In an article titled “If Progressives Members of the House Think We’ll Accept Co-Ops As Public Option Think Again,” Jane Hamsher chronologically shows her organization’s use of external pressure on progressives in the Democratic Party. It is clear that without this pressure the “public plan” would have less of a chance of passing than it does now. Towards the end of her timeline she states “August 19: Blogs across the internet raise over $160,000 in 24 hours to support these 60 members of Congress.” Throughout the article she mentions that even with pressure from progressive blogs, some progressive members are still on the fence. Towards the end of the article she argues that if the public plan is dropped, there may be political consequences for President Obama, and the progressive members of Congress who don’t demand a public option.

Time will tell if the president and the votes of progressive members of Congress can be influenced in the way that she described. An alternative view, is that the president and the progressive members of Congress are just running out the clock by continuing this debate (and not taking definitive positions) during the recess. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that when progressives give large sums of money to candidates it may not have the same effect as an equal amount given by large entities, such as health care organizations would have (How many progressive bloggers are in any position to offer a member of Congress a six or seven figure job when the member retires from Congress?) . Although it doesn’t hurt to give money, this isn’t where progressive can exert the most influence. Progressive can exert far more influence in Democratic congressional primaries, which historically have had a relatively low turn out. Therefore every day that is wasted, in which a suitable primary challenger (who supports a public option) has not been supported, makes it easier for the incumbent to abandon a public option. At some point it will be very difficult to organized around an alternative progressive competitor. Progressives also need to convince other unregistered progressives who support a public option to: 1) immediately register to vote, and 2) photocopy their new registration with a hand written message saying that they plan to cast their primary vote based on the candidate’s position on the public option. Obviously, other registered voters, who support a public option, should do the same. Hence, if there is not organized support at the time of the primary for an alternative candidate in the district or state of a member of Congress, very little pressure has actually been exerted.

August 20th, 2009 | Tags: Congress, Firedoglake, Health Care, Progressives, Public Option | Category: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The “We Ourselves” talk show on WPFW in Washington DC, is an hour long show hosted by Ambrose I. Lane Sr. , on Mondays and Fridays. The first half hour usually consist of commentary by the host or the commentator reading an article from the newspaper. In either case, the commentaries and the readings are usually insightful. The second half hour is usually an “open phones” period, where listeners can call in. Many of the comments provide a unique perspectives. Whether they are in agreement with the host or in disagreement they add to the discussion of the subject. There are other callers who seem to try undermine the idea of leaving the phones open for comments. People call in with fake voices, promote unrealistic conspiracy theories, and encourage other callers to pursue arguments that are based on misinformation. Although Ambrose Lane’s patience and commitment to open dialog are both admirable, these calls by people who seem to want to undermine the open phone format, keep the discussion from progressing to a point where meaningful solutions to the problems that are being discussed can be developed. The amount of these calls has increased since President Obama has been elected. Many of these callers seem to call just to make a provocative criticism related to the President, just to get Ambrose Lane and other callers to challenge their position. Although Mr. Lane will sometimes have to play the bad cop, the following two suggestions may slow down those who attempt to undermine his show:

1.  Whenever the President is the topic of a call and a caller is stating what the President should or should not do something; insist the caller discuss the President in the context of either 1) the President’s constitutional authority, 2) other legal authority of the President, or 3) any other informal authority the President has. If informal authority is the point of discussion, get listeners to explicitly state what informal authority they are talking about.

2.  When people start promoting unrealistic conspiracy theories, challenge the caller’s reasoning when the theory seems ridiculous. Recently, some callers have been promoting the theory of Chemtrails. Wikipedia defines Chemtrails this way,  “The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails are actually chemicals or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public.” Whether this theory actually turns out to be true or not, whatever your level of trust in the government (or other conspirators), this theory seems extremely unlikely on its face. Questions the like the following need to be asked: Why would any government (or other conspirators) spray biological agents over an open area (e.g. Washington, DC) that they inhabit?

