Oil barons Charles and David Koch held their annual billionaires' summit in Palm Springs on Sunday, Nancy Goldstein reports in The Nation. Every year, the Kochs gather with fellow plutocrats, prominent pundits, and Republican legislators to plan their assault on government regulation and the welfare state. This is the first year that the low-profile gathering has attracted protesters.
(It's not just the M$M, we here in the blogosphere have gotten a pretty distorted view of the electorate this cycle as well. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Project Vote’s new poll, which reveals the “rising electorate” from 2008 has starkly different views about the role of government than Tea Partiers, has inspired some discussion on the mood of voters before the election in November. “What Happened to Hope and Change,” we ask, and several bloggers, columnists, and reporters (sometimes with a combination of relief and frustration) attempt to answer.
"Lorraine C. Minnite, the author of the study, argues that the poll shows that the media is paying too much attention to the concerns of the mostly white and better-off Tea Party," reported Linda Scott at PBS News Hour.
The poll's finding that Tea Partiers only make up 29 percent of 2008 voters, compared to the 32 percent of black, young, and low-income voters, who turned out in droves in 2008 was a "refreshing corrective," wrote The Nation's Chris Hayes.
"We've all spent so much time dwelling on the slights and accusations of the Fox News crowd, there's been shockingly little attention paid to the views, frustrations and convictions of what we might call the forgotten electorate, otherwise known as Obama's base," he wrote.
There was a fascinating contrast in two articles in the New York Times yesterday. The first was a news article, which I discussed in a post yesterday, which referenced the fact that Wall Street chieftains are privately relieved that the new financial reform bill, while it nicks them here and there and does add to/ toughen up some key regulations, doesn't fundamentally shift the way Wall Street does business. The second was a Paul Krugman editorial discussing the anger that many corporate leaders have toward Obama, and the huge amount of money they are shoveling to Republican candidates and conservative causes as a result.
It's an intriguing contradiction: on health care, on financial reform, on energy policy, on so many other issues, the administration and congressional Democrats are passing or pushing legislative changes that don't offer a fundamental transformation of the way big business operates in America. What they are offering instead is relatively mild reforms. Yet corporate bigwigs and their Republican allies are acting like we're moving toward socialist Armageddon.
No one thing explains this odd dynamic. Some of it is tactical: cynical corporate PR/legislative strategists figuring that if they scream bloody murder, they can move the debate more in their direction, and keep future legislative fights from going too far in the progressive direction. On the Democratic side, both tactically and psychologically, many Democrats want to claim that they are doing big bold things even when the actual legislation is a little less far reaching than the rhetoric suggests.
The biggest factor, though, is that big corporate interests are used to getting so much of what they want that when anything doesn't go exactly their way, they are stunned and outraged. From the 1930s to the 1960s, big corporations were still quite powerful, but they were not dominant: labor was stronger then than it is today, Democrats stood up to them more, regulators tended to be more aggressive. But for the last 40 years, conservative, pro-corporate Presidents have been in charge most of the time, and even when Democrats controlled Congress, there were enough boll weevil/blue dog/DC type of pro-corporate Democrats in Congress that they were able to form an alliance with Republicans to keep anything bad from happening to the big corporate interests. The Democratic Presidents we have had in this era- Carter, Clinton, and now Obama- have been pretty conservative in their economic policy. As the pigs at the trough never were forced to share the food they were eating, they grew even bigger and more powerful, making their ability to control politicians, push around regulators, and wreak havoc on the economy grow worse and worse.
Is this finally beginning to change? It depends on your perspective. Some of my progressive friends think that Obama and congressional Dems are almost as bad as the Republicans in terms of coddling Corporate America. Some of my optimistic friends in progressive politics like Bob Creamer think we are breaking through in a major way, setting the stage for bigger triumphs in the near future. And of course those corporate lobbyists who are screaming socialism at the top of their lungs and giving a lot more to Republican candidates can't believe they are only getting their way 80% of the time instead of 100%.
I am not as optimistic as Bob, nor as pessimistic as, for example, some of the folks at Firedoglake. As I have written before, I think we are breaking through a little, making some modest steps forward, but have a long way to go. What I do think is far more important than the debate between optimists and pessimists, though, is that some real thought go into what happens next. If Democrats shy away from picking fights with corporate special interests because of their growling, I fear the worse politically: in this volatile anti-establishment atmosphere, caution is what loses. We have to lean into the punch, and then punch back hard ourselves, to have a chance in the 2010 elections. The great thing about the corporate howling is that an a populist, anti-corporate special interest narrative is the best hope by far for the Democrats, and the Republicans are playing into our hands by opposing financial reform, defending the Citizens United decision, and embracing the corporate screamers. Retreat means defeat right now, both in electoral politics and in the question of whether this change moment becomes bigger or dissipates into the mist.
Love your analysis Jon, but I think you're wrong on this one. Your thinking is based on what are a number of flawed theories about third party runs and the Ralph Nader presidential run.
First, I totally and wholeheartedly support labor if it decides to make third party runs at the congressional level. The easiest and quickest way for third parties to make a splash is running at the congressional level. Labor should have its own party, period. Especially now.
We're on the verge of a huge progressive victory for the antiwar movement. Jane Hamsher estimates we have 36 of the 39 Democratic votes needed to defeat the war supplemental bill in the House tomorrow--which leaves only three to go! We must make sure our Reps know we oppose the war, and remind them that everyone in the House in 2007 signed the pledge not to vote for more war funding unless there are provisions for troop withdrawal.
