Will Our Legal Rights Become A Primary Concern?
Speculation hasn’t exactly served political observers well this primary. But does anyone care to speculate on why the candidates aren’t getting any real questions about how they will work to protect our legal rights (former candidate Senator Dodd’s stand on the FISA bill notwithstanding)?
I wonder about this specifically in light of the nasty little beating our legal rights have been getting lately. As citizens, we are told that our country has a court system that administers justice, and that we have a constitutional right to a day in court. But a quick look back at 2007 illustrates this administration’s unabashed preference for corporate interests over the legal rights of regular Americans.
Last year we saw: politicians pushing to insulate telecommunications companies from liability for violating their customers’ privacy; legislation to protect Wall Street firms from consumer lawsuits, rather than new homebuyers from predatory lending, in the midst of the sub-prime mortgage crisis; a rape victim denied that day in court that we are told we can have, because an arbitration clause protected her former employer against being taken to court over its handling of her assault claims against co-workers; and dangerous products from toxic toys to poisonous pet food entering the marketplace, while injured consumers had little recourse through the law.
No really, folks, the list goes on and on, but I won’t. Instead I’ll summarize the moral of the story: last year, while everyday people were being injured by corporate wrongdoing, politicians and corporate lobbyists were pushing for tort “reform” measures that further strip people of their right to a day in court. In other words, last year our civil justice system was being quietly chipped away, and this election year, the candidates are silent on the issue of how to protect our rights.
While I am just plain giddy that we’re going to have a new national leader in the not-so-distant future, right now I’m going to try to sit on my hands and focus. I want to hear the candidates’ plans for how they will protect our right to civil justice. In fact, I want plans, policies, and promises. I want each and every candidate to answer this: How will you, as a President, work to make sure that our justice system works for everyone, regardless of how much money they have, how big a corporate interest is on the other end of their fight for justice, or how high or low their stakes may seem to be? How will you, as President, prioritize strengthening the civil justice system as it is intended to work, for regular American people?
And if all I hear in response are the crickets in the background, well Election ’08: A Pro-Civil Justice Presidential Platform suggests six pressing policy challenges in the civil justice system that can start the candidates in the right direction. This new Drum Major Institute report also offers common-sense steps the next President can take to address those challenges. It doesn’t give all the answers. More than anything, it is a launching point for some of the most important questions when it comes to civil justice and what the President can do to ensure that it is within reach for every American. So it’s a beginning, a conversation piece, and perhaps even the beginning of a blueprint for change if the candidates listen. (A short summary of the report's talking points can also be found here)
Our civil justice system is a critical tool for ensuring that everyone, even powerful corporations and our government, abides by the laws that protect people against fraud, discrimination, injury from dangerous products, and other violations of their rights. Many of the candidates speak of themselves as populists who represent “the little guy,” but how true is it that claim if the candidates do not have a proactive policy for turning the legal tide?
In addition to looking forward to the conclusion of this current Administration, I would also love to look ahead towards a new Administration that isn’t just a milder iteration of the old. I don’t want to hear any stale calls for tort “reform.” I want to hear about how we, as consumers, patients, employees, and as the citizens who elect the next President, will be able to count on our next leader to ensure that we are empowered to advocate for our rights.
It is up to progressives to demand concrete answers from the candidates about how they will protect and strengthen Americans’ access to justice through the civil courts. Let’s take to task on this. Read, share, and discuss the DMI Report, and importantly, let’s hold the candidates accountable.
I think so too but I may be a bit biased as I'm in the next office over ;P
www.dmiblog.com
January 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, "person in the next office over"! :)
January 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to TPM cafe Kia. Excellent post.
January 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
January 10, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Great post. I've been thinking a lot about the lack of serious policy coverage. You asked why, perhaps rhetorically. The conclusion I came to:
Most everybody in the establishment media, and a lot of political blogs for that matter, are afraid of real policy discussion, albeit for different reasons. Others are just blindly following the MSM narrative.
Why? What do they fear?
a) Republicans fear we're at a turning point of repudiating Reaganomics, and would rather not talk about it. They certainly don't want to discuss the outcome of deregulation, poorly laid free-trade agreements, of the market health-care, media consolidation, let alone civil rights. (yeah, it's a long list.)
abb) "Any Democrat" voters are also afraid of policy discussion, tending to circle the wagons around Dem candidates, and wait for a victor. The problem is a lack of vetting, and they'll get whacked easily, as we saw with Kerry. One would think Dems would jump on the policy failures of laissez faire. But, establishment Democrats are afraid of that discussion too, because there are plenty of policy skeletons in Dem's closets.
