for Tonga. There were two a year back then. I was discovered on the boat in San Pedro Harbor and beaten up by some drunk watchman. So I went back to Brooklyn. But I've been traveling ever since.

And not to Disneyland or Aruba. After college I flew to Germany, bought a VW van and drove to Morocco. But Morocco was just a practice trip, like South Beach had been. After Morocco, I drove my girlfriend up to England so we could be at the Isle of Wight Festival and see Dylan and Hendrix and so she could catch a plane back to the U.S. to complete her last year at college. I drove to India. Not just India-- Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way down the west coast of India to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and then all the way up the east coast of India to Nepal. And then back to Europe. I was away almost 7 years. What a glorious adventure! Sometimes I write about it on my travel blog and sometimes there's even call to bring up my travels here at DWT. This is from a post from 2009 about looking for peace in Afghanistan.

There aren't many members of Congress who have traveled extensively out of the country. In his delightful book, Fire-Breathing Liberal, Rep. Robert Wexler marvels at how many of his Republican colleagues [on the House Foreign Relations Committee] seem to think not possessing a passport is a badge of honor! Last weekend I spent some time with Rep. Barbara Lee who is no longer surprised when she talks with Republicans who haven't been-- and don't want to be-- outside of the U.S. The opposite extreme would be one member who certainly qualifies for the Century Club, Rep. Alan Grayson. When I told him I was going to Mali, he was able to give me some travel tips for remote, seldom visited villages like Bandiagara and Sanga, and a few weeks ago he told me about some odd customs I can expect to experience in Albania.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg had much the same thing to say about Republican Know Nothings trying to grapple with foreign policy: “If you look at the U.S., you look at who we’re electing to Congress, to the Senate-- they can’t read,” he said. “I’ll bet you a bunch of these people don’t have passports. We’re about to start a trade war with China if we’re not careful here,” he warned, “only because nobody knows where China is. Nobody knows what China is.”

A couple years ago, Krugman recommended a post by Richard Florida, America's Great Passport Divide. That's where that map just above comes from. I couldn't help but notice that the states with the smallest percentage of passport holders-- i.e., states with people who don't travel outside the country-- are also the states that elect Republicans the most regularly. Mississippi is the worst, closely followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Arkansas.

"It’s a fun map," writes Florida. "With the exception of Sarah Palin’s home state, it reinforces the 'differences' we expect to find between the states where more worldly, well-travelled people live versus those where the folks Palin likes to call 'real Americans' preponderate. Mostly to entertain myself, I decided to look at how this passport metric correlates with a variety of other political, cultural, economic, and demographic measures. What surprised me is how closely it lines up with the other great cleavages in America today." And, as he says, the statistical correlations are striking across a range of indices.

People in richer states tend to hold passports and people in poorer states tend to not. Same for educated people versus ignorant people. The kinds of folks who elect John Boozman, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Sessions and David Vitter, don't hold college degrees-- or passports. They watch Glenn Beck instead and listen to Hate Talk Radio.

States with higher percentages of passport holders are also more diverse. There is a considerable correlation between passports and the share of immigrants or foreign-born population (.63) and also gays and lesbians (.54). The more passport holders a state has, the more diverse its population tends to be.  And yes, these correlations hold when we control for income.

What about politics? How does passport holding line up against America’s Red state-Blue state divide? Pretty darn well, actually. There is a considerable positive correlation between passports and Obama voters (.59) and a significant negative one (-.61) for McCain voters.  It appears that more liberally-oriented states are more globally oriented as well, or at least their citizens like to travel abroad. Again, the correlations hold when we control for income, though they are a bit weaker than the others.

...And finally, states with more passport holders are also happier. There is a significant correlation (.55) between happiness (measured via Gallup surveys) and a state’s percentage of passport holders. Yet again, that correlation holds when we control for income.

There are stark cultural differences between places where international travel is common and those where it’s not, and we can see them playing out in the cultural and political strife that has been riving the country over the past decades. Think of John Kerry, who was accused of looking and sounding “French” and George W. Bush, who’d hardly been overseas before he became president, or for that matter Barack Obama, with his multi-cultural global upbringing, and Sarah Palin, who had to obtain a passport when she traveled to Kuwait in 2007. The trends in passport use reflect America’s starkly bifurcated system of infrastructure. One set of places has great universities and easy access to international airports; another an infrastructure that is much further off the beaten track of the global circulation of capital, talent, and ideas.

I've been reading a very research-oriented academic book by John Hibbing, Kevin Smith and John Alford lately, Predisposed. One of the themes is that "liberals and conservatives report distinct personality and psychological tendencies and have different tastes in all sorts of things from art and sports to personality traits and vocational preferences… Conservatives' cognitive patterns reveal a comfort level with clarity and hard categorization while liberals are more likely to value complexity and multiple categories."