According to Hamsher, here are the vets who are "leaning No" and could use a boost of antiwar support:
Steve Cohen
Keith Ellison
Chakah Fattah
Mike Honda
Ann Kirkpatrick
Doris Matsui
Ed Markey
Jim McDermott
Gwen Moore
Jared Polis
Jan Schakowsky
Mike Thompson
John Tierney
Mel Watt
Anthony Weiner
Brave New Films has put together a series of messages from Director Robert Greenwald, targeting specific states where pressure is needed most: Massachusetts, New York, Maine, Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, Vermont, Virginia, Texas, California, and Arizona. If you live in one of those states or know someone who does, forward them the appropriate video and ask them to call Congress: (202) 224-3121.
For those of y'all who missed it, it was a good weekend around the blogosphere for The Progressive Revolution. On Saturday evening Jan Schakowsky and I went over to Firedoglake Book Salon for a chat about the book, and a bunch of other interesting meta questions (some teased by Adam here). Jan also had several interestings comments.
On Sunday, SusanG over at DailyKos gave the book a fantastic review, and really summarized the book's theme, argument and important very well. You can check it out here.
Many thanks to the good people at FDL and DailyKos for taking the time to read the book and have me on to chat.
I just wanted to let folks here know that the good people over at Firedoglake Book Salon, along with my dear friend Rep. Jan Schakowsky, will be hosting a chat about my new book, The Progressive Revolution. It'll be tomorrow, Saturday the 24th, from 5-7 PM EST. It's always a good time, so if you enjoy sparring in the comments here, head on over and we'll dance. Jan is also always an interesting person to chat with.
Senator Edwards, We Need You To Lead
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday January 22, 2008 3:00 pm
John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
The Republicans are not going to let Reid punt and extend the Protect America Act for another 18 months so it looks like the FISA bill is going to come back up again on Monday. Chris Dodd's objection to Unanimous Consent still stands, so they will pick up in the middle of the Motion to Proceed debate.
It will be increasingly difficult to listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton tout their supreme leadership attributes and their commitment to "changing the way Washington works" if they choose to sit by, more or less mute, and allow such a blatant and corrupt evisceration of the rule of law -- and such a vast and permanent expansion of the limitless surveillance state -- to occur without a fight. Any one of them, or all three, has a unique opportunity to actually demonstrate with actions, rather than pretty speeches, their commitment to the principles they claim to espouse.
John Edwards is the perfect person to lead with this message. Such an action would illustrate his genuine commitment to change and fighting vested interests in Washington, and hopefully it will channel that intense anti-immunity passion toward his campaign. He won't be able to participate in the filibuster himself, but by offering to leave the campaign trail and go back to DC with Clinton and Obama he'll be able to show leadership in challenging all Democrats to put thoughts of personal gain aside and join together in the fight to save the constitution.
Without the help of the presidential candidates, we are doomed to lose this fight. And all their calls for change will ring hollow if they allow George Bush to railroad this bill through a supine Democratic-controlled Senate because of their absence.
You can email Senator Edwards directly at john@johnedwards.com.
For more contact information for other campaigns, and to join the FISA fight, go to the original.
We're launching our first action campaign on OpenLeft, called Stop the DC Establishment at http://stopthedcestablishment.com. Please sign the petition. While it's fun to think that Iraq is Bush's war, the reality is that The war is enabled by Democrats, Republicans, DC press, think tank experts, and a whole slew of lobbyists which together comprise a noxious DC establishment. They puff up figurines like Petraeus, they shovel billions into the sand and into the hands of dishonest military contractors, and they live in comfortable sinecures at places like Brookings.
It's time for the media to cease treating his statements with open-mouthed credulity, and for politicians in both parties to stop being rolled by the elaborate PR campaign he is leading on behalf of the administration. (Think Progress has a helpful graph which shows he spent 17 days in August flacking for the surge.) The American public wants an end to the war in Iraq and it's time that our elected officials realize that a vote for any funding bill that does not include binding timelines will only continue to bog us down in a deadly, ill-conceived endeavor which only a fool (or a knave) could think it possible to "win."
Please sign the petition to be delivered to the Democratic leadership, which says that we do not want the dissembling and statistical manipulation being put forward by Petraeus, Crocker and others to serve as an excuse for prolonging the war. It's time that they do their job and stand with the majority of the country to oppose this unpopular president and his fiasco of a war.
Thanks to David Olsen of the Backtalk videoblog series for editing the video.
Asked early Monday if this was the right message for his party to send, a member of the Democratic leadership, speaking on background, curtly answered, "No."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, called the ad "over the top."
"I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.
I've been looking forward to reading Matt Bai's book, The Argument, for months now. In the circles I run- which include Democracy Alliance donors, netroots activists, and Clinton administration folks, all of which are central characters in the book- everybody was buzzing about it, and more than a few people were more than a little nervous about what he would have to say.
I have to say, from a pure reading pleasure point of view, it was worth the wait. I feared that it would be one of those books that, since I already knew most of the stories told in it, that it would be pretty boring- one of those books that I had to read to know what nasty thing he said about whom, but not something I would enjoy slogging through. I turned out to be wrong, because Bai is an engaging writer who can be very funny in his writing a lot of the time.
This diary is an expanded and edited version coming from this comment. The author blogs at Firedoglake.
Or do they?
Today, my co blogger Jane Hamsher questioned this bit of conventional wisdom with this post. I'd like to encourage readers of OpenLeft to check it out, and either join the discussion at Firedoglake or take her observations up here.
I wonder how we really know what we think we know. How good, really, is the data people use to measure the composition of this dynamic thing we call the progressive netroots? Is there really some groups of straight white men trying to filter people out and calling all the shots for the progressive blogosphere? What are our most current data points, how have they been collected and how reliable are they? Let's talk about it.
I'm not sure we always know what we think we know, and I'd like to think a little bit differently about how we view and pursue diversity in support of economic justice, universal empowerment, civil rights. . . in short, toward progressive change.
STATE BLOGS
