Over the weekend at Rootscamp and generally over the past few weeks, I've been participating in a series of conversations concerning the relationship between traditional "legacy" LGBT organizations- such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)- and online communities. Discussions have centered around how there has been a lot of "infighting" over the past few months. Two prominent examples are the blogswarm last week aimed at the Human Rights Campaign around its strategy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, along with Bil Browning's criticism of GLAAD around The Cleveland Show episode, but criticisms in general- including in my writing, as you may have noticed- have been growing louder across the LGBT blogosphere for some time now.
What is interesting to me is where healthy dialogue turns into "infighting", and why it is deemed critical that progressive movement actors- such as President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders- need a "left flank", but the same does not seem to apply to LGBT organizations.
More on this, along with an interview w/HRC President Joe Solmonese, in the extended entry.
Tomorrow when you go to OpenLeft, you will likely see a "splash page" (e.g., a small page appearing on top of the regular OpenLeft window). We're putting that page up to ask you to join Open Left Action's e-mail list. The page will appear rarely, and is completely optional of course.
Now, you're probably thinking, why should I join another e-mail list. Before you decide, I have four reasons you should consider.
2. OpenLeft is on the cutting edge of progressive online activism. We are one of the very few progressive political blogs to have our own e-mail list. With your help, we placed advertising in traditional media publications when we placed ads in the Washington Post, Roll Call, and The Hill on the public option late last year. With your help, we linked our writers on the ground in key progressive fights- Matt Stoller with Donna Edwards, Chris Bowers with Joe Sestak, and myself in Maine. We've helped make public whip counts a science. We were one of the first blogs to partner in launching the new, user-friendly Change.org petition widget you see at the top right of the page. We've led the way in progressive online action, and will continue to do so.
3. Unlike other organizations or electoral campaigns, we won't clog your inbox. Trust me, we get it- as online activists ourselves, we understand how annoying a barrage of e-mails asking for money or help can be. We're in your camp, and that's why I think many already on our list can attest that we only e-mail you when we see a serious opportunity to create progressive change. We'll ask you what issues and fights you're most interested in, too.
4. Lots of big fights coming up. We're working on filibuster reform, financial regulation reform (like our FDIC comment action), and other key issues, and we can't do it alone.
If I've convinced you, and you're not a member of Open Left Action, join today. If you're already a member, consider asking asking your friends to join. Together we will build a stronger progressive online movement.
I like to have a lot of discussions around political strategy with friends, both politically-oriented folks as well as more detached friends. I was e-mailing with one fairly politically-oriented friend of mine back and forth through the day yesterday about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the question of issue prioritization.
He wasn't comfortable with me publishing his response or naming him, but his complaint boiled down to why the LGBT movement is prioritizing repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell- which, in his eyes, affects a tiny fraction of LGBT people in this country- over passage of other issues, notably the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), given that employment discrimination at people based on sexual orientation is still legal in 29 states, and legal based on gender identity or expression in 38 states.
I think this question is an important and valid one, and I have a number of thoughts on it.
While it is true that the momentum has shifted from ENDA towards DADT, the work to pass ENDA has not completely stopped. There are a number of organizations out there who are focusing almost entirely on ENDA, as well as activists in online spaces such as this one. Frankly, that is probably a good thing. There shouldn't be one collective hive mind directing everyone to do one thing. There is a diverse movement that is moving on many different issues at once, so calls for "the LGBT movement" to do something, aside from being vague and unproductive, don't mean a lot since "the LGBT movement" never moves in lockstep.
That said, there is the question of resources. As I wrote when raising questions about the timing of the National Equality March and being spread thin, I have never been a "we can walk and chew gum at the same time"- you have to have enough gum to go around for every issue movement, and there isn't enough.
The answer to that is that sometimes this is out of activists' hands. President Obama mentioned DADT in the State of the Union (and did not mention ENDA). The result was increased chatter on DADT for the next several days on cable news, in op-ed pages, polling firms choosing to poll on the issue and release the results, and people like me writing about all of it. All of that led to John McCain's comments, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney choosing to speak out, and so forth. In other words, the President helped kick start the momentum- momentum we haven't had since 1993, in my view- and now that it's there, it's important to take advantage of it. You could say that activists like me calling for the President to discuss repeal in the speech, and institutions lobbying for the same, helped lead to all of that, but there wasn't any one major decision that "okay, the LGBT movement is going to collectively shift to Don't Ask, Don't Tell! Go!". Thus, another reason why attacks on "the LGBT movement" aren't entirely accurate. President Obama played a major role in starting this momentum, and when it's there, you have to grab it, and channel resources to that effect.