Roland and I are planning a trip to Thailand. We would never think of taking a conservative with us. We take chances-- all the time. Conservatives don't. Our trips are always off the beaten path. Even if a conservative does go abroad, most don't venture away from the most predictable and "safe" (and shallow) experiences. We're happy because a progressive friend who's never traveled abroad is rarin' to go. Predisposed reinforces that "people who seek out new information [liberals] are simply much more likely to arrive at different political conclusions than those who are comfortable avoiding the risk and uncertainty accompanying new information [conservatives]… Conservatives' relative discomfort with the new and unfamiliar shows up not only in self-reports about themselves but in behavioral patterns like a reluctance to acquire new but potentially risky information. Such reluctance has pros and cons; it protects conservatives from negative situations but also means that invalid negative attitudes cannot be disproven… [V]ariations in people's willingness to explore new objects and situations may be at the core of the differing world views of liberals and conservatives."

The differing orientations to new information are likely to manifest themselves in differing attitudes towards science and religion, with liberals eager for more data even if those data are alarming (think global warming) and conservatives more likely to be content with knowledge that they believe has already been revealed to them. Seen from this vantage point, it is not surprising that attacks on science are more likely to come from the political right. The one-study-shows-this-but-another-shows-that nature of the scientific process is probably more bothersome to the conservative than to the liberal mindset. From the conservative perspective, referring to a set of findings and claims as "just a theory" could hardly be more damning; it bespeaks an absence of certainty that is troubling, especially if someone is proposing big and expensive changes on what is taken to be little more than debatable conjecture. To liberals, theories, even if dissent is present and i's are left undotted and t's uncrossed, are much more valuable-- the weight of current scientific evidence is likely good enough for them and future modifications to knowledge are more likely to be taken in stride.

In the last couple of years, two our our most memorable experiences were fraught with the kind of uncertainty and danger that would cause a conservative to break down. We went wandering in the Himalayas and had no idea where we were or which way went where. And it was raining. A couple years before that we wound up in a trackless bush in Mali and ran into villagers who seem to have never seen anyone like us before. It was worth the whole trip. But we're not conservatives.

Who Has Passports... And Who Doesn't? And For Which Party Do They Vote?

It was hardly great literature but former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler's autobiography, Fire-Breathing Liberal, made some points that stuck with me. One was about passports, congressional passports, something we covered here before a couple of times, like in this brief mention in 2009 as I was getting ready for a trip to Albania:

There aren't many members of Congress who have traveled extensively out of the country. In his delightful book, Fire-Breathing Liberal, Rep. Robert Wexler marvels at how many of his Republican colleagues seem to think not possessing a passport is a badge of honor! Last weekend I spent some time with Rep. Barbara Lee who is no longer surprised when she talks with Republicans who haven't been-- and don't want to be-- outside of the U.S. The opposite extreme would be one member who certainly qualifies for the Century Club, Rep. Alan Grayson. When I told him I was going to Mali he was able to give me some travel tips for remote, seldom visited villages like Bandiagara and Sanga, and a few weeks ago he told me about some odd customs I can expect to experience in Albania.

And again in 2010 as NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg railed against provincial GOP isolationists:

Visiting China this week, Bloomberg, NYC's globalist, multinational mayor, growled about congressional attempts to prevent China from illegally dumping solar panels into the American market with the express purpose of driving U.S. firms out of business. “If you look at the U.S., you look at who we’re electing to Congress, to the Senate-- they can’t read,” he said. “I’ll bet you a bunch of these people don’t have passports. We’re about to start a trade war with China if we’re not careful here,” he warned, “only because nobody knows where China is. Nobody knows what China is.” Former Rep. Robert Wexler, then a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, made the same observation in his book, Fire Breathing Liberal, about Know Nothing members of Congress, including members of his committee, for whom not having a passport-- or even eating "foreign" food-- was a badge of honor. Wexler endorsed Charlie Crist for the open Florida Senate seat and Crist lost to one of the bunch of Know Nothings Bloomberg was whining about, Marco Rubio, who's waltzing into the Senate-- and, many fear, the national stage-- after a 49% win, Crist and Kendrick Meek splitting the non-teabaggy vote.

A tip from Paul Krugman last week, America's Superiority Complex, had me thinking about Wexler again as I read a post by Richard Florida, America's Great Passport Divide. You'll notice on the map above that, generally speaking, the states with the smallest percentage of passport holders-- i.e., states with people who don't travel outside the country-- are also the states that elect Republicans that most regularly. Mississippi is the worst, closely followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Arkansas.

"It’s a fun map," writes Florida. "With the exception of Sarah Palin’s home state, it reinforces the  “differences” we expect to find between the states where more worldly, well-travelled people live versus those where the folks Palin likes to call “real Americans” preponderate. Mostly to entertain myself, I decided to look at how this passport metric correlates with a variety of other political, cultural, economic, and demographic measures.  What surprised me is how closely it lines up with the other great cleavages in America today." And, as he says, the statistical correlations are striking across a range of indices.

People in richer states tend to hold passports and people in poorer states tend to not. Same for educated people versus ignorant people. The kinds of folks who elect Haley Barbour, Mitch McConnell, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, David Vitter don't hold college degrees-- or passports. They watch Glenn Beck instead and listen to Hate Talk Radio.

States with higher percentages of passport holders are also more diverse. There is a considerable correlation between passports and the share of immigrants or foreign-born population (.63) and also gays and lesbians (.54). The more passport holders a state has, the more diverse its population tends to be.  And yes, these correlations hold when we control for income.