C.) The corporate MSM may want to discuss some of those issues, but really don't want to discuss any media deregulation and consolidation, or copyrights, net neutrality, and so on.
So there's this collusion in the media establishment of Republican partisans, Democratic partisans, and Corporate partisans. They's much rather discuss fuzzy narratives, race, likability, vague analogies to past candidates, yadda yadda yadda.
People keep falling for it. It's amazing the extent to which the MSM can set the debate and tone. But what do most bloggers do all day? Watch the cable news, and chat with other bloggers, who are watching cable news.
How many bloggers were digging deep into records, and doing investigative thought provoking pieces over the last few weeks? None that I saw.
It was all MSM driven fluff, poll watching, and opinion echo chambers.
Which leads to another serious question: Will blogs be any better in the long term? Can they keep the fire in the belly? Or do they eventually fall victim to the same social dynamics as the MSM?
January 10, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
i want to highlight your last three, very provocative questions. not because i have a prediction or can answer them, but because they are just great questions for us all to think about.
woe be it to the blogworld if that happens! but it ain't that far-fetched i guess. BE ON ALERT i suppose is the short-term warning for us all.
really insightful observations. thank you!
January 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
ETERNAL VIGILANCE!!
heh. Pesky, liberal founders.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 10, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail on the head.
January 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have inspired it. Excellent post. Apologies for not seeing your post sooner Ms. Franklin. I posted a few more specialized blog posts on legal reform reform days after yours. I defer!
January 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now, from the shortest book in the Bible:
O LORD, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save! Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? for spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth. Habakkuk, 1:2-4
If even He won't answer . . . .
January 10, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He answers. Maybe you're part of the answer.
January 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how corrupted the debate has become. Just before the new year Dodd had to be there ot filibuster giving immunity to the telcos. Immunity!
The Senate should have been talking about how to stop the spying and how to bring the nation's security agencies in line with the constitution.
That the telcos should face lawsuits is a no-brainer. All of their customers deserve compensation because the telcos violated the law.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 10, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's ridiculous, crazy even. but it's so crazy it just might work! thanks for your comments.
January 10, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And btw, on Dodd, if that was the only issue for the Presidency, I'd be supporting him. But, there's a balance that has to be struck between electability and policy purity.
I'd love to support some ticket involving Conyers, Waxman, Feingold, and so on. But until that day comes, and is viable, it's really important imo to find the most progressive candidate with a real shot.
January 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, my heart skipped a beat when you proposed that lineup.
January 10, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, no kidding. sigh.
Anyways, welcome to TPMC. New blood is needed to keep gangrene from setting in. TPMC can be great, but only as good at the last post, which hasn't been so great lately imho.
So, hope you'll set a high bar set for some seriously brilliant, informed, and thought provoking policy discussion on civil rights and other progressive issues. Looking forward to it! It's been sorely lacking here.
January 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A major part of the lack of serious debate is that most media has focused on the horserace and not details. The threats you mention are real. Consider the possibilty of websites being blocked based on which Telco/MegaCop owns the "internets" access you use. Poof, no more TPM.
There have been multiple interpretations of the meaning of the Henry VI Part II line 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers', but a rational current view is that the line is directed at corrupt lawyers and the laws they pervert as the true enemies to sound government, justice, and freedom. We need Progressive lawyers in judicial robes to reverse the abuse
http://www.johnlocke.org/news_columns/display_story.html?id=962
Welcome to TPM
January 10, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Amen to that.
You're right, we certainly can't rely on mainstream media to get "the good questions" to the candidates and back to us in time for voting day. Thank goodness for places like this where we can discuss it and compare notes.
Thinking about the role of the media during the civil rights movement and vietnam protests and comparing it to now... It just leaves me speechless to think of the contrast.
So how do we infuse the political process with this dialogue? Is it like those shampoo commercials (I'll tell two of my friends, and they tell their friends, etc., etc.)? Do we need to do the old fashioned grass roots work?
What do you think?
