The Lansing City Pulse endorses Virg Bernero for governor, calling him "the only true socially progressive option to lead our state in 2010."
Michigan needs Bernero as governor because...
It needs someone who will advance the social clock, not roll it back. Someone with proven public executive experience, who can make decisive decisions without getting rolled by Republicans.
For those who believe in the rights and future of women, the LGBT community, the environment, the working class and our urban communities, Bernero is the only candidate who can generate excitement on the Democratic side of the ballot this fall.
The progressives are hungry for a mainstream Democrat, who will shake things up and give them a reason to show up on Election Day, not someone consistently stuck in neutral until forced into a bad strategic move by Republicans.
They´re hungry for someone capable or willing to coax significant public policy out of a legislative body without turning it into a dog´s lunch like the Michigan Business Tax. We´re done with the mealy-mouthed, feel-good, cheerleading stuff, where statements are continuously reworked and nuanced to appease the audience of the moment while nothing of substance gets done.
It´s time for a progressive John Englertype, who stands on specific principles and then cuts deals and cracks the whip to make things happen. Bernero is that type of guy.
Absolutely. He's not Republican-lite, like Dillon, who "has alienated so many progressive activists that the Democratic base, which is especially important in off-year elections, will simply not turn out in November. That would likely turn complete control of state government over to the Republicans, who would then control political redistricting and politics for a decade."
Read the endorsement. It details Bernero's accomplishments as a public servant and supporter of the working class.
Earlier this year, I thought it would be hard to choose between the candidates, but as time rolled on I realized we only have three choices on the ballot: Republican, Republican-lite (Dillon) and progressive Democrat (Bernero).
I've admittedly only been loosely following the primary campaign over the past several months as I haven't found myself getting excited over either candidate in the Dem primary race. Over the past few days, however, I've found myself giving it some more thought after seeing both candidates receive some high profile Detroit endorsements: Former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer for Dillon; Congresswomen Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick & Congressmen John Conyers for Bernero.
As is often the case, the "mainstream" media nowadays is pushing a "conventional wisdom" line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the "wisdom" is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics. The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.
For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either "fundamental changes’ or "to be completely rebuilt," while 97% of Americans are "angry" or "bothered" by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, "conventional wisdom" electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.
Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln - are in favor of climate and energy legislation. Let’s take a look.
Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, "The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill." Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, "Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs." Kirsten Gillibrand - Listed as a definite "yes" on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, "Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination." Barbara Mikulski - Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Harry Reid – Has called for "bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer." Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama - showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation.
So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the "mainstream media" that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics? Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the "mainstream media" to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators -- like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh -- who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially "greener" (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures. For the "mainstream media," recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason). In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on "conventional" wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things - tell a very different story.
In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: "Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?" Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] "[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive." Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that "There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment."
In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the "old guard" of Senators who are retiring. Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically - might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a "generational" difference going on here. Not "generational" in the chronological sense, in which "younger" Senators are more pro-environment than "older" Senators. But, perhaps, "generational" in the sense of "political age," as in "how long have they been in Washington, DC?"
Given the analysis above, we might want to add "members in cycle" to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers. Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable. Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy? And perhaps they are not listening to a "conventional media" narrative which is completely wrong? Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue - that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for "greener" pastures.
My interest in Virg Bernero for Governor increased dramatically after reading that he picked up the endorsements of 36 Democrats. From the Macomb Daily [emphasis added]:
The gubernatorial campaign of Virg Bernero received a big boost in Macomb County today when 36 prominent Democrats endorsed his candidacy over the competing bid by House Speaker Andy Dillon.
Those backing the Lansing mayor's run include three longtime officials from the past -- former congressman David Bonior, former prosecutor Carl Marlinga, and former state Senate minority leader Art Miller.
Bonior said he hadn't known much about Bernero until recently, when the mayor made numerous, spirited appearances on national TV and radio shows defending federal loans to ailing automakers. Bernero's impassioned support for working families and American manufacturers, he said, is what Michigan needs from its next governor.
"We need somebody in Lansing whose focus, from the time they get up in the morning until the time they go to bed at night, is turning this state around and getting people back to work," said Bonior...