The third point I want to mention is on the question of resources and enthusiasm. The question was raised in the same way around how activists working on marriage equality were "sucking the energy out of the room" around ENDA. On this, I turn to the words of Kos- "it's a big internet". If you don't like the direction being taken in terms of strategy or prioritization, you can always do it your own way. I also would refer back to what Chris wrote here- "how to start your own netroots organization". One thing I mentioned in Dallas at a panel on the blogopshere is that a number of institutions- including OpenLeft- have sprung up in response to disagreement with the strategy or prioritization taken by other institutions. Hell, that's one big reason people started blogging. Now OpenLeft even has its own tools like an e-mail list and a fundraising apparatus, and with your help, together we got a public option in merged Senate bill, elected Rep. Donna Edwards in the face of establishment backing for Al Wynn, got every major 2008 Senate Democratic challenger to come out in favor of net neutrality, and other wins, not to mention some close losses like in Maine, and changing the debate on issues like no residual forces in Iraq. All of that came because a number of us didn't like the way other institutions were acting, so we built our own, and so can you.
The bottom line is that there are entirely valid questions about channeling resources and issue prioritization. Some of it is in activists' hands, and some is not, but there is no collective focus on just one issue, nor is it wise to just ignore all of the momentum on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and insist on focusing on ENDA. Opportunities must be taken as they come.
For the upcoming holiday season, we came up with the idea to re-post some of the more interesting/provocative/brilliant front page pieces from OpenLeft's history. The reason is because not everyone has a chance to read every piece throughout the year. And over the course of the year, a lot of new readers have come in who haven't read some of the better stuff in the early months.
So, we'd like to open up the floor to you to recommend your favorite stuff. Just leave a URL in the comments and we'll pick the best suggestions.
For easier scrolling back through the year, I recommend clicking on a writer's name and changing the numbers at the end if you're looking for a specific time period. For example, all my posts are at:
http://www.openleft.com/user/Adam%20Bink
And they show my most recent stuff. If I click on the "Next" link at the very bottom of those, it takes me to:
http://www.openleft.com/user/Adam%20Bink/diary/1
Which are the most recent ones before that.
Copy and paste that link and change the number at the end to 2, or 10, or whatever you like and that'll help you scroll through the year. If you're looking for another writer, just click on their name, copy and paste that link in, and you can do the same. You can also use our "OpenLeft Campaigns" tags at the bottom of this page to help, and if you've got other ideas, chime in.
Bystander breaks the news in Quick Hits- Air America announced this morning that I won their blogger contest, so I am going on the cruise. Thanks to all of you who helped, it honors me that so many folks voted for me. While I intend to have fun, I will spend most of the trip strategizing my ass off with Rachel, Howard, and the gang, so hopefully I will do you proud.
Now for those of you who voted for Digby, maybe if we can raise her some big money over the next few days, I can talk her into going along.
Something I don't think we've ever done is communicate with each other on Twitter very much. I find it has increasingly equalled or surpassed my use on Facebook, and for me, has also been extremely useful for political organizing this year. I know a couple of you are on, but happy to know more.
So, a quick run-down of us front-pagers who are on:
@openleft (all front-page posts get sent out on this thread throughout the day, so if you want to make sure you don't miss any, follow @openleft. We also send out action alerts. Oh, and Chris also does occasional highly amusing sports Tweeting)
Okay, I know the health care bill is a big disappointment. And climate change is stalled. The big banks aren't being broken up. Who knows when immigration reform is happening? And don't even get me started about the 2nd big escalation into Afghanistan.
Politics sometimes really sucks. But I want to once again argue that you should keep hope alive, sometimes miracles do happen. By some weird lightning strike of fate, with voting closing at 5:00 pm EST tomorrow, I am currently ahead in the voting for the Air America blogger contest.
I have written a post on the reasons you should consider voting for me, so I won't go into a long rah-rah pitch, but I humbly ask that if you haven't voted yet, that you consider voting for me.
