|
Democrats 
Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:11:09 AM MST
|
|
One of the things that kills democracies is political violence. When outright violence and more aggressive forms of intimidation become the norm in politics there is very little change that the will of the people, any people, can be accurately heard. While there will be those who are so in love with the idea of government by the people that they will not be cowed, larger numbers of people will think of their families, their children and their own health and well being and bow to the fear of violence.
We in the United States have been witness to a set of trends which have been edging us closer and closer to political violence. Just last night some supporters of Rand Paul knocked down a MoveOn.org activist as she tried to give a mock employee of the month card to the radical Republican Senatorial Candidate. They then head locked her and one of their members stomped on her head and neck. At this time it is unknown exactly how injured she is, but this kind of assault could have maimed or even killed her. Being held down and kicked is no little scuffle, it is serious assault.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 948 words in story)
|
|
Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 19:05:23 PM MST
|
( - promoted by Fong)
Stories begat other stories, or at least they do for me; this two-part conversation came from a comment that was made after I posted a story suggesting that voting matters this time, especially if you don't want environmental disasters like the recent Hungarian "toxic lake" that burst from its containment and polluted the Danube River happening in your neighborhood.
Long story short, we are going to be moving on to ask what, for some, is a more fundamental question: if you're an LBGT voter, and the Democratic Party hasn't, to put it charitably, "been all they could be" when it comes to issues like repealing "don't ask, don't tell" or the Federal Defense of Marriage Act...what should you do?
Now normally I would be the one trying to develop an answer to the question, but instead, we're going to be posing the question to a group of experts, and we'll be letting them give the answers.
And just because you, The Valued Reader, deserve the extra effort, for Part Two we've trying to get you a "Special Bonus Expert" to add some input to the conversation: a Democratic Member of Congress who represents a large LBGT community.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 1147 words in story)
|
|
Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 10:26:39 AM MST
|
|
Those of you who've followed my work over a period of time know that I'm usually the one suggesting moderation and keeping everyone in the big tent, and, even in this most difficult year, I'm the one telling folks that sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for the candidate that sucks less.
And even though the last thing I'd ever want is a Speaker Boehner or a Leader McConnell (or even worse yet, DeMint), the fact remains that there are two Democratic Senators I would actually vote against, even if the candidate that sucks more does win...and those two are Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Nebraska's Ben Nelson.
One of those two is up for re-election this year, and thanks to a particularly ridiculous vote by Senator Lincoln, we found ourselves in a bit of an email exchange, which is what we'll be talking about today.
|
|
There's More...
:: (10
Comments, 1081 words in story)
|
|
Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 06:09:26 AM MST
|
|
This election cycle does not look very good for Democrats. There are structural problems of having won seats in the House that we might not have taken if we had not had the massive outpouring of support for President Obama's campaign. There is the issue of the economy where voters tend to punish the party in power, regardless of if it was they who drove the economy into trouble or not. There is the mid-term issue where the party that holds the White House historically loses seats. All these combined with a base that is unhappy (with some good reason) with the way that a historic majority has compromised so many of their priorities and values.
Whether it is your intent to support Democrats or not, the time to get involved in the process is now. If you just can't stomach your particular Democratic candidate, then find a way to work for the ones that you can. Nothing is more important than protecting the liberal and progressive members of Congress, if the long term goal is to move the nation to the left politically.
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 1071 words in story)
|
|
Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:23:01 AM MST
|
Not much of value comes from gangs. Oh sure there are some rap artists who started as gang members and I am not going to minimize the art that they have created, but really they are the exception not the rule. Gangs in history and in contemporary America are generally associated with criminal activity.
Given this basic premise it is hard to understand why a long time United States Senator would want to form a gang, but Sen. Lieberman really has a bit of a chubby for them. It was eons ago in blog time, 2005, but there was a show down between Democrats and Republicans over judicial nominees. The Dems where holding up 11 applet court nominees and the Republicans were talking about the "nuclear option" of ending the filibuster.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 833 words in story)
|
|
Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 06:31:06 AM MST
|
|
There are a lot of angry people in the American electorate. There are the Tea Party folks who think that there has been some kind of revolution and they are in danger of losing their country (even though the country they imagine they were part of never really existed). They are fired up and they intend to vote for some of the most radically reactionary candidates in decades. They have helped nominate folks like Sharon Angle who believes that unemployment insurance is a bad thing, and thinks that it is not a huge problem if conservatives resort to so-called "Second Amendment remedies", basically armed insurrection.