What about politics? How does passport holding line up against America’s Red state-Blue state divide? Pretty darn well, actually. There is a considerable positive correlation between passports and Obama voters (.59) and a significant negative one (-.61) for McCain voters.  It appears that more liberally-oriented states are more globally oriented as well, or at least their citizens like to travel abroad. Again, the correlations hold when we control for income, though they are a bit weaker than the others.

...And finally, states with more passport holders are also happier. There is a significant correlation (.55) between happiness (measured via Gallup surveys) and a state’s percentage of passport holders. Yet again, that correlation holds when we control for income.

There are stark cultural differences between places where international travel is common and those where it’s not, and we can see them playing out in the cultural and political strife that has been riving the country over the past decades. Think of John Kerry, who was accused of looking and sounding “French” and George W. Bush, who’d hardly been overseas before he became president, or for that matter Barack Obama, with his multi-cultural global upbringing, and Sarah Palin, who had to obtain a passport when she traveled to Kuwait in 2007. The trends in passport use reflect America’s starkly bifurcated system of infrastructure. One set of places has great universities and easy access to international airports; another an infrastructure that is much further off the beaten track of the global circulation of capital, talent, and ideas.

Passport holding provides a window into America’s big sort-- in fact it serves as a robust indicator for all the other things that so divide us.

I was horrified to read in Wexler's book about how Republican yahoos bragged about having never traveled abroad. In truth, they represent their constituents' prejudices and fears very well. And circling back to Krugman, it helps explain easily manipulated antipathy, for example, for "socialized medicine," especially of the Canadian variety, an antipathy that is ingrained all over the solid South.

[Y]ou can see how bad single-payer insurance is by the fact that Americans don’t have to wait as long as Canadians for hip replacements, which in Canada are paid for by the government, while in America they’re mainly paid for by … Medicare.

But what struck me about the whole piece was the assumption that modern medicine in general is something only we lucky free-market Americans have, while in Europe they’re still using leeches or something. In other words, it’s part of the superiority complex you often encounter in U.S. politics; people just know that we’re the best, and won’t believe you when you tell them that actually they have the Internet, cell phones, and antibiotics in Europe too.

The Fine Art of Primaries-- Doug Tudor, A Quintessential "Better Democrat"

I only trust one of these Florida Democrats to actually breath fire when the chips are down

Yesterday my friend Chris Bowers did a provocative post at OpenLeft, Keeping Better Democrats, in which he posits that the netroots should put more concentration on working to protect endangered progressives in the 2010 cycle. His premise is solid.

Good Democrats in either swing or Republican leaning districts who I would like to protect include Representatives Tom Perriello, Eric Massa (yeah, I know I have ragged on him before), Alan Grayson, and Senator Russ Feingold. Even Democrats like Representatives Brad Miller, Phil Hare, Raul Grijalva, Betty Sutton, Chellie Pingree and Senator Barbara Boxer might face some trouble.  It seems to me that keeping these members of Congress around is a more prudent allocation of resources than taking a chance on candidates who, even if they are lucky enough to take away open and / or blue seats from Republicans, might not end up being all that great once they are in Congress.  We know who the better Democrats already are--isn't it better to keep them than to take chances on new ones?

I sent him a note cheering him on and making a couple of additions to his calculations. For one thing I felt the need to point out that the DCCC is also putting their main focus into incumbent retention (led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz). If history is prologue, we will be able to count on her to pour resources into quasi-Democrats in red districts, people like Parker Griffith (who has already promised that he will vote against Nancy Pelosi as Speaker next year) and other Democrats who have LITERALLY voted more frequently with the Republicans on key issues than with the Democrats, like (from bad to worse, Griffith being tied with Boren as the second worst of all)-- Baron Hill (IN), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Bill Foster (IL), Chris Carney (PA), Mike McIntyre (NC), Heath Shuler (NC), John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike Ross (AR), Bobby Bright (AL), Frank Kratovil (MD), Joe Donnelly (IN), Glenn Nye (VA), Travis Childers (MS), Charlie Melancon (LA), Jason Altmire (PA), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Walt Minnick (ID), Jim Marshall (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Parker Griffith (AL), and Gene Taylor (MS).

The problem with primarying bad Democrats, alas, is that there aren't progressives or even genuine moderates, up the food chain in many of these Republican-tilting districts. Where there are local Democrats in the legislature they are often as bad or worse than the congressman we'd like to primary. Last year we thought we found the ideal situation-- Regina Thomas, a sterling state legislator who had never lost an election-- and in a solid Democratic district represented by a reprehensible Blue Dog (John Barrow). The Democratic primary turn out is very labor oriented and very African-American. The unions backed Barrow and Obama cut radio spots for him that just buried Thomas. Barrow has returned the kindness by opposing labor and Obama on almost everything.

