18 Things that the Health Care Bill Does Right Now

Click here to read an excellent article on Huffington Post about 18 things that the health care reform bill does right now.

GOP Proves It Can Win Elections in States of the Old Confederacy

So the GOP has won a run-off election in Georgia and has apparently won two congressional elections in Louisana, which were delayed because of Hurricane Gustav. The GOP Chair claimed that the election in Georgia, in which an incumbent Republican Senator managed to hold on to his seat in a state that Obama lost somehow shows that the United States is still a "center-right" nation.

The GOP Chair has his job to do and that is to make his party look good. Part of that job is to spin the facts and to try and get the national news media to accept that spin. So it is undertandable that he would try and put the best spin on the Georgia election.

There is, however, another way of looking at these elections, and that is the GOP has now proved that it can still win elections in the Old Confederacy. Frankly, we didn't think that was ever in doubt, but judgind from the fuss that the GOP is making over Saxby Chambliss holding onto his Senate seat, it must have been.

Far be it from us to point out that if the GOP is in the position that it can only win elections in the deep South, then it is totally screwed. No, we would never do that, would we?

Call it "The Iraq Recession"

Think Progress has an entry up on its blog that points out that economists were predicting that if the Iraq War caused the price of oil to go up, or caused a shortfall in production, the United States was at risk for a recession. Of course, as can be seen from the increase of the price of oil since 2002, both events have happened.

Although the Bush Administration wants to deny the connection, there is no reason why Democrats should let them. There is a suggestion in the comments to the Think Progress blog entry that Democrats and progressives should refer to any recession as the "The Iraq Recession."

This is a great idea because in one phrase it ties together two issues, Iraq and the economy, that are concerning voters. They are, of course, the two issues that will ensure a Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential race.

One thing that Republicans have been better at than Democrats is "branding". Their skill in this is seen both in the positive sense of using branding to explain their policies and in the negative sense of using branding to attack their opponents. This Republican superiority in branding is related to their better use of emotion in political advertising, according to Dr. Drew Westin, author of The Political Brain.

It is past time to return the favor and the target-rich environment of the diaster that has been the Bush Administration gives Democrats a lot of opportunities.

Do You Evangelize for the Democratic Party?

At church on Saturday evening, one of our ministers talked about the origins of the word "evangelical." Although most often used in the media to refer to a person who believes in a certain view of Christianity, it derives from the verb "evangelize." According to www.translationdirectory.com, the word "evangelize" means to "To explain ones beliefs to another in the hope that they might wish to adopt them. The word is sometimes used as a synonym for "Proselytize" - to actively attempt to convert another person to your beliefs.".

That got me thinking, are most Democrats evangelizing for the Democratic Party? Are we explaining our beliefs in such a way that others would want to adopt them? Or are too often assuming that most people have already decided what they believe politically and there is nothing we can do to change their minds?

One of the strengths of evangelical Christians is that they are sure of what they believe. This allows them to self-confidentally explain their beliefs to others. Too often, by contrast, Democrats, especially those of us who live in "red" counties don't exhibit that same kind of self-confidence.

Which is too bad, because we have a lot to be self-confident about in terms of political philosophy. We don't believe in dividing people along racial, religious, economic, sexual orientation, or gender lines. We don't believe that some Americans are more worthy than other Americans. We do believe that government has the obligation to conduct itself in such a way as to allow all Americans the opportunity to improve their lives. We don't favor a government that only concerns itself with the rich and only tries to advance the agenda of corporations.

We should be evangelizing on behalf of the Democratic Party be telling our relatives, friends, neighbors, and/or co-workers about what we believe and why we believe it. I am not suggesting that we be obnoxious about our evangelizing, but that we should have the self-confidence to tell people why we are Democrats.

Republicans Unite Against Hillary

Instead of defining themselves by explaining to Republican voters why they should be elected, the Republican candidates have decided that they will attack Hillary Clinton. While this may be a great tactic to unite the approximately 30% of the public that calls themselves Republicans, it is a stupid tactic in the long run. It isn't enough to be against something, you have to be for something in order to be elected.

