The Next Hurrah

Yin And Yang

by DemFromCT

He may be a lame duck, but he still rules the roost.

President Bush dismissed yesterday suggestions that his influence is waning less than six months into his second term, blaming partisanship and timidity in Congress for the lack of action on his plans to bring change to the United Nations, restructure Social Security and enact a new energy policy this year.

"I don't worry about anything here in Washington, D.C.," Bush said during a news conference in the White House's Rose Garden. "I feel comfortable in my role as the president, and my role . . . is to push for reform." With Democrats and Republicans alike questioning the clout of a president whose approval ratings have sunk to new lows, Bush said it is Congress that must prove it is "capable of getting anything done."

While stem cells and the other contentious issues to come, including CAFTA, Bolton and Social Security will continue to eat away at Bush's mojo, Democrats are a ways away from reestablishing themselves as the majority party. Brownstein writes about the difficulty of getting blue senators in red states (if the election were held today, which it's not).

Whatever happens in those races, the Democrats' ability to win Republican-held Senate seats next year in red states such as Montana, Tennessee and Missouri — and to defend their seats in red states such as Nebraska, Florida and North Dakota — may reveal more about their long-term prospects of regaining a Senate majority.

Democratic pollster Geoff Garin noted that in the last two elections, Democrats have come close to taking the White House, even though they've lost more states than they've won. That's because the high-population states they did win — such as New York and California — have large numbers of electoral college votes. But, regardless of population, each state has two Senate seats, so Democrats must compete on a broader map to realistically contend for a Senate majority.

"You can cobble together a viable electoral college strategy with a minority of states, but you simply can't cobble together a Senate majority that way," Garin said.

At the same time, TAPPED covers a Third Way poll purporting to show Dems need more votes from white middle class voters:

AFA boycotts Ford over GLBT issues. Contact info!

American Family Association  is boycott-giddy. Fresh off an attack on Kraft Foods, they are going after Ford Motor Company. Some of the not-so-stunning claims:

"If one looks for the company which has done the most to affirm and promote the homosexual lifestyle, he would be hard-pressed to find a company which has done more than Ford Motor Company," AFA Chair Donald E. Wildmon notes on the website.

"While this is hardly known to the general population, it is well known by numerous homosexual organizations. In fact, the Human Rights Campaign (a national homosexual organization whose goal is homosexual marriage) gave Ford a 100% corporate rating."

AFA also denounces the company for supporting GLAAD, saying "Ford believes the effort to legalize homosexual marriage by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is so important that the company is giving GLAAD up to $1,000 for every Jaguar or Land Rover (both Ford products) purchased this year."

I don't think I have to tell you that while these boycotts may seem silly to US, they can have an effect, whether in the short or longterm, particularly if pro-gay and moderate citizens do not speak out against this rhetoric. Don't just assume that Ford will continue to support these policies. Please make your feelings known. If you want to visit AFA's  handy boycott site   , which tells you each model of car and asks you to call up the dealers in your area, then be my guest. I'm sure Jesus won't object if you use their own site's contact information for "sinful" purposes. But if you don't want to go there, then here is Ford's contact information:

In United States:

Phone:
800-392-3673
800-232-5952 (TDD for the Hearing Impaired)

Mail:
Ford Motor Company
Customer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126

Hours of Operation:
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)

In Canada:

Phone:
800-565-3673

Mail:
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
Customer Relationship Centre
P.O. Box 2000
Oakville, Ontario, L6J5E4

Hours of Operation:
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)
9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET. (Saturday)

Feds Screwing Up HAVA Implementation (& Other Voting News)

By DHinMI

It's nice that the Help America Vote Act became law so the federal government could pressure local election administrators to employ best practices and use effective equipment.  Too bad the feds can't get around to doing their share:

States and counties waiting for additional guidelines from the federal government will be hard-pressed to get new voting systems deployed before next year’s deadline for compliance with the Help America Vote Act, according to the Information Technology Association of America.

Even under a best-case scenario it will be difficult for states and counties to meet the HAVA deadlines for purchase and implementation of accessible voting systems, said Michael Kerr, director of Arlington, Va.-based ITAA’s Election Technology Council in testimony before the Election Assistance Commission.

“Recognizing that it often takes three to six months for counties to select a system and complete contracts — and many more months for shipping, acceptance and customizations — waiting for the 2005 [guidelines] will effectively preclude counties and states from completing their transition to new voting technology under the deadlines established by HAVA,” he said...

The Election Assistance Commission should advise election officials that waiting for the guidelines to be implemented may jeopardize HAVA deadline compliance, Kerr said.

He suggested that instead of waiting, the commission should assure jurisdictions that equipment properly certified to existing standards can produce secure, accurate and reliable elections, thus meeting HAVA’s functional requirements.

Finally, the systems certified to meet the 2002 HAVA standards should be grandfathered under the new 2005 guidelines.

The problems aren't only at the national level, either.  In New York, the state Board of Elections is running out of time to comply with the new regulations in time for the 2006 election because the legislature still hasn't passed the necessary legislation.  Among other problems, it means that in 2006 NYC could still be using its 7,639 40 year-old lever-operated voting machines. 

