lobbying

...do you think the nutroots would stop plugging their ears and shouting "nah nah nah nah nah nah nah"?

Oh, probably not. It's that godless science that's the problem, right?

Is it any wonder that they don't get it? In case you missed it, Washington Week had a special edition tonight where they ostensibly took on the question, "Is our political system broken?" The only problem was that they kept looking at it through their narrow prism of "left" and "right".

For about 20 minutes (with the rest of the time devoted to corporate sponsors), we had the pleasure of listening to James Bennet, the new editor of The Atlantic, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Priscilla Painton, executive editor of Time Magazine while they mused over the Big Ideas of Democracy. (Yes, de Tocqueville was mentioned not once but twice. One cannot accuse these mighty journalists of not being learned.)

We learned that the blogosphere is responsible for the trivializing of American politics. We learned that politicians are simply too hateful. We learned that the American people are just too apathetic. We learned just how bad talk radio is.

There was casual mention of cable news programs, let's be fair. But that was 20 years ago -- nothing that is relevant today. And certainly not at all relevant to High Minded shows like Washington Week.

And yet, and yet....

...Everything came down to the "right" and the "left." Apparently the politicians and the Fourth Estate are all centrists, but the blogosphere is forcing acrimony from -- yes, you guessed it -- the "right" and the "left."

That left me wondering: Am I on the right or on the left? After all, right and left seem to define politics, at least according to these "experts." And as a blogger, well, I must be the worst of the worst -- an extremist!

I'm against the war on Iraq. That puts me on the left. But I was for the war on Afghanistan. Does that put me on the right? However, I'm for rebuilding Afghanistan and building its economy so that the Taliban has little to stand on.

I'm for the reduction of some taxes, so that puts me on the right. But I believe the poor should be given the greatest tax breaks, which puts me on the left. I believe in encouraging small businesses, which puts me on the right, but I believe small business is helped by things like national healthcare (because healthy workers are in business' self-interest), which puts me on the left, and a balanced budget, which puts me on the right (except for those "rightists" who think pork is a holy mission from God).

I'm for improved education by means of giving more independence to schools, which puts me on the right. But I don't think you can starve schools into improvement, which puts me on the left.

I strongly believe in the Constitution, which makes me an American. I believe the Constitution includes the entire Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment (left) and Second Amendment (right). I believe a woman is not a breeder slave of the State, which puts me way way on the left, apparently, if I'm to listen to the pundits. And I believe it's nobody's business -- especially not the Government's -- what happens in a private home (right), including the bedroom (left).

I'm against liberal activist judges (right), but I'm also against conservative activist judges (left).

I believe George W. Bush is probably the worst president this country has ever had (left), and I believe that many, if not most, of the Congressional Democrats aren't worth a bucket of spit (right). (Sorry for the vividness there, but the way they blather, it's the image I get.)

I despise the arrogant blindness of the mainstream media (left and right) -- perhaps that's why I'm labeled by them as being the primary cause of the demise of American politics.

So what is it, Gwen? Am I on the "right" or on the "left" when I believe the conservatives aren't conservative enough and the liberals aren't liberal enough, while believing that there is indeed way too much conflict and strife in Washington?

Maybe the problem is that we keep trying to define our politics along a binary axis -- as if everyone can be plotted along a yardstick, all in line, all in a row, easy to parse, easy to define. Maybe the problem, Gwen, is that even the television news programs with the most promise fall on such easy paradigms.

Needless to say, this week's show -- set as it was at the Aspen Ideas Festival -- was ironically placed, as the ideas were few.

And just like with the prefabricated political "debates" we see every election season, the best questions came not from the reporters but from the audience (who all were presumably just a bunch of radicals to be pegged somewhere along that political yardstick).

The big thing not mentioned in all this brief spectacle? Corporate influence on politics. That's right, the 800 pound gorilla was not mentioned at all. Nary a mention of K Street lobbying dominating legislative efforts (including actually writing the bills our representatives "vote" on). Not a word about how big money distorts political campaigns. Of course, being a blogger, I suppose I'm the cause of the "trivializing of politics" (or some such absurd claim), so let the "experts" from Washington pass judgment.

I've been a big fan of Gwen and Washington Week, but this week they proved just how out of touch they really are. It was all rather disappointing.