January 10, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I'd just add that campaigns also read blogs, so it's important for them to know there are voters ready, and hungry for, serious policy debate.
January 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Kia, you put me on the spot. The problems go so deep. Like many in my generation, I have been saddened by the "Don't snitch" mentality among many of our African-American youth. Then, I ask myself the question when our President blocks legal inquiries into activities in the Executive by Congress, what message is that sending to the youth of our country? When the Attorney General of the United States "can't remember" important details of his own department's operation, what does that say to our youth? When the President pardons a person who impeded the investigation into the exposure of the identity of a covert CIA agent, how does that not suggest a cover up (aka don't snitch on Cheney and you'll go free). I am angered because with an obviously corrupt Executive Branch that flagrantly practices "Don't Snitch", what else can we expect our children to do?
Then after reflecting on the above, I come across "Arbitrary Justice" by Angela J Davis which details prosecutorial misconduct. The cases of truly innocent people sent to jail on the word of a person known to be dealing narcotics.the actual criminal has "snitch" potential for the DA's office. Such DA maneuvers let the big fish remain free while his minions or innocents do time.
I have no clue where to start. The concept of mandatory sentences has to be reviewed. Congress needs to grow a backbone up to and including withholding funds to the DOJ if it does not comply with Congressional requests. Personally, I see no change without a Democratic Party controlled House and Senate. Hopefully with Chris Dodd instead of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.
January 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Thank you RMRD0000 for your comments.
The following is so telling and so very very pertinent :
Note: The underline above is mine.
Although the book and this onlive copy are quite dated, the following paragraphs highlight a small look into the powers that may be employed of taking advantage of our suggestibility, and thereby what the author Joost Meerloo stated, [that] "...can lead us into the mental death -- or boredom -- of totalitarianism."
From: Rape of the Mind | 1955
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D., Instructor in Psychiatry
http://www.ninehundred.net/control/
And again:
From: Rape of the Mind | 1955
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D., Instructor in Psychiatry
http://www.ninehundred.net/control/
I do believe there are a few used copies for sale through Amazon.com.
~OGD~
Note: I have no idea what's up with the formatting glitches. Please pardon them.
January 11, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reference. I often wonder where the anger and "Rage Against the Machine" has gone. Just this morning on the Tom Joyner Show, the African-American Conservative head of the Housing Dept told an astonished reporter that everyone who wanted to come back to the Katrina affected region could come back. He also stated that there were 350+ housing units in Mississippi that went begging for occupants (350+ units available for the entire affected area of Mississippi). The director was tired of hearing how bad things were. He dismissed the reporter's mention of a letter that many Katrina victims received stating that rent rates had tripled. This, the housing director said was impossible, "Just go to our website" to see the details.
When a government official can lie so easily on the public airwaves, one has to wonder how our government differs from Russia or other not so democratic countries.
There should be people in the streets on a whole host of abuses that GW has wrought on our country.
(I knew the Housing director was not telling the truth because he's a GW Bush official and his mouth was moving)
January 11, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's been co-opted by special interests and the right wing.
I saw an interview with RFK Jr (yeah, I know) who made a very good point: 80% of Republicans actually agree on the same values as Democrats, when questions are reality based. When asked if they would invade Iraq if they had known there were no WMD, and no involvement with 9/11, 80% of Republicans, said no. But FOX News and talk radio got 70% of Americans to believe the opposite.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people on the left who think they're "totally righteous" about the "Crimes against Women" and have no idea about the fear mongering and Rt Wing "Tough on Crime" connection to that, and how it's grossly distorting and politicizing the courts and disenfranchising many innocents, especially poor blacks.
There's plenty of examples on both side of spin and people's "rage" being manipulated against their own interests.
Orwell must be "spinning" in his grave.
January 12, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Orrin Hatch(R-Utah), who was a primary force in the legislation which tied Federal Judges' hands with mandatory sentencing guidelines, and who has tirelessly worked to gut habeas corpus for over two decades now.
Hatch's drug-war hypocrisy can be clearly seen in his press to stop the FDA from overseeing "food-supplements" at the same time he pushed mandatory sentencing through Congress. Phen-Phen is not a drug? Hatch is an ass! Isn't there a facial absurdity within the claim that The Food and Drug Administration has no right to oversee Food Supplements?