It would help Openleft, it would help give publicity to my book The Progressive Revolution, and I would get to spend a week strategizing about progressive politics with Rachel Maddow, Howard Dean, Bobby Kennedy, Jr, and lots of other smart folks- many of whom I could get to start reading and maybe even commenting here. How cool would that be?
If I've convinced you, please vote here. And if you want to help with the GOTV operations, while we are not going door to door, you could post this links to your Facebook Status:
I love the four other candidates in the Air America contest. They are all great bloggers and a couple of them I am delighted to call friends. This is an election, though, and I like competing in elections, so I thought I would give you reasons you should consider voting for me in spite of the high quality of my competitors. I am not going to call it my top ten reasons, because I might think of others later that are even better, but for today, here are ten:
1. Progressives fight for underdogs and I am a serious underdog in this race. The whole nature and mission of the progressive movement is to fight for the underdog, and I am a really serious underdog. The other bloggers have more traffic on their sites. Karl has the whole massive organization backing him up, for God's sake. Digby is the huge favorite, because she is well, Digby. OpenLeft is just this modest little blog devoted to helping the movement get stronger, so I don't have much of a natural base by comparison. And speaking of reasons for being an underdog...
2. I am an evil insider. I know, I know, this will actually be seen by many of you as a reason to vote against me. But here's my argument: if I win this contest, I think it will give me added leverage with the insiders I am trying to push in a progressive direction. Right now, the people in DC who talk to me do so because they know me - I have worked with them on campaigns (issue and electoral), I have served on boards with them, I worked with them while in the White House. But if I am also seen as an influential blogger, it gives me that much extra leverage when I am leaning on them to move more to the left.
3. OpenLeft is an important blog and deserves attention. OpenLeft is one of the most important blogs in the progressive blogosphere, a place where important new projects get launched, other bloggers and movement leaders get influenced, DC insiders take notice, and progressives really engage each other in the debate. My winning this contest would really boost OpenLeft's exposure to new readers.
4. I played a role in launching Air America and getting other progressive radio/TV hosts off the ground. A few short years ago, progressives had almost no presence in radio or cable talk. I am proud to have played a role in changing that for the better:
The 501(c)(4) organization I founded and chaired, American Family Voices, hosted a conference of progressive donors and strategists in the spring of 2002 where the idea of Air America got hatched.
I served on the board of Democracy Radio, a non-profit group that helped launch the Ed Schultz Show and other progressive radio shows.
Leo Hindery and I sent a memo to the top management at MSNBC in 2004 laying out the reasons and metrics of why they should go to more progressive talk, suggesting that with Fox dominating conservative Cable news viewers, and CNN taking most of the mushy middle, there would be a bigger audience potential if they had some strong progressive voices on the air. While our strategic ideas did not take hold immediately at the station, over time they became convinced we were right and began moving in that direction.
5. I have helped some other cool organizations get started:
MoveOn.org. Wes Boyd described me as the first insider who understood what MoveOn was trying to do, and who helped them in their early days.
Center For American Progress. I played a big role in the early days of launching CAP.
Progressive Majority. I was one of the three founding board members.
Ballot Initiative Strategic Center. Was a co-founder, housed them in my office, raised their initial seed money, and was the first chair.
USAction. Housed them in my office, and helped them get off the ground.
Americans United For Change. Was a founding board member.
Center for Progressive Leadership. Was a founding board member.
I am currently working with Darcy Burner to launch the Campaign For A Progressive Congress and the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, the new 501(c)(4) and PAC organizations that are working with the CPC.
6. I have been attacked by name by Rush Limbaugh at least 3 times. Once when I was working in the Clinton White House, once when AFV held a conference of progressive donors, and once when AFV did phone calls to Republicans about the Foley/page scandal. Pretty cool, huh?
7. I helped save school lunches. In early 1995, Newt Gingrich was on a rampage, getting much of the Contract With America passed through Congress without breaking much of a sweat. Democrats were demoralized and ineffectual in their initial response. The first issue we were able to put them on the defensive with and then beat them on was the school lunch issue. I was the White House point person for getting a coalition organized in opposition to the Republicans on that issue.
