Workplace FAQ's Concerning Pandemic Influenza
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1704
Posted: April 30, 2009
Employers are beginning to confront many thorny questions about how best to respond to concerns about the spread of swine influenza (H1N1 virus) in the workplace. For several years, federal, state and local governments have been working hard to prepare for a potential pandemic. As part of that effort, the federal government developed a series of Frequently Asked Questions, addressing workplace issues that may arise in a pandemic. We are providing links to these FAQ’s below which can be found if you click here.
As you will see, some questions do not have clear cut answers. Also, while some employer responses to workplace concerns may appear reasonable, given the threats to health and safety, they may raise concerns under existing federal laws. The U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies reportedly are currently reviewing federal statutes and regulations that may affect employers and employees during the unique circumstance where the U.S. experiences a severe influenza pandemic. Decisions have not yet been made as to whether any changes are needed and answers to questions, therefore, are based on current laws and regulations.
Finally, as noted in many FAQ answers, employers also should be guided in their relationship with their employees not only by federal employment law, but by their own employee handbooks, manuals, and contracts (including bargaining agreements), and any applicable state or local laws.
Just watched the Preident's Weekly Address
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/amyhamblin
I want to commend the President and his Administration for their approach to the flu outbreak...Cautious, but not Alarmed.
The media organizations should follow the example of the President...just report the news, not try to create the news.
************
Really, it's an example where you see the character of President Obama and how he deals with problems. It's an appealing trait that contributed to my voting decision; Calm and Deliberate. There's been some wayward tendencies, but hopefully the ole 'No Drama, Obama' philosophy will continue to show more in his Administartion.
Big Changes to WhiteHouse.gov on Obama’s 100th Day
By Brian Boyer
Our ever-watchful ChangeTracker tool spied a flurry of activity at whitehouse.gov yesterday – the administration updated more than two dozen web pages. Changes included some sweeping edits and complete rewrites to "The Agenda" area of the site, now renamed as "Issues." For example, the Iraq page was deleted and replaced with a single paragraph on the foreign policy page. Read the full article.
HEADLINE: "Source: Liberal-leaning Justice Souter to Retire"
AP – FILE - In this Dec. 5, 2003 file photo, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter By MARK SHERMAN and JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writers Mark Sherman And Jennifer Loven, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON – Justice David Souter is planning to retire after nearly two decades on the Supreme Court, but his departure is unlikely to change its conservative-liberal split.
President Barack Obama's first pick for the high court is likely to be a liberal-leaning nominee, much like Souter.
The White House has been told that Souter will retire in June, when the court finishes its work for the summer, a source familiar with his plans said Thursday night. The retirement is likely to take effect only once a successor is confirmed.
The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Souter.
Souter had no comment Thursday night, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.
The vacancy could lead to another woman on the bench to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the court's only female justice.
At 69, Souter is much younger than either Ginsburg, 76, or Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the other two liberal justices whose names have been mentioned as possible retirees. Yet those justices have given no indication they intend to retire soon and Ginsburg said she plans to serve into her 80s, despite her recent surgery for pancreatic cancer.
Souter, a regular jogger, is thought to be in excellent health.
Interest groups immediately began gearing up.
"We're looking for President Obama to choose an eminently qualified candidate who is committed to the core constitutional values, who is committed to justice for all and not just a few," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice.
Some of the names that have been circulating include recently confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan; U.S. Appeals Court Judges Sonya Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Sandra Lea Lynch and Diane Pamela Wood; and Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Men who have been mentioned as potential nominees include Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein and U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago.
The Obama White House began from almost its first days in office preparing for the possibility of a retirement by thinking about and vetting potential high court nominees. Those efforts only accelerated with Ginsburg's cancer surgery.
The timing may have been unexpected, but Souter has long yearned for a life outside Washington.
He has never made any secret of his dislike for the capital, once telling acquaintances he had "the world's best job in the world's worst city." When the court finishes its work for the summer, he quickly departs for his beloved New Hampshire.
He has been on the court since 1990, when he was an obscure federal appeals court judge until President George H.W. Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court.
Bush White House aide John Sununu, the former conservative governor of New Hampshire, hailed his choice as a "home run." And early in his time in Washington, Souter was called a moderate conservative.
But he soon joined in a ruling reaffirming woman's right to an abortion, a decision from 1992 that remains still perhaps his most noted work on the court.
Souter became a reliable liberal vote on the court and was one of the four dissenters in the 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore that sealed the presidential election for George W. Bush.
Yet as Souter biographer Tinsley Yarbrough noted, "he doesn't take extreme positions." Indeed, in June, Souter sided with Exxon Mobil Corp. and broke with his liberal colleagues in slashing the punitive damages the company owed Alaskan victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Souter is the court's 105th justice, only its sixth bachelor. He works seven days a week through most of the court's October-to-July terms, a pace that he says leaves time for little else. He told an audience this year that he undergoes "an annual intellectual lobotomy" each fall.