Don't expect Hatch to change his tune. He is a fine example of Contemporary Conservatives, who do not really believe that accepting personal responsibility is a foundational part of their political theory. That is instead a strategy which enables them to demean single mothers.
Here is an example of how Hatch dodges personal responsibility, in a 1998 article published by MSNBC News after the al Qaida bombings of Two American Embassies in Africa:
Personally, I believe a very good place to start would be doing anything possible to assure that Hatch is not reelected.
January 12, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, just by responding to our comments, you've won us over, I'm sure. Many "special guests" don't bother, and the blog turns into a lecture. So thank you...
That said, I've got nothin' to argue here. If I was a betting man, though, my money would be on the crickets chirping.
That's why Dodd's move was so terrific, because it was so very unexpected from a politician, let alone someone in the spotlight at the time. I was very disappointed that the other front-runners didn't do more to support Dodd at the time.
It's easy for Obama and Clinton to say they support him; it's another to stop playing fund-raiser for a day and actually go to DC and stand in opposition on the floor.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
January 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that the problem with Americans' legal rights is systemic, and not primarily a function of politics. The US is a relatively young nation, and just hasn't worked out and clarified some things yet. Specifically (and briefly):
1. The Constitution was written to safeguard our inherent rights, the rights that each individual was born with, not just those few rights listed in the Constitution, but all of our basic rights. Basically this is a right to liberty. As they say in New Hampshire: Live Free or Die. But our rights are under attack. Example: recently the Supremes messed with a woman's medical procedures.
2. Corporations have nothing expected of them that is not expected from a person, the concept of "corporate personhood." Their charters merely specify their range of business, but not any responsibilities to the common weal. Does that make corporations equal under the law to citizens? Not exactly. Some persons are more equal than others, apparently. What happened to "equal protection" -- the grand concept that handed the presidency to Bush? Shouldn't it also apply to corporations v. citizens?
3. Political donations have been determined to be a form of speech, and they are thereby virtually unlimited. Since corporations have deep pockets, their "speech" has much more effect on public policy than does the speech of common citizens. Money talks, all right, but that doesn't make it "speech" just because the Supremes say so.
4. The Supreme Court has been taken over by establishment advocates who see the US executive branch and corporations as the bedrock foundation of the United States, to the detriment of its citizens. And even worse they don't seem to recognize inherent rights, but only those listed in the Constitution. Why are some "persons" (i.e. corporations) favored over others (i.e. private citizens)?
All of these factors, which have not been fully publicized and examined, conflate to give US citizens a society that is not fully supportive of their inherent right to liberty under law. Until these factors are brought to the fore and policies modified to favor citizens it doesn't matter much who's in the driver's seat -- we're going in the wrong direction. We need more clarification of the systemic issues and more criticism of the Supreme Court.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
January 10, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. is a relatively young nation?
Compared to what, and how? Arguably the United States is damned near fossilized in political terms.
The United States has been operating under the Federal Constitution/Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights for almost 250 years now.
In comparison, the German and French Republics, with their current constitutions and forms of government date back to the Post War era. Most of the liberated African and Asian countries are from that era, and many of them have constitutions regimes that are much younger. For that matter, the Spanish democracy is only a couple of decades old. The current system of government in Russia dates back to around 1989.
250 years is incredibly old for a continuous constitutional government in the modern era.
The only contemporaries (admittedly older regimes) are Britain, Switzerland and Sweden and (younger) Canada, New Zealand, Australia. Pretty much every other state has radically reconstituted its system of government at least once, and often several times within the last century.
January 12, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Usually love your pieces, Valdron, and while you as usual make a valid point, typically the USA is referred to as a "young nation" because the underlying ethnically-based population cohort was not established in the 1100's to 1200's, as nearly all European and Asian national populations were established by then (and many even far earlier, of course).
AS someone who got an honors degree in History from a good school for study of European nationalism, I would point out that there were hundreds of small nationalities in Europe in 1200 who later got absorbed into larger narratives of Germany, Russia, Hungary, etc., and also that even through Medieval times there was always a fair amount of individual and group migration through Europe and most parts of Asia and Africa too. The nationalities that existed in the Americas pre-Columbus were basically wiped out, and we're all pretty familiar with at least the popular version of how the modern American population group was formed out of specific "raw materials" (individual and group migration streams) since 1600. Our immigration experience may be more fundamental than in many other societies, yet it's far from unique and unprecedented.
