I was among many in the netroots who worked hard on behalf of a certain group of candidates last year. One of those candidates was our presidential nominee (and now President of the United States) Barack Obama. The netroots, since 2006, has worked hard to elect Democrats and bring a progressive majority to the United States after decades-long rule by conservatives. We had hoped that Obama winning in 2008 would bring that change we need (after all, that was his campaign slogan).
But as we have seen in the health care debate and other issues, progressives are being pushed around and told that they should cave to conservative Democrats. As Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York said recently, we have "compromised our compromised compromise." We asked for a compromise (the public option) from the start and somehow that got whittled away to expanding Medicare. But now both aren't options in the Senate because of one member of the Democratic caucus - Joe Lieberman - who campaigned against Obama last year.
That's right: The Democratic President is caving to a man who supported the Republican candidate.
I know. It doesn't make sense to me either.
But here is another point I will make on this issue. Chris Bowers puts it in intelligent context, but I'm going to make it a much simpler and condensed point.
Conservative Democrats can be replaced. Progressive Democrats cannot.
The reason I say that is based on common knowledge. If a progressive Democrat is in office, chances are that Democrat is in no less than a moderate district and more than likely a progressive one. So the chances of electing a Republican (look at the many congressional districts in the New York City area) are slim to none.
But the districts where there are conservative Democrats tend to be conservative-leaning (or full-blown conservative) and they tend to have Republican enrollment advantages. So where there are conservative Democrats, there could be a conservative Republican to replace them. You aren't going to install a conservative Republican in a progressive district or a progressive Democrat in a conservative district. It's rare and highly unlikely. So where progressive Democrats are in place, it is very hard for them to lose. But conservative Democrats are walking on egg shells and, in the right election, can be swept from office.
The point is not so much about Lieberman but about conservative Democrats. The President and the congressional leadership has caved to these conservatives. Why? To try and call any sort of reform "victory" in hopes that it leads to gains and not losses in 2010.
But the President and the congressional leadership is making a mistake. A huge mistake.
If you lose progressives (and by extension, the netroots), you lose the people fighting most passionately for you. You lose the people doing the work. President Obama and other Democratic leaders owe progressives a lot.
But who gets caved to? The guy who campaigned against Democrats (and progressives) in 2008 and who has vowed to do so again.
First, a critique. Keep in mind that because we did not start at single-payer, the public option was the progressive proposal instead of the compromise. So now we are in a position where we need to compromise. That's politics. A strong robust public option can pass both houses and a comprehensive health care reform bill should be passed. Progressives need to stand strong and Democrats need to remember which party they belong to and quit siding with the Republicans/conservatives on this issue.
It's real simple: Either you want reform or you want a primary. Your choice.
The opt-out provision can be the compromise. It should be the compromise solution and it isn't complicated. All the opt-out provision does is it allows states to "opt out" of the public option if they do not wish to take part.
So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out - that is, make it not available to their own residents.
At first blush, that sounds good. It's true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.
I guess there's a possible issue of principle: if states can opt out of one component of reform, why not all? But I haven't noticed principles playing much role in this process! And the idea of putting red-state governors on the spot, having to decide whether to deny their voters cheaper policies, definitely has some appeal.
I emphasized that last part because that is the key portion of this provision which could be our greatest asset.
The point is that it would be good for the Democrats to put the GOP in this position. If they don't want the public option (or what they call "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care") they can explain that to the citizens of their state instead of disrupting the national debate. States like New York would surely welcome the public option. But the red state governors would be put in a position where they would either have to accept the public option or tell their citizens that the public option won't be offered to them because they would rather put politics above their best interests.
This is not a bad provision. It's a lot better than "triggers" or any other past compromise proposal. Because the reality is that there probably won't be anyone who, as governor, would want to kill the public option in their state out of fear that they would lose re-election as a result.
One of the common critiques of the Republican Party is that they have gotten away from Republicans like Barry Goldwater or even Ronald Reagan. Instead of being for the Republican Party, they are instead a front for the conservative movement. It has worked in the past, but it only works so long and so often. With such a focus on conservatism (especially neo-conservatism), you are going to alienate certain moderates that consider themselves Republicans but aren't welcomed into a party whose leaders only want conservatives.