The voting news isn't all bad, however.  As discussed last week, on Friday the election supervisor in Miami-Dade county recommended to the county commission that they scrap touchscreen voting and return to paper ballots tabulated by optical scanners.  According to the Miami Herald, the commission seems likely to act on the recommendation.

Score one for efficient and and reliable voting. 

The Threat to Labor's Political Operations

By DHinMI

The NYT's Steven Greenhouse, one of the few journalists at a mainstream publication with excellent knowledge and contacts in organized labor, has a decent piece in today's paper about the troubles facing AFL-CIO president John Sweeney.  Last Friday the United Auto Workers publicly pledged to support Sweeney's reelection bid, which will be contested at the AFL-CIO's convention in July.  With the UAW's support, Sweeney is probably assured of reelection.  But his reelection may lead five unions that represent more than 20% of the AFL-CIO's membership to withdraw from the national labor federation. 

Greenhouse lays out the basics of the dispute with the dissident unions, who formed the New Unity Partnership, and which is led primarily by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president Andy Stern and Teamsters president James Hoffa.  (Trapper John had an excellent primer on the AFL-CIO and the underlying dispute back in March.)  Greenhouse mentions the recent massive layoffs at the National AFL-CIO, in which Sweeney, partly to appease the New Unity Partnership, sacked about 100 of the 460 employees at the AFL-CIO in Washington.  According to the article, if the NUP unions withdraw from the AFL-CIO, the resulting loss in revenue will force the AFL-CIO to fire another 100 staffers of the Washington DC operation. 

What Greenhouse didn't mention was that the effects of a pullout by any or all of the five NUP unions wouldn't be limited to just the national federation.  If the NUP unions withdraw from the national AFL-CIO, they will also be pulling out of every state and local AFL-CIO federation in the country, with significant loss of revenue to most of those bodies.  The effects wouldn't be uniform, as SEIU and UNITE-HERE--another of the NUP unions--aren't evenly distributed around the country.  SEIU has a huge share of the membership in NY and CA, and because they represent almost all the casino workers in Las Vegas, UNITE-HERE has over half of all AFL-CIO union members in NV.  The departure of SEIU from the state federations in NY and CA would be severe, and the departure of UNITE-HERE from the Nevada state and local federations would be catastrophic.  And because the Teamsters, Laborers and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)--the other AFL-CIO affiliated unions in the NUP--have members spread across the country, their departure would ensure some negative impact on just about every AFL-CIO body in America. 

Some people, looking at the fading share of union-represented workers in the American workforce, might conclude that anything that "shakes up" organized labor would probably be good.  The reality is much more complicated.  But one thing is certain; if the NUP unions pull out of the AFL-CIO, the significant coordinated resources that AFL-CIO bodies use on behalf of labor-endorsed candidates and campaigns, especially issues campaigns, will be uncoordinated and more likely used on opposite sides of contested primaries.  If the NUP unions leave the AFL-CIO, the effects are likely to reverberate beyond union politics into Democratic politics and campaigns. 

Wedge Issue For 2006: Minimum Wage Initiatives

By DHinMI

We know we've already got stem cells to use against the Republicans in 2006.  Now, how about pummelling them with the minium wage?

More states are raising their minimum wages, pushing hourly rates above $7 in some and shrinking the role of the federal minimum wage, which hasn't gone up in eight years.

Eleven states have raised their rates since January 2004, and Wisconsin will become the 12th on Wednesday. Employers there must pay at least $5.70 an hour through June 2006, when the minimum wage rises again to $6.50 an hour.

In all, 17 states and the District of Columbia — covering 45% of the U.S. population — have set minimums above the federal rate of $5.15. That has helped cut the number of workers earning the minimum or less (for those earning tips) from 4.8 million in 1997 to 2 million last year, or 2.7% of hourly earners, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says.

About half of minimum-wage earners work at restaurants. Millions more have wages that are influenced by the minimum. Its buying power is at its lowest point since 1949.

Congress last changed the federal minimum wage in 1997. The latest proposal to raise it died in the Senate in March.

“The federal government is not living up to its responsibility, so the states are acting,” says New Jersey state Sen. Steve Sweeney, a Democrat who sponsored a law that will raise the state's minimum...

A Word About Impeachment

by Kagro X

Just a word about impeachment, and not the ones you've already heard, as in "the Downing Street memo builds a real case for impeachment," or even, "impeachment is a pipe dream as long as there's a Republican Congress."

I think impeachment is a pipe dream even with a Democratic Congress. Worse, I'm sure the Bush people know this. Worse still, I think they knew this even before Bush ran for president the first time.

