Mark Penn Says Obama Needs Another Moment Like Oklahoma City Bombing To Reconnect With The Country
Mark Penn Says Obama Needs Another Moment Like Oklahoma City Bombing To Reconnect With The Country
This evening, MSNBC host Chris Matthews hosted Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Mark Penn — former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser and current Burson-Marsteller CEO — to discuss the results of this week’s elections. The three talked about what they believed the Democrats need to do differently in order to win elections in the future.
Penn suggested that President Bill Clinton was provided an opportunity with the Oklahoma City bombing to “reconnect” with voters. In a clumsy, ham-handed way, Penn then suggested that perhaps Obama needs his own similar event — like the domestic terror attack in OK City — to reconnect with Americans:
PENN: President Clinton reconnected with Oklahoma. And the President right now he seems removed. And it wasn’t until that speech that he really clicked with the American people. Obama needs a similar kind of, yeah.
Watch it:
- Comments
- View Comments
Senator Tom Udall Wants To End Filibuster Abuse: ‘Now Is The Time For Rules Reform’
Earlier this year, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) delivered an address about conservative obstruction at the Center for American Progress Action Fund titled “Deliberation, Obstruction or Dysfunction? Evaluating the Modern U.S. Senate and its Contribution to American Governance.” At the event, Udall discussed what he called the “Constitutional Option,” which he described as the Senate having the ability to alter its rules with a simple majority vote at the beginning of each Congress. Indeed, with record use of the filibuster in the current Senate, an overhaul of the procedure is needed to prevent further obstruction.
A week and a half ago, Udall conducted an interview with Tikkun Daily’s Lauren Reichelt in which he reiterated his support for changing the rules of Senate procedure. He explained once again that all it takes is for 51 senators to vote for a change in the rules for the Senate to change the filibuster right at the start of the session. He concluded, “Now is the time for rules reform“:
UDALL: The first thing for people to really understand about the Constitutional Option is that people are frustrated with the rules of the Senate and I don’t blame them. The reason they’re frustrated is because when we campaigned and when President Obama campaigned, we were gonna do all these great things, make these great changes, move the nation forward, and that’s not happening as quickly as we would want it to happen. So that’s a critical issue — that we’re not getting the change that people want. And so what the Constitutional Option is about is doing rules reform in the Senate at the beginning of a Congress and the crucial thing is that at the beginning of Congress you can set rules with 51 Senators. You can end the debate and you can adopt new rules. Now is the time for rules reform.
Watch it:
In part two of the interview, Udall used health care as an example of why the filibuster should be changed. He explained that if “we were able to refine the rules and reform the rules, I think we would be getting closer to a public option than the bill we passed.” He concluded that “the real issue here is the Senate should be producing on the change the American people want. And the Senate’s broken now, and so I’m trying to lead out on reform.”
This past summer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told an audience at the Netroots Nation conference that “we’re going to have to change” the filibuster in order to end obstruction. And during a recent appearance on The Daily Show, President Obama also hinted that he’d support overhauling the filibuster, telling host Jon Stewart that he would “love” to not have a 60 vote requirement for ending debate and proceeding to a vote on bills. Their sentiments are in line with 50 percent of Americans, who said in a February 2010 CBS/New York Times poll that the filibuster should be changed (44 percent were opposed). Udall has laid out a path for doing exactly that, and it is up to his fellow legislators to choose to use it.
Karl Rove: ‘Climate Is Gone’
Karl Rove: ‘Climate Is Gone’
Republican strategist Karl Rove, who helped organize the outside groups that spent millions to install Republicans in the midterm elections, spent election day celebrating with Pennsylvania’s growing drilling industry. Like other corporate sectors, the fossil industry is hoping that Republicans will be able to roll back regulations that limit their profit-seeking at the expense of people’s health and safety. Rove told the attendees of a shale-gas conference in Philadelphia that the incoming Republican House of Representatives “sure as heck” won’t pass legislation to limit greenhouse pollution from fossil fuels:
“Climate is gone,” said Rove, the keynote speaker on the opening day of a two-day shale-gas conference sponsored by Hart Energy Publishing L.L.P. And Rove told the trade show, “I don’t think you need to worry” the new Congress will consider proposed legislation to put the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing under federal rather than state regulation. The procedure, known as “fracking,” is responsible for the dramatic growth of shale-gas drilling in formations such as Pennsylvania’s vast Marcellus Shale.
Rove’s pronouncement that the “climate is gone” may be more accurate than he realizes. The Geological Society of London is warning that the planet will take 100,000 years to recover from man’s global warming pollution, the permanently warmer Arctic is altering weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere, and scientists continue to warn that global policy ambitions — if the United States even acted — are likely too weak to avoid catastrophe.
Pawlenty Inadvertently Explains How House Republicans Are ‘Lying To You’ About Spending Cuts
Pawlenty Inadvertently Explains How House Republicans Are ‘Lying To You’ About Spending Cuts
As ThinkProgress has repeatedly noted, despite their professed commitment to cut government spending, most Republicans in Congress refuse to propose specifics that would actually cut spending in any significant way. Recognizing the extreme unpopularity of cutting Social Security and Medicare, and the aversion of their base to military cuts, these self-styled fiscal conservatives often take entitlement and defense spending off the table, removing nearly 60 percent of the federal budget from scrutiny. Of the remaining spending, another sizable portion goes to debt payments — which are untouchable — and most Republicans also take homeland security and other security spending off the table, leaving only a small fraction of the total federal budget from which to find cuts.
Despite this stark reality, Republicans still try to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, and are forced to fumble, hem and haw when pressed on how they would actually cut spending. But at least one Republican leader is willing to be honest. Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) essentially called his party’s congressional leaders liars, saying anybody says they want to cut spending but won’t touch entitlements or defesne is “lying to you”:
HOST: What are you going to cut?
PAWLENTY: If you look at a pie chart of federal outlays, discretionary spending being the red, non-discretionary being the blue. The blue is already over the over the half way mark and it’s growing in double digits. Anybody who comes in here and tells you they’re not going to cut anything other than waste fraud and abuse, they’re not going to touch entitlements — they’re lying to you. If you want to deal with the spending issue, in terms of total federal outlays, you got to deal with interest on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — if you have the time I can walk you through my ideas. But that’s the truth, you got to do entitlement reform, particularly if you’re going to hold defense harmless.
