Tag: ek Politics

H/T lambert @ Corrente

Why Democrats Lost the House to Republicans

Posted by Samuel J. Best, CBS News

November 3, 2010 2:38 AM

Preliminary CBS News exit polls show that these results were fueled primarily by a depressed turnout among Democratic base groups…

…

Core Democratic groups stayed away in droves Tuesday, costing Democratic House candidates dearly at the polls.

Hispanics, African Americans, union members and young people were among the many core Democratic groups that turned out in large numbers in the 2008 elections, propelling Mr. Obama and Democratic House candidates to sizable victories. In 2010, turnout among these groups dropped off substantially, even below their previous midterm levels.

Group	2010	2006	2008
Under 30	11%	13% (-2)	18% (-7)
Union Households	17%	23% (-6)	21% (-4)
African Americans	10%	–	13% (-3)

You should really click on lambert’s link because while some of it is stuff you’ve already seen here, he also links many commentaries I haven’t highlighted.

Dear Barack Obama: Word Salads Aren’t Enough

by Taylor Marsh

03 November 2010 9:31 am

Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Democratic legislators, and Obama loyalists thought they could pass health care legislation by throwing the American people into a corporate monopoly system against their will, while using seniors’ money to pay for it, sacrificing women, while lying to the people that it wouldn’t cost more, as you push so called “benefits” off into the future. In fact, Obama and his loyalists actually thought they’d even get rewarded. The political malpractice is epic.

Today Pres. Obama will come out and say something to the effect that “we get the message,” people don’t want obstruction or partisanship they want us to work together. The man is clueless. Following tested partisan and Democratic principles going back to F.D.R. might have saved some of last night. But Obama’s Monty Hall, “let’s make a corporate deal,” screw the policy principles mentality was always doomed to take Dems down. It was just a matter of waiting for the moment to manifest.

What voters want is for their lives to get better or at the very least to believe that the people in charge making policies understand their plight and know what they’re doing. Pres. Obama does not and, unfortunately, too many elected Dems thought their job was to walk in lock-step with a president who couldn’t find a democratic policy answer with F.D.R.’s road map.

…

The election results of 2010 are a result of Mr. Obama’s philosophy of cutting a deal for the sake of an “accomplishment” and in order to further your own political marketing. This craven self-serving political egotism means political catastrophe if what you’re doing doesn’t actually make the lives of people better or at the very least doesn’t make them feel as if you’re making it worse.

…

It’s the third turn out the bums election in as many cycles. It’s going to happen again in 2012 and if Pres. Obama doesn’t get his act together he will be turned out too.

The Primary Obama Movement Begins Today

Ian Welsh, 11/3/10

Let me put it simply, what went wrong went wrong from the very top of the party.  In both political and policy terms, the President of the United States, the head of the Democratic party, created this disaster.

…

Barack Obama took pains to let down or gratuitously harm virtually every major Democratic constituency. Whether it was increasing deportations of Hispanics, whether it was putting in a Presidential order against Federal money being used for abortions which was more restrictive than Rep. Stupak had demanded, whether it was wholesale violation of civil rights climaxing with the claim that he had the right to assassinate American citizens, whether it was trading away the public option to corporate interests then insisting for months he hadn’t, whether it was not moving aggressively on card check (EFCA) for unions, or whether it was constantly stymying attempts to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama was there making sure that whatever could be done to demoralize the base was done.

…

The status quo of Democrats coming in after Republicans and accepting Republican policies as a fait accomplit must end.  If it does not, the US will experience a full-on meltdown.  Not a great depression like in the ’30s (though the US is in a Depression) but a meltdown like that which occurred in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, where the population actually declined, food was hard to find, brown outs were common, medicine was in short supply, and so on.

…

The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down.  If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama.  This is important not as a matter of partisan or ideological preference, it is important because left wing policies work.  It is necessary to move back to strongly progressive taxation, it is necessary to force the rich to take their losses, it is necessary to deal with global warming, it is necessary to deal with the fact that the era of cheap oil is over, it is necessary to stop the offshoring engine which is destroyin the American middle class.

…

The first step to fixing America is fixing the Democratic party, and the first step in fixing the Democratic party is fixing Barack Obama and destroying, forever, publicly and in the most high profile way possible, the idea that Democrats can ignore and abuse their own base.  The lies spewed by corporate media figures who earn millions of dollars a year, that every time the Democrats lose, it is because they were too left wing, so more tax cuts are necessary, must end.

Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election

by Amanda Terkel, The Huffington Post

Posted: 11-3-10, 05:52 AM

According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, 23 of the 46 Blue Dogs up for re-election went down on Tuesday. Notable losses included Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), the coalition’s co-chair for administration, and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the co-chair for policy. Two members were running for higher office (both lost), three were retiring and three races were still too close to call.

…

In fact, some progressives blamed the Blue Dogs for losses on Tuesday across the ideological spectrum within the Democratic Party.

