GOP Continues To Say, "It's My Way Or No Way!"

On Face the Nation on Sunday Feb. 1, Mitch McConnell says the GOP is going to require sixty votes for the stimulus bill to pass, but doesn't want to call it a filibuster.

Since the Democrats always allowed cloture votes (stealth filibusters) and never actually made Republicans stand on the Senate floor and publicly filibuster in front of the Senate cameras in the 110th congress, McConnell's "sixty vote" statement is not surprising.

Transcript:

Schieffer: If it came to it, would Republicans filibuster this bill if it was not to your liking?

McConnell: Well that term is thrown around a lot. In the Senate it routinely takes sixty votes to do almost everything. It doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to slow a bill down. But a super-majority is required for virtually everything in the Senate and certainly for something close to a trillion dollars for a spending bill, it will.

It certainly did not routinely takes sixty votes to do almost everything in the Senate during the years Republicans were in the majority and controlled Senate business.

Both Texas’ senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) and John Cornyn (R) have voiced their staunch opposition to Obama's $819 billion stimulus plan. “I read the bill in vain for any real stimulus in the economy,” Cornyn told the Dallas Morning News. Senator Hutchison told the Plano Chamber of Commerce that she could not support President Barack Obama's proposed $825 billion non-stimulus package at a Jan. 23rd luncheon meeting. Both Texas’ senators are positioned to filibuster Obama's economic stimulus package. Hutchison, Cornyn and Republicans as a whole ignor the CBO's report that says 78% of the Stimulus Bill will hit the economy over two years.

Remember when Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate they accused Democrats of being obstructionists for just mentioning the word "filibuster" in response to Republicans pushing very partisan legislation through congress during the Bush Administration years? Ranking Republicans in the G.O.P controlled U.S. Senate, threatened the "nuclear option," against Democrats, which would have eliminated filibustering from congressional rules leaving Democrats with no voice in the Senate - period. The threat worked - Senate Democrats dropped their talk of filibuster allowing Republicans to pass very partisan legislation and confirm extreme right-wing judges, effectively unopposed. Ultimately, this left Democrats with no voice in the Republican controlled Senate anyway!

Republicans were singing a different tune after they became the minority party in the 110th Congress. The number of cloture votes (stealth filibusters) forced by Senate minority Republicans skyrocketed in the 110th Congress following the Democratic takeover of the Senate in Jan. 2007.

So, before Republicans were for using the filibuster, they were against it - A clear flip flop!

The Senate voted on 112 cloture vote motions (stealth filibusters) in the 110th congress controlled by Democrats, exactly double the number (56) of cloture votes in the 109th Congress, when Democrats were in the minority and Republicans were in control. The 110th congress cloture motions were two-and-a-half times as many as the average number of cloture votes (44) over the previous nine Congresses. Of these cloture motions, 51 were rejected, meaning that Republicans succeeded in filibustering an up-or-down vote because at least 41 Republican Senators merely said they would vote against ending debate to allow a floor vote. On the 61 cloture votes to ending debate that passed, defeating the stealth filibuster, Republicans at the very least successfully stalled for time.

With the Republican minority numbers slipping to just 41 Senators for the 111th Congress (assuming Al Franken D-MN is seated) Republicans seem prepared to use the threat of filibuster (cloture vote motions) to stall legislative business. Republicans forced the legislative pendulum to the far right during the Bush years and they are determined to do everything possible to keep it there.

Should the Democrats Change the Senate Filibuster Rule to make it more difficult for Republicans to stall Senate business in the 111t h congress as they did in the 110th congress?

Ms. Magid Goes To Washingtion

By Linda Magid

I worked on a local Democratic campaign here in Texas last election. My candidate lost, but Obama won. I was so thrilled that I committed to going to the Inauguration and raised money to do it. Here is my account of my trip. Enjoy living the moment again - victory is sweet, ain’t it?

I arrived on Sunday and my girlfriend, Mary, picking me up. I wish I had gotten in earlier and attended the concert on The National Mall - that was definitely the mood I was in. Dancing, hollering, hugging strangers…a party. Not that I had much choice about it. I wouldn’t realize until the actual Inauguration how serious the ceremony is. Mary, James and I had dinner and then they put their two girls to bed. I sat in the kitchen and read emails, surfed the web. It was so nice to spend an entire evening with nothing to do. In those quiet moments, the word “vacation” came to mind. “So this is what a vacation is like!” I thought.

I made plans with Caroline, my other friends from college who lives in the D.C. area, for the next day and went to bed. Caroline met me in Adams Morgan for a day of MLK Day events.

We picked a walking tour called “From Slavery to Freedom,” teaching us about the history of slavery in D.C. through the man who owned the land and his slaves.

It seemed very loosely structured at first - anyone who knew anything about history of the area could come up and talk. This freestyle lecture style was the only thing “loosey goosey” about the event.

The level of research this group conducted was outstanding. It really made me feel so far from any kind of academia. We got a list of the entire family of slaves associated with the land and how much the owner was paid after emancipation (a law was set in D.C. to pay the slave owners once slaves were emancipated). This information is almost 150 years old! Ends up that this whole walking tour is meant to build awareness about important landmarks in Adams Morgan that the citizens are fighting the government to save, like a cemetery with 7,000 graves that is now a city park. Of course, I gave to the cause.

Once that was done, Caroline and I went to eat lunch and found a delightful Turkish restaurant.

(But not before running across this funny poster and a cool kiosk).

The Turkish restaurant was very swank, not kitsch, and had awesome food. I love cities!

After lunch, we headed to the National Cathedral for an MLK Day concert. This is the cathedral where MLK jr. gave his last sermon before going to Memphis, where he was assassinated. A rapper was the MC (lead us in a vicious rap, too. It was great!), we heard three spoken-word poets, a sixteen year old hip-hop violinists and a hip-hop choir. The crowd was dancing, singing, celebrating. A couple of times I wanted to burst into tears from joy, but I felt embarrassed. It would have been the kind of sobbing that you do with your face in your hands. I couldn’t allow myself to do it, though.

The concert lasted 2 hours. Caroline and I were pretty spent so we grabbed some coffee before heading back home. I used her phone to call Mary and check in when I got the news: Mary got a new ticket in the purple section so I got her ticket in the silver area!! I was holding out for a miracle and it happened. This meant that I would be in a secure area with a controlled number of people. That night Mary and I picked up the tickets (given to us by her friend, the Chief of Staff for a North Dakota Representative), and mine looked more like an invitation - including an official seal. I had a chance to thank our benefactor in person - he didn’t think it was such a big deal, but he works in D.C. He didn’t realize I was representing all of you as well!

At 4:45am on January 20th, I arose and got ready for our day. Mary and I caught the 5:30am commuter train, which was not at all crowded. This train has fewer stops and you have to take the exact train on your ticket.

