Author: PsiFighter37

(cross-posted from Daily Kos)

Almost 5 months ago, I wrote a diary explaining that Hillary Clinton was indeed an electable candidate for the presidency. Much has changed since that time: John McCain resuscitated his campaign and is now the presumptive nominee on the Republican side, while Clinton and Barack Obama continue to battle for the Democratic nomination – although it is becoming increasingly likely that Obama will be the nominee. I decided to do a quick-and-dirty assessment of potential general election results would be if either Obama or Clinton were the nominee against McCain.

The results? Barack Obama would defeat by a large margin in the Electoral College – more than 100 electoral votes – while Hillary Clinton would barely clear the 270 electoral votes required – and that is by giving her the benefit of the doubt in Pennsylvania, where current polling shows her in a statistical tie with McCain. Follow me below the fold…
Barack Obama v. John McCain

By my count, Barack Obama wins easily: he gains 322 electoral votes to John McCain’s 216 electoral votes. Not all of these states have been polled, of course. That being said, I have taken the liberty of assigning states to either of the candidates based on historical performance. The only ones which I have colored in based on poll numbers are below:

Colorado (released by Rasmussen on 2/13)
Barack Obama: 46%
John McCain: 39%

Florida (released by Rasmussen on 2/18)
Barack Obama: 37%
John McCain: 53%

Iowa (released by Survey USA on 2/19)
Barack Obama: 51%
John McCain: 41%

Kansas (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Barack Obama: 44%
John McCain: 50%

Minnesota (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Barack Obama: 55%
John McCain: 40%

Missouri (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Barack Obama: 49%
John McCain: 43%

Nevada (released by Rasmussen on 2/14)
Barack Obama: 50%
John McCain: 38%

New Hampshire (released by Rasmussen on 2/13)
Barack Obama: 49%
John McCain: 36%

New Mexico (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Barack Obama: 55%
John McCain: 40%

Ohio (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Barack Obama: 47%
John McCain: 44%

Oregon (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Barack Obama: 48%
John McCain: 47%

Pennsylvania (released by Rasmussen on 2/13)
Barack Obama: 49%
John McCain: 39%

Virginia (released by Survey USA on 2/19)
Barack Obama: 51%
John McCain: 45%

Wisconsin (released by Survey USA on 2/18)
Barack Obama: 52%
John McCain: 42%

Obama is winning in a lot of swing states, and this allows us to win a decisive vote in the Electoral College (and undoubtedly the popular vote as well) without winning a single state in the South besides Virginia. By winning a couple of the interior Western states (NV, NM, and CO) and extending our grip on the Midwest, this will lead to an easy victory for Obama. Below is the math for the Electoral College calculation.

Hillary Clinton v. John McCain

When I do a matchup of Hillary Clinton against John McCain, the field becomes much more daunting: by my estimates, she only garners 277 electoral votes to McCain’s 261. This is a generous count as well: I gave Arkansas to Clinton – not based on polling data, but because of her history as First Lady of the state. Furthermore, I have given her Pennsylvania as well, even though she is behind in the referenced poll (see below). All in all, it’s a much tighter map. Here are the same state-specific polls that I used above for the Clinton-McCain matchup:

Colorado (released by Rasmussen on 2/13)
Hillary Clinton: 35%
John McCain: 49%

Florida (released by Rasmussen on 2/18)
Hillary Clinton: 43%
John McCain: 49%

Iowa (released by Survey USA on 2/19)
Hillary Clinton: 41%
John McCain: 52%

Kansas (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Hillary Clinton: 35%
John McCain: 59%

Minnesota (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Hillary Clinton: 49%
John McCain: 45%

Missouri (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Hillary Clinton: 51%
John McCain: 44%

Nevada (released by Rasmussen on 2/14)
Hillary Clinton: 40%
John McCain: 49%

New Hampshire (released by Rasmussen on 2/13)
Hillary Clinton: 43%
John McCain: 41%

New Mexico (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Hillary Clinton: 50%
John McCain: 45%

Ohio (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Hillary Clinton: 52%
John McCain: 42%

Oregon (released by Survey USA on 2/22)
Hillary Clinton: 41%
John McCain: 49%

Pennsylvania (released by Rasmussen on 2/13)
Hillary Clinton: 42%
John McCain: 44%

Virginia (released by Survey USA on 2/19)
Hillary Clinton: 45%
John McCain: 48%

Wisconsin (released by Survey USA on 2/18)
Hillary Clinton: 42%
John McCain: 49%

As one can tell, the situation with Clinton as the nominee is much more tenuous. States which flip in big ways for McCain when Clinton is the nominee include Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin. We also lose Virginia, making it a shutout again in the South. Clinton does outperform Obama noticeably in Ohio, as well as slightly in Missouri and Florida. However, she is also much closer to McCain in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, where the polls currently show her in a dead heat with McCain. I gave her the state because I can’t fathom the Keystone State going to a Republican – especially after the 2006 blowout wins by Ed Rendell and Bob Casey statewide – but anything is possible. In this scenario, the electoral votes count up as follows:

In this scenario, even taking away Arkansas (which is not a sure bet by far) would only have Clinton winning by the slimmest of margins. Any additional losses – such as New Hampshire – would cause her to lose the race.

Conclusion
In mid-to-late 2007, it was easy to state that Hillary Clinton was electable. Given that McCain was nearly broke and under the radar screen, just about everyone did well against the other possibilities (Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and so forth). However, in the race as it is constituted now, a Clinton-McCain showdown will force us to play defense on turf that should be ours (such as Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), while Obama would expand the playing field and would allow us to play offense in historically red states (such as Kansas and Virginia, both of which have not voted Democratic at the presidential level since LBJ’s 1964 landslide) while locking up large margins in swing states.

Simply put, at this point, Barack Obama is – dare I say it – the more ‘electable’ candidate for the Democratic nomination.

I know that Senator Russ Feingold is a hero to many of us. He was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, and he has been a voice of strong opposition to the invasion and occupation in Iraq from the beginning. That’s why I was heartened to read this article from The Nation, where Feingold plainly expresses who he supported when he voted this past Tuesday:

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a progressive icon who briefly considered seeking the Democratic presidential nomination himself, said he voted in Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary for Barack Obama.

Asked directly about his choice, Feingold answered directly.

“I voted for Barack Obama,” said the senator, who indicated that he was “extremely likely” to cast his superdelegate vote at the Democratic National Convention for his colleague from Illinois.

Even if he doesn’t formally endorse Obama before the convention, voting for someone in their capacity as an American citizen is about as close as one can get. I’m happy to see Senator Feingold support the most progressive candidate in this election.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

I didn’t have a chance to watch the second GOP presidential debate – aside from not having cable television at my home in New York, I don’t watch Fox News on principle. Nevertheless, the now-famous exchange between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani was quite telling. It’s also a sad state of political discourse in our country, particularly on the Republican side.