I respect Bonior's opinion because he's always put workers' interests ahead of those of corporate America. Bonior opposed NAFTA and is also Chairman of American Rights at Work, an organization that advocates for workers and their right to form unions without interference.
We know where Dillon stands when it comes to protecting the jobs of workers; ditto Cox, Hoestra and the myriad other Republican candidates. If Bonior says Bernero is the man for the job, then I have to give Virg serious consideration.
Or maybe I should title it "Free to tea you and me".
Yesterday, I published a diary titled "Tea Party in Michigan terrified of being an official party" which talked about a petition in Michigan to put the "Tea Party" officially on the Michigan ballot in November. The so-called leaders of the "Tea Party" proceeded to flip out claiming "Dirty Dem Tricks!"
That meme, that the Democrats are behind this and it's all a big conspiracy, continues today. Here's a bit more on the ensuing and most-hilarious freakout.
The Detroit Free Press is reporting this morning that Tea Party "leaders" from around Michigan are blaming the Democrats and other liberals:
Michigan Tea Party activists were agitated Monday, convinced that a shadowy group of left-wingers was trying to hijack their identity and run faux Tea Party candidates for office to siphon votes from authentic, limited-government conservatives.
"A shadowy group of left-wingers"! Oooo! Sounds scaaa-ary, dunnit?!
An article in the odd "Canada Free Press" goes further:
"This effort is in no way tied to the Tea Party groups that I'm aware of," says Wendy Day, President of Common Sense in Government. "This sounds like a liberal Democrat effort to split the conservative vote in Michigan."
Democrats. They must be behind this. We don't need no stinkin' proof. We just need our accusations!
(By the way, the Canada Free Press is an illustrious group with an associate editor that contributes to Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, & Glenn Beck and 9th grade boy as their "Social Network Editor" so you can be sure that they are legit.)
Over at American Thinker, essayist Thomas Lifson has this to say:
They're at it again. Democrats are caught red-handed playing dirty pool, in this case, spending substantial sums to gin up a decoy Tea Party in Michigan, in order to siphon votes from GOP candidates. Chetly Zarko, of the site Outside Lansing, uncovered the dirty trick op, with reports in two posts...
This is the year we conservatives can go on the offense and paint a narrative of the Dems as the phony manipulators they are...these people are out of touch, incompetent, devious, and need to be thrown out of office.
The red-handedness that Lifson refers to is that the group that is being paid to circulate the petitions has done work for Democrats in the past. And if that's not solid evidence -- ironclad PROOF! -- well, I don't know what is.
(It should be noted that Lifson has seen a Democratic conspiracy to disrupt the Tea Party movement before when he wrote about the Coffee Party. He's also a guy who equates the term "neoconservative" to an anti-Semitic slur. So, again, you know he's got cred on this issue.)
Over at the award-winning, well-respected, frequently-linked basically unheard-of Ballot Access News, editor Richard Winger has this self-explanatory headline:
Ah, yes, the Fox News-inspired "some say..." gambit. As long as "some say" it, it MUST be true! The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the uttering. Also, it's in the fact that "the same petitioning company that is circulating this petition has worked in the past for the Democratic Party". That's all the proof I need. Howzabout YOU?
The Detroit News is reporting on this as well. They talked to a yet another Tea Party leader:
Gene Clem, who is active with the South West Michigan Tea Party Patriots, said: "Our suspicion is this drive is being done by Democrats who want people to think this is the real tea party and to siphon off votes this fall."
Gene's "suspicion" = news. He suspects it, it's so. Q.E.D.
All of this goes back to the utter fear the Tea Party leadership has of actually, you know, leading. Rather than having to put together an effective organization with stated electoral goals and qualified candidates who can govern and legislate based upon their declared political platform, the Tea Party prefers to stay on the sidelines flinging poo at those who actually ARE legislating and governing. This isn't some subtle decision on their part. They are proud of this. From the Detroit News article:
Eighteen groups associated with the tea party movement issued a statement today saying they are not behind a move to establish a political party in Michigan.