I got off at L’Enfant Station, which was closest to the Silver ticket gate, and Mary moved on to her stop near the Purple ticket gate. Here’s a photo of the dark streets, blocked off from all traffic except for buses and emergency vehicles.

(I found out later that the parking lot of Metro station near Mary’s house was already full by 5am.)

People were everywhere. I knew that 2 million were coming but I couldn’t imagine what 2 million people looked like up close. It looked like a mob scene.

Eventually I found the Silver ticket line and met up with three college women. We stuck together the whole time, linking arms as we weaved through the crowd. Our line wasn’t much of a line, as you can see in the photo.

10,000 people were given silver tickets. I didn’t want to believe it when I was told, but the number of people rushing toward the gate gave me a wake up call. Our little group moved through security and ran into the open area where we planted ourselves. It was 8:30am.

I was in the back part of the Silver area, but once they opened up the gate to let more people in front, our group made a run for it.

That is how we got close to the reflecting pool. It is funny because we moved around a lot, trying to get a decent view of the capitol bldg while also being able to see a jumbotron screen.

That is why that tree is blocking the building in the photo and also how we ended up surrounded by a seriously raucous group. (The second photo below is a close up view of the capitol steps blocked by the tree.)

They knew who everyone on the screen was. . .

When Joe Lieberman come up on the screen we booed. When Ted Kennedy came up on the screen, we cheered and chanted his name. Judge Thomas got booed, and someone yelled, “Hold on, everybody. We still got Scalia!” and people cracked up. It was like being in the Coliseum!

We cheered for all of the Democratic Presidents, of course Clinton getting most of the love.

We sang, “Hey, Hey, Good-bye” when Cheney showed up in his wheelchair, and I admit I sang it loudly. (Some might say that is disrespectful, and, well, I have to say I agree. Which, basically, is why I did it.)

As you all know, when the Obama family was shown, the crowd went wild. When Obama himself was on the screen, when he walked out of the Capitol building, we went out of our minds. We all laughed at the Oath Gaffe because we thought he messed it up due to the sound delay. And when the Oath was done, the crowd simply erupted. For days I was waiting to weep but when the time came we all just screamed our heads off. I hugged everyone in the area. It was pure joy. I stayed for the rest of the Inauguration but it was hard to hear because people were leaving.

When it was done, I moved along with the crowd back to the edge of the Mall, and in a final moment of victory, I got to see George Bush ride off to Texas in his helicopter. We waved and sang that same “Goodbye” song with great satisfaction.

The moment went quickly, that public acknowledgment of Obama becoming our President. I wish we could have had a band there to dance in the streets. Instead 2 million people wandered the streets near the Capitol Building looking for food and a place to warm up. It got a little scary when I didn’t think we would find either but eventually Mary and I got our bearings straight and got what we needed.

People were generally helpful but certainly everyone was taxed. I saw several people who needed medical attention (and got it) and the police walked through a building calling out for a missing 9 year old girl (don’t know if or when they found her). The city wasn’t prepared for us as evidenced by the garbage all over the city - not all of it was simply dropped in carelessness. They didn’t have enough garbage cans. That was sad. However, we waited in line patiently and made room on the floor to rest. We smiled at each other knowing that we shared a special moment together even though we are strangers.

And when 5:15 came, Mary and I made our way back to our train and rode home tired, chilled and gratified. Our country did the right thing and we were there to witness it.

Linda Magid was Tom Daley's campaign manager when he opposed incumbent Sam Johnson in the 2008 election for the Texas 3rd Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The New Communications Channel For Politics

TWITTER comes to DC

There have been a few of times in American history when forces align to create an explosion of political innovation and transformational change. In these periods the politics of the older era quickly breaks down and a new mode of politics quickly emerges as Americans of that era step up and rise to the occasion.

Obama's campaign solidified an era of new politics that is based on the new technologies of the internet and the new media of the web to activate a new era of progressive constituencies like the young Millennial Generation.

In parallel with, or perhaps because of the Obama campaign, the internet emerged in 2008 as the leading source for news, surpassing all other media except television as the preferred communication channel, according to a Pew Center research report released on December 23, 2008.

The Pew Center survey found that for the first time more people rely on the internet (40%) than newspapers (35%) for news among all age groups. Television continues to be cited most frequently as a main source for among all age groups, but for young people the internet now rivals even television as a main source of all news. Nearly six-in-ten Americans younger than 30 (59%) say they get most of their national and international news online. This mirrors a trend seen throughout 2008 in campaign news consumption.

In an October 2008 Pew Center survey the percent of people who say they look to the internet for their political campaign news tripled among all age groups from 10% in October 2004 to 33% in October 2008. Among younger Americans ages 18 to 29, however, more people (49%) mention the internet as mention newspapers (17%) as a main source of election news. Nearly half of all Americans (46 percent) say they regularly received news about political campaigns, share political views or mobilize others to action using the internet and cell-phone text messaging.

Further, substantial numbers of those younger than age 30, particularly those ages 18-24, say they received campaign and candidate information from social networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook during 2008. This age demographic also heavily relied on online video streaming and video posting sites to watch campaign debates, speeches and commercials. Over half of people under age 30 watched at least one form of campaign video online during 2008.

In this video Peter Leyden from the Next Agenda project gives a talk to the staff at YouTube on the technology-driven paradigm shift that is transforming politics in the 21st Century. If you have an hour, the video is well worth the watch.

Why People Don't Vote Down Ballot

This country saw a huge increase in voter registration this year, and even bigger increases among younger voters, people of color, non-college voters, as well as college students, and unmarried women. These groups of newly registered voters are politically progressive and disproportionately Democratic. The problem progressives faced in 2008, just as in prior election years, is that not all of this energy was transferred to down ballot races.

A recent EMILY's List survey conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group shows that 65 percent of younger people believe whoever is elected President will make "a lot of difference" in their lives; this number drops to 32 when asked about Governor and 26 percent when asked about Congress.

Nationally, approximately 15 percent of voters fail to complete their ballot. In recent research, GQR looked at drop-off ballot voters, voters who indicated they may not finish the ballot. They accounted for 13 percent of the electorate, but this number increased sharply among younger voters, African Americans, lower income, and less educated voters. In fact, 59 percent were either Democratic or lean-Democratic voters. What this means is that from one-fifth to one-quarter of the most progressive voters regularly do not mark their down ballot races. This is a problem that Democratic Candidates face in Collin County as well as nationally.

