Support some East Texas Democrats this Saturday

The Nacogdoches County Democratic Party is planning a fall picnic for area Democrats to be held from 11 a.m.-2 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 24 at the Lamplight Theatre, intersection of the west side of Loop 224 and Old Tyler Road (FM 1638).

Dr. Shirley McKellar, candidate for U.S. House District 1, will be the featured speaker at noon

East Texas Democrats or anyone interested in joining the Democratic party are welcome to attend for a fun filled event complete with live music, games, and food and the  opportunity to become acquainted with one another and learn more about the local and national candidates running for public office. 

Bring chairs and coolers. A covered dish or dessert to share would be most welcomed.  For more information, call 936-569-8313 or email susiew44@gmail.com.

Pecan Acres park is located on Starr Avenue south of the SFASU campus between Business 59 and University Drive. 

Millennials don't like Dear Leader or Democrats

I have more than once cautioned (as if they're reading this lowly blog) Democratic leaders, and lower-level Democratic activists and fanboys and fangirls (a few of whom may indeed be reading) that they should stop acting as if demographics of youth, especially of minority youth, and a couple of social issues, were money in the bank for the U.S. automatically becoming more Democratic in the future.

Because, as ABC shows, that's not true right now.

If a majority of Millennials right now want a GOP Congress, then Democrats, starting with the President and moving down, are doing at least one something wrong politically. (By politically, I'm talking about the art of winning at politics, not the skill of governance, though they may be doing stuff wrong there, too.)

And, yes, I know that Millennials (well, youth in general in political history in the US) have lower voting turnouts than the national average. So, note what I’ve emphasized in this pull quote:

Millennials who said they will “definitely be voting” favor a Republican-led Congress 51-47 percent, according to the poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released earlier this week found that roughly half of Americans plan to vote for Republicans this election, 50-44 percent.

Those aren't good numbers. Now, part of the "definitely be voting" reflects that active voters, even among younger cohorts, tilt GOP in midterm elections. But, that itself is a problem. If the vaunted Obama machine — and its offshoots like Battleground Texas — can't get Millennials more interested in midterm elections, it's not quite so vaunted, is it?

Per the "of color" part, the story notes that just 46 percent of Hispanic Millennials favor Obama. So, it's not just Congressional Democrats.

That said, there is this sidebar.

It's not just Millennials that don't like Congressional Democrats a lot, and it's not just Congressional Republicans that aren't liked a lot. Disapproval of Congressional Democrats is at a record. Again, some folks with a D after their name aren't doing the right things politically.

Whether that's relaying the D message, or the anti-R message, with a harder mailed fist, or, if a mailed fist is in play, either wrapping it in a velvet glove or topping it with brass knuckles, or what, I don't know.

Again, though, depending on anti-Republicanism as a demographic ain't gonna cut it.

Another fail from our constitutional law prof Prez

First, after vague modifications to the defense authorization bill, Obama drops his veto threat over the issue of the military becoming more involved in the War on Terra on U.S. soil.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

House and Senate negotiators added language that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.
"While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country's strength," Carney said.

First, there's no guarantee future presidents will act with the same "discretion" as Obama. (Some might actually be less reliant on the military, rather than more, tis true.)

Second, this does, indeed, gut the Posse Comitatus Act. Whether civil libertarians, or tea partiers, or other, will be more angry at Obama or at Congress remains to be seen. As it was, the House musters just more than 2/3 support; had Obama wanted a stand on principle, a veto probably could have been sustained.

===

Meanwhile, continuing in the 'lack of principles league," this time, the non-Constitutional division, Obama looks ready to cave on a "millionaires' surtax." This time, it's not just him, though. Congressional Democrats are also in the "fool me once, then please fool me again" league:

Obama discussed the possibility of abandoning the millionaire tax, which Republicans strongly oppose, at a White House meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Senate Democrats, a senior Senate Democratic aide told Reuters.

"It remains to be seen if we will drop it," the aide said. "But we want to strike a deal and get this done."

Democrats will not consider making any offer on the millionaire surtax, however, until Republicans agree to negotiate, another Democratic aide said.

Yep, that's today's Democratic Party. Talk tough, then hit the plunger on the chess timer clock, wait fot the GOP to talk or act tougher, then "cave."

Bring on the government shutdown?

First, it looks like both Democrats and Republicans are, if not geared up for it, at least resigned to it, or accepting its likelihood.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says, "Bring it on." So, too, does Howard Dean.

True, it could still be avoided. But, who wins, who loses, on the political chessboard? Salon has a handy scorecard for the zero-sum game of "concessions."

And, per that scorecard, Senate Dems appear to be at least starting to slouch toward Scenario 3, which Andrew Leonard identified as a big GOP win.