Souter earned his bachelor's and law degrees from Harvard sandwiched around a stay at Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar.
He became New Hampshire's attorney general in 1976 and a state court judge two years later. By 1990, he was on the federal appeals court in Boston for only a few months when Bush picked him to replace Justice William Brennan on the Supreme Court.
National Public Radio first reported Souter's plans Thursday night.
Open Congress : Congress Gossip Blog
A Cram-Down Deal
Posted: 16 Apr 2009 04:24 AM PDT
Congress’s leading bill to address the foreclosure crisis has been stuck in the Senate for the past five weeks, but a deal may have finally been reached. It looks like the main provision of the The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which would let bankruptcy judges rework mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, including a “cram-down” of the principle, would be significantly weakened.
CongressDaily ($):
The potential deal, according to sources, would add teeth to a House-passed bill that would allow a judge to consider whether the lender has offered the homeowner a new Obama administration plan to help up to 9 million borrowers avoid foreclosure by allowing them to refinance at lower interest rates. The Senate compromise would mandate that if a lender offered a modification through the Obama plan or a program included in last year’s housing bill, called the Hope for Homeowners Act, the homeowner would be ineligible to modify their loan through bankruptcy.
In early March, when the bill went through the House, California Democratic Reps. Ellen Tauscher, Zoe Lofgren and Dennis Cardoza added an amendment directing bankruptcy judges to consider whether a loan modification consistent with President Obama’s plan was offered prior to the consideration of a judicial modification. The Senate deal would take this guideline and turn it into a strict rule: if the lender makes an offer to refinance at a lower rate, the judge can not intervene to make changes to the terms of the mortgage. It gives lenders final control over how loans can be reworked, not the judges.
It would also mean that the mortgage lenders wouldn’t be forced into taking losses. More homeowners would end up with the interest reductions from Obama’s plan, which would come at a cost to the government, not to the banks. Obama’s plan includes a dollar-fordollar matching fund to help bring down interest rates for borrowers and a $1,000 upfront bonus for lenders each time they adjust the interest rates of a loan.
Rep. Brad Miller [D, NC-13], who has been the leading cram-down advocate in Congress, has said the banks are opposed to the cram-downs because they would be shown on their already damaged balance sheets. They want to avoid acknowledging that the mortgages on their books are actually worth a lot less than what they are claiming. It would make it even more obvious that many of the big banks are essentially insolvent zombies. Stretching out payment plans and lowering interest through the Obama plan, on the other hand, would not affect their books. This really isn’t a surprise because it has been the trend in all our economic policies recently—protect the appearance of the banks’ balance sheets and put the costs of the economic crisis on the government.
Here are the other details CongressDaily provides on the deal in the Senate:
The possible deal has other provisions. At-risk low-income borrowers and those who pay less than 31 percent of their income for mortgage payments would be ineligible for principal reduction, but they could have their rates reduced or their loans amortized over a longer time. If a homeowner opted for a modification under the Obama plan and wound up paying a quarter of income or less for the mortgage, he or she would be ineligible for any bankruptcy modification. If the principal is reduced by a judge, the possible compromise would allow the lender and borrower to evenly split any profit up to the original amount of the loan if it is sold while the homeowner is still in bankruptcy. Only loans that originated before 2009 and amount to less than $729,750 could be modified in bankruptcy. The program would end in 2014.
Where were the tea parties when we attacked the wrong country?
When we wasted and killed thousands, of innocents? When we lost thousands more
of our finest and wounded ten of thousands? Where were the tea parties, when the
babies and their mothers heads rolled in Gaza? Where were the tea parties when
we discovered that Cheney was involved with Halliberton? When Billions disappered
right before 9/11? Where were the tea parties when Bush took away or rights and
plundred our constitution? Where were the tea parties when Billions went missing in
Iraq? Where did another $TRillion go as the crooks left office? Where are the tea
parties as they retired to the beaches of the world?
You people make me sick. Pee on your tea party.