8. I got on the air one of the most effective ads against Bush in his first term. After 9-11, Democrats were generally scared for many months afterwards of going directly after Bush. But when he decided to go to Wall Street and give a speech on corporate elites, I couldn't resist. I dug up some of the old records from Harken Energy and Haliburton, and did an AFV produced and paid for ad directly attacking Bush and Cheney for their hypocrisy on that whole corporate elite thing. The White House made the mistake of calling a press conference within 3 hours of our ad going up, and attacked it repeatedly, causing the cable and broadcast network news programs to run it repeatedly on and off for weeks afterward. The ad and the ensuing media flap drove Bush's approval ratings down 15 points over the next 6 weeks, marking the low water mark for him before the 2002 elections, and giving momentum to get the Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulations bill passed.
9. Lord of the Right Wing. On December 17th, 2003, ironically on the 6th anniversary of the day voting ends in the Air America contest (is that fate or what?), a new PAC I founded launched one of the biggest political web videos of all time. (I bet you didn't know that about me, did you?) Called Lord of the Right Wing, and released the same day as the 3rd Lord of the Rings movie, it was a cartoon of George Bush as a Gollum-like character grasping for power. It ended up getting over 8,000,000 views over the next few weeks.
10. I know when to stop. This post has gone on long enough. I hope I convinced you. Vote here.
In addition to your generosity, a number of people have stepped up to help us meet our costs at OpenLeft. Like debcoop, whose matching offer Chris wrote about today, and Raven Brooks w/Netroots Nation, whose Twitter offer I mentioned yesterday.
If you're not able to give personally, I have two more folks who stepped up.
Tim Tagaris, a longtime friend of OpenLeft who worked for the Lamont campaign in 2006 and now is with SEIU, is giving $1 for each new Twitter follower up to 250 before midnight EST. He started at 1,120. He's now at 1,155. That's not a lot. Let's bump it up. And trust me, he's worth following.
The same goes for Robert Greenwald with Brave New Films and his generous offer. His Twitter feed is here.
If you're on Twitter, two hours left to start following. We're just over halfway towards our goal. Thanks to Tim and Robert, and thanks to you for helping us out.
This past summer, The Opportunity Agenda conducted a scan to determine the state of immigration advocacy on the social web, looking specifically at the following: blogs that frequently cover politics and reach a mass audience, Twitter, YouTube, and the two largest social networking sites (Facebook and MySpace). This research built on a similar scan we conducted in 2007.
Turning specifically to blogs, we found that while in 2007 major progressive-leaning blogs (including the DailyKos and others) were unsafe territory for immigration advocates. Today, however, the climate is much more receptive. Major progressive blogs discuss immigration, and the comments are usually constructive. Meanwhile, the pro-immigration-specific blogosphere is thriving. One such blog, Citizen Orange, counts well over 100 blogs actively advocating for practical immigration reform.
While the main point of our scan was to provide a snapshot of online immigration advocacy in the summer of 2009, our research did lead to a number of recommendations.
Because most searches are looking for items less than a month old, we're going to narrow that window in a similar way. In the past, because the data window was so long, Authority and the Top 100 lists it powered were relatively static. With the new algorithm, the resulting Authority will better reflect the fast-changing nature of the blogosphere. Its new inherent volatility will also show which blogs are rising and falling in authority, rewarding authors on posting frequency, context and linking behavior, as well as other data inputs.
And as a result, TechPresident, a very respected blog whose writers work on meta-blogosphere issues out there, have released their new rankings... and OpenLeft falls at #35!
34. CQ Politics
35. Open Left 36. Hullabaloo (28)
I want to really emphasize a few things about this:
First, and most importantly, we would be nowhere without you, our readers. And nowhere without the lively comment discussions we have here. And as Chris said at our Netroots Nation caucus, nowhere without our lurkers! So let's hear it for our lurkers! Woo!
There are hundreds if not thousands of political blogs out there- progressive, conservative, libertarian, whatever.
A lot of the blogs on the full list are institutionally-backed blogs, not independently-run and funded like ours. I see The Caucus from the NYTimes, ABC News' Political Radar, ThinkProgress, Washington Wire from the Wall Street Journal. Many of their writers are paid on salary to do this full-time, with a steady income, funded by corporate ad revenue, foundation grants, etc. Here at OpenLeft, with the exception of Chris Bowers, and Matt Stoller when he was here, every single one of our front-page writers juggles OpenLeft with other jobs/responsibilities. And Matt/Chris were/are responsible for writing the bulk of content, day and night. I think it's a testament to independently-run blogs that we've done so well.