This year I've been looking at open seats. There are lots of Republicans and Democrats leaving the congressional seats, often to run for higher office. My favorite race so far is in Polk County, Florida, where Howdy Doody Adam Putnam is giving up his seat to run for State Agriculture and Consumer Commissioner, a gateway to higher office. The progressive candidate who ran last year-- and did as well, with ZERO institutional support, as the DCCC Florida candidates who lost-- is Doug Tudor and he's running again. This blog has endorsed him. The Blue Dogs have rallied-- big time-- for a quasi-Democrat who's as reactionary as you can be and reasonably call yourself a Democrat, Lori Edwards. The Blue Dogs have endorsed her, are collecting money for her, and are getting their colleagues on board. This week Congressman Fire-breathing Liberal endorsed her as well. Wasserman Schultz is jumping all over everyone to get behind Edwards-- a sure vote against the Democratic agenda. She has one of those Rahm Emanuel websites that doesn't include any policy positions. Florida progressives have already expressed dismay that Wexler would get behind her.

It disturbs me greatly to hear that you have endorsed Lori Edwards, a Blue Dog DINO, for Florida CD-12. I am a Progressive Democrat who looked to you for leadership in this most dysfunctional of states, and to see that you have gone against your own beliefs to support someone who has gone on record as opposing the Healthcare overhaul and the public option confounds me to no end. It calls into questions whether you really believe in the Progressive values you say that you do.

I called Doug Tudor and he told me he's "amazed."

How in the world the House’s only self-proclaimed “Fire Breathing Liberal” can tout a Blue Dog is beyond me. With a firm Democratic majority in both chambers, the Blue Dogs are the only reason we will get a watered-down version of a public option on healthcare. I fully support a single-payer plan, but a robust, strong public option has to be the absolute baseline for any bill worthy of consideration to come before this Congress. I trust Mr. Wexler will rethink his friendship-based, email endorsement of Lori Edwards, as it is the same as endorsing the presumed Republican nominee in Florida’s 12th District. There is no light between those two candidates. With FL-12 having some of Florida’s highest unemployment rates, high school dropout rates, and home foreclosure rates, we need a bold progressive voice that will stand up for working families. We absolutely, positively do not need an echo of failed Reaganomics and corporate profits offered by the conservatives-- both Republican and Democratic. 
 
Working on the personal staff of three Commanders, U.S. Central Command, I learned that “no man is a hero to his valet.” Today, I learned the same thing about a fighting progressive in relationship to a fire-breathing liberal.
 
Last year, we progressives astounded the world by not going with the politically safe, status quo candidate for President. Mr. Wexler, as someone who has always been on the front lines of progressive leadership, should have learned that lesson also. He, if anybody, should be pushing the healthcare legislation from the left. I look forward to personally making that argument to him, but I hope your readers will help remind him that sometimes-- preferably most of the time-- you have to take a chance on the underdog in order to truly effect ‘change.’”

I called Wexler's office this morning and they said his press assistant would get back to me. She never did. Like Adam Putnam and the Republican hoping to follow him-- but unlike Doug Tudor-- Lori Edwards opposes meaningful health care reform. Looking at the report the House Energy and Commerce Committee published for FL-12, it is clear that Lori Edwards has no idea how beneficial the bill she's against would be for the people she's seeking to represent.

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 12th Congressional District of Florida: up to 15,700 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 13,300 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 1,500 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $101 million in uncompensated care each year; and 109,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. Congressman Adam H. Putnam represents the district.

• Help for small businesses. Under the legislation, small businesses with 25 employees or less and average wages of less than $40,000 qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the costs of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,700 small businesses in the district that could qualify for these credits.

• Help for seniors with drug costs in the Part D donut hole. Each year, 13,300 seniors in the district hit the donut hole and are forced to pay their full drug costs, despite having Part D drug coverage. The legislation would provide them with immediate relief, cutting brand name drug costs in the donut hole by 50%, and ultimately eliminate the donut hole.

• Health care and financial security. There were 1,500 health care-related bankruptcies in the district in 2008, caused primarily by the health care costs not covered by insurance. The bill provides health insurance for almost every American and caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $10,000 per year, ensuring that no citizen will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.

• Relieving the burden of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers. In 2008, health care providers in the district provided $101 million worth of uncompensated care, care that was provided to individuals who lacked insurance coverage and were unable to pay their bills. Under the legislation, these costs of uncompensated care would be virtually eliminated.

• Coverage of the uninsured. There are 132,000 uninsured individuals in the district, 17% of the district. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nationwide, 97% of all Americans will have insurance coverage when the bill takes effect. If this benchmark is reached in the district, 109,000 people who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage.

• No deficit spending. The cost of health care reform under the legislation is fully paid for: half through making the Medicare and Medicaid program more efficient and half through a surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals. This surtax would affect only 2,310 households in the district. The surtax would not affect 99.3% of taxpayers in the district.

Let me offer you two ways to fight the Blue Dogs. First-- contribute to Doug Tudor's campaign. Second-- contribute to the new Bad Dogs page. The DNC is running this spot against Republican opponents of health care. They could just as well run it against Blue Dog "Democrats" like Lori Edwards while they're at it:

Do You Think Americans Reject The Notion Of Spreading The Wealth?

In his weekly radio address this morning John McCain warned that Barack Obama wants to-- Heaven forbid-- spread the wealth around. He would tax-- at a rate even less than under the Clinton Administration-- multimillionaires like... well, like Cindy McCain who inherited a fortune from her gangster, bootlegger father, and use that money for the benefit of society as a whole. To the right, of course, that is the biggest sin on God's earth. McCain:

My opponent's answer showed that economic recovery isn't even his top priority. His goal, as Senator Obama put it, is to "spread the wealth around."