Yes, Gwen, our political system is broken. Maybe if you guys listened instead of talked, you might have learned something. Of course, being from television, the idea of listening to the opinions of the citizens whom Politics ostensibly serves is too much of a radical idea. Politics was just so much better when We the People could only bitch over the newspaper or shout at the television. This blogging business has gotta go.

I love you, Gwen, but sometimes you really really just don't get it.

The Money Changers

from Talk to Action

Last week, Mainstream Baptist wondered, What's the Matter with Texas?, and referenced the Texas Freedom Network's incisive new report: "The Anatomy of Power: Texas and the Religious Right in 2006."

No one should be surprised to hear that there's a whole lot the matter with Texas, or that -- as is the case even in religion-driven politics – the root of our state's particular evil can be traced to the love of money. Here in Texas, rich men who hand money out by the bucketload are using their wealth to buy a state government that looks like their vision of the promised land.

from Talk to Action

In last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto sounded a long-delayed alarm in Contra-Contraception, a comprehensive overview of the religious right's war on birth control. It was past time for a publication of influence to "discover" what many of us have known for years.

The wheels of history have a tendency to roll back over the same ground. For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

Well, yes and no. While Judie Brown and her allies in the Protestant ranks are waging a full frontal assault against contraception, they declared war on birth control some time ago. The only thing new is that these days -- flushed with victory over the Roberts and Alito confirmations, and in giddy anticipation of the arrival of the South Dakota abortion ban's arrival before a more conservative Supreme Court – they've gotten a little braver about admitting it.
.

Update: Blogroll added below.

This is rather distressing. Watch this video:

I'm sorry. You're trying to access your GMail, but we offer a better service, so get ours instead. Bye!

Too bad! You're trying to reach a site with "inappropriate content." We have content that is appropriate for you here, instead.

Hey bub! Don't you know there's a "liberal media conspiracy"? We're protecting you from all that, and providing you access to the version of the news we approve of.

On TPM, Art Brodsky writes:

There is some recognition that the grass roots efforts that started relatively late in the game, combined with some lobbying by e-commerce companies, is starting to have an effect. We've probably got a couple of weeks before the full telecom bill goes to the House floor. (As I write this, the final vote hasn't happened yet, but there's no doubt the Committee will approve the bill.)

This turned, unfortunately, into a partisan fight. Only one courageous Republican, Heather Wilson of New Mexico, voted in favor of the amendment. These Democrats left the reservation: Ed Towns of New York, Bobby Rush of Illinois, Al Wynn of Maryland, Gene Green of Texas and Charlie Gonzales of Texas.

There are other developments. The House Judiciary Committee's special Telecom Task Force had a hearing on the issue the other day, and was deeply concerned about the issue. And there is legislation in the Senate that could also get serious consideration.

There's hope. Take action. The GOP is trying to push this through before they're pushed out of controlling the House.

This is free speech at stake. If this isn't stopped, we'll be joining China in having a censored internet.

More on MyDD.

So why are the Republicans so hot on a bill that prevents states and municipalities from requiring multinational corporations to disclose what they're putting in foods?

It's that Culture of Corruption (again):

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and several other lawmakers support a bill that would keep states from adding warnings that go beyond federal rules.

The lawmakers have family, friends and former staff among the lobbyists for the bill.

"This helps explain why the food industry has blocked any efforts to have hearings," said Ben Cohen, attorney for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group.

"They think they've got it greased by using well-connected lobbyists to slip this thing through the full House without following the normal procedures," Cohen said.

Too bad American citizens can't put our legislators' families on the payroll. We pay only the legislators themselves, and apparently that's not good enough.

According to reports filed with Congress, the bill's lobbyists include Blunt's wife, Abigail, who works for Altria, parent of Kraft Foods. They also include former Boehner staffers Mason Wiggins, lobbyist for the Food Products Association, an industry group, and Brenda Reese, lobbyist for the American Beverage Association.

It's a Who's Who of paid influence ... They're literally in bed with each other.

Oh, and not wanting to be left out, Democrats have elbowed their way to the Republican feeding trough.

Also listed is Brad Card, brother of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and former top aide to Rep. John Sweeney (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y. Brad Card has lobbied on food labeling issues for the Food Products Association. The association is headed by a former congressman, Democrat Cal Dooley of California.

