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
I have been glancing at The Constitutional History of New Hampshire by Susan E. Marshall, particularly the section on voting rights. She mentions how over the last half of the 20th century the state Constitution was amended with respect to voting rights, including eliminating literacy requriements, permitting voting by people who did not pay taxes, lowering the voting age, allowing absentee voting, women's sufferage (it was not until 1958 that language restriciting voting for senators to men was repealed), and most recently requiring easily accessible polling places for the disabled.
This pattern of expanding the right to vote, and making it easier to vote, is about to be broken. There are bill titles for legislation that will require "offiical" photo id in order to vote, tying voting eligibililty to car registration and drivers licenses, and something on same day voter registration which I can't decipher yet.
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.
The Washington Post reports a deal reached by Obama and Congressional Republicans will extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in exchange for extending unemployment benefits.
The deal has been in the works for more than a week and represents a concession by Obama to political reality: Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to extend only the expiring income tax breaks that benefit the middle class.
Why do we allow this? Why not call their bluff and place the blame where it belongs, on House Republicans?
Sympathetic as I am to those who would prefer a fight to compromise it would be the wrong thing to do," the president said. "The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles."
Is this a "symbolic battle"? I don't think so.
When Vaclav Havel was President of the Czech Republic, he was likened to Ferdinand the Bull, the children's book character that would rather smell the flowers than engage in a fight. Is Obama the American Ferdinand?
Steve Benen comes back again and again, and quotes others coming back again and again to what the media WILL NOT DISCUSS. He quotes Andrew Sullivan:
What we've observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party's arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years. There is not a scintilla of responsibility for their past; not a sliver of good will for a duly elected president. Worse, figures like Cantor and McCain actively seek to back foreign governments against the duly elected president of their own country, and seek to repeal the signature policy achievement of Obama's first two years, universal healthcare.
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?
(Bumped, due to the lively discussion in the thread. And I'd like to thank Seth Cohn, who represents me in my house district, for coming here and outlining his views on various issues. - promoted by Dean Barker)
This article, based on a press release from the Natural Rights Caucus shows that newly minted Speaker Bill O'Brien will have a lot to contend with from the ranks of his own party.
The Republican leadership has done everything possible to discredit President Obama and to portray him as weak, indecisive and impotent as President. As we all know, this is being done for political reasons to ensure that the Republicans can win back control of the Presidency and the Senate in 2012. While this is bad enough in terms of domestic issues, in terms of foreign policy it is dangerous in the extreme.
I'm referring to the recent actions taken by North Korea. Yesterday, November 22, 2010, the North Korean military shelled the South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island killing two South Korean soldiers and wounding 15 soldiers and three civilians. This is the latest in a series of attacks by North Korea on the South. It is also important to remember that according to press reports, North Korea has five or six nuclear warheads.
So why is this important? After all the Korean peninsula is a long way from New Hampshire. There are 28,800 U.S. service members stationed in South Korea, many of them stationed near the border with North Korea. Also there are more than 100,000 American citizens living or working in South Korea, many of them in Seoul which is very close to the border. A war between North and South Korea could kill hundreds if not thousands of Americans.
Is it possible? Currently North Korea doesn't have sufficient food to feed its' population and people are starving. Some of this is caused sanctions imposed by the United States and other countries. It is getting to the point where the population will revolt or starve to death. Second, Dictator Kim, Jong-Il's youngest son, Kim, Jong-un, has recently been made heir apparent and may be trying to prove himself. The North Korean leadership is old and conservative. Kim, Jong-un was picked because he is young and aggressive.
But the third reason is what concerns me in this blog. The Republican attacks on President Obama have portrayed U.S. leadership as spineless and impotent. We have been involved in two wars with two small and weak nations for years without any kind of victory. Our military has been stretched to the breaking point and the North Koreans may believe that it is impossible for us to interfere in their plans for conquest.
Americans have traditionally rallied around the President in times of crisis but that may not happen this time because of the Republican attacks. The Republicans have put all of us at risk and I don't think they really give a damn.
According to the "New York Times," Barack Obama is the first president to make nuclear disarmament a centerpiece of American defense policy. In April 2009, he made a speech in Prague laying out a vision of an eventual dismantling of all nuclear weapons. A year later, he announced a new nuclear strategy that narrowed the circumstances under which the United States would use nuclear weapons and traveled to Prague to meet Russia's president, Dmitiri A. Medvedev, where they signed a treaty that would pare back both countries' nuclear arsenals.
