Less Popular Than Polygamy?

While the rest of the press fixates on what Obama’s ratings will mean for his reelection, the real 800 pound gorilla in the voting booth seems barely to be noticed. I’m speaking of course about Congress. As this Huff-Po article expresses, Congress is now less popular than a number of seemingly negative things, like the BP oil spill or the government “going communist.” The effect this could have on the 2012 election is potentially huge. With Congress essentially split between the two parties, the question of who voters will turn to - especially if “throw the bums out” is the only narrative that sticks - is a difficult one to answer.


One possibility is that this will turn out to be a good year for third parties and independents. With both parties being vilified, voters may prove unwilling to hold their noses for the big two this year. In such a scenario, the only viable alternative would be the non-affiliated or fringe candidate. Of course, the more parties that run, the less predictable the results tend to be. Extra candidates could win, but history suggests they are more likely to split votes, causing all sorts of havoc. A more likely outcome is that the big two retain their lock on the nominations and voters express their disgust by staying home. If that happens, there is no telling how this election will turn out. It may come down to a question of which side has the weaker sense smell…

On the Idea of a Tea-Party of the Left

E.J. Doinne talks about the short-comings of the American grass-roots left. While this is interesting, I fear it is also grossly oversimplified. First, he uses the discrepancies in media coverage between conservative and leftist grass-roots groups to set up his idea of the "quiet left." But there is, I think, a difference between being quiet and being ignored.  Media coverage is almost always going to be weaker for the left because so much of it makes for "bad" television. The themes and the tactics of grass-roots liberalism have been around for years and don't jog well with interests of media owners anyway. So of course a "new" grass-roots conservative movement is going to get coverage. That doesn't mean progressive groups are not or were not out there. On the contrary, the very longevity of these groups is likely to work against them in the media. Simply put, it isn't news if it isn't new. A protest in Berkley by radical student activists doesn't get coverage because it's nothing new. Radical - and often irrational - grass-roots groups holding the GOP hostage on the other hand is very new and subsequently worth printing.

Second, Dionne blames Democratic failings in 2010 on the "absence of a strong organized left.". But what he doesn't take into account are some of the quirks of our electoral system. This is a system that tends to discourage intra-party competition, especially when that party is defending a majority. Democratic party leaders in many states have often campaigned against the very idea of primary challengers on the grounds that they might "weaken" an incumbent and threaten a party majority. In 2010, an election where the "left" party was defending a majority which wasn't particularly popular, I suspect that state primary laws played a significant role. Added to this is the lack of basic civic education on the part of the voters. Voters in mid-term elections tend to be more politically active and have better formed political identities. They are also a comparatively small slice of the electorate. Unaffiliated voters make up the largest slice in a majority of states. This means that they are not only less committed to concepts like preserving the party majority but also, in many states at least, barred from competing in the candidate selection process. This makes them notoriously difficult to mobilize.

That being said, I will agree with Dionne that the tea-party phenomenon has certain organizational advantages over their leftist counter-parts. Chief among these, in my mind at least, is their willingness to sacrifice the electable candidate in favor of the "correct" one.  Much of the TPs strength comes from its willingness to pursue aggressive primary challenges regardless of the effect this might have on party fortunes. This has forced many candidates - particularly House candidates - to adopt more conservative policy positions, which they then must carry into office if they are to stave off a challenge in the next cycle. This primary threat is something the left could stand to adopt. If leftist groups have one glaring weakness, it is that we fear the GOP more than we want to reform the Democrats. This has made us less willing to risk the party position over individual candidates, and we need to get over it.  The public primary was a progressive tool intended to give voters more control over party decision making. How ironic that this tool is now being leveraged to undo all that the American left has thus far achieved.

GOP take Wiener's Seat...or Why is Pelosi still in Charge?

Read this article this morning. Can someone with a better understanding of internal Democratic party politics explain to me WHY Nancy Pelosi is still minority leader??? She created this embarrassment by calling for Wiener's resignation and yet not a single headline I've come across (so far) has called for her removal?? Do party leaders really think voters are so stupid that they're not paying attention to chamber leadership???

For the record, I'm not buying the Obama-referendum angle here. People who vote - especially people who vote in special elections - have at least enough of a grasp on how the system works to know who leads the House Democrats. This isn't a referendum on Obama. He has a low approval rating, sure. But it isn't any lower than many recession presidents who went on to 2nd terms. No, I think this is a referendum on Congressional Democrats. Unless they start acting like they think voters can see them, this party is in trouble.

Dem keep their fingers on Conservatives' pulse...

Once again the democrats prove just how out of touch they are with their own supporters. 
 

