Please, all Californians, call Senator Dianne Feinstein and ask her to support public option. I got this from her website when I was directed by one of her staff on her beliefs about President Obama's Healthcare Reform. Please call her. Thanks, Melanie
What I Support : Senator Dianne Feinstein I basically believe that reform should be incremental and should cover the following:
In order to see that premiums are affordable, I believe that all non-direct healthcare costs (advertising, overhead, profits, and other administrative costs) should be limited and not exceed 10 percent. All premium rate adjustments should be subject to review and approval by a Health Insurance Rate Authority. Bottom line: your health insurance must remain affordable. Your premiums cannot be allowed to double again in the next nine years, as they have in the past nine.
Another way of stabilizing premium affordability is the public option. Depending how the competition is structured, this “option” could compel insurance companies to lower premiums to remain competitive. It remains a viable proposal. The public option should be one of a variety of choices for people who want improved coverage, giving them an option between a private insurance plan and a public one. The public option is simply that—an option. No one will be required to enroll in the public plan. Instead, it would offer consumers an additional choice as they select a health insurance policy. Instead of choosing between policies offered only by private insurance companies, people could choose to buy a public insurance plan. Those that prefer to buy private insurance could still do so.
The purpose of creating a public plan is to increase competition so that premium costs can be controlled. It is very clear that in the current market, private insurance companies do not control the price of premiums. The public option will not replace anyone’s private insurance coverage, but it could prevent future premium increases as private insurance companies lower their prices to compete with a public option. I am also open to considering a non-profit co-operative model, as long as it can accomplish the critical goal of controlling premium costs and spurring competition. Because insurance company profit taking has been so high, it will be very difficult to control premium costs without some non-profit option.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 56 percent of all dollars that the federal government is projected to spend in 2009 will be spent on entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans’ benefits). If you add interest on the debt, which will account for 5 percent of this year’s federal spending, 61 percent of everything the government spends cannot be controlled. That is because if you qualify for an entitlement, you receive it, regardless of cost. And the interest on the debt must be paid, which further jeopardizes the financial future of the county as the debt grows. Any health reform bill must revise and reform Medicare to eliminate duplication and waste, and to prevent this continuing cost explosion. I cannot vote for a bill that will add a new entitlement, like a subsidy, that will grow over time.
One way of accomplishing Medicare reform is to create an Entitlement Commission to reform and control Medicare and Social Security. This Commission would retain independent actuaries to periodically and regularly review the system and periodically make recommendations to the Congress, which would vote them up or down.
Healthcare Reform “Musts”
These payments are vital to the survival of publicly owned hospitals like San Francisco General Hospital, UCLA/Harbor Medical Center and UC San Diego Medical Center to cover the costs of providing care for the uninsured and undocumented. Many counties, including Los Angeles County, Riverside and San Francisco, are concerned that these payments will be reduced as a cost saving mechanism in the bill, and result in additional County costs. In California, these cuts could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
If extending health care to the millions of currently uninsured is achieved by expanding Medicaid, the new cost to California would be approximately $2.05 billion per year, if the new eligibility level is set at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($14,404 per individual). Many California counties contribute to the cost of Medicaid, and they do not have extra funding to pay the cost for a program expansion. California still faces an ongoing financial emergency, so this becomes an important consideration. I could not support a bill that pushes additional costs on California state government or its counties.
These concerns and others that develop must be addressed in the Finance Committee bill. I will amend and change this paper as I learn more about the actual bill likely to come before the Senate. I thank you for reading this. Be assured that I want practical health reform to pass, but believe that the package must control the escalating cost of health insurance, increase coverage for those who do not have it, and contain costs.
Thank you,
Dianne Feinstein
By Dan Eggen and Kimberly Kindy Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, July 6, 2009
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
The push has reunited many who worked together in government on health-care reform, but are now employed as advocates for pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment.
Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies.
"For people like me who are on the outside and used to be on the inside, this is great, because there is a level of trust in these relationships, and I know the policy rationale that is required," Tarplin said in explaining the benefits of having government experience.
But public interest groups and reform advocates complain that the concentration of former government aides on K Street has distorted the health-care debate, and that it further illustrates the problem posed by the "revolving door" between government and private firms.
"The revolving door offers a short cut to a member of Congress to the highest bidder," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled some of the data used in The Post's analysis. "It's a small cost of doing business relative to the profits they can garner."
Aides to Baucus and other lawmakers bristle at any suggestion of special treatment for former staff members. Baucus spokesman Scott Mulhauser said the senator "remains committed to working with a variety of stakeholders" as the Finance Committee attempts to come up with a bill this summer.
"The senator and his staff meet daily with individuals, nonprofits and interests from across the health-care spectrum, and are proud that all interests are treated equally and that no one receives special treatment of any kind," Mulhauser said. "As a result, the Finance Committee has been praised by members of Congress and the media for its uniquely inclusive and transparent health-care reform process."
The Post examined federally required disclosure reports submitted by health-care firms that spent more than $100,000 lobbying in the first quarter of this year. It used current and past filings to identify former lawmakers, congressional staff members and executive branch officials.
The analysis identified more than 350 former government aides, each representing an average of four firms or trade groups. That tally does not include lobbyists who did not report their earlier government experience, such as PhRMA President W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a former Republican congressman from Louisiana. Federal law does not require providing such detail.