In essence, everything Paul said is correct. I don’t agree with his belief of the traditionally conservative position on isolationism; it was the disregard for international affairs after World War I – instituted by 3 Republican presidents over 12 years – that led to the growing ineffectiveness of the League of Nations and planted the seeds for World War II several years later. Nevertheless, it is useful to understand that not all international intervention is good intervention. I’ll quote Paul’s lines from the debate using this transcript of the exchange.

Paul: “Non-intervention [ meant to say “intervention”? ] was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us. They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now We’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican, we’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”

To anyone who has studied even the basics of world history, Paul’s statements are legitimately backed up. The West (I’m using this general term to denote America and Western Europe) has played the role of interventionists in the Middle East region ever since the Crusades, but especially more so since the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The comment about Middle Eastern politics being ‘irrational’, on the other hand, is a misguided opinion because it inherently posits democracy as the ‘rational’ political system. In that region, democracy was never a prevalent system, and the Islamic and Persian culture is much different from Western society. Despite this erroneous opinion, though, Paul largely hits the mark right on. After Giuliani responded (which I will discuss later), Paul further emphasized his point:

Paul: “I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. If we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us cause we’re rich and we’re free. They attack us cause we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us.”

Paul correctly defines blowback as it pertains to American policy in the Middle East. While it literally discusses unintended consequences, a forward-thinking person would be able to tell that unwanted intervention in a sovereign country’s affairs can lead to devastating results in the future, there was not much foresight given during the Cold War era, when numerous CIA-backed coups occurred around the world. The attacks that occurred almost 6 years ago weren’t attacks on our freedom or our way of life, as Bush stated on the night of the attacks. They were retaliation for decades of unwanted American intervention in Middle Eastern affairs.

In a neutral setting, one would expect Paul to be applauded for his level-headed evaluation of our foreign policy under the Bush administration. But there was a lot of silence after he spoke. Instead, the biggest applause line was garnered by Giuliani, who responded to Paul in this fashion:

Guiliani (interrupts): Can I make a comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack of September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. [ applause ] I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn’t really mean that. [applause]

Giuliani’s response is intellectually dishonest (and possibly ignorant). Paul never said that the attacks happened because of our previous attacks on Iraq; he mentioned it as one reason out of many. Furthermore, it reveals that the only reason Giuliani is running for president is because he believes some higher moral authority was granted to him for being mayor of the city hit hardest that day. He’s not the only person to live through those attacks – everyone did, and a fair number of us, like myself, were pretty damn close to where the attacks occurred. It’s an insult to everyone else that because he portrayed an emotional steadiness in the months after the attacks, nothing can challenge the ‘historical’ version of what occurred – even the truth.

After the debate, Giuliani was declared the winner by some in the the mainstream media and by some conservative bloggers (although, based on Free Republic’s collection of post-debate headlines, it appears that Mitt Romney did okay as well), largely on the strength of his strong, well-received (by the live debate audience) retort to Paul. The fact that such an idiotic response could be seen in a good light ties into Al Gore’s main theme in his latest book, The Assault on Reason – namely, that politics has devolved so much into sound bites and 30-second advertising that reasonable discourse no longer has a place in contemporary times. Gore makes this point clear in the book (excerpted from an excerpt):

Why has America’s public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason–the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power–remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.

[…]

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The “well-informed citizenry” is in danger of becoming the “well-amused audience.”

[…]

Unfortunately, the legacy of the 20th century’s ideologically driven bloodbaths has included a new cynicism about reason itself–because reason was so easily used by propagandists to disguise their impulse to power by cloaking it in clever and seductive intellectual formulations. When people don’t have an opportunity to interact on equal terms and test the validity of what they’re being “taught” in the light of their own experience and robust, shared dialogue, they naturally begin to resist the assumption that the experts know best.

Simply put, political discussion is no longer a discussion. It is more like a directive instead: we are told to listen to the candidates speak to us – not to engage us – and go on our merry ways. In a time when the collective attention span of the nation is swayed at the mass media’s discretion, it isn’t going to be the reasonable that gets highlighted. It will be the sensational. So what an uninformed person (like myself about the GOP presidential debate, before educating myself) gets from the spat between Paul and Giuliani is that Giuliani was right to put Paul in his place for daring to possibly suggest that the September 11th attacks were blowback for past foreign policy mistakes – and it furthers this wrongly projected image of Giuliani being a ‘strong leader’ instead of the bully that he actually is. It’s more sensational than going into a discussion on the history of the Middle East region and discovering that perhaps Paul’s assertions contained some valid points.

But that would be reasonable. And in today’s political arena, reason is dismissed.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

I have been one of the more ardent supporters of the new congressional Democratic majority since they took office in early January. In my opinion, their first week on the job was quite successful, particularly in how unified the caucus was. And when there was criticism at Daily Kos of the week-old Democratic majority about their lack of action on Iraq after 10 days on the job, I defended our congressional leadership, noting that they had already accomplished a great deal and were beginning to talk up various plans for how to put an end to our involvement in Iraq.

It’s been 2 months to the day that Democrats were inaugurated into the majority. At this point, the embarrassing lack of leadership from congressional Democrats needs to stop now. The more they fiddle while Baghdad burns, the more the Iraqi conflicts becomes our war – just as much as it has been George Bush’s war.
The first sign of ineptitude came in the Senate on the initial nonbinding resolutions: the first one was derailed 49-47 in a cloture vote. The second one garnered more support, but cloture once again was not attained by a 56-34 margin. Think about the absurdity of these resolutions to begin with. We failed to get enough votes to ‘begin’ to have debate a nonbinding resolution. What exactly is that going to accomplish? The media was playing it up to be an historic rebuke, but how historic can it be? Such a measure will end up in the tiny footnotes of history, not something looked upon as precedent-setting or meaningful.

What the initial escapade showed was that congressional Democrats, particularly in the Senate, didn’t have a damn clue what they were trying to accomplish. After Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Joe Biden (D-DE) introduced their nonbinding resolution with Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), they were promptly co-opted by a measure introduced by Senators John Warner (R-VA), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Ben Nelson (D-NE). Many in the blogosphere have praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for being a master strategist, but in his short time as majority leader, it appears that he was far better at keeping a threatened minority united than in shepherding a majority forward – and this failure to pass the weakest of statements on the situation of Iraq was the first proof of this.