Watch it:
Pawlenty called out this “lying” because he openly favors cuts to entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. This is an unpopular position, so Republican congressional leaders often attempt to claim that no one in their ranks wants to cut these programs. However, this is patently false; ThinkProgress has identified 104 Republicans in Congress who support privatizing Social Security. Progressives have alternatively proposed defense spending cuts, eliminating corporate welfare elimination, and responsible revenue increases.
If these congressional Republicans are serious about cutting spending and want to make cuts to Social Securiy or Medicare, they should have the courage to say so honestly, as Pawlenty seems to be calling on them to do, instead of hiding behind phony claims that they can make meaningful cuts without causing significant pain.
Gingrich Imagines The World Is Elated With GOP Midterm Election Victories
In Nov. 2008, President Obama’s election “unleashed a renewed love for the United States after years of dwindling goodwill” — generating overwhelmingly positive responses from around the globe. UK Conservative Party Leader David Cameron, now the country’s Prime Minister, said at the time that Obama’s election “shows that the United States is a beacon of hope and opportunity and change.”
Last night on Fox News, Newt Gingrich tried to advance the illusion that the world has reacted similarly to the GOP’s strong showing in Tuesday’s midterms:
GINGRICH: I mean, imagine if you were in China as a dictatorship and you watched the American people cheerfully firing people, and you thought to yourself, Wow, that’s a pretty cool idea. Or imagine you were an Iranian student thinking, you know, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to fire Ahmadinejad, the way Americans go about their politics? So I think it actually strengthens us.
The other is, I think this was a real signal to the world not to assume that the United States is a weak, timid country, not to assume that we’re going to tolerate bad economic policies and not to assume that we’re a country you’re going to be able to push around or run over because I think the American people are exhibiting a robust willingness to change the entire game. And that’s a pretty good historic reminder to other countries that we are a remarkably powerful, and if necessary, remarkably dangerous country when people try to behave in a predatory way towards us.
Watch it:
However, this reception Gingrich speaks of only exists in his mind. In fact, the world is worried that the U.S. will actually be tolerating bad economic policies such as wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, as the New York Times reports today:
“The rest of the world, including Asia, is looking at the United States and seeing no real effective policy measures in bringing the economy back on track,” said Bart van Ark, the chief economist at the Conference Board, which measures American economic indicators. “That is making the U.S. lose its legitimacy in the global economic community as a leader in terms of providing solutions.” [...]
“Republican claims to fiscal probity are a little difficult to buy into,” said Simon Tilford, the chief economist at the Center for European Reform in London. “What they’re advocating would probably increase the deficit rather than effect the dramatic reduction which they claim they want to bring about.”
Benedict Brogan, deputy editor of the right of center Daily Telegraph in London said “you will find folk in Downing Street who fear mainstream Republicans are on the wrong economic path.”
As the AP reported, “China’s interest in the elections was high,” but not because the Chinese want to be like the U.S., as Gingrich said, but because of worries “about the election’s fallout on the U.S.-China relationship, which has been marked by tensions over trade and currency.”
And Iranians probably don’t heed American election results as an impetus to remove Ahmadinejad from office — as last year’s disputed election protests in Iran clearly demonstrated. A Tehran University professor of North American studies said that Iranians view the U.S. midterms and are actually more concerned about “easing tensions” between Iran and the U.S., something the new GOP House majority will be fighting against.
McConnell’s Efforts To Repeal Health Law Undermine GOP ‘Top Priority’ To Reduce Deficit And Spending
McConnell’s Efforts To Repeal Health Law Undermine GOP ‘Top Priority’ To Reduce Deficit And Spending
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) brushed aside President Obama’s offer to work in a bipartisan manner to tweak or modify parts of the Affordable Care Act this morning, doubling down on the party’s commitment to repeal the law in its entirety.
During an address at the Heritage Foundation, McConnell laid out what could be described as a three-pronged approach for rescinding the law: (1) Senate Republicans will “propose and vote on straight repeal, repeatedly,” (2) Republicans will hold votes “against its most egregious provisions,” (3) and House Republicans will work “on denying funds for implementation.” He admitted that “straight repeal” was unlikely, given Democratic control of the Senate and the White House, but promised to use oversight to continue his political grandstanding. “We may not be able to bring a repeal within the next two years and we may not win every vote against targeted provisions,” McConnell said, “but we can compel administration officials to defend this indefensible health spending bill and other costly government measures like the stimulus and financial reform.”
Ironically, McConnell’s plan to repeal the health law — in part or in whole — would have the effect of increasing the deficit and government spending, undermining what he described as the voters’ top priorities:
QUESTION: What do you think right now is the top priority for people out there? What do you think the people who voted this wave of conservatives want done first?
MCCONNELL: I think people are interested in spending, debt, and private sector job creation. They have taken a look at the affect of borrowing money from foreigners that will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren and what kind of an impact that had on job creation. They don’t see much evidence of it…. So spending, debt, job creation in the private sector are the things I think Americans are significantly upset about and I think was at the root of the electoral success that my party had last Tuesday.
Watch a compilation:
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), repealing the entire health care bill would add $140 billion deficit and it would also reverse the course of health care spending. The Wonk Room explains why the GOP’s so-called replacement proposals won’t be enough to plug the deficit hole.
Seattle Chamber Of Commerce Wants Everyone To Know It Is ‘Separate And Distinct’ From U.S. Chamber
Seattle Chamber Of Commerce Wants Everyone To Know It Is ‘Separate And Distinct’ From U.S. Chamber
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was actively involved in Washington state elections this year. Spending nearly $150,000 to help defeat Rep. Denny Heck (D), the Chamber was the second-highest contributor to the race outside the national party groups. It also spent several hundred thousand more dollars to defeat Sen. Patty Murray (D), though it appears Murray will win re-election.
Responding to the U.S. Chamber’s right-wing political activities, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce issued a statement yesterday making it clear that it does not want to be associated with the national Chamber:
It has come to our attention that the large number of political ads being run in our area by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has caused some confusion regarding the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
The Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber are separate and distinct organizations.
The Greater Seattle Chamber is an independent, membership-driven association solely governed by our local board of trustees. Under their direction, we focus on issues at the local, regional and state levels.
