The Money Primary...somebody get some lysol!

Published on Saturday, July 7, 2007 by The Nation

Killing the Money Primary

by Katrina vanden Heuvel

July 4th’s Washington Post featured a front-page story about how campaign contributors heavily favored Democrats in the three-month period that ended last weekend, giving three dollars to the party’s leading contenders for every two dollars they gave to the top Republican candidates.

Barack Obama was the big money primary winner–with 285,000 total contributors since January, exceeding the combined number of donors to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain

While I think it’s fascinating that Obama has had such success in raising money from small donors on the Internet–and see glimmers of democratization in how those small-$ donors are challenging the primacy of political finance’s big guns of politics–I still question why the mainstream media seems to privilege the money primary at the expense of the ideas primary.

So what is to be done? On the money front, the New York Times counsels resuscitating matching public funds –”the once-popular tax assisted alternative that has been allowed to wither in recent years because of Congress’s fixation on the power of private campaign money.” But there is another alternative. Clean Money, Clean Elections — with legislation supporting this major and viable reform advancing now in both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act (S 1285) and in the House, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 2007 (HR 1614) both have impressive co-sponsors. On the House side, of the 40 co-sponsors, many are in significant leadership positions.

But it’s not only inside the beltway. According to Public Campaign, which has been working for ten years to change the way America funds elections, the movement, outside of Washington, continues to grow. As Nick Nyhart, Public Campaign’s longtime and tenacious President puts it, there’s a vibrant and growing citizen-centered movement out there that reflects America’s diverse communities. From the AFL-CIO, to the National Council of Churches, the Sierra Club, the Dolores Huerta Foundation and the NAACP — all have joined forces in support of Clean Money, Clean Elections and the legislation advancing it. MoveOn.org is also wholeheartedly behind the effort to enact reforms that have worked well in Arizona and Maine to the Congress.

What’s hopeful, though not reflected in the breathless coverage of the candidates’ fundraising totals, is that seven daily mainstream newspapers — including the Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and the St.-Louis Post Dispatch — have specifically endorsed congressional public financing legislation. Moreover, the race at the local and state level to take out private money in favor of clean money is moving full force ahead.

Next time you read about the money primary, take a breath and go to publicampaign.org and find an alternative which will give ordinary people and voters a chance to have their voices and ideas listened to.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is Editor and Publisher of The Nation. She is the co-editor of Taking Back America–And Taking Down The Radical Right (NationBooks, 2004).

Copyright © 2007 The Nation

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

More Than The Money Primary

How and why does money translate into votes?

It doesn't have to.

It's really very simple. The people with the most money can afford more airtime and are given much more, free of charge on Cabal news. The media thus decides whom we can vote for in the general election. Everyone wants to vote for a winner, no matter that he or she may not have their best interests at heart. The media is more than happy to tell you who those people are, on both sides of the insane duality-lie of a political system with which we are cursed. They are the ones with all the money, usually an indication that they are corporate-approved

We have taken to paying attention to: (It goes without saying that we must believe in his/her message and more, we have to have some faith that he or she can and will carry out the plan)

1) Of whom does the media, especially the obvious right-wing media, constantly make fun? This candidate is probably the biggest threat to corporate interests, not ours.

2) What is the ratio of donors to total money raised. If the candidate is not getting most or a huge percentage of his/her money from grassroots, individual donors, they are corporate approved.

3) According to polls, can the candidate beat any Republican in the general election, providing Republican machines are not doing the vote counting and the candidate is not a gutless wonder who will refuse to fight for our votes even if it takes months and an all-out revolution?

Right now, the one candidate who meets all of our standards is John Edwards

More Than The Money Primary - CommonDreams.org:

But grassroots activists should ask themselves a question about the money primary?

Why are the frontrunners raising so much money? Is it because they have the best ideas? The best bases of support?

Hardly. Clinton, who has been the strongest figure in the recent Democratic debates, is raising her money in big chunks from many of the same business interests that backed George W. Bush and other Republicans. Obama has a broader pool of givers, but the attraction seems to be his personal dynamism rather than his soft stands on the issues and his tepid debate performances — and he, too, is attracting a good deal of so-called “establishment” money.

In fact, as Republican presidential contenders struggle to keep up with the Democrats in the fund-raising race, there is much evidence to suggest that big-money interests are moving their chips to the Democratic table and placing their bets on Clinton and to a somewhat lesser extent on Obama.

Clinton and Obama are acceptable to those interests.

