|
LOUISVILLE /JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEWSLETTER
Week of March 5, 2010
The link to this electronic newsletter is being e-mailed to 7,500+
Jefferson County Democrats
We hope you will forward the link to your own e-mail list.
***********************************
CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT LIST OF EVENTS
Updated on a regular basis
Bulletin Board:
OFF TO THE RACES, By Charlie Cook
Ready, Aim, Fire, Repeat
Relax, Democrats, this isn't just another Charlie-predicts-the-apocalypse-for-Democrats-again column.
Maybe I'm right and this will be a very, very ugly year for Democrats, or maybe I'm wrong. After all, there are a lot of political scientists, pollsters and analysts who also know a lot about politics and many are smarter than I am. Perhaps they will be right, that this will be a really bad year for Democrats (everyone agrees on that), but not a horrific one. We'll find out soon enough.
But stepping back, whether or not Democrats hold onto their House majority by a sliver -- say, five or six seats -- and hold their Senate losses to five seats or so, the fact is that after just four years in power, congressional Democrats are in trouble.
For four decades, up until the Republican Revolution of 1994, Democrats held a majority in the U.S. House, and for 34 of those years, they also held a majority in the Senate. Basically, in good years and bad, voters elected Democratic majorities. Then, in 1994, voters threw Democrats out and put Republicans in, and they held that majority in the House for 12 years, before being equally unceremoniously dumped from power in 2006. Now, just four years later, Democrats are at great risk of losing their majority again. Even if they don't lose their majority, they won't keep it by much.
Can you see a pattern? A 40-year run for one party followed by a 12-year run for the opposition party, then a four-year run that will either be cut short or very nearly cut short. The circle is getting tighter and tighter and spinning faster and faster. Voters are demonstrating an impatience that they didn't use to have.
Is it that we live in a society that features short attention spans and demands immediate gratification? Or is it that voters are just growing increasingly fed up with our political process and their tolerance has grown thin? My money is on both, but more of the latter than the former.
Average Americans have lives, and the vast majority of them have concerns and interests that go far beyond politics and the ideological and partisan food fights that people in the business dwell on. But even the people who are not glued to political talk shows, and who don't read newspapers or watch television news, have a sense that the system isn't working and hold a growing mistrust of elected officials from both parties.
I average about 250,000 miles of air travel and visit several dozen states a year. In addition, as part of my job, I pore over mounds of polling data. It's pretty clear to me that this sentiment is pervasive in every corner of the country.
That is why this is something that Republicans should be thinking about too. In 2010, they will be the beneficiaries of this political environment -- my hunch is that no more than one incumbent Republican in the House or Senate will lose re-election this November. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car, catching it presents another problem. If Republicans manage to win 218 House seats in November, they will no longer be the beneficiaries of this anger and impatience.
The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey should grab the attention of those of us inside the Beltway. The poll of 1,023 adults, which had a 3-point error margin, asked whether or not a series of words or phrases described officials in Washington. When the phrase "honest" was offered up, only 22 percent said that word described officials in Washington, while 75 percent said it did not.
The same question was asked in September 1994, right before another tidal wave election, and even then, the numbers were somewhat better. At that time, 22 percent said honest described officials in Washington, while 65 percent said it did not.
The survey two weeks ago also gave respondents three choices and asked which was closest to their view. While just 5 percent agreed with the choice "our system of government is broken and cannot be fixed," 81 percent picked "our system of government is broken but can be fixed," while an amazingly optimistic 14 percent opted for "our system of government is not broken."
There is a lot of anger out there toward Washington, the federal government and the political process that is ready to be aimed at whichever party is in power at a given moment. Republicans felt the full wrath in 2006 and 2008 and, if I'm not wrong, Democrats are about to feel it.
And if Republicans are fortunate enough to win a majority in the House, they will have to figure out how to deal with that, as they will then share in the power and responsibility that goes with it, starting in January.
Until something is done, we might simply have entered a time of enormous political volatility, a time when whichever side controls the gavel and possesses the power has a political target on its back, even more than has historically been the case.
Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) one-man blockage of legislation meant to keep numerous federal programs afloat has also "triggered a 21 percent cut in Medicare fees to doctors." Because of Bunning's hold, the administration "is ordering Medicare billing contractors not to pay any claims from doctors for the first 10 business days of March."
THE COOK REPORT, by Charlie Cook
What Can Save The Dems?
It's hard to see how passing health care will change the current political trajectory.