Then there are another group of angry folks, this time on the Left. They were the ones who suffered through eight years of Republican lawlessness and were inspired by the promise of change the Obama campaign offered. Many feel betrayed by the fact that change has not been as intense as they imagined. They point, with good reason, to the promises made by the President on issues like Health Care reform and the reality of what the legislative process gave us. No public option, lots of compromise and a bill that while it does good things for some is not the kind of transformational change that the Left (myself included) wanted.
|
|
There's More...
:: (13
Comments, 1117 words in story)
|
|
Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 06:01:07 AM MST
|
|
Complexity is really only attractive to nerds. I say this as someone who loves complex systems and way they interact. Given the choice most folks would rather have a description boiled down to the barest of truths and then they go from there in thinking about it. This is part of the problem with the public perception of American Recovery Act, more commonly known as the stimulus bill.
It is widely held by economists and those who don't rely on Faux News and Rush Limbaugh for their information that the stimulus worked very well, for its size. Even as it was being passed 19 months ago many were saying it was too small in its scope to completely fix the hole in the economy that the policies of radical Republicans had caused. This was a win/win situation for the Republicans as they would be able to reap the benefits in their districts and states, but still be able to say that it was bad policy since it did not bring the nation back to full recovery.
|
|
There's More...
:: (7
Comments, 877 words in story)
|
|
Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 06:17:07 AM MST
|
Nietzsche said"
"When we look into the abyss, searching for monsters, the abyss looks into us as well" .
Right now we are staring the abyss in the face and there are indeed monsters there. This abyss is the elections this fall. The chance that radical Republicans will take over the House and perhaps the Senate has grown. The affect of constant lies from Fox News and Talk Radio have energized the Republican base. The limp leadership from the White House and from Majority Leader Reid has demoralized the Democratic base.
The passing of many of the Lefts long term wish list items, barely and with tons of ridiculous and galling compromise has created a situation where the Right is fired up and the Left is angry at its own leadership. The conditions are in place for a wave election and the wave is not likely to go the way that we Liberals are going to like in any fashion.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 1116 words in story)
|
|
Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:14:40 AM MST
|
|
Sometimes stories happen because of planning; other times serendipity intervenes, which is how we got to the conversation we'll be having today.
In an exchange of comments on the Blue Hampshire site, I proposed an idea that could be of real value to unions, workers...and surprisingly, employers.
If things worked out correctly, not only would lots of people feel a real desire to have unions represent them, but employers would potentially be coming to unions looking to forge relationships, and, just to make it better, this plan bypasses virtually all of the tools and techniques employers use to shut out union organizers.
Since I just thought this up myself, I'm really not sure exactly how practical the whole thing is, and the last part of the discussion today will be provided by you, as I ask you to sound off on whether this plan could work, and if so, how it could be made better.
It's a new week...so let's all put our heads together and rebuild the labor movement, shall we?
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 961 words in story)
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:34:23 AM MST
|
|
This spring and summer there was a bit of a employment boost due to our once a decade counting of the nation. For many it came at just the right time as the benefits available from unemployment are fairly minimal and the census paid the enumerators (the folks doing the actual door-to-door work) $16.95 an hour. A couple of months on the census also was long enough that many of these folks will be able to file new claims and restart the clock on benefits.
This is all to the good, that is until State unemployment rules kick in. You see, many states don't look at your last job to calculate what you will receive in benefits. Places like Colorado look at the last year of wages to determine your benefits. One formula takes the highest wages from two consecutive quarters and divides that by 26 then multiplies it by .6. This gives a benefit of 60% of wages, capped at $445. Or they look at the whole year, divide by 52 then divide that by 2 to get the weekly benefit.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 1112 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 14:13:12 PM MST
|
|
HD42 Aurora Rep Karen Middleton (D) has stepped down from her position in the legislature. Last session the talk of the dome was that she was best-poised to take become Speaker of the House after Terrance Carroll left via term limits. Since that's now out of the question, who will take her place in the very Democratic district of Saudi Aurora?
The Denver Post mentions Rhonda Fields as a potential contender.
But what about Pam Bennett? She could become the highest office holder of a transgender woman in the nation. Though she lost her bid for Aurora City Council, she's done a lot of work and with 48% of registered voters Dems, it seems like a good time to act.