Also although we're over 200 years on one Constitution, the various historical/political eras have had enough shifts of emphasis, right now we don't have much memory for anything pre-World War II -- to the very limited extent that today's "traditional media" have a memory even for last week. This a-historical popular consciousness reinforces the slogan of a "young nation."
January 13, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very interesting reply, featherfamily.
To me it raises more of the fundamental ambiguity of what it means to be young.
Certainly in personal terms, young is a pretty solidly defined concept. A fourteen year old is young by any standards... except dogs and cats.
But in terms of nations? Can we say young or old in any meaningful way? What are the criteria.
Do we trace the age of its present form of government... in which case the United States is fairly old.
The demographic age of the population? In which case the United States is an aging nation, and Iraq with 6000 years of history is young.
Is Iraq young, considering that its only been around as a political state since 1920? Or is it old, given that the region has a continuous history going back 6000 years?
Is a young nation a nation in flux, one with institutions continually forming and reforming, ideas happening, universities being founded, cities being built, economic change happening continually... If so, then certainly America was young once, young a century ago... is it young now?
If an old nation is one that has achieved stability... all the cities are built, the towns settled, the lands surveyed, a place has been found for everything and everything has been put in that place, the economy and the ordering of the economy are stable... well, we could then argue that El Salvador might be a very old nation.
Let's take France. Is France young or old. The current French form of government, the fifth Republic dates to DeGaulle I think and the 50's and 60's.
But perhaps France is really older than that, going back to the fourth Republica and the post-Nazi, post Vichy reconstruction?
Or should we trace modern French society to the Revolutionary/Napoleanic era.
How about to the sun kings?
But wait, if we go back further than that, does France really exist? There's Frankish territory, the lands of Charlegmagne, etc. But is it really a place? Divided by feudalism, with a thousand regional dialects and fiefdoms, overlaps every which way.
And how meaningful is that?
Beats me. I dunno. It strikes me that when we talk about 'America being a young nation' we're not really saying anything substantive, we're just playing to illusions. Partly feeding vanity, partly slipping in a 'do over', and partly saying nothing much.
But that's just me thinking out loud. I have my own delusions.
January 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's Sanctimonious Posing.
It's Histrionic Pretending.
It's The Delusive Symbolatry
Of Mother, God and Country.
It's a Habituate Daily Devotional
To The Three-Monkey Insentiency,
That Continues After Discovering A Presidential Finding
Had Authorised Sodomy as an Interrogatory Methodology.
It's a Flight of Fantasy: The Will to Pinball Wizardry.
An Endless Compliant Vacation at Tommy's Holiday Camp.
Always Remaining Properly Attired in its Concomitant
Outer-Wear of Eyeshades, Ear-muffs and Stuffed Cork.
It's The American Mindset of Arrogant Naiveté.
Yet It's Not Youthful Innocence, But Instead Criminal Neglect;
As Our Leviathan Remains Unmuzzled and Unchained;
Loosed Upon This Earth As Rabid Wolf Amongst The Sheep.
January 16, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very interesting reply, featherfamily.
To me it raises more of the fundamental ambiguity of what it means to be young.
Certainly in personal terms, young is a pretty solidly defined concept. A fourteen year old is young by any standards... except dogs and cats.
But in terms of nations? Can we say young or old in any meaningful way? What are the criteria.
Do we trace the age of its present form of government... in which case the United States is fairly old.
The demographic age of the population? In which case the United States is an aging nation, and Iraq with 6000 years of history is young.
Is Iraq young, considering that its only been around as a political state since 1920? Or is it old, given that the region has a continuous history going back 6000 years?
Is a young nation a nation in flux, one with institutions continually forming and reforming, ideas happening, universities being founded, cities being built, economic change happening continually... If so, then certainly America was young once, young a century ago... is it young now?
If an old nation is one that has achieved stability... all the cities are built, the towns settled, the lands surveyed, a place has been found for everything and everything has been put in that place, the economy and the ordering of the economy are stable... well, we could then argue that El Salvador might be a very old nation.
Let's take France. Is France young or old. The current French form of government, the fifth Republic dates to DeGaulle I think and the 50's and 60's.