During a stop in Madison, Wis., this week, I was grabbed by a phrase I had never heard before -- "sifting and winnowing." The friend who used it later explained that the term was from an 1894 report on higher education and is immortalized on a sign outside Bascom Hall on the University of Wisconsin campus. The plaque reads, "Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."
For those of us who analyze politics for a living, that is a great description of the process we undertake. Whether studying historical patterns, election results, or polling data, or when just asking questions and listening, we sift through all kinds of information. Then we winnow it all down. We attempt to discern what seems most relevant, and we then try to reach conclusions and develop a narrative that explains what has happened, may be happening, or will happen -- and why.
Would Dems really help themselves by enacting something most voters say they don't like and don't want?
The catch is that different analysts see things differently, interpret them differently, and often reach different conclusions. Until the votes are counted on Election Night, we don't know who was doing the best job of sifting, winnowing, and drawing conclusions.
As the 2010 campaign begins to unfold, many smart and talented people are making varying predictions about the outcome of the midterm elections. Most analysts agree that Democrats will suffer losses, at least giving up the 16 House seats that the president's party generally loses in first-term, midterm elections. That's where the agreement tends to end.
In my view, Democrats have been in a free fall since summer, and unless something significant changes, they are headed toward the losses of the magnitude we saw in the midterm elections of 1958, 1966, 1974, 1994, and 2006. One difference between this year and 1994 and 2006 is that the party in power started developing serious problems more than a year ahead of the election.
Although no two cycles are exactly alike, history suggests that the indicators we're now seeing mean that the Democratic majority in the House is in grave danger and that Senate Democrats could easily see their ranks shrink to 52 or 53 seats. Today's signs are much like those that led me to predict in August 2006 that "unless something dramatic happens before Election Day, Democrats will take control of the House. And the chances that they'll seize the Senate are rising toward 50-50."
What could change the current trajectory, preventing the Republicans from gaining more than the 40 seats they need to take control of the House and from winning more than six or seven seats in the Senate? Some observers argue that if the Democrats pass some kind of health care reform bill, scaled down or not, they would appear less ineffectual and would change the current thinking that they have wasted the better part of the past year and come up empty-handed. That sounds plausible, but only if the public's perception of the Democrats' health care plan changes significantly. Democrats have not exactly been winning many perception battles lately. And in the end, would they really help themselves by enacting something that most voters say they don't like and don't want?
So what if pollsters can pick apart the Democrats' health care reform legislation and find considerable public support for many of its pieces. If people don't like the total package, those exercises are purely academic. In short, it's hard to see how passing health care is the way for Democrats to get out of this mess.
What about unemployment? The February Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of 52 top economists estimates that unemployment for this year will average 10 percent, the same level that President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers forecast earlier this month. Some political scientists have said that there isn't a strong a correlation between high unemployment rates and midterm election losses by the president's party. In the post-World War II era, however, unemployment has never been over 8 percent during an election year except when the two parties shared control in Washington. The only midterm election held when unemployment topped 8 percent was in 1982, when Democrats controlled the House and Republicans had the Senate and the White House. Even in that year, unemployment crossed into double digits only two months before the election.
In short, unemployment isn't likely to fall enough to throw Democrats a lifeline in 2010. What could improve Democrats' prospects? All my sifting and winnowing has yet to give me a plausible answer.
THINK FAST
Building off a Center for American Progress proposal, "the Obama administration is planning to use the government's enormous buying power to prod private companies to improve wages and benefits for millions of workers," the New York Times reports. In its contracting, "the government would disqualify more companies with labor, environmental or other violations and give an edge to companies that offer better levels" of pay, health coverage and other benefits.
Though President Obama sought bipartisan ideas for fixing health care yesterday, he acknowledged that "he might be left with a partisan path forward." "Is there enough serious effort that in a month’s time, or a few week's time, or six weeks' time, we could actually resolve something?" asked Obama. "If we can't, we've got to go ahead and make some decisions, and then that’s what elections are for."
"We were there…in support of a public option which would save $120 billion, keep the insurance companies honest, and increase competition," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded President Obama yesterday. Obama noted that Democrats stripped the public option, only to hear Republicans respond with the same concerns about "government takeover of health care."
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin "will headline the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina in May," giving her an "opportunity to appeal to one of the conservative movement’s most prominent interest groups" in a "crucial" presidential primary state.
Vice President Biden will unveil today new rules "to help protect workers' retirement savings accounts as he delivers an annual report of his middle-class task force." "These new safeguards will protect workers from conflicts of interest when it comes to financial advisers and their 401(k)s and IRAs," a White House official said.
