Great column David (4.00 / 1)

I'm so glad to see you with a national column now.

I totally agree with you're states based approach. The Progressive States Network does great work on that. It would be nice to see you partner up with some local blogs and some national progressive organizations. You could help push what you're doing locally on the local blogs and national organizations could get there membership to contact local representatives not DC representatives.

We also need to win in the "smaller" states using a formula like Montana. If we win in enough of them then we could get some change.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:17:05 AM CDT

We are (0.00 / 0)

We are working to partner with many, many folks on the ground - bloggers, groups, legislators (of course), etc. We're raising the resources to expand our operations...it is all a matter of money - and I say that as the guy who raises it, but who doesn't get paid for it (so it's not a financial self-interest kind of thing).

---

by: David Sirota @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:21:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

re: Innocent Bystander (0.00 / 0)

David a question for you regarding 41 votes.

If one were able to get 41 votes, and that's a big IF, to filibuster a funding bill brought to the floor by Reid where would you get the money to sustain the troops while they are still in Iraq and where would you get the money to redeploy them?

This war is being funded solely by supplementals. If you filibuster the supplemental then you effectively cut-off all funding which is the point of the filibuster. A recent article I read tells that that supplemental money is needed to pay for the return of the troops home. So not only do we need to factor in sustaining them while they are there waiting for redeployment but we also need to factor in how to pay for their safe return home.

Given that by law DoD money cannot be shifted around for any purpose other than what it was appropriated for without the vote of congress and the presidents signature it is certain that the money will not come from redirected DoD funds. Nor is Bush likely to sign a new funding bill for the express purpose of bringing home the troops without a huge fight to get the funding that he wants. Meantime our troops would be sitting there unfunded.

How do you see getting the money the troops need in the case of the filibuster you are advocating for?

---

by: talex @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:49:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Food and forage provisions (0.00 / 0)

The president has wide latitude to shift money inside the Pentagon precisely for these kinds of situations. So he has plenty of flexibility to make sure there's plenty of money for a withdrawal in the event of a filibuster.

---

by: David Sirota @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:54:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks - I'm familiar with F&F (0.00 / 0)

Given the history of Bush one could easily conclude that he would use the F&F money for it's interned purposes but do so to keep and sustain the troops in Iraq short of armaments that F&F does not provide for. Then he would predictably go on a full-court PR blitzkrieg, as he has before, to say we are putting the troops in harms way. The last time that happened the polls showed the public sided with him, or in reality sided with the safety of the troops. While the majority of the public wants a phased withdrawal they have also shown that they do not want the troops being used as pawns in ending the war.

I only bring this up because by putting the troops in the middle of a political battle is not a battle I think the public would support us on. They didn't before. And with good reason.

While I, like you, want the troops to come home I find it hard to support solutions that may very well put the troops in harms way while our intent is to take them out of harms way. See my point? We don't want to burn the village in order to save the village.

---

by: talex @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 14:26:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right-Wing Propaganda (0.00 / 0)

There is lots of money in the DoD budget for moving troops from base to base. There is nothing that would prevent Bush from using that money to transport the troops from bases in Iraq to bases in the US. The troops have plenty of armaments in their current possesion for a withdrawal.

If Bush refuses to use the available funds to protect the troops, then he is burning down the village, not progressive Congressmembers. There is no reason for a supplmental funding cut-off to endanger the troops. This is right-wing propaganda.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 20:01:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Prove It (0.00 / 0)

There is lots of money in the DoD budget for moving troops from base to base.

You are the one with a talking point - and one that you have no evidence for.

Notice Sirota did not offer that as a reasonable solution. That's because you are not talking about moving units around - you are talking about 130,000-160,000 plus equipment. You are also talking about sustaining them for probably a year.

Sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

by: talex @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 20:15:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are so predictable. n/t (0.00 / 0)

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 07:51:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well Sure (0.00 / 0)

It's easy to predict facts already known.

Why is it so many on the Left want to hide from facts? Because it would screw with what they want to believe?

The problem with full time activism is that you are forced to ignore facts so that you always have something to say and do. But who are you fooling in doing so? And more importantly what is it you are actually accomplishing?

I've seen this behavior constantly starting back in the '60's.

---

by: talex @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:32:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

California Is Exhibit "A" On The Bad Side Of Things (0.00 / 0)

Back in 1998, the Dems elected themselves a trifecta in California (having held both houses of the legislature almost unbroken longer than most folks can remember).  And what did they get to show for it?

Well, for one thing, A Democratic governor whose first priority after winning election was to go out and raise a ton of money from the very folks who he ought to have been squaring off against.  And then he turned around and arrogantly told the Democrats in the state legislature--who, as I said, I had been there almost since Adam--that their job was to pass his agenda.

This was sad state of Democratic politics in the largest state in the nation.  It's what paved the way for Davis's ouster in what can only be called a constitutional coup.  He was so damn arrogant, and so well-funded that he was untouchable, unswayable by any progressive forces.  But the Rovian Republicans had relatively little trouble taking him down with a well-connected Hitler-loving, dope-smoking, serial sexual batterer.

And all too little has changed to this day.  State-level progressive politics in California is almost non-existent in terms of its accomplishments, while a reactionary minority has enormous clout, as see in the recent budget fiasco.