You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, "spreading the wealth around" is a familiar idea from the American left. And that kind of class warfare sure doesn't sound like a "new kind of politics."

Class warfare is what the wealthy and their puppets have been waging against the rest of us. One day, if unchecked, it will boil over and the McCains and Bushes and Cheneys of this country will learn what class warfare is-- like the French aristocracy did. Meanwhile, perhaps they could get a glimmer from the introduction to This Land Is Your Their Land, the fantastic new book by Barbara Ehrenreich. She writes that "we'll need a new deal, a new distribution of power and wealth if we want to restore the beautiful idea that was "America."

At the pinnacles of the wealth scale, extravagance reigned on a scale not seen since the late Roman Empire. Freshly fattened CEOs, hedge fund operators, and financiers hired interior decorators for their private jets, slugged backed $10,000 martinis at the Alogonquin Hotel in Manhattan, and, in one case, stage a $2 million birthday party in Sardinia featuring an ice statue of David urinating vodka.

There was a connection, as most people suspected, between the massive build up of wealth among the few and the anxiety and desperation of the many. The money that fueled the explosion of gluttony at the top had to come from somewhere or, more specifically, from someone. Since no domestic oil deposits had been discovered, no new seams of uranium or gold, and since the war in Iraq enriched only the military contractors and suppliers, it had to have come from other Americans. In fact, the greatest capitalist innovations of the past decade have been in the realm of squeezing money out of those who have little to spare: taking away workers' pensions and benefits to swell profits, offering easy credit on dubious terms, raising insurance premiums and refusing to insure those who might ever make a claim, downsizing workforces to boost share prices, even falsifying time records to avoid paying overtime.

Prosperity, in America, had not always been a zero-sum game. Early twentieth-century capitalists-- who were certainly no saints-- envisioned a prosperous people generating profits for the upper class by buying houses and cars and washing machines. But somewhere along the line, the ethos changed from we're all in this together to get what you can while the getting is good. Let the environment decay, the infrastructure crumble, the public hospitals close, the schools get by on bake sales, the workers drop from exhaustion-- who cares? Raise the premiums, reduce the wages, add new mystery fees to each bill, and let the devil take the hindmost. Only when the poor suckers at the bottom stopped buying and defaulted on their mortgages did anyone notice them.

That's how Ehrenreich starts her book, which I began reading today. Yesterday I finally finished Congressman Robert Wexler's Fire-Breathing Liberal and I'd like to juxtapose what we just read by Barbara Ehrenreich with how Wexler ended his book:

Rather than focusing on those issues that mattered to the everyday lives of Americans, the GOP built their political agenda around divisive social issues. The so-called wedge issues. Rather than working on improving our school system, they waged a battle against gay marriage. Instead of working toward universal health-care coverage, they passed legislation prohibiting Americans from playing poker online. Instead of tackling global warming, they rallied pro-life activists around the tragic case of Terri Schiavo. Instead of conducting judicious oversight hearings on the Iraq War debacle, they fought valiantly to protect Christmas.

In political terms, the Republicans moved the middle to the right-- and thus moved the mainstream closer to the conservative position. When Democrats regained the majority, we tried to govern from the middle, believing we could be passionate moderates or triumphant triangulators. This strategy, however, has achieved precious few results with an incorrigible Bush-Cheney White House blocking substantial progress. And it makes you wonder: If Republicans govern from the right and Democrats govern from the middle, when does the left get to govern? As a progressive, I fear my party has become more docile in the majority than we were in the minority.

We're trying to expand our relatively slim majority by being cautious. Instead, we should be galvanizing Americans behind a progressive agenda. The facts favor our side. Rather than blurring the differences between Democrats and Republicans, we should highlight them and fight for our principles.

By the way, you can read more about real class warfare in Ehrenreich's book online, an excerpt from The Nation. Coincidentally, Coleen Rowley sent me this incredible music clip last night from Minnesota singer-songwriter Peter Lang:

What Would You Think If You Opened Today's Paper And Read That A Dozen Corporate CEO Were Lynched By Their Mistreated Workers?

I was reading Robert Wexler's book, Fire-Breathing Liberal, at dinner tonight, specifically the chapter about how Bush stole the 2000 presidential election in Palm Beach County. For a few moments I relived in great sadness the ultimate un-American nature of the Republican operation down there. Wexler:

The Republican strategy was simple: Get George W. Bush into the White House at all costs. Do whatever was necessary and worry about how to rehabilitate later. Don't worry what you look like, don't worry about the consequences to the nation.

There was pillage and plunder at stake and they were determined to have it at any and all costs. A nation if sheep let them have it at practically no cost at all. Their proposed $700,000,000,000 bailout/fleecing is the ultimate payout for them and it looks like they'll get that at no cost either.

Not so in India-- and for not nearly as great a crime-- yesterday. There the Labor Minister, Oscar Fernandes, warned the same breed of corporate criminals that the lynching this week of Lalit Kumar Choudhary, the CEO of Graziano Transmissioni in Noida near New Delhi, should make them rethink their predatory employment practices.