Unlikely Team Pushes Line Item Veto Bill
Democratic Senator, GOP Representative Want To Give President Power To Strike Individual Items From Budgets
WASHINGTON, March 4, 2009
This Jan. 30, 2007 photo show Sen. Russ Feingold listening to congressional testimony. Feingold is joining Republican Rep, Paul Ryan in supporting new line item veto legislation. (AP Photo)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/04/politics/100days/main4842840.shtml
(CBS/AP) Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan are forming an unlikely partnership to push Congress to pass line item veto legislation. That would give President Barack Obama the power to strike individual items from budget bills. The lawmakers from Janesville, Wis., joined Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona on Wednesday to reintroduce the legislation. The Supreme Court struck down previous line item veto legislation in 1998, and subsequent efforts to pass it did not gain traction. Feingold, Ryan and McCain say their bill was tweaked to make it constitutional. They also say that a line item veto is an important way to cut wasteful spending as the country deals with a slumping economy and the president makes tough budget decisions. Feingold is one of a few Senate Democrats voicing opposition to a pending $410 billion catchall spending bill, unhappy with its cost and changes to U.S. policy toward Cuba. Most importantly, Democrats Evan Bayh and Feingold announced Wednesday that they are voting against the bill, and each urged President Barack Obama to veto it if it passes later this week. The White House has signaled that Mr. Obama will sign the bill - even though it contains almost 8,000 pet projects sought by lawmakers - calling the measure last year's business. "The omnibus debate is not merely a battle over last year's unfinished business, but the first indication of how we will shape our fiscal future," Bayh wrote in an opinion column in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. "I'm going to vote against it," Feingold said. "The president should veto it." The measure contains budget increases, on average, of 8 percent for the domestic agencies it covers, far more than they received under the Bush administration. But moderate Democrats are unhappy with the additional spending, especially after many agencies received huge infusions of money under the just-enacted economic recovery bill. "It's become increasingly clear that most of our Democrat colleagues here in Congress - Senator Bayh notwithstanding - are perfectly comfortable with the breathtaking rate of spending we've been on since the beginning of the year," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, az Republican. "They want it to continue, without restraint and without any end in sight." At the same time, Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez and Bill Nelson are weighing whether to oppose the legislation over a provision buried in it that would moderate rules on travel to Cuba and would make it easier for Cuba to pay for imports of food and medicine. It is not clear whether the pockets of opposition are enough to sink the measure, which would fund 12 Cabinet departments and other agencies for the ongoing budget year. Democratic leaders hope to clear the bill - which passed the House last week - to meet a Friday deadline. That is when a stopgap funding law that keeps the government going, mostly at 2008 levels, runs out. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, is also trying to keep the bill free of floor amendments that would force the measure into negotiations with the House that would delay enactment.
Related
In-Depth
Budget Breakdown
A closer look at President Barack Obama's budget plan for 2010.
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies; education and culture for their minds; and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, other centered men can build up."
--- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
An open invitation to join : President Barack Obama Inauguration Day 2009 - Washington, DC Group!!!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/InaugurationDay2009
Make plans to be in DC on this historical day!
Make plans to be tuned in with TV and/or the Internet.
Be out in public with friends and fellow citizens.
A Grand and Wonderful Celebration!
http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/politics/article/president_bush_signs_order_to_ease_switch_to_next_president/19049/
WASHINGTON (AP) - A piece of paper that President Bush signed Thursday helps ease his way out of the White House when his term ends and clears the way for his successor.
For seven years and nearly nine months has signed virtually every memo or order or piece of legislation imaginable. He even vetoed a few bills, but the directive he put his name on Thursday was one that few talk very much about. Basically, it’s the executive order that turns the keys to the White House over to whomever is elected president on Nov. 4.
A little publicized truth is that Washington can’t wait until inauguration day next Jan. 20 to figure out the details of a transition to a new presidency. Both Barack Obama and John McCain already have designated officials to oversee such a transition once the outcome of the election is known. The transition team of the winning candidate will set up procedures for selecting key personnel and making policy decisions in the 11 weeks between the new president takes office. Congress has appropriated $8 million to finance transition operations.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush’s order was designed to help coordinate efforts already under way to ensure a seamless transition. She said Bush wants to make sure the next president’s team has everything it needs to hit the ground running. “This is especially important as our nation is fighting a war, dealing with a financial crisis and working to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks,” Perino said.
Bush’s order established a presidential transitional coordinating council whose members include top officials from the intelligence and national security community, as well as the White House budget office, the Justice Department, Homeland Security and other agencies. Even before the election, they will work with the Obama and McCain campaigns “on an equal basis and without regard for party affiliation,” the order directs.
“The council shall assist the major party candidates the the president-elect by making every reasonable effort to facilitate the transition between administrations,” Bush’s order said.
It was Tuesday afternoon last week, and I was heading back from San Diego to the East Coast when I caught a piece of a speech on the economy by Barack Obama. I almost missed my flight because I couldn't walk away from it. My immediate response: This was a game-changer, and we ought to see a five-point shift in the polls if he keeps this up for the rest of the week.
I was wrong. The shift was bigger. He leapt from 2 points behind John McCain to 6 points ahead at one point by the end of the week. His newfound voice in fact yielded dividends. The question is whether he and his campaign will draw the right conclusions about why he earned those dividends or whether they do what they have done so many times before: drop their gloves and start getting beaten up again after having their opponent down on the canvas.