“From our perspective, our members did all that they could do and really left everything on the field,” said Levana Layendecker, communications director of the progressive grassroots organization Democracy for America. “Of course we are disappointed with the results tonight, but not surprised. Unfortunately, progressive champions became collateral damage tonight in a toxic environment created by Blue Dogs who refused to stand up for real change.”

23 is still 23 too many.

Good morning campers.  I’m your Uncle Ernie and I welcome you to Tommy’s Holiday Camp.  The camp with a difference, never mind the weather.  When you come to Tommy’s, the holiday’s forever!

BP’s Dudley Embraces Deepwater Risk in U.S., Brazil After Spill

By Brian Swint and Stanley Reed, Bloomberg News

Nov 3, 2010 4:33 AM ET

BP Plc Chief Executive Officer Robert Dudley expects to drill in the U.S. Gulf for 20 years as the company exploits its experience searching for oil miles below the sea.

“Companies like BP, one of the roles they play in the industry is working in riskier areas,” Dudley, 55, said in an interview at BP’s worldwide London headquarters yesterday. BP “is now going to become incredibly focused on managing the risks, for example, of deep-water. It’s not going to shy away from the risk, it’s going to get even better at it.”

…

“We certainly have a great set of production assets and we have opened up the lower tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico, which is a two-decade play,” said Dudley. “That’s an important piece of exploration for BP we’re very good at. You’ll see us continue to participate in that.”

…

Deep-water production accounts for about 18 percent of BP’s global output. The company is the top deep-water explorer in the Gulf and has taken part in more than 40 percent of the area’s large field discoveries in the past decade, according to its website. It also drills from deep-water fields in Angola. In March, BP bought assets in Brazil as part of a $7 billion deal with Devon Energy Corp.

Why Are Democrats Going to Lose When They Are More Popular?

By: Cenk Uygur Tuesday November 2, 2010 1:10 pm

I have a crazy suggestion for you guys, which I am sure the Washington establishment will hate with every fiber of their being – why don’t you fight for us, the average American voter, over the next two years and see how that works out? Why don’t you take on the powerful and punch them in the face (politically)? Why don’t you take the fight to the Republicans and tell them you are going to stop the banks from robbing us no matter what happens? Why don’t you tell the Washington media to shove it next time they suggest you work with the Republicans in cutting taxes for the rich and balancing the budget on the back of the poor and the middle class?

But you won’t. You know it, I know it and the American people know it. You will bow your head and call populism a dirty word and keep catering to the lobbyists and the donors in a desperate attempt to appease them more than the Republicans do.

The system is broken. No one represents us. The special interests and the corporate interests have bought all of the politicians. So, when the American people throw the bums out, they are right. Unfortunately, this time around they are going to replace them with far, far worse bums. But they are going to learn that lesson the hard way. And next time, they’ll throw them out again. And they’ll keep doing that until one of the parties gets it through their heads that the Washington establishment does not represent the American people. They represent the powerful. And the more you cater to them the more the American people will hate you. And vote you out of office.

I voted for change and I’m going to keep on voting until I get it.

Debt Panel Pauses Until After Elections

By JACKIE CALMES, The New York Times

Published: November 1, 2010

Dean Baker is alarmed about this part-

WASHINGTON – The bipartisan debt-reduction commission that President Obama created eight months ago will begin meeting privately soon after Tuesday’s elections, with just three weeks to try to agree on cutbacks to Americans’ favorite tax breaks and benefit programs.

The group, which has a Dec. 1 deadline for recommending how to reduce the annual deficits swelling the federal debt, purposely has done little to date beyond five public hearings, and it has decided nothing lest any decisions leak and blow up in the flammable mix of a campaign year with control of Congress in the balance.

which I think a little late on the realization front, but whatever.  I’m more alarmed about this part-

Mr. Bowles has suggested that perhaps two-thirds of total deficit reduction come from spending and the rest from new revenues. The panel is not considering higher income tax rates given Republicans’ resistance. It is exploring ways to shave the roughly $1.2 trillion annual cost of “tax expenditures,” the tax breaks for individuals and businesses.

…

Four of the most expensive tax expenditures also are the most popular. Those are deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable giving and the exclusion from income taxes of the cost of employer-provided health insurance. One option would be to keep such breaks but reduce them or phase them out, supporters say. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group of policy experts, has proposed changes to save $1.7 trillion over a decade.

It’s certainly worth reading.

Update: More from Dean Baker

Erskine Bowles: Social Security’s Enemy No. 1?

By: Dean Baker Monday November 1, 2010 1:57 pm

While Simpson has seized the spotlight, it may prove to be the case that Erskine Bowles, his co-chairman, poses the greater threat to Social Security. The reason is simple: Bowles is the living embodiment of the rewards available to politicians who would support substantial cutbacks or privatization of the program.