Overall, health-care companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter, leading all other industries, according to CRP and Senate data. PhRMA led the pack in spending and employs 49 former government staff members among its 136 lobbyists, according to The Post's analysis. Dozens of other former insiders are employed as lobbyists by Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the AMA and the American Hospital Association, each of which spent at least $3.5 million on lobbying from January through March.
The aim of the lobbying blitz is simple: to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million uninsured Americans as new customers. Although many firms have vowed to help cut costs, major players such as PhRMA, America's Health Insurance Plans and others remain opposed to the public-insurance option, a key proposal that President Obama has endorsed.
Several major Democratic bills include such a plan, but Baucus's committee -- which is acting as the central broker in the debate -- has not committed to the idea. Instead, the Finance Committee has focused recently on private-insurance cooperatives and other proposals seen as more palatable to the insurance industry and centrist Democrats. More than 50 former employees of the committee or its members lobby on behalf of the health-care industry, records show.
Deploying former government officials is a key strategy for pressing such positions on Capitol Hill, according to industry lobbyists, many of whom discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. They say that legislative or administration experience helps ensure that policies considered by Congress do not imperil health-care interests, which account for about one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
At the same time, these lobbyists say, a personal connection to lawmakers and their staffs does not guarantee success.
"If anyone thinks hiring a former staffer for Baucus or [Charles] Schumer or Blanche Lincoln is going to get them what they want, they are crazy," said one health-care lobbyist who used to work on the Finance Committee, referring to several key Democratic senators. "If we were being judged on that, a lot of us should be fired."
William K. "Billy" Wynne, a former Baucus health counsel who now works for the Health Policy Source lobbying firm, said that "there's nothing insidious" about medical companies and groups hiring former legislative staff members. He also notes that he is subject to a two-year limit on contacts with Baucus's office.
"The technical processes of the House and Senate are not intuitive or widely known," Wynne said. "Like with any service, people who have experience are going to be valuable to people who don't."
Some trade groups and companies appear to emphasize hiring lobbyists with legislative or executive experience. Wellpoint, one of the world's largest insurance conglomerates, employs 11 lobbyists with government experience and three with none. One of its veterans is Stephen Northrup, who worked for several years for Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), including a year as his health policy director on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
"I think the experience on Capitol Hill gives you a better appreciation of the challenges that members and staff face," said Northrup, who began his Washington career as a lobbyist before entering government. "Every institution has its own rhythm. You need to understand when people need information."
The personal and professional ties between lawmakers, their staffs and lobbyists are often complex. Consider the case of Tarplin and his wife, Republican lobbyist Linda Tarplin. The two worked on opposite sides of the Family Medical Leave Act debate in the 1990s, and each has held high-ranking HHS positions -- he for Bill Clinton and she for George H.W. Bush.
Now they run their own health-care lobbying firms, drawing on their connections. Last year, Richard Tarplin's firm reported $650,000 in lobbying income and his wife's firm -- Tarplin, Downs and Young -- reported $3.5 million.
"We have been in situations that are much more combative than this," Linda Tarplin said of the health-care fight. "Both Democrats and Republicans want health-care reform. The rub has always been they tend to get there in different ways."
At least eight former HHS appointees have also crossed over into health-care lobbying, representing more than 25 companies with a stake in the reform legislation. Most were presidential appointees with high-ranking positions, such as the Tarplins.
A few have also cycled back into government. Jack Charles Ebeler, a former Clinton HHS official, left his job as president and chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans a few months ago to become senior adviser for health policy on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Financial disclosure statements show that Ebeler received consulting fees over the past two years from UnitedHealth Group, Academy Health, the Medicare Rights Center, the Center for Health Care Strategies and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Ebeler declined interview requests by The Post.
One of the most prominent examples of Washington's revolving door is Tauzin, who took the $2.5 million-a-year job as head of PhRMA in 2005 after shepherding a Medicare prescription drug plan through Congress.
Uproar over the appointment led Congress in 2007 to pass a bill barring former members from bringing clients onto the House and Senate floors and from lobbying their friends in members-only gyms. The legislation also forbade direct lobbying contacts with former colleagues for a year in the House and two years in the Senate; efforts to enact a wider ban went nowhere.
Tauzin and other lobbyists rebuff critics, arguing that it is unsurprising that those with experience on Capitol Hill should then draw on that background.
"Is it a distortion of baseball to hire coaches who have played baseball? Is it a distortion of universities to hire from academia?" Tauzin asked rhetorically. "The bottom line is that people work in the fields in which they have experience. Somehow there are people who think that's unusual for politics, but I think it's pretty normal."
Now that we’re full-on into silly season, where the policy is getting buried under the politics of the moment, it’s more important than ever to focus of these two essentials. One, reform that does not change the game for private, for-profit insurance is not real reform. Two, insurers will not police themselves, even when the business practice in question is morally indefensible. Such it was that yesterday at a hearing in the House of Representatives, CEOs from UnitedHealth, Assurant Health, and WellPoint point-blank refused to limit cancellations of insurance policies for sick patients.
This is a process known as rescission, and it’s the flip side of the pre-existing condition dilemma. For pre-existing conditions, you’re denied a plan or care at the beginning. For rescissions, you’re denied after you’re already sick. The policy exists to fight intentional abuse of the system. If you intentionally leave something off when you’re applying for insurance and sign a statement saying you haven’t, that’s a pretty clear breach of contract. But, as Bob Laszewski, a former COO of an insurance company himself, writes, “It would be an inadvertent and non-material misstatement to sign your health insurance application having promised you told all but left something, that in the end did not matter, off of it. It is always important to be thorough and honest in filling out a health insurance application but sometimes we forget things.” In Robin’s case, she didn’t even forget anything – it was a mistake on a medical record. Regardless, Laszewki asks the pertinent question: “How could you sleep at night knowing you retroactively canceled (or rescinded) a sick person’s health insurance because of something that really didn’t matter?”