"The history of third party movements in this country is one of division and defeat," the statement says. "We believe that it is instead time for all Americans to rise up and demand appropriate reform within the existing political structures. The mechanisms exist for citizens to participate in their parties, and to drive their parties in the right direction."
In other words, they are co-opting the Republican Party (apparently with Mitch McConnell's blessing) rather than doing the heavy lifting of forming their own organization. Here's the funny part: the Michigan GOP is having none of it:
A Michigan Republican Party spokeswoman said the Tea Party petition drive was an act of desperation.
"They can't even field their own slate of candidates," said spokeswoman Jennifer Hoff, "and now they're trying to form another party?"
Since the Democrats clearly can field a slate of their own candidates, it's obvious that Ms. Hoff is speaking of our friends in the Tea Party.
So the Tea Partiers are freaking out. They don't want to be an official party but they're being called on it by this petition drive. And because they don't like that fact, they are running around screaming "THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEHIND THIS! THE DEMOCRATS AREN'T PLAYING FAIR!!!
Two things on that particular point. First, "dirty tricks" like this are hardly something only the Dems are capable of as the Detroit Free Press hilariously points out:
If Democrats are behind the effort, it would not be entirely without precedent -- for Republicans, however. In 2004, Michigan Republicans circulated petitions to place Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot.
Second, and this is actually pretty big, the entire outrage is based on the fact that they claim the Democrats are behind it. Unfortunately for them, real journalists doing real journalism actually contacted the head of the Democratic Party in Michigan, Mark Brewer. They asked him point blank if the Dems are behind the petition effort to put the Tea Party on the 2010 ballot. His response?
"We have nothing to do with it."
Wah waaaaaah. Sorry. Game over. Thanks for playing.
UPDATE: Strangely, Susan Demas posted a blog entry over at MLive 90 minutes after I posted this essay on Daily Kos and about 50 minutes after I posted it here. It has the same obscure link to the Canada Free Press and reaches many of the same conclusions as I did here and in my diary yesterday. Guess I should be flattered???
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even though these races aren't in Michigan, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
I was very surprised to Markos Moulitsas, owner of Daily Kos, link to an anti-OFA screed, describe OFA's organizational model as "OFA's whatever-the-[expletive deleted]-it-is-that-they're-doing model" and declare "Sounds about right". It's particularly surprising when the ridiculous screed was so full of contradictions, misinformation and general whining about how the Democratic party has done gone and changed.
With all due respect to Markos and the author, John Morgan, they clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to OFA. So I thought I'd try to give them little dose of reality.
After my diary about the epic Frank Luntz fail got so much attention here and at Daily Kos yesterday, I emailed Countdown with Keith to bring it to their attention. It seemed to fit in nicely with their segment about Luntz from the day before.
Sure enough, they picked it up and it was the subject of Keith's only "Short Comment" last night. The video can be seen in bfealk's diary.
It was a fun day. We've had our laugh at Mssr. Luntz. But now it's time to move forward. The fact is he doesn't give a damn if we're laughing at his mistake. He will continue to help the GOPosaurs eat the Dems' lunch if they don't get our messaging act together.
A new ranking of the world's nations by environmental performance puts some of the globe's largest economies far down the list, with the United States sinking to 61st and China to 121st.
In the previous version of the Environmental Performance Index, compiled every two years by Yale and Columbia University researchers, the United States ranked 39th, and China 105th.
The top performer was Iceland, which gets nearly all of its power from renewable sources, followed closely by Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.
"Countries that take seriously the environment as a policy challenge do improve, and those that don't deteriorate," said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, who oversees the index project.
The paper does note that because most of the data is from 2007 and 2008, "the index does not fully reflect new efforts by the Obama administration" to improve environmental performance. It also notes that the U.S. scores well in forestry and safe drinking water, but our ranking is abysmal because we score low in areas like heat-trapping emissions and urban air pollutants.
Increasing renewable energy would help decrease our emissions. The good news is that we're advancing quickly in one area - wind power.