June 13th, 2009 | Tags: Ambrose I Lane, Chemtrails, Conspiracy Theories, President Obama, SR., We Ourselves, WPFW | Category: Media | Leave a comment

Recently, progressive commentators have criticized President Obama’s decisions on everything from his Cabinet choices to his decision to reach out to Republicans in negotiations for a new stimulus. This appears to be a strategy for keeping the Administration from moving too far to the center-right. Although many of the criticisms seem fair, they usually seem to ignore the fact that the political environment in the country has changed. There seems to be an underlying fear that politicians from either the left or the right will ultimately betray their constituents. This view misses the point that in 2009, the experience of the average American has changed to such an extent that a large amount of people in red and blue states are now more receptive to cogentindependent points of view. What’s missing in the progressive’s strategies is the lack of an introduction of new policies and an attempt to gain a s for specific alternative policies. Progressives are putting too much emphasis on the Administration’s decision making. It’s true that contentious politics can be effective in keeping politicians from moving too far from their base, but true change will only come from introducing and arriving at a concensus around policies that are created from the grassroots, not think tanks.

January 31st, 2009 | Tags: Barack Obama, Left, Progressives | Category: Agenda Setting & Priorities, Democracy | Leave a comment

An October 2, 2008, post is critical of third party candidates for not seizing opportunities to promote their candidicies. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that former Green Party Candidate, Cynthia Mckinney, recently traveled on a boat with the humanitarian mission, the Free Gaza Movement. The boat was rammed by the Israeli navy, while the humanitarian mission was attempting to deliver medical supplies to people in the Gaza Strip. McKinney was the only American on-board. None of the passengers were harmed.

This is one of the few cases when a politician of any partyacted immediately on behalf of the victims of a humanitarian crisis without waiting to see where the political winds were blowing . Bravo.

A link to the article is shown below:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/12/29/cynthia_mckinney_gaza.html

December 30th, 2008 | Tags: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cynthia McKinney, Free Gaza Movement, Gaza Strip, Green Party | Category: Congress, Foreign Policy | Leave a comment

ABC News has an article titled, “Can the U.S. Refuse to Seat Burris?” The article discusses whether the Senate has the constitutional authority to block Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s appointment of Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate.  After 50 members of the Senate’s Democratic Caucus asked the governor not to make an appointment, the Democratic leadership stated that they won’t seat Burris. Burris would be the only African American in the Senate. The article notes Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution which states ” Each House shall be the judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members…” It cites Adam Clayton Powell’s 1969 Supreme Court victory, after the House of Representatives refused to seat him. The Court ruled that the qualifications were limited to those that were mentioned in the Constitution. The article quotes a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid as saying ”This is like judging the integrity an election, free from fraud or corruption” and “It’s the process that led to the appointment, not the appointee’s fitness.” The implication in the article is that the two statement were related. The article also states that the Senate could use its investigative powers to delay the appointment, or the Democratic Caucus could refuse to seat Burris. A separate source is reporting that Representative Bobby Rush supports the governor’s appointment and President-elect Barack Obama is supporting the Senate’s position. 

Opponent’s of the Burris appointment don’t have strong argument. Blagojevich may be under investigation for issues related to filling Barack Obama’s Senate seat, but there is no evidence that Burris was involved anything illegal, improper, or unethical. The Democrats in the Senate and the President-elect should think outside the box for once. If the they choose to either deny, or attempt to deny, Burris a seat in the Senate, this will most likely be offensive to large number of an Democratic constituency - African Americans. It is possible that African Americans may choose to deny Democrats the majority of the Senate in 2010, and make Harry Reid the minority leader of the Senate. Recently President-elect Obama has has made efforts to reach out to conservatives (e.g. Rick Warren) - A Republican majority in the Senate would be a give him great opportunity to do this.

A link to the ABC News article is attached below:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6550262&page=2

December 30th, 2008 | Tags: Article 1 Section 5, Barack Obama, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, Senate Appointment, Supreme Court | Category: Congress, Courts | Comments (1)

Thursday night the Senate failed to reach the 60 votes required to vote on 14 billion dollar bailout of the Big Three automobile manufacturers. Republicans and the United Auto Workers United (UAW) were unable to reach an agreement on the extent of union concessions.The U.S.Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on December 5, that identified key principles that the government should consider when deciding on the proposed bailout. It states that Congress should identify and define the problem.The problem is identified (by the GAO) as being related to the Big Three’s insufficient cash reserves, a projected negative cash flow for the automakers, and the tightening of credit.  Next, it states that Congress should “Determine national interest and set clear goals and objectives that address the problem.” Finally, it describes different ways that the government can protect their own interest which include: stakeholder concessions, management controls, requiring collateral, and compensation for risk.

