Wednesday's surprising resignation/firing of Don Rumsfeld and the nomination of the CIA chief who served Bush 41, Robert Gates, was a dramatic and emphatic smack in the face of Dick Cheney. While George W. Bush remains stubbornly committed to the present course in Iraq, there should be no doubt that he is no longer willing to be the Charlie McCarthy to Cheney's Edgar Bergen. Cheney's hand is no longer firmly up Bush's ass and Bush is speaking for himself.

This was a stinging rebuke to Cheney, who had brought his mentor, Don Rumsfeld, into the Bush 43 tent over the strenuous objections of the Bush 41 crowd. Cheney and Rumsfeld shared the same world view of the NeoCon crowd, which included a fierce distrust and anger toward the CIA. During the last five years Cheney assisted Rumsfeld's quest to set up a completely independent intelligence operation in the Department of Defense. At least with the DOD intel capability, the Pentagon and the White House could ignore the CIA view.

Read more »

As control of the Senate hung on the Virginia tally for a day after the election, no political analyst was going to belabor a race that was done and had nothing to do with Senate control, anyway -- Sen. Joe Lieberman’s victory over Iraq war opponent Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Right?

Not right, if you’ve been following the continuing fulminations about Lamont by pundits such as David Brooks. Like a weather vane snapping back and forth in a storm, the wrenching, ongoing embarrassment of Brooks’ attempted public political makeover on the New York Times’ op ed page has produced wildly varied columns throughout the run-up to the election.

Read more »

One thing Democrats don't want to be is the "eat your spinach" party. No, I'm not arguing for irrationality and for wild-eyed spending, but the way D's lost in 1994 was to insist too hard on raising too much tax revenue while doing too little to improve the quality and amount of public goods. And no, it wasn't the case that OBRA in 1993 was so far-sighted and well-motivated that the loss of Congress for a dozen years was a price worth paying. Indeed, the reasons for the budget surplus of the late 90's, ephemeral as it may have proved to have been, were threefold: (a) rapid economic growth, especially in the information sector, and acutely in the form of options and other equity based compensation, led to unpredicted tax revenue; (b) the marginal rate on the very highest tax brackets captured a surprising amount of money partly because it was slightly raised and especially because more people enjoyed earnings that took them into that bracket; (c) oil prices and other inflators of entitlement programs were low.
Moreover, it is also the case that the boom in the information sector was not in fact transitory or meretricious. Research now shows that many new firms were born and now survive, at a rate as high or higher than other time periods. Much consumer welfare was created. Standards of living were improved. We could, in short, use such explosive growth in firms, productivity, and national income again. Whether stocks go up or down in excessive manner is of lesser consequence than the performance of the real economy.
The immediate concern is that we appear to be on the edge of a recession. The Fed has kept the downturn at bay for six years and hopefully will try to do so again, even under a Democratic Congress, but Democrats would be ill-advised to pick the downturn in the economic growth cycle as the moment to increase taxes.
In retrospect, in the wake of the recession of the early 90's, it was a blunder in 1993 for D's not to have championed a middle class tax cut after having promised it in the election. We could have afforded it and should have fought for it in Congress. And it was true, as President Clinton told the economists, that we would grow our way out of the deficit more than tax our way out of it.
The lessons now therefore are that we should seek economic growth by adopting wise microeconomic policies, including especially promoting entrepreneurship in closed markets like energy and health care and broadband. We should cut taxes on the middle class, especially taxes that discourage employment. We should adopt a very broad definition of middle for this purpose. Any tax increases should be aimed at collecting revenue in out-years more than immediately, and that can be done by raising only the very highest marginal rates and that only by a little. The balanced budget to aim for should be in fairly distant out-years. We should restructure the economy in fundamental terms, instead of restructuring taxes. We need a new antitrust law, more public goods, and more research and development. All this will help us respond to China and other sources of globalization, as set forth in Tom Friedman's column yesterday and, oh yes, my book, "In China's Shadow."

According to Stewart Stogel at NewsMax, Bolton is in DC this weekend pleading with senators for one more chance. But it's too little, too late.

Sources on Capitol Hill tell NewsMax the only feedback Bolton is likely to receive is that his fight (for approval) is over.

Hill operatives also say that the Administration's other "options" for keeping Bolton at the U.N. would badly irritate Democratic and Repubilcan senators and probably won't be exercised.

Time's up.

