Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
So here it is, almost halfway through this President's first term, and it's starting to become abundantly clear that there is no way Obama is going to pursue the same agenda that he ran on in 2008.
In fact, as the President announces a deal that even he agrees the majority of the American people do not support, and he prepares the Nation for the news that we're going to have to borrow money for the very tax cuts he said we couldn't afford a few weeks ago, it's starting to look like Obama isn't even going to pursue the same agenda he campaigned for in October.
Now it is true that a lot of the problem here is the President's-but it's also fair to say that we Progressives have failed to force the President, and certain reluctant Members of Congress, to govern in a way that promotes that agenda.
That's a real problem, and it needs a real solution; before we get done today I'll offer a suggestion that could be not only highly effective, and a lot of fun besides, but a great chance to release your artistic muse as well.
I took a couple of weeks off, as Thanksgiving and snow came around (a subject we'll address in a day or so), but we are all again occupied as lots of things we've been talking about either will or won't come to pass, and it seems like all that's happening all at once.
Today we'll take on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT); this because the Pentagon's top leadership just came out and reported that revocation of the policy, following a period of preparation, would be their preferred way to go.
There will be lots of others who will take on the question of what's right and wrong here, and exactly how implementation might occur; my interest is, instead, to focus on one little fact that makes all teh rest of the conversation a lot more relevant.
That is the fact that about 70,000 LBGT troops serve in the military today, DADT notwithstanding, and, that if it wasn't for DADT, almost 45,000 more troops would be serving that aren't today.
And that one little fact leads to today's Great Big Question: exactly how much military would 115,000 troops be, exactly?
Over the course of the past couple of weeks we've been talking about how the War On Social Security was about to get under way and what happens when countries choose to privatize their systems.
Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?
We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.
"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"
That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.
A week ago the Portsmouth "Herald" reported on a talk given by Mr. Alex Ray, the owner of the "Common Man" restaurant chain, to a group business owners in the North Country. I don't know Mr. Ray or if he is a Democrat or a Republican but some of his comments apply to mistakes made in the last election.
"Your business is really dependent on what you do and not your competition. It's how you perform in the eyes of your customers, or not."
I think that this is where we made a mistake. The policies of President Obama and the Democratic Congress have had a positive effect on our economy. Government is our business and the election shows that the voters, our customers if you will, lost faith in us. However in a real sense we lost faith in ourselves long before the election. Week after week I listened to Democratic candidates talk about how bad the economy was, how we needed to cut the deficit, how we needed to take some unnamed action. Nowhere did I hear praise of the health care bill which while not perfect is a strong move in the right direction. No where did I hear President Obama's economic policies defended. I didn't hear Democratic candidates correct the misstatements and outright lies of the Republicans. In other words we abandoned our principles and presented ourselves as a confused group of want to be Republicans.
President Obama is our leader and the policies he is pursuing are the best short we have correcting the economic mess that we are in. By not backing the President we hurt ourselves and I believe cost Democrats the election.
On the road to Election 2012 we need to find ourselves again and take the leadership role. We need to be less dependent on polls and realize that we have to sell our point of view to the voters or not simply follow the polls. The Republicans, especially the "Tea Party" group, were perceived as leaders and even though much of what they said was nonsense, the people listened.
To paraphrase Alex Ray, the Republicans didn't win the election, we lost it. The voters, our customers, lost faith in us and we need to get that back. We need to change how we present our message to the voters before it is too late. The Democrats need to win in 2012.
So if you've been following my work lately, you know that there is a renewed effort underway to change Social Security, and that the fight officially began just this very morning.
Now what's supposed to happen is that a television ad buy sponsored by a Wall Street billionaire is supposed to get you enthused about cutting your own Social Security benefits in the future; this is the tip of a "disinformation iceberg" that is trying to get you to act, right now, because if you don't you will never, ever, ever, ever, see a single dime of Social Security when you get older.
I was on a "let's talk strategy" conference call today that laid out some ideas for the "next steps"; we'll be talking about that call over the next couple of stories...but for today, we're going to talk about something you can do that will bring the message right to your favorite Member of Congress.
It is my job to bring to you not just the news that took place, but the news that has yet to happen.
Today, that's exactly what we have.
There is a war coming to try to change Social Security from a social safety net to a "revenue stream" for certain corporate interests, and that war is set to begin Tuesday morning, according to information that was provided to me yesterday afternoon.
Follow along, and you'll be both forewarned and forearmed.
(The following is a letter written by my daughter, Ariana, which I wanted to share with all of you)
You may know Paul Hodes as a public servant, a lawyer, or perhaps as a musician. I know him as something entirely different and unique. With less than a week left to go before New Hampshire decides who they'll send down to the US Senate, I want to tell you what I know about my father.
My father is a man of integrity, thoughtfulness, and strength of character who can stand behind any decision he makes because it's his own. He's smart, kind, and genuinely sensitive to the needs of his constituents; the combination of which allows him to weigh different outcomes of a situation, see the big picture, and understand how individuals might be affected by different decisions.
Out of everything I know about my father, the one thing that proves his earnest desire to do good is a simple choice he made many years ago: the decision he and my mom made to raise their family in New Hampshire.
It's been a few days now since we began a conversation that addresses the issue of how frustrated some number of LBGT voters are with the Democratic Party this cycle; this because they find themselves either frustrated at the lack of progress on the civil rights issues that matter to them, or because they see both the Democratic and Republican Parties as unreliable partners in the struggle to assure equal rights for all.