Here is the EMILY's List study report:

In order to understand why voters drop-off, and also to test possible messages to encourage down ballot voting, EMILY's List commissioned two pairs of focus groups among newly registered voters in North Carolina. These groups included African American and Caucasian young people who were screened to only include those who registered to vote this year and identified as either Democrats or Obama voters. As is always the case with focus group research, the results are qualitative and not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the results, in concert with other quantitative data, provide real learning on how to engage newly energized voters to vote down ballot. In this research, EMILY's List measured the potential impact of various approaches to encourage down ballot voting including (1) linking other candidates to Obama, selling them on the notion that every leader needs a "team" behind him, (2) probing their support for straight party ticket voting, and (3) exploring more comparative approaches where the message attacked Bush and his down ballot allies and remind these voters that Bush may be gone, but his ideas and policies could outlive his administration. Generally speaking, this messaging was tested as potential Internet and television ads, rather than a message battery, an approach that better reflects how voters experience political messaging in the real-world. The study used story-boards rather than fully produced advertising. Main Findings Disengagement with the down ballot among some voters is real. These young people impressed us with their ability to recall very specific details about Barack Obama and his plans for the country. For example, several participants could recite his plan for dealing with student debt and his plans for the economy, energy and education. They knew all about his background and all of them watched the convention speech. But they knew almost nothing about candidates running for other offices. Less than half could identify who was running for Senator and Governor; fewer knew who was a Democrat and who was a Republican. Most details on what issues and themes the statewide candidates advocate in their campaigns were lost on them entirely. What is striking about this outcome is that several of these candidates have been up on television for several weeks prior to these groups. People resist the idea of casting an uninformed vote. Consistent with other research that we have conducted among young people and other under-represented groups, such as unmarried women, the disincentive to vote down ballot is less about "my vote won't matter" or "this office does not matter," than the concern they will vote for the "wrong" candidate. It may not be enough, even for these strong Democratic and pro-Obama groups, to simply know the party label of down ballot candidates. Importantly, their threshold for "knowing" a candidate was fairly modest. One participant recalled walking into the polling station during the primary and talking to a candidate running for school board. This woman noted only that she was a teacher. For this young person, that was enough and she completed the primary ballot. Straight party ticket voting is not attractive for many in the groups. In some states, one obvious solution to the down ballot problem is "pulling the party lever." However, young people in both groups resisted the straight-ticket option emphatically. It violated their own sense of autonomy and would mean voting for someone they do not know anything about, which is the reason why they resist voting down ballot in the first place. Young people do understand that the other offices are important and have a greater direct impact on their lives. However, this is not a top-of-mind perception among many participants in our groups. As noted above, they know almost nothing about other candidates running for statewide office. When reminded of the importance of some of these other offices, not only to a would-be Obama administration, but also to their own lives, there is a bit of an "oh yeah" moment. This is something that needs to be reinforced. Young people understand implicitly that Barack Obama needs a "team" and needs allies down ballot to change the country. To state the obvious, transferring top-of-the-ticket energy down ballot should involve specific references to the Democratic nominee. In stopping drop-off among progressive targets, candidates need to be linked to Obama. The concept of a "team" is powerful, but it is also important to understand that this is not simply about partisanship. For many newly registered voters, electing a "Democratic team" is less appealing than electing a team that will address their issues and concerns. There are some risks associated with using the Obama brand. These risks emerged in reactions to some of the advertising where young people found the linkage to Obama either disrespectful in some cases or irrelevant in others. Obama's standing as the head of the ticket needs to be respected. In one treatment, the ad asked young people to vote for the candidate for senator, governor and then, President. Participants noted the order and found it off-putting that Obama was identified last. The link between Obama and down ballot candidates needs to be explicit. One treatment began with an image of Obama, but the copy and rest of the ad focused more on down ballot candidates. Some in the groups accused the ad of a "bait and switch," enticing them to look at an "Obama" ad that was really about other candidates. Also, reflecting the Obama campaigns field efforts, the Obama image and likeness is ubiquitous in the lives of young people and people of color. This is particularly true online. Many say they get an e-mail from the Obama campaign or one of his allies just about every day. While the image and standing of this nominee represents a very strong brand, it is also a bit over-exposed. As is obvious for anyone dealing with many new registrants and newly energized voters, reaching these voters is very difficult. They are less likely to watch network television, do not really read their mail and one quarter of young people do not have a land-line telephone. Unmarried women are more likely to move. People of color are less likely to have a consumer history that puts them on consumer lists. The media environment is also noisy and crowded. Young people in particular live under a riot of stimuli from television, the Internet, PDA's and cell phones. They are online all day, rely on texting to communicate with their friends and spend hours on social networking sites. This leaves the Internet as the best option for reaching many of these voters, but progressives need to understand its limitations. Almost everyone in the groups belongs to a social networking site, mostly "Facebook," and "MySpace," but they tend to ignore ads on the sites. Only a handful ever recall clicking on an ad or even seeing an ad on a social networking site. Most of these ads, they say, are about mortgages and dating sites that do not have anything to do with them. There is no perfect solution to reaching some of these voters. It will likely require some combination of television and Internet advertising. In terms of message, there are approaches in the groups that worked well and others that did not work well. What Worked Speaking to the issues and priorities of newly energized voters. Republicans who complain about the "celebrity" appeal of Barack Obama just do not get it. Many voters, of course, are drawn to Obama's sweeping language, his history and powerful oratory, and what his election means for this country socially. In the end, however, he also speaks to their issue concerns. Young people are consumed with their acute economic vulnerability. In a recent (August) Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Democracy Corps survey of young people, we found that 80 percent described paying off their debts as a very important goal in their lives, a higher number than getting married, having children or even getting a good job. Polling shows similarly acute economic anxiety among unmarried women and people of color, as well as college students, who will have degrees and debt, but limited job aspects. This research suggests that the approach needs to be substantive. Among the most successful treatments tested in the groups was an ad called "Challenges" where young people in the ad recounted some of the issues they were facing and the plans of Obama and down ballot candidates for addressing those issues. Using images that remind people of themselves. Young people are drawn to images of other young people -- people who look like them, not the traditional image of older politicians or older voters. One of the most successful images was an young woman with an American flag in the background. This treatment was used in a separate test where we asked participants which ad they would most likely click on after being shown several difference images. In contrast, another ad poked fun at the older (conservative) generation ("Stick it to the Man"); the groups liked this message, but many admitted they were unlikely to click on an ad featuring an older bald man that is "probably trying to sell me a mortgage." Empower people to research down ballot candidates. In testing spots, young people like to see spots that featured web sites they could to go to learn more, though this is not just about going to the campaign websites or other partisan sources. Rather it is about Wikipedia and "youtubing" and other "independent" sources of information. In testing materials for registration efforts among other groups, we have similarly seen positive reactions to efforts making it easier for voters to learn more. The young people in the groups demonstrated considerable skills at researching candidates online. Moreover, in terms of language, they use the word "research" intentionally, rather than "learning about" or "educating themselves." What Worked Less Well Avoid approaches that are overly cute. Voters are in a serious mood and believe this is a historic election. Approaches that seem too trite fall short. One ad that we had high hopes for featured a decked out Duke University fan and a decked on University of North Carolina fan. (While they "disagreed on lot of things, they agreed on the importance of coming together and voting for Democratic candidates. . . ") Young people understood the concept, but found the analogy of a sports rivalry to this historic election somewhat inappropriate. At this same time, avoid images that are visually boring. The most important test of any outreach here is simply getting noticed. Advertising that looks flat on the screen will not get noticed. For people of color, avoid race-specific appeals. In one of the more striking findings of the groups, African American young people resisted treatments that seemed "too black" to them. In fact, some of these treatments offended them. They much preferred treatments that showed a diversity of voices, Caucasian, Hispanic and African American young people talking about common problems and common solutions. This finding goes to the heart of what Obama represents for people of color. While these young people convey obvious pride in the Obama's accomplishment, for many young people, Obama represents a celebration of the diversity of America. He is not their presidential candidate, but our presidential candidate. The young people in the groups spoke, often quite movingly and in considerable detail, about what Barack Obama could do for "my country."