Indicting McCain
Mark Sept 16, 2008 as the date Obama may have turned the election around. What he did in that speech in Colorado was something he had only done once before, in his convention address: not just to inspire voters about himself and his vision for the future, but to make the case against John McCain. The truth, he stated with the razor sharpness of a good prosecutor making his closing statement, is that what McCain was saying in response to the extraordinary financial crisis that was unfolding "fits with the same economic philosophy that he's had for 26 years...It's the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It's a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people...We've had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs have disappeared, and peoples' life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet. The cost of everything from gas to groceries to health care has gone up, while the dream of a college education for our kids and a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors is slipping away. These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled up."
What had he just done? He had said implicitly, as he later made explicit, that the economic pain Americans are experiencing isn't accidental. It isn't an act of God. It is an act of ideology and incompetence, and it reflects the failed ideology of the Republican Party and the conservative movement whose standard bearer in this election is John McCain. And he had spoken in evocative ways about what is happening in real people's lives, not just about how McCain wants to privatize Social Security or seems indifferent to big businesses that are increasingly considering their obligations to their retiring workers optional, but about how the dream of a "dignified retirement" is slipping away. His terms were evocative, up close, and personal.
He went on to compare and contrast what he and McCain had done that might have prevented the collapse of the housing market (and with it the largest asset most middle class Americans have, the equity in their homes) and the tumbling of seemingly rock-solid financial giants like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. He took his listeners back two years, to February 2006, when he introduced legislation to prevent fraudulent or abusive mortgage practices. "A year later," he went on, "before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing." After walking his listeners through a timeline of events that transformed a topic that could so easily have seemed dull and lifeless into a riveting whodunit, he made clear that the mystery had been solved: "This is what happens when you confuse the free market with a free license to let special interests take whatever they can get, however they can get it. This is what happens when you see seven years of incomes falling for the average worker while Wall Street is booming...Americans have always pursued our dreams within a free market that has been the engine of our progress. It's a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and rewarded the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon of science, and technology, and discovery. But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle-that America prospers when all Americans can prosper. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest."
This is the language of the heart, not the cerebrum. It raises not just the pocketbook issues that have Americans so worried but the values of honesty, fairness, and community that are central to what parents teach their children. It speaks of "rules of the road" rather than just "regulations." Sure, his words reflect a grasp of the issues that shines through, giving voters the sense that this is a man and a mind who understands what's wrong and how it needs to be righted. But what was present in this speech was precisely what has been absent from his campaign from the start: a sense of outrage at what Bush and those such as McCain who have been complicit in his malfeasance and mismanagement have done, and a willingness to put aside the campfire songs to tell a campfire story about his opponent as someone who is not the right person to lead.
It is no accident that his poll numbers jumped after his convention address, when commentator after commentator said something along the lines of, "Hey, he can throw a punch." And it is no accident that his numbers jumped again after a speech -- and several days of continued attack on McCain's ability to lead the nation out of the economic wilderness -- with words like these: "Make no mistake: my opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance. His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn't offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn't for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement. John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it."
But what was different about this speech wasn't just the words. It was the way he delivered them. Obama has always been a brilliantly inspiring orator, at least when he chooses to turn on the electricity. But he has always seemed to shy away from a fight, and you don't beat an incumbent party on the ropes by making the election a referendum on the challenger. This time Obama spoke with a dignified but aggressive air of authority that screamed the words, "Commander-in-Chief." He made people feel comfortable with the thought of putting their families' economic security in his hands. He stood tall, with his tall visage framed between two flags, in a way that seemed both presidential and unwavering. And he did not waver the rest of the week, as he peppered his speeches -- and McCain -- with the kind of tough humor we have not seen from him, as when he taunted, "If you think the fundamentals are sound, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you," and "The old boy network? In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting."
I hope he and his advisors do not take away the wrong message from this speech, that it was his six-point policy prescription at the end that turned things around. Sure, that prescription was good to hear, just as the meat he put on the bones of change in his convention address was important in spelling out what change it is we are supposed to believe in. But I left for the East Coast before he ever got to those policy prescriptions, and I already knew this speech was a game-changer.
What Obama Needs to Do in the Debates
Unfortunately, with a four-point lead that means little, especially for a black candidate who needs to be up by 10 points in battleground states to be safe, the game isn't over yet. The next potential game-changer is his first debate with John McCain, and what he needs to do in the debates is precisely what he has not done thus far in that format, and what no Democrat other than Bill Clinton has done effectively in decades: to connect with voters in a way that makes them feel like they know and share his values, feel confident that he will keep them and their families safe, and will do right by people like them.