"Despite revelations in a congressional investigation of a subsidiary's mismanagement and questionable vetting of employees, the company formerly known as Blackwater could soon win millions of dollars in new job orders for work in Afghanistan." A Pentagon official says that a subsidiary of the company "is eligible to win Department of Defense work worth tens of millions of dollars to train Afghan police."
A new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll finds that 67 percent of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United ruling loosening restrictions on corporate spending in campaigns. Only 16 percent of Americans agree with the ruling.
The vice chairman of the Federal Reserve said Monday that he will retire, "opening a third seat on what may be the world's most powerful economic body and giving President Obama a historic opportunity to reshape the central bank." Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn will step down in June.
Speaking to the AFL-CIO executive council in Orlando, FL. yesterday, Vice President Biden sought "to soothe over raw feelings with union members who have grown frustrated with the lack of progress" on key labor priorities. Biden also defended the administration's efforts to rescue the economy. "Had we not done those unpopular things we wouldn't have any shot, any shot at all," said Biden.
A 72-page RNC PowerPoint presentation for donors and fundraisers obtained by Politico caricatures Obama as The Joker and portrays Democratic leaders as part of an "evil empire." The document preys on "fear" of Obama moving the country "toward socialism."
An investigation by the Institute for Southern Studies has found that of "the 19 Senators who voted against the [recent Senate] package including jobless benefits after [Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY)] filibuster ended, eight of them come from states that face jobless rates higher than the national average." The Institute notes that "these are the kind of votes that could prove costly for Republicans where they face challengers in 2010."
The House passed a $15 billion jobs bill Thursday by a narrow margin of 217-201. Congressional Black Caucus members opposed the bill, saying it is too small to tackle the problems facing their communities.
YOUR COMMENTS
Recent Senate Votes
Jobs for Main Street Act - Vote Agreed to (70-28, 2 Not
Voting)
The Senate passed this $15 billion jobs bill, which includes payroll tax
breaks, bond-financing for state and local infrastructure projects, and an
extension of federal highway programs. The bill now goes to the House.
Sen. Mitch McConnell voted
NO
Sen. Jim Bunning voted
NO
Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act - Vote Passed
(406-19, 8 Not Voting)
The House voted to end an exemption from federal antitrust law for health
insurance companies. The bill now goes to the Senate, where its prospects
are uncertain.
Rep. Brett Guthrie
voted
YES
Rep. John Yarmuth voted
YES
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 - Vote
Passed (235-168, 29 Not Voting)
The House passed this intelligence authorization bill after stripping out
controversial language on interrogation techniques used by U.S. personnel.
The bill now has to be reconciled with a Senate version (S. 1494) in
conference committee.
Rep. Brett Guthrie voted NO
Rep. John Yarmuth voted YES
ECONOMY
-- FEDERAL WORKERS FURLOUGHED WITHOUT PAY DUE TO BUNNING'S OBSTRUCTION:
As a result of Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) partisan obstruction of a temporary
measure extending federal unemployment benefits last week,
2,000 federal transportation workers have been furloughed without pay today,
since the bill also included transportation funding. In a
press release, The Department of Transportation singled out Bunning,
adding that "[B]ecause of the shutdown,
federal inspectors will be removed from critical construction projects,
forcing work to come to a halt on federal lands." "[T]he furloughs will
disrupt safety programs that operate in partnership with the states and
advocacy groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)." The measure to extend
the benefits
could have passed the Senate Friday by unanimous consent had it not been
for Bunning's objection over how the extension would be funded. Over the
weekend,
approximately 400,000 laid-off workers may also have
lost their unemployment benefits, COBRA subsidies to help defray health
care costs expired, and loans for small businesses ran out of time because
of Bunning's move.
Several
Republicans have defended Bunning's obstruction in the face of
criticisms, but Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
predicted Sunday that the Senate will likely pass a temporary extension this
week.
'THE GREEN ECONOMY IS COMING':
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has emerged as the unlikely green leader in the
Senate, working with Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on
comprehensive climate legislation. Graham's behind-the-scenes negotiations
to craft a political compromise are perhaps less impressive than his strong
language. Echoing Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Van Jones, in
November Graham called for the United States to "lead the world rather than
follow the world on carbon pollution" because
"the
green economy is coming." When conservative Democratic senators like Ben
Nelson (NE) and
Mary Landrieu (LA) proposed dropping efforts to limit carbon pollution
and instead pass only an energy-subsidies bill, Graham lashed out, saying. "[I]f
the approach is to try to pass
some half-assed energy bill and say that is moving the ball down the
road, forget it with me." Speaking with New York Times
columnist Tom Friedman last week, Graham recognized that, by arguing that
climate change is a hoax, Republicans "are
putting at risk" the "party's future with younger people," who
overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Graham's
clear message is matched by few others in Congress, though leaders like Sen.
