Thursday, April 30, 2015

Alan Grayson: TPP "Would Give Away The Sovereignty Our Founding Fathers Fought For In Exchange For... Nothing"

>




The Establishment-- the Democratic Party Establishment-- has fallen to new lows. Wall Street growled about cutting DNC, DSCC and DCCC funding because of Elizabeth Warren and BOOM!... Chuck Schumer, the biggest recipient of Wall Street bribes, excluding presidential candidates, in history is on the road to be the new Senate Democratic Leader. The DSCC and DCCC are working full-time to disadvatage-- to put it mildly-- primary candidates against the conservative, pro-Wall Street hacks they're backing. 

No top Democrats seemed all that thrilled yesterday when Bernie Sanders hinted broadly that he plans to jump into the presidential campaign and challenge Hillary Clinton on 3 major issues: campaign finance reform, climate change and income inequality. The Democratic Establishment does not care about the issues. Apparently they don't even care that the Clintons were using Hillary's position to personally enrich themselves. Democratic activists and Democratic voters care about both, but the Democratic careerist political Establishment? Not even a little-- outside of how issues fit into winning electoral strategies. The Establishment has no interest in dedicated, serious progressives like Bernie Sanders running for president, or Donna Edwards and Alan Grayson running for Senate, or for stalwart progressives like Alex Law (NJ), Jamie Raskin (MD), Jason Ritchie (WA) and Nanette Barragán (CA) running against corrupt conservatives for House seats. Matt Taibbi understands what Bernie is trying to do. The Democratic Party Establishment fears what he's trying to do.

So-called "free trade" is one of the points of contention between the Establishment and normal Democrats. Corporate shills-- from Obama and Rahm all the way down into the depths of Wall Street ass-kissers like Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Patrick Murphy (D-FL), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Isadore Hall (D-CA), etc. With even the overwhelming majority of Republicans opposing Fast Track authority, the White House is on a jihad against Democrats in Congress who are standing up against corporate hegemony in regard to the TPP. It's an ugly mess.

Next month, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is offering legislation to back up an idea by Warren Buffett that requires importers to provide certificates for the goods and services they sell, a stream of income that could be used to bolster Social Security and Medicare and rebuild U.S. infrastructure and cut middle class taxes. Grayson sees his bill as "the light at the end of the tunnel... It's time to stop digging that hole any deeper. Let's fight back against the scheme that has robbed the Amercian middle class now for decades. Let's fight it and let's defeat it right now while we still can. Let's put our workers back to work earning a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Let's heal our economy and heal our nation. Let's show our courage, show our unity; let's climb out of that hole. Let's raise ourselves up and let's rebuild the American middle class."
We are activists and organizers trying to build a broad, effective movement for democratic change. We come from different backgrounds, and were inspired by different issues and fights for peace, rights and the planet. Our goal is a government that carries out the will of the people, and not serve to increase the profits of the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

To that end we support Bernie Sanders in his bid to become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.  We stand firmly behind Senator Sanders as the strongest progressive challenger to Hillary Clinton-- the bold alternative.

As a truly progressive candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, Senator Sanders has the chance to inspire millions of Americans with policy proposals that put the interests of the 99%, front and center.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called out the “economic royalists” of his day. Senator Sanders is picking up the banner. He answers to “We the People” and not to the corporate and financial sectors. Bernie brings the kind of leadership that is necessary to building a real, living democracy.

The initiators of this letter are veteran grassroots organizers of Occupy Wall Street, and are joined by many energized brothers and sisters we have met along the way. In September 2011, our efforts changed the narrative of American politics, helping to focus it on the issues of our time: inequality, surrender to the power of concentrated wealth, the corruption of our democracy by moneyed interests, and the need for solutions as radical as our problems.

We are signing as individuals hoping to kickstart a small ‘d’ democratic movement. People For Bernie won’t be a corporate-style, staff-driven, controlled-message, top-down enterprise. It will reflect diverse constituencies from a broad range of movements, which in many cases haven’t seen the Democratic Party as a home for their deepest aspirations. It will reflect our commitment to fundamental change, not just a change of faces at the top of the political pyramid. People for Bernie it will reflect the urgency of more and fiercer grassroots political activity at the base.

We call on all other progressive forces to unite behind Sanders so we can have a united front in this important campaign.

Winnie Wong-- participant in OWS, @OccupyWallStreetNYC, Organizer, RFW, AFW
Charles Lenchner-- participant in OWS, former member of Tech Ops, co-founder, Ready For Warren
Howie Klein
Nadya Stevens
Andrew Smith (Rockaway Wildfire, OWS
Stan Williams (OSA, OWS)
Shana East (Ready For Warren)
Heidi Chua (Rosa Luxembourg Siftung)
Daniel Sieradski (Occupy Judaism)
Kim Fraczek (The Peoples Puppets of Occupy Wall Street)
Jesse Myerson (Occupy The Ballots)
Ethan Young Left Labor Project
David Unger
Ethan Earle (Rosa Luxembourg Siftung)
Kazembe Balagun (Rosa Luxembourg Siftung)
Diane Sweet
Gan Golan (MayDay Space)
Matt Hopard (OWS)
jackrabbit (Interoccupy)
Nadine Bloch
Thiaggo de Mello Bueno (OWS)
Mark Provost (Us Uncut)
Zak Solomon (MayDay Space, Rising Tide NYC)
Aly Johnson-Kurts (Teachout-Wu)
Robel Tekleab (Ready For Warren)
Moumita Ahmed (Ready For Warren)
Caleb Michael-Files (Ready For Warren)
Angela Linneman
Phillip Anderson (The Albany Project)
Lane Hall (Overpass Light Brigade)
Lisa Moline (Overpass Light Brigade)
Joe Brusky (Overpass Light Brigade)
Damien Crisp (member @OccupyWallStNYC)
Melissa Byrne (Occupy DC-Mcpherson, Project Springboard)
Amber Frost
Paul Russell (Occupy Faith, Judson Church)
Gabriel Johnson
Bhaskar Sunkara, Jacobin Magazine
Mary Clinton
Betsy Avila, Young Democratic Socialists
Maria Svart, Democratic Socialists of America
Beth Becker
Kelli Daley
Justin Molito


No labor leaders? If you're looking for their names, you haven't been paying attention. Labor leaders whose lives revolve around the Beltway are part of the Establishment. They are overwhelmingly self-serving and will gladly support an outrageous hack like Patrick Murphy, Hillary Clinton, Chis Van Hollen or any repulsive Blue Dog or New Dem before backing someone from the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt wing of the Democratic Party.


Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Racist Fanatic William Colmer Has A Minority Majority School In Pascagoula Named After Him-- Plus Hawaii Update

>


The William M. Colmer Middle School is in Pascagoula, Mississippi. 46% of the students are African-Americans and 15% are Hispanic. 79% of the students are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch program, somewhat higher than the average for Mississippi (71%). The school is named for Representative William M. Colmer who died on September 9, 1980 (age 90) and is buried at Machpelah Cemetery right their in Pascagoula. The students can walk over to the cemetery and visit their school's namesake. Perhaps they should read a little about the 20-terms congressman from Mississippi's Gulf Coast first though.

Colmer won a primary against Robert Hall in 1932, and that turned out to be a very good year for Democrats. Congressional Republicans lost 101 seats in the House that year. Colmer was elected with 94.5% of the vote-- the lowest percentage of any of Mississippi's 7 Members of Congress. He was swept into office as a New Deal Democrat but soon figured out that the New Deal not only helped whites, which he was fine with, but helped blacks… which he was very much not fine with. As time went by, he turned increasingly more reactionary and made opposing racial equality his life's work.

By all accounts he was a disgusting political figure and in no ways-- except the for "D" next to his name-- a Democrat. He was a blight on the party brand, just the way Blue Dogs, New Dems and corporate shills like Israel, Emanuel, Wasserman Schultz, Crowley and Hoyer are today. Even though Colmer endorsed Nixon against JFK, Humphrey and McGovern and endorsed Goldwater against LBJ, the idiot House Democrats allowed him to retain the Rules Committee chairmanship, putting him in a position to slow down desegregation for years. When he finally retired in 1972, his administrative assistant, Trent Lott-- another pile of racist dogcrap-- ran for his House seat and won… as a Republican-- the first elected there since 1873.

I didn't share this Colmer info with you just as another random example of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, although he was obviously that. I shared it because Karoli seemed so worked up Saturday about a Democratic judicial candidate in Connecticut, Anna Zubkova, whose husband, Rob Freeman, is a very public racist. "If whites had a voice in the government," he wrote, "there might not have been an Iraq war. There might not have been all these horrible trade agreements that are impoverishing everyone. We might have more fuel efficient cars, or more mass transit. Who knows what might have been?" I guess Debbie Wasserman Schultz would call it being part of her twisted conception of a "big tent party."


DREADFUL RESULTS IN HAWAII LAST NIGHT

Voter participation through absentee ballots was high, up over 12% since 2012. But that was the only good news there was yesterday. And although none of the candidates are as bad as William Colmer, it was a good night for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As expected, progressive Governor Neil Abercrombie was defeated by centrist David Ige in a huge landslide, 143,835 (67%) to 67,368 (32%). Ige will face Republican Duke Aiona and extreme right-wing ex-Democrat (now Independent) Mufi Hannemann in November. It will be a tough race for him.

With all 113 precincts counted in the first congressional district, the race to replace Hanabusa was won by Mark Takai, a reactionary claiming to have seen the light and miraculously "turned" progressive.
Mark Takai- 48,510 (45%)
Donna Mercado Kim- 30,979 (29%)
Stanley Chang- 11,023 (10%)
Ikaika Anderson- 7,269 (7%)
Will Espero- 4,166 (4%)
Joey Manahan- 3,941 (4%)
Kathryn Xian- 2,786 (3%)
The Congressional Progressive Caucus undercut progressive Stanley Chang at the last minute by making his endorsement into a dual endorsement of him and conservative homophobe and militarist Takai. The strategy, one of the key players told me, was to stop Donna Kim, an even worse reactionary. Although Takai and Kim have been allies in the legislature and although, when asked, she said if she couldn't win she would like to see Takai win, 2 Japanese-American Progressive Caucus members claimed they could guide Takai in a progressive direction. The last time I heard such a patently spurious argument was when another Progressive Caucus member wanted to endorse Republican-turned-fake-Dem Patrick Murphy in 2012, telling me he could guide Murphy. Murphy did win-- and immediately joined the GOP-leaning, Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems. Murphy has amassed one of the worst voting records of any Democrat in Congress-- a dismal ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of 48.17-- and has worked consistently to undermine progressive values and principles inside the caucus. This cycle he is already the 3rd biggest recipient-- $801,750-- of shady cash from the Financial Sector, right after crooked conservative sell-outs Joe Crowley and Jim Himes.

Even worse news is the still undetermined U.S. Senate race, where corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa has come close to unseating progressive champion Brian Schatz. There are 2 rural precincts on the Big Island that couldn't vote because of Hurricane Iselle-- polling sites at Hawaii Paradise Community Center and Keone-opoko Elementary School-- so it will be some days before the election is decided. Democrats there will vote by absentee ballot. Right now, as best I can tell, the 245 of 247 precincts have given Schatz the tiniest of leads-- 105,794 (49.38%) to 104,008 (48.55%). He's leading her by 1,786 votes and it's a real stretch seeing her make up that kind of a lead in just two precincts.

As of the July 20 reporting deadline, Schatz had raised $4,914,576, spent $3,937,606 and was sitting on $976,970. Hanabusa had raised $2,876,245, spent $2,408,572 and was sitting on $522,566. She wrote herself a check for $117,000 out of the personal bribes she and her crooked husband have taken from developers and other shady operators who have financed her sleazy career. Conservative Democratic group EMILY's List put another $697,920 into independent expenditures on Hanabusa's behalf, including a $75,000 push this week. Environmental and progressive groups spent $591,353 to bolster Schatz.

Again, Hanabusa isn't as bad as Colmer. But this is 2014, not 1950 and she's about as bad as you can be and still legitimately call yourself a Democrat today. Yesterday was a terrible day for Hawaii. At least EMILY's List failed-- and failed miserably-- to foist Donna Mercado Kim on Hawaii. They have become the single most destructive player inside the Democratic Party coalition, almost never a force for progressive politics-- almost always a force for reactionary thinking, a real corrupt, money-based pillar of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.


UPDATE: Who Are The Voters In The 2 Precincts?

The voters in the remaining precincts aren't exactly off the grid but many tend to be anti-establishment, anti-war, anti-GMO, pro-marijuana legalization, and anti-geothermal-- not exactly Hanabusa's crowd, no matter how you slice it or dice it. And she would have to beat Schatz in the two precincts on the Big Island by a 2-1 margin to take the lead, which isn't likely, no matter how much more money EMILY's List throws into her campaign. This post should give you a better idea about who the 8,000 people are who haven't voted yet. Excerpt: "In our district (Puna), Dennis got 60% of the caucus vote. On our island (Hawaii), 50%. In our state (Hawaii), 33%." Probably not admirers of militarist and corporate shill Colleen Hanabusa.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 09, 2012

Yes, There Were Two Bigger Losers Than Steve Israel Tuesday: Karl Rove And Sheldon Adelson

>




Extreme right Republican crackpots like Bryan Fischer and Herman Cain are ginning up a GOP civil war, turning their bile against what passes for the party's "mainstream." Thursday morning Fischer tweeted: "Time for social conservatives to launch hostile takeover of Republican party. Put Karl Rove by door instead of head table." Five minutes later he was threatening Republican governors: "Any GOP gov who sets up a state exchange under ObamaCare is toast as presidential candidate in 2016." They're desperate to find a reason that explains how Romney, Akin, Mourdock, Allen West and virtually their whole "God loves rape" caucus was defeated Tuesday. And they're not looking inward. (Mainstream conservatives are fighting back, blaming the radicals and the Hate Talk fanatics like Limbaugh, as well as self-promoting freaks like Trump.)