Despite a crippling recession and tight credit markets, the American wind power industry grew at a rapid pace in 2009, adding 39 percent more capacity. The country is close to the point where 2 percent of its electricity will come from wind turbines.
According to the NYT, that's up from virtually nothing a few years ago, and they reported that the American Wind Association said "the amount of capacity added last year, 9,900 megawatts, was the largest on record, and was 18 percent above the capacity added in 2008, also a banner year."
The nation's wind turbines generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 9.7 million homes, according to the report. Last year, Texas consolidated its lead as the nation's top wind producer, with a total capacity of 9,410 megawatts, about three times more than the second-largest producer, Iowa. They were followed by California, Washington and Minnesota.
And guess what the AWEA credits for the growth of wind power? "The U.S. wind industry shattered all installation records in 2009, and this was directly attributable to the lifeline that was provided by the stimulus package," said Denise Bode, the trade association's chief executive.
However, as extraordinary as growth has been in this area, they also point out that it could be better if Congress would pass a a federal mandate requiring that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources. Mandates already exist throughout the European Union and in China, and in the U.S. 29 states have adopted a renewable power standard, including Michigan, which set a standard of 10% of electricity from renewable resources by 2015.
"The wind manufacturing sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs, but without a renewable electricity standard to provide a long-term market, the sector will be slow to grow," the trade group said in its report.
I'm so tired of the U.S. falling behind in everything but the strength of our military. The U.S. should be leading the way in this area instead of falling further behind. And although we're fortunate to have Gov. Granholm and other Democrats with foresight and vision pushing for higher standards, we're still stuck with obstructionist Republicans who would rather help their fossil fuel cronies than our environment. Just imagine how much better our country could be if Republicans didn't always stand in the way.
I am extremely disillusioned with the shape the healthcare bill has taken, but I'm not willing to say it shouldn't pass and/or we should start over. I'll let Kevin Drum speak for me. He makes a compelling argument for seeing this bill through.
With the public option now out of the healthcare bill, is it still worth passing? Regular readers will be unsurprised that I think the answer is pretty firmly yes-and that liberals who now want to pick up their toys and hand reform its sixth defeat in the past century need to wake up and smell the decaf. Politics sucks. It always has. But the bill in front of us-messy, incomplete, and replete with bribes to every interest group imaginable-is still well worth passing.
When big legislative efforts go down in flames, they almost never spring back onto the calendar anytime soon - and that's especially true when big healthcare bills fail. It didn't happen in 1936, it didn't happen in 1949, it didn't happen in 1974, and it didn't happen in 1995. What makes anyone think it will happen in 2010?
Drum also makes the point that if healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time, and Republicans know it. And even though it's not the bill we wanted, it's a good start. Via Ezra Klein:
"This is a good bill," Sen. Sherrod Brown said on Countdown last night. "Not a great bill, but a good bill." That's about right. But the other piece to remember is that more than it's a good bill, it's a good start. With $900 billion in subsidies already in place, it's easier to add another hundred billion later, if we need it, than it would be to pass $1 trillion in subsidies in 2011. With the exchanges built and private insurers unable to hold down costs, it's easier to argue for adding a strong public option to the market than it was before we'd tried regulation and a new competitive structure. With 95 percent of the country covered, it's easier to go the final 5 percent. And with a health-care reform bill actually passed, it's easier to convince legislators that passing such bills is possible.
Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
Community rating. Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.
Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.
A significant expansion of Medicaid.
Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.
Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.
Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.
A broad range of cost-containment measures.
A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.
Drum is right. This is still a huge achievement, one that will benefit tens of millions of people in very concrete ways and will do it without expanding our long-term deficit. And he also points out "this is more than Bill Clinton ever did, more than Teddy Kennedy did, more than LBJ did, more than Truman did, and more than FDR did."
A new Bloomberg poll shows Americans want the government to do something about the economy.
Americans want their government to create jobs through spending on public works, investments in alternative energy or skills training for the jobless.
They also want the deficit to come down. And most are ready to hand the bill to the wealthy.
A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Dec. 3-7 shows two- thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit.
Raising taxes on the rich was popular across party lines too: About half of Republicans back the idea and it is more popular among Democrats and Independents.
