I thought we were done with Democratic emails ...

But, I guess not.

Just got one from some woman named Wendy Davis in the inbox at a backup account yesterday.

Something about honoring veterans.

Gee, thanks, Wendy. I wouldn't have known yesterday was Veterans Day otherwise. I also wouldn't have known that Election Day was one week before Veterans Day.

Obviously, like most losing candidates, you have racked up some campaign debt that you're trying to get rid of.

So, don't be shy, don't be coy.

Just stick out your cyberhand like you did before the election. Because, really, you're wanting us to honor your campaign debt, even if you n're  not saying so.

Of course, regardless of what one thinks about the disorganization of her campaign, when you have consultants like Prism Communications leaking about your campaign (hat tip TPM) maybe you should start by stiffing them.

Setting ethics of the leak aside — while remembering that there's little ethics in politics, little ethics in business, and hence even less in the business of political consulting — I don't think the leaked Prism emails really tell us much we don't already know. For me, among other things, it confirms that part of the Davis campaign's problems come from before Prism was on board, comes from before Battleground Texas and Lone Star Project were on board, and that's that Davis' advisers from her state Senate race days were keeping her insulated and locked down.

And, those actions ultimately have to stem from Davis herself, going all the way back to the days she sued the Fort Worth Star Telegram over an editorial about her run for the city council there.

As for Davis' Veterans Day email?

I must say that I'm surprised the alphabet soup of DNC, DNCC and DNSC didn't think of the same idea. But, I'm certainly not disappointed.

Update, Nov. 20: We're STILL not done. Wendy sent another today, asking me to sign a petition for Hillary2016.

Well, you obviously don't know me, you kanoodleheads, if you'd think I'd sign that. I wouldn't sign a stay of execution for Hillary Clinton. And, the appeal — one woman asking us to support another woman because she's a woman? Pass.

I actually voted for the black AND the woman in 2008, in the same person — Cynthia McKinney. Not because she is black, or a woman, but because she was the Green Party presidential candidate.

Dear Democrats: You want my vote?

Regular, long-term readers of the political posts on this blog know that I'm a Green leaner (although not a registered party member).

So, as Democrats here in Texas, and elsewhere, seek my support for state-level or federal-level offices, I put out a few thoughts per the header.

Federal-level candidates, if you want my vote?
1. You must have, as part of your campaign, a promise to implement a carbon tax on domestic sources of carbon dioxide, combined with a carbon tariff on imports. I said that I thought the WTO allowed it long before Paul Krugman did, but, if it's good enough for him, it should be good enough for you. It gets past Al Gore's "indulgences" of carbon offsets and the European Union's easily gamed cap-and-trade system. And, the tariff part of it forces China (and India, et al) to go alone with us. No more Alphonse and Gaston.

2. Go beyond Citizens United to incorporate federal financing of Congressional elections similar to the Presidential system. You know, the one that fat cat Barack Obama opted out of.

BUT! Do NOT make said financing system only applicable to Democrats and Republicans. Offer at least partial payment to third-party candidates.

3. Get serious about corporate welfare, corporate tax loopholes, etc. (Implementing No. 2, and that first, will make it a lot easier to then do this.) 

4. Deficits, when avoidable, matter more than Dick Chcney said. If you propose new programs, be honest about how you're going to pay for them.

These are just basics. I'll likely add to this from time to time and bump this post up top again.

But, Green candidates should not assume my vote for them is guaranteed. Green candidates? If you want my vote, there's two main things:

1. No pseudomedicine, whether antivaxxer stances or other things.
2. Accept the scientific reality of the general safety of GMOs. If as staunchly environmental magazine as Grist can debunk some hardcore myths, including the "no inspection" and "they're unsafe" ones, so can you.

I'll give you a prime example. Marianne Williamson is not a Green, but she's running for Congress as a Green-like independent for Henry Waxman's California congressional seat. And, given his retirement, she could win.

So far, the only issue on her issues list where I know her metaphysical and related beliefs come into play is on agriculture issues. Per the link immediately above, she believes all the myths about GMOs. But, per the New York Times, she's explicitly running on her "spirituality."

And, given California's quasi-nonpartisan primary system, she could make the top two and run against a Republican. And, if that Republican were moderate enough, and I were there, I might vote GOP. If not? I wouldn't vote in this race.

State-level candidates? 