Mr. Obama then convened a summit involving leaders of 47 nations that ended with a list of specific commitments from dozens of nations to eliminate or lock down nuclear materials to help keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
The treaty, known as New Start, would bar each side from deploying more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads or 700 launchers starting seven years after final ratification. It would establish a new inspection and monitoring regime to replace the longstanding program that lapsed in 2009 with the expiration of the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, or Start.
The new pact won approval from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 2010 with the support of three Republican members. The treaty is now in jeopardy because the Republicans have come out against holding a vote before they have control of Congress. The Republicans want tens of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear weapons ability. Even through the Obama Administration has committed to spend $80 billion for this project; it isn't enough for the Republicans. With all of the budget problems we have the Republicans want to spend tens of billions of dollars to make sure that the United States destroy this planet several times over.
Are these people out of their minds? Nuclear weapons are useless. We have the power to destroy the world several times over but why would any sane leader use them. Most of you out there are probably too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and the terror we experienced knowing that the world could end at any moment. Nuclear weapons are only effective as a bluff and they are a very expensive bluff. One that we can't afford to use.
The other problem is that we need to account for all the thousands of nuclear weapons out there and make sure that they are secure so that they can't be used by terrorists. Nuclear weapons in the United States are secure but in other areas especially Russia, they are not secure. Don't believe me. Just think of all of the Russian made weapons that are already being sold around the world to insurgents and terrorists. The new agreement would allow us to send inspectors into Russia and make sure that these weapons are kept secure.
President Obama wants to eliminate Nuclear weapons and we need to support him in this effort. The Republicans who are blocking this treaty are putting all of our lives at risk.
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.
This short but pithy letter to the Editor was posted by our town historian in Northwood, who married into an old family in town, and is a feisty, strong and brave woman.
Not sure what fair use is for something this short, but I will try:
An old Yankeeism advises the farmer not to put the fox in with the chickens.
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
Miami, Florida, September 13, 2018 (FNS)-Facing pressure from voters to "do something" following the disaster caused by the privatization of Social Security, the White House today announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is awarding a $2 billion contract to the Halliburton Company for the purchase of 22,000 "cardboard condos" that will be installed in public parks around the Miami area in an effort to alleviate the problem of homelessness among the impoverished elderly.
"Having homeless senior citizens drag their appliance boxes all over the city reduces the community's aesthetic appeal and leads to complaints", said Halliburton spokesman Tendei Furlough. "The new modular design, combined with our ability to print attractive images on the outside of the boxes, guarantees both increased protection from winter weather and fewer complaints from affected neighborhoods."
FEMA's Director of Emergency Housing Resources Spike Fromula agreed: "We thought we had a real problem with homelessness in a number of our major cities after the Social Security safety net collapsed...but now, we think...well, we think we have a way to wrap the problem up in a neat little package."
(Grok goes the Full Fergus with president death "jokes." I'm sure that Sununu and that Eagle publishing subsidiary blog will get right on this. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Ugh, what is with the total inability of some NH political activists to understand that joking about the deaths of prominent current, former or potential future office holders is inappropriate, in bad taste, stupid, and, frankly, creepy and weird?
The latest comes from "Skip" at Granitegrok, who in his Friday humor posting decided that it would be a big LOL to joke about Barack Obama dying in a plane crash. Well, actually, the joke is that he does not die in the plane crash, an Iowa farmer buries him, even though Obama says he is not dead, because "you know how bad that sumbitch lies".
It is about a week before early voting begins for a bunch of us around the country, and that means this may be one of the last times I have to convince you that, frustrated progressive or not, you better get your butt to a ballot box or a mail-in envelope this November, because it really does matter.
Now I could give you a bunch of "what ifs" to make my point, or I could remind you how we spent all summer watching oil gush into the Gulf, and how that came to be...but, instead, it's "Even More Current Event Day", and we're going to visit Hungary for a extremely real-world reminder of what can go wrong when the environmental cops are considered just too much of a burden by the environmental robbers-and if today's story doesn't scare you to death, I don't know what will.
It ain't Texas, but we will surely visit a Red River Valley...and you surely won't like what you're gonna see.
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