The problem that the Republican candidaes have is that most of the public doesn't want what they stand for, a radical, right-wing agenda that calls for endless war in the Middle East, more dependence on oil instead of renewable energy, reckless tax cuts that add to the national debt, and allowing health insurance companies to control the nation's healthcare.

Ultimately the election for president will boil down to one Democrat versus one Republican. When that happens things will be a lot different. It won't be enough to just appeal to the base of either party. If the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, the attacks of her will be relentless. They may or may not work, but this is one thing we do know, Hillary Clinton will fight back.

Into My Own Asks This Question: What is John Boehner Doing About Rural Poor?

The blog "Into My Own" has a very interesting entry up about rural poverty and the lack of Republican response to such poverty. The entry is based on a report about rural poverty that the Dayton Daily News published. The DDN article used a town in Ohio that suffered a tragic fire. It examined what is happening to that town, Greenville, in terms of job loss, family breakup, and crime. The author of the entry believes that Boehner is doing nothing because people who live in such towns don't give campaign contributions.

That may be one reason, but here is another possibility. The problem of rural poverty doesn't lend itself to market solutions which, since the 1980s, have been the preferred solutions to any social or economic problem. A declining work force, inadequate funding base for schools, and a migration out of such places by young people, means that such areas are not attractive places for private investment. Since they aren't attractive for private investment, it is difficult to attract new businesses to such areas or help the ones that are already there.

It doesn't have to be that way. Here are some ideas: (1) put Ohio's school funding on a equal basis so that quality of education is not so dependent on where a person lives; (2) invest in school buildings and other public infrastructure; (3) put up a system of cheap broadband communication so that all areas of Ohio are accessible to the Internet; and (4) put more money into law enforcement in these areas so that the crime rate is driven down. Come to think of it, those solutions would work well for urban areas too.

Such solutions, however, are dependent on having an activist government. Such a government is not compatible with the philosophy of the Republican Party and its elected officials.

Historical Indicators Point Down for GOP

The Associated Press ran a story on Sunday, September 30, 2007, about how historical indicators for political parties are pointing down for the GOP for 2008. This quote is from the story:

"The Democrats will continue to be the majority party in the House and Senate and Hillary Clinton will make history by being the first woman president" in 2008, predicts Rep. Ray LaHood, one of three Illinois Republicans to announce his retirement so far.

Political coalitions don't last forever in American politics. The FDR coalition of Southern whites, labor union members, intellectuals, northern Afro-Americans, and Roman Catholics lasted to about 1968. Starting then both southern whites began to leave that coalition because of the passage of Civil Rights Acts, notably the Act of 1964. After Roe v. Wade, Roman Catholics began to leave the coalition and a lot of labor union members became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s.

Before it broke up, though, it had a hell of a run. It produced Democratic presidential victories in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960 and 1964. It also produced a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress from 1932-1946, and in the House of Representatives from 1954-1994.

The Republican Party, starting in 1968, began to put together a coalition that consisted of Southern whites, Northern working class whites, small town whites, and Roman Catholics and evangelicals upset with both abortion and social issues, and members of the business community. This coalition produced presidential victories in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, (if you accept that the Florida vote was legitimate), and 2004. It also produced a Congressional majority in both Houses from 1994-2006.

This coalition, however, may be breaking apart because of the internal tension between business supporters and working class whites over social spending, and between business supporters and evangelicals over what stress should be placed on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and controlling sexual activity.

It will be interesting to see which political party puts together a new coalition first. Rove thought he could do it by adding Hispanics to the GOP's coalition, but immigration issues are hurting the GOP with Hispanics. Democrats have an opportunity in 2008 and beyond, but this matter is still very much in flux.

Democrats Need to Link Children's Health Insurance and No Child Left Behind

E.J. Dionne has a column about the debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Program that was posted on the Washington Post's website on Wednesday, September 26, 2007. In the column he mentions, in passing, that the No Child Left Behind Act is coming up for renewal at the end of September and that Bush needs Democratic votes to get it passed. Here is a question: Why don't Democrats tell Bush that if he doesn't sign the insurance bill, he isn't going to get a vote on the No Child Left Behind Act?