Democrats' Goal Shouldn't Be "To Fill Hotel Rooms in Des Moines"

By DHinMI

Democrats have many tasks ahead if we hope to win the Presidency in 2008.  Most will require lots of resources or are largely in the hands of the candidates themselves.  But one political task that the Democratic National Committee could complete would be to revamp the primary schedule.  I've argued in the past that Democrats have had problems in part because of an early primary schedule heavily weighted toward heavily Republican states and states that are overwhelmingly white.  In past election cycles states rushed willy-nilly into que in an attempt to influence the choice of candidate (and to attract the national press corps to empty hotel rooms in the slow travel months of January and February), but the schedule that resulted was not a good one for choosing a candidate who could win a national election while also appealing to the Democratic base, especially African-Americans, union members and urban and suburban progressives.  Recent moves by states like Alabama would only exacerbate the problem.  It's unlikely Iowa and New Hampshire will lose their first in the nation status for 2008, which is OK as long as the rest of the schedule makes more sense.  Thus, it's encouraging to see David Yespin, the dean of Iowa political writers, urge Iowa Democrats to support schedule changes that will help Democrats pick the best candidate to win the Presidency:

The national Democratic Party should tinker with its 2008 presidential nominating process. Iowa Democrats shouldn't get too parochial about it.

The goal of the party's nominating campaign isn't to fill hotel rooms in Des Moines. It isn't to give a relatively minor boost to the economies of small states, or increase civic participation or debate issues.

It's to elect a Democrat to the White House.

Period. If the party is doing anything that doesn't contribute to that goal, then it should quit doing it.

After The Holiday: Press Reaction

by DemFromCT

Let's turn to a look at Bush's base to see where we're going over the next few weeks. Ron Brownstein has a must-read analysis of the growing split in the GOP:

It's difficult to overstate how tough it is for Democrats to accept a nominee with such militant views. And yet it is the right, far more than the left, threatening the peacemakers.

What gives? One explanation may be that the deal challenges the dominant political strategy among Republicans, while upholding both of the approaches contending for dominance among Democrats.

Especially since Bush's reelection, Democrats have been divided on electoral strategy. One camp believes the key to revival is courting centrist swing voters (a la Bill Clinton's "third way"). The second says the party must emulate Bush and focus on mobilizing its base by stressing unity.

In different ways, the judicial deal is at least tolerable to both camps. Third-way types applaud it for promoting bipartisan compromise. The party-unity group likes it because it kept Senate Democrats unified against the filibuster ban.

By contrast, the deal threatens the ruling political paradigm among Republicans. Since 2001, energizing the conservative base, even at the price of straining relations with more centrist voters, has been the core of Bush's legislative and political strategy.

...

But last week's deal reflected a fear among some of its GOP participants that the White House had pushed that polarizing approach to the point of dangerously alienating moderate voters. Bush's approval rating has tumbled below 50% and runs lower among independents and moderates. The numbers for Congress have been sinking like Nasdaq after the Internet stock bubble burst. In a CBS poll last week, Congress' approval rating among independents fell to an anemic 26%.

...

Conservatives are guaranteed the dominant voice in the GOP for the foreseeable future. But after last week, they no longer appear to be the only voice. No wonder so many of them are howling.

Who's doing the howling? Novak, Krauthammer, it's tough to find a conservative that's happy. So let's try some of Bush's base papers to see what's up with them.

Mixed Feelings on Memorial Day

By Meteor Blades

My stepfather's brother died at Midway during World War II.
My best high school friend was killed in the early days of the Vietnam War.

These men are honored at today's Memorial Day ceremonies along with hundreds of thousands of their compatriots, and rightly so.

My very distant cousin, Osceola, died in prison after having been perfidiously captured under a flag of truce during negotiations. My great-great-great-great-great uncle was killed by U.S. soldiers during the Second Seminole War. Other distant relatives were killed by the hundreds during the Third Seminole War.

Whether they killed warriors and women on the banks of Washita River in Kansas or the banks of the Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn) in Montana, at Sand Creek in Colorado or at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, whether they were fighting Chiricahua in Arizona, Nez Perce in Idaho or Modocs in California, the men in blue who were killed in the Indian Wars are among those honored today.

But those they killed - the ancestors of us original Americans - have no national memorials commemorating the futile but unhesitating sacrifice they made for the freedom of their people.

Attempts have been made to correct this "oversight." In 2002, the 1909 memorial on the Denver Capitol grounds that honored the 22 soldiers killed while they massacred the southern Arapaho and Cheyenne at Sand Creek got a new plaque to replace the one calling that slaughter a Civil War victory for the Union. Fourteen years ago, the Custer Battlefield National Monument was renamed Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. Both teensy steps in the right direction. But not enough.

Today, when the nation's war dead are remembered, when we are supposed to put aside political and ethnic divisions for a few moments of introspection, most of our politicians still can't take a break from the lies - past and current lies - for which too many of men and women in the ground killed and died. Today, we will hear lots about liberty, freedom and sacrifice associated with American wars, but nothing, I will wager, about the plunder, rapine and machinations associated with some of those wars, including the Indian Wars.

So pardon me if today my tears are tempered with rage.

Footnotes on the Nuclear Option -- Part X

by Kagro X

Several problems in the filibuster post-deal wrap-up keep cropping up, one considerably more serious than the others:

1. Near misses on analysis that peg the most glaring "gap" in the agreement as the lack of a definitive answer on whether or not the nuclear option is "off the table;"

2. Complete whiffs on complaints that the failure of the cloture vote on Bolton violates the terms of the agreement on judicial nominations, and;

3. Continuing confusion about whom the deal commits, and to what they are committed.