The following article, by Democratic Strategist Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
I am thankful each and every day that Barack Obama won the 2012 election, and that he is our president instead of Mitt Romney. The current version of the Republican Party is the most extreme, cynical, and utterly heartless group of people I have ever witnessed in American politics- and I have witnessed a lot in my 30-plus years in politics. I am proud of the president for the good things he has done on many different issues, and for many of the fights he has chosen to take on. But on economic policy, and especially on fighting for the middle class, this President has two blind spots the size of a Mack truck.
The first is Wall Street. Obama’s first term Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner believed that the most important thing in making the economy work better was to help the biggest banks on Wall Street, and Obama’s current Attorney General openly admits in official testimony to Congress that he is hesitant to prosecute criminals who are executives at big banks because it might hurt those companies, and therefore, apparently, the broader economy. These policies are bad economics, bad morality, and bad politics. This allegiance to Wall Street’s interests has drained vast amounts of money out of productive investments in the real economy, put millions of homeowners underwater on their mortgages or into foreclosure, made big bank execs feel free to commit financial fraud, and allowed continued dangerous speculation in our financial markets that could lead to another financial panic in the not too distant future. These pro-Wall Street policies have slowed the economy down dramatically. Favoring the biggest banks over the rest of the economy is terrible policy if you want to help the middle class.
The other huge blind spot is on Obama’s great desire to strike this “grand bargain”, including cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits. He seems obsessed with the idea, offering it up to the Republicans over and over and over again no matter how many times they say no. He is dead wrong on this issue, and Democrats in Congress should fight him on it tooth and nail.

Read more…

There have been plenty of incisive critiques of Paul Ryan’s latest budget, but E.J. Dionne, Jr.’s WaPo column, “Paul Ryan’s Cruelly Radical Vision” captures the essential meanness of it better than most:

It is full of holes and magic asterisks, the biggest being his refusal to detail any of the middle-class tax deductions he would have to scrap to get to his 25 percent income tax rate. This would represent an astonishingly large cut from the current 39.6 percent rate for incomes of over $450,000 a year.
It’s a cruel budget. To finance his largess to the very well-off, Ryan would — through steep Medicaid cuts and the repeal of Obamacare — leave an additional 40 million to 50 million poor or moderate-income Americans without health insurance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
He’d impose big reductions for food stamps, college tuition aid, child nutrition programs and a slew of other programs that help the least among us. Even here, Ryan doesn’t come clean. He fuzzes up exactly how such cuts might be made by lumping them together in large categories.
Those who think of themselves as compassionate conservatives have a moral obligation to oppose Ryan’s design.

Dionne describes Sen. Patti Murray’s budget as a far more serious effort for those who prefer to live in the real world, where flesh and blood working people are already struggling to get by and adds:

…Poorer Americans pay a big part of the price for Ryan’s cuts; Murray leans primarily on revenue from wealthier Americans to move closer to balance. Ryan claims to reach balance in 10 years. Murray and the Democrats rightly argue that rushing to balance is less important than keeping an eye on economic growth and job creation. So Murray includes $100 billion in her plan to support infrastructure projects and job-training programs.

Dionne notes “It takes nerve to dismiss the results of an election that Ryan himself called a “referendum” and wonders if House Republicans will “be held accountable for ignoring that verdict while putting forward something this radical and unrealistic?”
it’s a good question, make that the question of the political moment. Dionne concludes, “This is, finally, a test of those who consider themselves moderate and are seeking a sensible settlement. Will they call out Ryan and the House Republicans for how extreme their ideas are? Or will they instead adjust their own postures and timidly let Ryan dictate the terms of the debate?”
Regrettably, none of the more astute commentators are betting on the few remaining moderate Republicans coming forward from the shadows to do what is best for America.

Ed Kilgore has a perceptive post up at Washington Monthly explaining why the Republican party’s capacity for substantive change has devolved to nil. He cites Ray Marshall’s insight that, in addition to the tea party’s knee-jerk nihilism,

… Thanks to a combination of geographic sorting and gerrymandering, many House Republicans can truthfully claim to be faithfully representing their constituents who sent them to Washington to pull down the Temple, not to do deals with Democrats. That’s why the House stands for now at least as the Proud Tower of unbending right-wing orthodoxy.

Then Kilgore elaborates:

With the “base” and elected officials (not to mention the vast noise machine of activists and gabbers) alike embracing every available excuse for maintaining the GOP’s ideological totems, the handful of wonks and scribblers calling for a fundamental reexamination of those totems are laughably outgunned. Marshall doesn’t specifically note the complicity of the MSM in mis-describing the various “rebranding” and “better messaging” projects of the GOP as something far more consequential than they actually are. But that, too, encourages the deception and self-deception that keeps Republicans from facing the music, and helps, as Marshall does observe, prevent a divided federal government from functioning on a whole host of issues….