Your Greater Seattle Chamber has a long history of non-partisanship. There is no connection between the political ads being run by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (or any other out-of-state entity for that matter) and your local Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
This isn’t the first time the U.S. Chamber has drawn the ire of local Chambers in that state. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer notes, in 2004, the U.S. Chamber began blindly running boilerplate ads accusing Democrat Don Barbieri, who was running for a seat in the House of Representatives, of being “anti-business.” The problem was that Barbieri was the long-time CEO of West Coast Hotels, and was the immediate past president of the Greater Spokane Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber’s aggressive, hyper-partisan campaign to defeat Democrats in this year’s elections has also run afoul of local Chambers elsewhere in the country, as ThinkProgress has noted. The Chamber of Commerce in Charlottesville, VA refused to endorse ads being run against Rep. Tom Perriello (D), who lost his race on Tuesday. The Greater Mystic Chamber of Commerce in Connecticut is currently in discussions about whether to break from the U.S. Chamber over disagreements about the national Chamber’s involvement in politics, while the Greater Hudson Chamber of Commerce in New Hampshire left the U.S. Chamber last month. “As far as I’m concerned, I could not find one positive thing to say about being involved in the U.S. Chamber,” said the Greater Hudson’s executive vice president.
Meet The Corporate Chairmen: Incoming Committee Chairs Have Deep Ties To Lobbyists And Big Business
Meet The Corporate Chairmen: Incoming Committee Chairs Have Deep Ties To Lobbyists And Big Business
One of the results of Tuesday’s Republican takeover of the House of Representatives is the future installation of new chairmen in the chamber’s various committees. While none of the upcoming chairmanships are set in stone — members have to run and be elected to chair committees — it is generally true that ranking members of these committees are the ones most likely to take over.
Today, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity (CPI) released a report titled “The Chairmen: New House Leaders Have Familiar Ties to Business, Revolving Door,” which takes a close look at the likely incoming chairmen of the various House committees. The CPI report finds that most of the likely incoming chairs “have deep ties to the business community or the industries they will soon oversee.” Here are some of the highlights of these possible chairmen with “deep ties” to lobbyists and big business:
– Likely House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chairman Rep. Bill Young (FL): Young’s top Political Action Committee (PAC) donations over the past two election cycles read like a list of the nation’s top defense contractors. He has received $32,500 from Raytheon, $25,000 from General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, and $20,000 from Boeing and Honeywell International. Additionally, at least five of his staffers have gone on to work as lobbyists. Last year, he requested earmarks for “earmarks for companies that hired three of his former staffers as lobbyists. The same companies, along with senior executive staff, contributed about $145,000 to Young’s campaign that same year.”
– Likely Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard McKeon (CA): McKeon, whose committe would also deal with defense-related issues, is also a major recipient of defense industry PAC money. In the past two election cycles, he has received $40,000 from General Atomics, $34,000 from Lockheed Martin, and $32,500 from Northrop Grumman. He is a co-founder of Congress’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Caucus, which backs the construction of military vehicles that Northrop Grumman manufactures within his district. His former legislative assistant Hanz Heinrichs has “lobbied on behalf of Alcoa, Boeing, and Ashbury International Group.”
– Likely Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Spencer Bachus (AL): Bachus’s top PAC contributors are Bank of America and Wells Fargo, which have given him $45,000 and $35,000 respectively over the past four years. He has in the recent past made a specific request of financial lobbyists to give more to Republican candidates, saying Democrats “hammered” the financial industry with their financial regulatory reform legislation.
– Likely Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (FL): Mica, the likely incoming chairman of the committee dealing with the country’s transportation infrastructure, has been a magnet over the past four years of PAC donations related to the industries the committee regulates. That includes $40,000 from BNSF Railway Company, $33,000 from Union Pacific Corporation, and $25,000 from CSX Corporation.
– Likely Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Doc Hastings (WA): Hastings is in line to run the committee that “oversees federal land use and public water resources.” A number of industry PACs that would be overseen by the committee have contributed generously to the congressman. In the last two election cycles, Weyerhaeuser Company, a timber firm, has contributed $20,000. Bechtel Group, which is a major construction company and has interests in water systems, has contributed $17,000. American Crystal Sugar Company, an agricultural cooperative, has given the same amount. Martin Doern, Hastings’s former Legislative Director, is now a lobbyist for Portland General Electric.
– Likely Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Barton (TX): Barton’s most famous act of corporate fealty is apologizing to oil giant BP for government effots to hold it accountable following the company’s oil spill in the Gulf Coast. Barton has received $37,500 from the PAC of oil giant Koch Industries since 2007. At least half a dozen of his former staffers have gone into lobbying work. In 2008, he secured “$2 million earmark for Carbon-Carbon Advanced Technologies, a company located inside his district. He secured the firm another $3.2 million in 2010.”
CPI notes that eight “of the 14 candidates for the committee chairs got the majority of their campaign funds since 2007 from special interest PACs.” It also goes on to note, interestingly, that “the top contenders are all men. Nearly all are white,” and when it comes to social demographics, “the likely Republican chairs don’t look much different than the Democratic counterparts they are replacing.”
Congressman-Elect Tim Walberg Calls For Government Shutdown If Obama Doesn’t Follow His Mandate
Congressman-Elect Tim Walberg Calls For Government Shutdown If Obama Doesn’t Follow His Mandate
Tim Walberg (R-MI), a proud birther who has threatened to impeach President Obama, won his election over Rep. Mark Shauer (D-MI) earlier this week. Shortly after his victory speech, Walberg spoke with the Jackson Citizen Patriot to outline his agenda. “(Voters) are repudiating what is going on by politicians in general, and more specifically, this administration,” he said. If President Obama does not follow the Republican “mandate,” Walberg made clear that he will force a government shut down:
He said Republicans can work together to get things done with the Obama administration, but that will be up to the president. If Obama, like then-President Bill Clinton did after the 1994 midterms, responds to the mandate from voters and understands he can’t disregard it, then he thinks Obama will do well. “If he doesn’t, he will shut government down,” Walberg said.
