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
UPDATE (Dean): Here's a shocker - Rotating Villain of the Day Susan Collins will still hold our nation's security and the civil rights of patriotic Americans who want to serve hostage until they feed the rich first:
Collins reminded Reid that Republicans don't want to debate anything until the tax issue is resolved. "I have urged the majority leader to postpone the vote...so that we could get the tax bill considered first -- which I believe could be on the floor tomorrow -- and completed by Saturday, and then move immediately to the DOD bill, but under a fair agreement."
I think the funniest (saddest?) part in all this phony theater is that I got a call from OfA Urging Me to Call Gregg!!! about one second before learning this. END UPDATE.
From TPM
Harry Reid may attempt to push a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell onto the Senate floor today, a move that few expect to result in an end to the ban on openly gay servicemembers in the military.
This morning, Reid announced on the Senate floor that a push for cloture on the defense spending bill that includes a repeal of DADT could happen as early as this afternoon.
No one expects this to go anywhere. Why is Reid so eager for a defeat?
The news hasn't been good the last couple of days. From Obama's compromise with the Republicans to keep the Bush tax cuts, to the death of Elizabeth Edwards, things seem pretty bleak. Luckily, our Democratic US Senator Jeanne Shaheen is representing us in Washington, DC, advocating for the extension of unemployment benefits, and the START II Treaty
"I fear a delay means killing the treaty, and I think practically there are serious national security consequences," Shaheen said. "This would badly damage the president's efforts to reset the relationship with Russia."
"Diplomacy and credibility in international relations are all about whether people can trust in those relationships," said Shaheen, who noted that nuclear treaties have won Senate endorsements consistently over the past 50 years. "What does it say to people if we suddenly reverse the course of every president since JFK?
She also expressed skepticism about the recent tax cut deal.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, replied, "I'm disappointed, particularly on the estate tax."
"
It's a concern, its also a concern about what happens two years from now, whether we are really going to have the will to deal with the deficit and deal with that," said Shaheen.
In addition, Shaheen's office helped a friend of mine get her home off of the auction block. They accomplished in one day what my friend had unsuccessfully tried to do for nine months: reach a loan processor in a giant out of state corporation. (And the Republicans want to allow health insurance purchases across state lines?)
After reading Jack's post from Politico about Ms. Ayotte's response to E-Mail-Gate 2.0, and wondering why as a simple matter of personal integrity Ms. Ayotte would refuse to fire an employee who would make wildly abhorrent jokes about her prosecution of an ongoing capital punishment case, I wondered who is Rob Varsalone?
1) First, her "friend" Rob Varsalone was hired in June to be her campaign strategist.
Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) has told a group of national LGBT Democrats he would work to end DOMA should he be elected to the US Senate.
and
Hodes, a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. House that would overturn DOMA, and would be one of a very few senate members who supports marriage rights for same-sex couples should he win in November.
This is great news - and we can all be proud of Congressman Hodes for standing up for justice and equality.
Now if we can only get him to stop supporting war....
On June 10th, we all celebrated the defeat of the Murkowski resolution, which would have gutted the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide pollution. Why we needed to defeat Murkowski was explained well by NRDC Action Fund Executive Director, Peter Lehner, who wrote the following prior to the vote:
EPA's proactive lead in greenhouse gas regulation is a critical aspect of the effort to reduce our rampant, destabilizing, and destructive dependence on foreign and offshore oil. While the endangerment finding does not, in itself, prescribe regulations, it provides the legal basis for critical standards: EPA's proposed CAFE efficiency standard for light-duty vehicles is projected to save over 455 million barrels per year, and an anticipated standard for heavy-duty vehicles will save billions more. Stripping EPA of its authority to implement these protections would increase our nation's dependence on oil and send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas. We cannot afford this big step backward, especially as we watch more oil gush into the Gulf each day.
In the end, the Senate didn't take that "big step backward" on June 10th, as the Murkowski resolution failed by a 47-53 vote. Many of us probably figured that was the end of this issue, and that the Senate would now move on to passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Unfortunately, as is often the case in Washington, DC, it isn't that simple (let alone logical).
