“We need to use every tool we have to reclaim our country,” U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley told me during his latest visit to Des Moines. “We are at the verge of a tipping point, and maybe we’re almost past it, in which the power of the mega-wealthy is so profound that we can’t tip the balance back in to we the people.”
The senator from Oregon spent much of Labor Day weekend in central Iowa supporting Democratic candidates for the state legislature. His fifth trip here since the 2016 election won’t be his last: he will be a featured speaker at the Polk County Steak Fry later this month. During our September 2 interview, I asked Merkley about the most important matters pending in the U.S. Senate, prospects for Democrats in November, and his possible presidential candidacy.
Before #BernieOrBust or any other hashtag existed to convey some activists’ feelings about the Democratic Party’s establishment candidate, there was Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign.
Iowa’s best-known politician to endorse Nader rather than Al Gore was State Representative Ed Fallon. The Des Moines Democrat had found himself at odds with the rest of his Iowa House colleagues before. Some of his politically inexpedient decisions have aged well, most famously his heartfelt speech before voting against our state’s Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
Supporting Nader caused more intense fallout.
Though Fallon no longer considers himself a Democrat and has devoted most of his energy lately to environmental activism, he still endorses some Democratic candidates, including Bernie Sanders before this year’s Iowa caucuses.
Fallon spoke with Bleeding Heartland recently about his decision to back Nader, how that choice affected his subsequent bids for public office, and his advice for activists drawn to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein instead of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Woo-hoo. The healthcare bill is done. People will see many of the provisions go into place immediately and then they can decide how they feel about these reforms based on reality instead of frenzied, uninformed rhetoric. Let’s just take a moment to recognize this historic occasion.
During his State of the Union speech last week, President Barack Obama promised, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” Today the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing today on the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made headlines by saying he believes “the right thing to do” is to let gays serve openly:
Adm. Mike Mullen’s statement was the strongest yet from the uniformed military on this volatile issue, although he stressed that he was “speaking for myself and myself only.”
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday he is deeply troubled by a policy that forces people to “lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate committee he also supports ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. However, he is appointing a panel to study how to lift the ban for a full year, meaning that hundreds more men and women are likely to be discharged under the policy before it goes away. The Obama administration is expected to implement new rules on purging troops under this policy, but it’s not yet clear how much that will reduce the number of discharges while Gates’ panel studies the issue. According to MSNBC, “more than 10,900 troops have been fired under the policy” since 1993, but “The 2009 figure – 428 – was dramatically lower than the 2008 total of 619.”
Meanwhile, at today’s hearing Senator John McCain argued against reviewing the policy at this time, saying it boosts “cohesion” and “unit morale.” He also presented a letter signed by 1000 officers who support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
So there is little reason to continue this policy. But as we proceed, it is vital that we are sensitive to any complications of this policy shift. Change is always hard, especially when it involves social issues or personal beliefs. Lack of care as we proceed might spark opposition from those who could be open to change, and inflame the opposition of those already against it. And I would encourage those who favor change not to mistake deliberation for undue delay.
Point taken, but I am concerned by the timetable Gates is setting with a yearlong study. I hope Congress will act this year, because if Republicans retake the House or the Senate this November, there will be no chance of ditching Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for the forseeable future.
Following up on the diary I posted this morning, this post compiles links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of national politics from July through December 2009. Health care reform was again the number one topic. I wish there had been a happy ending.
Senators approved the health care reform bill 60-39 as Vice President Joe Biden presided over the Senate’s first Christmas Eve session in at least four and a half decades. It was the expected party-line vote, with Republican Jim Bunning absent.
Speaking of health care maneuvering, Joe Lieberman’s brand has taken a hit this month. It’s no mystery why. As Nate Silver observed here and here, being at the center of the health care reform debate tends to bring senators’ approval ratings down.
Recent polls have shown Chuck Grassley still above 50 percent approval, but with far less support than he has enjoyed for most of his career. He has already been running some positive television ads, but I don’t think he’ll be able to get his numbers back up to the 70 percent range by next year’s election. Nevertheless, Grassley’s Democratic challenger will need to make a broad-based case against him, because his double-dealing on health care reform won’t be the focus of news coverage next fall.