1. Support a state-level public campaign financing system. Again, make third-party candidates eligible for at least partial funding.

3. Here in Texas? Be honest about the hidden costs of "friendly for business," including the level of uninsureds, the tax cut race to the bottom by municipal and county EDCs and more.

3. Deficits aren't avoidable at the state level, per the state constitution. If you propose new programs, be honest about how you're going to pay for them. And, on the political angle, start being honest about all those "fees" that the GOP pushed on us for the last decade (even if you were one of the enablers).
And, all candidates, there's one or  two other things. Actually, they're all part of a bundle of "transparency and honesty."

If you endorse somebody else and the endorsement is puzzling, even controversial, tell us why. Wendy Davis, tell us that you're endorsing David Alameel because of financial issues, or to track right and appeal to moderates. Him being a great businessman doesn't cut it.

If you change your mind on a major political issue, the same. Barack Obama, in 2008? Tell us you changed your mind on telecom immunity on warrantless wiretaps because Silicon Valley told you it would cut off the campaign funding pipeline otherwise. Whatever excuse that you actually did? I never did buy it.

When you talk about campaign contributions, before filing official reports, separate out your funding from jointly raised funds that will then be jointly disbursed. And other things.

Those of us who actively follow politics and have analytical abilities see through the spin, and, we get tired of it. Lack of transparency related to money issues triggers two hot buttons for me.

#Whatsinyourwallet Mitt? Maybe more than the #DNC

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Labor must be ready to make long-term break from Dems

Union and social organizer Amy Dean puts this at the bottom of her great column saluting AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka for telling the Democratic Party not to take organized labor for granted.

It needs to be higher, right after her telling Trumka and other union leaders that they need to have action to match rhetoric.

But, it's still good, no matter the location:

Third, we have to be prepared to carry out a new political strategy from more than one election cycle. ...

To carry out a long-term strategy, we have to be prepared to give up our current illusion of influence. Too often, we are charmed by access. We are invited to sit on White House roundtables, or we are impressed that top officials will answer our calls. But what has this gotten us? If anyone has doubt about why simply electing more Democrats will not be enough for the labor movement to thrive - let alone survive - they need only to look at the track record under our past three Democratic presidents. Pro-union legislation and labor law reform failed under President Carter. It was never seriously considered under President Clinton. And EFCA was dead on arrival under President Obama.

We cannot keep making excuses for elected officials, saying that the "political will" necessary for them to do their jobs was not present. Political will begins with us. If we want a different result in the future, we must begin to do politics differently. And that means getting serious about putting force behind our declarations of independence.

Amen to all of this.

It exactly parallels the message Gang Green environmental groups need to heed about the current state of the Democratic Party and the often anti-environmental stances and actions of President Obama, as blogged here.

But, there's still something missing. And that is a failure to make an explicit call to arms for third-party voting.

Dean has a more in-depth piece on what labor can do at In These Times, but, it too has the same "missingness."

Amy, you can do even better.

You should know, and I think somewhere, you do know, that if push comes to shove, you need to shove. Period.

Majority of U.S. supports legal same-sex marriage

Per Gallup, legal same-sex marriage now has 53 percent support.

The shift was all among Democrats and self-identified independents; Republicans didn't move. However, by political philosophy, self-described conservatives did become slightly more favorable.

On the age break, it gets above 50 percent for all age groups of women, and at 50 percent or above for all age groups of men.

So, how long will the GOP continue to resist and how long with the Democrats kowtow to a resisting GOP?

More Americans want a third party - I'd settle for a second one

So says Gallup.

And, it's understandable why. We have one political party (GOP), its Dark Shadows alter ego (Tea Partiers) and a GOP Jaycees slouching toward Gomorrah (Democrats).

Unfortunately, the "third party" most Americans want is something between what Republicans are and what Democrats are stereotyped as being. In that case, we actually have a third party now in existence - THE DEMOCRATS.

Sad to say, though, we don't have a second party at the moment.

Ambinder right on cons, wrong on libs

Mark Ambinder rues the increasing purity demands of hardcore conservatives, and the lack of party discipline, unity and message. But, he then totally spoils his column with some crazy counservative-liberal, Republican-Democratic equivalency claim on this issue.