Today, clean air and public health are once again under an assault that constitutes, essentially, "Murkowski Part II." The Wall Street Journal reported on June 22:
As U.S. Senate lawmakers attempt to determine the fate of energy legislation, an influential Democrat is boosting efforts to suspend a controversial greenhouse-gas rule passed earlier this year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
After introducing a bill to impose a two-year halt on the new EPA rule, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia, is now working to round up supporters for his legislation.
It should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable. As we all know, the public was outraged at Senator Murkowski's Big Oil Bailout bill. They understood that this moved the country backward, not forward, and that it was exactly the wrong way to go given the energy and environmental challenges we face. Through all our efforts, our phone calls and emails (and blog posts and tweets, etc.), we helped to kill Murkowski Part I. Now, unfortunately, Sen. Jay Rockefeller is pushing Murkowski Part II, yet there's far less attention being paid to this effort than to the Murkowski's EPA Castration Resolution Part I. People have a lot of other things on their minds, and they thought this fight was over back in June. But, once they find out that this effort is baaaaack, like a monster in a cheesy horror movie, they are not going to respond positively.
Of course, why would the public - which overwhelmingly supports taking action to promote clean energy and deal with climate change - ever respond positively to a proposal aimed at throwing away one of our key tools to cut pollution and protect public health? And why would they respond positively now of all times, as oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico, as record heat waves scorch the United States, and as climate science is strengthened every day that goes by? Last but not least, why would they support an effort to protect the corporate polluters and not all of us who are being hurt by that pollution?
The bottom line is simple: instead of wasting its time on legislation that will only move the country backwards - towards dirty energy forever - the Senate should be busy passing a bill that moves the country forward towards a bright future of green energy, clean tech jobs, energy security and climate protection. Once our Senators hear that message loud and clear from all of us, Rockefeller's Murkowski Part II will be rejected by the Senate, just as Murkowski Part I was before it.
Below is an e-mail from Mark Connolly regarding his run for US Senate.
For the past few days I have talked with friends, family-and friends new to me- about the idea of running for the Senate. I have decided not to do so and will support Paul Hodes. Let me say that everyone has been respectful to the process and no one at any time suggested it was wrong and no one told me what to do. The input was revealing and helpful.
First, for me, it is best to stay the course in terms of helping those harmed by the Financial Resource Mortgage fiasco. The time is ripe for meaningful regulatory reform in this state, and I have long advocated that we need to diminish the influence of those who do not believe in active regulation. The days of a regulatory-lite culture in New Hampshire are over. I understand the issues at hand here and while am tempted to put my long-standing work with regulators in other states to continue to help fix a Wall Street mindset of financial exploitation, the first step really begins at home, and I feel this is the time to make it happen here. Now.
Second, I support Congressman Hodes because he is best positioned to take on all the issues that are important to Democrats. He has paid his dues to run. Bill Binnie has not, and I just believe it wrong to attempt to spend one's way to Washington. That is part of the problem and meaningful campaign finance reform is long overdue. Kelly Ayotte has received a lot of money from special interest sources, like the oil and gas industry-- interests who do not represent what is best for New Hampshire or our nation. She also talks about transparency and action, but her tenure as Attorney General oversaw regulatory matters that went unaddressed, and the management of that office resulted in important matters having been missed.
Thank you for taking the time to let me know your thoughts, and I thank all those who reached out to say, "let's take on Washington." Paul Hodes is best able to do that now. Not me. Over the past few days, I have had the opportunity to talk about issues with people like Jay Surdukowski and Dave Allen. These young people are our future-energetic, honest and thoughtful-and who will continue to make a difference and are a huge part of the reason why this country still has brighter days ahead. Happy Birthday, Jay, you have the pragmatic idealism of JFK and the impish smile of Hugh Gallen. And a special thanks to Ray Buckley, who leads a great state party and has long advocated a robust and open dialogue. It is now time to close ranks. Thanks for listening. Mark
WMUR is reporting that former NH AG and Republican candidate for US Senate Kelly Ayotte will be called to the joint NH House and Senate committee investigating the collapse of the alleged Ponzi scheme.