Edwards, in contrast, has taken strong stands and attracted a substantial number of small contributors. Unfortunately for Edwards, many of his strong stands challenge corporate power — in ways that neither Clinton or Obama has so far done.

Trends In American Politics

New politics, new media, new majority
By Brent Budowsky
June 20, 2007

Democrats have an opportunity to build a new governing majority and a realigned national politics with impact as powerful as the coalition of Franklin Roosevelt and the up-tempo patriotism of John Kennedy.

Historic trend waves in American politics include the alienation of Americans from everything Washington, the rise of political independence, the hunger for national unity, the feeling of large numbers of Americans that they are disrespected by political and media elites, and major demographic changes creating new political tides.

Here are the building blocks for the next FDR coalition:

A mobilized base of Democrats is now organizing around the Internet in alliance with progressive radio. Their views now converge with a strong majority of political independents.

Progressives are often demeaned on the three cable news networks, and like women, Hispanics and blacks are largely unrepresented among political show hosts.The progressive Internet is a powerful weapon for message, organization and fundraising, and by November 2008 could empower more than $250 million of fundraising and more than one million electoral volunteers.

As progressive radio and the progressive Internet increasingly empower and support each other, the power of both is heightened and the move into comparatively low-rated cable is inevitable.

Women represent a majority of people, voters and consumers. Hispanics are the largest-growing demographic in America. Blacks represent substantial numbers. Yet women, blacks, Hispanics and progressives are almost completely excluded as political show hosts in a new silent majority whose voice has only begun to be heard.

Political independents increasingly adopt Democratic-leaning positions. The population wave of Hispanics is accompanied by greater Democratic support among Hispanic voters, which only increases with the immigration debate. The Hispanic demographic wave will elect more Democrats to Congress and turn Western electoral votes to Democratic presidential candidates, with growing impact in Florida and ultimately Texas.

Giant majorities agree with Democratic views on global warming, energy policy, gasoline prices and dependence on foreign oil from despotic Middle East sources that create security dangers, consumer rip-offs and pressures for war.

The chronic and widespread shortchanging of wounded troops, veterans and military families who together represent more than 50 million voters, with above average turnout, could be a realigning coup de grâce.It is not enough for Democrats to be slightly better than Republicans. If Democrats speak honorably, courageously and comprehensively as the voice of vets and military families, the moral issue is clear and the realigning power is stunning.

If Democrats advocate a new patriotism based on a just society, where sacrifice and success are fairly shared, the new realignment includes heartland America, men and women of faith, working people and all who believe America should be brought together, lifted up and moving forward in the post-Bush era.

The new politics, new media and new majority are rooted in time-honored values of American idealism, major demographic and population waves, the common values of diverse faiths and communities, and advancing trends of media, technology and political fundraising.

Throughout the 20th century the game-changing presidencies and realigning national politics have always coincided with great transformations in major media that reflected changing culture, opinion and demographics.

The first wave was led by Franklin Roosevelt, who mobilized his party and the nation through breakthrough use of radio for communications and organization.

The second wave was led by John Kennedy, who was the first presidential candidate who rode the tide of television, and not only had the looks and message, but a brilliant father who came from the motion picture industry and led his peers in understanding the political power of television.

The third wave was led by Ronald Reagan, who understood television and motion pictures, used radio presentations brilliantly between 1976 and 1980, and brought together what became the conservative media infrastructure that began with religious broadcasting and culminated in conservative talk radio, Fox News and its imitators today.

The fourth wave has begun, combining massive popular discontent with Bush politics, the view of giant constituencies that they are insulted or ignored by current political and media elites, and the mass migration of these huge voter, audience and consumer blocs to media that respects their interests and values.

The wave has begun, the future is now, the candidates who seize it will prevail, and the next Rupert Murdoch will probably be liberal.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Bill Alexander, then-chief deputy whip of the House. He will contribute three follow-up posts on The Hill’s Pundits Blog about 2008 and the future of politics for the Internet, talk radio and K Street.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Journal/NBC Survey: GOP Sucks

Congress gets lower marks than the murder monkey. They are not doing what we elected them to do, but in all fairness, they do not have a majority in the Senate. LIEberman is a neocon mole and Tim Johnson has not returned to the senate after his long illness.

If there is gridlock, the even-steven Senate is the reason. Perhaps we can correct that come 2008.

If we manage to give the Democrats the Congress and the White House, they will have no excuse, and they had damn well better get to work, reversing every Bush policy.

Turn this counntry around, or we will have to burn D.C. to the ground and start all over.