We've been talking-- and will continue talking-- about how DCCC chairman Steve Israel wasted tens of millions of dollars in trying to resuscitate his moribund Blue Dog caucus and fill the congressional Democratic ranks with corrupt, conservative New Dems like himself. In the process, he failed to take back the House (even while Obama was rolling up a landslide electoral victory and Senate Democrats were making fools out of every single Inside-the-Beltway pundit. But Karl Rove had an even worse record than Steve Israel.

Rove (Bush's brain, remember?) collected and spent more money for election ads than the RNC, NRCC or NRSC. He also raked off millions for himself... of course. “If I had 1/100th of Karl Rove’s money," said lunatic fringe Republican activist Brent Bozell, "I would have been more productive than he was.” Almost all of Rove's candidates lost, not just Romney and Ryan but every one of the Senate candidates he backed with the exception-- and by a hair-- of Dean Heller of Nevada, who had the good fortune to be running against a corrupt New Dem, Shelley Berkley, who no principled progressive with any dignity could support.

As of October 17 American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS had spent $175,521,437, most of it trying to elect Romney. They spent $99,978,033 attacking the president and $13,317,756 in positive ads about Romney. These were the Democratic Senate targets of their hateful misleading TV ads:
Tim Kaine (VA)- $11,287,908 ELECTED
Tammy Baldwin (WI)- $7,407,615 ELECTED
Shelley Berkley (NV)- $7,000,136
Sherrod Brown (OH)- $6,363,714 ELECTED
Jon Tester (MT)- $5,046,651 ELECTED
Joe Donnelly (IN)- $4,714,126 ELECTED
Bill Nelson (FL)- $4,022,607 ELECTED
Heidi Heitkamp (ND)- $2,106,778 ELECTED
Angus King (ME)- $1,014,095 ELECTED
Bob Kerrey (NE)- $992,170
Elizabeth Warren (MA)- $637,049 ELECTED
Martin Heinrich (NM)- $435,220 ELECTED
His other operation, the Crossroads Generation Super PAC took in another $970,417 and spent $513,590 on attacking President Obama and trying to bolster Romney. So of the more than $175.5 million dollars Rove spent on candidates, only his attacks on Kerrey in deep red Nebraska and on the intolerably corrupt Berkley in Nevada yielded any positive results for the investors. The other $167.5 million was wasted. [Democrats Rove targeted in House races with gigantic expenditures but who won anyway included Tim Bishop (NY), Cheri Bustos (IL), Bill Enyart (IL), Steven Hosford (NV), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Raul Ruiz (CA), Louise Slaughter (NY). And at least he helped defeat Blue Dogs Leonard Boswell (IA), Gary McDowell (Michigan) and Brendan Mullen (IN).]



Wondering how Rove's mega-donors, like Adelson, Harold Simmons, Bob Perry and Bob Rowling-- each of whom gave millions of dollars to Rove to play with-- are feeling this week? Ultimate villager Michael Isikoff suggests that Rove "may have had the worst election night of anybody in American politics."
Not only did Rove insist on Fox News that Ohio was still winnable for Republican challenger Mitt Romney after all the TV networks had called it for President Barack Obama-- causing anchor Megyn Kelly to march down to the Fox "decision desk" mavens, who assured her on air that they were "99.9 percent" confident in their call-- but his trailblazing "independent" super PAC operation was virtually shut out on election night.

A study Wednesday by the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political spending, concluded that Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads, had a success rate of just 1 percent on $103 million in attack ads-- one of the lowest "returns on investment" (ROIs) of any outside spending group in this year's elections.
Organized Crime figure Sheldon Adelson is one of the richest men in the world. He's a gonif and a ruthless, amoral thug but he's certainly not smart. He was the biggest financial loser in American history Tuesday night. He and his wife contributed well over $100,000,000 this cycle and almost all of it was wasted. His own PAC spent $53 million and everyone who took money from it with the exception of Dean Heller, lost. Adelson made big bets on Romney, of course, but also helped underwrite the campaigns of fast-talking losers like George Allen, Connie Mack, Joe Kyrillos, David Dewhurst, Allen West, and psychotic Hollywood rabbi-to-the-stars/sex addict Schmuley Boteach, who ran for a House seat in New Jersey (and lost to Bill Pascrell 73.6-25.4%, Adelson's crazy PAC having contributed $918,789 to his effort, 5 times what Rabbi Schmuely raised himself).

On the other hand, Adelson paid for this video which may have had more to do with the ultimate defeat of Mitt Romney and the tarnishing of the Republican brand than any of his expensive subsequent efforts to make up for it. If you weren't paying close attention during the GOP primary, this is what Adelson-- eventually Romney's #1 financial supporter-- did to cripple him:



Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

As The Votes Continue To Be Counted...

>


Tonight's Biggest Loser: Steve Israel And His Pack Of Neutered Blue Dogs

We'll get more into this is the coming days but every single Blue Dog Israel recruited-- and wasted so much money on (money that could have gone to help progressives win)-- has either lost or is losing tonight, as did Blue Dog incumbents Ben Chandler (KY) and Larry Kissell (NC). It's like a redux of the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010. When will the corrupt Inside-the-Beltway Democratic Establishment learn that actual Democratic voters don't want Blue Dogs and that Republicans have their own reactionaries so they don't need them? These were the Blue Dogs Israel was trying to get over:
Dave Crooks (IN)- LOST!
Pete Gallego (TX)- undecided but losing narrowly
Pam Gulleson (ND)- LOST!
Nick Lampson (TX)- LOST!
Gary McDowell (MI)- undecided but losing narrowly
Brendan Mullen (IN)- LOST!
Sal Pace (CO)- LOST!
Hayden Rogers (NC)- LOST!
Rob Wallace (OK)- LOST!
Charlie Wilson (OH)- LOST! 
When will Israel tender his resignation? With Obama, Senate Democrats and House progressives all doing so well, Steve Israel (and his allies Joe Crowley and Steny Hoyer) were the skunks at tonight's party.