Seriously. The never-before-elected Joe Miller, a fringe Palinite, is the same as three-term House veteran Joe Sestak? And, no, I'm not joking:

Democrats, too, have had their share of bickering. Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter — galvanized by the state’s labor unions — challenged Senator Blanche Lincoln; she barely won the June runoff. In Colorado, when Senator Michael Bennet was not responsive enough to party liberals, the state’s former House speaker Andrew Romanoff decided to challenge him. Mr. Romanoff sold his house to pay for his campaign and might have won the Aug. 10 vote were it not for strategic mistakes he made late in the campaign.

In May in Pennsylvania, Representative Joe Sestak would not let the Democratic establishment coronate Senator Arlen Specter — who had just been persuaded to switch parties by the White House after conservatives made it impossible for him to win the Republican primary. These anti-party forces are not likely to wane.

Indeed, conservatives and liberals alike will continue to insist on nominating unadulterated candidates and will become more successful in doing so. And those candidates are likely to distrust their own establishments as much as they ideologically oppose the people at the other end of the political spectrum.

Neither Romanoff nor Halter nor Sestak was an ideologue.

Even if Bernie Sanders, in Vermont, were to decide to become a Democrat and run against Pat Leahy, even HE wouldn't be Joe Miller and Ambinder's "equivalency" would still be untrue.

Also, contra claims Ambinder makes elsewhere in the column, there's no well of left-liberal funding anything like the Koch brothers and others.

Finally, so far at least, the tea party challenge has done fairly little to dissolve GOP party discipline. Of course, we'll have to wait not just until the end of the primary season, but until after midterm elections in November to test this, for various reasons. We'll need to see how many nutbars win, and how that affects the GOP with them inside the electoral tent. We'll also need to see how many nutbars lose, and how much that affects sniping at the GOP "establishment."

But, Dems, without even Bernie Sanders types, let alone, say, Alexander Cockburn types, challenging on their left, continue to be more fractious than Republicans. Blame Rahm Emanuel for the Blue Dog Congressional candidates he recruited. Blame President Kumbaya for not cracking a whip on party discipline, which his predecessor did. In other words, Obama needs Rahmbo to be Rove, and he's not pushing Rahmbo to do that, in that way.

Distinguishing Republicans and Democrats at a glance

No, really. Apparently, it can be done, says Scientific American, reporting on a PLoS study.

Assessing blame in Massachusetts

Here’s some nice round numbers:

1. Barack Obama, 35 percent — For letting Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, et al, hijack health care in the Senate. For letting some of the same characters plus a drive for bipartisanship undercut the size of his economic stimulus bill and keep him from proposing a second one. He ranks as more blameworthy, because he was in the Senate for four years and knew better. (If he didn’t, he’s an even worse president than even I think.) Hearing GOP talking heads today, it’s clearer than ever that Obama should have been prepared to go confrontational earlier, and to explain their moves better. For a president who is supposedly so “articulate,” he hasn’t been at many key times.

2. Senate Democrats, 30 percent — From letting Lieberman in caucus, when on a number of issues, he’s been skittish, to not trying to reform filibuster rules at the start of session in 2009 as part of setting Senate rules of procedure, to dallying too long on health care and more, there’s plenty of blame here.

3. Martha Coakley, 25 percent. This is just a guesstimate, and could be on the low side, but I don’t want to let Obama or Senate Democrats off the hook so easily. That said, a mix of apparently lazy, lackadaisical, and clueless attitudes was inexcusable.

4. Massachusetts voters and the state Democratic party get the last 10 percent.

Massachusetts post-mortem in haiku

A clueless Coakley;
A non-outre Obama;
Sure Senate defeat.

Sure health care defeat?
With sellouts and idiocy,
We can only hope.

Boot Lieberman out
Of your caucus, Democrats,
Neuter the Blue Dogs.

Pass new health care,
Reconciliation's route
Trumps filibusters.

Pass real health care,
Without Big Pharm bribery
Or watering down.

Pass a jobs bill.
Reconciliation's route
Trumps filibusters.

Tax Wall Street harder
Than Obama's weak tea.
Add regulation.

And now you know why
I saw through him in '08
And had no surprise.

In 2-0-1-2?
I will vote Green again.
As I did before.

Let me tell you why.
A Barack won't change his spots.
Once he has shown them.

The three wings of Democrats?

Michael Lind has a good breakdown of the Democratic Party's three main ideological groupings, and says that just as the GOP has kept neocons, the religious right and libertarians, the Dems can do the same.