Although the report does provide a great starting point for discussion, it appears that the unions would have to make the most concessions. At some point in the near future progressives in Congress need to request that the GAO investigate how the Big Three are impacted by our trade policies and then identify legislative options that could deal with the GAO’s findings. Also, if labor is going to have make the majority of the concessions and there is the risk of bankruptcy, the GAO should also report on the viability of the Big 3 being bought by labor.

Do you believe that Congess should investigate changing U.S. trade policies, to save domestic industries such as the Big Three automakers?

Should Congress investigate the viability of a government assisted union purchase of the Big Three automakers?

December 13th, 2008 | Tags: Auto Bailout, Congress, GAO, United Autoworkers Union | Category: Agenda Setting & Priorities, Congress, Corporate Accountability, Economy, Government Accessibility, Accountability & Transparency | Comments (2)

An article by Simon Lazarus, titled “Judicial Nominations: Implementing the Rule of Law,” is published as part of the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s “Change for America.” The article discusses how the recent Supreme Court’s activism and their predisposition deregulation, have negatively effected ordinary Americans. They mention examples such as reduced protections related to: the liability of health maintenance organizations, retirement security, workplace discrimination, and predatory lending. The article argues against the new administration appointing liberal activist judges. Lazarus argues “the administration should emphasize the basic principles governing the proper role of courts and judge.” Hence, judges should apply the law by reviewing its “actual words” and “the fundamental purposes and principles expressed in the document.” He also argues for judicial restraint in dealing with the policies of elected policy makers (legislators, governors, and presidents).

The article did not specifically address the issue of the separation of powers. With the recent controversies over signing statements, state secrets, and the use executive orders; the president should make this an issue when appointing judges. First, before appointing any judge to any federal bench; the president should do a careful analysis of a judge’s rulings and reasoning, in cases that deal with issues related to separations of powers. There doesn’t need to be any adherence to any specific ideology when do such an analysis, but the rulings should appear to be sound. Next, Congress should then openly question nominees about these specific cases and their understanding of the issue. Failure by the President, Congress, and the American people to make this an issue when judges are confirmed, will severely effect our ability to maintain our democracy.

A link to Simon Lazarus’ article is shown below:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/changeforamerica/pdf/judicial.pdf

December 2nd, 2008 | Tags: Center for American Progress Action Fund, Congress, Simon Lazarus, Supreme Court | Category: Agenda Setting & Priorities, Congress, Courts, Democracy | Leave a comment

A recent article in Bloomberg.com titled, “Soros-Funded Democratic Idea Factory Becomes Obama Policy Font,” discusses the Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP was founded by John Podesta; chief of staff in the Clinton administration, and a member of president-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. George Soros is one of CAP’s funders. The organization has a budget of $27 million and a staff of 180. CAP’s policy proposals are promoted by: two blogs; daily radio feeds; and briefings to lobbyist, advocacy groups, and reporters. President-elect Obama is likely to adopt some of CAP’s proposals for a gradual withdraw from Iraq, universal health care, and green jobs. CAP is modeled on the conservative Heritage Foundation. Similar to the Heritage Foundation’s, Mandate for Leadership; the CAP has published “Change for America” to advise the Obama administration. This is the first of a series of articles about CAP’s proposals. A link to Bloomberg.com article is shown below.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aF7fB1PF0NPg

November 30th, 2008 | Tags: Barack Obama, Bloomberg.com, Center for American Progress, Change for America, Clinton administration, George Soros, Heritage Foundation, John Podesta, Mandate for Leadership | Category: Agenda Setting & Priorities, Corporate Accountability, Education | Leave a comment

A recent Washington Examiner article discussed the role of the U.S. dollar in the world economy from the Bretton Woods meetings in 1944 to last weekend’s G20.  The article notes that the dollar, the world’s currency reserve, was “backed by the productivity and strength of the U.S. economy, and transparency of the U.S. financial system.” A link to the article is attached below.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1504-DC-Economic-Policy-Examiner~y2008m11d17-World-Leaders-discuss-international-finance-but-this-is-not-Bretton-Woods

Do you feel that the U.S. has the most productive economy and transparent financial system in the G20?

Excluding the financial services part of the economy, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. economy?

November 20th, 2008 | Tags: Bretton Woods, G20 | Category: Economy, Financial Services | Leave a comment