What’s worse, in my eyes, is the grandstanding that has been done by the presidential candidates. Each of them have their own ideas about what should be done. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 with Reps. Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Patrick Murphy (D-PA). Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has offered the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007. Biden continues to stand by his plan to partition Iraq into three ethnics states. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has his own bill to cap troop levels. In particular, Obama and Clinton both offer specific dates by which to draw down troops. The intellectually dishonest part of offering their own separate bills is that it’s extremely likely that because of Democratic disunity on how to deal with Iraq, none of their bills will ever see the light of day in either the House or the Senate. Instead, these bills seem like nothing more than an attempt to win political points with primary voters. Let’s take Obama’s bill, for example. What sense does it make to have the centerpiece of his Iraq policy for his presidential campaign be withdrawal by March 2008 – when the election he is attempting to be the Democratic nominee for is not until November of the same year? In short, the only way Obama’s bill – or any of the other bills – has a chance of passing by the dates the candidates claim to support withdrawal by is if they take action in Congress now, irregardless of their presidential aspirations. It particularly pains me to say this of Obama, as I support him for president and because I volunteered a good deal of my time in the fall for Representative Murphy, his co-sponsor on the bill. If the Democratic presidential candidates are serious about ending the war on Iraq, why don’t they band together and offer a joint policy that incorporates the best aspects of each of their plans? That would be audacious. That would show leadership. That would show the ability to compromise in a constructive fashion, a fashion that has been absent from Washington under the current administration. And it would certainly be better than the complete lack of leadership either Reid or Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have shown on Iraq.

I don’t mean to say that there has been no leadership from congressional Democrats on Iraq. The problem is that the leaders in Congress don’t particularly seem eager to even address ways by which we can begin to bring our troops home. Representative John Murtha, an ardent critic of the war in Iraq, presented his own plan to bring the troops home. Here’s an overview:

A more sophisticated way of avoiding blame has recently been hit upon by Rep. John Murtha, who originally favored Pelosi’s “redeployment” strategy. Murtha has now introduced legislation that would deny funding for further forces in Iraq unless they are “fully” equipped, have not served in Iraq on previous tours and meet other stringent conditions, the net effect of which would be to prevent any reinforcements at all. This would effectively compel the withdrawal, fairly soon, of the troops we already have there.

Considering how poorly our troops have been armed, this would be a politically savvy method to cut off funding for the conflict, forcing the troops to come home. Even as a standalone measure, it’s something that should be considered. However, other congressional Democrats felt compelled to decry Murtha, despite the fact that he probably has more authority in Congress (other than Murphy, who fought in the conflict himself) to speak on the matter than anyone else. The source of discontent on our side, as usual, comes from out-of-touch conservative Democrats:

A lawmaker who attended a meeting of Blue Dogs Tuesday said half of the conservative Democrats who were there raised concerns about language that Defense Appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said he would include in the supplemental.

[…]

“I don’t think we should be interfering with military strategy,” said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a leading Blue Dog, when asked about Murtha’s proposed restrictions.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has said he may add waivers to the military bill that would allow the Department of Defense to circumvent Murtha’s proposed restrictions, according to press reports.

In the Senate, aside from the various propositions put up by presidential contenders, Levin is now proposing a new resolution that would be binding…even though the language is open to much interpretation and would not do much of anything to change our current predicament:

The move would not repeal the Senate’s 2002 vote authorizing the war, but instead limit the mission of U.S. troops to focus on counter-terrorism efforts such as protecting Iraq’s borders, said Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“It will not be combat in the middle of Baghdad. It will be a transition to a more limited mission of supporting the Baghdad army training and logistics,” the Michigan Democrat told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

According to Reid, we should be hearing about Iraq in the Senate soon. What plan he and other Senate Democrats will come out with, though, seems to be quite the mystery. The House doesn’t seem much better, as Democratic leadership is now backing away from Murtha’s plan. Additionally, it seems like our Majority Leader in the lower chamber is stepping back to assess the political consequences of any action taken:

“We are in the process of choosing the least dangerous, the least negative alternative,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “We’re not there; there’s not a consensus.”

If the Democrats want to act like a bunch of stick-the-finger-in-the-wind pollwatchers, they’re sure doing a bad job of doing it. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 53% of Americans want a defined deadline to bring the troops home in a year or sooner. If one looks at the general numbers when it comes to Iraq, it is clear that Bush and the Republicans are not trusted to get us out of Iraq.

In short, Democrats have got to stop trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If we campaigned to change the course of the country – especially our involvement in Iraq – we have to deliver. It took the country 6 years, but they finally woke up to the fact that the Republican claims that electing Democrats would embolden the enemy was complete bunk. They’ll turn on us just as quickly if we don’t stop our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible. We can no longer claim we don’t have the power to stop this war. We do. And trying to use the war for political gain each day that there is inaction will reek more and more of hypocrisy.

My message to congressional Democrats is this: stop fiddling around while more of our money goes to waste. Stop fiddling around with resolutions that you know will accomplish absolutely nothing. Stop fiddling around while the number of American casualties continues to increase.

Get us out of Iraq now.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Today marks the end of the first full week that the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress has been in business. Given that, I think it’d be a good idea to evaluate just how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have been performing during their first week on the job. One has to keep in mind that the House and the Senate operate quite differently, so it’s understandable that the House has been able to get more matters voted on in a quicker period of time, particularly since we are pushing through an agenda that is broadly supported by a vast majority of the American people. The Senate, though, prides itself on its style of deliberation, so it was a given that much of the legislation would not be passed right off.

Today, I’ll be taking a look at how the House has been doing. Below the fold, there’s an outline of what the House Democrats aimed to achieve in the first 100 hours of the new Congress:

Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds…

All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

With that, let’s take a look at what the votes on the major issues have been like to date. Although the votes on an issue are largely due to the beliefs of an individual representative or senator, I believe that observing party loyalty on a particular matter is a good indication of the ability of House or Senate leadership in ensuring that Democratic loyalty is well-kept.

The House

Many in the netroots were skeptical of Nancy Pelosi’s ability to lead the Democrats in the House. Given that her relationship with her second-in-command, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, is allegedly chilly, many believed it’d be better to have one of her strongest backers, Rep. John Murtha, as Majority Leader instead. Hoyer ended up winning, but the supposed friction within the Democratic caucus has hardly been visible. Instead, Pelosi and Hoyer have worked together to pass almost every single piece of legislation in the ‘First 100 Hours’ program – with plenty time to complete it. Let’s examine the votes on each of the issues to date:

* Ethics reform: This wasn’t even close. The ethics measure passed 430-1, with only the loathsome Dan Burton (IN-05) voting against the measure. Here’s a brief summation of what this bill will do:

The changes would prohibit House members or employees from knowingly accepting gifts or travel from a registered lobbyist, foreign agent or lobbyist’s client. Lawmakers could no longer fly on corporate jets. In addition, congressional travel financed by outside groups would have to be pre-approved by the ethics committee and immediately disclosed publicly.