Well, whether the GOP can permanently keep all parts of groups 2 and 3 together is questionable, Michael. A number of libertarianish GOPers, or independents, saw enough they liked in Obama last year, for example.

And, parties change all the time. That said, if Obama had pretended to be less of a New Dealer type a year ago (I consider myself with a foot there and in the Green camp, and the Democratic Party as a whole too much a neolib sellout to want to be a Democrat) more of this unity might be in place.

The rosy Democratic future?

Ross Douthat says it’s very possible — if Democrats improve how they handle the recession.

That said, per his note about Gen X has a strong GOP contingent, and per real liberals’ note about how Obama and many Congressional Democrats are a bigger sellout to Wall Street than Clinton was, even if Dems do “manage” the recession halfway well, the question is what type of Democrats will today’s youth be loyal to, and what type of Democrats will they be?

I would worry if I were Democrats too

In a commissioned national poll, DailyKos notes that Democrats' enthusiasm for voting in 2010 is FAR lower than Republicans. And, though some liberal bloggers poo-poohed fears after the 2009 off-term elections just a few weeks ago, The One won't be on the ballot with "The Politics of Hope Personality" next year, either, for better or worse.

That said, one silver lining is that independents are still leaning Democratic and are more likely to vote than registered Dems.

From the ‘GOP in the wilderness’ department

Whatever genius inside the Republican National Committee had the bright idea that renaming the Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party” reflects why the Republicans remain doomed to wander in the wilderness.

And, actually, that’s a shame. The Democrats need more of a challenge of any sort, especially since most “progressives” refuse to initiate that challenge themselves by voting Green, Socialist (real Socialist) or other similar options.

Instead, the more benignly smiling half of the two-party duopoly will get more of a head start on getting its 2010, and 2012, electoral success ticket punched.

Independents shift GOP

Charlie Cook reports that political self-identified independents are now equally likely to lean Republican as Democratic, That’s surely not good news for national Democrats, who have to figure out how to counteract the clear damage they’re picking up over AIG and other bailout issues.

Democrats could learn from Jeremiah Wright

At the National Press Club today, when a reporter asked the stimulating and controversial Rev. Wright about his “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” and “(it) supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans” comments, among others, he made in his sermon the Sunday after 9/11, and asked if he thought that was divisive, he challenged her if she had seen the whole sermon. When she shook her head “no,” he said …

“That nullifies that question.”

Why can’t Democratic politicians get the hang of that?

Starbucks vs. Dunkin’ Donuts on Dem coffee divide?

This is 10 times sillier than “soccer mom” or similar. Probably Mark Penn is talking about micro-microtrends.

What about people who prefer Seattle’s Best, which, ironically, is owned by Starbucks, which therefore must not be Seattle’s best? Or Pete’s? Or La Madelaine, if that’s in your area?

Or, a local coffeehouse, if you have one that makes coffee at least as good as any of the above? Wouldn’t true progressives favor that above all others?

(Stipulation: The local coffeehouse has to be as good as any of the above. In my area of suburban Dallas, I don’t have such.)

Do Dems favor bailout of rich too?

Hillary Clinton doesn’t sound opposed, at least, to the Bear Stearns bailout.

“Now we are in the soup and we better get ourselves out of it before the consequences get drastic.”

This is the same Hillary Clinton who sided with fellow New York Senator Chuck Shumer to keep hedge fund managers from paying taxes on their management fees as normal income rather than capital gains.

Of course, plenty of Democrats joined Sen.-MBNA, Joe Biden, two years ago in gutting bankruptcy laws.

Oh, sure. Some Dems may try to link further bailouts to bailouts of borrowers, when too many of them were speculative buyers in the first place.

Stay tuned. We’ll have more Democratic words of fulsome applause for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s buyout as they come available.

Reason No. 986 to want to not vote Democratic

As I start to do my taxes, and I realize my interest off my CDs gets taxed at a higher rate than that of a hedge fund manager’s management fees, and I realize some Democrats such as Sen. Chuck Schumer actively support this, and other Democrats at least won’t fight it …

GOP: It’s OK to play the class warfare card, but only in our primaries

Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson have no problem bashing Mitt Romney as rich.

But, if some Democrat would say this against Romney, should he get the nomination, then Democrats would of course be practicing “class warfare.”

And, some Rethug will probably come up with the line that “playing class warfare helps the terrorists.”