While Walberg’s threat is extreme, he is not the only Republican politician proposing a government shutdown. Newt Gingrich, architect of the government shutdown in the ’90s, has pledged that the new Republican Congress will close the government as a political tactic to force through their right-wing policies. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) told a Republican audience recently that a government shut down — including a closure of the Veterans Administration — would be one of the goals of the new GOP caucus. As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and other leading Republicans have made clear, they will force a “show down” with Obama by holding general government funding bills hostage until health reform is repealed. (HT: Michigan Messenger)
Eying GOP Leadership Role, Bachmann Plans To Start ‘Constitutional Conservative Caucus’
Eying GOP Leadership Role, Bachmann Plans To Start ‘Constitutional Conservative Caucus’
While Republican leaders probably thought they had finally finished battling tea party insurgents for control of the party, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — the far-right, conspiracy theorizing, tea party darling — indicated yesterday that she will run for the chairmanship of the House Republican Conference, the number three position in the House GOP. The race would pit Bachmann against the establishment pick, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who has already been endorsed by the number two Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).
This summer, Bachmann hinted at a bid to overthrow the supposedly-moderate GOP leadership and replace them with true “constitutional conservatives.” Apparently acting on that plan, Bachmann announced this week that she wants to start a “Constitutional Conservative Caucus” to “stop any bill from passing” that she deems unconstitutional, such as “a stimulus or a government takeover of health care.” Bachmann touted the plan yesterday on the radio show of Fox News host Glenn Beck, who naturally loved it and told his listeners to “beg” their new members of Congress to join the caucus. Listen here:
This is actually the second grouping of far-right lawmakers Bachmann has assembled in the last few months. In July, Bachmann formed an official Tea Party Caucus to promote “fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government.” While the two caucuses appear to espouse identical philosophies, Bachmann attempted to explain the difference between the two to Beck, saying, “this is a little bit broader of a caucus.” She added that the new group’s “purpose” is to bring in freshmen Republican lawmakers, “because quite quickly, within a mater of two months, these people can be co-opted into the Washington system.” It’s unclear why the Tea Party Caucus couldn’t serve that same role, but she added that the new caucus would attempt to bring in legal experts, including conservative Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to teach classes every week.
Ironically, while the Tea Party Caucus attracted an immense amount of media attention, “many tea party activists see it as yet another effort by the GOP to hijack their movement” for personal and political gain. Even some of Bachmann’s tea party-aligned colleagues condemned the idea, with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) telling Poltico, “I’m 100 percent pro-tea party, but this is not the right thing to do.” The caucus doesn’t appear to have accomplished much in the months since it formed. Meanwhile, Chaffetz, who was considering a run for Conference chariman himself, has dropped out and has thrown his support behind Hensarling.
In a scathing editorial published last month, Bachmann’s hometown St. Cloud Times slammed the congresswoman for making her constituents “essentially her last priority,” and instead “mix[ing] equal parts of fear and blame that raise your personal profile yet yield only sound bites, not solutions.” Indeed, this second Bachmann-led right-wing caucus, conspicuously timed with her bid for the GOP leadership, appears to be little more than another attempt at self-promotion.
ThinkFast: November 4, 2010
ThinkFast: November 4, 2010
After securing historic state level victories on Nov. 2, Republicans will have control of about 190 congressional districts and “will dominate the redrawing of congressional districts that begins next year.” Because of this “commanding advantage in the redistricting process,” 15 to 25 seats in the House are more likely to remain or switch to Republican.
Bloomberg reports that Republican-leaning outside groups — like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and the Chamber — spent $167 million on the U.S. midterm elections and came out on the winning side of almost twice as many races as they lost. The New York Times notes that these outside groups helped offset cash advantages held by Democratic incumbents.
In his post-election news conference yesterday, President Obama outlined his commitment to some issues and a willingness to compromise on others. He said he is “absolutely” ready to negotiate with the GOP on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but also signaled he will push ahead on reducing greenhouse gases even if Congress refuses to act.
Voters in Iowa chose not to retain three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision to legalize same-sex marriage in the state last year. “I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign to oust the justices.
In a post-defeat email to supporters yesterday, Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) said that “real change does not happen with one election night victory or end with one loss. We shouldn’t have expected nirvana after our win in 2008 and we shouldn’t expect armageddon now.” Outlining the 111th Congress successes, he said he was proud to stand “with the problem solvers over the political game players any day.”
In his new memoir, former President Bush “makes clear that he personally approved” the use of waterboarding against 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission “human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.” When asked by the CIA if they could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed, Bush writes that his reply was “Damn right.”
“Under pressure from American and British officials, YouTube on Wednesday removed from its site some of the hundreds of videos featuring calls to jihad by Anwar al-Awlaki,” an American-born cleric under fire for inspiring violence against the West. Just last week, British government officials and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) lodged formal protests with YouTube.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged the Senate to move quickly on a lame-duck vote to ratify the START treaty, an arms control deal with Russia. Speaking in the capital of New Zealand early today, Clinton said the votes for passage existed and it was her “preference” that a vote take place this year.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) “pledged on Wednesday to investigate both Barack Obama and George W. Bush with his newfound subpoena power,” focusing on the two administration’s policies with respect to the mortgage market. “I’m hoping to bridge the multiple administrations in as many places as possible,” he said. “The enemy is the bureaucracy, not necessarily the current occupant of the White House.”
The Federal Reserve “moved Wednesday to jolt the economy into recovery with a bold but risky plan to pump $600 billion into the banking system.” The Fed plans to buy government bonds to increase demand for them and push long-term interest rates down. “Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth,” Fed chairman Ben Bernanke said.
And finally: Among the fallout from Tuesday’s elections, voters in Pittsfield, MA rejected a ballot measure that would have pushed for women to be allowed to “walk around town topless.” The nonbinding question would have urged that area’s state representative to “introduce legislation amending the state’s nudity definition,” but the measure failed by a large majority.
ThinkProgress is hiring! Details here.
Conservatives In Their Own Words: ‘The Republican Party Is Not The Beneficiary Of A Mandate’
Conservatives In Their Own Words: ‘The Republican Party Is Not The Beneficiary Of A Mandate’
In his post-election press conference this afternoon, President Barack Obama strongly rejected the idea that Republicans received a mandate to enforce their policies, despite their electoral gains, saying that “no person, no party has a monopoly on wisdom. … No one party will be able to dictate where we go from here. We must find common ground in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges.”
The idea that Republicans did not receive a mandate isn’t just held by the president — it was a theme echoed throughout the night by Republican politicians and conservative pundits:
– Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL): “We make a grave mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party.”
– Fox News pundit Brit Hume: “The Republican Party is not the beneficiary of some mandate this time around.”
– Former chief economic policy adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “This isn’t a pro-Republican vote. This is a repudiation of what we’ve seen the past two years, it’s not an endorsement of Republican agendas.”