"It's a perfect storm of insider access, big money and bad policy," said Andy Igrejas of the Washington-based National Environmental Trust, which did the lobbying research. "They're sweeping away 200 state laws without a hearing, all because very wealthy interests want them to."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee sent the bill to the floor without a hearing. The bill has broad support and is expected to win House approval later in the week. Supporters expect a Senate version of the bill to be introduced soon.

Oh, but we have a quibble!

A spokeswoman for Blunt said his wife does not lobby any House members but may have contacted members of the Senate.

Ah, now that's totally different!

So kiss goodbye any extra protections your state may have in place for your food. (Are you listening, Californians?) The Republicans know better, and they're convinced you don't need to know anything. Just shut up and eat.

Apparently the Republicans, who holler and wail about the need for states' rights, are considering passing a bill that would prevent -- that's right, prevent -- states from establishing their own food-labeling requirements.

Farmgirl Fare offers the skinny:

I don't usually mix politics and blogging, but this new bill hits right where it counts--in our stomachs. It will take away local food labeling rights and help keep gene-altered ingredients in our food. Here's the low-down:

Tell your Congressman or Congresswoman to vote "No" on House of Representatives Bill H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," coming to a vote in Washington, D.C on March 8.

The House of Representatives will vote Wednesday on a controversial "national food uniformity" labeling law that will take away local government and states' power to require food safety food labels such as those required in California and other states on foods or beverages that are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. This bill would also prevent citizens in local municipalities and states from passing laws requiring that genetically engineered foods and ingredients such as Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) be labeled.

Big food corporations and the biotech industry understand that consumers are more and more concerned about food safety, genetic engineering, and chemical-intensive agriculture, and are reading labels more closely. They understand that pesticide and mercury residues and hazardous technologies such as genetic engineering and food irradiation will be rejected if there are truthful labels required on food products.

So, naturally, these multinational corporations don't want Americans knowing what's in their food. And the Republican Congress seems all-too-ready to accommodate the foreign corporations' demands at the expense of the health of Americans. (Hey, so much for their self-reform efforts, eh?)

Farmgirl Fare's post has links to ways to take action, as well as relevant news stories.

Via Alanna Kellogg at BlogHer.

This is what you call "fiscal responsibility" in Republicanland:

Deficits under the President’s budget would total 2.1 trillion over the 10 years from 2007 through 2016 – 1.4 trillion higher than under current law, as projected by the CBO’s baseline.

Under current tax and spending laws, deficits would be followed by small surpluses beginning in 2012, CBO projects; under the President’s policies, by contract, deficits would continue throughout the 2007-2016 period. Over those 10 years, the President’s proposals would reduce revenues by more than 1.7 trillion from baseline levels, CBO and JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation) estimate, mainly by extending tax provisions that are scheduled to expire by 2011.

From the Congressional Budget Office (.pdf)

In other words, this is the kind of burden Bush's budget will be doing to us for years after he's left office and gone back to playing pretend-cowboy taking a chainsaw to scrubby oak.

Gotta love how the Republicans love credit -- especially when it's the rest of us who have to pay it all back.

More on this from Sterling Newberry at The Blogging of the President.

Since the not-at-all-surprising confirmation of Samuel Alito, there's been a lot of hand-wringing going on in the so-called "liberal" or "progressive" blogosphere.

"I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that the Democrats didn't all stand firm!" come the mealy-mouthed cries.

It's time to wake up.

Matt Stoller offers one perspective:

The netroots needs to get serious. Our culture is sick. On every conference call with elected officials, I hear preening, sycophantic questions towards elected Democrats. That time is over. They work for us, the people. Or rather, I am an American, and I am not going to bow down to someone because they are a Congressman or a Senator. I don't have to say that someone pursued 'great leadership' just because they wear a Congressional pin. I don't have to care about titles, about nobility, about respect for the office. I am an American.

It's time that we start acting like Americans again, and stop acting like we are courtiers worshipping at the throne of high officers, be they D's or R's. Be an American, not a courtier. Be skeptical of your elected. And take responsibility for your country. If they fail we fail, and that's why we will hold them accountable. That's why we need power, because without it we cannot prevent failure and drive the changes we all know we so desperately need.

So take heed, blogosphere, let's get back to being Americans again. We are the people. We have a responsibility to act like it.

The thing is that that power is earned, and right now the electorate, by and large, gets no respect from the elected. They try to play us like chumps, giving us bloviating speechifying and imperious poses while they do business as usual.