How does he do that? By following some basic principles, many of which Democrats would do well to follow in every debate at every level of government:
1. Think of your answers as sandwiches, with emotionally evocative and values-driven language at the beginning and end and with the "meat" in the middle. Emotionally evocative opening and closing statements serve three functions: they draw voters' attention (one of the major function of emotions from an evolutionary standpoint), they signal voters what you are passionate about, and they provide the sound bites that will be replayed over and over on television. The emotional "bread and butter" at the beginning and end can elicit or address voters' anger, hope, concerns, sense of patriotism, faith, or whatever informs your position and moves voters, or it can be a story from your own life or the lives you've encountered on the campaign trail. That is the bread and butter of what voters will remember. Follow it with the "meat": first, how we got here (indicting the GOP for what it has done and making the causal link to the pain people are experiencing and our moral standing in the world), and second, a very brief bulleted description of what you plan to do (no more than three points, which is the most voters will remember). For example, on health care, start with something like, "I believe in a family doctor for every family. Right now, 50 million working Americans and their families can't take their kids to the doctor, and the rest of us are watching our co-pays shoot through the roof and our security disappear as insurance companies are raking in record profits." Then compare McCain's "you're on your own, pal" plan that would knock 150 million people off their employer-provided insurance (which would scare the hell out of most voters if they only knew about it -- and for good reason) with your own, emphasizing the most central points of your plan: if you're happy with your doctor or health plan, you will be able to stay with what you have; if you're not, you'll have choices, including not only an array of private plans that will have to compete for your dollar but the same plan members of Congress get. End with something that again inspires emotion, "If that plan is good enough for people like me in the Senate, it's good enough for the people who pay my salary -- the American taxpayer."
2. Clearly enunciate your principles in virtually every response. Why do you take the position you do, and how does that principle reflect mainstream American values? Get to the specifics after you've established the principle, because it cues voters that you're a person of conviction. The usual Democratic statements such as "I'm for the Second Amendment but for limited regulation of x,y,z" is not a principle, any more than was Al Gore's debate response in 2004, that he supported regulation of new handguns but not old ones. (What's the principle? That old guns are rusty? Voters saw through it and thought he wanted to support gun control but didn't want to say it.) Here's a principle, and one that distinguishes him clearly from McCain and the GOP: "My basic principle on guns is this: I believe in the rights of law-abiding Americans. That's why I support the rights of law-abiding Americans to own firearms to hunt and protect their families, and why I support the rights of parents to send their kids to school in the morning and know they'll come home safely." That sets the framework for a principled position, for example, against assault weapons (e.g., "If you're hunting with an M-16, you're not bringing that meat home for dinner").
3. Look at the audience and know where the camera is at all times. In his Saddleback performance, Obama split his eye contact between his interviewer, Rick Warren, and his shoelaces. He rarely turned to the camera and his broader television audience. Eye contact and body posture are crucial nonverbal cues in primates including humans, and voters unconsciously process those cues about dominance, sincerity, and so forth. Downcast eyes readily suggest shame, low status, or evasiveness. McCain had been coached by a good media coach to respond to his interview with direct eye contact, often using his name, and then to pivot away toward the audience within one to two seconds. Democrats routinely fail to make use of people who can help them enunciate their positions with strength, conviction, and humor.
4. Avoid dispassionate, meandering, intellectualized answers. Nuance and emotional appeal are not mutually exclusive. Sure, it's harder to enunciate a principle that recognizes ambiguity than one that emanates from a Manichean worldview of the good guys vs. the bad guys. But people are often relieved when someone speaks to their ambivalence. It isn't hard to say that business is the engine of our prosperity but that leadership is about keeping that engine on the right track. Nor is it hard to say what most people feel in their gut, that government shouldn't be in the business of forcing one person to live by another person's faith, which is why Sarah Palin has no right to plan our families for us, but that you ought to have a very good reason (e.g., the mother's life or health is seriously in danger) to abort a late-term fetus.
5. Inspire and indict. As I argued in The Political Brain, and in multiple posts here, you can't win a campaign with one story (about why you should be elected), and no one has ever won the presidency by saying only nice things about himself and his opponent. You have to control the dominant story of who you are (and answer attacks on that story directly and immediately) and the story of who your opponent is and why he's not the right person for the job or the times.
6. Don't run from any issue. State your principles clearly and with conviction, and if you worry that the public isn't with you, turn that into a virtue (by making it a mark of genuineness and courage). The failure to state a clear position on hot-button issues has been a standard Democratic error for decades. Republicans never make this mistake. They've been running on a position on abortion that's at 30% in the polls for years--that life begins at conception, and there's no room for compromise--and this year they've even taken the more extreme position that every rapist has the right to choose the mother of his child. If Democrats don't run on abortion and contraception this year, when Republicans have governed or threaten to govern with positions so far to the right that you can't find them on a map of America (e.g., forcing teenagers to have their rapists' babies, perpetuating the cycle of poverty by making contraceptives unavailable to poor women, teaching only abstinence when it's nearly impossible to name a Republican who ever practiced it--they deserve another 3 Alitos and a Scalia for good measure.