And yet, when given the opportunity point blank to say their companies would cease rescissions except when in reaction to “intentional fraud,” all three CEOs refused.
We hear a lot from Karen Ignani of AHIP about how private insurance knows it must earn a seat at the table. We hear from Joe Lieberman that the private insurance market is plenty competitive and doesn’t require the competition on quality from a public health insurance option. Insurance is fine. Yet these companies haven’t just refused to limit rescissions. They’ve made money off of it: $300 million in California alone. As the L.A. Times reports, “It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.”
Let’s say that again. These companies praised employees for terminating the policies of sick patients with expensive illnesses.
Forget the politics and the theater and the supposed evils of government. This is health insurance as it’s practiced in this country. That’s the game. We need to change it.
I found this on the internet and attribute this to the author, Hollister Knowlton, who posted this in 2005, and I found it so inspiring...
__________________________________________________________________________________
I just returned last night from an extraordinary trip to Colombia to see Gaviotas, the sustainable community started by Paolo Lugari that has, in the last 20 years, reforested 8000 hectares (about 20,000 acres) of barren savannah and provided a home and jobs for 2,000 Colombians. In the process of planting millions of Caribbean Pine (with seed brought from the heart of the ancient Maya civilization), miraculously, in the under story, 250 species of Amazonian rainforest flora have sprouted and are thriving. The Gaviotans harvest several commercial products from the forest by tapping the pines for their sap (biodiesel and a resin, called colofornia, that is shipped worldwide for use in paints and pigments). Rainfall has increased by 10% over the reforested land, providing a source of pure drinking water that they are now bottling in the former hospital. All of this work is accomplished via solar, wind, and people power. Proceeds from the sale of the water go toward continued reforestation. So by drinking Gaviotas water (the only bottled water in the world for which this is true), one is paying to plant more forest, provide permanent jobs, produce biodiesel, wood (from the thinning process), and sequester CO2. And now, the Colombian military has donated an additional 43,000 hectares of former military land - also in the savannah - to be reforested and on which to create Gaviotas II. The contributions of the ten of us who went on this trip will fund reforestation ($1,000 pays to reforest 1 hectare – 2.4 acres). We were able to visit the new site and hear about the amazing plans (thanks to ZERI and Gunter Pauli, its founder who was with us on the trip) for establishing an integrated biological systems approach there that will produce food (pigs, fish, mushrooms) for 10,000 residents (and export) and where the waste from one process is the food for the next. We were accompanied by extraordinary people of great intellect, true passion, precious talents, who were also tender and thoughtful and warm. For me, it was truly experiencing what “God’s Kingdom on earth” and the “Garden of Eden” are all about. While my way is not yet clear in terms of how to integrate this experience into the rest of my life and work, we are already working on one concrete step: importing the water (by ship) to the US and selling via grass roots organizations, without middlemen. All profits will go back to Gaviotas. I can’t wait to show you the water bottles – they are designed to lock together like Legos, and indeed, the empty bottles have already become the “Legos” of the poor. Once we get the logistics worked out, we will be letting you know how you might become involved. And I will be working on further reports as time allows. Love to you all, Hollister June, 2005
On the night of Nov. 22, a group of Israeli settlers descended on the Jerusalem home of Palestinian resident Fatima al-Daoudi while the owner was away visiting relatives, changing the locks on the gates and putting a metal sheet over an open-air porch built in by the al-Daoudi family in 1948. Although an eviction order was obtained by the al-Daoudi family and the settlers removed, the order was only temporary and the settlers are expected to return, eventually to stay as the al-Daoudi family is forced to seek housing elsewhere. Residents of the same house since 1930, the al-Daoudi family now faces the prospect of joining the many other Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who, like those in the neighboring West Bank, have been turned into homeless refugees by expanding Israeli settlements (PNN).
Despite US and international protests, a similar fate recently befell the family of Mohammed al-Kurd and his wife Fawzieh, residents of their East Jerusalem home since 1956. Evicted in a pre-dawn raid by Israeli police, the al-Kurd family was forced to move into a tent on private land rented from a Palestinian neighbor while Israeli settlers moved into their home of more than fifty years. Israeli harassment against the family continued, however, including repeated demolition of the tent in which they had been forced to live despite its location on private Palestinian land. To make matters worse, Mr. al-Kurd suffered from complications related to diabetes, of which he finally passed away on Nov. 23. As Mrs. al-Kurd, her children, and her grandchildren mourn Mr. al-Kurd's death, the family's future remains in question (PNN, BBC, AFP, Haaretz, AIC).
As Haaretz reported prior to the al-Kurds' eviction from their home, the US filed an official protest with Israel for acts against Palestinians including the eviction of the al-Kurd family and harassment of Palestinian residents by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The US complaint was obviously ignored. Such complaints from US officials including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have grown more frequent in recent months according to a separate Haaretz report, drawing the ire of some Israeli officials, who suggest the US is meddling in local affairs that are none of its business. Despite overriding US concern for Israeli interests and massive US aid to Israel, it would seem that the Israelis have little regard for US and international opinion on the human rights of Palestinians. Billions of your tax dollars go to Israel each year, yet even the most restrained US complaints against settlement expansion and abuse of Palestinians go ignored by those who are supposedly America's best friends and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Meanwhile, anger toward both Israel and America festers throughout the Arab world.