In addition to that, running a blog is harder than it looks, particularly when you do action projects like we do. The writers on other blogs I mentioned have full-time staff to help with e-mail blast graphics and tech support when the site goes down and their writers don't have to worry about fundraising. We don't have any of that. Again, a testament to how possible it is to write independently and do well.
A little on our funding. Since I've only started writing full-time as of a month or two ago, a little background on me. Since we launched in July 2007, I've managed advertising and special joint revenue projects like the MoveOn/Rethink Afghanistan DVDs, SEIU, and so forth. Advertising revenue is way, way down, which we rely principally on. A lot of progressive institutional partners like Brave New Films, CREDO Action, SEIU and Friends of the Earth have been there for us, and I want to thank them. A lot of advertisers, too, like Rep. Alan Grayson, who is currently advertising in a Blogad spot, along with our other past advertisers. And you've been there for us, like during our fundraiser earlier this year that blew away our expectations. This is a big reason how we've kept the lights on.
Who knew we internet left fringers in pajamas could be so influential?!
So we're proud of OpenLeft and I hope you are too. If you like what you read here, please consider chipping in to support our independent writing via the button below, or buy an independent DVD at the top of this page, or sign up to help SEIU's health care campaign, also at the top. From all of us at OpenLeft, thanks for helping make us a top-50 political blog.
As many of you know, I've been writing about the marriage equality ballot initiative in Maine for some time. I've been writing about this campaign not only because I care as a gay man, but because I care about the broader progressive movement.
As I wrote here, I think a win or loss in Maine will have a profound impact on the LGBT movement. A loss will mean the right-wing is batting 1.000 on marriage initiatives since 2004- through constitutional amendments, Prop 8, and now this. It gives the haters something to go back to their right-wing funders with, it shapes the media narrative that the country isn't "ready" for gay marriage. And it means couples will remain second-class citizens.
But I also think it will impact non-LGBT progressives. Here's why:
I often hear the theory that issue movements are disconnected- that a win or loss on marriage equality has nothing to do with, say, a win or loss on climate change. Ergo, the straight individual living outside of Maine won't be impacted by what happens in Maine. I don't think that's true.
The conservative movement is very interconnected. The right-wing foundation which funds anti-LGBT orgs also funds clean coal "studies", right-wing press outlets, and more. A win on any of these issues keeps right-wing money flowing overall, while defeats help to interrupt right-wing resources in other areas. Resources won't dry up, as there will always be die-hard activists, but they can lessen if there are across-the-board losses for conservatives on health care this fall, on marriage in Maine, on cap-and-trade later this year.
For our side, if we string losses together on issue after issue, it becomes demoralizing. It's demoralizing to movement activists as well as to many donors and foundations. Doubtful? Think of how many people you know who said they haven't felt so inspired- or even voted- since Kennedy in 1980, or McGovern in 1972, or even Kennedy in 1960, until Barack Obama. Winning and losing matters, and it matters across a multi-issue plain.
Because I believe in this inter-connectedness, and the critical nature Maine plays in a movement of which OpenLeft is a part, I'm going to travel to Maine next month to blog on the ground about the campaign. I'm traveling in conjunction with the New Organizing Institute's National LGBT Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative, another critical part of our movement. I'll be doing video interviews with key folks on the ground- including campaign staff, bloggers, traditional media, activists, and even a right-winger or two. I'll be talking to local voters, and sending back lessons on the politics of marriage equality, something we're going to be looking at here in DC very soon. I'm also hoping to explore how the campaign impacts progressives across the country, and shed a little light on Maine politics, including our favorite senior Senator there.
For this, I need to ask for your help.
As you know, such a venture has expenses, I'd like to ask for your support to help cover travel expenses (the rest will go to OpenLeft projects). I assure you that your dollars will be going to generating quality, interesting daily content here at OpenLeft on the Maine campaign, as well as instructive and productive lessons on our progressive movement overall. Between coming to the finish line on health care next month, getting a view from on the ground in Maine, and continuing to build an inside-outside progressive movement, I guarantee OpenLeft will be in its element.