Time and time again we see Bush being able to hold up Democratic legislation because the Republicans won't allow matters to come to a vote in the Senate. The Democratic response to this tactic is to figuratively throw up their hands and say that there is nothing they can do about it. Well, that's not exactly true. There is legislation that Republicans want passed and that Bush wants passed. No Child Left Behind is an obvious example.

If Reid and Pelosi called a press conference and announced that Bush isn't going to get an extension of No Child Left Behind unless he signs the Health Insurance bill, the media coverage would be extensive. The Democrats would be seen as playing offense, not defense.

Politics is compromise. Democrats don't point that out enough and so Bush gets to have it both ways: he gets to block Democratic legislation and then gets Democratic support for his pet project. Well, life doesn't work that way. If you want something from me, then you have to be willing to give me something in return. It is way past time for Democrats to remind Bush of that fact.

L.A. Times Article On How Bush Wants to Leave Iraq to His Successor

The L.A. Times posted an article on its website dated September 11, 2007 on how Bush plans to leave a large military presence in Iraq to his successor. This will ensure that any consequences of an American withdrawal will be on his successor's watch, not his. The author points out that in 2003 Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said it would take 10 years to stabilize Iraq and, according to a State Department source, that's what it is going to take.

Politically this approach also offers some political cover to Republicans. The thinking is that they will be able to argue next year that the war is winding down and troops are coming home, even though it will be less than 20% of the number of troops are scheduled to come home next year. (That 20%, by the way, apparently is 20% of the number there now, after the so-called "surge" as compared to 20% of the number that were there prior to the "surge.")

This policy is, of course, completely in keeping with Bush's character. He has always left messes for others to clean up. His whole life has been about avoid taking responsibility for his own mistakes. What is irritating about this situation is not just Bush's refusal to take responsibility, but also why Democrats don't point this out to voters. Prominent Democrats, like our presidential candidates, should point this out. They should point out that of course Bush is going to leave it to others to clean up his Iraq mess, because that's what he does and who he is.

Democrats Work

If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read a article on Huffington Post by Jason Carter, the grandson of Jimmy Carter. He is promoting a concept called Democrats Work. This is an organization dedicated to using Democrats as volunteers for community service projects. This is an excellent idea because it shows how Democrats could be seen as doing more than just asking people for their votes. It would put Democrats in touch with community service organizations and would lead to alliances with local activists who are working in local communities. If you know of such an organization in Ohio, please leave the name and other contact information in the comments section of this entry.

Washington Post Article on how Terrorism Laws are Splitting the Democrats

On August 30, 2007, the Washington Post ran an article on how outrage over Congress's inability to stop Bush's abuses of power is splitting the Democratic Party from it's more liberal members. The article starts out by focusing on an ad that the ACLU is running which depicts Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as sheep. It goes on to explore the anger that the ad represents in more detail.

Not suprisingly, the split is between those Democrats who have to run in more conservative states and districts and activist groups who don't have such restrictions. This is always the problem with a party built around coalitions. The coalitions can be split. The Southern Democrat/Northeast Democratic split started in FDR's time and continues to this day. The question is whether the Democratic party activists will continue to work for the defeat of Republicans or whether at least some of them will take a "pox on both your houses" approach.

Good PD Article on Senator Sherrod Brown & How He Won Ohio

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has an article in the Sunday, August 12, 2007 edition about Ohio United States Senator Sherrod Brown. The article points out that Sherrod's populist campaign in 2006 was successful in winning Ohio and defeating a third term incumbent United States Senator. Here is a quote from Sherrod on winning Ohio: "I think that you can stand up for the middle class and stand up for workers and low-income people and win," he says.