President-elect Obama has told us that "the time for change has come." Has the time come for this long, sad state of affairs to change?
After our stunning Election Day sweep of the White House and Congress, Democrats still have one remaining opportunity to finish 2008 with a win. Even as Senate races pending recounts in Minnesota and Alaska hang in the balance favoring Democrats, one Senate runoff in Georgia remains offering Democrats the possibility of a 60% majority in the upper house of Congress. Recent polls show the Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss (pictured on left) holding a narrow lead over Democratic challenger Jim Martin (pictured on right) with just two weeks to go until the Dec. 2 runoff.
Chambliss remains infamous for his attacks on Democratic opponent Max Cleland in 2002, including an ad showing pictures of disabled Vietnam veteran Cleland along with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, suggesting dishonestly that Cleland would allow terrorists like those who struck America on 9/11 to strike America again. Chambliss' GOP colleague John McCain called the ad "reprehensible" and "worse than disgraceful" for its attack on the patriotism of a man who lost three limbs fighting for the United States in Vietnam. Ever ready to flip on previously-held principles, however, McCain appears to have forgiven Chambliss for his attack on McCain's fellow Vietnam veteran, and is currently campaigning for Chambliss in Georgia. A noted chicken-hawk, Chambliss avoided service in Vietnam with five student deferments and a medical deferment for a "football knee."
Chambliss is also infamous for his remark, shortly following the 9/11 attacks, that Georgia ought to "arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line."
This year, Chambliss took to race-baiting in the effort to stem a Democratic tide in Georgia that threatened both to unseat Chambliss himself and to deliver the state's electoral votes for Barack Obama. As in other Deep South states, Democratic voters in Georgia are largely African American while white voters tend strongly to vote Republican. Unlike in other regions of the United States this year, white voters in the Deep South broke even more strongly Republican this year than in previous years, owing to racial antipathy toward Obama. Meanwhile, African American voters in Georgia turned out in massive numbers for Obama, producing an electoral result strongly divided along racial lines, and holding McCain's ultimate Georgia victory to a relatively narrow 5.2 percentage points.
Fearing the loss both of his own Senate seat and of his state to the Democrats owing to heavy African American voter turnout, Chambliss not-so-subtly warned his conservative white base of this on more than one occasion as a way of getting them to the polls. In one instance during early voting in Georgia featuring huge African American turnout as expected, Politico quotes Chambliss telling his white supporters that "the other folks are voting" as a warning that they too had better get out and vote. In another instance, Chambliss told the New York Times that the "rush to the polls by African-Americans" in Georgia "has also got our side energized, [because] they see what is happening." Finally, after failing on Nov. 4 to reach the 50% majority required under Georgia law to avoid a runoff, Chambliss again referred in a Fox News interview to the "high percentage of minority vote" this year and the the fact that "we weren’t able to get enough of our folks out on Election Day."
Saxby Chambliss is a liar, a bigot, and a disgrace. In 2001, he openly suggested collective punishment of Muslims for the 9/11 attacks. In 2002, he won his Senate seat by shamefully attacking the patriotism of a disabled veteran in a time of fear shortly following 9/11. This year, he used race-baiting in the attempt to save his own Senate seat and keep Georgia in the Republican column. His Democratic challenger, Jim Martin, is a Vietnam veteran, an accomplished legal scholar, and served for 18 years as a Georgia state legislator. Readers are encouraged to visit Jim Martin's campaign website, to contribute there or at Act Blue to Martin's campaign, to spread the word to other Democrats, and to contact Georgia voters on Martin's behalf.
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!
Still reeling from the punishing defeat handed to them by victorious Democrats on Election Day, Republicans are licking their wounds and debating their strategy for a comeback. As Democrats and progressives celebrate our hard-won victory, we should also be keeping an eye on our vanquished opponents and preparing to remain on the offensive against them, whatever comeback road they attempt to pursue. For the sake of the future, we cannot allow a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.
Most observers see two major possibilities for the GOP. One is that the party could stick with its rural, white, ultra-conservative base and become the party of the far right, thus alienating moderates, independents, and swing voters, many of whom would likely migrate to the Democratic Party and join the ranks of conservative-leaning "Blue Dogs" like Virginia senator Jim Webb. The other possibility is that the GOP could move toward a more moderate and less ideological, center-right position that could make it more attractive to independents and swing voters but at the same time would tend to alienate the conservative base. Neither is an exceedingly attractive option for the GOP, since either would likely result in the loss of one or another key Republican voting block. The electoral success of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II depended upon a united Republican coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense hawks, and "Reagan Democrats." That coalition has now fallen apart.