7. Don't run from any attack. Answer it with an attack on the attacker. The two biggest mistakes Democrats repeatedly make are to fail to answer an attack and to get on their heels and try to answer every charge. Answer the weakest link in your opponent's attack and go after him for making it. For example, Obama could easily have addressed the "elitist" charged by simply saying, "Let me get this straight. The guy who has to ask his staff how many homes he has, whose wife says you just can't get around Arizona without a private jet, and who's worth over a hundred million dollars is calling the black guy who just recently paid off his student loans elitist? That dog ain't gonna hunt."
8. Don't worry about looking like the angry black man. People don't see you that way. Your bigger worry is that you don't look masculine, muscular, and aggressive enough. Don't let grandpa push you around. (And Joe, that goes for soon-to-be Grandma Palin.)
9. Remember your first mission: to convey, particularly to white voters who are on the fence, that you share their values and understand and care about people like them. Speak their language, talk about what you want and fear for your kids (which is likely the same as what they want and fear for theirs), and don't hide your values in the fine print of your policy prescriptions. Speak from the gut about what matters to you. A campaign isn't a debate on the issues. One strong values statement (e.g., "It's time we had an economy that works again for people who work for a living") or one strong metaphor (okay, something other than lipstick on a pig) is worth a thousand ten-point plans.
10. Remember your second mission: to make people worry about what would happen if they vote for McCain and Palin. Do you really want to lose your employer-based health insurance and be left on your own to fend for yourself? Do you really want a return to coat-hanger abortions and increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies among poor women and teenagers? Do you really want your teenage son drafted (since there's no other way to maintain our security while keeping tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and deterring people with "the right stuff" from signing up and staying in the military)? Stress your theme of unity, and contrast it with the hate-fest in Minneapolis and the divide-and-conquer tactics the Republicans have been using since Lee Atwater and Karl Rove came on the scene.
11. Use humor, especially when throwing a punch. Humor is disarming, and well-timed lines will be replayed on cable over and over and will be the only thing people who didn't watch the debate will know about your performance.
12. Don't "dumb down" your language, but use words that connect with people and don't make them feel ignorant. They don't need to hear about "marginal tax rates." They need to hear what's going to happen to their paychecks if you're in charge of the tax code. Avoid all acronyms and Washington inside baseball. If you're about to say "S-CHIP," try instead, "I believe people who work for a living ought to be able to take their kids to the doctor when they're sick. Plain and simple. My opponent thinks that if your kid has asthma or you have a bad back and can't get health insurance because of a 'pre-existing condition,' tough break."
13. Keep in mind at all times what stories the other side has effectively told about you (you're an empty celebrity, uppity, elitist, weak, and outside the mainstream) and counter them at every turn. Keep in mind at all times what stories you want voters to be telling the next day about your opponent (that he's out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans; that if you like how things are going now, vote for him; and that he claims to be a straight-talking maverick, but it's hard to know which McCain would show up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because he's been on virtually every side of every issue), and reinforce them at every turn.
14. Remember who your two audiences are: the people who support you already who you want to show up at the polls, and the people who are on the fence who you want to get off on your side. Don't worry about offending people who already detest you and everything you stand for.
15. Be genuine. Don't take any position you don't really believe in. People can tell. And you don't need to be anything but genuine. The American people agree with you on about 80% of the issues, and as Stan Greenberg and I recently found in polling 10,000 likely voters and putting together a Handbook for Progressive Messaging, Democrats can win on every one of the major issues, from economics, to abortion, to national security, to the role of government, with well crafted, emotionally evocative messages.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but it's a start. Personally, I'd throw away the briefing books and study this list. The debates won't be won or lost on who jams the most facts into 90 minutes. McCain can't tell a Sunni from a Shiite. If you don't know your position and the reasons for it on every issue after two years of campaigning, you're not going to learn it this week, so don't bother trying. There are more important things to get right--like making eye contact with your audience.
People want to know who their potential President is, and they want to like, trust, and be able to identify with him.
That's what Obama needs to accomplish in the debates.
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.
Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Dish
Reprinted:
In graduate school in political theory, I read Plato on the way democracies are actually more susceptible to becoming dictatorships than oligarchies or aristocracies. Plato's striking argument - and you have to read the dialogue carefully and see that Plato is engaging in conversation, not dictating some absolute truth - is that freedom's excesses, and the refusal of many in a democracy to accept any limits on what they can get or buy or conquer eventually hit reality. And when the reality hits, the frustration and insolence at finding that money does not grow on trees or that the world cannot be hammered into the shape our ideology demands easily gives way to a new form of government. That new government promises to remove all the perils and difficulties of self-government in favor of the certainty and security of raw executive power.
In the last few years, we have seen the executive branch declare itself outside the law - in prosecuting a war on terror. The law against torture has been suspended. The balance between the executive and legislative branch has been dismissed by signing statements and the theory of the unitary executive. The executive has declared its right to suspend habeas corpus indefinitely, to tap anyone's phones without court warrants and to detain and torture anyone it decides is an "enemy combatant." In that sense, we have already left the realm of constitutional government in favor of a protectorate outside the law promising to keep us safe (but never from itself).