Why do a third of Americans fail to vote? The answer, says Pennsylvania State political scientist Eric Plutzer, may stem from habit: If people don't start voting as young adults, they may never get comfortable doing so. Conversely, if people start voting young they likely remain habitual voters for live - a good omen for the Democratic party after Obama motivated so many young people to vote in the 2008 election cycle.

About 30 percent of adults are habitual voters according to Plutzer. Plutzer says, "They vote in presidential elections, midterm elections, school board elections. They vote even when elections are not expected to be close." A second group—some 35 percent of us—are registered to vote. These "periodic voters" generally vote in presidential elections but may not hit the polls for other elections. A third group, also about 35 percent of adults, aren't registered to vote. Says Plutzer, "Most young citizens aged eighteen to thirty fall into the unregistered group." Using data from several dozen nationwide voting surveys, Plutzer has tried to figure out why some young adults mature into habitual voters, others become periodic voters, and some never develop the voting habit at all. "Young Americans may relocate for college, their first job, or their first mature love interest," Plutzer notes. "When young people move into an apartment, they make sure they have electricity, phone and internet service, and cable. Registering to vote isn't at the top of their to-do list. "For many, voting is an unfamiliar task: They don't know where the polling place is, they may have no idea who represents them in the state legislature, and they're unlikely to have strong feelings about local issues such as school taxes or zoning." Voting for the first time may loom as an unpleasant experience. "They imagine they'll walk out of the voting booth bewildered as to whether they've cast intelligent votes for county sheriff, state representative—even U.S. senator." Low civic involvement among younger Americans isn't new. A presidential commission appointed by John F. Kennedy discovered that young citizens registered a disturbingly low turnout rate during the 1960 election. "That generation is now mostly retired," notes Plutzer, "and they show a high voter turnout rate today." In the same way, today's civically detached generation probably will "make the transition from abstainers to habitual voters," Plutzer says. His research has focused on factors that help speed up or delay that transition. The single most important factor is coming from a politically active family. Says Plutzer, "If your parents are habitual voters, the chances of you voting before age twenty-five are much higher." Other factors include attending college ("College graduates are better able to absorb and understand political information, link it to their own values, and come to believe their vote can make a difference") and living in a stimulating political environment. Research by Penn State graduate student Julie Pacheco has found that young people in highly competitive, "battleground" communities or states tend to vote earlier in their lives. "They're exposed to many political stimuli," says Plutzer, "and are more likely to be personally contacted by a political organization." Unfortunately, the number of battleground states has dwindled as our nation has become increasingly politically polarized and as partisan gerrymandering of Congressional districts has reduced the number of competitive elections for the U.S. House of Representatives. "If young adults don't see their votes as meaningful," Plutzer says, "they're much less likely to vote." Plutzer concludes that people learn about the political world "by participating, not reading." Simply bombarding young adults with information won't throw the switch. Says Plutzer, "The informational approach is like telling my six-year-old daughter that she shouldn't play baseball until she understands the 'infield fly rule.' But if she goes ahead and participates in baseball, she'll gradually learn the rules, the terminology, even the trivia. "It's the same with politics. Convince a young citizen to vote, and he or she will read the newspaper differently, recognize the names of people on the ballot when they're mentioned on television or by a neighbor, and eventually become highly informed. Get them to the polls once, and they will likely vote again and again."

Obama Plans To Reintroduce Family Planning Funding

Think Progress

Earlier this week, under pressure from conservatives, President Obama agreed to remove a provision expanding access to comprehensive family planning services for low-income women from the economic recovery package. But TPMDC reports that at yesterday’s Lilly Ledbetter Act signing ceremony, Obama assured attendees “that the family planning aid would be done soon — perhaps as soon as next week, when the House is set to take up a spending bill that would keep the government funded until October.” As ThinkProgress reported earlier, the CBO estimates that this provision would save the government around $700 million over 10 years.

Biggest Drop In GDP In 27 Years

If tax cuts are the most stimulative approach to rebooting the economy, as Republicans claim in rejecting Obama's spending approach stimulus plan, then the economy should already be racing, given the trillions of dollars in tax cuts President Bush and Republicans already gave the nation over the past eight years. Right? Wrong!

The U.S. Department of Commerce reported this morning that in the fourth quarter of 2008 the economy shrank at its fastest pace in nearly 27 years, sinking deeper into recession as consumers and business cut spending.

The government report shows a broad-based contraction across nearly every business sector with the gross domestic product, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, in a near free fall 3.8 percent annual rate of contraction in the fourth quarter. That is the biggest drop since the first quarter of 1982, when output contracted 6.4 percent.

The Commerce Department report said that consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, fell 3.5 percent in the fourth quarter, after declining 3.8 percent in the third quarter, and Q4 spending on durable goods, like cars and furniture, plunged 22.4 percent, the steepest decline since Q4 of 1987. Investment by business also sharply declined at 19.1 percent, for the sharpest pull-back since the first quarter of 1975, and residential investment plummeted 23.6 percent too. Exports of goods and services plunged as well at a the rate of 19.7 percent, the biggest drop since the third quarter of 1974.

Added to the 0.5 percent contraction in GDP in the third quarter of 2008, the fourth quarter contraction rate of 3.8 percent yields the first consecutive quarterly declines in GDP since the fourth quarter of 1990 and the first three months of 1991.

Across all four quarters of 2008, GDP rose 1.3 percent, the slowest pace of growth since 2001, when the economy expanded 0.8 percent.

As Center for American Progress Senior Fellows Christian Weller and John Halpin noted in 2006, the outcome of the 2001 tax cuts was "the weakest employment growth in decades." The 2003 tax cuts didn't fare much better, resulting in job creation that was "well below historical averages."

When Bush's White House proposed the 2003 cuts, they promised that it would add 5.5 million new jobs between June 2003 and the end of 2004. But "by the end of 2004, there were only 2.6 million more jobs than in June 2003."