I personally hope the Republicans will take the former choice, stick with their demented base, and become a far-right fringe party doomed to increasing irrelevance as old bigots die off and their children discard the prejudices, fears, and hatreds of the past. This is what may well happen if far-right blowhards like Rush Limbaugh have their way, warning their shell-shocked followers now against a moderate takeover of the GOP led by once-and-future-maverick John McCain and other hands-across-the-aisle types, whose ranks will seek to purge the party of "real conservatives" like Sarah Palin and those who identify with her. Never exceedingly popular among those on the far right, McCain is already being branded a defeatist and a traitor by the Limbaugh-Palin crowd, who are incensed by the attacks on Palin now coming from within the McCain camp itself, and who increasingly regret that McCain was ever nominated even as they are in his debt for giving them "their Sarah." Meanwhile, angry dittoheads at RedState.com have launched a bitter assault on Palin's Republican critics called "Operation Leper," and appear poised to advocate for Palin as a presidential candidate for 2012 and/or 2016. Perhaps we will see a full-fledged Palin faction form within the Republican Party in opposition to the forces of Republican moderation, leading to an all-out faction fight and perhaps even a split in the party. I sincerely hope so.
If, on the other hand, the Republicans choose the path of moderation, returning perhaps to the GOP of Eisenhower and Goldwater, our work could be a little more difficult. This possibility highlights the importance of maintaining the center-to-left coalition that enabled us to win in 2006 and 2008 just as their center-to-right coalition enabled Republicans to win in 1980, 1994, and 2000, as it raises the risk of swing voters swinging back to the Republican side if they are not happy with the job Democrats are doing in Washington. Those of us such as myself who are on the Left of the Democratic Party will have to balance our expectation of having a place at the table with the realization that the rest of the country isn't with us just yet. At least in the near term, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress will have to govern more-or-less from the center, and at the same time will have to prove that they are more capable of governing the country effectively than their opponents. Given the dominance of the far-right in today's GOP and its dependence on the conservative base, however, owing in part to the fact that so many moderate Republicans have either left the party or been voted out of office, I wonder how realistic or likely a route this second option actually is. I could be wrong, but I suspect hopefully that our opponents will remain in the funk they are currently in for quite some time to come.
Whatever course they may ulimately choose to take, our task as Democrats is to stop any GOP comeback dead in its tracks before it even starts. Democrats must remain on the offensive and must remain focused on solidifying and building our congressional majority in 2010, re-electing President Obama in 2012, and putting another Democrat in the White House in 2016. We must aggressively go after not only Republican congressional seats but also state and local offices nationwide. Grassroots Democratic organizing, voter registration, fundraising, and media activism are key to this, as is maintaining a strong center-to-left coalition through effective, balanced governance. We must demonstrate to the Republicans that they are dealing with a new, much tougher, much more aggressive and effective Democratic Party: a Democratic Party that won't be so easy to kick around as in the past, a Democratic Party whose days of whining about mean old swiftboating Republicans are over.
If we are to avoid a repeat of the last eight years or something even worse, no Republican comeback can ever be allowed to happen.
For Democrats, Barack Obama's stunning victory last night over John McCain brought a seemingly endless and often bitter presidential campaign battle to a welcome end. Obama's victory came as cause for relief and for celebration, as did Democratic gains in the Senate and the House of Representatives. When our first African American president takes office in January, Democrats will enjoy a position of authority in Washington we have not held since a brief period from 1992 to 1994. Many progressives are saying now that the era of conservative dominance in America beginning with the rise of the "New Right" in the 1970s and the Reagan victory in 1980 has now come at last to an end, that the long Republican nightmare is over, and I too am hopeful that this is so. While we celebrate and look ahead to the Obama Era, however, we should also remember that just as power can be won so it can also be lost, as it was in 1980, 1994, and 2000.
Each end is also a beginning; and so the end of Campaign 2008 and the end of Republican rule is also the beginning of something, but of what? Are we at the doorstep of a bold new progressive age that begins with Obama and extends into infinity, or of another brief Democratic reign to end again with a bitter Republican resurgence? Now that we have successfully driven the Republicans from power, how do we keep them from coming back, as we know we must if we are to avoid a repeat of the past eight years? A Republican resurgence would be a disaster, not only for Democrats and progressives, but for America and the world. The Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world are not going anywhere. They will simply retreat to their think tanks and begin cooking up plans to retake power, just as they did during the Clinton years. Their success must be prevented by any and all means at our disposal.
While progressives will surely have a place at the table in the new administration, we cannot expect that the Left will or should dominate the Obama agenda at least in the near term. I would consider myself to be well on the Left of the Democratic Party, and I'm happy that progressives will have a voice in the new administration, but I feel pretty certain that Obama will have to govern more-or-less from the center if he is to avoid creating a whole new generation of "Reagan Democrats." I am hopeful that it may now be possible for progressives not simply to move the government to the left but to actually move the country to the left, and to create a new progressive America free of the politics of Reagan and Bush. In order for this to happen, however, Democrats in Washington will first have to prove themselves capable of governing the country effectively and satisfactorily in the eyes of their constituents. Once conservative-leaning, "soft" Democrats see that liberals aren't so bad after all, they will be much more likely to elect Democrats to Congress in 2010, to re-elect President Obama in 2012, to put another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and to listen to progressive ideas in the meantime with an open mind. While Democrats in Washington focus on effective governance, they and Democratic activists including us in the netroots must also focus on maintaining the gains we have made and on making further gains in election cycles to come. We cannot afford a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.
Meanwhile, a whole new generation of first-time Democratic voters has been brought into the electorate, and this new Democratic base must be maintained and built at a grassroots level. Because of a far less reliable base of Democratic voters in previous elections, a hardcore Republican base of social conservatives, neo-cons, bigots, and xenophobes was allowed to dominate American politics for the better part of thirty years. This can never be allowed to happen again. Republicans who cannot be persuaded to go Democratic must be isolated and outvoted. In the immediate term, this means building a broad new Democratic base that includes centrists and even moderate conservatives in addition to progressives and the Left: not an easy task. The brilliant success of the Obama campaign in doing precisely that, however, can be credited in great part to Obama's experience as a community organizer in Chicago - experience that will serve the Democratic Party's organizing efforts well in the years to come.