Like most people who weren't politically active (or alive) during the glory days of FDR through JFK, I don't have much experience with Democratic victories. Election days were invariably hopeful and ultimately depressing. The days after the election were miserable and gray.

But today contemplating Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, well, I can barely contain my sense of joy and, even more, relief.

Read more »

One more nail in the narrative that the victory of a few moderate Democrats means this election is really a triumph of conservative ideology; in talking about labor's agenda at Capitol Hill, the New York Times notes:

Representative Jim Matheson, a Utah Democrat who is co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition of moderate to conservative Democrats, said he strongly supported a higher minimum wage and the Employee Free Choice Act, the bill that would make it easier to unionize workers.

Read more »

I have always maintained that I’m waiting for the revolution before running before political office. The nasty, costly midterm elections that wrapped up this week renew my faith that I’m witnessing a slow but radical overhaul of our antiquated and insular two-party political system. While the Democrats certainly have cause for celebration, there is a different trend emerging beneath this debilitating, once-a-decade, one-party sweep of Congress.

Like many Americans, I found the vicious tenor of this campaign season alarming, and indicative of our political polarization. Professor Shanto Iyengar of Stanford’s Political Communications Lab thinks that the real point of all this “sensational” advertising is to have Americans “withdraw” from politics. We’re witnessing the opposite effect. A steadfast implosion of our two-party system has vitriolic Democrats and Republicans going down swingin’. Moving in to occupy the vast space between extremist American political poles is a growing, diverse population of Independents and minority-party voters that illustrates the changing shape of the US political field.

Read more »

You can check out Progressive States rundown of progressive successes in the states on Tuesday, but I want to focus on one key area-- the humiliating collapse of the tax cut politics promoted in the states by people like Grover Norquist. 

While it got little national coverage, for those concerned about health care and education, the number one issue in the states this year was defeating the so called "TAxpayer Bill Of Rights" (TABOR) initiatives. A version of TABOR passed in the early 90s had crippled education and health care budgets in Colorado until it was partially repealed last year and the rightwing had hoped to have TABOR on ballots across the country. 

Read more »

How many ways can we say the Bolton nomination is dead? Apparently not enough. Despite Chafee's bold pronouncement of opposition to Bolton, the White House is continuing its "Mission: Impossible," calling senators on both sides of the aisle to get Bolton confirmed. But no one on either side has any appetite for it.

Steve Clemons caught Helene Cooper's excellent NYT piece on the Administration's options on Bolton straight off the Internet presses. His own sharp analysis is also worth a read.

Check back on Monday morning for a comprehensive legal analysis of the Administration's options. Hint: they don't have any.

Something strange is cooking on the John Bolton nomination. . .

First of all, John Bolton's nomination was formally sent to the U.S. Senate yesterday, Thursday, between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. when the Senate was called to order for a pro forma session designed just to exhange letters and paperwork between the various branches of government.

In other words, correspondence from the White House to the Senate was received during this time.

Remarkably, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi was caught off guard by the Bolton nomination. The nomination is a Senate matter -- but it is also a political matter -- particularly when the theme of the President's lunch yesterday with Pelosi was "trust-building behavior" and "bipartisanship."

Nancy Pelosi's office would not comment on the President's failure to inform her of the White House's new moves on the controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Read more »

Just a shout-out to two great posts. On Daily Kos, Susan G. makes the point that what the media spin calls the new "conservative Democratic" agenda is really the long-held progressive agenda: building alliances, voting against state-sanctioned torture, making wiretapping policy abide by the law.

And on TPM Cafe, Jeremy Rosner points out that Democrats have closed the national security gap in polls--long considered a Republican issue.

What do these posts have in common?

Read more »

The Times of London Reports that Time Table is Set.

The Times November 10, 2006

Handover to Iraqi Army 'set for the end of next year'
By Ned Parker, Michael Evans and Richard Beeston
American and Iraqi officials have set a date for giving Iraq’s forces responsibility for security across the country.

Under a plan to be presented to the UN Security Council next month, the Iraqi Government would assume authority from coalition troops by the end of next year.

Only hours after Donald Rumsfeld was replaced as US Defence Secretary, American, British and Iraqi officials spoke openly about accelerating the handover process.

It is at an end.