But this new move to create a de facto dictator for the financial markets, to invest a Treasury secretary with unprecedented powers to buy and sell at close to a trillion dollar level - with no oversight or accountability: this is a new collapse in democratic life and constitutional norms.
These measures are enabling acts of a sort. And they are what Plato feared. I have been derided as a hysteric for my fear about what this administration has done to the constitution and to ancient liberties. My current worry is that I haven't been afraid enough.
The question is, will CHarlie Gibson ask the right questions? Will he CAVE on the bridge to nowhere? Will he be tough on her?
How long has she been rehearsing? Why have we not seen her on her own in stops along the campaign trail? What change can she bring? Where is that chef that she supposedly fired? What is her per diem?
Should be intersting.
Feel free to use this when receiving/hearing "cute jokes" or negative comments about Barack Obama or Democrats from Republicans. There is nothing wrong with personally holding them responsible for the Bush/Republican atrocities of the past 8 years.
1 - First ask them who they voted for in 2000 and 2004 for president (obviously almost all of them will admit Bush, some even proudly... remember I live in Texas).
2 - When they reply Bush ask them why any sane person should pay attention to anything they have to say about politics since they supported arguably the worst president in American history and certainly one of the worst and they are still supporting the same lunacy. Obviously their judgement is seriously flawed.
3 - Let them know that their opinions will be held suspect and therefore ignored. One might think that it takes great chutzpah to recommend voting for Republicans this year. However, in light of the cataclysmic impact of Republican policy and abuses of power over the past 8 years it just showcases their selfishness, blind ignorance and devotion to failure!
4 - Suggest to them that they stop forwarding emails that further highlight their stupidity. Rather than making jokes about and attacking the Democrats, suggest that they should look inside themselves to figure out how they could have been so wrong.
5 - Let them know that you will ignore their political comments so as not to have to remind them that they have a habit of making poor choices, backing dangerous candidates who make a habit of backing failed polities that hurt America's economy, help only the rich, get our country involved with unnecessary wars and destroy our reputation around the world.
6 - Suggest that instead of attacking Democrats that they work to fix the GOP (Guard Our Profits trumping social responsibility, better known as greed).
7 - Remind them that unlike the Republican Party which cares only about members of the "Lucky Sperm Club," the Democrats have broad shoulders and welcome their votes. Unlike the Bush Administration, Democrats truly are compassionate and not like Bush whose idea of compassionate conservatism was a smile followed by his middle finger).
8 - Get as many people registered to elect Barack Obama president and stronger Democratic control of the Congress and more Democrats elected at the state and local levels.
Ooh that felt good! And yes, I came up with these suggestions myself and I'm not just forwarding from a friend.
Feel free to send these suggestions in response to any mean spirited emails you receive. It is time to put the Republicans on the defensive. They are the wrongful party, not Barack Obama, Not the Democratic Party and not you. Through their support of George W. bush (and now John McCain) they are as guilty as Bush/McCain!
John
Will you write your Representative's office today and ask for a swift passage of the Veteran Voting Support Act?
House Veteran Voting Support Act
https://secure3.convio.net/rtv/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr011=w26mhwfhf2.app305a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=111
Will you join me and ask your Senator to co-sponsor the “Veteran Voting Support Act”?
Veterans Voting Support Act
https://secure3.convio.net/rtv/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=107
Dear Senator Barack Obama: I am not a groupie, I am not a fan club member, and I have not sent a birthday card to a single politician. But, I consider you not an ordinary politician, but a spirit-enriched leader who is inspiring a movement of millions to be their best personal selves, because of the examples you have shown to us.
I just wish you a happy happy birthday in Hawaii with your family! Enjoy your week of vacation, for you have done the world a big deal by your presence and active caring that we become better in caring about one another!!
I have organized several events for you and each event where I meet your supporters, I have so much fun. We all give each other big hugs and of course, organize others to support. And why do I support you? This is what I wrote in my blog profile. Again, Happy Happy Birthday and to honor your day, I am contributing to your campaign $47.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Barack Obama has world-class temperament, uncommon brilliance, sense of empathy for the underserved and disenfranchised, first class education, deep and broad levels of experience at five junctures of society: grassroots, state government, academia, federal government and private law practice. His sensibilities reflect unique sensitivities for the depth of consequences of American policies and how they impact other countries, including citizens and residents in America! He is the only candidate who rose from the ranks of the poor, then, the middle class and now, one who is well off and comfortable with folks who wield power and folks who generate grassroots results from all backgrounds. Such is a world-class type for a president, whose values and spirit include an absolute faith in the American people, and absolute faith in other people. His style is inclusive and creates additive and expansive results for all! When attacked by his primary opponent, he took the high moral road and did not respond to attack her character and generously acknowledged her contributions to American public service. This temperament to take the high moral ground is what we need from our national leaders, more so from a future world leader. A beacon of hope, America, such as it is, and hailed as an example of democracy, deserves a spirit-centered and fully conscious person as its next 44th United States President, who tells the truth with bold courage, who is self-critical and who lives his life aligned with his faith and values! Integrity and Inclusiveness in the White House!