“People are employed on contract basis. There is disparity in wages of permanent workers and contract workers. There is simmering discontent among workers and they should not be driven to such an extent as happened in Greater Noida...Managements have to see this as a warning and they should also respond adequately,” Fernandes said.

He said that companies tend to hire people on contracts even when they are in a position to make permanent appointments, leading to fewer jobs in the organised sector. “Workers react violently when they lose their jobs,” the Minister said, adding, “At the same time, managements have their problems also. But what I am saying is that the whole issue should be viewed with compassion. I appeal to companies to treat workers’ problems with compassion.”

Indian corporatists have taken a different view and are screaming how the murder will "sully the country’s image amongst overseas investors." God forbid.

The law of the jungle rarely works out well for working people. The rich had the money to hire all the mercenaries they need. But wouldn't you just love to see a few Bushies, McCain lobbyists and corporate scumbags hanging from lamp posts? Meanwhile, though, at least the polls have turned around strongly enough to make it more difficult for Republicans to steal the election again.

Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.

Just 9 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as good or excellent, the first time that number has been in single digits since the days just before the 1992 election. Just 14 percent said the country is heading in the right direction, equaling the record low on that question in polls dating back to 1973.

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) is angry, but not enough to hang any CEOs or Bushies:

A Peek Inside The Congressional Sausage Factory

It doesn't purport to be great literature, but Robert Wexler's autobiographical Fire-Breathing Liberal has much to recommend it, especially if you're interested in how exactly the sausages get made. A couple weeks ago I picked a few pieces of legislation-- NAFTA, CAFTA, FISA and a couple of Iraq War votes-- to help identify, beyond the simplistic "Blue Dog" appellation, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Another bill I could have included was one voted on from 3AM until 5:53AM on November 22, 2003-- the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits bill written by pharmaceutical lobbyists in return for massive contributions to the GOP. [Notice at that link that for the 2002 cycle Big Pharma bribes rockets up to $29,648,111 and the GOP share, the highest ever, goes to 74%.] Wexler, though, gives it the coverage it deserves, in his guided tour of the sausage factory:

The prescription drug vote began about three o'clock in the morning, a good time to start a vote if you don't want America to see what you're doing, and lasted two hours and fifty-one minutes. It was the longest roll call in the history of the House of Representatives. The Republican leadership was obviously so embarrassed by what was taking place on the floor that C-SPAN, whose cameras normally pan the floor, was not allowed to show the Republican side.

This was a bill the Republican leadership had to deliver to the pharmaceutical industry, at whatever cost. This was the hardest of hardball politics. No one will ever know completely what threats were made on the floor that night to ensure passage of the drug bill, but a few days after the vote, retiring representative Nick Smith (R-MI) wrote on his web site, "members and groups made offers of extensive campaign support and endorsements for my son, Brad, who is running for my seat. They also made threats of working against Brad if I voted no..."

Smith had been specifically targeted by both Denny Hastert and Tommy Thompson, Health and Human Services secretary, who defied tradition by actually coming onto the House floor to lobby. They sat on either side of Smith like bookends, increasing the pressure on him.

Additionally, according to conservative columnist Robert Novak, "Business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote."

Yummy sausage? Several readers have questioned whether I'm being fair to call hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate campaign contributions "bribes." How about the $100,000 Big Pharma offered Smith, Sr. for Smith, Jr? Would it be unfair to call that a bribe? Smith, by the way, stuck with extreme right wing opponents-- nut cases like Jim DeMint (R-SC), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Mike Pence (R-IN), Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Tom Tancredo (R-CO)-- in opposing the bill. After his no vote, GOP part hacks, like Duke Cunningham (not yet behind bars for accepting and soliciting massive bribes) "taunted him that his son was 'dead meat.' Months later Brad Smith was defeated in the Republican primary, and eventually Tom DeLay was admonished by the nonpartisan House Ethics Committee for offering political favors-- his support for Brad Smith's campaign-- in exchange for Nick Smith's vote."

There was also some drama on the Democratic side of the aisle since this bill wasn't going to come close to passing without some Democratic votes. And Big Pharma knew just who to turn to: Rodney Alexander (D-LA- $44,499) and Ralph Hall (D-TX- $115,483), each of whom was about to jump the fence and join the Republican Party full time, as well as a gaggle of conservative and easily bribed Dixiecrats and/or Blue Dogs:

Rick Boucher (D-VA- $210,203)
Allen Boyd (D-FL- $90,714)
Bud Cramer (D-AL- $45,533)
Lincoln Davis (D-TN- $31,500)
Chris John (D-LA- $126,218)
Jim Marshall (D-GA- $15,150)
Jim Matheson (D-UT- $149,452)
Collin Peterson (D-MN- $26,500)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND- $109,499)
David Scott (D-GA- $46,750)
Charles Stenholm (D-TX- $54,350)

Is it bribery? Absolutely. Do the rules governoring campaign finance need drastic-- not McCain-type cosmetic, but drastic-- overhaul? You bet. And without it, there can truly be no democracy. Instead there will always be power-mongers like Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Ted Stevens, Debbie Wasserman Schultz who will serve as bagmen for bribes on behalf of various special interests.