Rather than wait indefinitely for enough Republicans to grow up or for the MSM to do its job, Kilgore concludes that the only sensible response left for Dems is to keep beating the Republicans. “These people just need the honesty that comes with chronic defeat. That won’t be easy for those who still think of Barry Goldwater’s calamitous loss in 1964 as a moral victory.”

Ed Kilgore’s “A Tug O’ the Forelock” at the Washington Monthly pinpoints the “rationale” behind Paul Ryan’s latest regurgitation:

…In the 1980s, when Democrats found themselves on the south end of a northbound electoral-demographic trend line, they adjusted pretty dramatically, or at least had big and ideologically meaningful arguments about it with the forces of the status quo ante having the burden of persuasion. Republicans in a similar situation seem determined to scream defiance at the electorate. Their way is the Truth and the Light, and it’s the country which needs to adjust!
…Ryan’s budget is a tug of the forelock by the House GOP to the Cut-Cap-Balance crowd who think a radical and permanent reduction in domestic spending, read right into the Constitution, should be the eternal message of the Republican Party, no matter what happens electorally. All their endless and redundant RINO-bashing and demands for adherence to “conservative principle” reflect that belief-set. The American people are to be offered a chance to reverse the tragic mistake they made in 1964, again and again until they finally get it right. So it’s important to Ryan’s core constituency that the party’s largely symbolic budget documents keep on that shining path, world without end.

All of which must be sorely testing the capacity for embarrassment of smarter Republicans. As “T2” adds in the comments following Kilgore’s post, “Another example of why today’s GOP has become more of a cult than a viable political party.”

Hats off to the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for setting a high standard of gutsy truth-telling for other heartland MSM newspapers. Here’s a tasty morsel of richly-deserved snarkage from their editorial “Missouri Senate blames unions for economic woes. Oh, please.”:

The Missouri Senate has found the culprit. It’s public employees.
It’s those absurdly high-paid teachers, nurses, janitors, secretaries, pothole fixers and home health care workers.
Early Tuesday morning, while some of those workers were helping roll over your grandma or grandpa at the nursing home so they didn’t get bed sores, the Republicans who lead the state Senate set things right. They gave initial approval to a bill that will make it a little harder for the unions that represent those public employees to collect fees that might be used to elect thoughtful people to elected office.
Take that.

The editorial goes on to note that Missouri public workers are already the lowest-paid state employees in the U.S. and weakened unions are struggling to survive with GOP domination of the legislature. But the Republican bully-boys just can’t resist beating up on working people who happen to be in a vulnerable position. Further, states the editorial:

But because union-bashing has become a big-money deal on the national scene (thanks to Wisconsin and Michigan), the lemmings in the Missouri Senate don’t want to be left behind. They’re doing the bidding of their corporate overlords in the American Legislative Exchange Council, which promotes cookie-cutter legislation written by corporate lawyers to enhance their bottom lines.
So, for those of you keeping score at home, this is what the Senate did (so far) in one of the key legislative weeks, the last before spring break, sending a signal to all where its priorities lie:
It raised taxes on poor people.
It cut taxes for rich people.
It hurt teachers, nurses and other public employees.

Naturally, the bill exempts first responder public unions (firefighters, police) which have strong lobbies and whose members tend to vote Republican more frequently than other union members. It’s all about shameless partisanship. As the editorial concludes, “Senate Republicans should have more pride than this. If they want to blame working people for the state’s economic problems, while banks and corporations sit on record profits, good luck with that argument. But have the courage to tell the truth.”
As with bullies everywhere, real courage, as in standing up for decent treatment of people who are struggling, is not a consideration. But at least the hometown newspaper is doing its job sticking up for working people who deserve a little support.

Amid all of the buzz about President Obama’s approval numbers downtick in recent opinion surveys, WaPo’s Greg Sargent has a lucid take on the latest Post poll:

…Dig deeper into the poll and you find something striking: Public disapproval of the sequester is running high — and more Americans hold Republicans responsible for it. Solid majorities oppose specific cuts to government programs to replace the sequester — even as solid majorities support closing tax loopholes to replace it. Solid majorities reject the basic Republican argument about the sequester and the economy.
It’s true that the poll finds that Obama only holds a small edge over Republicans on who is most trusted on the economy, 44-40. His approval rating has slipped, though it remains at 50 percent. The public also is split on who has the balance right on government spending (though this may again reflect that people always like cutting spending in the abstract). But look at these findings:
* 72 percent of Americans, including 74 percent of independents and 81 percent of moderates, disapprove of the Congressional GOP.
* Americans disapprove of the sequester cuts by 53-39; 64 percent say they’ll hurt the economy; 60 percent say they’ll hurt the government’s ability to provide basic services; and 69 percent say they’ll hurt the military.
* Americans hold Congressional Republicans responsible for the sequester cuts by 47-33.
* 68 percent want Obama and the GOP to work together to avert the cuts, while only 28 percent want them to continue (the conservative position).
* 71 percent oppose cutting spending on Medicaid to replace the cuts; and 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare eligibility age to replace them. By contrast, 58 percent support replacing the cuts with more targeted cuts to military spending.
* 56 percent support replacing the cuts with an agreement that includes limiting deductions enjoyed by higher income individuals.

Doesn’t sound like much support for the GOP’s rigid position that only budget cuts merit consideration. As Sargent explains: “People say they agree with the GOP about spending cuts in the abstract. But when you get specific, solid majorities disapprove of the sequester cuts and think they’ll harm the economy — rejecting the conservative argument about the relationship between the economy and spending cuts.”
When polls ask good questions, it is clear that progressive economic policies have much more support than do the Republican’s austerity proposals. Or, as Sargent concludes, “Majorities reject the values, priorities, and governing vision at the heart of the GOP stance on the sequester.”

TDS founding co-editor Stanley Ggreenberg has an article up at Financial Times, discussing how “Immigration exposes political weakness.” Noting that, after their 2012 shellacking, many Republicans suddenly saw the light and became supporters of “immigration reform that included a path to full US citizenship,” Greenberg explains:

This repositioning will not be pretty. In the past few decades, citizens in developed countries have often demanded that governments take control of borders in response to globalisation. Many feel their concerns have been ignored – or, worse, dismissed as ignorant or even racist. They feel let down by politicians on the left and the right. Nevertheless, conservatives have until recently benefited from scepticism about the gains from immigration; this is now changing, across the rich world.
Mr Romney knew what he was doing when he used immigration to define himself as an authentic and “severe” conservative. He played to the anger and frustration of Republican voters. It helped him win over a sceptical party and to win the primary. But later, it also helped him to lose the election.
Now, Republican leaders will probably not block immigration reform because of the electoral mathematics. Business support for reform is also important. The US Chamber of Commerce, and industrial, agricultural, and high-tech sectors are desperate for reform to meet their needs. A battle has begun between the political and corporate elite and the Republican base.

Greenberg sees a similar “problem for the political right” across Europe, where “conservative politicians are caught primarily between extremists and nativist sentiment to their right and more liberal voices to their left” and adds,

This confusion has made immigration an explosive issue. It was at least as important as public spending when British voters threw out Gordon Brown in 2010, who dismissed a voter who quizzed him about eastern European migrants as “bigoted” during his ill-fated campaign. Immigration today is the first or second priority for citizens across Europe, according to polls.
Under Tony Blair, Britain introduced restrictions on asylum seekers and adopted a points system for non-EU migrants. These changes were rendered irrelevant, however, in the eyes of many voters when eastern European immigration exceeded estimates by a factor of 20.
More recently, David Cameron’s Conservative party lost disastrously to the United Kingdom Independence party in the Eastleigh by-election, in large part because of worries about immigration. Mr Cameron has promised to make life tough for the Romanians and Bulgarians who might come when they are permitted to work in the UK next year, and to tighten benefit rules, but this has not stemmed the Tory erosion. They lead the opposition Labour party by only three points on the issue of immigration – and trail Ukip by 13.

Greenberg cites an electoral victory by conservative Alfred Gusenbauer in Austria, when he “moved ahead of other Social Democrats and spoke comfortably about immigrants learning German and their families respecting women’s rights” and became chancellor. Greenberg adds that the lesson has not been lost on the UK’s Labor Party leader Ed Miliband, “who has made repeated efforts to position himself wisely on immigration.”
Here in the U.S., however, it remains to be seen whether Republicans are ready to give up the nativist pandering to the satisfaction of Latino voters, many of whom have problems with GOP economic policies. Democrats, meanwhile, have staked out both economic and immigration policies that should keep them in good stead with this key constituency.