When ACORN came under unprecedented attack last election cycle for our work bringing new low- and moderate-income voters of color into the electorate, Adam Bink, one of the editors there, reached out to our small online team and offered the resources of this vibrant progressive community to help us combat the firestorm of accusations and lies pushed by partisan activists.
He and people like Mike Lux, David Sirota, Chris Bowers, Natasha Chart, Matt Stoller, and Paul Rosenberg rearranged their priorities and gave their time to debunk the accusations and put the attacks and our work into context. Their advice was instrumental in helping ACORN build relationships with progressive bloggers and online activists, relationships that helped folks across the blogosphere contribute to our defense. Near the end of the entire saga, in response to a thank you video to the progressive online community that the Working Families Party produced with me, Digby said something that captures what I think is the essence of what happened in 2008. She said, “It’s beginning to feel like a movement.”
Well, it certainly felt like that to me too. And my involvement with the progressive online aspect of that movement all started with the OpenLeft community.
So when I found out that OpenLeft was facing a funding crisis (and I know a few things about facing fundraising crises as the CEO of a poor people’s organization) I knew I had to help. So I did. When ACORN was being attacked, OpenLeft stood up. Now its our turn. When OpenLeft is in trouble, ACORN will always have its back.
But you need to help too. OpenLeft is too important to the progressive movement to be allowed to fail.
If you believe that there is a need for a space that offers deep progressive analysis of both policy and politics, then you need to give.
If you believe that there is a need for a space that offers cogent analysis of the changing electorate and its potential impact on progressive public policy, then you need to give.
If you believe that there needs to be a place dedicated to holding elected officials accountable for their promises around progressive public policy, then you need to give.
If you believe there needs to be a space where progressives can discuss long-term goals, strategies and tactics outside of the short-term urgency of specific campaigns or elections, then you need to give.
Because the truth is that, while there are many sites that do some of these things very well, there are practically none that do them all and do them all so well. And that’s probably the biggest reason that you need to give.
Credit conditions really did improve post-bailout, rather than get worse as it looked like they might have. The right thing to do is keep the crosshairs where they belong - on George W. Bush and Hank Paulson who decided to implement their recapitalization scheme in an irresponsible manner. Normally, when you "inject capital" into an enterprise you get a share of the action - board seats, voting shares, etc. - not just a dividend. That way, the public's representatives would have had a way to ensure that the public interest was safeguarded as banks played with the public's money. But Bush and Paulson care more about ideological correctness (free market!) and helping their buddies (Goldman!) than they do about safeguarding the public interest. Since there was no way to bring an alternative, less horrible administration to power back in October, I see no real alternative to doing something and then letting Bush and Paulson implement it poorly.
This is a widely held view, and I'm not sure it's wrong. Credit is alive; when you use a credit card it works, and if the bailout hadn't passed we could have been in a situation where ATMs and credit cards would have stopped working. It was that dangerous. Still, it's worth comparing the bailout position to what would have happened had Congress refused to pass a bailout. Let's just say for the sake of argument that Bush and Congress couldn't agree on a package, and that nothing - the worst case scenario - came to fruition. Poof, ATMs and credit cards stop working.
What happens then? As Dean Baker noted at the time, the Federal Reserve would simply have nationalized the banks and provided credit. Credit cards and ATMs turn back on in a few hours or a day or so, there's some damage, but now the Fed has control of the banking system. And then Congress could actually deliberate about what to do, and present President-elect Obama with the authority to actually fix the problem. That would have been the right way to deal with the crisis, instead of giving Paulson $700 billion which he is clearly distributing to his buddies.
It's hard to describe the amount of damage this kind of overt abuse does to a nation. There's a tremendous loss of confidence in our system of government, and as government is the only entity that can get us through the next several years, that's a huge problem. So yes, I suppose the bailout worked to keep the credit markets functioning, just as the invasion of Iraq certainly removed Saddam Hussein. He really isn't a threat to the world anymore, though the world is a much more dangerous place because of the invasion.
Floyd Norris quotes a GE spokesperson saying something amazing.
It was yesterday that General Electric said it would borrow through the Federal Reserve's new credit facility when it opens for business next week.
Bloomberg quotes a G.E. spokesman as follows: "This is our way to demonstrate our support for what the Fed is doing, which is providing all around liquidity."
So accepting welfare is now a feature, not a bug. Got it.