* Pay-as-you-go: Here’s a quick summation of these rules, which were one of the cornerstones of fiscal discipline during the 1990s:

An important example of such a PAYGO system in this first sense is the use of PAYGO rules in the United States Congress. The Congress’s PAYGO rules required Congress to pay for any tax cuts with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.

These rules were in effect from 1990-2002 and are widely seen as having assisted the US Congress in maintaining budget discipline. “Those rules were allowed to lapse in the House and watered down in the Senate, which made it easier for lawmakers to approve President George W. Bush’s tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan”.

As fiscal restraint was one of the themes that Democrats ran on – given the record deficits that the Bush administration has been posting during its time in office – it’s not much of a surprise that this measure was passed with a measure of bipartisan support. 48 Republicans joined all 232 voting Democrats to pass the new rules 280-152.

• Intelligence oversight: Given the complete lack of oversight of the intelligence community under this administration – which is one of the key reasons we ended up in Iraq today – it’s clear that there needs to be more action on ensuring that the intelligence community is giving Congress all of its findings and is not cherry-picking intelligence. This passed on a largely party-line vote, with 8 Republicans joining all 231 voting Democrats to pass the measure 239-188.
• Implementing 9/11 Committee Recommendations: One can debate the usefulness of whether all of the recommendations of the 9/11 panel should be implemented, but putting their advice into effect is better than doing nothing at all, which is what the GOP seems intent on doing. With the government receiving failing grades on improving national security, this is a prime opportunity for Democrats to show that we’re the ones who care about ensuring the nation’s safety. On the GOP effort to recommit with instructions, the vote failed 198-230, but two Democrats – Jim Marshall (D-GA) and Gene Taylor (D-MS) – voted with the Republicans. Nevertheless, we passed the measure on the next vote, 299-128, with 68 Republicans joining all 231 voting Democrats (including Marshall and Taylor) to provide a veto-proof majority.
• Minimum wage increase: With the minimum wage having been stagnant in nominal terms for the last decade, the purchasing power of Americans who earn the minimum wage has decreased to its lowest level in about 50 years. Bush has said he would sign such a bill – but only with more tax cuts implemented along with it. That’s an absolute non-starter, and House Democrats were good enough to put up the minimum wage increase up for a standalone vote – and the results were resounding: another veto-proof margin on the bill, this time by a 315-116 margin. An amazingly high 82 Republicans joined all 233 Democrats in voting for a wage increase.
• Embryonic stem cell research: Since Bush’s decision to restrict federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in August 2001, the research of potential treatments for currently incurable conditions such as paralysis and Alzheimer’s has moved forward at a snail’s pace in America. The White House’s only veto has come on the same measure. Nevertheless, with a majority of the country supporting such funding, we might as well put GOP members in tough districts on the record. That being said, because this issue borders on the hot-button social issues that Democrats are sure to avoid while in power, we lost some conservative Democrats on this bill. It passed 253-174, with 37 Republicans voting with 216 Democrats, while 16 Democrats joined 158 Republicans in voting against hope. They are:

Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)
Gene Taylor (MS-04)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)

Of the above, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Shuler, and Wilson are freshmen. Wilson is somewhat disappointing; he replaced current Ohio governor Ted Strickland in Ohio’s 6th District, who was a strong advocate of embryonic stem cell research, as evidenced by this letter he co-signed to Bush in March 2001. Somewhat more surprising is that we have quite a few conservative Democrats in the Midwest/Great Lakes region. Since it’s unlikely we can flip many of the Democrats, particularly more conservative ones like Ellsworth and Taylor, we have a long way to go until we hit 290 votes, which is the veto-proof margin in the House.

* Negotiation of drug prices under Medicare: One of the big problems with the new Medicare act is that the prices of prescription drugs has risen due to Part D, which allowed for private companies to directly provide drugs to senior citizens. Here’s been the result:

Over the past five months, virtually all Medicare (Part D) plans raised their prices for the top drugs prescribed to seniors, according to a report issued today by the health consumer organization Families USA. The report, based on pricing data submitted by the plans to the federal government, contradicts the Bush Administration’s assertions that the new Medicare drug program is effectively moderating rising drug costs.

[…]

One of the most significant findings in the report is that, for 19 of the top 20 drugs, changes in the median Part D plan prices were virtually identical to the changes in Average Wholesale Price (AWP) established by the drug manufacturers. “This means,” according to Pollack, “that Part D plans are doing essentially nothing to contain the fast-rising prices by the drug industry.”

When Democrats put lowering drug prices on the agenda, Bush vowed to veto such a measure. Unfortunately, it seems like such a threat may stand up. The House voted on the measure today, and it passed 255-170, with 24 Republicans joining all 231 voting Democrats. This means that we are starting out with 257 votes to override a veto, 33 short of the required amount. It’ll be an uphill road, and it may not be a battle we win.

—–

Overall, one has to be pleased with the progress that Pelosi & Co. has been making to date in the House. There’s been a great deal of party loyalty, as Chris Bowers noted. The only bill we stumbled a bit on was stem cell research, but that’s to be expected when one has a caucus with such a wide-ranging view on social issues. For all the talk that the Democrats were in disarray because of the Majority Leader fight early on – it sure hasn’t added up to much. We still have to address the issue of interest rates on college loans, but the Democrats have a plan to address the cost of paying for college:

The Democrats’ legislation would phase in interest rate cuts over five years for undergraduate borrowers of new subsidized student loans – in which the federal government pays the interest on the loan while you’re in school – from a fixed rate of 6.8 percent to a fixed rate of 3.4 percent. Interest rate cuts would take effect July 1.

“When the interest rate cut is fully phased in, a borrower with $13,800 in debt would save approximately $4,400 in savings over the life of their loan, helping approximately 5.5 million undergraduate students,” Mr. Miller said.

We’ve been in solid command of the agenda, and now we’re going to be facing down Bush when it comes to Iraq. And Murtha is showing no signs of disappearing when it comes to the issue. Instead, he’ll be setting up high-profile hearings in his position as chairman of Defense Subcommittee of the House Approprations Committee. This can’t be a hearing that the Bush administration is looking forward to:

At a hearing on Iraq today convened by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressman Jack Murtha offered a preview of how he plans to rein in the Bush Administration, from the perch of his chairmanship of the Defense Subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee.

Murtha announced his intention to use the power of the purse try and close US prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, eliminate the signing statements President Bush uses to secretly expand executive power and restrict the building of permanent bases in Iraq.