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and freshman Rep. Tom
Perriello (D-VA) have emerged to fight against the
dependence on oil money, the "senseless
debate," and "insider
baseball crap" that have prevented the Senate from taking action.
MOVING FORWARD: Americans are not interested in getting bogged down in an abortion debate on health care reform. A recent poll found that a large plurality -- 47 percent -- agreed that "[p]olitical differences on abortion should not prevent us from moving forward on an otherwise good health care reform plan." Pelosi, Obama, and other leaders want to move forward as well. "Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans," Pelosi said yesterday. "Let me say it clearly...there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill." Indeed, independent observers agree. Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University, and an independent "leading expert on health policy and law" recently released the findings of a "a thorough examination" of the Senate abortion language. While he found "significant differences between the House and Senate" bills in general, "the provisions governing abortion (Sec. 1303 of the Senate bill, pp. 2069-2078) are not among them. Both bills prohibit federal funding of abortions." In other words, the Senate language is as effective as the House language, which Stupak wrote and voted for. Indeed, even the Catholic Hospital Association endorsed the Senate abortion language. The association, which represents hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country, said in a statement in late December that it was "encouraged" and "increasingly confident" that the abortion compromise in the Senate health care bill "can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion." Despite his unreasonable stand, House Democrats are still trying to court Stupak. After meeting with Stupak yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told TPMDC that "[s]eparate pieces of legislation could be passed" outside the reconciliation process to appease Stupak. "That's a possibility," said Hoyer. "I talked to Mr. Stupak today, and I'm going to be talking to him next week and he indicated he wanted to have some discussions with people. And I will do that."
BLOG WATCH
Newt Gingrich won't register as a lobbyist despite running a health industry
"trade
association."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) derides a "special deal" that
doesn't exist.
Is the media
obsessed or ignorant about reconciliation?
The American Family Association says gays will "come roaring out of the
military's closet with
fangs bared."
Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL)
calls out stimulus hypocrites.
False equivocation between the left and right on health care.
How the fearmongerers at Keep America safe are "far from noble."
DAILY GRILL
"[Reconciliation]
could deal a fatal blow to the unique aspect of the United States Senate
which is a 60 vote majority." -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ),
2/25/10
VERSUS
"I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using
reconciliation to further the party's agenda. I wish it had not been done
then, and I hope it will not be done now that the groundwork has been laid."
-- McCain,
03/26/09
*****************
"[Using reconciliation to pass health care reform] would really be the end
of the Senate as a protector of minority rights."
-- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN),
2/28/10
VERSUS
Q: Is reconciliation something you would say, "We would never use for
something substantive legislation like health care?" Are you prepared to
make that kind of statement?
ALEXANDER:
No. I'm not going to prepare to make any kind of statement.
-- Alexander,
3/01/10
HUMOR
"New York Gov. David Paterson may be stepping down after being involved
in a scandal. Something like this hasn't happened in New York for ...
months. New Yorkers are desperate. They're trying to get Gov. Paterson to
leave early, and I said to myself, 'That sounds like a job for
Jay Leno.'" -David Letterman
"You know who is on the program tonight?
Mitt Romney is here. Mitt Romney is a good-looking Republican from
Massachusetts. You know, he's like that new senator from Massachusetts. He's
like
Scott Brown, but with pants." -David Letterman
"Talking about presidents who smoked. You remember
George W. Bush? Remember him? He's saying while he was president he
would enjoy the occasional cigar. On a rare occasion, he would have a cigar
because he said it helped him think. I want to tell you, occasions don't get
more rare than that, ladies and gentlemen." -David Letterman
"People magazine has confirmed that
former President Clinton called
Tiger Woods to offer his support during the ordeal. For real. They have
things in common, I guess." -Jimmy Kimmel
"It's a nice thing to do, a nice gesture between two, you know, kindred
spirits. It actually reminds me of the time President Bush called Homer
Simpson after Homer stapled his face to a doughnut." -Jimmy Kimmel
"Karl
Rove's new memoir, 'Courage and Consequence,' is coming out next week.