As the article by Stephen Koff of the PD's Washington Bureau points out, Sherrod, and not the Republicans, has been proved right over the last several months since he was elected. He was right to be opposed to the Iraq War; right to be worried about healthcare in America; and right to be worried about trade with China. Sherrod Brown far more than Mike DeWine had his finger on Ohio's pulse.

Of course the Republicans quoted in the article disagree with Brown's analysis of why he beat their guy. They prefer to blame it on the ethical lapses of Taft and the other Columbus Republicans. They don't want to face the reality that America has seen how conservatives govern when they have total control and are rejecting it. Americans don't want to destroy government, they want to make it work. Conservative Republicans only want the government to work for them, not for the rest of us. That's why DeWine lost and that's why Democrats can carry Ohio in 2008.

Republians, not Democrats, Responsible for Passing Bush's Security Plan

This is very interesting. The media, notably the Washington Post and Huffington Post, on their websites portrayed the Democrats as responsible for passing the "Protect America Act". The problem with this portrayal is that it is misleading and totally lets the Republicans off the hook.

In the House 41 Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass the Protect America Act. That is only 17% of the Democratic Congressional delegation. In the Senate 16 Senators joined with the Republicans. There the percentage is greater, 33%, but again less than 50% of the Democratic Senators. In both Houses the majority of the votes necessary to pass this legislation came from the Republicans. It was because Republicans voted nearly in unison that this legislation passed, especially in the House of Representatives.

Now it is true that if the Democrats had voted entirely against the Act in both Houses it wouldn't have passed. How realistic, though, is it to assume that all 285 Democratic members of both Houses were going to vote as a block on this legislation? Given the diversity of the United States, and the diversity of opinions inside the Democratic caucuses of both Houses, not very likely.

As much Democratic activists may want it, the Democratic Party is not nearly as homogeneous as the Republican Party. Sometimes this works for us, as in it is easier for Democrats to attract new people and groups to the party, and sometimes it works against us, as in the recent vote over the Protect America Act.

Why are Democrats being portrayed as responsible for passing this legislation when, in both Houses, a substantial majority of Democrats voted against this act? The reasons probably vary but one reason may be, at least as far as editorial staffs like the Post are concerned, with weakening the Democratic opposition to Bush by dividing activist Democrats from their elected Democratic officials.

None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't be upset with the passage of this bill. It is very risky to give this particular administration any more power to spy on Americans, especially without getting the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales in return. Putting Gonzales partly in charge of deciding whether surveillance should be undertaken is much, much worse than putting the proverbial fox in charge of the proverbial hen house. Foxes only eat chickens when they have a reason, but Gonzales seems to want to spy on Americans even when he has no reason.

What I am saying, though, is that spreading the idea that Democrats and only Democrats are responsible for the passage of this legislation is playing into the hands of those who support Bush and his war, especially media supporters like the Washington Post.

Working Class Males, Democrats, & Illegal Immigration

MCDAC recently received a response to a fundraising letter it had sent out to Medina County Democrats who have either contributed to prior political campaigns, signed up to receive literature from Democrats, or who are otherwise engaged in the political process. The response said that both he and his wife no longer considered themselves Democrats and wished to be removed from the Democratic Party mailing list. The reason given was that Democrats are for amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Now, the person sending this letter is no right-wing crank. He has supported MCDAC in the past, he has been an elected public official, and is active in his community. The point of this entry is not to deplore the policies of the national Democratic Party, but rather to point out how the perception of such policies can affect Democrats in local campaigns.

MCDAC has not really done much on the illegal immigration issue, one way or the other. To the extent that this blog has posted on illegal immigration, it has been to advise Democrats not to try and end the filibuster over the recent immigration bill. Yet, this local Democrat has the perception that the Democratic Party is the party of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Where is that perception coming from? Probably from news organizations like Fox, maybe from news reports, or from conversations with others, who knows? The point, though, isn't that the perception is particularly valid, the point is that it is out there and Republicans will use it in 2008 to villify Democrats and the Democratic candidate for President.

Such efforts, by the way, won't be limited just to Democrats running for President. Voters paint with a broad brush. They don't make fine distinctions between national Democrats and local Democrats, as shown by the response described above to the recent MCDAC mailing.