At National Journal ‘Hotline on Call’ blog, Scott Bland’s “EMILY’s List Sets Sights on Statehouses in 2014” notes that Dems only have one woman governor right now, Maggie Hassan in NH. It’s a deplorable statistic for a party that purports to be more inclusive, one which ought to make Dems do a little more thinking about our recruitment strategy. Fortunately, Emily’s List is on the case, and is discussing possible candidacies with 15 women. Bland adds:

Numerous high-profile Democratic women are already laying the groundwork for 2014 gubernatorial runs, whether against Republicans or fellow Democrats. Democratic Rep. Allyson Schwartz has said she is interested in running against GOP Gov. Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. In Illinois, Attorney General Lisa Madigan is reportedly “very close” to deciding to run (against unpopular Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn) there, while Rep. Colleen Hanabusa is mulling a primary challenge against Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (or a Senate bid).
Schriock mentioned Rhode Island — “Gina Raimondo is going to jump in and run, that’s another exciting one,” she said — where independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee is a vulnerable incumbent; Raimondo, the general treasurer, has positive approval ratings. Schriock also said she hoped that women candidates would jump to the fore in Maine and Florida, among many states.
Though congressional Democrats make sure issues like the long-stalled Violence Against Women Act become national stories, the main events in Democrats’ “war on women” narrative the past two years have come from state governments helmed by Republican governors. Schriock said women gubernatorial candidates will be particularly well-equipped to take advantage this cycle. For various reasons, not least the 2010 Republican wave, the number of Democratic women governors has dwindled to one as the number of Democratic women legislators has risen, both in Congress and at the state level. There are 58 female Democratic House members and over 1,100 Democratic women in state legislatures across the country, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Many were elected with EMILY’s List’s support.

Four Republican women are currently serving as governors of AZ, NM, OK and SC, which is not all that impressive either. But clearly Dems have to do better if we want to gain credibility as a genuinely inclusive party and if we want to increase our share of women voters in statewide elections.
Emily’s list does have some resources for “pro-choice Democratic women” who want to run for office at this link. The Rutgers University Center for American Women and Politics has a clickable map showing education and training resources for women who want to run for office for the 50 states. Emerge America also has training resources for Democratic women right here.

Alan I. Abramowitz adds some clarity to the debate over the continuing need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. in his Cystal Ball post “Why Section 5 Is Still Needed: Racial Polarization and the Voting Rights Act in the 21st Century“:

There is no doubt that old-fashioned racism has greatly diminished over the past 40 years throughout the nation and in the states covered by Section 5. However, there are good reasons to be concerned about how a decision to overturn Section 5 would affect the voting rights of African Americans and other minorities in these states — for reasons that are more political than racial. That’s because regardless of whether white political leaders in these states hold racist views, they have substantial political incentives for engaging in actions to suppress or dilute the minority vote.
In addition to a history of racial discrimination, the states covered by Section 5 are characterized by an exceptionally high degree of racial polarization in voting up to the present day. Whites and nonwhites in these states are deeply divided in their political preferences, resulting in a two-party system in which one party depends overwhelmingly on votes from whites and the other party depends overwhelmingly on votes from African Americans and other nonwhites. This racial polarization continues to provide a powerful incentive for leaders of the party that depends overwhelmingly on white votes to suppress or dilute the votes of African Americans and other minorities.

Abramowitz provides data showing racial polarization in voting patterns in states that are covered, as well as those that are not, “with African Americans making up only 1% of Republican voters in both sets of states.” He notes further that all nine covered states are now dominated by the GOP and adds:

…African Americans and other nonwhites made up 62% of the Democratic electoral coalition in the covered states versus only 35% in the rest of the country. African Americans by themselves made up 42% of Democratic voters in the states covered by Section 5, but only 19% of Democratic voters in the rest of the country. It is clear that Democratic candidates in the covered states are much more dependent on the votes of African Americans and other nonwhites than Democratic candidates in the rest of the country.
…Republican leaders in the states covered by Section 5 have frequently attempted to suppress or dilute the minority vote through actions such as enacting voter identification laws, changing voting dates, changing poll locations, replacing partisan elections with nonpartisan elections, switching from district-based to at-large elections and changing district boundaries. While such actions have occurred in other states, the evidence collected by Congress in 2006 showed that they occurred much more frequently in the states covered by Section 5. In numerous instances, only the power of the federal government to block such discriminatory laws and regulations has prevented their implementation.

On a surface level, any visitor to the modern south will see ample racial integration in terms of the workplace and socializing, though residential and school de facto segregation are still prevalent. Voter suppression in the covered states, in the past, as well as today, has always been about hording political power for the privileged. There is still raw racial bigotry in the covered states, though not as bad as it was before the Voting Rights Act. But today it’s even more about protecting political advantage for the Republicans. Section 5 has been a great equalizer in southern cities, which have been electing African American mayors for decades. At the state level, however, it’s a different story. As Abramowitz concludes: “Far from being outdated, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may be needed more than ever in the coming decades.