Not sure if 'Courage and Consequence' is how most people would describe the
Bush years, but I guess it does sound better than 'Oopsies.'" -Jimmy Fallon
"And over the weekend, President Bush said that he is writing a book about
how he made decisions while he was president. We have an advanced copy of it
here. It's called 'What Would Dick Cheney Do?'" -Jay Leno
"Representative Charles Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, has temporarily surrendered his post pending an ethics
investigation. They've been investigating him for three months now. And so
far, they have not found a single trace of ethics." -Jay Leno
"Did you hear that
Rush Limbaugh's Manhattan penthouse is on the market for $14 million?
It's an amazing property. Over 4,000 square feet. And that's just the
medicine cabinet." -Craig Ferguson
"I tell you, though. People still have faith in
Toyota, even with these massive recalls. The Toyota Prius has retained
its title as Consumer Reports' top pick for eco-friendly vehicle. They said
it's a great way to get in touch with the environment, especially when it
flies out of control and hits the trees." -Jay Leno
"Weren't the
Winter Olympics fantastic? The U.S. won a gold medal in downhill
economy." -David Letterman
INTERESTING
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN OUR ELECTIONS?
Posted by Jim Hightower
Having decreed that Corporations have a free speech "right " to spend unlimited sums from their massive corporate treasuries to elect or defeat candidates in our elections, the Supreme Court's five-man corporatist majority has opened a colossal can of worms. One of those worrisome squigglies is this question: Does the Court's newly-fabricated political right extend to foreign corporations?
In their ruling, the answer from the five judicial monkeywrenchers was... silence. How sly. With no explicit ban to rule out foreign corporate money, the justices have implicitly ruled it in. After all, argue apologists for this constitutional l perversion, a corporation is a corporation, and its official domicile is irrelevant in determining its political rights.
So, not only have the Supremes magically endowed all inanimate corporate things with the human ability to speak, but they've also granted corporate "persons" more speech than actual people-people have. Start with the fact that the Court's ruling equates our freedom of speech with the freedom to spend money – a plutocratic contortion of democracy that gives the most speech to those with the most money. American corporations alone have trillions of dollars they can draw from to shout down the voices of us mere humans.
But it appears that Toyota, Unilever, Deutsche Bank, Bin Laden construction company and thousands of other foreign entities can also add their trillions of dollars to drown out the democratic voices of real Americans. Interestingly, foreign humans are banned from spending money to influence our elections – so the Court has decreed that corporate foreigners have superior rights to human foreigners.
To help reverse this Supreme insanity, link up with the grassroots coalition called Move To Amend: www.movetoamend.org.
"Should Foreign Corpoations Spend Money on U.S. Political Candidates?" Newsweek, January 22, 2010, http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/22/should-foreign-corporations-spend-money-on-u-s-political-candidates.aspx
"The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone, Including bin Laden or the Chinese Government, Control of Our Democracy," Alternet, January 22, 2010,
Buy American Mention of the Week, By Roger Simmermaker
NONE This Week
***************************************************************************
Roger Simmermaker is the author of How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism and writes "Buy American Mention of the Week" articles for WorldNetDaily.com and his website www.howtobuyamerican.com. Roger is a member of the Machinists Union and National Writers Union, has been a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, and has been quoted in the USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Business Week among many other publications.
CLICK HERE FOR LATEST ISSUE OF THE "FRIDAY ALERT"
NEED COMPUTER ASSISTANCE??
Democrat Activist Mike Bailey is now providing “Professional Computer Support.” He can be contacted at 502-558-4026, or mikebailey2000@usa.net.
Notice to our Readers & 2010 Election Candidates:
This newsletter will carry, in this space, any Democratic candidates' notice of events or communications (250 words or less) to our readers that the candidate provides to the editor at rcrider@insightbb.com
If you plan to change your e-mail address, please let me know at rcrider@louisvilledem.com
Your contributions of news, comments and/or events are invited. Please e-mail such items to Ray Crider at rcrider@louisvilledem.com . If you know someone who would like to be on the newsletter e-mail list, please have him or her supply the following information to the same e-mail address: Name, address, phone numbers ( home , work, fax, cell), and e-mail address.
|
TOP
Not authorized by any candidate
or candidate's committee.
Contributions or gifts to the Louisville/Jefferson County Democratic Party
are not tax deductible.
About Us | Events Calendar | The Candidates | Local Clubs | Local Officials
Vote Here | Get Involved | Did You Know | Contact Us | Home
640 Barret Avenue | Louisville, KY 40204 | Tel: 502 582-1999 - Fax: 502 582-9933
Copyright ©2010 The Louisville Jefferson County Democratic Party
"Paid for and Authorized by the Louisville and Jefferson County
Democratic Party."
Charles Horton, Treasurer - Tim Longmeyer, Chairman