BOEHNER BLAMES BLOGGERS FOR MOVE TO IMPEACH BUSH... BUT HOW SERIOUS IS THE ATTEMPT ANYWAY?

When reactionary Democrats and longtime Bush Regime rubber stamps Leonard Boswell and Al Wynn realized they would get serious primary challengers from the left, each signed on to H.R. 333, Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Cheney. It didn't save Wynn, who was defeated by progressive Democrat Donna Edwards, but it may have helped Boswell stave off a challenge from Ed Fallon. The resolution to impeach Cheney, which is languishing in the House Judiciary Committee and is unlikely to ever see the light of day, has 27 co-sponsors in all. The duplicitous Boswell and Wynn were exceptions; the rest of the co-sponsors were longtime defenders of the American people against encroachments from the Regime and against the Bush-Cheney policies, both domestic and international, that have brought America to the brink of disaster. My own congresswoman, Diane Watson is a co-sponsor, as are most of the best members of Congress including Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Pete Stark (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Robert Wexler (D-FL)...

As you know, this week Kucinich offered a resolution to impeach Bush. His first co-sponsor was Wexler (who also signed on as a co-sponsor of the Cheney impeachment this week). Wexler is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where both of Kucinich's resolutions have been sent to die. Although Wexler immediately sent out a fundraising letter touting his support for impeachment, we'll have to watch and see if he lifts a finger to move the resolution forward. He's from the South Florida Democratic organization so I would expect more fundraising letters and not so much finger lifting. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has been covering the impeachment proposal more seriously than most of the media.

Wexler accused Bush of creating a "massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people" and "an unprecedented abuse of executive power."

Wexler is a House Judiciary Committee member who launched a nationwide campaign earlier this year to hold impeachment hearings for Cheney, although he didn't co-sponsor Kucinich's Cheney impeachment measure until Tuesday.

Wexler doesn't think there's enough support on the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings but hopes testimony on June 20 by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan might change members' minds, said his chief of staff, Eric Johnson.

"There weren't enough committed votes to impeach Nixon before the hearings and tapes were discovered," Johnson said. "You need to have the hearings to bring evidence out to make the case."

Although there have been one or two Republicans who have groused about Bush deserving impeachment, the Party instantly united behind the leader whose every catastrophic decision they have rubber stamped for the past seven and a half years. A spokesman for GOP House minority leader John Boehner derided the impeachment resolution as "an absurd example of Democrats' misplaced priorities... This is just another example of the Democratic leadership in the House indulging trivial and silly conspiracy theories from left-wing bloggers, rather than working with Republicans to deal with the real issues facing the American people."

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership still opposes impeachment-- on narrow political grounds. Conventional wisdom supposes they fear an impeachment battle against the most hated man to ever occupy the White House will hurt Democratic chances to win in November. Others think that the reasons Pelosi opposes impeachment, while agreeing that Bush is worthy of being impeached, is because she fears it would split the Democratic caucus. Too many Democrats-- including her #2 and #3, Steney Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel-- might have to explain why they supported, and still support, so much of the impeachable Bush agenda.

Robert Wexler tells the media that "It is time for Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution against the blatant violations and illegalities of this administration." He's right. But meanwhile Hoyer is working behind the scenes to impose yet another unconstitutional, impeachable action on the American people on behalf of Bush-- warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity. Perhaps people would take Kucinich and Wexler more seriously if they attempted to remove Steny Hoyer as Majority Leader.

And Neil's no blogger:

Considering the number of elected officials and candidates who are willing to talk about the mess in Iraq, we might listen to one who WANTS to

Word is that when he heard John McCain was prevailing in the New Hampshire Republican primary, neocon nutjob Norman Podhoretz started jumping up and down squealing, "The Surge! The Surge!" (Senator McCain, you'll recall, is on record as supporting the Surge if it means our staying in Iraq for another leventy-kajillion years. Actually, this is just a guess--he hasn't specified an outer time limit.)

Of course the neocons came into existence for the purpose of misunderstanding absolutely everything in the universe, but at an elevated level of viciousness, violence, and all-around scumbuggery, so Pappy Norm is just upholding the tradition. "We're wrong, cosmically wrong, we're in your face, and we dump doody on you," as they say at neocon pep rallies.

On one level, true, the Surge has been an all but unmitigated triumph: It has, incredibly, gotten Iraq not only off the front page but pretty much out of the news. In all likelihood, among the less neolithic of the sociopaths who run our foreign policy, the ones less given to self-delusion as a way of life, this was probably the only goal of the Surge. It was always about politics.

American politics, that is, not Iraqi. Iraqi politics remains an unholy mess. Which is one measure of the total failure of the Surge, since the whole point was to bring the Iraqi government to the point of being able to control the country.

You might think that the fact that there's a presidential election in progress would provide just the swellest opportunity to look at what the hell we think we're doing in Iraq and how we can mitigate the catastrophe we've produced there--not to mention extricate ourselves from it. You might think that, but it appears you would be wrong. The election seems instead the perfect opportunity for never mentioning it--at least among the nonfringe candidates.

