CA-32: Why Judy Chu's Our Best Choice for Congress

I usually don't like to wade into LA politics. I usually have enough on my hands with Orange County matters, so I just don't have time for Los Angeles electoral fights. However, I have to say something about the special election coming up in California's 32nd Congressional District.

I just have to say first that I used to like Gil Cedillo because he was a leader on immigrant rights in the California Legislature. I really thought he cared about people's civil rights. However, his recent gutter-level attacks have forced me to question his sincerity. Would any "civil rights leader of our time" accuse a local community organizer of "gang-banging"? And would he use race-baiting tactics to attack another long-time community organizer and neighborhood leader?

I've had it with Gil Cedillo's low blows. Seriously. Calitics has already given him an "anti-endorsement", but I want to go one step further and do something positive. If my own fabulous member of Congress, Loretta Sanchez, can do it, then so can I.

Heck, if these people can do it, so can I!







Judy Chu has a long record of accomplishments that speaks for itself. Her tax amnesty program actually brought in $4.8 billion dollars in tax revenue that helped keep California moving. She's always stood firm on economic justice, environmental justice, and social justice, and has the long and accomplished record to prove it. And yes, she's always been stood strong with progressives on LGBT civil rights.



This was the ultimate kicker for me. It shows me that Judy Chu gets it. She understands our common struggle, our continuing struggle for equal rights, our ongoing struggle to make ends meet, our current struggle to make sure our families are provided for. Judy Chu gets it, and that's why we need to send her to Congress.

If you're in the San Gabriel Valley, please help her campaign in this final week before the May 19 special election. And if you know someone in the district, let them know more about why we need Judy Chu in Congress. Thanks.

CA-47: Battleground in My Backyard?

(This is the start of my multi-part series on emerging Western Congressional races in 2010.)

If we're to believe the local news reports, Democrats may actually lose a Congressional seat in Southern California. Central Orange County Assembly Member/Local GOP Power Broker Van Tran has announced he will challenge seven-term Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez next year. Already, Republicans are cheering victory and preparing to dance on Loretta's political grave... But are they celebrating too early?

Believe it or not, the GOP is. But how can that be? Isn't Orange County extremely conservative and Republican-friendly? Not exactly.

Overall, the county is changing and becoming less of a "red county" and more of a "swing county". But in the 47th Congressional District, we saw quite a sharp turn left in the once "swing district" now turning increasingly blue. President Barack Obama cruised to a 60-38 win in the district last November. Just in the last three years, Democrats have jumped from a meager 4% registration advantage to a much heftier 12% advantage. And of course, Loretta had no problem crushing her GOP opponent by a gigantic 69-25 margin while Van Tran struggled to defeat a Democrat with little money in his own State Assembly district by a tinier 54-46 margin. So what is The OC Register seeing that I'm not when they say my home district will be among "the hottest races in 2010"?

I guess they see the GOP pouring money into this district and galvanizing the Vietnamese-American vote. And let's face it, they're trying hard to score a win anywhere they can find. But even if Van can build a massive campaign operation, he still needs to overcome his own controversial reputation in Little Saigon while simultaneously eroding Loretta's long history of serving this district. Oh yes, and it doesn't help Van that he's been shopping for a race, any race, to win now that he's termed out of the Assembly while Loretta's been busy preparing for just this kind of challenge.

So what should we do? Well, we shouldn't just take CA-47 for granted, even with all the good stats in our favor. Rather, we should see these good stats as encouragement to make sure Loretta Sanchez defeats Van Tran by a large enough margin to provide coattails to Democrats running to turn GOP-held "red" state & local seats (like Van's own 68th AD seat) blue. Since we need to undo the damage of both the radical right ideologues still running local governments in Orange County and the GOP minority in Sacramento that's still large enough to hold the state hostage, this can be our opportunity to not just keep the 47th Congressional District strongly "blue", but also elect more Democrats to office in OC.