Choiceless

The Republicans in power right now are just about the worst political ruling class in our country's history. Look at the deficit and debt. Look at the wars. Look at New Orleans. Look at the regressive bills passed over the past year. These folks are dangerous!

But the Democrats have no spine. And that is largely because they do not have any sort of collective vision or cohesive purpose. The "big tent" of the Democratic Party has rendered it ineffective for over 20 years now.

And the Party itself is trying to diffuse its caucus even more by backing more regressive politicians like Bob Casey, Jr., who just had to go on the record to let us all know that he thought Samuel Alito was just a fine judge, just fine. Can a Party build strength when it continues to work against its progressive base and undermine its progressive principles?

Jeffrey Feldman couldn't help but notice the problem:

Tim Kaine's speech, last night, while well-presented, demonstrated that the Democratic Leadership is making decisions that are almost completely detached from anything I recognize as the day-to-day political condition of this country--particularly the past two election cycles, setting up the scenario whereby the Democratic party runs in 2008 virtually the exact same race it ran in 2004, using the same professionals, the same strategies, the same metrics--and resulting in the same, dire outcome.

For reasons I will elaborate in the extended post, I used to think that the netroots were working exclusively in the interests of the Democratic Party. Today--this morning, specifically--I now believe that we in the netroots need to start thinking about 'Our' gains in relation to 'Their' gains. This is a complicated step to take. It is risky and involves steps that, while I describe them, I do not fully understand how they should happen on the ground.

But I believe, this morning, as a result of this week, that the future of our country depends on our willingness to start seeing ourselves--starting right now--as a distinct political entity in U.S. politics. And that means recognizing where we are in realistic terms, defining the gains we want to make and how to measure them, and building, building, building towards larger and larger possibilities.

There seems to be no doubt about that. When it comes down to it, I think the largest political bloc in this country is the bloc that goes totally unrepresented by the elected officials of either party. The bloc that largely stays home and doesn't soil itself by endorsing the posers they're offered in the pseudo-choices offered up on election day.

The bloc that believes that the government should largely leave people's private lives private.

The bloc that believes that the government should protect people not just from crime, but from fraud, abuse, exploitation and depredations by anyone so-inclined, including multinational corporations.

The bloc that believes that people should be treated equally.

Feldman's analysis has some sharp observations:

The Democratic Party has abandoned any effort at creating and defining a social experience of being a Democrat. It has given up. Instead, we have an increasingly isolated leadership that hires experts to launches plans--plans conceived in a private culture of celebrity consultants and society fundraising--in an effort to achieve their goals in our world. This will not change simply because we want it to.

The netroots, by contrast, is steeped in a new kind of liberal politics as social experience. This new experience is build of routines, ideas, and a growing diversity of long-distance and face-to-face relationships. This new culture of netroots politics is as distinct from the culture of the Democratic leadership as the Democratic elite is distinct from the rest of the nation.

What's more, the netroots -- at least the netroots that aren't just playing the DNC game -- more closely reflect the views of the people. After all, the netroots have roots.

At least that's the theory.

Unprogressive

There are self-proclaimed "netroots" who have been bellowing at everyone who has dared express skepticism that culture-of-death Democrats like Bob Casey, Jr. and Tim Kaine deserve our support.

And this leads to an area where I believe Feldman misses the mark:

The Democratic Party currently competes with no other party in the marketplace of Liberal politics in the United States. This must change and the only way to change this is to create an entity--a branded entity--thereby allowing for mass identification with and support of the netroots. What form this will take remains to be seen, but it will need to be capable of circulating at economic, social and political levels. The netroots will not be a 'party' in the conventional sense, but also not a 'club' in the conventional sense. It will be somewhere in between, with the brand affixed to ideas, media as well as activities and places.

I would submit that the Democrats are not competing in the marketplace of Liberal politics at all. In fact, they're still running from the "liberal" label, following in the frantic footsteps left by Michael Dukakis 18 years ago.

And as long as the largest political blog continues its repeated attacks on liberal values and progressive politics and fails to get over its phobia of standing for something, I don't see much hope for any sort of truly progressive netroots gains in the 2006 elections.

Unrepresented

Like many people holding progressive views, I feel that I have no party representing me. There's no party that fights for the people -- or even talks about how we're doing as a country in terms of how the people are doing as people. There's no party that fiercely defends the civil and human rights of American citizens across the board.

There's no party even talking the talk, let alone walking the walk.