At this historic moment, it is so important to the future of working Americans-and to our country-to get health care reform right. Despite doing some good things, the Senate bill remains inadequate. Substantial changes must be made in the final bill. […]
It makes no sense to tax the benefits of hard-working Americans to pay for health reform. The House bill curbs insurance companies and taxes the wealthy who benefited so richly from the Bush tax cuts. The Senate bill instead includes exorbitant new taxes on middle class health benefits that would affect one in five workers with employer-provided health coverage-or about 31 million people-in 2016. That’s the wrong way to pay for health care reform and it’s political suicide.
The House bill is the right model for reform. It covers more people, takes effect more quickly and is financed more fairly. The AFL-CIO is ready to fight on behalf of all working families to produce a final bill that can be called genuine reform. Working people cannot accept anything less.
SECOND UPDATE: This chart at the Washington Post site shows how each senator voted, how much he or she has received in campaign contributions from the health industry, and what percent of that state’s residents lack health insurance.
I’m likely to ignore future e-mails from MoveOn.org Political Action after reading the last two appeals they’ve sent me. They are raising money off the health care reform battle while absolving President Obama from blame for the pitiful state of the Senate bill.
Excerpts from the MoveOn.Org appeals and some commentary are after the jump.
Democratic strategists who are counting on a bounce from passing fake health care “reform” won’t be comforted by the latest poll numbers. Highlights are after the jump.
I have had it with e-mail blasts like the one I got over the weekend from J.B. Poersch of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:
Republicans tried every trick in the book to block us, but Senate Democrats scored important health care reform wins in the past two weeks. We passed the Mikulski Amendment, to make sure every woman gets crucial cancer screenings. And we defeated the Senate’s version of the Stupak Amendment – one of the biggest attacks on choice in a generation.
But these wins didn’t faze the Republicans. A lot of what they are doing to kill the Senate’s bill isn’t making the headlines – but that doesn’t make it any less insidious. We’ve pulled together facts on their latest heinous tactics in our new Obstruction Report.
There is no point in pretending that President Obama wanted any comprehensive bill to pass. There was zero pressure on Lieberman to cave, no talk of using the budget reconciliation process–only pressure on Reid to give Lieberman everything.
Emanuel didn’t just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers.
“It was all about ‘do what you’ve got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you’ve got to drop to get it done,” the aide said. All of Emanuel’s prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman–not twisting his arm.
Organizing for America will get a rude awakening when they try to round up canvassers and phone bankers. All the volunteers and donors and voters who brought Obama where he is turned out to be less important than one senator from Connecticut who campaigned for John McCain.
The Constitution does not contain a supermajority requirement for ordinary legislation to pass the Senate, but the filibuster has evolved into a means to kill any bill unless 60 senators support it.
The current use of the filibuster is not “traditional.” This memo from December 1964 shows that no one imagined Medicare would need more than a simple majority in the Senate. There was no expectation that Lyndon Johnson’s reform efforts would fail if Medicare couldn’t command a filibuster-proof majority.
Senator Tom Harkin tried to change Senate rules on the filibuster in 1995, and the Burlington Hawk Eye reports that he may try again, “Given what he sees as the abuse of power by a couple members of his own party whom he said are threatening to join the minority party if their every demand is not met.”
Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin told reporters yesterday that he does not expect Senator Joe Lieberman to join a Republican filibuster to block the health care reform bill. He also hinted that Lieberman has a lot to lose by sinking this bill.
In contrast, 42 Democratic senators think Lieberman should be rewarded for his poor judgment and disloyalty. So, Lieberman keeps control of the powerful Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He loses only a meaningless title: subcommittee chairman on climate change on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I say “meaningless” because that subcommittee won’t be where the action is on any forthcoming bill to deal with global warming.
This kind of thing is why I don’t give to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee anymore.
I’d like to remind the Ed Fallon haters in the audience that urging people to vote for the Republican candidate does twice as much damage to the Democratic nominee as urging people to vote for a third-party candidate.
Don’t expect Lieberman to keep whatever promises he made in exchange for this deal. I won’t be surprised if he joins with Republican filibusters, for instance.
While he never used his gavel and subpoena power to investigate the Bush administration’s homeland security failures (such as the inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina), I bet Joe will aggressively pursue investigations of the incoming administration.