…

(C)ontrary to the Washington fear mongers, Social Security is in solid financial shape by any reasonable definition. The Congressional Budget Office projects that it can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 29 years with no changes whatsoever (.pdf). Even after it first is projected to face a shortfall in 2039, the program could still pay nearly 80 percent of benefits into the next century without any changes at all.

Modest changes, such as raising the cap on taxable income (currently $106,000) would eliminate much of the projected long-term shortfall. Changes of the size implemented by the Greenspan commission in 1983 would make the program fully solvent long into the 22nd century. Remarkably, virtually no policy wonk seriously disputes these numbers in spite of the near universal hysteria among the chattering class over Social Security.

On policy grounds, Social Security is a smashing success. It scores even better politically. Poll after poll finds that everyone from Tea Partiers to actual socialists strongly supports the program. Yet, many members of Congress stand prepared to vote for substantial cuts to Social Security or even a partial privatization of the program.

Why would members of Congress be prepared to take a vote that is both bad on policy grounds and also could hurt their own political survival? Erskine Bowles is a large part of the answer.

It’s not my position to tell you how to vote, or even whether you should or not.  Since I’ve been eligible I’ve only missed once because I had a traffic accident on the way to the polls (and that includes primaries too).

I’m a registered Democrat and I’ve often voted the party line, even to the extent of snooting the Republican Election Commissioner who’s guaranteed a job by virtue of his party affiliation.  On the other hand I supported Lowell Weicker against Joe Lieberman and later as Governor.

This year my enthusiasm for voting is bordering on the negative numbers, and yet I will still drag myself out.

I have the luxury of supporting the Working Families Party to register my dissatisfaction with the corporate whores of Washington, you may find it more difficult to express your disapproval.

While I sympathize I’ll offer no guidance, you should make up your own mind, but I will say that I think that it’s critically important if you are unhappy with the direction of our Republic you find a way to make it clear to our ignorant arrogant elites.

They depend on our votes and eyeballs for their phony baloney jobs.

So tomorrow is Jon and Stephen’s big show and almost every estimate says that they’re going to blow Glenn Beck out of the water on crowd size.

Which is unsurprising to me because this whole ‘silent majority’ thing is bullshit.  Republicans represent the 24% of the most racist, reactionary, and ignorant Americans and the ‘Tea Party’ is it’s most fascist, Bircher, paranoid, delusional fringe.

Except for the .01%ers, the plutocrats who run it.

But they run the Democratic Party too, you can’t kid yourself, and their performance with historic majorities has been horrible.

You know, from an “electoral victory” kind of standpoint.

If you can’t fucking summon enough enthusiasm from your party base because your policies suck you deserve to lose your phony baloney jobs you miserable failures at the one thing you’re supposed to be good at- politics!

I have no sympathy at all for anyone who’s going to lose a prime Capitol Hill parking spot for their BMW.

You are watching the meltdown of the elites.  Our “best” and most prestigious Universities have produced a generation of morons who are simply not good at their jobs.

We need to fire them.

I’d like to draw your attention to this excellent diary by Translator about the melt down at a local party event in Kentucky.  My local runs projects way more complicated 6 times a year with a skeleton crew.

It is not rocket science.  If this is the best a “community organizer” can do…

As you’ve no doubt read by now, yesterday Obama was interviewed by 5 “Progressive” bloggers- BarbinMD (Daily Kos), Atrios (Eschaton), Joe Sudbay (Americablog), John Amato (Crooks and Liars), and Oliver Willis (Umm… his blog is eponymous).

They weren’t allowed to record the session independently so there is only the official White House transcript.

HuffPo headilines it- Obama Deflects Tough Questions From Progressive Bloggers.  I’d call it Weasel Words.  An illustrative exchange with Atrios–

Mine is an easy question. Will you rule out raising the retirement age to 70?

THE PRESIDENT: We are awaiting a report from the deficit commission, or deficit reduction commission, so I have been adamant about not prejudging their work until we get it.

But I think you can look at the statements that I’ve made in the past, including when I was campaigning for the presidency, that Social Security is something that can be fixed with some modest modifications that don’t impose hardships on beneficiaries who are counting on it.

And so the example that I used during the campaign was an increase in the payroll tax, not an increase — let me scratch that. Not an increase in the payroll tax but an increase in the income level at which it is excluded.

And so what I’ve been clear about is, is that I’ve got a set of preferences, but I want the commission to go ahead and do its work. When it issues its report, I’m not automatically going to assume that it’s the right way to do things. I’ll study it and examine it and see what makes sense.

But I’ve said in the past, I’ll say here now, it doesn’t strike me that a steep hike in the retirement age is in fact the best way to fix Social Security.

But you’ll probably want to read the whole thing and make up your own mind.

Also Obama was on Jon Stewart last night, took up the whole half hour.  A snip from that interview-

We have done things that some folks don’t even know about.

What have you done that we don’t know about?  Are you planning a surprise party for us, filled with jobs and health care?

Part 1

Parts 2 & 3 below the fold.