I'll write more about the election and its implications (LOTS more) in the coming days, but let's say this right up front:
Democrats did not lose by being too liberal.
Here's the proof:
You'd have to be hiding under a rock not to know that today is supposed to be Disaster Day for the Dems. Supposedly there is an "Enthusiasm Gap" between Dems and Repubs, and the Teapocalypse is upon us.
Well -- I've been doing GOTV for the past three days, and from where I sit, there's no gap at all. And if that's true, we may be looking at a "Dewey Beats Truman" moment. Here's why:
Lots of buzz about Jackie Green dropping out of the mayor's race and endorsing Greg Fischer. Some are calling it a "sell-out," while others (including Hal Heiner) are saying that Fischer "sold a city department of government in exchange for a political endorsement." A few people are even calling it a violation of campaign law.
I've got two comments to make:
Monday, October 18, 2010 at 9:05PM in Policy and Politics | tagged Election 2010, Fischer, Green Convene, Sustainability I just posted a comment over at Barefoot and Progressive about the Conway strategy of going after Paul on the Aqua Buddha story. I thought I'd jump on here and expand it a little.
Quick note while I'm still on vacation -- great graphic by Think Progress on where the US Chamber gets its dough:
Got this letter from Lindsay Dickinson, president of Metro Dems. Got to share it:
::
For as long as I can remember, my father has always said, “prepare for the worst, expect the best.” Growing up, I never fully understood this saying. I figured he must have heard it as a youngster himself, growing up during World War II. It was just a generational statement which was glaringly pessimistic to me.
While watching Morning Joe on MSNBC recently, Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, said something, that while political, sounded eerily familiar to me. “You can never take any campaign for granted.”
Exclusive: Foreign-Funded "U.S." Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA).
As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections.The story goes on to note that the CoC aggressively raises funds overseas, opening offices in foreign countries and raising money from foreign corporations. These funds are then comingled in the Chamber's 501(c)(6) account -- the account used to pay for the attack ads. Already, this is blowing up in candidates' faces. Roy Blunt, the wingnut candidate in Missouri, refused to speak with a reporter asking him about the CoC attack ads in his race. Democrats are planning ads about this all over the country. Maybe the CoC and its right-wing candidates will get the "Al Gore and Buddhist fund-raising" treatment. Let us sincerely hope so.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 10:42PM in Policy and Politics | tagged Citizens United, Conway, Election 2010, Paul I write a lot of comments on web sites and blogs. If I ever run for office, my opponent will have no trouble doing oppo research on me, as I have left my thoughts all over the place in digital format.
Most of these comments are off-the-cuff and context-dependent, so I don't repeat them here. But, I wrote one tonight over on Page One that I thought was good enough to share. So, in response to an earlier commenter named Lisa Glaas:
And I'm still glad he's mine, as well.
Students at the University of Wisconsin.
And how about this one?
For some time, I've been reading and hearing people say "Heiner is running to the left of Fischer" and "I'm a progressive, and I think Heiner is more progressive, so I'm voting for him." With the statements all three candidates have made about the bridges, it was easy to see why people might say these things.
My question, though, was this: Is Heiner a conservative, a moderate, a sorta-progressive? Or, is he just saying these things to grab some votes from the middle and left? I've wanted to figure out a way to crack that question, and the best way seemed to look at his voting record.
So, I did some digging, and guess what? There's an online database (sorta) of every council person's votes, maintained by the Courier-Journal. You can find the list of Hal Heiner's votes right here, sorted by date. The list shows a topic heading, then a brief description of the item being voted on, followed by Heiner's vote. Unfortunately, the link in the description only takes you to a list of everyone's vote on the issue, instead of more info on the topic itself. Still, many of the topics and the issues are pretty clear from the title in the voting table, such as "Ordinance to ban smoking in most public places."
So, I went through the entire list, vote by vote, to see what I could learn about Candidate Heiner from the record of Councilperson Heiner. Here's what I found:
Activist /ˈæktəvɪst/ -- noun --
- an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.
At 57, I'm a latecomer to the world of political activism. I didn't move from "reader" to "doer" until after the 2000 selection. In 2004 I gave money for the first time, volunteered for the first time, and experience my first campaigns from the inside. In 2006 I helped (in a small way) get John "Congressman Awesome" Yarmuth elected, and 2008 I volunteered all over the place, including taking vacation to walk precincts and make calls in various states.
And now, in 2010, I am writing to say that I am sick and tired of "activists."
A week ago, the Republicans held a 10-point advantage over Democrats in Gallup's "Generic 
Congressional Ballot" poll. ("If the election were held today, would you vote for a Democrat or a Republican?") This was the highest GOP advantage ever recorded by Gallup in a mid-term election. Everywhere I looked, Democrats were running around screaming "We're doomed! Doomed, I tell you!"
Guess what? Some of us got tired of hearing the election was lost before we even hit Labor Day. Many of us got real tired of watching Tea Baggers proclaim themselves as the saviors of the Republican party, the 2010 election, and of the country. And many, many of us came to the realization that if we say on our hands, the Right-Wing Crazies were going to take over again, and look what THAT got us -- wars, death, pollution, incompetence, graft, loss of civil and human rights, and trillions of dollars lost to Wall Street.
I may say this louder and stronger in a few weeks — waiting to see what happens post-Labor Day. But for now …
Yarmuth wins. Conway wins. Fischer wins.
Marty Meyer wins.
Dems keep US House and Senate.
Why do I think this? Why do I see these victories for Dems in this horrible atmosphere?
Three reasons:
Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 8:50PM in Policy and Politics | tagged Conway, Democrats, Election 2010, Meyer, Yarmuth Lots of discussion on Daily Kos about Rick Scott (R - Columbia/HCA) winning the GOP nomination for Florida governor. The latest? The GOP loser, Bill McCollum, refuses to endorse Scott because he has doubts about Scott's integrity.
You think? After Columbia/HCA paid a $1.7 billion (yep, with a B) fine for Medicare fraud under Scott's watch, does it puzzle you that the Repubs nominate him for governor of the state with the largest Medicare population in the country?
But wait! There's more!