Feldman says:

A few words about what I am not advocating, here. I am not calling for the netroots to leave the Democratic Party or to work for its downfall. I believe a party, as an institution, has valuable aspects that far outweight its component parts. I am not calling for an end to working with and for the Democratic Party, neither at the level of campaigns or broader efforts to strengthen the party. All those efforts most continue. I am not calling for increased hostility towards the Democratic Party. In fact, I am calling for the exact opposite. I am not calling for a departure from the 'people-powered politics' outlined in Jerome and Markos' new book. That vision is important and it is within every aspect of what I describe above.

While I would agree with the first part -- if it's possible, it would be much better to reclaim the Democratic Party than to ditch it for an untested, unmonied, unknown third party -- I do not think that Jerome and Markos' anti-progressive, conservative-Dems-or-bust agenda is the way to pursue it.

Roots required

The Democratic Party is not working because it no longer stands for traditionally Democratic ideals. It no longer defends liberal values. It no longer advocates progressive policies. The Democratic Party has been the "go along to get along" party. And that is not going to change as long as Democratic voters are attacked by Kos and others for caring about their civil and human rights, or wanting to breathe clean air, or demanding fair and open elections.

If there's going to be a real netroots resurgence -- and make no mistake, it will be a resurgence -- then it will take roots. The netroots are about the people, and if there's no room for what the people believe, then the "netroots" is nothing but astroturf.

Oh this is rich, Knight Ridder (via Sirota):

The Democratic plan resembles the reform agenda unveiled by Republicans the day before, tougher in some parts, more lax in others. Democrats would ban more gifts to lawmakers, for example, but Republicans would ban more junkets.

Both plans would leave unchanged the flow of money to political campaigns, which government reform groups say remains a bigger problem than lavish meals, tickets to luxury skyboxes and junkets.

As if to underscore how some things would remain the same, Democrats later Wednesday used their reform agenda as the key to a new fundraising pitch to supporters, seeking contributions of $35 to $500.

With both parties urging reforms, it was unclear if the Democrats could successfully cast themselves as offering a clear alternative to a country that, as of now, thinks both parties are corrupt.

Again! the Republicans will cast themselves as both extremist AND moderate, or, in this case, "reformer". Democrats decline the national conversation 'til late in the game, and thus lose.

End of story, or would be, except they DO wash, rinse and repeat.

"You cannot take back congressional majorities if, like the Democrats, you propose solutions that are easily blurred by the majority," said liberal strategist David Sirota.

Party leaders hope otherwise, betting that the public will blame Republicans for the scandal surrounding disgraced lobbyist and fellow Republican Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to conspiring to corrupt public officials, among other charges.

Implosion, implosion, implosion forever! ... But then, they never do implode! They are cockroaches, can the Democrats not figure this out?

Couple of quotes from a January 16 piece in the SF Chron:

"The danger is that they are going to talk about a variety of proposals that will look more like window dressing than an institutional change in the way they do business," said Chellie Pingree, national president of Common Cause, a watchdog group pushing for broader change. [...]

"Congress as a whole needs to step back and look at the way it conducts its business," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has advised lawmakers on lobbying reform. "It's not just lobbyists influencing members of Congress, it's members of Congress shaking down lobbyists for money."

I watched the Dems, Reid, Pelosi, Obama and the Blue Etcetera on parade (apologies to Louise Slaughter, but if she is real, they will drown her out).... I have a lot of hope, don't you... ? I feel so renewed and refreshed.

Cover illustration by Andrzej Klimowski
for Harold Pinter's play,
The New World Order

To say that the "other side" is Dreier, Hastert, Blunt, Cornyn and Frist - and the Red Etcetera is meaningless and a flabby argument... Like a "conversation" about their ''investments'' that I once heard between McAuliffe and Marc Racicot, iirc, they both were Global Crossing boyos. Gag worthy.

Yes, now it is Howard and Ken. Well. To be frank, does not mean much. Mehlman has the support of his party and his president, leader of the party. Howard has state Dems who desperately wish for some grassroots money and a voice against the DC Dems. What will happen with Howard (and to Howard), whose heart is roughly, somewhat, pretty much (life is tentative) in the right place? Hard to say right now... we cannot be certain, not 'til it happens.

Cover illustration by Andrzej Klimowski
for Harold Pinter's play,
One for the Road

I say throw them all over.