– RNC head Michael Steele: “There’s still the people who say, ‘well we’re not sure. We’re not sure about Republican leadership, we’re not sure about the direction.’”
– Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI): “This is not necessarily ‘we love Republicans.’ This is, ‘change course, the country’s on the wrong track.’”
Watch a compilation:
Unfortunately, some Republican leaders have signaled they are on an uncompromising mission to enforce what they believe to be their mandate. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said bluntly before the election that “there will be no compromise.” Presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has said that “to the extent that [Obama] wants to work with us in terms of where we’re going, I would certainly welcome it.” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) believes “the word ‘compromise’ has been misunderstood” and that his job will be “getting America back to the center right where it exists.”
If one were to look to public opinion, it’s also clear that no mandate for Republican policy prescriptions exists, as today’s Progress Report notes. The vast majority of voters — 64 percent — continue to blame either Wall Street (35 percent) or George W. Bush (29 percent) for the troubled economy. Fully 78 percent of all voters support comprehensive immigration reform, with a path to legal status by far the most popular. And voters from Connecticut to California and Michigan to Florida are more likely to support candidates who support an energy bill that cuts climate change pollution, polling shows. Voters clearly voiced frustration with the government yesterday — but they did not endorse a Republican policy mandate.
Money Well Spent: 64 Percent of Races Chamber Helped Won; At Least 21 Incumbent Democrats Defeated
Money Well Spent: 64 Percent of Races Chamber Helped Won; At Least 21 Incumbent Democrats Defeated
Our guest blogger is Tony Carrk, policy director of Progressive Media at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
For months, Think Progress has been chronicling the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce’s $75 million campaign to put its interests over working- and middle-class families. It uses its substantial war chest to protect companies that outsource, oppose health reform, oppose Wall Street reform, and oppose clean energy. The Chamber will not disclose who is financing this campaign, fearing a public backlash. But we know the results: The 112th Congress will have more members to protect its pro-outsourcing, anti-middle class agenda.
So far, the Chamber’s spending contributed to the defeat of 21 incumbent Democrats. In all, the Chamber spent $32.1 million on ads or independent expenditures in 62 races. Five of those races are too close to call as of this afternoon. Of the remaining 59, the Chamber’s candidate won 38 of them — or 64 percent. The cost of those 38 wins: nearly $17.3 million.
Here is a list of races the Chamber won:
| Race | Total | Chamber Position | Chamber Win/Lose? |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York’s 24th district | $25,712 | Oppose Arcuri (D)* | Win |
| Ohio’s 18th district | $45,415 | Oppose Space (D)* | Win |
| Georgia’s 12th district | $78,558 | Support Barrow (D)* | Win |
| Wisconsin’s 8th district | $89,418 | Oppose Kagen (D)* | Win |
| Florida’s 25th district | $99,310 | Oppose Garcia (D) | Win |
| Illinois’s 14th district | $99,952 | Oppose Foster (D)* | Win |
| Illinois’s 10th District | $100,000 | Oppose Seals (D) | Win |
| Oklahoma’s 2nd district | $134,390 | Supporting Boren (D)* | Win |
| Pennsylvania’s 7th district | $146,680 | Oppose Lentz (D) | Win |
| New Hampshire’s 1st district | $148,640 | Oppose Shea-Porter (D)* | Win |
| New Hampshire’s 2nd district | $149,380 | Oppose Kuster (D) | Win |
| Washington’s 3rd district | $149,540 | Oppose Dennis Heck (D)* | Win |
| Pennsylvania’s 8th district | $170,000 | Oppose P. Murphy (D) | Win |
| Kansas’s 3rd district | $172,864 | Oppose Moore (D) | Win |
| Utah’s 2nd district | $180,308 | Support J. Matheson (D)* | Win |
| New York’s 19th district | $192,206 | Oppose Hall (D)* | Win |
| Arkansas’s 4th district | $223,148 | Support Ross (D)* | Win |
| New Mexico’s 2nd district | $436,953 | Oppose Teague (D)* | Win |
| Pennsylvania’s 3rd district | $248,500 | Oppose Dahlkemper (D)* | Win |
| Colorado’s 4th district | $250,000 | Oppose B. Markey (D)* | Win |
| Indiana Senate | $250,000 | Oppose Ellsworth (D)** | Win |
| Florida’s 8th district | $250,000 | Oppose Grayson (D)* | Win |
| Florida’s 24th district | $250,000 | Oppose Kosmas (D)* | Win |
| Ohio’s 15th district | $261,735 | Oppose Kilroy (D)* | Win |
| Wisconsin’s 7th district | $266,593 | Oppose Lassa (D) | Win |
| North Dakota’s 1st district | $273,525 | Oppose Pomeroy (D)* | Win |
| Illinois’s 11th district | $300,000 | Oppose Halvorson (D)* | Win |
| Pennsylvania’s 10th district | $398,365 | Oppose Carney (D)* | Win |
| Ohio’s 16th district | $354,120 | Oppose Boccieri (D)* | Win |
| Virginia’s 5th district | $442,765 | Oppose Perriello (D)* | Win |
| Nevada’s 3rd district | $549,850 | Oppose Titus (D)* | Win |
| Wisconsin Senate | $748,300 | Oppose Feingold (D)* | Win |
| Missouri Senate | $1,110,461 | Oppose Carnahan (D) | Win |
| Kentucky Senate | $1,254,010 | Oppose Conway (D) | Win |
| Illinois Senate | $1,682,856 | Oppose Giannoulis (D) | Win |
| Pennsylvania Senate | $1,488,880 | Oppose Sestak (D)** | Win |
| Florida Senate | $2,000,000 | Oppose Crist (I) | Win |
| New Hampshire Senate | $2,324,730 | Oppose Hodes (D)** | Win |
| Total | $17,347,164 |
** – Running for Senate
On the flip side, the Chamber spent $11.4 million on races it lost. However, that figure is deceptive since nearly $5 million of that amount went to unsuccessfully defeat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
Sharia Hysteria Comes To Oklahoma: Voters Approve Sharia Law Ban
Sharia Hysteria Comes To Oklahoma: Voters Approve Sharia Law Ban
Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to ban the non-existent threat of Sharia law yesterday. Nearly 70 percent of voters there approved ballot initiative “Question 755″ — or the “Save Our State” constitutional amendment — which bans Sharia from being considered in Oklahoma courts. The ballot states that Oklahoma courts must “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and forbids them from “considering or using international law” and “from considering or using Sharia Law.”