She hasn't changed her website yet but the announcement just came today.
Whoever runs, they have 97 days to make it work.
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:42:05 AM MST
|
|
My Mom is where I learned about public service. For 17 years she was a County Commissioner in the second largest county in Michigan by population. During that time she had opportunities to run for higher office, but stayed where she was because she though it was the highest level of public office where one could see the affect of the work one was doing.
It wasn't always an easy row to hoe. Being that it was Michigan there was always a problem with finding enough money in the budgets to fill all the priorities. There were times when she did what she thought was right, even though people complained. When she set up two health clinic where teens could get condoms without shame or hassle (in the '80's) there was a lot of out cry. Still Mom knew that with the 17% teen pregnancy rate in her district something had to be done.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 1368 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:06:10 AM MST
|
|
Michael Bennet reveals shocking secret...that Romanoff has been talking about for a year.
Last night Michael Bennet lost the battle to control the message. While his previous ads had been positive talking about himself, Bennet made the mistake of engaging on the one issue people can identify with Andrew Romanoff: campaign contributions.
The Bennet campaign released a new attack ad telling people what Andrew Romanoff has been saying since he started the campaign: that he has learned from his years of legislative experience and no longer takes PAC special interest money
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 196 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 10:41:05 AM MST
|
|
Said Roy Teicher, spokesperson for the Andrew Romanoff campaign in reference to Colorado Senators Udall and Bennet's vote-switch on an amendment by VT Sen Bernie Sanders (God bless his soul) that would have capped credit card interest rates at 15%. In other words, this was like a national version of Colorado's successful attempt at ending usurious payday lending practices, reform of which struggled though the Colorado state legislature this last session.
Remember that? All the fighting and all the buzz about protecting the middle class? Now we've lost an opportunity to protect the middle class in the worst recession since the Depression and our Colorado Senators voted in a most despicably suspicious way.
:( All this time I thought Udall was a Boulder liberal :(
To the discerning, perhaps intelligent eye, it looks like Udall and Bennet first voted No on the amendment but when they saw there was a majority of sell-outs in the Senate who were also voting No, pandering to multi-billion dollar bailout recipients who used taxpayer money to "invest" in our "democracy", they changed their votes to Yes so it would go on the record that they were in support of it when in fact, it's possible, they never intended to support it.
And since it's the US Senate AND 2010, it was caught on tape.
|
|
There's More...
:: (20
Comments, 51 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 23:39:07 PM MST
|
|
Closely I watched the Colorado Senate this last session and instead of actually governing with solutions, the Republicans would cry and scream about how the reason the economy was bad, was because of government. The intention, of course, behind their meaningless slogans is to encourage voters to make the overemotional jump to think well, vote 'em out! thus falling prey to the Republican lie machine and forfeiting the Democratic majority that does its best to prevent the continued death-careen that the Republicans prefer. When pressed about their proposed solution for meeting fixing the economy, Rs could only say "cut state government workers income (jobs) by 25%" which, given the fact that the state government is the largest employer in the state, such an idea is utterly counterproductive to creating a vibrant economy but WHATEVER.
Morons.
Now, about these Conservative-backed (and illegally funded??) current ballot initiatives, one Repub meme is "no debt" which, again the vulnerable voter would equate with borrowing which is in part what the "Dr Evil Amendments" 60, 61, and 101 on the ballot this Nov seek to do.
The Denver Business Journal (yes, it has the word business in it, all hail business AUM) has a piece about how, if passed, these amendments would send Colorado into another recession. Who wants that?
Well, Republicans want that. Republicans want Obama and all Democrats to fail so they can get re-elected and continue their raping and pillaging of our nations resources.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 284 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 04:44:08 AM MST
|
|
It's been a while since we had to have a real heart-to-heart, the Obama Administration and I, and last time it was because Rahm Emanuel had been a bit snippy toward those of us who are carrying the water for this Administration.
We need to have another one of those conversations today; this time the circumstances are a lot more positive-in fact, if the Administration follows my suggestions here, we have a real chance to put the Democrats on the road to victory, not just this November, but also in 2012.
What I'm proposing will create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs, and it will stimulate millions more as we create a national source of discount electrical power that can be used by business and consumers alike.