*Theoretically,* on the chessboard of politics, a shutdown would be a win for Dems, which is why they want it. But, given the current Democratic lineup from Preznit Kumbaya down, in reality, they'll blow a shutdown showdown like a weekend duffer missing a two-footer at the Masters. The Salon link and Reid's equivocating are Exhibit A on that.

Obama's warm vomit on the State of the Union

I am reminded about the biblical book of Revelation, where the church of Laodicea is promised to be vomited out of God's mouth for lukewarmness.

That's pretty much what the SOTU sounded like to me, from glimpses I was able to catch as ... ironically ... we were shorthanded at my newspaper and I wound up putting together the front page with SOTU at the top!

Anyway ....
1. Nothing on gun control. Chicken shit.
2. Allegedly revenue neutral corporate income tax reform. Can anybody say Catfood Commission II?
3. Not addressing the real jobs problem - a protectionist China with a corporate industrial policy and six times the population of Japan when we worried about it. Not to mention intellectual property theft and things that Japan didn't do, at least not so egregiously.

In other words, a mix of neoliberal mush and pure plain mush.

Add in Congressional Democrats' idiotic "date night," which I skewered two weeks ago, and it was lukewarm vomit indeed. One longed for a Joe Wilson or Samuel Alito, if nothing else.

FiredogLake has more.

Congressional Dems put Obama on hook

Too bad it's "just" on the omnibus spending bill and not the tax-cut "compromise." But, Democrats have decided to instead support just a temporary spending measure.

So, in the new Congress next year, we'll get to see just how much Preznit Kumbaya is willing to degrade himself and political principle chasing after things like "bipartisanship" and "compromise." My guess is that we've not come close to seeing the end of his willingness to degrade himself. And, unless Senate Democrats can hold firm as a caucus on a lot of issues (insert laugh track here), he'll have plenty of opportunities to keep on not reaching the end of his willingnes.

That said, this is yet another argument, at the least, for an upper house of Congress with lesser powers, or, more, for parliamentary government. (Preznit Kumbaya would likely still be a backbencher in such a system, and NOT prime minister.)

Shit in one hand, nonbinding resolution in the other

And, insert your joke wherever.

It's "nice" that the Democratic House caucus has adopted a resolution opposing Obama's tax-cut "compromise" with the GOP. Just one problem, though.

It's a nonbinding resolution. For all the bravado, what will happen if Obama doesn't compromise with them before a vote?

Given that Speaker Pelosi didn't push the tax cuts for middle class only to a vote before the midterm elections, and ditto on Senate Majority Leader Reid ... and given that midlevel House and Senate Dems didn't think of pushing the leadership ...

What will happen if Obama stays firm?

The Democratic resolve will be a dissolve, not a resolve.

10 years for Dems to regain the House?

Given what this story says, about all the old Democratic bulls in GOP-leaning districts, like Ike Skelton in Missouri, losing office, plus Republican state legislature gains in a redistricting year, it's very possible.

Hey, Obama - what about the Chamber's US donors?

The U.S. Chamber has plenty of problems with U.S. donors without Preznit Kumbaya invoking the specter of Chinese money buying influence. Dow Chemical buying lobbying to try to prevent tighter rules on chemical facilities, for example.

So why doesn't Team Obama discuss THAT? Probably because, as the one wing of the bipartisan duopoly, it gets its "fair share" of campaign cash from many of these companies. Remember, Obama opted out of public financing of his presidential campaign, with a bigger share of his cash than John McCain's coming from Wall Street.

In light of that, here's another big Chamber donor. Prudential Financial gave $2 million to the Chamber last year to fund its lobbying effort against elements of the financial regulation bill in Congress. Considering the watered-down final result, it was probably worth it for Pru. And, with Obama's rhetoric gone by the boards, it will probably be worth it for him in 2012, too. Other major bankster donors include (shock) Goldman Sachs and AIG. Both of them, directly or indirectly "made whole" by Little Timmy Geithner in the TARP bailout, and sheltered, in Goldman's case, in the financial reform bill, will also probably be $uitably grateful to Obama in 2012.

And Congressional Democrats did nothing to push significant campaign finance reform of legislative elections.

Ed Schultz gets it half right

Ed Schultz got it half right with his diatribe at the "One Nation" rally in DC. But, not much more than that:

In a fiery speech that opened the "One Nation Working Together" rally on the National Mall, Schultz blamed Republicans for shipping jobs overseas and curtailing freedoms. He borrowed some of conservative commentator Glenn Beck's rhetoric and vowed to "take back our country."

One problem, Ed? NAFTA? WTO, including starting the process of Chinese admission?

Who was president then?

Oh, yeah. Bill Clinton.

Whether or not we are losing more jobs rather than gaining, is besides the point. Plenty of Dems "participated" in the job outsourcing.