As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the belief that Bush's tax cuts successfully stimulated the economy is a form of mythology. CAP's Michael Ettlinger and John Irons wrote in September, "Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras" that followed Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and Bush's 2001 tax cuts.

Indeed, employment growth was much stronger post-1993 than post-2001. The average annual employment growth was 2.5 percent after 1993 and just 0.6 percent after 2001.

And, remember President Bush's $168 billion tax cut/rebate economic stimulus plan the United States Congress approved in February of 2008, to help stave off economic recession. That does not seem to have worked either. Martin Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal that of course the tax cut stimulus didn't work:

Here are the facts. Tax rebates of $78 billion arrived in the second quarter of the year. The government's recent GDP figures show that the level of consumer outlays only rose by an extra $12 billion, or 15% of the lost revenue. The rest went into savings, including the pay down of debt. . .

. . .Although press stories emphasizing that the rebates induced additional consumer spending were technically correct, they missed the important point that the spending rise was very small in comparison to the size of the tax rebates. . .

The small rise in spending in response to these tax rebates is similar to what previous studies of one-time tax cuts found. It also corresponds to what both basic economic theory and common experience imply. Although someone who receives a permanent annual salary increase of $1,000 typically would increase his annual spending by an almost equally large amount, a $1,000 rise in wealth caused by a share price increase or a tax rebate would raise spending only gradually over a number of years.

The facts show that increased infrastructure spending appears to be a particularly efficacious
way to stimulate the economy as compared to tax cuts TPM:

Mark Zandi, a Republican economist who advised John McCain's presidential campaign, has been stressing this point for months. Zandi's research showed a corporate tax cut delivering $0.30 in real GDP growth for every $1 invested, and a regular tax rebate delivering anywhere from $1.02 to $1.28 for every $1.

Compare that to aid to state governments, which Republicans have roundly criticized: $1.36 for every $1 invested. Infrastructure spending delivers a whopping $1.59 in GDP for every $1.

The Congressional Budget Office also maintains that corporate tax cuts are 'not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending.

Unfortunately, Reagan's "supply-side" mythology that "tax cut stimulus works best" is alive and well and still promoted by conservatives today. Despite the economic facts, conservatives like Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) and John Cornyn (R) continue to demand corporate tax cuts over infrastructure spending as the solution. Both Texas’ senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) and John Cornyn (R) have voiced their staunch opposition to Obama's $819 billion stimulus plan because it does not exclusively use tax cuts. “I read the bill in vain for any real stimulus in the economy,” Cornyn told the Dallas Morning News.

At a luncheon meeting of the Plano Chamber of Commerce on Friday Jan. 23 Senator Hutchison said that she could not support President Barack Obama's proposed $825 billion stimulus package because it wouldn't provide an instant jolt to the economy.

Hutchison said the bill, among other things, would lift the earned income tax credit for low-income workers and allocate billions of dollars to help pay for college, build roads and other structures and invest in alternative fuels and other projects that would not stimulate the economy. Hutchison further said the effect of the sweeping spending plan would be to drive up the federal deficit. "What we're looking for is a jump-start," Hutchison said, "This is not going to be a jump-start."

According to the Dallas Morning News, both Texas senators predicted a lopsided vote in the Senate similar to the House vote where every Republican voted against Obama's plan.

Senate Republicans Are Gearing Up To Filibuster The Recovery Package Despite Promises To The Contrary On Friday night on NPR’s All Things Considered, host Robert Siegel asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) about the prospects of a Republican filibuster of the Senate’s version of the economic recovery package. Grassley responded that Republicans would indeed filibuster the package, requiring the bill to garner a 60-vote majority for passage, despite the fact that the Senate version of the recovery package is already loaded up with a significant number of provisions sought by conservative Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly said that Republicans “would not filibuster against the stimulus package.” He remarked earlier this month, “I don’t think this measure’s going to have any problem getting over 60 votes.”

On the other hand - Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care. The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, scheduled meetings in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package. Tx Gov. Rick Perry's Transportation Department is lobbying to maximize its haul of federal money from an $819 billion stimulus bill too.

Related Posts:

• Democrats Historically Better for the Economy Than GOP
  

Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Talking Points Memo - President Barack Obama signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law Thursday before labor and women leaders, who fought hard for it's passage, and the woman whose history-making lawsuit gave impetus to the cause.

Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman is an issue not just for women, but for all workers.

With Ledbetter standing by his side, Obama said, "she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits losses that she still feels today." He then signed the measure that effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision and makes it easier for workers to sue for discrimination by allowing them more time to do so.

"Making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone," Obama said. "That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal — but bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability." Read more.

Read Obama's Remarks - TPM

A much broader bill addressing pay discrimination seems to be stalled in the Senate - TPM

Conservatives: No Second New Deal

Updated January 29, 2008 at 7:18 AM

After taking out family planning money and ditching bankruptcy reform, plus including significant tax cuts to assuage Republican objections, not a single Republican voted for the economic recovery plan that passed in the House on Jan. 28. Nobody expected overwhelming GOP support, but after the 2008 election, that's just stunning. (11 blue dog Democrats voted Nay.)

This type of partisan obstruction by Republicans is just another example of why Americans overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party on issues like the economy. "There will be people in districts all over the country that will wonder why, when there's a good bill to get the economy moving again, why we still seem to be playing political gotcha," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs in an interview.

Rank-and-file Congressional Democrats had been willing to give Republicans the business tax cuts and other provisions they wanted in the stimulus in the spirit of bipartisan good faith. That is, up until every single one voted against the bill on the House floor Wednesday. Now, in both the House and the Senate, angry Democratic members are lobbying Democratic leaders to yank back those tax breaks and other concessions made to Republicans. Sen. John Kerry says Democrats should ignore Republicans’ demands about the stimulus plan if they’re going to vote against it anyway.

Several days before taking office, President Obama spent an evening in George Will’s home to dine with a handful of right-wing conservative media elites in an act of bipartisan good faith. Less than week after Obama took the oath of office, Will’s right-wing dinner guests have already shown the futility of engaging in a good-faith bipartisanship. While President Obama advances his approach to promote economic recovery, Will's dinner attendees are on a no-holds-barred offensive of misinformation against Obama's approach.

NYTimes.com
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 25, 2009

As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s [conservative Republican] opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending. Some of these arguments are obvious [false and misleading] cheap shots.

snip - Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.

snip - [But the obvious cheap shot arguments and assertions] that are fraudulent can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major anti-stimulus arguments that have already surfaced [from conservatives]

snip - But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who [not only] lost, [but whose conservative governance ideology created the economic crisis in the first place.]