Read more »

The new Democratic Congress must understand that to re-stabilize the Middle East and to improve chances of damage limitation in Iraq will mean re-engaging on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Baker-Hamilton study group should provide cover for this second fundamental reassessment of Middle East policy. Providing a mandate for the group to investigate and produce recommendations on what the U.S. can do to rehabilitate Israeli-Arab negotiations could also begin to salvage U.S. credibility in the region and undercut a central rallying cry of extremists around the world. Rather than try to artificially “out-pro-Israel” the Bush administration, the Democrats have a chance to prove that working to renew efforts for peace can be both smart policy and smart politics, and serve U.S., Israeli, and regional interests.

The politics of this may sound counter-intuitive, but read on, it makes sense!

Read this piece “Send the Baker Commission to Gaza,” that I have in the new Washington Monthly, below the jump.

Read more »

My father used to say, "You heard it here first." I always found this annoying, regardless of the topic. But like father, like son: There were three themes to the election you heard here months ago: Iraq, corruption and the safety net. At least the first and second proved to be determinative and I'd argue the third contributed. None of these was part of the D gameplan until the last 90 days. Now it's critical that the D's not forget them.

But the country cannot be governed from Congress. We have a C in C and that's where the plan for Iraq has to come from. D's need to be respectful, inquisitive, and thoughtful in their response to the plan. Expect it within a month. Yes, confirm Gates right away. And try to ignore the in-your-face rudeness of the White House floating the idea of confirming Mr. Bolton. This helps us.

As to corruption, the D's have to show America they really prefer honesty and integrity in the people's house. There are a host of necessary reforms. Many of the members of both parties won't like them; they are absolutely necessary.

The election wouldn't have even been a thumping; it would have been a massive landslide locking in a D majority for many years if it weren't for gerrymandering, voter suppression, voting fraud (including misuse of telephone networks), and many other 'dirty tricks' that should not be overlooked, forgiven, or let go unreformed. The D's should take the lead in fixing all the terribly broken aspects of the voting process dating to the uncount of the year 2000. This area the Congress can take the lead in fixing.

As to the safety net, the Administration has to come forward with a plan to fix health care, not social security. Under current course and speed the polar ice caps will have melted and the middle class will have disappeared long before social security's payments are under serious threat. It's not the case that the D's have to bite the hard political bullets left lying around by this Administration. Don't fall for that!

I'm in China right now. I've seen the future and it's working hard. Much to do in this area, since the United States actually could use a trade policy, among other things, that deals with the reality of rising Asia.

Many factors contributed to the Democrats' victories on Tuesday. Revulsion against Republican congressional corruption. Middle class revolt against a country club pattern of economic growth. But nothing played a more powerful role than the rejection of the Bush and Republican national security priorities. One of the biggest challenges the Democratic party now faces is to exploit the opening that rejection creates.

Read more »

Linc Chafee is standing up to the White House. Thelame-duck Senate will NOT approve Bolton.

From Anne Plummer Flaherty at the Associated Press:

Bolton unlikely to win Senate approval

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Prospects for extending John Bolton's job as U.N. ambassador essentially died Thursday as Democrats and a pivotal Republican said they would continue to oppose the nomination.

It was another blow to President Bush two days after Democrats triumphed in elections that will give them control of Congress next year. On Wednesday, Bush had announced that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a polarizing figure and face of the Iraq war, would step down.

On Thursday the White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination to the Senate, where the appointment has languished for more than a year. Bush appointed him to the job temporarily in August 2005 while Congress was in recess, an appointment that will expire in January.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island on Thursday that he would continue opposing Bolton. That would deny Republicans the votes they would need to move Bolton's nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate.

Democrats indicated that even should the Senate try debating Bolton's nomination when lawmakers reconvene next week _ still under Republican control _ they would stretch out debate on Bolton with the aim of killing it.

"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

 

Steve Clemons is reporting that Linc Chafee is about to publicly state his opposition to John Bolton and make clear that Bolton will not be confirmed in this lame-duck session. It's over in the Senate, folks.

Word has just reached me from a well-placed source that the White House has continued to push John Bolton's confirmation prospects as US Ambassador to the United Nations despite the election outcome.

Another highly placed source has informed me that in just a few minutes Senator Lincoln Chafee is calling a press conference to state categorically that he will not support John Bolton's confirmation in the upcoming lame duck session.

Read more »

It sounds like President Bush is intent on trying to swim upstream. According to Reuters, Bush urged Republican leaders this morning to get Bolton confirmed in the lame-duck session. But now, Chafee's got no reason to bow to White House pressure, and Democrats feel emboldened.