And starting February 17, Murtha will begin holding “extensive hearings” to block an escalation of the war in Iraq and ultimately redeploy US troops out of the conflict. Murtha predicts that a non-binding resolution criticizing Bush’s expansion of the war would pass the Congress by a two to one vote. But he believes that only money, not words, will get the President’s attention.

So for those of you worried that Democrats aren’t addressing Iraq properly – they will be, soon. And the picture won’t be pretty. If Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s (D-HI) reaction to the escalation of the conflict in Iraq is any indication, we should give our representatives in the House a chance.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, summed up the hostile tone of the hearings when he told Pace and Gates that the new strategy was foolhardy at best. “This is the craziest, dumbest plan I’ve heard of in my life,” Abercrombie said. “What on Earth leads you to think this plan is going to work?”

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Everyone remembers that the immediate spin by the mainstream media and the right wing following the 2006 midterm elections was that the results was a victory for conservatism and moderation. Of course, this was a joke; despite his occasional wankery, Stuart Rothenberg got it right when analyzing this ridiculous claim:

Well, I met dozens of Democrats running in 2006 – no, not everyone, but most of them – and I can’t find much more than a couple who merit the label “conservative.” That’s not meant to be either criticism or praise. It’s merely a statement of fact.

Nevertheless, it seems that the mainstream media just won’t stop trying to interpret the election results as a drastic change within the Democratic Party. Ryan Lizza, a senior editor at The New Republic, takes a bizarre angle in today’s New York Times:

Nancy Pelosi’s carefully crafted introduction to the American people last week seemed to reinforce some stereotypes of the so-called mommy party. On the day she made history as the first woman to be elected speaker, she appeared on the House floor, surrounded by children and bedecked in pearls.

But even as this nurturing image dominated the news, the swearing-in ceremony on Thursday was notable for another milestone in gender politics: the return of the Alpha Male Democrat.

Oh, crap. The Democratic Party’s master plan to become the Manly Party will fail because Nancy Pelosi invited a bunch of kids up to the speaker’s podium! What shall we do?

In all seriousness, what the hell is Lizza smoking? Let’s examine this line of wankery a little longer.

The return of Democratic manliness was no accident; it was a carefully planned strategy. But now that the Macho Dems are walking the halls of Congress, it remains to be seen whether they will create as many problems for Democrats as they solved. After all, these new Democrats have heterodox political views that could complicate Democratic caucus politics, and their success may raise uncomfortable questions for those Democrats who don’t pass the new macho test.

I’m curious if Lizza even paid any attention to the election results. Sure, there are some people that may fit Lizza’s ideal of manliness. In the article, he points out Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-08), Rep. Chris Carney (PA-10), Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-07), Rep. Tim Walz (MN-01), Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), and Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). That’s…6 representatives of the 40 new Democratic representatives in the House, and 2 of the 9 new senators in the Senate. What about the fact that the Senate gained 2 more female senators in Amy Klobuchar and Claire McCaskill? How does Lizza’s logic stand up to cold, hard facts? (emphasis mine):

The 110 th Congress will have the largest number of women chairing committees: including Representatives Louise Slaughter, Nydia Velazquez, Juanita Millender MacDonald, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer will all head committees beginning in January 2007.

[…]

A record number of women were elected to Congress (90) and state legislative seats (1,731).

Oh yeah, there’s a real big wave of manliness sweeping over the Democratic Party and the nation.

Anyways, back to Lizza:

The architects of this strategy, Representative Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Lapp’s boss, as well as Senator Charles Schumer, are well-known political pit bulls. Mr. Emanuel won his Congressional seat by navigating the ward politics of Chicago’s old-fashioned political machine.

This is…well, bullshit. Let’s examine the representatives listed above. Patrick Murphy and Tim Walz are candidates who benefited initially from grassroots support, not because Rahm Emanuel recruited them into the race. As for the senators, both Tester and Webb were strongly supported by the grassroots. In the MT-Sen Democratic primary, Jon Tester wiped the floor with establishment candidate John Morrison. In Virginia, it was a grassroots effort to draft Jim Webb that got him into the race – not because Chuck Schumer specifically targeted him.

More Lizza:

But there may be serious risks for the Democrats’ embrace of an electoral philosophy based less on bold ideas than on bold biography. For one, the Macho Dem strategy is inherently pro-male. And Democrats have historically relied on a gender gap advantage — with women. If they tilt in the other direction, does that gap disappear?

[…]

Sure, some Macho Dems express support for, say, abortion rights but one gets the sense that ensuring Roe’s preservation may not be one of their highest priorities in coming to the Senate. It’s hard to imagine them at the next Emily’s List fund-raiser.

Here’s my problem with Lizza’s thesis. It is inherently flawed because he identifies the completely wrong reason why the Democratic Party prevailed in the 2006. We didn’t win because we ran manly men who weren’t afraid to be manly men. We won because we weren’t afraid to speak truth to power and call bullshit on the GOP. We weren’t afraid to stand up for what we believed in. Even more ludicrous is the assertion that the election of these candidates will cause a split in the party. What a joke! I volunteered on Patrick Murphy’s campaign, and never did I hear a complaint from women about his beliefs. I doubt that even single-issue groups that can give the grassroots headaches with their myopia would take issue with the election of most of these representatives.

Memo to Ryan Lizza: crawl back to TNR and dwell in your irrelevance. Crap like this just serves to discredit any credentials you have as a political analyst.

(cross-posted at Progressive Wave and Daily Kos)

Yesterday, the 110th Congress began its work in Washington, D.C. After 12 years in the oft-oppressed minority at the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid became the leaders of the House and the Senate, promising to work in bipartisan fashion. Although I wish there was a victory party for Ned Lamont (another candidate I had volunteered for this election cycle) to visit, I was able to attend one for Rep. Patrick Murphy, who won his congressional race by a slim margin of 1,518 votes. If the reception he received today from his constituents and other fans of his is any indication, he has a bright future ahead of him in the House of Representatives. I decided to catch a train down from New York to partake in the festivities.
On the train ride down, I had the pleasure of chatting a little bit with a woman and her husband (I believe) from Chester County to visit Rep. Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania’s 7th District, along with Sen. Bob Casey. It’s nice to get background as to why some people became Democrats; this lady became one because of her female relatives – the Democratic Party had hired them when it was difficult to get a job elsewhere. We also chatted about Lois Murphy’s failed campaign in the 6th District. I’ve heard from other sources that her campaign was run entirely by the DCCC and other outsiders, which pissed off local Democrats. Additionally, it seems that their GOTV operation relied entirely on piggybacking off the efforts of Gov. Ed Rendell. While the strategy worked for Casey, who blew away former Sen. Rick Santorum by 18 percentage points, it meant that there was no local operation dedicated to doing GOTV solely for Lois Murphy. Patrick Murphy, on the other hand, had a dedicated volunteer staff of over 1,000 people on Election Day – quite possibly the explanation why we fell short in the 6th District by a few thousand votes but triumphed in the 8th by a similarly narrow margin.