The chairwoman [um, that would be Senator Maggie Hassan, JD] of the legislative panel confirmed Thursday that Ayotte will be called to testify. The attorney general's office released a report recently that said its office, the Banking Department and securities regulators could have taken action against FRM.
Investors lost millions of dollars in this. We need to find out what went wrong, and hold those responsible accountable.
(Thanks for stopping by Congressman. Only 160 days until we get to vote for you to be the next Senator from the great state of New Hampshire. - promoted by Mike Hoefer)
For 43 days, thousands of barrels of oil have been spilling into the Gulf Coast. 43 days of environmental disaster because big oil companies were given a blank check on offshore drilling with little regulation and poor oversight.
Now, with the recent failure of the "top kill" strategy, there is no end in sight to the amount of oil that is spilling into the Gulf. This spill is poisoning our waters, suffocating our plants and wildlife, and jeopardizing the health of our citizens - threatening jobs, businesses and communities along the Gulf Coast.
My thoughts and prayers are with the people and communities down on the Gulf, who are dealing day and night with the devastating aftermath of the spill.
This disaster was a warning sign. When government puts the profits of Big Oil first, when politicians listen to special interests instead of the people they are supposed to represent - then we put the safety of our workers, communities and economy at risk.
If we wish to know where candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senate Kelly Ayotte stands on the issue of a woman's right to bodily integrity, aka the "right to choose", we can surmise from present associations and past actions that she is an anti-choice extremist.
Why else take a law that was found unconstitutional over and over again all the way to the US Supreme Court, against the will of the Governor?
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who replaced Heed in 2004, appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States over the objections of Benson's successor, Governor John Lynch.
From an article in USA Today (bold mine)
The justices said they would review a lower court decision that struck down New Hampshire's 2003 parental-notification law because it lacked an explicit exception for health emergencies.
In other words, her actions show Ayotte believes it is better for a young woman to die or have permanent damage to her health rather than to be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without special permission. If that isn't extreme, I don't know what is.
Last I looked, New Hampshire was a pro-choice state. And it's a bipartisan position, or at least it was.
Also, it seems palling around with Palin and her ilk in DC was more important to Ayotte than shedding light on the FRM debacle If serving the people of New Hampshire, rather than right wing ideology, is her goal, that would have been a better use of her time, in my opinion.
An article in Politico looking at the problems the investigation into the FRM Ponzi scheme may cause Ayotte's US Senate campaign includes this bombshell: It appears she had her calendar and e-mail correspondence scrubbed from the computer system before leaving office as New Hampshire Attorney General. Why?
According to an open records request made by Democratic operative Geoffrey Andersen and obtained by POLITICO, Ayotte's calendar and e-mail correspondence were removed from the state attorney general's computer system when she stepped down last summer.
"You requested a copy of General Ayotte's official schedule from June 1, 2003 to the present. The calendar was removed from the computer system when she left office and thus is not available for public disclosure. Her email correspondence was similarly removed from the system as of her departure date," wrote Ann Rice, an associate attorney general in the Criminal Justice Bureau, in response to Andersen's request.
Asked if it was normal protocol to remove those records from the system once a public official left office, Rice said she could not say.
Update: NH Political Report has posted Rice's letter
Another excellent article on Energy Security and Regulation! Enjoy!
Energy Security and the Regulation Imperative in a New Economic Era
Did the economic crisis stabilize oil prices? What is the future of energy security? Has China bypassed the United States in the green energy revolution? How will the global community approach the "fourth corridor" pipeline in relation to Iranian power and Russian resurgence?
Dr. Daniel Fine, research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, addressed a diverse set of energy-related questions at The Fletcher School on September 15. The presentation was part of the International Security Studies Program Global Speaker Series.
Dr. Fine indicated that Saudi Arabia views the current price of oil, roughly $70-75 per barrel, as reflecting a price that is both fair and natural. The 2007-2008 price spike, which increased the per barrel price 220% over its 2005 level, was accompanied by a mere 2.5% increase in consumption. According to Dr. Fine, this undermines the oft-cited argument that consumption spikes drive price increases.