But perhaps France is really older than that, going back to the fourth Republica and the post-Nazi, post Vichy reconstruction?
Or should we trace modern French society to the Revolutionary/Napoleanic era.
How about to the sun kings?
But wait, if we go back further than that, does France really exist? There's Frankish territory, the lands of Charlegmagne, etc. But is it really a place? Divided by feudalism, with a thousand regional dialects and fiefdoms, overlaps every which way.
And how meaningful is that?
Beats me. I dunno. It strikes me that when we talk about 'America being a young nation' we're not really saying anything substantive, we're just playing to illusions. Partly feeding vanity, partly slipping in a 'do over', and partly saying nothing much.
But that's just me thinking out loud. I have my own delusions.
January 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
I take "nation" in its broadest sense, as a community of people, not a system of government. In this sense the US is definitely junior to the older communities in the world, wouldn't you agree? We're talking about China, India and Russia, and the great European communities. The Asian and African communities certainly predate the American ones.
The US, while it may be old in years, I'm afraid lacks maturity. It's like that child that never grew up. The US still demands what it wants, and throws a tantrum when it doesn't get it. There was an example recently in the Persian Gulf, where the world bully was "provoked" by little blue boats off an alien shore.
Domestically, which is the point here, the US still has not developed the means to provide all its citizens with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" promised by the Declaration of Independence and under the Constitution to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." A work in progress, I'd say.
Val, I'm seventy years old. I can hike and bike with the best, so I think I'm "relatively young", okay? So much for year-counting, eh? It's the attitude. Glib swagger works for me. You?
January 14, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch Minority Report...
January 10, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like you.
Welcome to TPM
Write more and more and more.
I'm an Edwards supporter, and he seems to be the only candidate taking on these extremely important issues.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 10, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should look at Obama again. He's not as loud, but he'll actually get a lot more done. And he's definitely a serious Progressive.
And btw, the adult insurance mandate that Edwards and Hillary are for, and is the only real difference between their plan and Obama's, that's the same mandate as killed "Hillary Care" in the 90's and stuck us with the present system ever since.
January 11, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't be more pleased that Obama has followed Edwards lead in so many areas. :)
Now if he'd just pick up on the consumer protection legislation Edwards has proposed, I'd be even more pleased.
At this point, however, I'll stick with the leader in these issues, rather than the one that follows, even if he's a "better" speaker.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 11, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Edwards followed their own life course to Progressivism and I don't see either "following" each other.
Obama was passing Progressive law in the Illinois legislature in 1996, while Edwards was suing corporations for Progressive grievances in court. Neither "followed" the other. Both were Progressives before they were known and when it wasn't in fashion.
Wahington Dems, especially the Clintons and DLC were passing NAFTA and deregualtion during that time.
***
Obama from 1996 - 2004, before he was even known nationally:
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 from the state's 13th District in the south-side Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park. In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002, officially resigning in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate. As a state legislator, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting successful legislation on ethics and health care reform. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited him with having been "immensely helpful in working with police organizations" on death penalty reform.
***
Before that he was doing community work as Director of the Developing Communities Project, he worked with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing development. He received his Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law, and Bachelors in Foreign Affairs from Columbia. He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004
***
Obama was a critic of the Iraq war from the beginning and accurately predicted the disastrous outcome.
***
In Obama's 2004 address to the Democratic convention he said:
January 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome Kia:
It's wonderful to see a new face, and I (all of us I'm sure) appreciate your timely responses and discussion with us here.
I have already responded within an ongoing sub-thread above.
When I have time I will also visit your link.
I will return to read further.It's time for bed.
~OGD~
January 11, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to win elections by promising to air out our dirty laundy, but maybe there is a formulation that would work. Something like promising to restore "rule of law" and actually doing so, unlike the previous promiser.
On the topic of rights erosion, we're OK as long as there are bills to pay. The fake government we have been suffering through hasn't been paying its surveillance bills, apparently. Saved by incompetence? Pretty thin security blanket.
January 11, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for joining us. I'm heartened by the many comments calling it a great post, because I was afraid the decision not to talk about the agenda so much as refer us to it might not play here. It almost didn't for me, but I'm glad I followed the link. It's very impressive, and thanks to the organization for developing it. Perhaps you could talk a little more about some of its points to provoke discussion here.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 11, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! Yes, I certainly used this post to vent more than to get into the substance of the proposal. I have been feeling like the progressive agenda (not just in terms of legal rights, but the spectrum of issues that are important to people) just hasn't been gettting discussed. See kozmik's comments.