The NRCC has posted a story from Human Events on its website that reads, "Scozzafava Too Liberal for New York Conservatives." The piece highlights conservative outrage over Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava running on the Working Families Party line in the past, or as the piece called the WFP, "a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN."
Now, with the special election for McHugh's seat likely to be held November 3, will Scozzafava become the first Republican U.S. House hopeful to run with the ballot line of the Working Families Party -- whose co-founders include veteran leftist organizers Dan Cantor and Bob Master, the United Auto Workers and ACORN?
When I mentioned the endorsement of the WFP in the House race, Scozzafava spokesman Matt Burns told me "there has been no discussion of this." Asked about the party's ties to ACORN, Burns said that had Scozzafava been in Congress during the vote last week, "she would have voted to defund ACORN." He added that she has "straight As" from the National Rifle Association and voted against Democratic Gov. David Paterson's "bloated" budget this year (Burns conceded there were other issues on which the Republican has problems with conservatives in her party: she is pro-abortion, voted for gay marriage and, while not endorsing the controversial "card check" provision in the Employee Free Choice Act, she does support "reform in workers' ability to organize" -- a stand not too different from that of AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka when he said he could support EFCA without card check).
Regarding Scozzafava's ties to the WFP and the recent attacks from Hoffman and the Conservative Party, Burns and other Republicans in upstate New York reminded me that this is a "first," that since 1998, more than eighty Republican candidates have sought office running with both the Conservative and WFP ballot lines.
"Yes, and when I have learned about candidates who have the Conservative Party endorsement and then allow themselves to be corrupted by accepting the Working Families endorsement, I try to strip them of our ballot line," New York Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long told me, "Running with the WFP and our line is totally unacceptable."
...
Given the Working Families Party's ties to ACORN and the furor over tax dollars to the community action colossus, it will be interesting to watch whether Dede Scozzafava pursues their endorsement once again.
While I would love to see the Working Families Party endorse someone else, I don't really see why the NRCC would endorse this piece by posting it on their website nor do I see the logic of Republicans jumping on board with this. The Working Families Party is a ballot line. If Scozzafava has it, that means no one else has it. She gets the votes on that line. Who wouldn't want that?
But this willingness to essentially throw their candidate under the bus could come back to bite the Republicans. They are already facing heat from conservatives for backing Scozzafava and the Conservative Party in New York has gone with their own candidate, Doug Hoffman. There are duels going on between conservatives and conservative Republicans. Some Republicans support Scozzafava, but others are siding with Hoffman based on ideology. If that holds up heading into this election, it could be trouble for both.
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) crossed a line tonight. While President Barack Obama was debunking some myths about health care, including the claim by some Republicans that health care reform will apply to illegal immigrants.
When President Obama was setting the record straight, Congressman Wilson decided he couldn't contain himself.
Apparently, Wilson's actions weren't tolerated by many, if anyone.
He has issued an apology and has called the White House to offer an apology.
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."
When I heard it, I was shocked. I couldn't believe that someone would yell out during a presidential address in Congress like that. It's one thing to do it in these town halls. It's another to do it, as a member of the House of Representatives, to the President of the United States.
The President deserves better than that. The House of Representatives deserves better too.
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has made it clear why she won't host health care town hall meetings. She believes that the town halls have been nothing but forums for protesters and those who only want to disrupt and misinform the public.
The powerful Democrat said she held meetings during the health care debate of 1993 but is concerned about public safety this time. During a meeting of the Democrat and Chronicle editorial board, she referred to a town hall meeting with President Barack Obama in New Hampshire in which a man brought a gun.
"I think it's a way to disseminate misinformation," Slaughter said. "They're not debating things that are in the bill."
...
Reform of the system has attracted great public interest and caused rumors about the bill, many of which are not true.
"The idea that any American citizen would believe that their country would line up old people and do away with them is so, it's embarrassing that Americans would believe that," Slaughter said.
Slaughter remembers the debate over health care during the Clinton administration and said that Democrats are no more prepared for the opposition now than they were 14 years ago.
"We simply can't control any message anywhere," she said. "We are so big on transparency, let's write it all down, let's make sure it's all up on the Internet, knowing full well ... that people are going to pick out something that isn't there."