So it's interesting to see that Florida Rep. Robert Wexler is actually making the Surge an issue in his reelection campaign. In a recent mailing to his e-mail list, recalling that "a few weeks ago I voted again to deny [Iraq war] funding without a timetable," he wrote:

I am bothered by the recent movement to repackage the Surge as a success. Today, I released an editorial (below and also published on the Daily Kos) regarding my view of the Surge's so-called "success." If you have a moment, please read it when you get a chance.

Oh, there are a lot of people talking about the Surge, but they're mostly "out of sight, out of mind," like the Iraq occupation itself. Even assuming that there has been a significant reduction in violence (and one always has to be careful where information is significantly controlled by an administration that proudly practices the founding principle of the modern Conservative Movement: NEVER RESORT TO THE TRUTH UNTIL YOU'VE EXHAUSTED EVERY IMAGINABLE LIE), there are all sorts of nasty considerations--oh, things like large-scale American buying off of erstwhile insurgents (welfare for Islamofascists?), and the tactical withdrawal of important elements of the struggle, biding their time till the hated Americans are gone and they can get back to killing each other.

Anyway, the mere fact that Representative Wexler wants us to be talking about the Surge, and indeed the whole subject of Iraq, is refreshing. So why don't we take a listen to what he has to say? (Note: All emphasis is in the original, except that I've scaled back the original's boldface italics to plain boldface.)

A Surge of More Lies
By Congressman Robert Wexler

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.

Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.

The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.

Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.

As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.

On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.

In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.

The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.

How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.

Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!

The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.

In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.

Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.

The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.

#

PUTTING IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE

By Noah

Rep. Robert Wexler (FL-19), along with fellow Representatives Luis Gutierrez (IL-4) and Tammy Baldwin (WI-2), has created a website for all true patriots. The site is wexlerwantshearings.com. I urge all those who love America, regardless of party affiliation, go and sign the petition at the site. In an ideal world, it just might lead to our country repairing itself after the damage wrecked upon it by the biggest, vilest mafia it has ever had to endure. Logically, Wexler and his associates are calling for hearings on the behavior of Dick Cheney, currently masquerading as Vice President of the United States.

Wexler is calling for a fair look into "credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors". The charges relate to Cheney's actions in leading us into stopping the hunt for Bin Laden in order to unnecessarily invade and occupy Iraq, illegal wiretapping of American citizens, and his actions in the revealing of the identity of a covert U.S. agent for political purposes, thus endangering not only the agent, but the agent's contacts whose fate is unknown, and our country's intelligence web of security. The later charge is something that even former President George H. W. Bush has said is an act of TREASON. Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that Cheney and his staff deliberately gave him false information about the matter. We may not have heard the last about the Valerie Plame Wilson affair after all. Wexler wants to call McClellan and other administration officials to Congress to testify.

Recent revelations about the N.I.E. and their conclusions on Iran's nuke capabilities indicate that the administration has yet again cooked up evidence of WMDs to suit their oily agenda. Many in the corporate media are, of course, promoting the absurd Repug talking point that all sixteen of our nations' intelligence agencies are somehow lying, together, in some sort of nefarious cahoots on the subject, when we know, sadly, that any two of them have trouble even communicating with each other on even more urgent matters like terrorists taking flying lessons right here in the U.S.

Back on November 7th, the House Of Representatives (the whole House, not just a committee) voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Darth Cheney to the House Judiciary Committee. Wexler, Gutierrez, and Baldwin are urging that the hearings begin now. You can help buttress their argument by signing their petition. They need our support in order to convince the cowardly among them, including their so-called leader and Bush/Cheney protector, Nancy Pelosi. Needless to say, both Republicans and Democrats voted to send the resolution to committee, even if for different reasons. Some disingenuous Republicans may live to regret their actions. Too bad. You see, honesty should be the best policy. Sure, that would be a new concept in Congress, but there's certainly room for improvement.

This is no blow job in the Oval Office. This is about murder, maiming, mayhem, war profiteering, AND the creation of new generations of terrorists that we will have to deal with for years to come. Sure Bush and Cheney and the puppet masters that program the thoughts of their none so blind as those who will not see followers don't care and don't have the empathy for us ordinary citizens to give a rat's ass. To them, it's "I got mine, Jack, and I want more, more, more. Then, give me more tax breaks so I can keep more, more, more while the peons die, for all we care."

Once more, here's the site. Thousands have already signed since yesterday. At the site, you can even link to Rep. Wexler's very articulate, well-reasoned Op-Ed piece that has been offered to the nation's "news"papers. So far, they have all refused to run it. No surprise there! Sign the petition. Start with Cheney. Then on to Bush. Remember, what's left of our Constitution still provides for the Impeachment, Conviction, and Imprisonment of people like Bush and Cheney, even after their terms are up. According to a November 13 poll done by American Research Group, a majority, 70%, of the American people feel that Cheney has abused his power. 43% say he should be removed from office right now and that's without impeachment even being on the front pages. Congress is always the last to know what's going on out in America. Let them know! Let them have it! Sure, it's a dream. Sure it's an ideal. But, it's a dream and ideal that this country was founded upon. The fish rots from the head. Nothing in our culture will get fixed until we fix this. We also need to do this to set an example for future clowns in government. I have always felt that letting Nixon off the hook in 1974 was a mistake and that someday it would lead to something even worse than Nixon. That day has come. That day is NOW.