And, don't try to "go there" with the financial meltdown.

Who was president when Gramm-Leach-Bliley gutted Glass-Steagall? Oh, yeah. He even pushed for it. What percentage of Congressional Dems supported it? About 50 percent.

Don't go there on the meltdown, today, either.

Which presidential candidate got more Wall Street money in 2008?

Oh, yeah. Obama.

A progressive manifesto

Here's a list of eight (for now) progressive items of important President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders should be doing. (But aren't, really.)

1. Reinstate the broad parameters of Glass-Steagall, updating the new legislation for hedge funds, various derivatives, etc.
2. Revise the minimum wage again, above all by making a COLA, a cost of living adjustment, part of it. (I begged Congressional Democrats to do this in 2007.)
3. Pass a federal "guaranteed vacation time" law.
4. You want to reform education? How about a 200-day school year, and not just at charter schools? States won't be anxious to unilaterally extend their school years, so the federal carrot and stick will be needed.
5. Reform the tax code to tax capital gains — indexed for inflation — as straight income.
6. Ditto on hedge fund management fees, etc.
7. Provide serious funding for vocational training and adult re-education. That's more needed than getting even more kids, who don't all need to, to go to college.
8. Along with that, if you want to give tax credits, look at business tax credits for funding re-education for their employees. And target smaller businesses.
9. Cut the defense budget. Don't just slow its rate of growth. Cut it. If you stop putting troops in the Middle East, in Latin America and elsewhere, this is easy.
10. Related to that, stop using the "war on terror" as an excuse to intervene in more and more countries' domestic affairs.

Dems should have listened to a conserv on healthcare

Turns out Jim Pinkerton had better messaging ideas than either Obama or Congressional Democrats ever devised.

Health care now a LOT harder to pass

Why? The Supreme Court decision, in Citizens United, allowing basically unfettered corporate contributions to political advertising.

If Congressional Democrats think they've been politically attacked in the past by folks like Big Pharma, they ain't seen nothing.

This is the latest in the incredibly bad fallout from corporations being found to be "persons" before the law.

The Washington Post has a good roundup of reactions.

Why Democrats remain Democrats, 2010 version

What I mean in the headline is that Democrats look doomed to remain the "herding cats" political party. Despite a lot of talk from some progressive organizations, few House or Senate Dems, so far, face serious primary challenges.

Getting back to the linked story above.

Progressive Democrats are part of the "herding cats" problem. Threats don't work unless you follow through by voting Green, voting Socialist, or not voting.

Harold Meyerson, in a similar vein, has a great column saying that progressives don't have "progressivism" -- there's no movement today. At least inside the cat-herders, he's right.

Get organized, Obama

Gene Lyons triple underscores a basic fact of governance: Government ineptitute is far more dangerous to progressive leadership than to conservatives.

Of course, below Obama's level, Lyons' column kind of glosses over how Rahm Emanuel, with the tacit connivance of Nancy Pelosi, saddled House Dems with not just moderates, or even moderate conservatives, but some downright conservative Democrats. Who knows? If the GOP doesn't cave to the tea partiers, a few more may switch.

It’s about the jobs, Obama and Democrats

Both Bob Herbert and Charles Blow recognize and stress that.

That said, on Obama’s job summit, or Senate Majority Leader Reid’s jobs bill, what sort of jobs? How much help to get them?

You’re losing the country’s confidence.

House Dems Blue Dog recruiting comes home to roost

Not every Blue Dog in the House may be forthright about wanting to dump Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, like Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith, but I bet at least a dozen feel that way in private.

Having a majority that will not band together like a majority is not really a majority.

Do I hear a petard being cranked up for hoisting use?
-END-

Passionless Dem politicians, and why

Eugene Robinson nails the issue that many Democrats in Washington lack passion about many issues, including, of course, national healthcare right now. And, he notes, many Democratic voters have a less emotional, less visceral, response to the issue.

Why?

On healthcare itself, many of those most affected need jobs right now first. And, many of them who are more politically literate do look at the banking bailouts, perhaps.

Beyond that, many Democratic voters continue to be “enablers,” just like loved ones enable an alcoholic drinker. And, that’s why the passionless pols.

They know they can get away with it.

Obama’s trust problem

Paul Krugman nails the baseline problem Jimmy Carter II is starting to inflict on himself. Question… will progressive Congressional Democrats have to “run against the administration” in 2010 primaries with new challengers?

Clueless, greedy Dems invite Boone Pickens for lunch

And Al Franken is the only one at the Congressional Democratic policy lunch to tell the weaselly financier of the Swift Boat ads in 2004 where to get off.

Beyond that, Pickens isn’t even a real environmentalist. He’s just in this for the money he can make off his natural gas holdings, along with possible futures price games-playing, etc.