Once I arrived at Union Station, I headed over to the National Democratic Club with some of my fellow Penn College Democrats. Our organization knocked on over 10,000 doors this fall in support of Patrick, and it was nice to see some of the people I had volunteered with from Penn showing up to greet Congressman Murphy on his first day on the job. Before I headed inside to the gathering, I had the great honor of speaking with well-known Kossack and grassroots activist teacherken. He has an excellent knowledge on educational issues and of the political situation in Virginia. We had an excellent chat about Virgil Goode and his recent bout of insanity, the results of the recent election, and what the prospects in the upcoming years were like in Virginia and around the country. Although he had to go soon to other events for Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Rep. Nick Lampson (TX-22), it was great to meet one of the most well-respected members of the blogosphere. I also ran into blogosphere legal expert Adam B, whom I had previously met at a fundraiser with Sen. Hillary Clinton and at the victory party for Patrick Murphy.

Inside, the building that Patrick’s supporters were in was packed in. A few buses had brought down some of his constituents and supporters from Bucks County, which comprises 95% of his district. There were many new faces that I didn’t recognize, but there were also many of his former campaign staff at the event, along with some of the volunteers I had canvassed with personally, along with others I had met at the campaign office. It was a reunion of sorts, and it was great to see others who had made the trip to see the result of their efforts. Watching the proceedings was somewhat painful, in the literal sense; I had no idea that establishing a quorum and doing a voice roll call of the individual members for the speakership would take so long, so I ended up standing in one place for nearly 3 hours straight. Nevertheless, everyone had a good time. When outgoing speaker Denny Hastert appeared on the screen, he got laughed at due to the visible lack of enthusiasm he displayed while ‘clapping’. The room broke into loud cheers each time Patrick was shown onscreen; one time, he was giving what appeared to be a thumbs-up to the C-Span camera, but I later overheard that he was making the motion to a local reporter who was in the balcony above him.

After John Boehner finally stopped talking at the podium and spewing barely-subliminal conservative orthodoxy, Speaker Pelosi took the podium. The room particularly applauded her comments on Iraq, which was the biggest reason why Patrick was elected to (currently, he is the only veteran of the current conflict to serve in Congress). We then made the short trip over to the Longworth House Building, which is where Patrick’s offices are located. It was, to put it in the words of someone I spoke to there, a bit surreal to see Patrick’s plaque outside the House. It was the first ‘hard’ evidence, so to speak, that all the hard work in the fall had paid off. We had no idea when the Congressman would be arriving, as the debate on the ethics package the House Democrats wanted to pass, so while some folks went on a tour of the Capitol (I couldn’t go, as I was informed at the security checkpoint that my bookbag – a standard-sized one – was too big to be allowed through), I checked out Patrick’s new digs:

Of the bit of the tour I did listen to, I was told that many of the freshmen representatives end up in Longworth. If that’s true, perhaps Boehner had been shafted out of good office space; his office is 2 offices up the hall from Patrick. It looked a bit bigger, but it didn’t seem to be the kind that the leader of the minority would have. Too bad for him!

When news came that Patrick was heading back from the Capitol, an already-crowded hallway became even more crowded. The office was already full of people, and I would say there were close to 100 people, if not more, by the time Patrick arrived. The rock star applause he got was amazing. Earlier in the day, Representative Sestak had been walking through the halls with his family, and only a few of us had called out our congratulations to him. But when Patrick came back, there was a wild amount of cheering for him. He quickly thanked all of us for showing up, and he choked up a little from the sheer emotion of the moment. We had all worked as a team to get him to Congress, he said, and he planned on continuing to work with us as a team now that he was here. Slowly but surely, he began making his way through the crush of people who had been waiting to greet him and get their picture taken with him. There were so many people that the crowd had spilled over to the front of the office of Patrick’s neighbor, Rep. John Larson (D CT-01). Shortly thereafter, though, he told us all that he had to run back to the floor for some votes, so there were still a good many of us, including myself, who didn’t have the chance to talk with him. In the meantime, I had a chance to catch up with other volunteers and staffers from the campaign who had come down for the occasion. The team he had this time around was truly amazing, and hopefully they’ll be available in some capacity to help him out in what is sure to be one of the closest races in the 2008 election.

Some of the people who had been hanging around eventually filtered out, as the voting in the House ended up taking longer as expected. Around this time, a couple of camera crews came around to Patrick’s office. One of them was from HDNet, a station started by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, while another was from Japan. I’m not quite sure why a foreign news service would be covering Patrick…perhaps his striking good looks have made a name for him across the world. 😛 Nevertheless, the HDNet crew interviewed a few veterans who had come down to greet Patrick; they had been involved in previous conflicts, and their gear clearly stated that they didn’t believe in what we were doing now. When Patrick came back, they walked up to him and gave him an enthusiastic greeting.

As always, it was great to chat with Patrick once again. He pointed us out as Penn Democrats (our vice president was wearing a nifty pin on her suit that identified us), and he said without us even bringing it up that he’d be glad to appear at a fundraiser that we’d hosted in April and that he had attended. I asked about how he was enjoying his first day. “It’s gone okay so far,” Patrick replied. At that point, they’d had 4 votes (presumably all on the ethics package), and he’d voted the Democratic position on all of them. He thanked us for all of our volunteering our group had done for him in the fall. While we had to head out to grab a bite before catching a train back, we stayed a little longer to watch Patrick chat with other supporters. For those of us who had been waiting several hours for his appearance, it was worth it. He’s got a hugely devoted following, and it’s hard not to support a man who’s got such a bright future ahead of him. It’s the rare candidate such as Patrick Murphy that makes you truly believe in the political process again.

Just before I left, I had the opportunity to take a picture of the Murphy family – Patrick, his wife Jenni, and his newly-born daughter Maggie. What a great way for the Congressman to start a new journey in his life.

It was a great day to kick off the 110th Congress – when the House is no longer just that which belongs to the majority party. It belongs to all of us.

As everyone knows, today is the day that the 110th Congress – one in which the Democrats, for the first time in 12 years, will control the House and the Senate – is sworn into power. Personally, I’ll be catching a train in a couple of hours that’ll begin a long day for me down in Washington, D.C., where I’ll be mostly attending celebrations at the National Democratic Club and the offices of Rep.-elect Patrick Murphy. With the beginning of a new day in Congress, though, I’d like to announce the official launch of Progressive Wave, a blog where we’ll be covering our newly-elected representatives and senators in Congress.
One of the reasons we’re launching this blog is that we believe it’s important to continue covering our congresspersons after they’ve been elected. It’ll give everyone a better idea of how our new representatives and senators are doing in Congress. In time, we hope it becomes a valuable resource of information from people living in-state or in-district when the time for re-election rolls around. I do sincerely believe that because it will be local bloggers blogging about their representatives, the analysis that will be posted will come from the best perspective possible.