I’m afraid to ask how Tom Harkin voted, since he recently said it might be better to “forgive and forget” what Lieberman did during this year’s campaign. If anyone else calls Harkin’s office to inquire, please post a comment or send me an e-mail to tell me what they say.
I don’t care if Lieberman remains a personal friend of Harkin’s. He made his choice and has no business running a major committee in a Democratic-controlled Senate. It’s not as if he was even representing his constituents’ preferences in the presidential race. Connecticut voted for Obama over John McCain by a 61 percent to 38 percent margin.
Share your opinions on Senate Democrats’ stupidity, gullibility or cowardice in the comments.
But don’t worry, Republicans, it won’t be this bad. (Click the link for a funny video that doesn’t want to embed here for some reason.)
Seriously, though, we won’t see radical change from the next administration. Obama’s not even trying to punish Joe Lieberman, who actively campaigned for the Republican ticket and repeated their talking points.
UPDATE: In case anyone doubts that Obama has a mandate for changing our direction, a Gallup poll that was in the field between November 6 and November 8 showed 70 percent have a favorable opinion of Obama, while 25 percent have an unfavorable opinion. 65 percent of respondents are confident in Obama’s ability to be a good president, 28 percent do not have confidence in his ability, and 7 percent have no opinion. The same poll showed George W. Bush’s approval rating at 27 percent and disapproval rating at 66 percent.
Keep in mind that no president since Nixon ever had disapproval numbers above 60 percent. Multiple polls have shown Bush in this range.
Note that John Edwards, who had an extramarital affair, was banished from the Democratic convention. But Rudy Giuliani, who not only cheated on his wife but used city resources for the benefit of his mistress, and informed his wife he was divorcing her by holding a press conference, is delivering the keynote for the GOP convention.
Rumor has it that John McCain will officially announce his running mate tomorrow in Ohio. The Republicans will likely leak the news this evening so that Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium’s Invesco Field won’t dominate all the media commentary.
My best guess is that McCain will pick Mitt Romney. The downside is that the ticket can be ridiculed as “Rich and Richer,” but the upside is that Romney is seasoned enough to go head-to-head with Biden in a debate. I can’t say the same for other possible choices such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Also, I think I saw one poll suggesting Romney would help McCain in Florida, where recent polls show Obama and McCain within the margin of error.
Some people in the McCain campaign are supposedly pushing for Joe Lieberman to be the running mate. Although he still caucuses with Senate Democrats, he has been campaigning for McCain and using Republican talking points against Obama.
I can’t imagine McCain would dare to pick Lieberman. The beltway media would love the bipartisan-looking ticket, but the Republican base would go ballistic if McCain picked someone pro-choice. Although I don’t like Lieberman, his voting record is solidly Democratic.
The religious right doesn’t even want former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on the ticket, because he is pro-choice. At least Ridge is a lifelong Republican.
I’ve seen no sign that McCain has ever considered Mike Huckabee for VP, but after watching Huckabee on The Colbert Report last night, I’m more convinced than ever that we haven’t heard the last from him. He’ll be running for president in 2012 or 2016 for sure. I disagree with many of his views, but I give Huckabee a lot of credit for praising Michelle Obama’s speech and pointing out the absurdity of conservative pundit spin about Hillary Clinton’s speech.
Also, I don’t recall hearing any Republican besides Huckabee express pride that this country has nominated a black man for president. On Colbert’s show, he said that while he won’t vote for Obama and wouldn’t like to see him become president, he remembers growing up with racism in the deep South, and he’s glad Obama’s race didn’t prevent him from winning the nomination.
I have heard some speculation that McCain will pick a woman, most likely Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison now that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is mired in scandal.
“I think one of the problems that John McCain has is that his grandfather was an admiral, his father was an admiral,” Harkin said on a conference call with Iowa Independent and other media. “He comes from a long line of just military people. I think his whole world view, his life view, has been shaped from a military viewpoint and he has a hard time of thinking beyond that. And I think he’s trapped in that, so everything is looked at sort of from his life experiences as always having been in the military and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”
I see what Harkin is getting at–McCain’s background makes him unlikely to get us out of Iraq and perhaps more likely to get us involved in other wars. Still, I don’t think this is good messaging against McCain. Americans are not going to reject his candidacy because he comes from too military of a family.