Anthony Weiner to take leave from Congress after sexual misconduct

Published on The Guardian World News | shared via feedly mobile

New York Democratic congressman to seek professional help after sending sexually suggestive images to women online
Embattled Democrat Anthony Weiner announced he has requested a leave of absence from Congress following growing pressure from senior party members to resign after admitting he sent sexually suggestive images of himself to several women.
A spokeswoman for the 46-year-old New York congressman made the disclosure in a statement shortly after Democratic leaders demanded Weiner quit, adding that he would be receiving "professional treatment" at an undisclosed location. The House Democrat leader, Nancy Pelosi, said Weiner had "the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents and the recognition that he needs help". Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, described the incident as a sordid affair that had become "an unacceptable distraction".
Weiner's spokeswoman, Risa Heller, revealed that the congressman had departed "to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person". She added: "In light of that, he will request a short leave of absence from the House of Representatives so that he can get evaluated and map out a course of treatment to make himself well."
The development came just 24 hours after Weiner first acknowledged he had exchanged online messages with a 17-year-old girl in the state of Delaware, although he insisted nothing improper had passed between them. He also finally admitted sending a picture of himself in his underpants via Twitter to another woman.
Democrats said the concerted call for Weiner's resignation had been brewing for days, as senior party officials concluded the scandal was interfering with their attempts to gain political momentum in advance of the 2012 elections. Democrats hope to rebound from a devastating election last November in which the Republicans won control of the House.
"We had decided we were not going to have one more week of Anthony Weinergate," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The official added that Pelosi had spoken numerous times with Weiner in an attempt to persuade him to step down for the good of the party, telling him that because of the media focus on his predicament their attacks on a Republican Medicare proposal were going unnoticed. The Republicans have proposed major cuts in the government-run Medicare programme which provides healthcare to the elderly.
Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz and others had been notably reticent in public in the days since Weiner held a news conference to announce he had exchanged lewd photos, and more, with a handful of women. On Thursday, an X-rated photo surfaced on a website, and in response, Weiner's office issued a statement that did not deny it had been taken of him.
Weiner is married to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton. She is pregnant with the couple's first child and is travelling with Clinton in Africa.

• Anthony Weiner
• New York
• United States

James Orr

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Rather than allow Rep. Wiener to deal with the scandal himself, they insist on making a public display even though most Democrats (especially the ones in his district) really don't care. Once again they seem more concerned about what conservative voters think than they do their own base.  

Who benefits from the "Knowledge Economy?"

The Projo reports today that over a hundred thousand dollars is being invested by government agencies to help develop a "knowledge economy." Presumably this will bring high tech jobs developing hardware, software and bolstering design jobs. All of which sounds wonderful, of course. But still I have to ask myself, who's going to be working in these jobs of tomorrow?  Currently the overwhelming majority of jobs in this state are in the service industry. These are mostly unskilled or semi-skilled positions which pay modest wages. A lot of these jobs ought to be transitional ones at best; minor rungs on an upwardly mobile ladder. Only they're often not. Social mobility tends not to reach thousands of workers in the service sector. Part of the reason is because they lack the skills and training opportunities of workers in other sectors. When money is tight, educational expenses can be hard to justify. So when I see the prospect of hundreds of possible high skilled, high tech jobs coming to Rhode Island, I can't help but wonder who will benefit most. Whoever it is, I doubt it will be the workers who are here now, struggling to make a decent living for themselves and their families.

Executive Authority, or Why Michigan Ought to Concern Us

As if undermining the competitive advantages of unions weren't concerning enough, Wisconsin's governor-you-love-to-hate is now reportedly seeking to emulate a recent Michigan law which grants the governor's office sweeping powers over cities and towns. Some have already argued that the states have always had the power to tell cities what they should or should not be doing, which in general they do. But the key difference in the Michigan law, is that this power has been taken from the legislative branch and given to the executive. As it stands right now in Michigan, the Emergency Financial Manager can, almost at will, dissolve city councils, school boards, dictate what policy they can or cannot pursue, even what kind of meetings they can have. In short, an appointed official is able to literally destroy an elected body. This might not seem that extreme to some, considering the dire straits many municipalities find themselves in these days. And indeed, one would be a fool to argue that simply being an elected official means you practice good governance. Plenty of duly elected officials have run the gamut from incompetence to outright fraud. But does that mean we should shift decision-making power - and responsibility - away from the general assembly toward the governor's office? I try, as a general rule, to steer clear of alarmist rhetoric. But I can't seem to get past the idea that the supremacy of executive over legislative power is a defining feature of totalitarian regimes. Which isn't of course to say that I think Mr. Snyder counts as a dictator. Nor do I think you can argue that Michigan has suddenly turned into a fascist state. But I do think the health of a democracy can be measured by the size and quality of its social competition. By that metric, anything which limits political influence to a only few powerful interests is something we all ought to be concerned with.

The Business of the Labor Department is Business?

The battle against workers continues apace. Ohio is considering an anti-union bill that would strip public sector workers of the right collectively bargain and to strike. But what's perhaps more interesting are the actions of the governor of Maine this week. Republican Governor Paul Le Page took a far more symbolic move against workers when he ordered a mural to removed from the department of labor. The mural, which depicted the struggles of organized labor, was removed on the grounds that the labor department was not an "appropriate venue," to discuss the history of worker's rights. Apparently the labor department needs to be less concerned with labor. This illustrates a more troubling aspect of the current wave of anti-unionism sweeping through GOP controlled state houses. By depicting public sector unions as greedy special interests getting in the way of our prosperity, the GOP are perversely arguing that the only interest group worthy of government attention is business. The main thrust of their narrative - that nurses, teachers and state employees are interest groups while businesses are not - is of course, utter nonsense. Any group that lobbies the government to seek a favorable legislative outcome is an interest group. Business organizations do this all the time. So, if and when the GOP does succeed in eviscerating workers organizations, they are not removing special interests from the legislative process. Rather, they are whittling down the effective interests to the one that most often supports their party. Competition among interest groups is not something we should be trying to stop. On the contrary. It is in fact, the way our democracy works. Whether or not you think unions are the best way to organize a labor market, this attack on the political capacities of American workers should be a concern for anyone interested in the health of our system.