Is Chris Christie Looking For A Cabinet Position?

First Christie actually behaved like a rational governor instead of a Republican "fuck everyone" political hack of the John Boehner/Miss McConnell Samson School of Obstructionism. Then, after being called a "fat slob" by Rush Limbaugh (no comment... too easy) and threatened by him and other right-wing extremists with excommunication, Christie refused to make it all better by going to a Romney rally in Pennsylvania Sunday evening a few miles from his home. Now he's cursing out and disparaging "Know Nothing, disgruntled" Romney staffers. Listen:



Sleazy Little Loser Josh Mandel Wants To Make Sure Everyone Knows He's Not A Practicing Homosexual

As expected Mandel, Ohio's right-wing treasurer, was soundly defeated in his bid for a U.S. Senate seat tonight. Sherrod Brown clobbered him 51-45%. And increasingly desperate Mandel had turned to making gratuitous anti-LGBT statements, hoping to fire up evangelical bigots in backward areas of the state. He also managed to fire up his own family, who were so embarrassed by his behavior that they purchased a full-page ad in the Cleveland Jewish News to denounce him.
Open Letter to Josh Mandel, Republican Candidate for U.S. Senator from Ohio

Dear Josh,

Four years ago you came into our family. We still remember the excitement surrounding your wedding, and how happy our family members were as they described it afterwards. So we were deeply saddened when you announced during your October 18th debate with Senator Sherrod Brown that you believe only some people should share this right to marry the person they love, while others should not.

Your cousins, Ellen Ratner and Cholene Espinoza, are among the many wonderful couples whose rights you do not recognize. They were married almost eight years ago in Massachusetts, at a time when it was the only state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage. Their wedding, like yours, was a beautiful and happy occasion for all of us in our family. It hurts us that you would embrace discrimination against them and countless other loving couples in Ohio and around the country.

We are equally distressed by your belief that gay men and women should not be allowed to serve openly in the military. Like you, Cholene spent many years in the armed forces. A graduate of the Air Force Academy and an accomplished pilot, she became the second woman in history to fly the U-2 reconnaissance plane. And yet, you have argued that she, like many gay and lesbian soldiers, should be forced to live a life of secrecy and lies.

Josh, as you know, our roots are deep in the Cleveland area and we have friends and family we love throughout Ohio. This family is sprawling and diverse, but it has always believed strongly in the values of equality and inclusiveness. Your discriminatory stance violates these core values of our family. Nevertheless we hope that over time, as you advance in years and wisdom, you will come to embrace the values of inclusiveness and equality as well.

Your cousins,

Michael Ratner, Bruce Ratner, Karen Ranucci, Pamela Lipkin, Rebecca Ratner, Elizabeth Ratner, Patrick Markee, Jacob Ratner, Ana Ratner
Oh... And The Senate


As we head off to bed, Mandel wasn't the only right-wing freak who saw his senatorial aspirations dashed on the rocks of an electorate smart enough to get even for all the hyper-partisan obstructionism. In Massachusetts Scott Brown was handily defeated by Elizabeth Warren. Sure bets that didn't come through for the GOP were also the Senate seats in Missouri and Indiana, where misogynistic blabbermouths Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock both lost badly (Akin by an astounding 10 points). Democrats won in Virginia. Florida, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut (against a plutocrat who spent $90 million dollars of her own money in her 2 failed Senate races this cycle and last), Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Minnesota, and New Mexico and are leading in Montana and North Dakota. Replacing Republican Olympia Snowe in Maine will be Independent Angus King who is likely to caucus with the Democrats. Oh, and did I mention that Wisconsin is electing it's first woman senator-- and the first openly gay person to ever win a seat in the U.S. Senate? That would be Tammy Baldwin, who is defeating ex-Governor/lobbyist Tommy Thompson. The Democrats will have no problem holding California, Washington and Hawaii. Miss McConnell (and Karl Rove) were certain they would either take back the Senate or come close enough to be sure it would fall their way in two years. Now it will be slightly more Democratic than it was in the current session.

And did I mention that President Obama won reelection with wins in swing states Colorado, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Nevada, a lead in Florida and a too-close-to-call race in Virginia?

Labels: , , , ,

Predictions... The Senate Stays In Democratic Hands

>


Rich Beeson is Romney's political director. Will anyone ever take him seriously again after tonight? Not because Romney will lose-- and lose massively, but because Beeson publicly predicted, on Fox News Sunday that Romney is on track to win over 300 electoral votes. "It's going to be a big win for Gov. Romney," said Beeson, who is betting on Romney winning in several blue states, like Pennsylvania. Well, of course they will. Why not? The Beltway is its own insular little universe and neither honesty nor accuracy are admired traits there. Just as Senator Obama was rolling up an historic 365 electoral vote win in 2008, McCain was boasting to the media that, “We’ve got them just where we want them.” That must have impressed the producers of Meet the Press immensely! Howard Dean, on the other hand, was universally ridiculed in 2006 for predicting that the Democrats would capture a majority in the House, the Beltway pundits and media rolling their eyes and insinuating Dean is insane. That the Democrats were swept into power, winning 31 more seats than they had when the cycle began. An astounding 22 GOP incumbents were defeated, including powerhouses-- Democrats under Steve Israel have stopped targeting powerhouse Republicans-- like Dick Pombo (CA), Jim Leach (IA), Clay Shaw (FL), Nancy Johnson (CT), Rob Simmons (CT), Curt Weldon (PA), Charles Taylor (NC), Henry Bonilla (TX), and Melissa Hart (PA). Geniuses like Larry Sabato, who are still taken seriously among Villagers had predicted a net gain of between 12 and 15 seats for the Democrats. Today Sabato predicts no net gains for either party in the Senate and a net pickup of just 3 for the Democrats in the House. We'll make fun of him tomorrow.

I'm not certain when Nate Silver's NY Times model will have Obama at 99.9% but it's getting closer by the minute. It certainly looks like he'll win over 300 electoral votes, perhaps as many as 332, if everything close breaks his way. So it isn't much of a leap to predict an Obama win tonight. Let's look at the Senate instead. The GOP felt fairly certain they would complete the job they started in 2010-- a Senate takeover-- this year. Then their candidates started exposing themselves... and the Republican Party, for what dangerous, out-of-the-mainstream extremists they really are. Far right fanatics and sociopaths like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock didn't just make it possible for Democrats to come back from the dead in very red Missouri and Indiana, but had a ripple effect across the country. Republican hopes in Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia, and Ohio were dashed and suddenly they found themselves fighting on home turf: Arizona, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana... states they had been certain of going into the election cycle.