Although we are starting out covering a good number of the representatives and senators elected this past fall, we can always use more help. If you happen to live in the district or a state that has a new representative or new senator, we’d love to have your assistance. Blogging for us is a time commitment that is variable based on your schedule. If you like what you see, or you’re interested in the project, feel free to send an email to the address in my profile. We’ll continue to make the necessary changes to the interface as necessary; as the two of us (myself and HigherPie) are both students in college right now, we’ll keep up with the changes as best as possible.

I hope all of you pay a visit in due time. Thanks to anyone who does – this is an ambitious project, and we greatly appreciate anyone who gives us a read now and then.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

2006 is coming to a close, and in 2007, political discourse is going to be dominated by discussion about the candidates for president. In the netroots, the only candidate that is seen as anything near a ‘consensus’ candidate this time around is former vice president Al Gore. Although he has reintroduced himself to the general public this year via his accessible documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, he’s long been a favorite amongst us as a candidate for president in 2008. In the most recent dKos straw poll that includes Gore, he garners 57% of the vote, with all other candidates trailing far behind.

In recent statements to the press about the possibility of running, this is what Gore has to say about 2008:

“I am not planning to run for president again,” Gore said last week, arguing that his focus is raising public awareness about global warming and its dire effects. Then, he added: “I haven’t completely ruled it out.”

What has become clear to me is that Gore would be a great president – but he does not seem to be enthused with the idea of having to campaign for the job day in and day out. Nevertheless, many folks in the grassroots and the netroots would love to see a Gore presidential campaign. Ever since he was ‘defeated’ by George W. Bush in 2000, the vice president has become a progressive in the best sense of the word. He was one of the first to speak out against pre-emptive military action in Iraq, and he’s spoken out similarly against the Patriot Act. Of course, we are all familiar with the long-time work possible Democratic candidate for president that I truly feel comfortable supporting at this point in time. When I had a chance to see him campaign with Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen.-elect Bob Casey, and Rep.-elect Patrick Murphy a week before the election, I told him that I’d like him to run in 2008.

But, as we head into 2007, I’m going to stop considering Al Gore as a potential presidential candidate until a viable draft movement exists…because drafting the vice president into the race is the only way that he will seriously consider entering the race. And as of right now, I don’t see such a movement existing.

Why do I say this? If one does a Google search of Al Gore 2008, there are plenty of sites that state a desire for Al Gore to run in 2008. Some sites are a collection of links, others have forums, and a few have petitions where people can put their name. But overall, the Gore supporters, from my vantage point, are highly disorganized. There is certainly the passion – which is great – but there is not a clearly-organized infrastructure in place for a Draft Gore movement to effectively step in and really push for the vice president to enter the race. But one’s desires only become reality if one takes action, and I have seen very little of that. With the presidential field likely to be fleshed out in the next few months, there has to be a clear push to get Gore to run soon. I disagree with Markos’ belief that Gore can wait until December 2007 – a year from now – to declare he’s running. No matter how much grassroots support there is for Gore, there is no way he can round up the political talent, the money, and the ground game necessary to start having an impact on the race early on. The main ‘draft’ movement in the 2004 presidential election cycle that worked – the one which encouraged retired Gen. Wesley Clark to enter the race – failed largely because Clark didn’t have the money or the organization to compete effectively once he officially declared. And he entered the race in mid-September of 2003.

To reinforce my point, I’d like to reference Chris Bowers, who had this to say about a potential ‘Draft Gore’ movement back in April of this year:

What is going on here? Is there anything behind this Gore “movement” besides howling at the moon? Why is there so little action? Gore ’08 after Gore ’08 diary goes up on Dailykos, and yet most of the websites I find on this page haven’t been updated in the last month. Gore ’08 after Gore ’08 diary goes up on Dailykos, and yet there are no substantial Gore groups over at MySpace. There is no email list of any size. There is no fundraising. There certainly is no staff, even on a volunteer level. Basically, there is nothing. All there seem to be are diaries on Dailykos.

[…]

Draft Gore in 2008, but only do it if you mean it. Back up you words with real action. Don’t whine to me about how I or some other leadership element is keeping you down or preventing this from happening. Give over your persecution and get to it. The Draft Clark movement wasn’t damaged in the slightest because Markos didn’t include Clark in his Cattle Calls until a week after Clark officially announced. Instead, the people behind that movement, who included my brilliant comrade Matt Stoller, did something. Hell, they did a lot of something. They were the white-hot burning core of a new wave of progressive activists who shook the very throne of power in DC. They were a perfect example of why people pay attention to blogs now, and why what we do here does in fact matter. Actions like those are why it is now possible for Ned Lamont to make a serious run at Joe Lieberman. They were netroots activists. Are you?

I am a Gore supporter. I’d love to see him run in 2008. I would be first in line to get a ‘Draft Gore’ movement in functioning order…if I could. The fact is, given my current obligations with regards to my academics, my job, and my focus on a permanent job after college, I cannot devote the necessary time to building that movement. It’s not from a lack of passion or a lack of motivation that prevents me from doing so. Cold, hard reality prevents me from doing so.

This brings me to my challenge to anyone in the netroots community: do you really want Al Gore to run? You can wish for him to run all you want, but it is abundantly clear that if there is no strong grassroots movement to draft him, he will not run. If you do, it’s time to start organizing and making a genuine effort to get Gore into the race. If this is something you really want to occur, make it happen. With 2006 passing, you only have 2007 to work with – and it’s starting tomorrow. And if there continues to be a complete lack of action on drafting Gore, there is no reason to consider him when one looks at the current field of presidential candidates when deciding who to support.

So what will it be?

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Today is the 2nd anniversary of the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. To the general public, it’s more widely known for the tsunamis that resulted, killing over 200,000 people and causing damage of historic proportion. In Asia, today is a day of remembrance of the terrible tragedy that occurred, which was incomprehensibly followed by America’s shamefully stingy initial response. To be honest, one does not hear much about the relief efforts occurring in the region today, so I decided to read former president Bill Clinton’s Washington Post editorial on the matter. He paints an initially optimistic picture.

The homeless received shelter, the hungry were fed, disease was prevented and substantial recovery has been achieved over the past 22 months. Nearly 150,000 homes have been rebuilt or repaired and 80,000 more are being reconstructed. More than 1,600 schools and health centers have been rebuilt or are under construction, tourists are returning to the region in large numbers, and economic growth rates have improved substantially.