Even as McCain is pulling out of Wisconsin and New Hampshire, the Bush administration is working aggressively to get what they can while they still can get it. Bailout Sleuth reports again that the Treasury is blacking out more contracts, this time with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Ernst & Young.
Bailout Sleuth also reports that Ernst & Young was the auditor for Lehman Brothers, and both Ernst and Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers worked for AIG. Ernst and Young in fact paid $1.6M in penalties to the SEC for because it "violated independent auditing standards in connection with work" associated with AIG (and PNC Financial). Fortunately, firms can recuse themselves if they feel it necessary.
There's amazing work being done all over the sphere, from Josh Marshall's unbelievably important tracking of robocalls and voter suppression to the fundraising against Michelle Bauchman to the work to beat back Prop 8 in California. On Wall Street, though, it looks like they are gearing up for one last party. Apparently those executive pay caps the bailout supposedly put on these banks aren't working so well.
Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in discretionary bonuses, for their work so far this year - despite plunging the global financial system into its worst crisis since the 1929 stock market crash, the Guardian has learned.
Staff at six banks including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are in line to pick up the payouts despite being the beneficiaries of a $700bn bail-out from the US government that has already prompted criticism. The government's cash has been poured in on the condition that excessive executive pay would be curbed...
At one point last week the Morgan Stanley $10.7bn pay pot for the year to date was greater than the entire stock market value of the business. In effect, staff, on receiving their remuneration, could club together and buy the bank...
None of the banks the Guardian contacted wished to comment on the record about their pay plans. But behind the scenes, one source said: "For a normal person the salaries are very high and the bonuses seem even higher. But in this world you get a top bonus for top performance, a medium bonus for mediocre performance and a much smaller bonus if you don't do so well."
Many critics of investment banks have questioned why firms continue to siphon off billions of dollars of bank earnings into bonus pools rather than using the funds to shore up the capital position of the crisis-stricken institutions. One source said: "That's a fair question - and it may well be that by the end of the year the banks start review the situation."
The game here is rigged, of course. I'm hearing rumors of talent transfers to Dubai, London and Hong Kong. The fashion world is probably not far behind, since they are tethered to making beautiful status symbols for the hyperwealthy, and those wealthy will no longer be in America. Next year, banks will dramatically reduce bonuses, I'm sure. But that's because the real money will be made abroad, and New York City's economy will be devastated.
Here are your answers to the survey I set up a few days ago.
Do you support this bailout?
69% 295 No
31% 131 Yes
Do you think the Democrats pushed hard enough for concessions?
40% 172 No, and shame on them for not getting more.
48% 206 No, they had more leverage than they used.
12% 50 Yes, ultimately, this legislation just had to go through.
Do you think that Congresspeople who voted for this bailout deserve primary challengers?
20% 87 Yes, this was a total betrayal.
40% 173 Coupled with other bad votes, yes
6% 25 No, this was a good vote.
34% 144 Not really, it was a tough call.
Do you approval of the job that Nancy Pelosi is doing as Speaker of the House?
68% 289 No
9% 39 No Opinion
23% 99 Yes
Do you trust Barack Obama?
23% 100 I don't know
21% 90 No
56% 238 Yes
Are you interested in supporting primary challengers to incumbent Democrats in 2010?
19% 82 I don't know
8% 32 No
73% 312 Yes
We've been noticing something really weird on our site recently. For the past month, our traffic has been spiking to near record levels, but there have been no blogads. We have lots of readers, but no advertisers. I don't know exactly why, but I have a theory. Lots of ad purchasing on blogs is done in packages put together by progressive groups that fetishize Obama. We are critical of progressive groups that fetishize Obama, therefore they don't buy on us. This isn't true of all groups, but it's true of enough so that we are left off of lists or just never added.
So anyway, I'm hoping that you will make up some of the difference by contributing a few bucks. Think of it as buying a more skeptical media rather than one that lies to you. We've got some neat things in store.
If you want to give recurring monthly donations, you can give here.
If you give, we'll set up a security perimeter to protect you from this sleeper cell.
Update: Ok, the
contribution page is fixed. You can now give non-recurring donations.
Back in May, we did a fundraiser for OpenLeft, and 210 of you sent us a total of $11,198. I think it's time you get a report of where we've put some of that cash, and even some context stacking us against superlobbyists so you can (partially) judge the value.