Indeed if anyone is up the difficult tasks which surely lie ahead, I think it is our new president-elect. Throughout his campaign, he has shown himself to be a steady, focused, and disciplined political leader: not bad traits if one wishes to be an effective and successful president. More importantly, Obama possesses clear vision and a spirit of idealism that could not contrast more with the cynicism of the era that has just ended. He also possesses a strong, committed base of grassroots support that is ready for the battles to come. I for one look forward with hope and confidence to the road ahead.
Hi! We made history. When Barack Obama was elected President today it was because of a trillion small acts from millions of Americans ovet the past 2 years that has brought us to this moment. Every little thing we do has an impact be it big or small. Every little thing can matter a great deal. A little push is all it takes to set off a chain of dominos.
Each of you has contributed to this moment in history. We've each given what we could. Please take a moment to reflect and write down some of the things you did that mattered most to you, or write down everything you did. It doesn't matter. Then, pass this on to everyone you know who contributed time, energy, and/or money to this effort so they can be included.
Please cc meltzer7@charter.net . We'd like to see how the list grows.
Jess in MA: Phonebanking, postcard writing/organizing, event hosting, and lots of other stuff. Jonathan Meltzer (Berlin MA) Standing in the rain with 700 other volunteers listening to Barack speak before heading out to door knock on the first day of canvassing in NH April 2007.... Convincing a woman in Nashua at 5:30 PM primary day who was not going to vote to go to the polls and vote for Barack.... organizing a massive student outreach in MA, VT, NH, NY and RI to get college students from NH to register and vote absentee in NH....
Emma RUddock (mass HQ) - pulling an all nighter at the Mass Headquarters with some amazing people and entering data, my amazing college dems leaders who's enthusiasm is so incredible and inspiring, realizing after the NH primaries that this was not going to be easy but that we were going to do it anyway, succeeding in convincing my parents to let me take the year off from college to work fulltime on the campaign, meeting some of the most incredible people that I have ever gotten to know, voting in my first presidential election
I have waited so long for this. I just have to shout...MY VOTE IS IN!!!! Never has this given me such a feeling of satisfaction and power.
Where is everybody...haven't heard from you for so long? Take a moment to reveal your feelings today.
Go Obama!!!
Where forty three US presidents have exclusively been Caucasians for the last 172 years in America, almost two centuries later, tomorrow, American voters will create the landslide victory of Senator Barack Obama, as he becomes the first African American president in all of 172 years of US presidency!!
Wow, this is so historic and is giving me goosebumps as I read the last acts of Amanda Jones, in her 109 years, the daughter of a slave, voted for her first African American president, seeing change in her lifetime. But she is not unique, as even Barack's grandmother, affectionately called " Toot" by Barack, her last act was about voting her grandson into office and she is of Caucasian, midwestern roots.
Tomorrow, if Missouri is indicative of the battleground states, one of the states I called today from California's Century Plaza Hotel, I spoke to 15 folks who shared with me they are enthusiastically voting Barack Obama, and only 2 declared their emphatic, almost diminished and in hushed tones, almost ashamed in voting Senator John McCain. But, mostly declaring it out of loyalty and tradition! Well, I respect their choice.
The same way I respect a Republican friend who could not find her polling place, I jokingly called her tonight and told her to skip voting if she is voting McCain, and then, informed her just the same of her new polling place, courtesy of mybarackobama.com website's vote for change feature, and encouraged her to consider voting Barack Obama. I figured that since she is still undecided and she declared moving away from voting McCain, she just might vote Obama tomorrow. Yes, that is how doggedly determined I am!
Tomorrow, I will monitor the polling place, as one of the pollworkers, and then, I will go to KSCI-18 to share with my kababayans why I voted Obama and have a more extended discussion on race and racism.
Yes, it is time to turn away from slavery, Jim Crow's lynching past, and embrace our diversity, starting with voting our first African American President. After all, he surpassed the voters' challenge by fundraising a record amount of $750 million dollars, almost 2/3 of a billion dollars, amassed over 3,000, 000 volunteers and ran an almost flawless, smart, superbly disciplined campaign that was able to mobilize every single volunteer in the ground, and inspired them to no end.
Tomorrow, even my community papers will have feature articles discussing race and racism and why our darker fears had to be transcended to be part of this new American history! Yes, we can, our real history is just beginning to be written, and this time, it includes all Americans of every ethnicity and every age group!!
And, it is a great feeling to be in the frontlines of making of history! And now I just pray I get to become part of the inauguration, after all, I already bought my tickets to DC last month to be there in January 2009, that is how much optimism I have tomorrow in the goodness of the American people, their ability to write their own progressive history, just like in 1860 and 1932!!
If like me you are not old enough to have voted in 1960, or if you are old enough and voted for John F. Kennedy as you should have, try and imagine how it would feel if you had voted for Richard Nixon instead.
Imagine watching Kennedy's rise, in life and in death, to take his place among America's greatest presidents, knowing that you could have voted for him but didn't; and imagine then watching Nixon's descent to take his place among the worst, knowing that you voted for him perhaps not just once but two or even three times.