But for those who are tired of talking about McCain’s anger management problem, I offer ten more reasons not to support the GOP nominee:
1. Mr. Straight Talk can’t keep his story straight when it comes to Iraq, the economy, tax cuts or other issues. Brave New Films shows you the evidence in “The Real McCain 2”:
McCain’s campaign has fired at least six employees this month because of their lobbying ties, including his national finance co-chairman Tom Loeffler, whose firm collected millions from Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.
* Ahmed Chalabi, the smooth talking Iraqi exile who helped manufacture the WMD charges against Saddam Hussien that led the U.S. to invade.
* Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, found guilty of torture, executions, disappearances, and human rights violations, who hired Black to “improve” his image in the U.S.
* Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, who’s army massacred between 40,000 and 50,000 civilians in two years.
* Dictator Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), who amassed a vast personal fortune and repressed rival political parties while his country’s children starved.
* Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi of UNITA, an ally of apartheid-era South Africa, who started a civil war which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and ordered the torture and murder of countless opponents.
* Nigerian Dictator Ibrahim Babangida ran a one-party regime, who arrested his opponents, and murdered journalists.
Why should you care? Because in the past Cindy McCain had business dealings with a crook whom Senator McCain helped bail out. We need to know if similar conflicts of interest exist today.
4. McCain’s campaign has underpaid for the use of his wife’s corporate jet, even though the self-styled campaign finance reformer has backed legislation that would require candidates to pay the real costs of using corporate jets.
6. McCain is running for president on his “vast experience,” but he keeps confusing Sunnis with Shiites, even after being corrected by his buddy Joe Lieberman.
The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.
9. McCain’s campaign has been bashing Obama for supposedly being willing to negotiate with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, but McCain said two years ago that the U.S. would have to engage Hamas if that group were running the Palestinian government.
By the way, McCain’s continuing problem with fundraising suggests that a lot of Republicans have their own reasons for not supporting the GOP nominee.
It’s incredible to think that even after a campaign that dragged on for months longer than the Republican nominating battle, the Democratic nominee is likely to have a financial edge over McCain this fall.
Feel free to post comments about other reasons not to support McCain that I’ve left out.
When Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was running for president in 2003, I started getting e-mails from his campaign regularly. I had never donated to him, but I figured that he must have bought the Iowa Democratic Party’s e-mail list before he decided to bypass the Iowa caucuses.
At some point during Lieberman’s campaign against Ned Lamont in 2006, I unsubscribed from the list.
So I was surprised to find the following message from “Joe Lieberman” (sending address “info@joe2006.com”) in my in-box this morning, with a subject line of “Opting back in to the Joe Lieberman mailing list”:
You have requested to be opted back into the Joe Lieberman email list.
To confirm your subscription, please click this link or paste it into your browser:
If you do not wish to be added to our list, no further action is required.
What a lie. I never requested to be added back on his e-mail list, and I never would do so now that he is actively campaigning for John McCain.
He is probably just trying to build a bigger list so that he can make the case against our eventual nominee.
Talk about a guy who learned all the wrong lessons in life.
Anyone else out there get the same e-mail?
UPDATE: To clarify, this e-mail came to my other account (the one that uses my real name), not to the address that is published in my profile here and at various other blogs (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).
At Daily Kos, commenter josephk says
the email, as has been described and the process through which it found its way into the diarists inbox … looks more like a ‘live email address confirmation’ for a specific demographic
Live confirmed email addresses that have a certain demographic profile (in this case a Liebermann supporter) are of much more value than just a random list that is 2 years out of date
there is nothing ‘dark and nefarious’ as the diarist suggests, nor is it as innocuous as You suggest
it is just simple email marketing
Well, yes, I get e-mail marketing messages all the time, but they don’t (and shouldn’t) start with the deceptive claim that I asked to be opted into their list.
There's Finally a Senate Bill in Committee, that hopes to do something about Global Warming! The bill America's Climate Security Act of 2007, sponsors Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner.
The bill would impose emission limits on electric utility, transportation, and manufacturing industries.
Between 2005 and 2012: The bill caps emissions at 5200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, the estimated levels during 2005
The Bad News:
The Lieberman Bill does NOT go FAR enough, FAST enough, and is a “fig leaf” offering to Industry, which seeks to replace a competing Carbon Cap Bill that does what's scientifically needed …