This is no way to start a new chapter of bipartisan cooperation between the White House and Congress. There are many, many qualified Republicans who would make fine U.N. Ambassadors and who could be unanimously confirmed. Besides, it's still going nowhere.

The Democrats’ victory Tuesday is huge and Rumsfeld’s departure long overdue. But those who are betting on a sharp correction in US foreign policy and a new bipartisan center will be disappointed. Charlie Kupchan (Georgetown University) and I explain why in today’s Los Angeles Times. I post it below.

Read more »

President Bush just laid out a number of priorities for the lame-duck Congress, but notably didn't ask the Senate to confirm Bolton. This just confirms it: everyone knows it's over. Mr. Ambassador, it's time to pack your bags.

The resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier today is welcome news, especially for those men and women in uniform who have suffered the consequences of Rumsfeld’s mistakes and failed policies.

In the Army, the concept of personal accountability is the most important part of a Soldier’s life. To survive a firefight in Fallujah, you must know beyond a doubt that the guy next to you is doing his job, and vice versa.

Read more »

Now that the voting is over, it seems like all eyes are focused on Iraq. But polls leading up to mid-term elections highlighted at least TWO hot-button issue for voters, Iraq AND the economy. Sure, the Dow is soaring, gas prices are falling, inflation is arguable in good shape, and the overall economy is growing. But this doesn't mean the economy is working for the majority of Americans.

Read more »

As Billy Crystal once explained, "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead." Before the elections, John Bolton's nomination was mostly dead. Linc Chafee had stopped it dead in its tracks, a move that sadly will, in all likelihood, be his last act of consequence as a senator. Now that Democrats will control the Senate in the 110th Congress, the nomination is all dead. Not even a fully potent miracle pill can bring it back.

Read more »

As Ganesh noted yesterday, Tuesday's sweeping victory for Democrats - in congressional, gubernatorial, and local races - may have been driven, in significant part, by the frustration of the middle class. President Bush and the 109th Congress have done shockingly little to address their concerns, and despite reasonably robust economic growth, middle class families across the country are struggling with rising health care costs, higher net tax burdens, and diminishing home values.

Having recaptured both houses of Congress, the burden falls to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their respective caucuses to succeed where their Republican counterparts failed. The question on our collective mind is: what will they do? Having spent the last several years as a reactive minority, Democrats are now accountable to voters as proactive leaders. In the coming weeks, Democrats will lay out their legislative agenda.

In the coming days, so will we here at Warren Reports. Stay tuned for a series of brief, discrete policy proposals that we think would address middle class economic needs that the current Congress neglected. For the most part, we'll leave questions of political wisdom to the politicians; our aim is to offer substantive ideas that we think will improve the lot of the broad American middle class.

One last note: we have no monopoly on good ideas. If you have some, let us know in the comments and we'll incorporate them into future posts. Stay tuned...

The election of 2006 isn't quite over yet, there's unfinished business with two run off elections. I've always liked run off elections, they are the Monday night football of the campaign season, a last bit of hoopla before getting back to business. Almost immediately Karen Carter in LA-02 made her self a rising star by taking on a corrupt Democratic incumbent. Rep.Carter is more progressive down the line than Jefferson. It points to one of the most important facets of what is becoming the Democratic Renewal of America - the ability of the Democratic Party to challenge its own and set a higher standard.

The Democratic Party is going to come to town and find a horribly broken Federal Government. The first thing that should go in the trash is the word "reform". Reform is a Republican brand name for "execute a leveraged buy out of a liberal program and disburse the profits in the form of capital gains tax cuts." Think about "Welfare Reform" and "Tax Reform". Instead, our words are "overhaul" and "renewal".

Read more »

Just one year after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political humiliation, with all four of his favored ballot initiatives crushed at the polls, the Terminator won reelection yesterday by 17 points. How did he accomplish such a dramatic turnaround? According to the Los Angeles Times, he 1) apologized for his missteps, which were attributable largely to rigidly adhering to right-wing ideology, 2) realized that his job was about “governing,” 3) poured billions of dollars into popular programs, 4) cut bipartisan deals to fight global warming, boost the minimum wage, and reduce the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, and 5) made infrastructure the center of his legislative focus, underscoring his new brass-tacks approach to governance.

Does anyone doubt for a second that President Bush could achieve a similar rebound in popularity by...