And hey, Loretta deserves our support. She's been voting more progressive as the district's been turning bluer. And though she once had to tout "Blue Dog" membership to win over moderate Republicans, she's been doing a good job of listening to what we the constituents wants and voting accordingly. And more importantly, she always works hard for Orange County and delivers real results for real people. That's why all the local school districts, police departments, fire departments, and city agencies go to Loretta first to ensure our tax dollars come home to work for us.

So if you can, please make sure Loretta Sanchez goes back to Congress in 2010. But not only are we investing in Loretta's reelection, we're also investing in building a stronger Democratic majority in Central Orange County and a more progressive future for the whole county. We're turning OC bluer one new Democratic voter registration at a time, and we shouldn't let a Van Tran challenge scare us away from continuing our good work.

House Passed Hate Crimes Bill

Fortunately, it now goes to the Senate and is likely to be signed into law by President Obama. I just want to share with you what may have been the most powerful speech in support of the Matthew Shepard Act from the House floor.



Jeez, if only more of our Congresscritters had the conscience that Barbara Lee has...

Arlen Specter to Become a Democrat?

I guess so.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Overall, I'm happy. I mean, why shouldn't I be when we will be assured of 60 Senate votes once Al Franken is seated in Minnesota? Still, I have a few reservations.

After all, Specter was one of the key "Senate Moderates" who caved into Bush-Cheney every time he could. He caved on Iraq. He caved on torture. He caved on civil liberties. He's even indicated he might cave on Employee Free Choice. So what should we do?

While I don't always agree with him on everything, I think David Sirota is onto something here. We shouldn't let him get away with opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, especially since he's now a Democrat. We should make sure he supports an all-inclusive ENDA that protects all LGBT workers from wrongful unemployment. We should make sure he supports President Obama's budget and ensure he doesn't try to water it down. Basically, we should exert pressure on Arlen Specter to be more of a Democrat now that he's hoping to win reelection as a Democrat.

Now don't get me wrong. I get that "Snarlin' Arlen" is only doing this so he can reelected next year. Still, he should know that he doesn't get our help as Democrats for nothing. If he wants all the benefits in Pennsylvania of being a Democrat, then Specter needs to at least start acting like a mainstream center-left Democrat.

So am I glad we're closer to having 60 Democrats in the Senate? Sure. I just want to make sure that this is what we're actually getting today.

A New Era for California Democrats?

(Proudly cross-posted at OC Progressive)

My goodness, what a convention we had! The "mainstream" corporate media may have just seen it as a massive foodfight, but beneath the surface something amazing happened. As I saw and Calitician Robert Cruickshank noted, the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" finally started to take control of the CDP.

Progressives flexed their muscle yet again at this convention, showing that they are the force to be reckoned with in the party - even if progressives did not always speak with a single voice. The refusal to endorse Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E was a sign that progressive delegates are not going to be dictated to by Democratic leaders, and that they feel empowered to say "No" when it is warranted. That's a sign of a healthy and mature progressive movement. People power is here in the California Democratic Party - and although it has yet to find sustained expression, it's only a matter of time before that power revitalizes the party.

As all of you who followed my Tweets saw, the vote was close on all the May Special Election Initiatives. And yes, debate was heated. But while the "mainstream" reporters were just focusing on how "divided!!!!" we were (like this was the first time?), they missed what the rest of us saw. They missed the progressive grassroots taking charge, speaking truth to power, and letting their voices be heard at what's supposed to be their convention.

Let me explain my thoughts some more down below...