Poll Watch

John Harwood writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "Americans give the Republican Party their most negative assessment in the two-decade history of the Journal/NBC survey, and by 49% to 36% they say the Democratic Party more closely shares their values and positions on the issues. . . .

"The party's woes can be partly traced to the political decline of President Bush. His approval rating in the Journal/NBC survey has fallen to its lowest ever, 29%, while 66% of Americans disapprove of his performance. . . .

"The poll hardly brings reassurance for the Democrats, who control both the House and Senate. Amid political gridlock on domestic issues and inconclusive debates over Iraq, the approval rating for Congress stands lower than Mr. Bush's, at 23%."

Mark Murray writes for NBC News: "Back in April, 75 percent of Republicans approved of Bush's job performance, compared with 21 percent who disapproved. Now, only 62 percent of Republican approve, versus 32 percent who disapprove."

Brian Williams had this to say on the NBC Nightly News: "We are in a volatile period in modern American history. The mood of this nation, which was after all founded on optimism and a promise of a better life, has turned decidedly grim and downright angry on some subjects."

Added Tim Russert: "This is bleak. People think Washington is broken." (Could it be because it is broken?

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

And The Political Pendulum Swings?

We shall see.

In order to undo even half of the horrors inflicted on this country by the NeoCons, progressive/liberal Democrats must have an overwhelming victory in 2008 and a clear mandate to uphold progressive, liberal, democratic ideals.

Americans, rightly alarmed by the course of the nation, must be willing to enforce that mandate and hold their elected officials accountable on a daily basis.


Published on Wednesday, June 6, 2007
by TedRall.com

Left Turn: The Political Pendulum Swings Back

America’s experiment with neofascism is coming to an end. He came to office in a coup d’état and consolidated power after 9/11. George W. Bush may be our worst president in history–certainly in recent times–but he is also one of the most important. Imposing his sweeping vision on everything from the tax system to why we wage war to eliminating your right to an attorney, his legislative and stylistic legacy will long outlive his administration.

He has been wildly successful at getting what he wanted. The irony is, his radical achievements have set the stage for a dramatic political shift to the left.

In my 2004 book “Wake Up! You’re Liberal!” I argued that liberalism went into crisis after winning most of the cultural battles of the 20th century–the New Deal, civil rights, equality for women, gay rights. By 1980 once dynamic ideology was reduced to defending its gains against a roll-back campaign by an insurgent New Right. In electoral politics, a dynamic party offering new proposals, even ideas recycled from previous decades, tends to defeat a party that comes off as stodgy and defensive.

Bush’s neofascists find themselves in the same unenviable position as the Democrats of Jimmy Carter’s time. (Old-school conservatism, Goldwater’s prescription of isolationism and limited government, is dead or dormant.) Now that they’ve won acceptance of preemptive warfare, torture, elimination of the estate tax, and spying on American citizens, Republicans are fresh out of new ideas.

As people who lived in Nazi Germany and Communist China attest, what starts out as exciting soon turns tedious. Long stretches of political radicalism leaves citizens exhausted, overwhelmed, and longing for “normalcy.” Sound familiar?

You can see the leftward shift everywhere. Bush’s approval rating, 91 percent after 9/11, is at 30 percent. Even most Republicans say Iraq is going badly. “I think this [the Iraq War] is the most expensive, stupidest thing we’ve ever done,” says Debbie Thompson of Wilmette, Illinois, a staunch pro-war Republican. The military, from privates in Iraq to armchair generals in Washington, openly derides him and his war in the media.

Have you noticed? Those pro-war “Support Our Troops” car magnets are disappearing faster than the Clinton budget surplus.

Newt Gingrich, mastermind of the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” compares Bush’s current political impotence to Carter’s and describes the Republican Party as in “collapse.” Especially telling is that the ex-House Speaker–famous for his hard-right, take-no-prisoners style–says the GOP must move left in order to win the next election.

The polarizing strategy Bush used to win in 2004, Gingrich says, was “maniacally dumb” because it focused on the right-wing base to the exclusion of party moderates and has diminished the Republican Party to its worst state since Watergate. “You can’t be a governing national party and write off entire regions,” he tells The New Yorker.

Things look bad for the Republicans, but Democrats too are being pressured to move left.

Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of the war has become her biggest political albatross. Even Barack Obama’s claim that he would have voted no if he’d been in the Senate back in 2002 is being met with skepticism. And the decision by Congressional Democrats to yield to Bush’s demand for another $100 billion to finance the war, no strings attached, could reduce the enthusiasm of liberal voters–and thus their turnout–on Election Day.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an Army Specialist killed in Iraq who became a star of the antiwar movement, articulated the frustration of more than two-thirds of the public. “I’ve been wondering why I’ve been killing myself and wondering why the Democrats caved into George Bush,” she said on May 28. She announced that she would no longer be active in the peace movement or have anything to do with the Democratic Party.