Read more »

Does Bush’s decision to replace Rumsfeld with Bob Gates signal a bigger shift in the president’s attitude towards national security? Here’s something to consider: It is well known that Rumsfeld and Bush Sr./41 detested each other — which according to Bob Woodward in State of Denial, was a key factor in Bush 43’s decision to make Rumsfeld his first SecDef.

But if anything defines Bob Gates, it is the fact that he is extremely close to the very Bush Rumsfeld so detested. Gates worked for Bush when the latter was CIA director in the mid 1970s (a position to which Bush was appointed by Ford on the recommendation of Rumsfeld in order to put him out of the running for the VP slot in 1976). During Bush 41’s presidency, Gates served as deputy national security adviser and then as CIA director. And since leaving government, Gates has been dean of the Bush School and then president of Texas A&M, which is where the Bush presidential library is located.

In other words, Bob Gates is a Bush 41 kinda guy — not exactly the profile of a Bush 43 national security principal during the last six years. Combine this with the fact that Bush today signaled that he would be looking to Jim Baker (also known as Dad’s best friend) to set his Iraq policy, and you begin to wonder whether Bush 43 may use his last two years in office to return to a Bush 41-style realism. Given the alternative, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

Dems maybe securing – however slightly – the marshmallow center. What does that mean for the rest of us?

Read more »

Before the media goes overboard extolling the virtues of Bob Gates as the replacement for Don Rumsfeld, it is important to look back at Gates' record and reputation. Gates has some "splaining" to do. The press has forgotten that Bob Gates, during his time at CIA, acquired a reputation for trying to tailor intelligence to satisfy political masters in the Reagan White House. In addition, Bob Gates, a man of enormous intellect and a photographic memory, conveniently forgot salient facts and meetings surrounding the Iran Contra scandal.

Read more »

Let's be clear-- this wasn't just a good night for Democrats. It was a good night for progressives, and no media spin that these new elected officials are "conservatives" changes who they are. The media is always marvelling that "new" Democrats are so much more conservative than "traditional" liberal Democrats of the past-- which would surprise all the folks firehosed in the streets of the South by many Democrats of a generation ago.

There are no doubt some conservatives among the new Democrats elected but as Rick Perlstein, Ezra Klein and Chris Bowers note, many were progressive and Netroots supported and almost all were tough on core economic justice issues.

Read more »

Victory finds a thousand fathers in the White House, but in this election it has to be said that there have been millions of fathers and mothers of victory. The voters. The voters and the public has, for the last two years, carried on a conversation about that other country, America, which is far from the world of Mediasylvania and Beltwaystan, which are what cable news covers.

The voters wanted change on Iraq. They are getting it - already Rumsfeld has resigned as SecDef - the administration that, two days ago, was vowing to act as if nothing was different, has found out that everything has changed. The Democrats have not even officially taken power - and have not even been certified as the winners in Virginia - and the crumbling of the great wall around the White House has started. However, the nomination of Robert Gates, former CIA chief for Reagan, shows what is to come from Bush - an infantile attempt to evade the results of an election that he could not beg, borrow, or steal.

Read more »

I almost feel sorry for George W. Bush.

Read more »

In yesterday's election, people around American struck a big victory for the middle class. For starters, six states -- Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio -- passed initiatives raising the minimum wage. In addition, voters sent a clear signal that they want a change in Washington.

Read more »

The American midterm elections are a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration. In a parliamentary system, these results would lead to a change in government; in our presidential system it should lead to a change in policy. Whether this occurs will determine whether Bush remains relevant to the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy.

Read more »

It appears that Capital One is the latest lender relying on predatory tactics to encourage its consumers to incur penalties and fees (and therefore boost its revenue). 

Read the story here...

Read more »

Stirling Newberry’s analysis of the progressive pedigree of the likely new Senate -- "The Coming Progressive Plurality" -- is brilliant research, and of course it should go without saying that a Democratic majority is not the same as a majority for progressive policies. After all, the last sustained Democratic majority in the Senate -- 1986-1994 -- incorporated characters like Richard Shelby, who not only were more at home in the G.O.P., but on the far-right fringes of that party. It's also important to note that some economic liberals are social conservatives, and so forth.

Read more »

Last year I was an official US monitor of the Palestinian elections. Before election day, our delegation -- along with all the international monitoring groups -- were trained as to how to spot fraud, intimidation and other devices designed to prevent a free and fair vote.