It's ironic how the theme of "A New Era" for the CDP Convention was meant to simply recall the election of President Obama and symbolize the passing of the torch from Former Chair Art Torres to new Chair John Burton, but the actual action on the floor over the weekend was what really gave the "New Era" theme its meaning. While it may have seemed unfair for Former Controller Eric Bradley to be punished for the crimes of other party leaders in giving Don Perata and Fabian Nunez millions of dollars meant for partybuilding, we may nonetheless see some fresh air and better use of CDP funds with the election of new Controller Hilary Crosby. While there was large support for the May Props, it wasn't large enough for passage despite the massive pressure from legislative and CDP leaders as progressives simply could not accept the raw deal that Arnold the Governator was trying to force us into. And hey, even John Burton's election symbolizes this new era in an ironic way. He may be an "old-timer" in the party, but he's nonetheless a solid progressive who yesterday called for an exit strategy from Iraq AND Afghanistan as well as a renewed effort to speak up for the poor who are too often silenced. And especially in his refusal to join the other CDP head honchos in pushing 1A-1F, he showed he can listen to what the grassroots is saying.

Perhaps the opening shots of the 2010 Gubernatorial race also symbolized "a new era"... Or at least Gavin Newsom's budding campaign did. The energy and enthusiasm behind Gavin reminded me of, dare I say it, the beginning of Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign. And beyond the energy of his supporters, Gavin's ideas and policy proposals may really start a departure from the overly cautious "Sacramento Consensus" centrism of the recent past if his candidacy gains steam. I mean, how is it not a little gutsy to get past the usual canned budget answers to actually endorse a constitutional convention to undo the arcane budget rules that allow the GOP minority to have a stranglehold on our future? And how is it not innovative to reframe universal "PreK-college" education and universal health care as "#1 business issues"? And of course, his unwavering support for LGBT civil rights has helped other California Democrats "come out of the closet" to support marriage equality. Perhaps the San Francisco Mayor is pretty far from perfect, but I see potential for a Governor who may really be able to think "outside the box" to find the solutions we really need.

And finally, the "Red Districts" that have far too often been ignored by the CDP as "hopelessly Republican" in the past are now getting attention in this "new era". At Take Back Red California's jam-packed Red to Blue Dinner on Saturday night, Russ Warner (CA-26) and Francine Busby (CA-50) were greeted with thunderous applause as they announced they will run for Congress again. Closer to home, enthusiasm was building in the convention halls for Bill Hedrick (CA-44) and Beth Krom (CA-48). And in the ultimate satisfying climax, newly elected CDP Chair John Burton seemed to bypass the old flowery language of a "58 County Strategy" to actually put forth a plan to make his 58 County Strategy work. Perhaps this may be a "new era" of turning more "Red Districts" blue?

So what can we expect in this "new era" for the California Democratic Party? I don't quite know yet. I mean, Jerry Brown still wants to take us on "a stroll down memory lane". Many of the "establishment power players" still have great power in the CDP. John Garamendi still can't get a fair shake. While much has changed, much has remained the same.

But hopefully as all this new progressive grassroots enthusiasm just spoke truth to power in electing Hilary Crosby as CDP Controller, allowing John Burton to be an unabashed progressive as CDP Chair, and rejecting the leadership's call to endorse Props 1A, 1D, and 1E, the grassroots won't give up in breathing new life into this Democratic Party in this new era. We have a Democratic Governor to elect in 2010. We have Prop H8 to overturn/repeal. We have a 2/3 budget rule to undo. We still have purplish "red" seats to turn fully blue. We have so much work to do, and hopefully we'll finally get it done in this new era.

EFCA "Dead"? This Better Not Be True!

OK, I'm freaking out now. Yes, it sucks that Arlen Specter refuses to be the 60th vote to allow a final vote on EFCA. However, what I'm more concerned about is this:

Labor spent millions of dollars and put hundreds of thousands of ground troops into the battle to get Obama elected. And yet, if you believe NBC News' reporting,* the White House's priority is not "sticking a finger in business's eye" in order to slightly increase workers' union rights.

* Note: This is, indeed, a major "if." In one way, this story smells - Obama has always been a friend of unions. In another way, this story seems not entirely unbelievable - many of the people inside Obama's administration have often been enemies of unions and the labor movement, and many of them may be happy that they don't have to deal with a union priority and can instead focus on handing over more taxpayer cash to their friends on Wall Street. Also, it's not unbelievable that while Obama supports EFCA, he may not be interested in expending political capital to pass it. On that last score, actions will speak a helluva lot louder than words.

This had better not be true. President Obama needs to speak up and speak now. He needs to reaffirm his commitment to passing the Employee Free Choice Act and giving back to workers their right to organize. All we've been talking about for this last month has been more money to bail out failed billionaire Wall Street gamblers "investors". So when will we working class Americans see our "bailout"?

NBC-WSJ Sez: Vindication?

The new NBC-Wall Street Journal Poll is out, and President Obama has some good news today.

President Obama's Job Rating:
60% Approve
26% Disapprove

Who's Been More Bipartisan:
48% Democrats
20% Republicans
26% Neither

Should Government Intervene:
51% More
40% Less

Are You Willing to Pay More Taxes for Universal Health Care:
49% Yes
45% No

Oops. So perhaps America doesn't want "The Rush Limbaugh Plan" to ruin this nation even more than the Bush-Cheney crew did?

President Obama, Please Don't F*ck Up Our Social Security

This frightens me. I'm sorry, but I just can't ignore it any longer. I need to ask this question. Is President Obama considering privatizing Social Security and/or Medicare?

Ever since I read Dean Baker's last HuffPo diary, I've been worrying.

Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression. [...]

[...] Due to the reckless policies of the Rubin-Greenspan-Bush clique, this cohort has just seen [baby boomers'] housing equity wiped out with the collapse of the housing bubble. Tens of millions of baby boomers who might have felt reasonably secure three years ago are now approaching retirement with little or no equity in their homes. [...]

In short, the vast majority of baby boomers will be approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security and Medicare to support them. And now President Obama is apparently prepared to appoint a commission that will attack these only remaining pillars of support.

It is especially infuriating that this task force is likely to headed up by economists who somehow could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble. The incompetence of such economists has inflicted enormous pain on billions of people around the world. However, unlike people who fail in other professions, economists who mess up on the job just get promoted so that they can do even more harm.

And if that's not scary enough, take a look at William Greider's story at AlterNet!

Governing elites in Washington and Wall Street have devised a fiendishly clever "grand bargain" they want President Obama to embrace in the name of "fiscal responsibility." The government, they argue, having spent billions on bailing out the banks, can recover its costs by looting the Social Security system. They are also targeting Medicare and Medicaid. The pitch sounds preposterous to millions of ordinary working people anxious about their economic security and worried about their retirement years. But an impressive armada is lined up to push the idea--Washington's leading think tanks, the prestige media, tax-exempt foundations, skillful propagandists posing as economic experts and a self-righteous billionaire spending his fortune to save the nation from the elderly.

These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud.

Oh yes, none other than Mr. "IOUSA", Republican billionaire Peter Peterson, is out on a mission to finish what George W. Bush started in destroying the bedrock American social safety net. And why is he out to take away working people's right to a poverty-free retirement? Bascially, he and his fellow "market fundamentalist" buddies hate The New Deal. They hate the fact that "socialist" policies have kept the American capitalist system intact, so they're out to dismantle our social safety net so they can have their laissez-faire nirvana.

But why is President Obama cozying up to this? Hasn't he promised us that he will protect Social Security and Medicare? Yes, he has. So why are we even talking about this "fiscal responsibility summit" that's nothing more than a radical right scheme in disguise? That's what we need to know.

Now's a good time for us to contact President Obama and our members of Congress, before any "fiscal responsibility" ponzi scheme takes hold. Again, we need to remind them that they work for us, not the "Broder-Friedman media establishment". We defeated Bush's privatization program in 2005, and we can defeat it again in 2009. With so many other crises to tackle, like health care and climate change, there's no reason to rush into the non-crisis of Social Security & Medicare.

We elected President Obama & the new Congress on the promise that they will bring change to Washington. So why should we let Washington change them? Let's remind them who they're working for and what kind of change we want to see on "entitlement reform".

Whither "Bipartisanship"?

It seemed from the start that President Obama really wasn't interested in the kind of raw partisan warfare that defined the Bush Era. After all, hasn't Obama preached "the politics of unity"? But now, it seems like those happy dreams of "bipartisanship" have been dashed.

I mean, wasn't this stimulus bill supposed to get at least 80 votes in the Senate? Wasn't Republican Judd Gregg supposed to be our Commerce Secretary? Weren't we all supposed to get along?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming President Obama for the collapse of "bipartisanship". I just wonder if it was ever realistic for him to think the GOP would immediately cease fire and cooperate. After all, don't they stand to gain more if Obama fails than if this nation were to succeed with Democratic policies?

Am I wrong? Am I being too cynical? Or am I onto something? Will the President need to focus more on keeping Democrats together than bringing in all the Republicans? What are you thinking this weekend?

Let's chat about what "the end of bipartisanship" really means.

Not "The Primary Wars" Again!

Ugh. David Sirota just took himself to a new low. He got some ugly hate mail from a few "PUMA" McTrolls... So now he must attack Hillary Clinton and all of us who supported her during the primaries?

Whatever. BTD just made him look like a complete fool. Yay. Oh yes, and I just couldn't keep my piehole shut:

Sometimes, I feel the same way. And before anyone here calls me a "PUMA", let me remind you all that I didn't just vote for Obama last November, but I also donated whatever $$$ I could, called states like Colorado and Florida, and canvassed in Nevada for Obama. I knew he'd make a good President, and even though I ultimately favored Hillary Clinton in the primary, I had no doubt in moving to Obama in the general.
Now with that said, I need to say this. It's a HUGE mistake for us to center a movement around a personality over a cause. Sure, it's nice to look at the Obama Administration and say "change has come". But really, when will we start seeing more change? When will we see universal health care? Real climate solutions? The Employee Free Choice Act? An end to DOMA & DADT?

Honestly, I see President Obama as I saw President Clinton. Like Clinton, I do think Obama has good intentions and I do understand his sympathies mostly lie with us. However, he seems quite susceptible to the same DLC/corporatist influences (like Summers or Geithner) that Clinton was 15 years ago. And if we don't keep up the pressure and encourage Obama to shift left, he'll follow the DLC rightward... Just like President Clinton.

That's what we should be discussing now. How do we avoid the same mistakes we made 15 years ago in not being prepared to fight the radical right when they attacked "Hillarycare" and "tax and spend lib'rulzm"?

Is This the "Stimulus Bill" or "Bipartisan Bill"?

Really. President Obama needs to make a choice, and we need to push him to make the right choice. I've had enough of the "bipartisan" BS and the corporate media idiots chattering on about how success will be mesaured by whether or not John McCain likes the bill. Shouldn't we mesaure success on how many people are saved from financial catastrophe?

Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head today in diagnosing the disease in DC that's causing the stimulus bill to gradually weaken and worsen into nothingness.

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.

Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.

Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.

First off, the bill in its present shape is far too little to be very effective. How the hell can an $820 billion package with 40% of it consisting of near-worthless tax cuts be enough spending to fill that $2.9 trillion gap? And secondly, why were the most effective parts of the bill either trimmed down or completely eliminated? Studies have shown that direct aid, like food stamps and state & local government assistance, are the best ways to prevent an economy from failing. So why is President Obama so open to allowing a "stimulus bill" to pass that excludes what's really needed to stimulate this economy?

The problem, as Jane Hamsher pointed out this morning, is that effective provisions of the bill are being forsaken for the sake of "bipartisanship". Why? So Susan Collins and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman can feel good about themselves? So Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can really have their way despite being in the minority? So "El Rushbo" Limbaugh can be "vindicated"?

Bipartisanship should be the means to an end, not some religious cult. There's no reason why aid for the working poor should be sacrificed for "bipartisanship". There's no reason why aid for states like California, states about to literally go bankrupt, should be sacrificed for "bipartisanship". There's no reason why kids should be deprived of a college education for the sake of "bipartisanship". There's no reason why people should be deprived of needed health care for the sake of "bipartisanship". And no, there's no reason why we shouldn't start investing in better energy choices for the sake of "bipartisanship".

President Obama made a serious mistake in elevating the process over the substance, and we need to correct that. Tell the President not to sacrifice his values for the sake of placating cruel and bloodthirsty Rethuglicans. If you have GOP members of Congress, tell them to stop holding needy people hostage for the sake of "bipartisanship". And if you have Democratic members of Congress, tell them to stand firm in supporting good provisions in the stimulus that actually help all of us in need.

We need real help, not empty rhetoric. We need a bill that puts people back to work, not a bill George W. Bush would be proud of. We need to remind our elected officials in Washington that they work for us, so they need to stop bending over backwards for stupid Beltway Pundits and start doing something for us.

The Price of the "Bipartisan Cult"

I couldn't have possibly said it better than Jane Hamsher at HuffPo & FDL:

The stimulus package is consistently being attacked because not enough Republicans support it. The fact that the bill received no Republican votes in the House, and "only" three Republicans support the Senate version, is sufficient to conclude that it fails Obama's objective of being "bipartisan."

We'll overlook for the moment that two years ago, any bill Joe Lieberman voted for was considered "bipartisan." When Obama sketched out the goals for the stimulus package in early January, he started negotiating with himself by offering "huge tax cuts" as "a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support."

But the biggest ground he gave up to the Republicans was control of the primary objective he set for the bill, that it have "bipartisan" support.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The purpose of the stimulus should NOT be to "show bipartisanship in action". No, the purpose should be putting people back to work and helping working-class people afford the necessities of life. By following the advice of the idiots in the Beltway Insiders' Chattering Class Club and bending over backwards to "be bipartisan" and give the GOP a sharp knife to stab him, President Obama may be undermining his own mandate.

Here's more of what Jane had to say:

If this becomes the template for all future sausage making between the White House and the Hill, progressive interests will continue to be offered up in sacrifice every time the Republicans decide they don't like something so the administration can appear to "rise above it all." And rather than being forced to defend their propositions, dithering "centrists" will continue to be patted on the head for pitching public temper tantrums, holding the Senate hostage and parading before the cameras like a bunch of peacocks until their egos are suitably stroked.

There is no inherent value in bipartisanship, it's the means to an end. If the administration doesn't define what that "end" is and gives the Republicans the power to determine success or failure by a simple refusal to participate, they will continue to do so.

How very true. So again, why do we care how "bipartisan" the process is and how many Republicans get to insert more stupid Bushian sh*t into this bill? Shouldn't we care more about getting a good bill passed ASAP that actually helps people? So go ahead, get as many Republicans as possible to support the best bill possible. But please, let's not forsake our own scruples for the sake of "bipartisanship".

All You Really Need to Know...

About "bipartisanship"...

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

Well, at least Balloon Juice gets it. And yes, I'm back... ;-)

ACTION ALERT: Tell Obama & Congress to Support Family Planning Health Care!

I just found this at TalkLeft. After all the hell progressive/feminist activists raised over needed family planning funds being cut from the economic stimulus package, President Obama may be listening to our concerns after all. And better yet, he may be willing to do something about it!

Women's health advocates were dismayed this week to see the removal of family-planning aid from Congress' economic recovery bill after a push by Republicans to politicize a generally cut-and-dry issue of Medicaid waivers. [...] But the dismay may not last long. A source present at today's White House signing ceremony for the Lilly Ledbetter bill tells me that President Obama gave assurances that the family planning aid would be done soon -- perhaps as soon as next week, when the House is set to take up a spending bill that would keep the government funded until October.

But hey, you know me better than to think I'll just "hope" that Congress just magically includes this in the spending bill next week. No, we need to make it happen!

So what can we do to ensure working-class women can access the health care they need? We talk to President Obama! We call Congress! We take action to make it happen!

It's a shame that so many women have been denied family planning health care for the last eight years simply because Dumbya Bush and his Rethuglican Party have been vehemently opposed to any and all forms of contraception. But now that those @ssclowns are out of office, we have a chance to fix this problem and fully fund the health care that so many women need. Please join me in asking the Democratic leaders in Washington to stand up for the many women who helped put them into office.

Finally! Payback for Obstructionism!

This is the new ad in support of President Obama's stimulus plan about to be broadcast nationwide. And really, it's about time that our side starts applying pressure and stops allowing The Bush Party (aka Rethuglicans) to keep framing the debate on economic recovery. After all, the American people just voted for Democrats to take this nation in a new direction of balanced, sensible, Keynesian, progressive economics. So really, Dem leaders in DC need to stop being afraid of what the big, bad corporate media villagers will say and tell them & their GOP buddies who's in charge now!

House Dems Do Their Own Stimulus

And so far, this is looking much better than Obama's first proposal.

House Democrats are circulating an $825 billion economic stimulus measure that emphasizes health care, education and highway construction as well as tax cuts for individuals and businesses.
A summary of the measure shows spending totaling roughly $550 billion and tax cuts of $275 billion, although the totals are expected to shift considerably as Congress works on the bill.

Let's hope the final package looks more like this. Keep up the good work, Congresscritters!

The Homosexual Agenda Post-Warren

There's been plenty of angst lately among progressives regarding how Barack Obama will advance civil rights as President. In particular, the discussion on LGBT rights has been heated since Obama selected known homophobe Rick Warren to speak at the Inauguration. And recently, the discussion has become more complicated with the revelation that Barack Obama may have flip-flopped on marriage equality.

Now I'd rather not dwell upon what Obama should have done in these past decisions. Instead, I want for us to talk about what we must do now to make sure "the homosexual agenda" is advanced on the state and national levels once Obama is inaugurated. We can't dwell upon the past, so we must start planning now to win in the future.

This is what I warned about last month. If anything, the recent fight over Rick Warren and Obama's Inauguration should show us that we can't be complacent in thinking that President Obama and the Democratic Congress will magically pass all the legislation we wants. Pols are pols, so they'll try to find an "easy way out" in delaying votes and/or watering down civil rights legislation.

We can't wait for them to act. Rather, we must act now to push our elected officials to do what we elected them to do. We must tell Obama that words aren't enough, that he needs to use his bully pulpit to push for civil rights. We must tell Congress to pass this legislation and make civil rights a priority. And closer to home, we need to work in the states to repeal marriage bans and end "legalized discrimination".

Obama himself said, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." So really, what are we waiting for? Neither Rick Warren nor Washington "conventional wisdom" can stop us now. We can't allow the politicians to tell us to "wait our turn". The time is now for marriage equality. The time is now for workplace equality. The time is now for immigration equality.

The time is now for equality! So if you can, please take the time now to support good organizations like Courage Campaign and ACLU. And if you're in Southern California, please join me this Sunday as we protest in front of Rick Warren's church. The time is now, so let's stop waiting and start acting.

Don't Be Stingy on Our Stimulus

When President-Elect Obama first released his economic stimulus plan, I was underwhelmed. Corporate tax breaks? No undoing of the disastrous Bush tax cuts? Only $775 billion?

Fortunately, the response from Democratic Congressional leaders and progressive economists has been great. They've challenged Obama to agree to a better bill, and now we may have a better chance at seeing a better stimulus passed. Believe it or not, it often takes some pushback and a whole lot of standing our ground to get something good accomplished.

While I may not agree with him on everything, David Sirota made some great points today at Open Left on what progressives need to do to win a stimulus that actually works. We need to stand our ground in saying no to silly "entitlement reform" gimmicks that are only meant to finish what GW Bush started in privatizing Social Security & Medicare. Furthermore, we must also resist "tax relief" gimmicks that are only meant to continue redistributing wealth from the working class to the "American Oligarchs".

Of course, we can't just resist awful "ideas" from the radical right. We must also promote our own good ideas, as A Siegel has done. We shouldn't just settle for "infrastructure spending", but push for "green economy" infrastructure. We can create good jobs and reduce our carbon footprint by developing more renewable energy, building high-speed rail lines, supporting carbon neutral building, and much more. Building green will actually stimulate more green, if you know what I mean.

But is it really all that important to be so ideological when Obama wants to be pragmatic? This is a false dichotomy. The fact is , as Jane Hamsher points out so well, that progressive ideas for spending will be more effective in stimulating the economy than tax cut panders to the GOP. Now this doesn't mean that no tax cuts should be included in the final bill, but it's utterly ridiculous for a $775 billion bill to include $310 billion in tax cuts that only yield a return of about $1 for every dollar spent. This isn't about "ideology vs. pragmatism", but rather about pragmatically utilizing proven progressive Keynesian economics to provide real relief to the American people.

So what should we do to get a real stimulus passed? We need to continue pushing Obama to care less about whipping 80 Senate votes for the bill, and more about achieving more bang for our bucks. We need to keep pushing Congress to pass good legislation. Basically, we need to keep being loud & refuse to give up.

We've already succeeded in having Obama drop corporate tax breaks from his stimulus proposal. Let's keep up the good work! Now, we should push to include good spending in this bill.

Call your local Congresscritters. Write to the Obama Transition Office. Raise some hell until we get a stimulus that isn't stingy to us.

Al Franken Wins?

It looks like Minnesota has a new Senator... FINALLY! Oh wait, I guess it isn't over yet. Hopefully, this won't be tied up in the courts for too much longer.

What Do We Stand For?

I need to know. Other progressives need to know. Other Democrats need to know. We need to figure this out.

What do we stand for?

Only 2 months ago, I thought this question would be awfully easy to answer. I mean, why wouldn't we support President Obama's agenda & whatever the Democratic leaders in Congress pushed for? Why would they be afraid of being more progressive now that they have a mandate?

But that's just it, they're still afraid. So far, there are signs that the Democrats now in power are still afraid of promoting progressive Democratic vision of a better America. Despite the large & growing support for things like expanded domestic partner benefits, a complete exit from Iraq, real actions to target the climate crisis, and a fairer budget, Democratic leaders seem afraid to push a full progressive agenda in 2009. So what can we do?

We keep pushing for what we stand for. But what do we stand for? We stand for what we've always believed in.

I tried to say this in my last essay on LGBT civil rights, and I'll say it again today. Pols will be pols, so we can't just expect them to do the right thing. And when they waiver, we can't just conform our agenda to whatever they're flip-flopping to. We must stand firm and hold our elected leaders accountable so they hold fast to the promises they made to us.

If we don't stand for something, are we good for anything? That's what we as Democrats must continually ask ourselves. What are we doing to end discrimination against LGBT people? What are we doing to end discrimination against women? What are we doing to stop the climate crisis? What are we doing to stop economic injustice? What are we doing to make the world a better place for all people in the world?

This first year of a "Democratic Trifecta" will either be a major progressive victory or an utter failure. And if we don't pressure our leaders in the White House & Congress to enact the bold solutions needed to put this nation back on the right track, then we will have failed. I don't know how else to define it.

So how do we take our stand? Call Congress. Write the President-Elect. Tell them to repeal DOMA. Tell them to pass an economic stimulus package that also promotes eco-friendly development solutions. If we don't ever show the strength of our conviction, will they ever show theirs?

So isn't it worthwhile for us to stand for something? And won't it be worthwhile to make our party stand for something? So what are we waiting for?