Democrats need to figure out now how they are going to respond to this attack, because it is coming. Thinking about it next October will be too late.

WaPo Article on Politics Turning Left Overlooks Key Point

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an interesting article from the July 26, 2007 edition of the Washington Post raising the issue of whether the electorate is turning "left." The article is interesting, but misses a key point. In pointing out how the word "liberal" has been demonized by the Republican right, the fails to distinguish between social liberalism and economic liberalism.

On issues involving civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, abortion, and crime, the right has been very successful in dividing Democrats along gender, racial, and sexual orientation lines. On issues that are economic, such as raising the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, and the environment, the right has not been nearly as successful in getting the public to adopt its positions or in dividing Democrats.

What's happening now is that economic issues are beginning to become more and more important because of the uncertainity in the economy, globalization, the collapse of America's health care system, and global warming. All of those issues raise anxiety among voters and they are looking for a government that can provide them some security. The right's total dependence on markets to cure everything isn't going to cut it in that kind of environment.

Will Iraq War Hurt Democrats More Than Republicans?

Most Democratic activists believe that the Iraq War assures that the next President of the United States will be a Democrat. While it would seem that Democrats have an advantage because of the Iraq War, success is not guaranteed. The Iraq War could actually cause more trouble for Democrats than for Republicans.

On the Republican side there doesn't seem to be any intraparty turmoil over Bush's war. The Republican base seems to support Bush on the war. The Republican candidates are pretty much in support of Bush for starting the war, although some break with him on how the war has been managed. On the Democratic side, however, it is a different story.

In the June 21, 2007 edition of the Washington Post we have this article by Senator Carl Levin, a sponsor of the recent war funding bill that was vetoed. On the face of it, this article seems to be a reasoned defense of why Democratic Senators don't want to vote for cutting off funding for the war. Sen. Levin's approach, however, leads to this response on Daily Kos. As you can see, by reading the entry on Daily Kos the writer rejects any argument that Democratic Senators who voted to fund the war without the timelines following Bush's veto did the correct thing. If you read the comments to the posting, it is almost impossible to find anyone who agrees with Senator Levin's article.

The problem is, of course, what to do about the fact that Bush has a veto power over Democratic passed legislation. Right now there does not exist enough Republican votes to pass a funding bill with timelines over his veto. The alternatives then seem either to be pass the funding bill without timelines or don't pass a funding bill at all. Of course, that means that Democratic Senators will be subject to the repeated claim by Republicans that they are "abandoning" American troops. Given the complicity of the media in Bush's war, this claim is very likely to be picked up by the media without any thought or consideration of whether it is correct.

Furthermore, such a funding cut-off of American troops while they are fighting has not, to our knowledge, been done before. Congress cut off funding for aid to South Vietnam in 1974, but that was after American troops had withdrawn from Vietnam. It also came after 12 years of American involvement in Vietnam. (Click here to read a short history of how Congress ended American involvement in South Vietnam.) Cutting off funding to South Vietnam is a far cry from cutting off funding for American military operations while American troops are engaged in combat.

Yet, such distinctions don't seem to matter to many Democratic activists. It is easy to see a situation where the activist base of the Democratic Party, angered at what many activists regard as complicity in Bush's War and by the nomination of a presidential candidate like Hillary Clinton who voted to authorize the war, walk away from the Democratic Party in 2008. This could easily lead to a situation where the Republican candidate has more support from his party than the Democratic nominee does from his or her party. It was just such a situation that helped elect Nixon in 1968 and Reagan in 1980. Who says that political history can't repeat itself?

Republicans Are Trying To Flee From Bush, We Shouldn't Let Them

This article from Huffington Post about the Republican Presidential debate in New Hampshire shows how Republicans running for president are trying to run from Bush. The reason why is pretty obvious given his low poll numbers, a war that seemingly has no end, and an immigration debate that is dividing the Republican Party's social conservative and business wings.