Teabagger Republicans. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Republicans have fallen to third place in terms of popularity.
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
So are Republicans worried? Nope. Greg Sargent asked for the GOP's leadership view of the poll and this was one senior GOP aide's reply:
This proves one of the major points that Democrats have tried hard to deny: the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group of ultra-conservatives, it is most popular among independents, many of whom believed President Obama's campaign promises about doing things differently in Washington, and feel burned by the fact that he has governed in a relentlessly partisan fashion.
Partisan? Did he really say partisan? Three words: Health care reform. Obama reached out to Republicans and they said NO.
I think GOP leadership has to spin this in a favorable light. After all, several Glenn Beck inspired Tea Party candidates are causing problems for a number of GOP lawmakers, including John McCain. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't afford to ignore the teabaggers, and they can't afford to embrace them at the risk of losing their moderate members.
And I don't take too seriously the GOP spokesperson's comment that "the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group." Again, really? What else would you call a group that invited Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to speak at their national convention next year. And don't forget about Joe the Plumber.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that any independents with a smidgen of commonsense will embrace the teabaggers, the same group that shows up at rallies with guns and posters comparing health care reform to pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp. These people are not mainstream Americans, they're extremists.
And when a fake party "that doesn't have organized candidates or organized fundraising is more highly thought of than one of the two traditionally dominant political parties," that's a sign that Republicans are in big trouble, no matter how much they spin this poll.
Thank you for respecting a woman's right to choose, Congressman Schauer, and for also having the courage to say what many women think - "The government doesn't belong in the room when these very personal, private decisions are being made." And neither does the religious right, Council of Catholic Bishops and Bart Stupak. They certainly don't speak for all people of faith.
UCC Minister and Co-Team Leader for the Cleveland-based Team, the Rev. Loey Powell, reiterated the UCC's 40-year history of support for reproductive health care and said of the amendment, "We join [partner faith] groups in expressing our disappointment that the House bowed to pressure exerted at the last minute from anti-abortion lobbyists ... Once again women's health and well-being have been compromised in the halls of Congress."
The United Methodist Church's official positions on abortion and immigration stand in opposition, however, to restrictions placed in the bill that limit coverage for all of God's children living in the United States. H.R. 3962 excludes immigrants and women whose circumstances indicate need for an abortion. These restrictions even include persons who now have such insurance.
The bill establishes a two-tiered system of health delivery. It essentially penalizes women and immigrants with fewer economic resources.
"This Stupak-Pitts amendment is an egregious assault on the rights of women and an enormous step backward for those who believe in the separation of religion and state. It enshrines one religious view of abortion into law and enlists the federal government to enforce it.
Regardless of Republican gloating, I'm not reading too much into yesterday's election. They picked up a couple of governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, but Democrats picked up two seats in Congress, and those two seats might just make the difference in getting health care reform passed.
The NY-23 seat abdicated by Republican John McHugh (who resigned to become Secretary of the Army) went to Democrat Bill Owens--the first Democrat to hold the seat in over a century. And the CA-10 seat abdicated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who resigned to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs) went to Democrat John Garamendi.
That creates some simple arithmetic. Yesterday, Democrats had 256 voting members in the House. By week's end, they'll have 258. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could afford to lose no more than 38 Democratic votes on a landmark health care reform bill. Next week, after Owens and Garamendi are sworn in, she can lose up to 40. For legislation this historic and far-reaching, she'll need every vote she can get--and both seem likely to support reform.
I'll give up two governorships in return for getting health care reform passed.
And this news will be music to the ears of gay rights activists: "As gay marriage was being voted down in Maine, several openly gay candidates in the South scored victories."
In the south!! So go ahead and gloat, Republicans. It doesn't matter, because mainstream America is not red. (Are you paying attention, Dems?)
As Cordelia Lear pointed out yesterday, the opt-out choice that allows states to withdraw from the public option is no panacea. Read what she says about Mike Bishop and Andy Dillon to understand why opt-out is a bad idea, but it's basically because the public option choice will literally be in the hands of lawmakers who don't care about us.