The real story of runaway oil prices, Dr. Fine said, lies in the enormous amount of available credit in the 2007-2008, which allowed speculators to buy and hold massive reserves, disturbing traditional forces of supply and demand. Combined with a global finance system that neglected deposits and encouraged rampant buying and a lack of regulation, this perfect storm brought the financial world to its knees in September 2008.
As the global economy shows signs of recovery, Dr. Fine urged the audience to ignore speculators. So-called "geopolitical analysts" on major news shows, he said, are often self-interested frauds with no actual training in geopolitics, serving only to promote a product (oil, gas, or energy) and make faulty predictions.
In the framework of energy security, Dr. Fine cited President Obama's speeches in Cairo and on Wall Street, as evidence of the administration's movement away from hard power "oil politics" and toward Joseph Nye's conception of soft power. Dr. Fine cited President Obama's Cairo speech as the backbone of a new regional policy in which the United States will move away from energy independence and toward energy interdependence, working alongside the global community and with regulators to ensure transparency.
The new geopolitics, Dr. Fine noted, focus on the location of and environment that surrounds oil supplies. He indicated that this symbolizes a shift from "great salesmanship" to true political geography with an associated acknowledgement of the reality of sector specific risk. In this context, Dr. Fine discussed the "fourth corridor" pipeline route, popularly known as Nabucco, which will stretch across the Caspian Sea to Austria. Turkey's attempts to claim 15% of the overall revenue would, if successful, render the proposed pipeline uneconomic, while the tumult in Georgia poses enormous political risk to the project. Russia, which holds a virtual monopoly on European natural gas supply and is dabbling anew in great power politics, is vehemently opposed to Nabucco. This is one of the reasons, Dr. Fine stressed, that Russia does not want to see regime change in Iran; the current anti-Western hard line ensures Iran's illegitimacy in the West and thus prevents Iranian oil sales to Western powers.
Dr. Fine also touched on China and its crucial coal factor. China will inevitability decline the carbon emissions cap to be proposed at COP15, and India, along with other developing powers, will follow suit in rejecting emissions caps. But Dr. Fine argued that China's emphasis on carbon capture synchronization, or CCS, demonstrates its relative advantage over the West in certain green energy issues.
Dr. Fine concluded by citing President Obama's recent hard-line regulation speech on Wall Street as an outline of future policy. If regulation fails, Dr. Fine indicated it is likely that a pricing bubble will return in concert with a buying surge. But with regulation, and with stringent enforcement by both the U.S. and Europe, a permanent cap on oil prices can be established that will maintain transparency and coincide with the fair and natural price.
Senator Tom Coburn, (R-OK) takes up where Sen Jim "Tough Sh*t" Bunning (R-KY) left off. Coburn and the US Senate Republicans blocked an extension of unemployment benefits.
But it wasn't only unemployment benefits that expired: the same package that the Republicans blocked also included extenders for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). And the critical nature of NFIP was brought into the spotlight this week, as many northeastern states have been battered with record amounts of rainfall, which has led to widespread flooding.
The strategy is to block the benefits, flood insurance, etc. and blame it on the Democrats.
Meanwhile:
According to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, there are 5.5 million flood insurance policy holders in flood plains, and as of this week, homeowners were rendered unable to renew their policies. If any of those homeowners were victims of the current flooding, they will "face complications" filing claims. As Blain Rethmeier, spokesman for the American Insurance Association, put it, "it's unfortunate that the NFIP has fallen victim to the political process":
And where do candidates, Ayotte, Binnie, Bender, Lamontagne, stand? What is more important to them, politics or public service?
(Pep talk from the soon to be junior Senator from New Hampshire. Part put below the fold by me. - promoted by Jennifer Daler)
Over the last six months, we've all seen the stories about how Democrats have suffered some electoral and legislative setbacks. And to add insult to injury, many in our party and the pundit class have predicted that all is lost for Democrats in 2010. They say we don't have a chance to win in November, and in the meantime, we won't accomplish anything the American people desperately need: good jobs, a new energy strategy, quality health care, and a safer world.
There are lessons to be learned from the last year, but wimping out isn't one of them. Losing a special election in Massachusetts and seeing Democrats retiring in the Senate does not mean that we should back down from what we believe in. It doesn't mean we should give up on quality, affordable health care for every American. It doesn't mean we should give up on working for a new energy strategy for the 21st century. And it certainly does not mean we should give up on fighting for the middle class families that put us in office.