I’ll cover the rest of Clinton’s editorial in more detail later, but I wanted to examine his initial claim first. The numbers sound good at a cursory glance – with a total of 230,000 homes either having been rebuilt, repaired, or in the process of being rebuilt or repaired, it seems that good progress is being made. However, the homes that are being rebuilt are not up to the necessary standards to prevent such a disaster from occurring again. In the Banda Aceh province of Indonesia, a large fraction of the housing does not come close to meeting the required standards:

A network of 40 organisations monitoring the timber used in reconstruction estimates that 70 per cent of it is illegal and much of it not prepared well enough to last 12 months, let alone the 10-year minimum under guidelines set by the government’s Agency for the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Aceh and Nias (BRR).

The assessment of housing construction quality is based on a survey being compiled by UN-Habitat and Universitas Syiah Kuala in Banda Aceh which are evaluating 161 locations across the province.

Bruno Dercon of UN-Habitat said about 5,000 of the 50,000 houses completed by the end of November will need to be rebuilt. A further 7,500 will require further examination.

That’s 25% of the houses that have been built to date that are possibly not up to par. Again, these houses are supposed to last 10 years. Currently, they don’t even meet the threshold of one year. Given that less than half the houses needed – 120,000 in all, just for Banda Aceh – are built, the reconstruction period for the people made homeless could last for several more years. And with the deaths of 70 people from flooding as a result of heavy rain, it’s clear that there is a lot more work to be done to improve the situation there.

In India, it’s not just the quality of the ‘permanent shelters’ that aren’t good enough. The new residences don’t account for cultural traditions when the new housing is being set up.

Nearly two years on, more than 9,700 families are without permanent shelter and live in temporary homes of corrugated iron which often become unbearable in the summer heat.

“Prefabricated steel structure houses … have been conceived more on the basis on capacities of delivery agencies rather than community needs and priorities,” the report by the Society for Andaman and Nicobar Ecology (SANE) and agency ActionAid said.

[…]

Worse, the traditional lifestyle of the Nicobarese tribe — who make up the majority of those who lost homes — has been ignored by federal planners sitting in New Delhi more than 2,400 km (1,500 miles) away, the report said.

[…]

“It will break up tribal society completely. It will fracture it,” Samir Acharya of SANE told Reuters.

Similar to the handling of funds in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the U.S., where fraudulent use of government money has topped $1 billion and is likely to double that amount, there has also been a misuse of funds around the world as well. In India, the Comptroller and Auditor General has found a vast under-utilization of funds intended for tsunami relief. Recently, the U.S. and other nations have requested an investigation into the misuse of the donations from private citizens. Other problems have plagued the rebuilding process as well. In Sri Lanka, the longrunning conflict between the Sinhalese majority and the Tamil rebels has led to almost no progress being made, as the eastern areas of the island that were hit hardest are in rebel-held areas of the country.

However, it’s a study in contrast to see what President Clinton believes needs to be done to further make progress. Unlike Bush, who seems to strive away from talking about just how badly things are going in Iraq, Clinton recognizes that there are many hurdles to overcome in rebuilding the Southeast Asia region:

At the same time, the tasks ahead are significant in scope and cost. Some 200,000 homes must still be rebuilt or repaired, and in Aceh in particular the challenges of rehabilitating infrastructure and promoting economic development remain daunting.

So, as leaders tend to do, Clinton lays out a simple, concise 4-point plan for paving the way for a future that will help all the countries hit get back on their feet.

First, we must get better at managing risk. Climate change and patterns of human behavior ensure that more devastating natural disasters will occur in the future.

‘Managing risk’ may sound like an out-of-place business term applied to a rebuilding effort largely grounded in the goodwill of others, but it’s the main message Clinton sends is crucial: we must learn from the mistakes of the past to prevent a catastrophe on the same level occur again. Unfortunately, the increasingly volatile tendencies of nature make it likely that a tsunami could occur again. There needs to be an investment in warning systems so that no one is caught unawares like this again.

Second, we should pursue recovery practices that promote equity and help break patterns of underdevelopment.

Again, this is another forward-looking initiative that will considerably help improve the situation in the future. By ensuring that the residents of what are admittedly Third World regions can move up on the social and economic ladder, it’s less likely that the impoverished conditions that have existed will continue in a vicious cycle of sorts.

Third, we must recognize that peace is critical to any recovery process.

This is a message, as I noted above, that sorely needs to be instilled in Sri Lanka. Clinton notes that regional conflict in the Aceh province has died off as the community struggles to get itself back on its feet. Perhaps it’s a more idealistic message – peace always seems to be – but it’s important to recognize that working together is always more constructive than working against each other.

Finally, we must do more to harness the talents of local entrepreneurs and established businesses, domestic and foreign, in relaunching economies.

What Clinton seems to be advocating is an increase in microfinancing. Given that the last winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Muhammad Yunus, received the prestigious award because of his work in microfinance, there’s no reason not to go into the field. Financial firms may be understandably wary of the risk that it entails, but done properly, it can help people a great deal (the following is an excerpt from microfinancing in India):

Microfinance has gained popularity for several reasons. One, it is a much better alternative than the informal financial sector. In India for example, moneylenders charge rates of 36-72%. Secondly, members realize the value of assured long-term access to credit. Many SKS clients have been with us since inception in 1998, and have consistently taken loans each year.

This access to finance allows women to increase income, which benefits the entire household. How do we know this? Our return on investment (ROI) calculations demonstrate that most borrowers earn anywhere from 25%-200% more than the interest rate charged, due to low infrastructure costs, no tax or legal costs, and the overall capital cost that is just a small percentage of the total cost.

Although there are clearly many specific details that will require ironing out in Clinton’s plan, it’s a definitive way forward to not only ensuring that a disaster on this scale does not happen again, but that people’s lives are improved when all is said and done. Even in an editorial in a newspaper, the former president’s plan for the tsunami-stricken areas sounds a lot more coherent than the White House’s website on Iraq, which features a collection of news releases but no clear plan as to what is occurring in the conflict – or what the future holds. Compare that to the fact sheet released by USAID, which is managing official U.S. government relief. One may cringe at the $656 million we’ve spent (a mere fraction of what we’ve spent in Iraq), but at least there is a definitive list of what has been accomplished to date. It’s shameful that for all the money we’ve poured into Iraq, there’s not a list that could detail concisely just what our money has been spent accomplishing.

2 years after tragedy struck, there’s still a lot of work to be done in ensuring that the lives of millions return to normal around the world. But we’ve got a good blueprint, and we know that progress is being made – and the problems that exist can be fixed with more stringent oversight. It’d be a lesson that the current occupants of the White House should take to heart when considering what their new plan in Iraq will be.