The measure’s sponsor, Republican state senator Rex Duncan, called the result a “preemptive strike” against local judges whom he thinks might be “legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law.” “The fact that Sharia law was even considered anywhere in the United States is enough for me,” said GOP state senator Anthony Sykes. “It should scare anyone that any judge in America would consider using that as precedent.” Sykes is referring to a case in New Jersey in which a local judge ruled against a woman seeking a retraining order against her husband because he had repeatedly raped her. The judge said the husband was abiding by Muslim beliefs, but the decision was later overturned by an appellate court.
One local Muslim leader called the measure a “scare tactic” while another, Saleem Quraishi, called the measure “fear mongering“:
“It’s just fear mongering; it’s nothing,” Quraishi told CNN. “What’s Sharia law have to do with Oklahoma?” [...]
Quraishi insists that Islam does not allow for men to mistreat women, and that the New Jersey case involved a “crazy, loony man, unfortunately a Muslim.” “That is not Islam,” he said. “Oklahoma, you know, is a very Republican state,” Quraishi said. He accused some lawmakers with attempting to instill fear in the heads of constituents in order to drum up votes. “But Oklahomans are not like that. I know most of the Oklahomans. They’re very nice people.”
The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes that Sharia hysteria “has moved from the right-wing fringe into the mainstream conservative discourse, courtesy of people like Newt Gingrich” and was “kicked into high-gear” last month with the neocon Center for Security Policy’s release of a new “Team B II” report, “Sharia: The Threat To America.” Aside from the fact that the First Amendment protects against religious intrusion, Duss notes the obvious “nonsense” surrounding the right’s fear mongering:
Are there Muslim missionaries in the U.S. right now who want to get Americans to adopt Islam? Yes, just as there are Christian missionaries in Indonesia who want to get Indonesians to worship Jesus. Christianity and Islam are both evangelizing religions. Spreading the faith is part of the program.
Are there also radical Muslims in America right now trying to find ways to turn the U.S. into a religious state? Most likely, yes, and we should be on guard against it. It’s worth noting, however, that the Christian Right has failed at this for decades, in a country where over 75% of people identify as Christian. So good luck with that, radical Muslims.
In fact, Duncan and Sykes acknowledge that the Sharia issue is indeed a non-issue. “It’s not a problem and we want to keep it that way,” Sykes said. “It’s not an imminent threat in Oklahoma yet, but it’s a storm on the horizon in other states,” said Duncan. About 15,000 of Oklahoma’s 3.7 million residents are Muslim.
Asked If Untaxed Corporations Like Exxon Are Taxed Too Much, Tea Party Leaders Say Yes
Asked If Untaxed Corporations Like Exxon Are Taxed Too Much, Tea Party Leaders Say Yes
This morning at the National Press Club, leaders from the Tea Party Patriots, an umbrella group that helps coordinate Tea Party chapters around the country, held a press conference to celebrate the results of the election last night. During the press conference, Tea Party Patriots officers Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin announced a “40 year plan” to shift America’s educational system, fiscal priorities, culture, and values.
ThinkProgress attended the presser and asked the Tea Party leaders about some of their top priorities, namely taxes and repealing President Obama’s reforms. Presented with the fact that some of the most profitable American corporations in the world, like ExxonMobil and Bank of America, paid essentially zero corporate income taxes in 2009, we asked Meckler if he believed corporations are indeed “taxed enough already?” Meckler responded that he still believed in a tax-cutting agenda, and suggested that corporations even deserve a tax holiday. Similarly, we asked Martin about Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) pledge last night to defund the historic financial regulatory reform passed by President Obama to shore up Wall Street. She said she had “no idea” what to think about that, and said her 280,000 strong membership had never substantially commented to her about Obama’s Wall Street reforms:
TP: I know they say the “tea” stands for “taxed enough already.” Last year in 2009, ExxonMobil paid nothing in corporate income taxes. Some of the most profitable corporations like Bank of America also paid nothing, Googled paid I believe 2%. Do you believe those are appropriate tax rates?
MECKLER: You know I can’t address tax rates, but what I can tell you is that the American people will respond to things like that. [...] We’ve been suggesting a corporate tax holiday to allow these companies to come in and create jobs. [...]
TP: Last night, Congressman Eric Cantor — possibly incoming Majority Leader — said that one of the first things Republicans should do with their new Tea Party-backed majority is to defund financial regulatory reform. What do you think about that?
MARTIN: I have no idea. [...] I can’t speak personally about how I feel about it. My job is to reflect the grassroots. [...]
TP: Have you heard a lot of feedback about Wall Street reform? How do your members feel about that?
MARTIN: We’ve had a little bit of feedback on that, we haven’t had a lot. We’re bringing in policy experts to come in to talk to them about various positions. I have heard, and have had people ask about having someone come in and talk about Wall Street reform. I believe that’s one of the things we’re going to add to our list of topics.
Watch it:
The “Tea Party” leaders’ lack of concrete ideas on financial reform, and their defense of untaxed international corporations, might seem to violate the ideals of the actual Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against the East India Trading company and its use of the British government to retain a monopolistic, undemocratic control over the American colonies.
However, considering the true political drivers of the Tea Party Patriots, their support of the wealthy elite makes perfect sense. For instance, the Tea Party Patriots listserv, which helped orchestrate many of the anti-health reform protests last year, is managed by staffers from FreedomWorks — the corporate front group run by longtime business lobbyist Dick Armey. Many of the talking points and speakers used by the Tea Party Patriots are provided by corporate front groups like Americans for Prosperity, a front for oil and hedge fund billionaires David and Charles Koch. Free training seminars and online tutorials for grassroots organizing were provided to the Tea Party Patriots by the Leadership Institute, which is funded by the Koch family as well as by other corporate interests, like the DeVos family of the pyramid-scheme company Amway. A mysterious donor even granted Tea Party Patriots with an additional $1 million for increased election-season outreach.
In fact, much of the Tea Party Patriot’s press conference was eclipsed by an announcement by Colin Hanna, leader of the front group “Let Freedom Ring” (funded by John Templeton Jr., an heir to a large Wall Street fortune). Hanna announced that his group had secretly worked with the Tea Party Patriots to place an unprecedented number of “poll watchers” in key precincts around the country to guard against voter fraud (view the handout here).