I have one message for Democrats around the country: Get over it. It's time to pick ourselves up and work together to get done what we set out to do and win in November.
We know our ideas are better than what Washington Republicans have to offer. We truly care about the middle class while the Republicans are in the tank for insurance executives, oil companies, Wall Street bankers and the special interests in Washington. Our agenda would help rebuild the middle class in America. Their agenda would keep the status quo, or worse still, take us backwards.
Today's Quinnipiac poll says it more clearly than I ever could - the special interests and their hold over the US Senate has taken a bill the people wanted and twisted it into something they don't (boldy mine):
As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent and disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Barack Obama's handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Now for the part that will make you want to bang your head against the wall repeatedly:
While voters oppose the health care plan, they back two options cut from the Senate bill, supporting 56 - 38 percent giving people the option of coverage by a government health insurance plan and backing 64 - 30 percent allowing younger people to buy into Medicare.
Oh, and the Medicare buy-in? It had 50% support among self-identified Republicans.
Harry Reid just finished a press conference where he announced the bill going to the Senate floor will have a public option, but individual states will be able to "opt out" of this. They'll have until 2014 to do so.
Daily Kos live-blogged it.
Update 1: Consensus reached in caucus, and with White House. The public option not a silver bullet, but key to providing competition. Best way to move forward is public option with opt-out. States can determine if it works for them. Will include in bill that will be submitted. Sending it to CBO.
Update 2: Strong public polling on public option makes it a good idea. The people want it.
President Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will most likely not be on board, as the so-called "trigger option" is not going to the CBO. It seems there will not be any Republican votes for this bill. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AHIP) is also questionable. Hopefully she can be convinced by the strong support the public option has, rather than by the insurance lobby's lust for the status quo.
So, things are moving in DC. We'll see what happens with this and the bill that emerges from the House of Representatives.
More (Dean): The White House responds (via email):
STATEMENT FROM PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS ON HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM
"The President congratulates Senator Reid and Chairmen Baucus and Dodd for their hard work on health insurance reform. Thanks to their efforts, we're closer than we've ever been to solving this decades-old problem. And while much work remains, the President is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He's also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition."
This editorial from the Nashua Telegraph was picked up by the folks at Talking Points Memo yesterday. TPM's Eric Kleefeld did pick the best quote, describing the fact that the NH-GOP has not endorsed Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte, as we remember, was basically recruited by outgoing Senator Judd Gregg (R):
Sununu is not jumping on the bandwagon. In fact, he's downright combative. "I hope the NRSC understands that New Hampshire doesn't really respond well to having candidates designated from outside the state,'' he said, in anticipation of a national GOP endorsement.
Now the Telegraph is interpreting this as a good thing for the New Hampshire Republican Party, a sign of its "deep bench".
The Senate Finance Committee today voted to pass the Baucus Bill. Although it isn't perfect, it's the first step in getting health insurance reform through at the federal level.
Although it's still far from over, I don't believe we've been this close before. Also, I had a conversation with a fiscally conservative Republican acquaintance today and he is for health care reform. At the grassroots this is a bipartisan issue (even if the Beltway Republicans don't see it). Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voted with the Democrats on the committee to pass it, although she stated her vote in committee does not guarantee a yea vote on the floor.
With a vote in the Senate Finance Committee scheduled for tomorrow, the health insurance lobby is mounting a last ditch effort to derail the Baucus bill.
But it seems that AHIP is unwittingly making the case for a public option, perhaps better than anyone else could.
An industry funded report done by PricewaterhouseCooper's claims the Baucus bill will cause premiums for already insured people to go up, $1700 a year for a family and $600 a year for a single person.
Ezra Klein points out that PricewaterhouseCooper has expertise in this field.
In the hallowed tradition of the tobacco and energy industries, the health insurance industry has commissioned a report projecting doom and despair for those who seek to reform its business practices. The report was farmed out to the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has something of a history with this sort of thing: In the early-'90s, the tobacco industry commissioned PWC to estimate the economic devastation that would result from a tax on tobacco.