For Democrats this is fun to watch, but we shouldn't be blind to what they are trying to do. These same candidates were singing Bush's praises just a couple of years ago and bitterly attacking his Democratic opponents. Somewhere there must be a lot of clips of these candidates supporting Bush and his war. Democrats should make a concerted effort to locate these video clips and get them aired on sites like You Tube. Don't let them run away from Bush. Make sure they have to live with their former support.

Supporting the Troops: Bush Administration Opposes House of Representatives Planned 3.5% Raise for Military Personnel

The Army Times reports that the Bush Administration is opposing a 3.5% pay raise that the House Democratic Leadership wants to give to American military personnel. Apparently the Bush Administration thinks that a 3% raise is sufficient. The reason why the House wants to give a bigger raise is to close the existing 3.9% gap between civilian jobs and military service. The House raise would close the gap to about 1.4%.

So let's see: if you are a Democrat and you want to get American troops out of the middle of a civil war you are not supporting the troops, but if you are the Bush Administration and want to limit a pay raise for American troops, you are supporting the troops. Does that make sense to you?

Of course, this is all consistent with the Bush Administration's philosophy that people who earn their money are less worthy than those who get their money from investments. This is shown by the fact that the Bush's tax cuts dramatically reduced the tax rates on investment income, especially when compared to earned income. This administration simply doesn't value people who work for a living, even when they serve in the military.

American Research Group Poll has Bush as 33%

If you click the link in this entry's title, you can read about the latest poll from the American Research Group on Bubble-Boy's job approval ratings. As the headline indicates, the news isn't too good for BB and his henchmen. Here are a few choice excerpts from the article:

Among all Americans, 33% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 62% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 63% disapprove. In March, 32% of Americans approved of the way Bush was handling his job and 63% disapproved and 32% approved of the way Bush was handling the economy and 64% disapproved......

Among Republicans (31% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 72% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 24% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 10% approve and 87% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (32% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 24% approve and 73% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.....(emphasis added)

As you can see from the part of the second quote that we highlighted, we believe that the rate of dissatisfaction with Bush among independents is key to Democrats' hopes in 2008. If these numbers continue up until next fall, the Republicans won't be able to use Bush as a campaign tool in most states. They will also be forced to choose between aligning their views with his, which will be a problem for them with independents or distancing themselves from Bush, which will be a problem for them with the base of the Republican Party, 72% of whom approve of his job performance.

Washington Post Editorial Board: Out of Economic Touch with Working Americans

The Washington Post ran an editorial on 4.4.2007 criticizing Democrats in Congress for opposing free trade deals. The editorial contained this concluding sentence: If the Democrats do not wish to be known for standing against the prosperity brought by globalization, they should pocket the concessions the administration has offered and make some compromises of their own. The question isn't whether globalization has brought prosperity, but how and for whom has it brought prosperity?

In 2003 the Economic Policy Institute did a study on how many jobs had been lost since the adoption of NAFTA. The EPI concluded that NAFTA had displaced production that had the net effect of costing 879,280 American jobs. The study put it this way: Between 1993 and 2002, NAFTA resulted in an increase in exports that created 794,194 jobs, but it displaced production that would have supported 1,673,454 jobs (see figure). Thus, the combined effect of changes in imports and exports as a result of NAFTA was a loss of 879,280 U.S. jobs.

What was true in 2003 is still true today: the rewards from globalization aren't spread throughout the economy equally. There are winners and losers in globalization. Whether you support trade agreements depends on how you see yourself and others like you faring under globalization.

Here's another fact from EPI released this week: Newly released data on income inequality reveal that all of the gains in 2005, the most recent year for data of this type, went to households in the top 10%. Moreover, those even higher up the income scale—say, the top 1% and above—saw the largest gains of all.

Our guess is that the economic elites who support globalization are people who live in the top 10% and most likely the top 1% of American households. People like the owners of the Washington Post. That's why those people support globalization. The Democratic Party, however, represents a lot of people who don't fall into the top 10% of American households. That's why a lot of Democrats oppose globalization.