Read more »

Mike Krause served two full years in Iraq, plus a stint in Afghanistan, as a Sergeant in the US Army. This Election Day, he reminds us why there's no excuse for apathy this year, and no better way to honor the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform than to cast your vote and hold your elected officials accountable.

"In November 2004, more than 200 million people were eligible to vote in the presidential election... but almost 40% of them stayed home.

That nearly 80 million people didn't make it to the polls that day was a special punch in the gut to my friends and me, because we were watching the election results from deep within Iraq's Sunni Triangle. Some Americans heard political commentary that night- we heard mortar fire.

Read more »

[Warning: Strong language, but it is warranted.]

Richard Perle, you arrogant prick. David Rose writing in Vanity Fair quotes you, the leading neo-con and advocate for the war in Iraq, from the upcoming January issue as having second thoughts? And you told him this shit with a straight face?

"The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."

Read more »

Nancy Pelosi is very close to be the first woman to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. She will be the highest ranking woman, ever, in American politics. She comes to a job which has been held, until this point, by Hastert the Unspeakerable, whose malignant neglect has let a thicket of weeds and poisonous plants grow up. She is not as theatrical as Harry Reid, nor as colourful as some previous Speakers. However colorful is not going to be helpful in the labor she has set for her - mucking out the Augean stables.

For this this kind of steady task, different qualities are required. Qualities such as determination, level headedness, and the ability to reach consensus among very diverse points of view. Nancy Pelosi must then errect a big tent in the House, which will create the ability of the Democratic caucus to move bills without losing either the urban core of her party, or the vital votes that stream out past the center of American politics and towards the right. Right now the House is a jungle, and that must be fixed before it can become a circus.

Read more »

Dear Ken,

We've all done a little cherry picking in our day. But this is the first time I've seen cherry pit picking. You picked the pit and forgot the cherry. In the Congressional vote, using the actual candidates' names, the Republican vote over the last 5 Democracy Corps polls:

October 12: 45 percent
October 24: 45 percent
October 29: 45 percent
November 1: 44 percent
November 5: 44 percent

The only thing surging are cherry pits.

James Carville

In the last stretch before the election, the White House is trumpeting its economic record and lamenting the fact that the press isn’t singing their tune.  FoxNews.com faithfully picked up the story, though.   Quoting Press Secretary Tony Snow:  “People are feeling good about the economy. And if you take a look at the news coverage of it, it's been overwhelmingly negative at a time when you do have just an extraordinary situation."  The article cites the fact that “real wages for American workers [have grown] — 2.2 percent last year.”  (See the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release.)

Sure enough, other media outlets have reported a less rosy picture. ...

Read more »

More important, to many of us, than the shift of parties, is the shift of ideologies. Not "how much more Democratic?" is the next Congress, but "How much more liberal and progressive?" Looking at the question this way, it is important to compare the candidates, not just on their likely voting records, but on their likely legislative agendas.

Here, on a scale of –10 to 10 (-10 being reactionary, +10 being liberal) are the net changes in progressive stance in the likely progressive moves for three areas – social, economic and civil rights.

Read more »

The second China – Africa Summit has just ended in Beijing, a huge international event with almost 50 heads of state in attendance. “So”, a senior South African official asked me recently over dinner, “do you think the U.S. could convince 48 heads of state to come to Washington for a summit meeting?”

Read more »

Americans go to the polls Tuesday to express the will of the people. Their votes will send a big important message on foreign policy. There are three other elections worth paying attention to, since they send important messages as well – Brazil, Congo and Venezuela.

Read more »

For anyone who cares about Israel and who shares a progressive politics, there are no more stirring words than those spoken by novelist David Grossman at the 11th memorial rally for slain Israeli Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin that was held on Saturday night in Tel Aviv.100,000 were in attendance. They can be read here: Haaretz.

Grossman, who was the sole speaker at the rally, aside from Rabin's daughter, Dahlia, along with some of Israel's top performers, gave the Israeli left back its voice, if only for one night. By any measure, since the disappointment of the center-left gov't under Ehud Olmert and Labor's Amir Peretz--someone for whom many on the left, including leading novelists--had so much hope, the left has lost its voice. But Grossman's remarks offer a way back. He speaks from deep love for Israel, but deep concern. And he challenged the current Israeli leadership to seriously propose peace. His challenge should be echoed by the party that wins the Congress on Tuesday-and the Bush Administration should push for the same.

Read more »