Read the full article at NYTimes.com

Many are promoting false and misleading cheap shots against Obama's recovery plan:
Media Matters

snip - David Brooks, Larry Kudlow, Brit Hume, [George Will, Carly Fiorina and George Stephanopoulos, among many others,] have asserted that the proposed fiscal stimulus package supported by President Barack Obama would amount to spending at least $223,000 for every job created, echoing a January 15 false and misleading "Stimulus Quick Facts," issued by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee... read the full article.

Caving to right-wing conservatives’ anti-abortion campaign of misinformation, President Obama reportedly pressured House Democrats to strip family planning funding from its economic recovery proposal — even though it would potentially save $700 million over 10 years. MSNBC’s David Shuster pressed Hutchison (R-TX) about the provision, pointing out that it would help relieve states of health care costs. Unable to respond, Hutchinson launched a reflexive conservative attack on any plan that is not all tax cuts.

Among those repeating the false and misleading "Stimulus Quick Facts" is Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. At a luncheon meeting of the Plano Chamber of Commerce on Friday Jan. 23 Senator Hutchison said that she could not support President Barack Obama's proposed $825 billion stimulus package because it wouldn't provide an instant jolt to the economy. Hutchison said the bill, among other things, would lift the earned income tax credit for low-income workers and allocate billions of dollars to help pay for college, build roads and other structures and invest in alternative fuels and other projects that would not stimulate the economy. Hutchison further said the effect of the sweeping spending plan would be to drive up the federal deficit. "What we're looking for is a jump-start," Hutchison said, "This is not going to be a jump-start."

Even though Obama has met with Republican media pundits and congressional leaders several times to assuage their concerns and added bipartisan compromise tax cuts to his stimulus package package -

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning [Jan, 27] during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he's voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn't any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it. [Politico]

Both Texas’ senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) and John Cornyn (R) have voiced their staunch opposition to the $819 billion plan. “I read the bill in vain for any real stimulus in the economy,” Cornyn told the Dallas Morning News. Not one House Republican supported the Obama-backed stimulus package and Texas’ senators predicted a similarly lopsided result in the Senate, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Bob Herbert says in his NYTimes column,

"What’s up with the Republicans? Have they no sense that their policies have sent the country hurtling down the road to ruin? Are they so divorced from reality that in their delusionary state they honestly believe we need more of their tax cuts for the rich and their other forms of plutocratic irresponsibility, the very things that got us to this deplorable state?

Republicans have argued, with the collaboration of much of the media, that they could radically cut taxes while simultaneously balancing the federal budget, when, in fact, [Bush's] big income-tax cuts inevitably lead to big budget deficits. We listened to the G.O.P. and what do we have now? A trillion-dollar-plus deficit and an economy in shambles. When the G.O.P. talks, nobody should listen."

As Media Matters has documented, during the Bush administration, corporate media consistently allowed conservatives to dominate their shows, booking them as guests far more often than progressives. The rationale was that Republicans were “in power.” Now that Republicans are not in power the media continues to allow conservatives to monopolize corporate news channels.

In an analysis, ThinkProgress found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — hosted Republican lawmakers over Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio.



Related Postings:

• The Economy Crumbled
• For the GOP It's 1933 Déjà vu All Over Again
• FDR's New Deal
• Reconstituting Conservative Ideology As Good Governance

Related Links:

• Obama, please stop appeasing the Republicans to pass your stimulus package
  
• Obama faces 'no-we-can't' economy
  
• Global outlook to be slashed - again
• Earnings, economy - here comes 'terrible'
• FDIC closes 1st Centennial Bank
• Bigger bank bailouts coming?

TDWCC 2009 Slate Of Officers

Mary Hooks Treasurer - Patricia Spence Secretary - Prissy Wisnewski Vice President - Barbara Walters President

The Texas Democratic Women of Collin County, a chapter of the statewide Texas Democratic Women (TDW) and National Federation of Democratic Women, elected their 2009 slate of officers on Monday January 26, 2009. Picture left are 2009 officers Mary Hooks, Patricia Spence, Prissy Wisnewski, and Barbara Walters.

Walters, reelected Monday as President of the group, and several others reestablished the organization in 2006 following a trip to Crawford. Walters and several others had traveled to President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford to voice their disapproval at the policies of President Bush. As they returned from Crawford they discussed the idea of reforming the Texas Democratic Women of Collin County (TDWCC) group, which had become inactive in the preceding years. The women felt spurred to action by the distortion of Democratic values on the public stage and the disturbing failures of the Bush Administration and Republican control congress.

By late 2008 the organization reported 150 members who worked hard to get Democrats in Collin County out to vote in the 2008 November election. Through the groups efforts several hundred women worked doggedly in phone banking operations, registration drives and neighborhood block walks to contact and motivate voters. Collin County Democrats posted their strongest voter turn out in recent history thanks in part to the efforts of the TDWCC, who closely cooperated with the Democratic Party of Collin County, the Obama Collin County (OCC) campaign group and every other Democratic Candidate whose name appeared on Collin County ballots.

On January 20th the Democratic women's group hosted what the Dallas Morning News called the largest Obama Inaugural Gala in North Texas with 475 proud Democrats in attendance. During the group's first 2009 meeting on January 26th, Walters said that a significant number of additional people called after the RSVP reservation deadline, a few days before inauguration day, and had to be turned away. The black-tie optional event at the Plano Center featured live music, dancing, a silent auction, and a buffet dinner. After the March 2008 primary county convention, attended by over 4,000 Democrats, the Gala was one of the most significant gatherings of Democrats in the county in many years. (Inaugural Gala Pictures Here and Here)

The rapidly rising profile of the TDWCC is particularly note worthy in Collin County, which for decades has been a near exclusive base of power the GOP in Texas. The Dallas Morning News notes that the group's rise, "is the latest signal that Dallas' affluent and politically important northern suburbs are becoming more competitive." The TDWCC saw it's membership jump in the days following the combined Inaugural Gala, fundraiser and membership drive event.

The TDWCC meets regularly on the fourth Monday of every month. All are welcome and encouraged to attend the monthly meetings - even men.

Obama Attorney General Holder A Threat To Carl Rove?

Updated January 28 at 10:58 AM CST

A day after Obama's inauguration Republicans forced at least a one week delay to the scheduled confirmation vote for Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general. Republican opposition towards the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General is being driven, it seems, by Karl Rove himself. [HuffPo14 Dec] In December Karl Rove appeared on the Today Show and signaled that Republicans ought to go after Mr. Holder. [Leahy Statement 12 Dec] U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said in December that he intended to slow the confirmation of Eric Holder for attorney general. [UPI 10 Dec]

Why? Because Karl Rove is under threat of prosecution for allegedly manipulating the Justice Department for political reasons.