In an effort to practice some actual journalism, I assembled a version of an online "focus group" at The Bilerico Project ("daily adventures in LBGTQ"), with the goal of gathering some opinions on this subject in the actual words of those frustrated voters.
Part One of this story focused on "stating the problem", and today we'll take on Part Two: in this environment, with Election Day staring us in the face, what is an LBGT voter to do?
As before, there are a variety of opinions, including a very informative comment I was able to obtain from a genuine Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania's 8th District, and that means until the very end you won't hear much from me, except to help "set the stage" for the comments that follow.
Stories begat other stories, or at least they do for me; this two-part conversation came from a comment that was made after I posted a story suggesting that voting matters this time, especially if you don't want environmental disasters like the recent Hungarian "toxic lake" that burst from its containment and polluted the Danube River happening in your neighborhood.
Long story short, we are going to be moving on to ask what, for some, is a more fundamental question: if you're an LBGT voter, and the Democratic Party hasn't, to put it charitably, "been all they could be" when it comes to issues like repealing "don't ask, don't tell" or the Federal Defense of Marriage Act...what should you do?
Now normally I would be the one trying to develop an answer to the question, but instead, we're going to be posing the question to a group of experts, and we'll be letting them give the answers.
And just because you, The Valued Reader, deserve the extra effort, for Part Two we've trying to get you a "Special Bonus Expert" to add some input to the conversation: a Democratic Member of Congress who represents a large LBGT community.
The Tea Party is coming to town. Yesterday, Sarah Palin--Kelly Ayotte's biggest supporter--kicked off the Tea Party Express' national tour.
The Tea Party's final stop on their tour will be on the steps of our state house in Concord the night before the election.
Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck and their friends on the Tea Party Express are working hard on Kelly Ayotte's behalf. Ayotte proudly accepted Palin's endorsement and groups like Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the Glenn Beck-backed Chamber of Commerce have spent millions of dollars to boost her campaign
The current American electorate is unlike any electorate most political observers have ever seen. Democrats went in to the 2010 cycle having completed their strongest electoral performances in over 40 and perhaps even 70 years. Democrats won 52% and 53% of the vote in 2006 and 2008, with 2008 being the best Presidential performance since 1964 and only the 2nd time since 1944 Democrats won more than 50.1% of the national vote in a Presidential election. Simply put more people voted for a Democrat in 2008 than in 44 years. In contrast, the Democrats went into 1994 having only won 43% of the vote in 1992, giving them a very different relationship to the electorate than the current Democrats. In essence the ceiling for Democrats is higher in this midterm than it has been in a very long time, which may help explain why the Democrats are defying conventional wisdom and gaining ground in the end game of 2010.
Some say Rove and and his bad seeds left the GOP but I am here to tell you do not accept the GOP lies-He and his friends never left!
http://beforeitsnews.com/story...
Text removed for copyright violation. Please restrict use of copyrighted pieces to short excerpts. - Laura
(Imagine the positive impact of having both Paul Hodes and Jeanne Shaheen in the Senate... now go make some phone calls or knock on some doors. - promoted by Mike Hoefer)
Yesterday, I stood with environmental leaders in New Hampshire to talk about my dedication to a national renewable energy standard. I challenged my global-warming denying opponent, Kelly Ayotte, to take a position on the issue. She responded that she would look at the proposal.
It's puzzling. Why would someone who doesn't think global warming exists think that we need to enact a proposal aimed at reducing carbon emissions? Why would someone who supports things like drilling off the coast of New Hampshire all of a sudden try to convince us she'd be supportive of renewable energy efforts in the US Senate?
In her competitive primary, we watched Ms. Ayotte move to the far-right wing of her party. Now, with the general election less than a month away, she's trying to have it both ways. She's hoping New Hampshire won't notice that big oil and coal companies continue to fill her campaign coffers as she talks about drilling off the coast of New Hampshire.
The bottom line is that Kelly Ayotte has as many doubts about global warming as I have about her ability to stand up to her special interest donors in the oil and coal industry.
Those of you who've followed my work over a period of time know that I'm usually the one suggesting moderation and keeping everyone in the big tent, and, even in this most difficult year, I'm the one telling folks that sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for the candidate that sucks less.
And even though the last thing I'd ever want is a Speaker Boehner or a Leader McConnell (or even worse yet, DeMint), the fact remains that there are two Democratic Senators I would actually vote against, even if the candidate that sucks more does win...and those two are Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Nebraska's Ben Nelson.
One of those two is up for re-election this year, and thanks to a particularly ridiculous vote by Senator Lincoln, we found ourselves in a bit of an email exchange, which is what we'll be talking about today.
As I travel across the Granite State on this campaign, there seems to be one thing the people of New Hampshire can agree on - Washington is broken. It doesn't matter if you're a Republican, Democrat or Independent. You've seen exactly what I see down there: a system that is simply not serving the needs of our middle-class families and small businesses any more. A system that has become rigged against the people it's supposed to support.
That's why yesterday I announced my proposals to change the Senate rules to increase accountability and break the partisan gridlock in Washington. Right now, Washington Republicans in the Senate are blocking a vote on a critical bill that will provide tax cuts and increased credit to New Hampshire's small businesses. My plan calls for an end to anonymous holds and gradually lowering the threshold needed to end debate and hold an up or down vote on Senate bills.