Imagine watching the secret bombing of Cambodia revealed, watching the sad tale of Watergate unfold, and watching Nixon's resignation in disgrace. Imagine looking back from the vantage point of 1974 and thinking of how you might have voted differently in 1960, of how at that pivotal point in time you made an unwise decision and ended up on the wrong side of history.
Now imagine how things might have been if lots more people had made the same mistake as you in 1960 and John F. Kennedy, one of America's greatest presidents, had never been elected. Imagine a world without President Kennedy.
Then, if you can bear repeating such a tragic error in judgment, go ahead and vote for John McCain.
Four days before Election Day 2008, I drove with a friend from my home in the San Francisco Bay Area to Henderson, Nevada, just outside Las Vegas, for a rally with Barack Obama. We arrived in Las Vegas on the Friday night preceding the Saturday morning event, which also happened to be Halloween. With little else to do before driving out to Henderson to take our places among the first in line for the Obama rally, we did what any other visitor does on a Friday night in Vegas: We went to the Strip. This was of course a strange prelude to the Saturday morning event, as apolitical a beginning to a political weekend as I can imagine. Surprisingly, among the crowds of revelers along the Strip in almost any kind of costume one can imagine, I didn't see a single Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, or Sarah Palin. As always, Vegas seemed to occupy a world entirely its own.
Once we tired of the Strip, we drove the few miles out to Henderson on the southern edge of metropolitan Las Vegas and located the rally site, a local high school football stadium. By two or three o'clock in the morning, dedicated Obama supporters were already taking their places in line at the gate, and we soon took our places among them. I personally had never "camped out" for any kind of event, be it a political rally, rock concert, or movie premiere, but at this event I had no intention of being any further from the front than I had to be. Our diligence paid off, and once the gates were opened we and other early arrivals were able to take places along the rope line in front of a crowd that grew to number around 15,000 (see BarackObama.com, Las Vegas Review-Journal; photos available also at Flickr).
Obama's 25-minute speech contained many of the same points he has made throughout his campaign, but lacked nothing in excitement for being what one might describe as a "standard Obama stump speech" with a little extra dose of urgency just three days before Election Day. Introduced by Nevada's own Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Obama arrived at the podium to wild applause and screams of support, the energy all positive. I couldn't help but take wonder at how the overwhelmingly positive atmosphere at this event contrasted the ugly rage, bitterness, and hate we have all seen on video from McCain/Palin rallies. The one time booing started at the mention of John McCain, Obama reminded the crowd as at other rallies recently, "You don't need to boo. You just need to vote."
In his speech Obama reminded his supporters that the election has yet to be won: "Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes. We have to work like our future depends on it in these last few days, because it does. But I know this, Nevada: The time for change has come." As he spoke, the tiny silhouettes of police and/or Secret Service lookouts could be seen atop buildings and other high points around the rally site, just in case anyone should wish to harm the Democratic nominee. Secret Service agents also patrolled the crowd and shared the open space between Obama's stage and the rope line with news photographers taking rapid-fire shots both of Obama up at the podium and of the cheering crowd. A helicopter circled over the rally site, too high to tell whether it was a news helicopter or police.
For us and others at the front of the crowd, the climax of the event came at the close of Obama's speech, as he began to make his way along the rope line to depart. Surrounded by Secret Service agents and rapid-firing news photographers, Obama moved along the rope line shaking hands, kissing babies, and thanking his supporters. The Secret Service agents pushed back against the metal barriers as the crowd surged forward to get a glimpse of Obama or shake his hand. My friend and I suddenly found ourselves with little room to move or even breathe as Obama approached and the crowd pressed in around us, holding their hands out in hopes of getting a handshake with the man they hope will be the next President of United States. We both did get handshakes with Obama when he finally arrived at our place along the rope line, and when my turn came I looked into Obama's face and told him the first thing I could think of to say: "You are going to be a great president." Obama looked back at me and said in all sincerity, "Thank you." Then he was gone.
Finally, as Obama moved away from us along the rope line shaking more hands and kissing more babies, we got a chance also to shake hands with Harry Reid. Having previously shaken hands with Ted Kennedy at an Obama event in Oakland just before the California primary, I can now say that I have shaken hands with three of the people Republicans most love to hate. One of those hands, I hope, will soon be holding the keys to the White House.
Following the failure of their "Bill Ayres Strategy" to cause major problems for Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin have stumbled upon a new bogeyman from Obama's past to sow suspicion in voters' minds: Rashid Khalidi, a Middle East history professor at Columbia University, whose ties to the Middle East and the Palestinian exile community include no evidence whatsoever of terrorist activity or support. The McCain/Palin campaign has decided, however, that Khalidi is a shadowy figure with suspicious ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and with whom Barack Obama has a suspicious relationship because the two apparently attended a dinner together and said nice things about each other. I guess that means Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" again.
What John McCain seems to have forgotten, however (in addition to the number of homes he owns), is that he has far deeper ties to Khalidi than Obama has. While he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) during the 1990s, McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth nearly half a million dollars. A 1998 tax filing for the IRI shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank (see grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS," on page 14 of this PDF.) The relationship between McCain and Khalidi extends back as far as 1993, when McCain joined the IRI as chairman in January. The IRI helped fund several research projects by Khalidi's organization in the Palestinian Territories that year, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes" among Palestinians. Khalidi's organization has also received financial support from the American Academy for Arts and Sciences, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the National Foundation for Democracy, none of which are known for funding terrorist organizations (see Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC).