Here's the best part: it's no "pie in the sky" promotion I'm offering here; we've already done the same thing before, it's been working out well for almost three quarters of a century...and even better than all that...my idea first pays for itself, and then...it actually makes the Federal Government a profit, forever after.
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 1235 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:46:18 PM MST
|
|
As is often the case, the "mainstream" media nowadays is pushing a "conventional wisdom" line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the "wisdom" is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics. The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that. For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either "fundamental changes’ or "to be completely rebuilt," while 97% of Americans are "angry" or "bothered" by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, "conventional wisdom" electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy. Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln - are in favor of climate and energy legislation. Let’s take a look. Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, "The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill."
Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure
Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, "Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs."
Kirsten Gillibrand - Listed as a definite "yes" on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News
Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, "Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination."
Barbara Mikulski - Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews
Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
Harry Reid – Has called for "bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer."
Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama - showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation. So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the "mainstream media" that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics? Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the "mainstream media" to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators -- like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh -- who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially "greener" (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures. For the "mainstream media," recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason). In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on "conventional" wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things - tell a very different story. In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: "Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?" Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] "[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive." Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that "There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment." In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the "old guard" of Senators who are retiring. Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically - might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a "generational" difference going on here. Not "generational" in the chronological sense, in which "younger" Senators are more pro-environment than "older" Senators. But, perhaps, "generational" in the sense of "political age," as in "how long have they been in Washington, DC?" Given the analysis above, we might want to add "members in cycle" to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers. Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable. Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy? And perhaps they are not listening to a "conventional media" narrative which is completely wrong? Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue - that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for "greener" pastures. |
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 06:04:41 AM MST
|
( - promoted by Fong)
Netroots Nation will be in Las Vegas in just a few weeks; with that in mind we are going to play "piano bar" and fulfill a couple of requests, one today and one tomorrow, from folks who would like to bring a couple of things to your attention.
Today's topic: climate change.
As you know, there is a lot of legislation floating around Capitol Hill that would begin to use some sort of market-based mechanism to reduce the amount of carbon we emit.
None of it will move unless it moves through the Senate, and today, that's what we'll be talking about.
Matter of fact, they will be too.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 465 words in story)
|
|
Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 18:02:13 PM MST
|
( - promoted by Fong)
That fight to bring Colorado back from the brink of a Republican-induced Armageddon, that seemed to have begun in the obscurity of an Old Chicago drinking room in the Springs, that was egged on by some guy named Ed Perlmutter - who I had never heard of - that made George Bush and Dick Cheney take John Kerry seriously in Colorado, IN COLORADO GOD DAMMIT !!, that forced Ed Rollins to unretire and run interference for that man-child from his Lexus, cannot possibly end like this, though I am deathly afraid it has:
"That's not what we want," Pelosi said, cutting him off. "That doesn't do any of us any good." In the end, Axelrod pointedly declined to say that the president would stop acknowledging the failures of both parties in Washington, but the message was received. In the weeks that followed, Obama intensified his rhetoric about Republicans, playing to his constituencies on the Hill as well as to the audiences he was addressing. I could write 10,000 words about this, but what good would it do?
They've already been written, been recycled, been rendered irrelevant by a post-partisan president who still thinks Republicans should be given the benefit of the doubt, though they won't even accept the fact that he's American.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 72 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 21:48:26 PM MST
|
(I don't find it hard to believe Republicans don't understand basic economics. Do you? - promoted by Fong)
Crooks and Liars says it all:
"The Democrats will try to act like Republicans by cutting the deficit, and it won't win them any additional votes. It never does. The kind of people who like Republican policies vote for Republicans."
http://crooksandliars.com/susi...
What is so hard to adhere to what FDR had to battle? The fight to restart a collapsing economy and a horrendous unemployment number?
Small businesses (and large businesses) cannot just hire more people if there is not demand for their products. Right?
It is up to government to create a 21st century Works Projects Administration that will jump start a collapsed private sector. The private sector cannot do it. Wall Street cannot do it.
Contrary to what Republicans have to say about their scary boogie man of the "deficit", most people don't give a rat's *ss about the deficit. If the choice is having a job or mythical "red ink" the job will always win.
If the economic is jump started then the tax revenues will grow too.
Hard to believe that Republicans cannot understand simple economics.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Squarestate.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC. and is not responsible for the opinions expressed outside of our own.
|
|