We are following the lead of South America, where decades of right-wing excesses prompted the election of socialist governments.

Disgusted by politicians who don’t even pretend to care about them or their concerns, American voters are finally ready to embrace progressives who work to put them first. The question is whether the Democrats will rise to the opportunity to lead them.

Ted Rall is the author of the new book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.

© 2007 Ted Rall

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

The Bigs will Decide Everything, So Just Relax

Published on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 by the Madison Capital Times (Wisconsin)

Hillary Coronation Wanted by 'the Bigs'

by Ed Garvey


A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?The race for president is in full swing, but feel no need to get excited, contribute to a candidate or watch the debates. Selecting the "American Idol" will be a more democratic process than nominating the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.

You, my friends, are not needed. Big media conglomerates, pollsters, consultants, big drug and insurance companies, and other captains of industry will take this burden from your shoulders.

You have plenty to keep you busy just making a living, so you can let the big boys ("bigs") and their bagmen make the decision for you. Rather comforting, wouldn't you say?

The bigs want a close race between the Democrat and the Republican, so that both must beg them for big bucks in their Faustian bargain.

The Democratic Leadership Council bigs decided five years ago to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008. Sure, Barack Obama is a rising star with charisma Hillary would kill for, but he won't get the big money he needs. You say, "But people like him." So what? Too unpredictable. The bigs don't know enough about him. You will be told, "not enough experience." Translated, that means "he might have his own agenda."

He might pursue peace in the Middle East while pushing for universal single-payer health care or proposing that the bigs pay Social Security taxes on all income coupled with a progressive tax system. Yikes! Better stick with Hillary. The bigs know her game, and she plays well. Remember NAFTA?

John Edwards? Hell no. He is way too serious about poverty, and that could bring more money and smaller classes to public schools but less for the military-industrial complex. What if Edwards pushes through a living wage, health care, fewer prisons, and decent housing? One can almost hear the bigs yelling, "What about us?" Iraq? Bring 'em home. Iran? Leave it to the U.N.

Besides, Edwards thinks corporations should be responsible for their misdeeds. What is he a commie?

Tom Vilsack? Too late. He dropped out because of money. Shame on him. Why didn't he select wealthy parents or join the DLC, or both? I must admit, he is a quick study. Lack of money stopped two other Iowans who should have been president, John Culver and Tom Harkin. Vilsack had the quaint notion that a person with executive experience, good values and good ideas could run for president and let the people decide. I'm not kidding; he thought this was a democracy.

His Field of Dreams campaign build it and the money will come collapsed before he could locate the cornfield. Vilsack was told that he needed $20 million by June of this year to be taken seriously. Face it, Tom. The bigs don't like you very much. I like Vilsack.

How about Bill Richardson? He is a popular governor, a former ambassador to the U.N., a seven-term member of Congress, and former secretary of energy! The man is smart, experienced, gutsy, and knows about energy needs. He was elected governor with 69 percent of the vote; he has negotiated on the international scene. He, like Vilsack, is a good man with executive experience, solid values and plenty of good ideas. Bye-bye, Bill. Bye-bye. He might make it until Easter.

Al Gore? Way too independent, and this global warming stuff please!

Good for Hollywood but not for our economy. He is needlessly scaring folks into finding alternatives to our comfortable way of life. Indeed, his truth is inconvenient for the bigs. The utilities don't like him, the oil boys can't stand him, and the auto industry is more than a little suspicious. Hell, he even opposed the invasion of Iraq! The bigs don't like any of it. "Thanks anyway, Al. Good movie."

Now then, how about Joe Biden? I don't think so. So long, Joe.

Take a break, folks. They will let you know the names of the chosen ones by July.

But wait. I didn't write anything about the Republican race. Could it be that Tommy has the nomination in the bag? He says he will shake every hand in Iowa good start. He is not burdened with ideology or new ideas. He is clear about Iraq. He said the other day that they could have a civil war if they aren't careful.

Back to reality.

A billion dollars will be spent on this race. By whom? The bigs. Why will they cough up the money? Because of a burning desire for good government?

Remember when we had a democracy and people like us played a role in nominating our candidates?

Whom do you favor for "American Idol"?

Our democracy has been hijacked. Might as well watch TV.

Copyright ©2007, Capital Newspapers.


....and the truth shall set us free.