By tomorrow we'll know for sure, of course, but here are the DWT final Senate predictions for the Senate. The four italicized races are still in play and could go either way tonight, depending on the ability of the parties to turn out their bases. They really are true toss-ups.

Arizona- Jeff Flake, Republican hold
California- Dianne Feinstein, Democratic hold
Connecticut- Chris Murphy, Democratic hold
Delaware- Tom Carper, Democratic hold
Florida- Bill Nelson, Democratic hold
Hawaii- Mazie Hirono, Democratic hold
Indiana- Joe Donnelly, Democratic hold
Maine- Angus King (Independent expected to caucus with the Democrats)
Maryland- Ben Cardin, Democratic hold
Massachusetts- Elizabeth Warren, Democratic pickup
Michigan- Debbie Stabenow, Democratic hold
Minnesota- Amy Klobuchar, Democratic hold
Mississippi- Roger Wicker, GOP hold
Missouri- Claire McCaskill, Democratic hold
Montana- Jon Tester, Democratic hold
Nebraska- Deb Fischer, Republican pickup
Nevada- Dean Heller, Republican hold
New Jersey- Bob Menendez, Democratic hold
New Mexico- Martin Heinrich, Democratic hold
New York- Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic hold
North Dakota- Rick Berg, Republican pickup
Ohio- Sherrod Brown, Democratic hold
Pennsylvania- Bob Casey, Democratic hold
Rhode Island- Sheldon Whitehouse, Democratic hold
Tennessee- Bob Corker, Republican hold
Texas- Ted Cruz, Republican hold
Utah- Orrin Hatch, Republican hold
Vermont- Bernie Sanders- Independent hold
Virginia- Tim Kaine, Democratic hold
Washington- Maria Cantwell, Democratic hold
West Virginia- Joe Manchin, Democratic hold
Wisconsin- Tammy Baldwin, Democratic hold
Wyoming- John Barrasso, Republican hold

Labels:

Saturday, October 27, 2012

I Bet K Street Lobbyist Tommy Thompson Wishes He Didn't Approve This Message-- A Game Loser In Wisconsin

>




A desperate last minute smear from Tommy Thompson's campaign is probably the final nail in his own political coffin. The biggest newspaper in Wisconsin, Milwaukee's Journal-Sentinel ran a big story about how Thompson's ad is another right-wing lie, which is basically all you get out of that campaign anyway.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson uses military veterans, images of the fallen twin towers and pictures of 9/11 victims to criticize Democratic rival Tammy Baldwin in a new television ad.

...Let’s look at the core claim in this ad: That Baldwin, a U.S. House member from Madison, voted against a tribute to Sept. 11 victims.

The claim stems from a Sept. 14, 2006, vote on a resolution commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Baldwin was one of 22 House members-- 21 Democrats and one Republican [Ron Paul]-- to vote against the resolution.

Thompson campaign spokeswoman Lisa Boothe said the matter was pretty cut and dried.

"It is simple, she was one of 22 members that voted against it, an incredibly small margin.  This was a near unanimous vote."

So there is some truth in Thompson claim.

But that’s far from the entire story.

At the time, Baldwin delivered a speech on the House floor denouncing Republicans for adding language to the routine commemoration that she did not agree with.

According to the Congressional Record, here’s what she said Sept. 13, 2006:

"Mr. Speaker, on the fifth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil, my Republican colleagues have disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution.

"This week we are mourning the tragic losses of innocent lives as well as commemorating the unsurpassed heroism that was on display that day.

"We are expressing our gratitude to our nation’s law enforcement officers for their tireless dedication to make our country safer; and we are reaffirming our nation’s resolve to combat terrorism and secure our homeland. But rather than offering a bipartisan resolution that unites us on this solemn occasion, the Republican leadership converted the bill into an endorsement of the Patriot Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose.

"This bill was cynically transformed from a memorial resolution to an endorsement of President Bush’s failed policies. The Republicans show enormous disrespect to the 9/11 victims and families by playing election year politics with something as solemn as the fifth anniversary of 9/11; I will vote against the bill."

The publication CQ Weekly, which covers Congress, described the resolution this way in a Sept. 18, 2006 piece:

"But this year’s version was different. Taken up 54 days before one of the most pivotal elections in a decade, the measure afforded Republicans and Democrats a platform from which to argue about which party is more determined to prevail in the war on terror."

The story added: "Republicans stuffed the bill with references to GOP-crafted measures that they say improve national security. Democrats, who voted for some of the bills listed in the resolution, wanted no references to new laws, and complained that framing the resolution that way made it too much of a political document."

Thompson’s ad shows a portion of a Sept. 14, 2006, headline from Baldwin’s hometown Capital Times--  "Baldwin rejects 9-11 tribute"-- but not the entire headline, which read: "Baldwin rejects 9/11 tribute, saying it insults victims, families."

The Baldwin campaign notes that she has voted in favor of a similar resolution honoring 9/11 victims nine times-- in 2001, ‘02, ‘04, ‘05, ‘07, ‘08, ‘09 ‘10 and ‘11.

The campaign also points out that one day before the 2006 vote, Baldwin voted in favor of a resolution calling for "establishing a national memorial at the World Trade Center site to commemorate and mourn the events of February 26, 1993, and September 11, 2001."

Thompson said his Democratic challenger voted against a resolution honoring 9/11 victims. Technically he’s correct. Baldwin voted against the measure in 2006-- and criticized Republicans for adding in references to the Patriot Act, immigration bills, and other controversial matters.

But Baldwin has voted nine times in favor of similar resolutions and the day before the vote in question supported creation of a memorial at the World Trade Center site.

Thompson’s statement contains an element of truth, but leaves out critical information that would give a different impression. That’s our definition of Mostly False.
This week Wisconsin's Professional Fire Fighters Union, answered Thompson with a far more powerful ad of their own (the one up top) asking Thompson if he has "no sense of decency." Here's Tammy's own ad that repsonding to Thompson's shamless and despicable smear:



Russ Feingold said, “Governor Thompson’s latest TV ad is a disgrace. He deliberately misrepresents Tammy Baldwin’s vote, and her strong opposition to playing politics with the 9/11 tragedy. It’s sad that former Governor Thompson is stooping so low to try to attract support. He’ll find that it just won’t work.”

In a press statement, Tammy quoted John Feal, a well respected 9/11 advocate who lost half of one foot at Ground Zero and runs the group the FealGood Foundation. “Tammy Baldwin was one of the first sponsors of our bill outside the New York area.  Her office was one of the ones helping us set up meetings when we couldn’t.
“I don’t think he’s right and he never should have brought something like that up, because it’s not true. She didn’t disagree because of that 9/11 part, she only disagreed to the other stuff that was added in later. I ended up coming home ill. I’ve had a rough time this year. Sometimes I can talk, sometimes I can’t. I’ve had pneumonia, and sinus infections and everything else. So, I’ve been sick, quite a bit,”said Judy Wolff, a Red Cross volunteer and Holmen native, who got ill after spending three weeks at Ground Zero.