On Jan. 28 the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended President Obama’s attorney general nominee Eric Holder to the full Senate for consideration by 17-2 vote. Six Republicans approved Holder, with Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX) as the only “nay” votes.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he would support Holder’s nomination, even though he had expressed reservations about the pick and forced Judiciary Committee to delay the vote by one week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the U.S. Attorneys scandal identified Karl Rove's involvement in firings of eight U.S. Attorneys because they allegedly would not bring false charges of voter and election fraud against prominent Democrats. The Justice Department’s Inspector General draws the same conclusion, but notes that it was thwarted from completing its investigation by the refusal of Karl Rove and those who worked for him to cooperate with the probe.

When the House Judiciary Committee of the 110th congress subpoenaed Rove to testify on the U.S. Attorney firings, and his role in the political prosecution of Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, Rove ignored multiple subpoenas and he did not testify. Political appointees in President Bush's Justice Department undermined those Congressional subpoenas and fought their enforcement through Bush's exertions of "executive privilege."

Bush's "executive privilege" assertion that anyone who'd ever worked for him was immune from answering questions from Congress, ever, was unprecedented and not supported by any existing case law. In August, the court agreed and ordered that Rove and others indeed must comply with congressional subpoenas. The order was stayed on appeal, but the DC Circuit Court of Appeals never took up the appeal, presumably because the subpoenas at the heart of the case were due to expire on January 3 with the end of the 110th congress.

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) had said that he had every intention of reissuing the subpoenas in the new Congress, and this time, President Bush will not be in office to reinforce and back up his claims of executive privilege through his DOJ's lawyers. This is why Republicans (seemingly at Rove's urging) stalled Holder's confirmation on Jan 21st.

On Jan. 26 House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) did indeed reissue the subpoenas former Bush Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove about his alleged involved in the political prosecution of an Alabama governor and the firings of nine US Attorneys. The subpoena, approved by an earlier vote of the House, was issued pursuant to "authority granted in H.R. 5 (111th Congress), and calls for Mr. Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009."

Specifically, it enjoins Rove "to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman."

Rove's Washington, D.C. lawyer, Robert Luskin, issued a statement published early morning Jan. 27 saying, "It's generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege as to matters occurring during their term. We'll solicit the views of the new White House counsel and, if there is a disagreement, assume that the matter will be resolved among the courts, the president and the former president."

While "the privilege belongs to the president who asserts it," President Obama and Attorney General Holder will have to decide whether or not to enforce President Bush's claim of executive privilege should Rove again refuse to testify. The Obama administration could take the side of Bush and Rove to defend the concept of executive privilege, however, it seems unlikely that the Obama Justice Department would take that position.

Rove and former president Bush could still fight new congressional subpoenas in the courts on their own, but what has Rove and Republicans worried is whether or not Holder will direct DOJ attorneys to argue against the "privilege" that Bush invoked to keep Rove out of the witness chair. They have good reason to worry; President Obama signed an Executive Order on Presidential Records at 1:22 pm EST on Wednesday concerning "who gets to assert executive privilege." On signing Obama stated,

"I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.

Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

The Executive Order on Presidential Records says that former presidents can claim privilege, but they have no automatic ability to prevent the release of their records if the current administration deems it to be in the national interest. Plus, President Barack Obama is already staffing his Justice Department with some of Bush's fiercest critics, among them lawyers who were fired by President Bush or who felt ethically compelled to quit his administration. “They have alarmingly narrow views of executive power,” said a former Bush aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. [Politico]

Clearly, Obama's Freedom of Information and Presidential Records Executive Orders and his initial DOJ staffing with Bush critics worries Rove and Republicans in general. The Senate’s Judiciary Committee was schedule to vote on Eric Holder’s nomination at 2:30 EST of the same day Obama signed the Presidential Records order. Within a half hour of Obama’s executive order, the Republicans, led by Texas Senator John Cornyn and Senator Spector, announced they would block Holder’s confirmation for at least a week and possibly longer.

Rove also could now face additional subpoenas and legal exposure on a number of other incidents—ranging from a Texas money laundering scandal to the Abramoff case. [Paul Alexander 26 Nov]

Cornyn himself may be concerned about here-to-fore "privileged" emails related to the Abramoff Scandal. Some speculate that these emails may mention not only Rove's name, but also Cornyn's name. Before Cornyn became a US Senator, he was a justice on the Supreme Court of Texas. In that role some allege that Cornyn may have had some involvement in Abramoff's scams on Native American Tribes in Texas. [OpEdNews]

Plus, Tom DeLay, Don Young, Karl Rove, Roy Blunt, John Ascroft, Dana Rorhabacher, Jerry Lewis and the countless other Republicans, who have been implicated in the Abramoff Scandal, are still awaiting action from the DOJ. Cornyn may also be worried that Holder will move the Abramoff prosecutions onto the front burner, which, if he was at all involve in the Native American scam, increases the possibility that his involvement would be made public. [dailykos]

Bush's executive privilege claim has blocked Congress and good-government groups seeking to get access to key Bush White House documents that might shed light on a range of subjects, from the level of White House involvement in the US Attorney firings, to the Valerie Plame leak probe, to the decision to invade Iraq to the Abramoff scams.

President Obama's new presidential records executive order combined with his memorandum reviving the Freedom of Information Act will likely make all of Bush's White House documents much more accessible, particularly when requested under subpoenas supported by Obama's Attorney General Holder.

By extension, Obama's executive order and memorandum likely signals that Rove, and others like Miers and Bolten, will no longer be personally shielded by a DOJ fighting to protect executive privilege either. Obama's DOJ, under Attorney General Holder, will likely argue just the opposite - that they are not protected by executive privilege.

This would quickly leave Rove, and others like Miers and Bolten, who ignored subpoenas from the 110th congress with the unpleasant option to appear under subpoena before the 111th congress to claim a fifth amendment right to not testify against themselves on every question asked or sit in jail on a contempt of congress charge. Memos, emails and all other documents authored by Bush Administration officials will likely be readily available upon request for congressional review.

Since the U.S. attorneys were fired allegedly because they would not bring false charges of voter and election fraud against prominent Democrats, Rove could be asked to back up his many claims of rampant voter and election fraud by Democrats, should he appear before congress. This might prove inconvenient timing for Republicans pushing to fight rampant voter fraud with restrictive voter photo id laws in states, like Texas, where they still control the legislature. Inconvenient because every investigation of this issue has found that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent; Rove has no facts to cite to support his claims.

Therefore, the more Rove and his followers can impugn the credibility of Holder and characterize him as a political flunky, the more "political" validity Rove and Republicans in general might find in claiming that attempts to hold him accountable constitutes little more than a witch hunt.

Related:

• Executive order on Presidential Records grants broader public access to the records of previous presidential administrations, reversing restrictions implemented by former President George W. Bush.
• Memorandum [PDF] calling for new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] agency guidelines and a presumption of transparency.

Organizing for America In Collin County

On January 15th Barack Obama announced the formation of a new group known as Organizing for America as the "Obama 2.0" legacy successor to Obama's campaign organization.