I originally figured I could live with the opt-out plan because it's loosely modeled on Medicaid, "which originally allowed states to "opt-out" of the program and today enjoys the participation of all 50 states." And, as TPM pointed out, there was good reason to believe that the public option would have been a lot scarier as a GOP straw man than it would as a real world option for people who can't get private coverage.
And if the public option is available in North Carolina, just to pick a hypothetical, and not South Carolina, after a while, people in the South Carolina might start to wonder what the logic was of denying them a lower cost health insurance option. And if that's true, presumably, pressure will build in the opt-out states to opt-in. So even if a substantial number of people aren't covered at the start, there's good reason to believe that will change over time.
There's just one tiny problem with the "presumably, pressure will build to opt-in" scenario. We're dealing with politicians who often put party ideology ahead of people. If pressuring our leaders worked, we would have had health care a long time ago.
And, as Cordelia mentioned, it's not exactly clear who gets to do the opting-out. Will governors be able to unilaterally make that decision or will it take action by both houses of the state legislature? As Jon Walker at FDL pointed out, depending on how the opt-out is written, millions of people in states controlled by Republicans could find themselves disenfranchised.
If a Republican becomes Michigan's next governor, or they manage to pick up any seats, we can kiss opting-in goodbye. Seriously. That makes the next election extremely important because there's just one thing standing between national health care and the 1.13 million uninsured adults in our state - Republicans (and DINO's like Dillon).
The Democracy Corps released a survey last week about conservative Republicans that highlights how they're a world apart from most of us. I know, shocking!
These voters identify themselves as part of a 'mocked' minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism.
They also believe they possess a level of knowledge and understanding when it comes to politics and current events, one gained from a rejection of the mainstream media and an embrace of conservative media and pundits such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
There was one area where we shared common ground though: "These voters had virtually nothing positive to say about the Republican Party. They see their own party as weak, old, and out of touch."
It's what the survey showed about independents that I found most interesting though:
The independent voters ... share the conservative Republicans' disdain for the current Republican Party, but their critique is not that the party has abandoned its conservative principles but instead that it advances the interests of the rich and big businesses at the expense of the middle class. They worry about the Democratic Party's proclivity to spend tax dollars and provide 'freebies' to those who do not do their fair share, but they appreciate the Democrats' focus on 'the little people' (among which they included themselves) and the fact that 'it's not all about the money.'
It appears the GOP's single-minded focus on corporate America and tax breaks for the rich is a failure in terms of increasing market share - a.k.a. voters.
In late January, a USA Today/Gallup poll recorded 27 percent of respondents saying they identified with the Republican Party, 36 percent with Democrats and 25 percent as unaffiliated or independent. Now in mid-October, the average data compiled from dozens of surveys over more than a year shows Republican ID at 22.5 percent, Democratic ID at 33.7 percent and Independent ID at 35 percent.
Mainstream America is represented by nearly 70% of the electorate consisting of Democrats and Independents, a group that cares about the common good, the "little people." It is not represented by the 22% of Republicans (18% in Michigan) that to a large degree are defined by voters who embrace Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
If only we could get our lawmakers in Lansing and Washington to remember that.
This is short notice, but here's news about a "Storm The Capital - Save The Promise" rally being held today in Lansing. From the MSU College Democrats:
As our Legislators continue attempting to balance Michigan's budget, it is not looking good for the Promise Scholarship.
If we as students don't act now, the Promise Scholarship is going to be ELIMINATED, forcing you to find up to an additional $2,000.00 to pay for college THIS YEAR.
We need to let our Legislators in Lansing know that we cannot afford to eliminate the Michigan Promise Scholarship for students. That is why we are going to Storm the Capitol.
This Tuesday, we need hundreds of students to Storm the Capitol to help save the Promise Scholarship. Budget decisions could be made any day, and this will be the last chance to try and save the scholarship.
Any student who wants to Storm Lansing will be provided with free transportation to and from the Capitol; we will be providing free transportation via CATA. All you need to do is meet at MSU Union at 2:00 p.m. this Tuesday, September 22nd.