For his own part, Thompson, who served as HHS Secretary for the Bush Administration, has been criticized by 9/11 first responders and New York’s Congressional delegation for not making health care a priority.

And after leaving HHS, Thompson then cashed in with a $11 million government contract to provide health care to 9/11 first responders, but left many of them without the care they were promised.

“Tommy Thompson is the product of the Bush administration, who wanted nothing to do with 9/11. When we went to Tommy Thompson in the Bush administration, to get health care funding he kept fighting us.  He’s making money off of 9/11, and he’s politicizing 9/11 for a campaign now, and to me he’s gone down a few notches on the scale of human beings,” Feal said.

In 2008 the Wisconsin State Journal reported, “The problem began in June, Wolff and others say, when Logistics Health Inc., of La Crosse, headed by former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, won an $11 million federal contract to provide medical care and health monitoring from the agency Thompson once led-- a decision that continues to raise eyebrows on Capitol Hill.”

They also reported:

“Dr. Jim Melius, chairman of the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Steering Committee, which coordinates care for 9/11 responders, said ‘I just don’t have any confidence that they (LHI) have the capacity or the understanding to do this,’ Melius said. ‘They are doing a disservice to these people. There are hundreds more in the medical treatment program and thousands more that need medical monitoring, and they’re not getting it.’”

The Associated Press reported: “A company run by an ex-Bush administration official and hired by the government to provide medical care to Sept. 11 recovery workers has been slow to take up the job, workers and advocates say. They also reported, “‘I have absolutely no help from anybody,’ said Ed Persico of Missoula, Mont., who was a Red Cross volunteer at a New York City landfill where the ground zero debris was examined for human remains.”
9/11 responders seem completely united against Thompson who-- as someone whose first and only instincts were to figure out how to personally profit from the tragedy-- has now lied about a political opponent who has always supported them fully and strenuously. FactCheck.org examined Thompson's ad and his claims and dubbed the ad "false and vicious"-- and that pretty much sums up what Wisconsin voters are seeing in a formerly popular, formerly mainstream governor. He moved away to Washington and now he's just plain false and vicious. And now even Republican strategists are ruing the day Thompson brought this up and started the ad war.
“I just watched them in order. Production quality of [Thompson]‘s ad is very good, the people talking are sincere, believable, seems like a very powerful hit. Then, I watched the response, seems to hit back very strongly and well. Soft spoken, sad, not over the top,” one top Republican media strategist said in an email to Roll Call. “While I thought the original was powerful, I think the response wins hands down, by not only calling [Thompson]‘s ad a cheap shot, but adding the seemingly devastating info about [Thompson] profiting so much from that very issue.”

The media strategist continued: “Wow. One would have to say that [Thompson's] team must have felt they needed to throw a long ball, because they had to consider the possibility of that response.”
The Blue America PAC only endorsed 3 candidates for Senate this cycle, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tammy. Please watch Thompson's filth below and the consider helping Tammy win this one.



Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Because Just One Todd Akin In The Senate GOP Circus Isn't Enough?

>




The Republican War Against Women is gearing up in the final thrust towards November. Let me just say from the outset that Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is the worst incumbent Senate Democrat running for reelection and that Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN) is easily the worst House Democrat hoping to get into the Senate. Both vote with the Republicans on crucial issues as a matter of course. Both are cowardly, craven, corporate oriented... the worst the Democratic Party has to offer. There's no circumstance I would vote for either, regardless of how horrible their opponent was. And in both cases, their opponent is vile and contemptible beyond anything currently in the Senate, one of the most vile and contemptible institutions in America.

Let's not go over the "legitimate rape" controversy that swirled around Akin last month, or the arrest record that showed him involved with an anti-woman terrorist group that physically blocked women's health clinics. The newest news is in Indiana, coincidentally the state where the KKK once grew to even more prominence and power than it did in any state in the South. Like Akin, Richard Mourdock was favored to win a Senate seat in November. Like Akin, his psychotic hatred for women has bubbled over in such a way that he may actually propel and nearly equally reactionary Democrat into the Senate. Mourdock, a far, far right radical, who swamped mainstream conservative Richard Lugar, in the GOP primary, told a debate audience Tuesday that although he opposes rape per se, he also opposes women being allowed to abort a fetus if she is raped because the resulting child is "something God intended." Let that sink in for a minute. Or watch him say it in the video above and contemplate the ramifications of something like this in the already dysfunctional Senate.

Romney put out a tepid statement of disagreement: "Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," but has-- so far-- refused to withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock the way he withdrew his endorsement of Akin. Former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman (R-NJ) says Romney has to unendorse Mourdock or at least get him to stop running the endorsement ad. "Mourdock's comments damage all Republicans and especially Romney as the fight for the women's vote intensifies. This could be a defining moment for Romney and he should immediately denounce both Mourdock and the comment." The NRSC has also made it clear that they're sticking with Mourdock, although they had followed Romney into an anti-Akin posture. Patty Murray, head of the DSCC wasn't letting the GOP get off the hook so easily. "While Mitt Romney is rightly distancing himself from Richard Mourdock today, his ad endorsing Mourdock's extreme candidacy continues to air in Indiana. If Mitt Romney is serious about repudiating these heinous views on rape, he will take down this ad immediately. National Republicans cannot paper over Richard Mourdock's heinous views on rape. Enough is enough. The Republican Party needs to stop the coddling and take a stand against the horribly offensive and dangerous views of the Tea Party and their extreme candidates."

It's ironic that it may be Choice that sinks the polarizing extremist Mourdock (and the GOP's hopes of taking over the Senate)-- since Donnelly is a fanatic anti-Chopice freak himself and has been a dependable vote against Choice for the entire time he was in the House. His ProgressivePunch score on Family Planning issues over his entire congressional career is 14.29, one of the lowest of the Democrats and lower than several Republicans. After the debate, Donnelly realized he had a winning issue with which to clobber Mourdock and told reporters, "I think rape is a heinous and violent crime in every instance. The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen-- ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape."


And what about anti-Choice fanatic Paul Ryan, who has partnered with Akin on several misogynistic bills and has campaigned with Mourdock? Ryan, who has himself referred to rape as "a method of conception," has been consistently against exceptions for rape and incest. Rob Zerban, the progressive running against Ryan for Congress, issued a statement castigating Ryan for his anti-Choice mania. “Of course, Paul Ryan will keep backing away from the dark corners of his party from where these disturbing comments about rape and violence against women are emanating. But Ryan can't back off their shared anti-women worldview. Ryan himself has called rape just another 'method of conception,' and co-authored the infamous Todd Akin bill to redefine rape. Ryan can no longer duck responsibility for his extreme views against women's most basic rights.”