Tenther Senate Candidates Get Thumped At The Polls
Tenther Senate Candidates Get Thumped At The Polls
For over a year, ThinkProgress has been tracking “tentherism”, the radical view that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. A shockingly large number of the GOP’s Senate candidates this cycle embraced tentherism, proclaiming that essential programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and the federal minimum wage are all unconstitutional. Yet, even as Republicans as a whole rode the economic downturn to significant Congressional gains, the Party’s tenther slate massively underperformed:
- Joe Miller (R-AK), AKA “Mr. Noun, Verb, and Unconstitutional,” was probably this election’s most outspoken tenther. Miller claims that Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, Medicaid and federal child labor laws are all unconstitutional. Yet, despite running in blood-red Alaska, Miller is currently well behind a candidate whose name wasn’t even on the ballot.
- Sharron Angle (R-NV), also should have had an easy race again an unpopular incumbent running in the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Yet after Angle claimed the Department of Education and membership in the United Nations are unconstitutional, Nevada’s voters decisively reelected Harry Reid.
- Ken Buck (R-CO), also embraces the tenther view that Pell Grants, student loan assistance, and other federal education programs are unconstitutional. He lost to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO).
- John Raese (R-WV), holds the tenther view that the minimum wage is unconstitutional. Despite running in one of the three states where President Obama is most unpopular, Raese lost by double digits.
To be fair, not every tenther candidate lost yesterday. Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) expressed tenther-driven opposition to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters early in his race, although he quickly backed off this record after a disasterous interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Likewise, Senator-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) is also a fierce tenther, although he ran a much more low-profile race than co-ideologues such as Miller or Angle.
Nevertheless, it is significant that, in an election cycle that clearly favored Republicans, the most outspoken tenthers were unable to prevail even in the some of the reddest of red states. It would have been a huge surprise if the GOP had not won Kentucky and Utah last night, and it is equally surprising that the GOP candidate lost very easy races in states like Alaska and Nevada. While there’s no way to spin last night’s results as a good thing for progressive policies, voters rejected the notion that Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants, or basic labor protections should be on the chopping block.
REPORT: Meet The 2010 GOP Freshman Class
REPORT: Meet The 2010 GOP Freshman Class
Following last night’s election, over 100 freshmen Republicans will take their seats in the 112th Congress. These GOPers come from disparate backgrounds, but they are united by their adherence to the extreme wing of conservative ideology.
A new ThinkProgress investigation has found that the incoming GOP freshman class is rife with legislators who not only oppose climate change legislation, but deny that manmade global warming even exists. They are pushing not just to end birthright citizenship, but also demand that the United States reduce the number of legal immigrants.
Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:
ENVIRONMENT
- 50% deny the existence of manmade climate change
- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenueIMMIGRATION
- 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
- 32% want to reduce legal immigrationTAXES/SPENDING
- 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
- 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
- 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment
This is where individual incoming GOP freshmen stand on each issue:
More »
Why Republicans Don’t Have A Mandate To Repeal Health Reform
Why Republicans Don’t Have A Mandate To Repeal Health Reform
While it’s difficult to generalize about an election that attracted older and more conservative voters, many of whom said that they were most concerned about the economy and unemployment, one can close the loop on debunking the notion that the Affordable Care Act is to blame for the Democrats’ dismal showings last night.
As Politico’s Pulse pointed out this morning, “Exit polls show health as the second most important factor driving votes (19 percent). It was distantly behind the economy (62 percent).” While half wanted the health law repealed, “nearly another half wanted it expanded or kept in place.” And according to a Wonk Room analysis of the election results, of the 34 House Democrats who voted against the final health care bill, 18 lost their bids for reelection, 12 won, 3 retired, and 1 race — Rep. Ben Chandler’s (KY) — is still too close to call. Two states, Oklahoma and Arizona, also passed anti-reform ballot initiatives, while voters in Colorado defeated a similar proposition:
– 18 Voted AGAINST health care reform, and LOST:
Rep. John Adler (NJ), Rep. Rick Boucher (VA), Rep. Travis Childers (MS), Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN), Rep. Chet Edwards (TX), Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD), Rep. Jim Marshall (GA), Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA) [ran for Senate], Rep. Glenn Nye (VA), Rep. Ike Skelton (MO), Rep. Zack Space (OH), Rep. Gene Taylor (MS), Rep. Harry Teague (NM), Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY), Rep. Bobby Bright (AL), Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Rep. Mike McMahon (NY), Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)– 12 Voted AGAINST health care reform, and WON:
Rep. Jason Altmire (PA), Rep. John Barrow (GA), Rep. Dan Boren (OK), Rep. Tim Holden (PA), Rep. Larry Kissell (NC), Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL), Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA), Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC), Rep. Collin Peterson (MN), Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Rep. Heath Shuler (NC), Rep. Jim Matheson (UT)– 2 Referendums AGAINST health reform PASSED:
Arizona, Oklahoma– 1 Referendum AGAINST individual mandate FAILED:
Colorado
Last night, members of the House Republican leadership reiterated that they would focus on the economy, before turning their attention to repealing health care reform “lock, stock, and barrel” — an almost impossible feat given the Democrats’ control of the Senate and the Presidency. As the Wonk Room explains, the greatest gain for anti-reform advocates, however, will be felt in the states, where Republicans won control of 19 statehouse chambers on Tuesday.
President Bush On Iraq War: ‘I Was A Dissenting Voice. I Didn’t Want To Use Force’
President Bush On Iraq War: ‘I Was A Dissenting Voice. I Didn’t Want To Use Force’
Former President George W. Bush will unveil his memoir “Decision Points” this Sunday to offer “an account of a key decisions in his life.” According to his publisher, the book will offer “gripping, never-before-heard detail.” One of those unheard-of details? Bush didn’t want the Iraq War.
Conducting Bush’s first interview of his publicity tour (which will air Monday), NBC News’ Matt Lauer pressed Bush on his decision to go to war despite “questions” from a number of “dissenters” like Gen. Colin Powell and his father’s former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Bush responded that “of course there were” dissenters, like himself:
LAUER: Not everybody thought you should go to war, though. There were dissenters.
BUSH: Of course there were.
LAUER: You know, there were questions at the Pentagon. Colin Powell had questions. Brent Scowcroft, your father’s former National Security Advisor, and dear friend, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, I’m paraphrasing here, saying, “It’s not a good idea to go to war in Iraq.” So there were dissenting voices.