While running to become the President of the United States, Barack Obama's campaign recruited millions of campaign supporters and contributors through online social networks. Over two million joined myBarackObama.com, a website fusing social networking with volunteer political organizing, while more than 5 million supported Obama's profile across other social websites like MySpace and Facebook. More than a million people asked for campaign text messages on their cell phones and yet more kept up with campaign information on Twitter. Most importantly, over 13 million voters signed up for regular e-mail fundraising pitches and other communications.

On election day, a staggering 25 percent of Obama voters were already directly linked to him--and one another--through these several socio-political network websites. Campaigns largely dissolve after elections, but Obama's campaign infrastructure, so far, remains largely intact and very active.

A spirited post-election debate broke out among top Obama campaign organizers over how to leverage the e-mail address book of 13 million entries and the national networks of motivated volunteers. If you think this sounds familiar, you're probably right; This was the same question faced by Howard Dean's "Blogosphere" of volunteers in the aftermath of his 2004 defeat. Dean's campaign operation ultimately became Democracy for America organization.

By the weekend of December 6th and 7th, hundreds of field staffers and some key volunteers had decided to get together in a closed-door summit at a Chicago hotel to exchange ideas face-to-face on how to evolve the Obama campaign structure into a post-election political force. In an effort to open the process campaign manager David Plouffe's also sent out an email in mid-December asking volunteers to host and attend house parties to discuss ideas on how to best leverage the Obama network in the months and years ahead.

Many Obama supporters across Collin County and in 2,000 cities around the U.S. attended local house parties to share organizing ideas and identify key issues they wished to support. Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, said the campaign had received about 500,000 responses to e-mail surveys and the house parties. On Dec 30, 2008 the Pew Internet & American Life Project released results of a post-election voter engagement survey that showed 62% of Obama voters overall expected to lobby others to support Obama administration policies over the next year. Almost half (46%) expected ongoing communication from Obama, whether via email, text message, or social networking sites.

According to a email sent to supporters by Plouffe to report the results of the mid-December house party meetings:

• People are excited to volunteer their active support of Obama's legislative agenda, particularly on key interest issues of education, the environment, health care, poverty, and the economy.
• 86 percent of respondents feel it's important to help Barack's administration pass legislation through grassroots support.
• 68 percent feel it's important to help elect state and local candidates who share the same vision for our country.
• And a staggering 10 percent of respondents indicated that they would be interested in running for elected office.

The most popular goal identified by the half a million Obama activist responses was to help the Obama administration pass legislation. If Obama’s initiatives stall in Congress, these activists will presumably back him by lobbying their elected representatives in the Senate and House. Combining the White House bully pulpit with constituent lobbying across the U.S. could have a dramatic effect on Obama’s presidency. Previous presidents have gone over the heads of Congress by appealing to the public, of course, but never with a parallel whip operation targeting Senators and Congressional District Representatives in their backyards.

On January 15th Barack Obama announced the formation of a new group known as "Organizing for America" that aims to continue the grassroots advocacy that supported his run for the presidency. "As President, I will need the help of all Americans to meet the challenges that lie ahead," Obama said in a video message, "That's why I'm asking people like you who fought for change during the campaign to continue fighting for change in your communities."

The key idea behind "Organizing for America" — is that the 20th century model of communicating with and motivating supporters has given way to a 21st century Internet media model of communication channels built around YouTube, Social Networking, Twittering, etc. — as was evident during his campaign and as is already evident in the White House’s media strategy. (see White House YouTube video channel bar in the right sidebar of this blog)

The new group will work within the Democratic National Committee, led by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, to advance the Obama agenda. "President-elect Obama has laid the foundation to meet the great challenges facing our nation, but we can succeed only if we build grassroots support for the administration's agenda," said Kaine in a DNC release announcing the formation of Organizing for America.

Obama's networks of thousands of trained field organizers and tens of thousands of neighborhood coordinators can also provide valuable grassroots support for every Democratic Party candidate committed to, or thinking about, running for office in the 2010 mid-term and 2012 election cycles. And not just national and and state office candidates, but also local county and city office candidates - even in Republican strongholds like Collin County.

As in many counties around Texas and the U.S., Obama's network of trained field organizers and neighborhood coordinators in Collin County are already moving on to form a local "Organizing for America" coordinated campaign organization to field and/or support Democratic Candidates across Collin County in the 2010 mid-term and 2012 election cycles. The Collin County Coordinated Campaign organization will likely be modeled somewhat after the highly successful "Coordinated Campaign '08" group of Harris County Texas who closely cooperated with the Harris County Democratic Party.

The Texas Progressive Alliance selected the Harris County Democratic Coordinated Campaign as its “Texan of the Year” for 2008:

The Harris County Democratic Coordinated Campaign faced a daunting task in 2008: Take Texas' largest county, which hadn't elected a Democrat to any county wide office in over a decade and which went for George Bush by ten points in 2004, and turn it blue. And they had to do it amid the high expectations that followed Dallas' fabled blue sweep in 2006, with the Harris County GOP knowing they were being targeted. And they had to start from scratch, since there hadn't been any kind of effort like it in anyone's memory. Oh, and in the middle of it all they had to abandon their headquarters and move to a new location thanks to the damage that Hurricane Ike wrought [and creation of a Coordinated Campaign'08 website].

The key was strong leadership, starting with the vision of people like Party Chairman Gerry Birnberg and Dave Mathieeson, the operational know-how of Executive Director Jamaal Smith and Bill Kelly, and the coordination and hard work of many, many people. They developed a plan, matched it with a budget and coordinated with all the candidates. They opened branch offices all around the county and drew on the energy of Democrats new and old. They knocked on doors, made calls, sent mail, and spread the message of Democratic change everywhere.

And in the end, they succeeded, with Democrats winning 27 of 34 county wide races. They boosted turnout in the traditional Democratic areas, and improved performance all across the county. They relentlessly pushed an early-vote message, which translated into leads of 50,000 votes or more for most candidates going into Election Day. They stressed the importance of voting Democratic all the way down the ballot, which minimized under voting in the lower-profile races. They brought in new voters and brought back those who had given up hope, and got them all on the same page.

Add it all up, and the new year will bring new Democratic judges, a new Sheriff, a new County Attorney, a new District Clerk, and two new County Department of Education trustees. For that, and for the promise that 2010 will bring even more success and help pave the way towards turning all of Texas blue, the Texas Progressive Alliance is proud to name the Harris County Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign its Texan of the Year for 2008.

Related Postings:

• A Blue Collin Co
• Can Texas Go Blue Like Colorado?
• Republican Brand Growing Weak In Texas
• The Incredible Shrinking Republican Base
• Politics Is No Longer Local - It's Viral
• 
  
• Texas voters increasingly unhappy with GOP - DMN
• Poll's shocking SOS for Texas GOP - DMN