If I lived in Indiana or Missouri I wouldn't vote for Senate-- and I'd try to think of a way of moving. And I'd think about helping the rest of the country stop Paul Ryan.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Tammy vs Tommy In Wisconsin-- Is Romney Dragging Down The Whole GOP Ticket?

>



I suspect that if Tammy wins in November-- and current polls suggest she will-- the moment that will go down in history that lost the race for Tommy Thompson was when he bragged "Who better than me to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid?" Right now, he's in full etch-a-sketch mode, claiming he just wants to make some adjustments and save the programs. Uh, huh. That's what his friend Lyin' Ryan says too and the voucher program that ends Medicare. And his new line of attack is that cool, collected, caring Tammy is an extremist. That's not going to fly and when Politifact checks the two candidates' statements they found that Tammy tells the truth and Thompson lies

Tammy's voting record is one of the most consistently pro-working family voting records in the country. Even among other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, her record stands out as exemplary. That's why the Koch brothers and Rove and working extra hard for Thompson; they really hate Tammy. Last week PolitiFact had a new story on the Congressional Progressive Caucus's People's latest Budget, which would eliminate the deficit in 10 years by investing in millions of jobs. The People's Budget offered a different path than the Ryan Congress, whose budget cut over 2.2 million jobs in just two years. It's the difference between the failed Austerity Agenda of Europe and a fresh American approach, pretty much identical to Jacob Hacker's Prosperity Economics. Politifact's conclusion: Thompson is either an out-of-touch fool or an out-and-out liar.
"In fact she is so liberal-- I don’t know if people out there really know this-- she joined the Progressive Caucus, which introduced a budget that spent trillions-- not billions, trillions-- more money than the Obama budget."

In the same vein, Thompson during the debate called Baldwin the House’s "number one spender" and alluded to her support of "increased spending" with the Progressive Caucus budget.

Let’s see if Thompson’s right about the trillions... The fiscal 2012 budget proposed by the Progressive Caucus was what Thompson was referring to when he made his trillions more comment about Baldwin, Thompson campaign spokeswoman Lisa Boothe told us.

That plan, unveiled in April 2011, was offered as an alternative to budgets proposed by President Barack Obama and by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

Baldwin did vote for the caucus budget, which was introduced as an amendment to Ryan’s budget. The amendment failed in the House, 347-77. The Progressive Caucus budget would have spent $44.5 trillion from 2012 to 2021, according to an analysis done for the caucus by the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute.

To see how that compared with Obama’s plan over 10 years, we contacted experts from two nonpartisan think tanks: Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government spending watchdog; and the Concord Coalition, which seeks balanced federal budgets.

They agreed that Obama’s fiscal 2012 spending plan called for $46 trillion in spending.

That’s $1.5 trillion more than the Progressive Caucus Budget.

So, Thompson was wrong when he said the Baldwin-backed caucus would spend "trillions more" than Obama’s budget.

Thompson has said, in prepared statements before and after his radio interview, that the Progressive Caucus budget would have raised trillions more in taxes than Obama’s budget. And our experts agreed the caucus budget would have collected $42 trillion in taxes over 10 years, some $5 trillion more than Obama’s.

But that wasn’t Thompson’s claim on the radio.

What’s more, raising taxes doesn’t automatically mean a corresponding increase in spending. Indeed, The Economist magazine, among others, pointed out the Progressive Caucus budget would have reduced federal deficits more than both the Obama and Ryan budgets -- primarily because of its higher taxes and cuts in defense spending.

Thompson claimed Baldwin supported the Progressive Caucus budget, which he said spent "trillions more" than a budget from Obama.

Baldwin did back the proposal, which would have raised taxes by trillions more than the president. But the caucus plan would have actually spent less money than the Obama plan.

We rate Thompson’s statement False.

 
Last week we saw the ninth poll confirming Thompson’s sagging fortunes even after Thompson and special interests supporting him have spent over $3 million just since the last Marquette poll. Wisconsin voters aren't buying it and Tammy is maintaining her lead. Thompson has blamed Romney for his fall in the polls despite an outpouring of Republican criticism of Thompson and his campaign, with many raising questions about Thompson’s lack of effort on the campaign trail.

Friday, the Wisconsin Gazette endorsed Tammy, "easily the best candidate for the U.S. Senate." 

Baldwin is unimpeachably one of the most genuine, intelligent and committed lawmakers serving in the U.S. Capitol today. Every day of her career as a public servant-- and that is quite literally how she views herself-- Baldwin has demonstrated her support for the middle class and for such traditional values as social justice, economic opportunity, access to education and health care, individual liberty and tolerance.

Early in her congressional career, Baldwin was one of the few members of Congress to oppose lifting the Glass-Steagall Act, which since the Great Depression had kept banks from engaging in the kinds of risky practices that led to the worldwide 2008 economic collapse. She stood up for Wisconsin homeowners by stopping the Justice Department from granting immunity to big banks guilty of mortgage fraud. Ultimately, the banks were forced to pay billions of dollars to victims of their unethical practices.

Blustery and boastful in temperament, Thompson is the polar opposite of the warm, soft-spoken Baldwin. In his heyday, Thompson was a moderate whose political success was built on compromise. He created BadgerCare, which helped low-income earners obtain affordable health care coverage.

But the Thompson of today is not the popular governor that older Wisconsinites remember. During the Republican primary, he positioned himself as a hardline conservative, promising tea party extremists that he would act as an obstructionist if elected. Since then, he has taken to labeling himself alternately a conservative or a moderate, depending on the audience. He is as disingenuous as Baldwin is authentic.

Thompson left Wisconsin in debt despite presiding over a period of great national economic expansion. He took the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in George W. Bush’s administration. After leaving that job, he capitalized shamelessly on the connections he’d made, shilling for pharmaceutical companies in which he had financial stakes. Among his gifts to the drug industry was changing federal law to make it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with them for lower costs. That put affordable, life-saving drugs out of reach for millions of middle- and lower-income seniors, but it helped to make Thompson $13 million richer.

Now 70 and somewhat worse for the wear after years of notorious hard living, he’s back in Wisconsin pretending to be a farmer. During the Sept. 28 debate, Thompson had the temerity to depict himself as loving and devoted family man and a Washington outsider, one of the more audacious distortions of reality heard this election cycle.

Tellingly, Thompson has refused to release even one year of his tax returns since 1997. But of even more concern is his inability to articulate why he’s running for office, other than to offer the obligatory political promises de jour of wanting to create jobs and lower taxes, without explaining how.