The right-wing is trying to take advantage of everything Democrats say, even safe ones like Slaughter. In a recent radio interview, Slaughter said the following:
The video was posted on Breitbart, a conservative website. Now, Politico has picked up on the misinformation by pushing the claim that Slaughter saying "won't give these people a forum" was a message intended for her constituents, which is far from the truth and distorts reality. The intent was clear: Slaughter will not give a forum to the conservative lunatics whose only goal is to disrupt, not debate.
Yet, this is an outright distortion that is exactly the type of misinformation Slaughter is talking about. The same people that are responsible for this distortion are also the ones distorting the facts on the health care reform bill and on health care reform in general. Coincidence? Definitely not.
This first shot features Congressman Murphy on the far left, with a good chunk of the crowd in the foreground. According to my source, he got a good number of people in the shot, but there were many others who weren't in the picture. That's how well attended this event was.
Health care wasn't just being opposed at this meeting. Supporters from Planned Parenthood and other groups were on hand to show their support for health care reform.
But like the health care meetings we have been hearing about, the opponents of change were in attendance. One photo calls for "NOBama Care" while another makes a reference to Soylent Green, a 1973 science fiction movie "depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers."
But this picture is really the highlight from the anti-change movement.
If you aren't interested in reading for yourself, here are the sayings on this guy's poster:
- So... Hows That Whole "Hopey-Changey" ThinkG (spelling his, not mine) Working Out For Ya?
- On a bumper sticker with the Obama for America logo crossed out, it reads: No Thanks. I already have a Messiah.
- Somewhere In Kenya A Village Has Lost Its Idiot.
- You Think Health Care is expensive now? Just Wait Til Its Free!
- Socialists: Spreading the Wealth Since 1917
- My AARP Card Stands For: Armed And Really Pissed.
- Fly Navy
- Don't Tread On Me
- There is one more saying on the upper right hand corner that I can't make out, plus another small sticker in the middle that says "Silent No More."
That sign alone sums up this anti-change movement pretty well. The AARP sayings and the anti-Obama sentiment make good talking points, but lack substance. Most of Americans agree that health care reform is needed, but the teabaggers don't want that to happen. Why? Because they are being funded by the same groups who don't want change to come to America. They try to tout themselves as believers in the Constitution, but really have no solutions to present. All they want is attention to promote a hateful and anti-everything agenda. They have no solutions. Just problems.
ACORN (ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has faced many smears by the Republican Party in a recent weeks, including by the party's nominee for president Sen. John McCain. Of course, these smears are ridiculous and there are many reasons why they are ridiculous.
Over the last few days, I've had the opportunity to listen in on a press call and a call specifically for bloggers. ACORN is not sitting back and taking these attacks lightly. In fact, they are going on the offensive. They want people to know what ACORN is really about and what ACORN does. As we know in America, it's not hard to misinform millions of people about a certain issue or topic (see Iraq War).
This week, ACORN is dedicated to setting the record straight and more importantly, raise awareness about voter suppression which is a REAL issue that has occurred in two elections (2000 and 2004) that were won by Republican George W. Bush.
Earlier this week during a press call, ACORN brought up a few different eye-opening incidents that are worth mentioning. In New Mexico, the Republicans there challenged the validity of several voters there. Upon further review, these voters were valid. The claims of "voter fraud" were false.
Another issue that ACORN is focusing on is voter suppression involving voters who have had their homes foreclosed. In multiple states, there are efforts underway trying to suppress these voters. One such is Michigan, where the Republicans were trying to purge voters from the rolls using foreclosure lists. Luckily, that attempt was foiled. But we still need to watch for these attempts nationwide.
There has also been a growing hatred for ACORN thanks to the GOP rhetoric and the loud-mouthed antics of John McCain and Sarah Palin. In Wisconsin, a person canvassing for Barack Obama was reportedly attacked by someone who referred to ACORN while physically abusing this individual. There have been break-ins at ACORN headquarters in Boston and Washington state. There have been threats and racism directed at ACORN employees and volunteers, as well as one instance of someone receiving a death threat from an individual who just happened to have "McCain-Palin" on their Facebook page.
This is what ACORN is up against. But they aren't standing down. I will have more on this later.