BUSH: I was a dissenting voice. I didn’t want to use force. I mean force is the last option for a President. And I think it’s clear in the book that I gave diplomacy every chance to work. And I will also tell you the world’s better off without somehow in power. And so are 25 million Iraqis.[...]
LAUER: You would still go to war in Iraq?
BUSH: I– first of all, didn’t have that luxury. You just don’t have the luxury when you’re President. That’s a very hypothetical question. I will say definitely the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, as are 25 million people who now have a chance to live in freedom.
Perhaps Bush doesn’t seem to remember his avaricious thirst for the Iraq war. So let’s remind him.
Recall, in 2002, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators on how to approach Iraq diplomatically, Bush “poked his head into the office” and “neatly summed up” his take: “F___ Saddam. We’re taking him out.” In “talking about why we needed this war,” Bush later referenced an alleged Iraqi assassination plot against Bush’s father: “We need to get Saddam Hussein…that Mother ______ tried to take out my Dad.”
This “get Saddam” mentality was hardly a momentary craze. Recently declassified documents reveal that his administration were looking for a way to “decapitate” the Iraqi government since 2001. As Bush’s Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill — who Bush fired for “disagreeing too many times” with him — puts it, Bush was “all about finding a way to [go to war]. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
In the interview, Bush added that he still feels “sickened and angry” over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Maybe he should watch his old comedy routine about those non-existent weapons of mass destruction. But, the 5,000 troop casualties and nearly 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from his decision is no laughing matter. (HT: TPM)
LAUER: You say you told Laura at the time it was the worst moment of your Presidency?
BUSH: Yes. My record was strong I felt when it came to race relations and giving people a chance. And– it was a disgusting moment.
LAUER: I wonder if some people are going to read that, now that you’ve written it, and they might give you some heat for that. And the reason is this–
BUSH: Don’t care.
LAUER: Well, here’s the reason. You’re not saying that the worst moment in you’re Presidency was watching the misery in Louisiana. You’re saying it was when someone insulted you because of that.
BUSH: No — that– and I also make it clear that the misery in Louisiana affected me deeply as well. There’s a lot of tough moments in the book. And it was a disgusting moment, pure and simple.
Evan Bayh Argues That Democrats Can Only Win If They Do The Opposite Of What Most Americans Want
Evan Bayh Argues That Democrats Can Only Win If They Do The Opposite Of What Most Americans Want
In today’s New York Times, Third Way Honorary Co-Chair Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) — who decided to retire this year and will now leave his seat to former lobbyist Republican Dan Coats — offers his explanation for why the Democrats suffered their electoral losses and what he thinks they need to do to win future elections.
Bayh’s op-ed starts quite sensibly, rightly noting that a poor economy generally leads to electoral losses by the incumbent party, and that, historically, the president’s party suffers in the midterms following his election. Yet after this the Third Way co-chair’s argument goes astray. He goes on to argue that Democrats “over-interpreted” their mandate, claiming that the country did not want a progressive agenda, citing data that says that a plurality of Americans defined themselves as “moderate” in 2008 exit polls. He complains that Democrats went too far in pursuing their health care plan and that they catered far too much to their “most zealous supporters” in “trying to allow gays in the military, change our immigration system, and repeal the George W. Bush-era tax cuts.”
While Bayh implores Democrats to move to the “vast center,” the truth is that the policies he identifies did appeal to the center — not just the “most zealous” progressives:
– Americans Want To Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: A May 2010 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 75 percent of Americans support repealing the military policy against allowing openly gay recruits.
– Americans Want To ‘Change Our Immigration System’: Bayh is likely referring to the Senate’s attempt to pass the DREAM Act, which would offer a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who serve in the military or complete a certain amount of college. Opinion Research Corporation polling found that 70 percent of Americans back the DREAM Act, an increase from 58 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, a June 2010 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 57 percent of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform that would offer a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants who work hard and play by the rules.
– Americans Want To End The Bush Tax Cuts For The Richest Americans: An August 2010 Gallup/USA Today poll found that 59 percent of Americans want to see the tax cuts for the richest Americans expire.
Additionally, Americans are not concerned that Democrats are “wild-eyed spenders” and “worried about the deficit” above all other policy concerns, as Bayh implies. An October 2010 CBS News poll found that only 21 percent of Americans rank the deficit as their top concern. The fact is, Americans want to continue the New Deal/Great Society tradition of investing in our country and using the public sector to enrich and grow our economy. In fact, they back progressive policies across the board:
– Americans Want Public Investment In The Economy: An October 2010 Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard Univeresity poll found that Americans, by a 49-47 percent margin, would “rather have the federal government provide more services, if it costs more in taxes.”
– Americans Think The Health Care Law Did Too Little To Change The System, Not Too Much: Although Bayh is quick to fault the Democrats for over-reaching in pursuing a health care bill, the truth is that Americans would’ve liked them to reach a little more. An October 2010 Associated Press poll finds that a plurality of 39 percent of Americans want the bill to be altered so it does more to change the health care system. This isn’t surprising, given that a June 2009 CBS News poll found that 72 percent of Americans wanted a public health insurance option (including nearly half of Republicans). Bayh spent his time in the Senate arguing against this popular plan, against the will of his state’s own residents.
– Americans Want The Defense Budget To Be The First That Is Cut: A plurality of voters in a CBS News poll conducted just days before the election say that the National Security budget should be where cuts in federal spending should come from. Only 8 percent want to see cuts in education spending, a major progressive priority.
– Americans Want To Protect Social Security: The same CBS News poll finds that 71 percent of Americans oppose cuts in benefits for future retirees and that 54 percent oppose any hike in the retirement age for Social Security.
– Americans Want Disclosure And Campaign Finance Reform: The CBS poll also finds that 72 percent of Americans, including 68 percent of Republicans, think that campaign spending from outside groups should be limited by law. 81 percent of Americans say full disclosure of campaign financing is “very important.”
It is apparent that Bayh’s advocacy in this op-ed has a clear agenda: to move Democrats to the right and accomplish conservative policy goals. But he shouldn’t claim that what he’s advocating for is popular among the country as a whole or moving towards any sort of mythical “center.” The policy agenda that Bayh is championing benefits the rich and appeases Republicans. It is not politically popular.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll