Signs of the One Nation March in DC

How Progressives can Win

The reforms of the New Deal, coupled with the GI Bill that followed World War II, created America's middle class. They made possible the high wage economy and educated work force that lead to sustained, shared economic growth. They were built on a premise that is fundamentally at odds with the Bush-McCain economic dictum that "you're on your own, buddy." That premise is the simple moral imperative that we're all in this together -- not all in this alone.

In his new book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, Robert Creamer makes the case that while some people think that in order to win we must move to the center, adopt conservative values, and split the difference, history shows they are wrong. We don't need to move to the center. We need to move the center. We need to redefine the political center in American politics:

From 1932 to about 1973 -- at least so far as domestic policy is concerned -- traditional progressive values defined the political and economic center in the United States.

By the mid-1970's that changed, and we've been on the political and ideological defensive ever since. For seventy percent of the years since 1968 we have had Republican presidents. President Clinton made many important progressive initiatives. But even in the Clinton years we were forced to battle the dominant conservative value frame.

To achieve realignment, we have to get out of that defensive crouch. To do that we have to forcefully, proudly, consistently stand up for those progressive values. We have to provide a clear contrast between the Right's belief in the unbridled pursuit of individual interest and our commitment to the common good; between selfishness and commitment to others; between division and unity; between fear and hope. We have to consistently assert that fundamental progressive premise: that we're all in this together -- not all in this alone.

Creamer uses the term that fits the situation precisely, "We need to move the center. We need to redefine the political center in American politics". We need a new leader who can open the eyes of the majority of Americans who were deceived by the intricate web of lies thrust upon them by these so called "conservatives" of the last 30 years. Not surprisingly, many true conservatives were the quickest to warm to Barack Obama's message - they are painfully aware of the devastation done to the Republican Party under the "neo-con" flag. The "conservatives" of the early 1970's would be called "liberals" today. And we welcome them with open arms.

I'm not exactly sure when it came about that the Republicans became the "party of the people", but I do understand what so many of "the people" didn't for so many years - Today's GOP has played to their fears, the very lowest common denominators, and used that message to grab their votes while working against the people's best interests nearly all of the time. These neo-con Repubs liked to paint progressives as "tax and spend liberals" and "elitists", while they were busy giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and passing legislation that stripped the working class of their rights. They have courted the middle class of this country as they systematically worked to destroy it!

It has taken a LONG time for people to awaken to what has been done to them behind the false smile facade of today's Repubs. But their eyes are open. . .and they are pissed as hell. . .

2008: A Tsunami Year for Dems?

A large part of the discussion on this year's primaries thus far has centered on the contest between Hillary and Barack. We progressives are extremely fortunate to have two exceptionally strong candidates to argue about! (Hi, Mary Ellen! ;). . .) That being said, and personal choices aside, the really astonishing numbers are the total votes cast by party.

Here are the numbers for just the 19 states where both parties had primaries on Super Tuesday:

Obama/Clinton voters: 14,460,149
McCain/Romney/Huckabee voters: 8,367,694

Or, 73% more Democratic voters than Republican voters.

It would appear that progressives are highly energized, extremely motivated, and attracting new voters and crossover voters at an astounding rate. In other words, in 2006 we knocked on the door - this year we're gonna knock the sum-bitch down!

America at it's Best

The Progressive Movement

65 Percent Of Under-30s Paying Attention To 2008 Election

This can only be considered good news for progressives, considering how right the kids got it in 2004 - From the New York Times:

It’s the middle of summer and months before the first vote is cast, yet polls confirm what the political cognoscenti suspect: most Americans are already tuning into the presidential election.

More than two-thirds of respondents in a New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this month said they were paying at least some attention to the 2008 presidential campaign. That is up substantially from this time four years ago, when 4 in 10 Americans were paying attention.

Attention is higher now than it was in July 2003 among both men and women and across all age groups. As was the case four years ago, older respondents are more likely to be engaged.

Still, attention among younger Americans is up considerably: 36 percent of those under age 30 were paying attention to the election at this point four years ago; 65 percent of them are now.

Attention among Democrats increased more than it did among Republicans (polls have shown that Democrats are much more satisfied with their party’s presidential candidates than Republicans are).

More than 7 in 10 Democrats are now engaged in the campaign, compared with just over 4 in 10 in 2003. That compares with two-thirds of Republicans who are now paying attention, up from about half.

Ron Burkle counters Rupert Murdock

Lefty billionaire and Clinton pal, Ron Burkle is taking on Rupert Murdock in an attempt to gain control of the venerable Wall Street Journal. An official for the Independent Association of Publishers' Employees said on Tuesday that it has held talks with Ron Burkle and claims that the billionaire investor is working with it to mount a rival bid for the company.

The union opposes the US$5 billion offer for Dow Jones from Rupert Murdoch's Faux News Corporation, as well they should. IAPE representative, Steven Yount, said Burkle had told the union that he is interested in working with it to formulate an offer for the company, which owns The Wall Street Journal and other newspaper titles. Assuming that Burkle does come through with an offer, his odds of winning will be enhanced if he satisfies two tests: 1. He pays more money than Murdoch and 2. He guarantees not to meddle in editorial decisions. There is optimism to be had on both accounts.

Mr Burkle, who made his fortune in the supermarket sector, was part of an unsuccessful bid last year for another company which publishes The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. He continually strives to purchase more media, in an attempt to begin taking back the airwaves and newspapers that progressive causes lost after the end of the Fairness Doctrine.

From Forbes:

Ronald Wayne Burkle, 54, the California-born son of a grocery store manager, worked for his dad as a box boy, dropped out of college and put in 15 years at his dad's store and the company that owned it. In 1981 he mounted a botched buyout attempt of the chain and was fired. And then he got very serious about investing, parlaying a few lucky bets on regional grocery chains into a controlling stake in giant Pathmark, management of four private equity funds with $4 billion from investors, stakes in some 35 companies and a personal fortune that FORBES pegs at $2.5 billion.

Along the way he cultivated a do-gooder image for making peace with recalcitrant unions and investing in low-income urban territories where bigger players fear to tread. He made pals of young stars, pumping $50 million into the apparel company of rap producer Sean (Diddy) Combs and rehabbing a New York City apartment as a crash pad with the actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who is 22 years his junior. Above all Burkle made some political connections. He raised millions for the Democratic Party and befriended--and now employs--Bill Clinton as his irrepressible and irresistible rainmaker.

Connections matter in private equity. A piker in a game dominated by $10 billion funds, Burkle built his fortune buying where no one else cared to go--junky companies with tense union relations, tortured finances and tattered physical surroundings. He invested lavishly in the Democrats when the Republicans controlled Congress. In recent years he has raised $50 million for the Democratic Party; Greenacres, his 50,000-square-foot mansion on eight acres in Beverly Hills, hosts up to 40 political fundraisers in a year. Now all that hobnobbing looks smart.

I'm glad this guy is a part of our team.

The Common Sense Budget Act

Do you think our government should provide health insurance to children who don't have it? Rebuild America's crumbling schools? Cut our reliance on foreign oil? Rep. Lynn Woolsey from California certainly does, and that's why she's introducing a bill that does just that - without raising taxes. Will you help her make it the law of the land?

I'm Rep. Lynn Woolsey from California, and I've just introduced the Common Sense Budget Act,¹ which I wrote with the folks at TrueMajority.org. This bill would take $60 billion in wasted Pentagon spending and use it instead on education, health care and other human needs programs that we all care about. (And regardless of how you feel about the "War on Terror", you should know that it won't take any money from our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which are funded separately.)

Retired Generals, Admirals, even a former Asst. Secretary of Defense say it's a good idea, and most of the public agree. But to make it happen, Congress needs to hear from you. Tell your Representative that you support a Common Sense Budget and ask them to join me by cosponsoring this bill.

I've been working with TrueMajority.org and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities on this issue for a couple of years. When we started, the idea of taking money from the Pentagon (even though it's money that's being wasted on obsolete 'Cold War era' weapons) to help pay for social programs was pretty novel. But in our first session, we got 38 members of Congress to cosponsor the bill, as well as state legislators endorsing the campaign across the country. And when you add their support to the list of retired admirals and generals, 700 business leaders, and the majority of the American public, we're a lot closer to getting a budget that takes care of our needs at home -- and cuts back on runaway Pentagon spending -- than we were two years ago.

Now we have a new Congress and a new tone in Washington, but we need to build even more support in order to see the changes we know are right. So please email your Representative today and encourage him or her to endorse the Common Sense Budget Act.

Sincerely,

Lynn Woolsey Member of Congress

Click HERE for more information on this act and it's impact on us all.