With lots of support and prayers to protect you and your family,
Prosy
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Mr. Common Sense.Sense had been with us for many years.No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons such as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that life isn't always fair.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge).
His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.
Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, she spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge financial settlement.Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.He is survived by two stepbrothers; My Rights and Ima Whiner.Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on; if not, join the majority and do nothing.
I couldn't have said it better myself..
Wimpy McMummy and his merry staff, can't talk straight on the Crooked talk express.
They have resorted and stuck to crying like kids when they don't get any attention.
The tantrums and hissy fits are so immature.
Everytime McShame makes a Gaffe, the GOP goes into spin mode to quickly turn it around and Blame the other guy for something.
McShame is running the worse possible attempt at a campaign since Bush.
McGaffe has resorted to giving who will ever listen with fragile minds, a take on what could be your fears of hate, put a face on it, that is not his.
The Smear campaign he promised he WOULD NOT do by running a self prclaimed CLEAN CAMPAIGN was truly his way of saying, I'll LIE, CHEAT, DISTORT, MISLEAD AND KEEP LYING to get into the WH.
He really thinks that this is what Americans wants to see from a REPUBLICAN after ALL the LIES, CHEATS, DISTORTIONS, MISLEADS AND MORE LIES that comes from BUSH.
I just want to thank McBush for coming back to Gaffe highway and reality..
We Democrats, Inpendents, some Republicans and other organizations formed with US, are ready to pounce, once the REAL DEAL begins..
Thank you McBUSH for all the silly ads you are using. How does that person still have a job is beyond me.
McBush couldn't wait for Obama to leave the Country to go on the dumbfounded Attack.
The ads have been the worse attempts at a Real Candidate I've ever seen. lol!!
I really get a kick out of them.. I can't believe someone really thinks these dumb ads up!!
Obama blamed for the Gas hikes was so funny I had to run it over and over with comical astonishment and amazement.
If I was a normal everyday Republican, would I think this to be true?
That's scary!!
I was like " Boy what moron allowed this to run" Then I thought, is someone out there in the US really going to think this could possibly be true? Then I thought, do they think someone will really believe this? To me they're calling people dumb. The ads are truly insulting to even the most staunch Republicans and conservatives.
I've recently talk to people whom say they are conservatives.
They told me, they don't like the guy(McShame) and wish the GOP picked someone else to run for POTUS.
I had to ask them this one, lol!! How do you really feal about his many recents Gaffes?
They all told me with a smile, "He is Bush in a smaller frame" or "We didn't pick him, "We picked Huccabee or Romney". Then I ask them this, " Are you going to still vote for him?"
All 10 of them laughed out loud and said, are you serious? I smiled and said " Is that a NO?" Almost in sequence "Hell to the NO?" " Hell no" " You must be crazy" "We will be back in 8 years" "That guy gots to retire from Politics" "He is making a fool of himself at our expense?
I said, " Do you think it's his age?
All 10 of them said, "YES" "He needs to retire and relax, He's 72, 65 is retirement age right" "He's Rich, why is he out there doing this to himself?" They told me "Republicans they've all talk to, have said the same thing". I am now tickled laughing inside..
One of the guys said "His time has passed" "We need new blood" "Bush hurt the Republican Brand name for years to come"
I almost coudn't contain my laughter, So I had to let it go.. Baaawaaaaaa!!
I asked them? " What do you think about Obama?" They all told me " I hope he is what he says he is" " I think he is sincere" "He's is a smart guy from what I read" "I think he will be a ok President" "He's speech's are great and I listen to them cause of my wife and kids." "They like him a lot" "Dude what is up with the Crowds for him" " They are going crazy for him"
I asked" What do you think about his Words of Change and what he will do for America? I can't repeat them all, let just say, they where positive.
So you know I had to smile my Native American Butt off, lol!!
Then I got real bold, lol and asked, "Why not vote for Obama this year to give yourself a part of History to tell your kids?" 8 of them mostly stated that, "They are thinking or thought about it, since it would be cool to say that they Voted for the 1st Black President even though they don't see eye to eye" The others all agreed.
The other two said that "People at their employment are pressuring them to be a independent thinkers and to think about what is best for the Country, not just what the Government needs"
So I had to buy 10 Cops two rounds of drinks after my grilling. One ask me if I had any Obama buttons?
I went to my car and took out the 4 I had. I said that will be $2. I sold all 4 to the Cops. 3 of them put them on right there. The other guy said, "I will give this to my wife, maybe I'll get lucky tonight"..
lol!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?ref=opinion