Like GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Thompson would sacrifice the nation’s future as a whole for the short-term financial benefits of a very few, themselves included. Beyond cutting taxes for the uber rich, a strategy that has failed to deliver the promised economic bonanza for more than 30 years, Thompson and Romney have not laid a single job-creating proposal on the table.

Baldwin, on the other hand, would help to reinvigorate the economy by investing in critical infrastructure and education needs.

Baldwin, who has released all of her tax returns, has not enriched herself through public employment as Thompson has. Instead, she has enriched the lives of those she has served by faithfully representing their interests, by standing up to the greedy and the powerful and opposing GOP policies that have pushed the American dream farther and farther from the grasp of average individuals.

Baldwin would be a stellar choice for the U.S. Senate regardless of her opponent, but this race is not even close. Thompson just isn’t in the same league. He’s running to run, while she’s running to make a difference.

Blue America has only endorsed two challengers (plus one incumbent) in this year's Senate match-ups-- and one of them in Tammy. If you can, we urge you to consider a contribution to her grassroots campaign today. President Obama is way ahead in Wisconsin and Tammy has a solid lead as well. We're hoping between the two of them, the coattails will be strong enough to help Rob Zerban defeat Paul Ryan in the first congressional district. We've managed to raise $15,000 for Tammy so far and we'd like to double that by election day. It's a good investment.



Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Most Americans Have Come To Abhor The Republican Party

>



It may not work in the old slave-holding states but Elizabeth Warren and many other Democrats in the rest of America are finding that nationalizing the election is a powerful way of connecting to voters. And it goes beyond the fact that the Republican Party-- their policy agenda and their treasonous obstructionism-- is viewed negatively by a majority of Americans. That's right, according to a brand new Washington Post/ABC News poll only 39% of Americans see the GOP favorably and 53% now have a negative view. When Elizabeth Warren points out to Massachusetts voters that by re-electing Scott Brown, they'd be enabling more obstructionism from  odious and politically toxic Confederate characters like Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint, she's making a salient point. She sent this out to her supporters yesterday:


We need a strong Democratic majority in the United States Senate to keep moving our country forward-- and that's why we need to do everything we can to elect Elizabeth Warren on November 6th.

We all know how Democrats spent the past four years trying to work with the Republicans on health care reform, on debt reduction, and on creating new jobs.

But the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a remarkable moment of candor that his number one priority wasn't putting people back to work-- it was putting Democrats out of work.

No matter your personal opinion of Scott Brown, that's the political party that he wants to set the agenda in the United States Senate. It's controlled by right-wing Republicans and Tea Party radicals who will fight tooth and nail to go back to the same failed policies that got us in trouble in the first place.


And the Tea Party is in a state of even worse disrepute than the GOP. Less than a third of Americans see the Tea Party as a positive force-- which explains, at least in part, why the DCCC is focusing primarily on defeating Tea Party freshmen (while leaving senior GOP leadership without any organized opposition).

Another survey released yesterday by Hart Research Associates for the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and People for the American Way, shows an even greater degree of sophistication among voters. They fear the kinds of judges Romney would appoint to the Supreme Court  and the judiciary in general, know that the judges would further tilt the courts in favor of Big Business and away from working families and are willing to vote against Romney and against Republicans for that specifically. The poll found that 63% of all voters, and more than half of independent voters and presidential “swing” voters, say the issue of who will serve on the Supreme Court is an important consideration in their vote this year. According to the survey, what most concerns voters-- a full 54%-- is their worry that Romney will nominate justices who will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans.
In contrast, voters believe that Obama is more likely to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” And they believe President Obama is much more likely to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” The voters surveyed were also concerned about Romney’s opposition to Supreme Court decisions favoring women’s rights, including Roe v. Wade, Indeed, 59 percent of all voters, and 62 percent of swing voters, say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.

“If the next president fills even one vacancy on the Supreme Court, he could change the court, and America, for decades,” said Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign. “This poll makes clear that the American people don’t want the president to further shift the court toward corporate special interests for a generation or more.”

“Americans are convinced that a Romney Court would make it harder for women and minorities to lead their day-to-day lives,” said Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “As the Court considers affirmative action and same-sex marriage, its role as the last arbiter of equality for millions of disadvantaged Americans is clear. And Romney will have to quell these fears if he ever hopes to gain the trust of these communities.”

“We pick a president for four years, but he picks Supreme Court justices for a lifetime,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “This polling shows that Americans are concerned about how this election will affect the future of the Supreme Court, and know that a Mitt Romney presidency would skew the Court ever further to the Right.”

Sixty percent of all voters, and 63 percent of swing voters said they had less confidence Romney would appoint the right kinds of justices to the Supreme Court when told that Romney favored the Citizens United decision, which led to opening the floodgates to massive corporate campaign contributions. Voters are influenced as well by a number of recent 5-4 decisions siding with corporations over people, including Wal-Mart over its female employees, AT&T over its customers, and the case decided against Lily Ledbetter that led to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
This is likely to be the deciding factor is races pitting many Democrats-- particularly in Senate races-- against Republicans like Tommy Thompson (WI), Scott Brown (MA), Linda Lingle (HI), Josh Mandel (OH), Dean Heller (NV), Linda McMahon (CT), Heather Wilson (NM), Connie Mack (FL), George Allen (VA) and Denny Rehberg (MT). Even right-wing extremists in red states like Richard Mourdock (IN), Rick Berg (ND), Jeff Flake (AZ) and Todd Akin (MO) may suffer an erosion of support from voters concerned about corporations running our lives. On the other hand, there's probably nothing that will help putative Democrat Bob Kerrey beat wingnut Deb Fischer in Nebraska but, for some voters, that may be because they know he's likely to be a dependable supporter for the worst excesses of the Senate Republicans.



UPDATE: In Last Night's Debate Romney Took 38 Minutes To Perpetrate 27 Myths

Think Progress' analysis of the idiotic debate was best. Short version: Romney was totally unhinged from any kind of objective reality and untethered from his own campaign positions. The Village was delighted and have hailed him the "winner." I have to admit that I found the debate so boring and useless that I went for a hike in the Los Feliz Hills after 20 minutes of it. So I had to depend on ThinkProgress for an enumeration of the 27 biggest lies that Romney perpetrated... not that anyone cares.
1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax corde that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My-- my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies-- those contained directly in his budget-- would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not-- not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half-- half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

8) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt-- almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.

11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.

12) “I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found.

13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

15) “Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose-- and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.

16) “And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or-- or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with-- with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill-- Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach-- which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.

17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

18) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.

19) “And, unfortunately, when-- when-- when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable.

20) “[I]t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.

21) “Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.

22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.

23) “It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.

24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

25) “In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”

26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”

27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger.


Labels: , ,