Rashid Khalidi's only offense is that he has published opinions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with which strong supporters of Israel might disagree, and with which Barack Obama has in fact expressed disagreement. The right to express opinions with which other people might disagree is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and is a cornerstone of modern higher education - a fact John McCain seems to have forgotten, just as he forgot how many homes he he owns and how many grants he issued to Khalidi's organization back in the '90s.
How many more times must we listen to John McCain and Sarah Palin make sad, desperate attempts to pin other people's words and deeds on Barack Obama? Simply knowing someone doesn't make you responsible for whatever that person might have said or done in the past. Neither Bill Ayres nor Rashid Khalidi are advising Obama, serving on his campaign, or likely to serve in his administration. End of story.
The threat of GOP voter suppression and election theft is as great as ever this election year, and perhaps even greater as Republicans grow desperate to head off what appears likely to be a crushing defeat on Nov. 4. While Republicans hurl baseless accusations of voter fraud at Democrats and progressives who seek to build turnout, the fact remains that it is the GOP which has repeatedly sought to suppress voting in order to win elections. Republicans have used and continue to use a variety of methods to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, including disqualification, deception, and intimidation.
Methods of voter suppression used by Republicans and the threat they pose this election year were recently discussed by Andrew Gumbel at The Nation as well as by Peter Rothberg. Meanwhile, Roberto Lovato discusses what we can all do to protect our votes on Election Day and after. The Brennan Center for Justice documents and reports incidents of voter suppression nationwide for public information. Reports on voter suppression activities have also recently appeared in the New York Times and at CNN.
The Election Protection coalition (1-866-OUR-VOTE) is a nonpartisan organization formed to ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Through their website and voter hotline Election Protection provides live, up-to-the-minute information and advice on voting conditions nationwide as well as taking reports of irregularities from voters. No Voter Left Behind (NVLB) is a Democratic organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to fight GOP efforts at voter suppression and election theft. NVLB also provides extensive information on GOP voter suppression methods and on how Democrats can protect their votes as well as taking reports of irregularities. In addition to offering direct assistance to voters, Election Protection and NVLB seek donors and volunteers to support their efforts.
Mark C. Eadeshttp://www.mceades.com
Republicans are once again playing one of the oldest tricks in the book to try and stop Democrats from voting on Election Day. In at least two states, according to reports from Virginia and California, Republicans have attempted to convince Democrats that they should vote on Nov. 5 instead of Nov. 4 due to heavy turnout expected.
In fact, Election Day for all voters everywhere regardless of party affiliation remains Nov. 4.
In Hampton Roads, Virginia, a phony State Board of Elections flier has been distributed advising that, due to heavy turnout expected this year, Republicans are to vote on Nov. 4 and Democrats on Nov. 5. The flier, dated Oct. 24, features the state board logo and state seal, and indicates that an emergency session of the Virginia General Assembly has adopted emergency voting regulations designating separate voting days for Republican and Democratic voters to ease the load on local voting precincts.
The Virginia elections board has stated that the flier is a forgery, and state police are investigating (Virginian-Pilot).
Meanwhile, in Bakersfield, California, conservative radio host Jaz McKay of station KNZR likewise recently told listeners that Democrats should vote Nov. 5 instead of Nov. 4 because of expected heavy turnout. Asked by the county elections chief to stop misleading voters, McKay claimed it was a joke (see Bakersfield Californian).
These are but two cases of this particular trick that I have come across, but it has been tried many times before in many places, and I don't doubt that it will turn up again somewhere between now and Election Day.
Hollywood composer Danny Elfman (famous for "The Simpsons" theme and scores to Tim Burton films) has produced a new ad for the last week of the presidential race revealing his greatest fear: a President Sarah Palin. Focusing on the possibility that John McCain might not even finish his first term as president if elected due to age and health concerns, Elfman eerily morphs a slow-motion image of McCain speaking into an image of Palin succeeding him. Here is the transcript.
"These are troubled times in a volatile world. With unprecedented crises at home and abroad, we need sound judgment and a steady hand to lead the most powerful nation on Earth. John McCain's age and continuing battle with cancer makes the liklihood of him not completing his term higher than any president in American history. President Sarah Palin. Think about it."
Elfman is seeking support to air the ad in swing states during the final days before the election. Readers are encouraged to visit OurGreatestFear.org, watch the ad, contribute if possible, and pass it on.
A new video posted to Youtube shows McCain/Palin supporters spewing racism and hate at peaceful pro-Obama demonstrators outside a McCain/Palin rally Oct. 27 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. One older gentleman early in the video shouts "Bomb Obama!" at the videographer and Obama supporters. Asked by the videographer what that means, the man says, "Get rid of him," then gestures indicating this means assassinating Obama. A younger man holding a "Democrats for McCain" sign says, when asked why he supports McCain, "I'd never vote for a black man." Another young man declares, "I do not want a black man running my country." Among women at the rally, one says she is against Obama because "his associations and his judgment are not American," repeating the Obama-as-foreigner meme. Another older gentleman also repeats this idea, insisting that Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States, and asking for his birth certificate (ample proof exists that Obama was born in the US state of Hawaii). Other rallygoers shout various combinations of "Barack Hussein Obama" in addition to the usual charges that Obama is a "terrorist" and a "baby killer." If we needed more proof that racism and hate are indeed running rampant in the grassroots Republican ranks, this is it. The video is credited to the Pennsylvania progressive organization Keystone Progress.