But so long as the Hollywood glitterati and the other assorted power-centers in the state remain oblivious to what's happening in their own back front yards, this state will continue to revert farther and farther into its pre-Pat Brown political mode, a highly-stratified state that exists primarily for the benefit of small neo-feudal elite.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:24:58 PM CDT

But (0.00 / 0)

hasn't Cali led the nation in terms of both consumer protections and energy issues?  I see products all the time that say "residents of California should be warned" about a given health risk that the feds don't want to tell us about, and my understanding is that the way they fund their utilities and their fuel efficiency laws have kept their emissions down compared to the rest of the country.  Those don't count as accomplshments?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:29:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're Talking About Tom Hayden, Dude! (4.00 / 1)

Those labelling laws are from Prop 65, brought to you courtesy of SDS's Port Huron Statement-writing Tom Hayden, back when he had assembled a powerful progressive statewide organization, which no longer exists.  (Bob Mullhullond, who used to run that organization, still exists, however, is now very much the quintessential insider of California Democratic Party politics.)

Likewise, we have a fairly strong environmental regulatory structure, left over from years past.  But its effectiveness can rightly be judged by noting that South Coast Air Basin has the most polluted air in the nation.  Of course the reasons for this are largely outside the control of the regulators involved.  But that's just the point:  even the best-intentioned regulators, without a strong progressive movement at their backs, are going to be frequently outplayed by special interests that can hop around from venue to venue--especially a GOP Administration and GOP-packed federal courts--to bring all the best plans up very, very short.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:02:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gotchya (0.00 / 0)

I think I just misunderstood your initial point.  You weren't saying that full Party control is inherently bad or useuless, just that it  is insufficient?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:17:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm Saying That California Is F*d Up! (0.00 / 0)

Full control in other states has produced some very good results, so I'm not trying to overgeneralize here.  But California is a very good example of how lack of a well-developed statewide progressive infrastructure has hurt us badly.

What might be an adequate progressive infrastructure in a less populous state is clearly inadequate here in California, where the massively expensive media markets effectively mask all sorts of skullduggery, simply by ignoring politics altogether, except when treating it as entertainment.

Part of the problem is our out-of-kilter state constitutional system, most notably the requirement of a 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes.  But with a decent progressive infrastructure, we would have changed the constitution already.

The initiative system is a crapshoot.  It's been used for many more bad ideas than good ones.  But there have been occassional very good ones, and you happened to point to one.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:28:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heh (0.00 / 0)

"California is F*d up!"
Heh.  You should swing by NY sometime.

But yeah, I get your point.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 16:55:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great Analysis (0.00 / 0)

In your syndicated column, you say:

the 11 percent of Americans living in the least populated states have enough Senate votes -- 41 -- to sustain a filibuster. Yes, 89 percent of the population may support a policy, but 11 percent of the population has the senators to block that policy's enactment.

So states like Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and Oklahoma have an extraordinary amount of clout, and the power elite in small states can hold an iron grip on the nation.

You offer two solutions to this problem:

1) Nationally, focus on blocking bad legislation (and cutting off fundig for bad wars), rather than trying to pass good legislation since that will just be blocked.

2) Work on the local and state level where progressives often have more clout and can get things done.

I strongly agree with both of these solutions and I applaud you for pointing them out and for doing all your good work with the Progressive States Network. This has been essential work.

But this analysis suggests two more possibilities to me:

3) Instead of spending massive amounts of money to put a proposition on the California ballot (and having it probably go down to defeat), spend that money on hiring a few dozen good canvassers, organizers, and radio folks to go into each of these small states and do educational canvassing, build organizations, and set up small radio stations that can feed Pacficica and other progressive programming into the community. A relatively small amount of money can support a lot of organizers and a few years of good organizing in a small state might have a big impact. I think this is the strategy of California Peace Action (now called Peace Action West).

4) Paul Krugman says on his >blog that:

In fact, if you look at voting behavior, low-income whites in the South are not very different from low-income whites in the rest of the country. You can see this both in Larry Bartels's "What's the matter with What's the Matter With Kansas?" (pdf), Figure 3, and in a comprehensive study of red state-blue state differences by Gelman et al (pdf). It's relatively high-income Southern whites who are very, very Republican. Can I get away with saying that rich white trash are the problem? Probably not.

What this reflects, in turn, is the odd fact that income levels seem to matter much more for voting in the South. Contrary to what you may have read, the old-fashioned notion that rich people vote Republican, while poorer people vote Democratic, is as true as ever -- in fact, more true than it was a generation ago. But in rich states like New Jersey or Connecticut, the relationship is weak; even the very well off tend to be only slightly more Republican than working-class voters. In the poorer South, however, the relationship is very strong indeed.

There are more low-income Democratic Southerners than high-income Republicans, so some of the areas in the South might also be amenable to a good canvassing and organizing effort that could empower, organize, and turn out progressive voters.

It might be worth putting some money into these two latter strategies. Of course, they might also just be money poured down a rat-hole -- progressives in a lot of places have little support and so are burned out, flakey, and crazy, so even really good organzing may not lead to much. Still, these are some things to consider.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:38:52 PM CDT

As is, (0.00 / 0)

the political system is broken at all levels.  Need an example of screwed up, come look at Michigan.  Almost 24 years of tax cuts from R & D Govs. and steadily declining revenues have left this state on the edge of collapse.  In fact, 1+ billion dollar deficit and pending shut down of state govt due to impasse.  I think we need a third party.  I know it hasn't worked before, but I don't think there is any hope in the existing structure. 

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 07:58:24 AM CDT