THIS IS IT. This is not a partisan issue or about politics, it is about being able to continue attending college. We will be urging both chambers - Democrats or Republicans - to support higher education and the Promise. Please make an effort so show up; your scholarship relies on it!
The MI Chamber of Commerce has a real image problem. They don't care two bits (which I believe translates into 25 cents) about the unemployed and they apparently support Glenn Beck's view that President Obama is a racist, along with Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. How else to explain the fact they invited him to be the keynote speaker at the Chamber's annual meeting in September?
Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer has some questions for the Chamber that I think are relevant.
"Does the Chamber agree with the views of Beck that President Obama and Justice Sotomayor are racists? What's next for the Chamber? Inviting Jackson County Commissioner Phil Duckham, who has compared President Obama to Hitler, to address the Chamber on health care reform?"
I'd like to hear the answer to those questions, particularly since 36 companies have now distanced themselves from Beck by refusing to run ads during his show.
The new companies distancing themselves from Beck include Airware Inc. (makers of Brez anti-snoring aids), Ancestry.com, AT&T, Blaine Labs Inc., Campbell Soup Company, Clorox, Ditech, The Elations Company, Experian (creator of FreeCreditReport.com), Farmers Insurance Group, Johnson & Johnson (makers of Tylenol), Lowe's, NutriSystem, Sprint, The UPS Store and Verizon Wireless.
Those businesses join twenty other companies who previously pledged not to run additional ads on Beck's show, including the recent addition of Bank of America.
Beyond Beck's racist rantings, he's also known for other crazy, lunatic statements, including wanting to kill Michael Moore, praying that Dennis Kucinich would burst into flames, and telling people he takes his gun to the movies.
I thought the whole point of the Chamber was to further the interests of businesses. Why any Michigan business would want to be associated with an organization whose "interests" include racism, violence and murder is beyond me. The MICOC is not only unprofessional, they're downright scary.
Former Davison City Council Member Kevin McKague has a LTE in the Flint Journal about the lies and innuendo surrounding health care reform. Kevin believes the GOP's tactics will backfire, just as they did during the presidential election last year, and we'll see a reform bill passed. This is part of what he had to say:
Today, millions of people have no health care insurance. Instead of seeing a primary health care provider at the first signs of illness, they are forced to wait until they are seriously sick, and receive emergency room care, where the costs are far higher, and the bills are often passed onto the rest of us.
Rather than live with a status quo, which will only get worse, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are working to find a solution. The Republicans, led by radio talk show hosts and insurance company executives, spread discredited rumors. Let's not mince words. Much of what you've heard from the "hide grandma" crowd arguing against health care reforms are lies, plain and simple.
Mark my words, these tactics will fail, just as they did in last year's election. The only people who believe the lies were never in a million years going to support President Obama to begin with. The rest of us are fair enough, and care about the future of this nation enough, to see who has our best interests at heart.
There will be a health care reform bill passed into law this year. Come mid-term elections next year, more Americans will have health care coverage as a direct result of this law, and most Americans are going to remember which party they have to thank for that. [emphasis added]
Conversely, most Americans are going to remember which party they have to blame for obstructing health care reform and they'll vote accordingly.
The Democratic National Committee called me this morning and asked if I could contribute $100 dollars to help move the Democratic agenda forward. This was my not too lady-like response:
I will not contribute another dime to Democrats until they get their shit together on passing health care reform that includes a public option.
What is the matter with Democrats? Voters handed them a mandate for change and they're wimping out on us. Quit listening to the teabaggers, deathers, Blue Dogs, and people like Grassley, Betsy McCaughey and Dick Armey and his Freedom Works. They don't represent the majority of Americans who say we should have the option of government-run health insurance.
They don't represent the majority of Americans who took this CNN poll. (Results as of 9:30 a.m. this morning.)
And they don't represent the one in four Americans who now call health care the nation's most important problem - up from 16% a month ago and 6% a year ago.
Consider this tough love, Dems. I can't show my displeasure at the ballot box until next year, but I can - and I will - stop enabling your bad behavior. When you're ready to start talking about public health insurance again, I'll consider making a donation, but until then you're on your own.