The agenda is summarized here. I'll discuss it below, and *try* to be brief:
•Making sure that all people, regardless of income, have access to counsel in important civil cases like the right to housing or child custody. Also called "Civil Gideon."
•Declaring contracts that unfairly shut people out of court and into private arbitration to be unconstitutional--a ban of pre-dispute, binding mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts involving individuals (patients, consumers, employees, etc.). This eliminates room for injustices like the Haliburton/KBR rape case that people were talking about last month. Senator Feingold is behind a bill that would do this.
•Allowing states to protect their citizens with effective laws against corporate abuse without federal laws preempting them. Federal preemption has been disastrous for important legal claims-- sending these matters to federal court often cuts off individual claimants' access to compensation if they win, and involves lighter penalties on the defendant if the defendant loses. Here's a good site for more info.
• Protecting the public’s right to know when a corporation’s business practices may have affected their safety. Secret court settlements hide this information from the public, Resulting in incidents like the Firestone Tire accidents. The sooner the public nows, the earlier the public can put pressure on companies to take dangerous products off the market and the quicker we can get laws passed to address those dangers.
• Prioritizing Americans’ access to safe care instead of focusing on limiting their access to justice after they've been harmed. A common thing in the tort "reform" movement is to argue for health courts and damage caps in medical malpractice claims. Instead of figuring out how to limit people's remedies after being injured, we can focus on how to prevent those injuries in the first place.
• Preventing insurance companies from automatically refusing to pay claims filed by home owners and others whom they insure (Katrina and Rita, for example) by regulating the insurance industry w/ the same anti-trust laws that govern other industries. Fixing the way it's regulated will mean fewer homeowners will have to go through the court system to get what they rightfully deserve from insurance companies.
January 11, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The six issues addressed here make not only good policy, but, in my arrogant opinion (IMAO) good politics also. I would really like to see some kind of comparison between the Democratic candidates who still have a chance at the nomination (Clinton and Obama) in a systematic way. I have some material (w/further links to explore) on Obama and CIVIL RIGHTS from Democratic Underground, but it doesn't seem to get at quite the same issues -- which I will tack on at the end.
All other things being the same (eg if there are no CLEAR platform differences between Obama and Clinton, my own sentiment is that Obama is much more inclined to and much more trustworthy on this kind of concern than any Clinton Democrat would be.
(But I have been backing Obama, including with donations -- my $ for TPM will have to wait until there is at least a presumptive Democratic nominee).
But it would really be excellent if someone got the chance to really put these concerns directly to the two leading Democratic candidates. Edwards, once upon a time, was a guest here on TPM Cafe -- am I in LaLaland to urge the possibility of getting Obama and/or Clinton (maybe the two together for a cyberdebate) on TPM Cafe?
[I don't have any inside connexions, but SOMEONE here might know someone who does].
Anyway, here's the promised material about Obama and Civil Rights:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3987117
Plan to Strengthen Civil Rights
“The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's kitchen — they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs. . . . We have more work to do.”
— Barack Obama, Speech at Howard University, September 28, 2007
At a Glance
Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement
Combat Employment Discrimination
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
End Deceptive Voting Practices
End Racial Profiling
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support
Eliminate Sentencing Disparities
Expand Use of Drug Courts
Speak your mind and help set the policies that will guide this campaign and change the country.
Present your ideas
The Problem
Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.
Hate Crimes on the Rise: The number of hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent to 7,700 incidents in 2006.
Efforts Continue to Suppress the Vote: A recent study discovered numerous organized efforts to intimidate, mislead and suppress minority voters.
Disparities Continue to Plague Criminal Justice System: African Americans and Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites to be searched, arrested, or subdued with force when stopped by police. Disparities in drug sentencing laws, like the differential treatment of crack as opposed to powder cocaine, are unfair.
Barack Obama's Plan
Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement
Obama will reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. He will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division.
Combat Employment Discrimination
Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
End Deceptive Voting Practices
Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
End Racial Profiling
Obama will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.
Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support
Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.
Eliminate Sentencing Disparities
Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
Expand Use of Drug Courts
Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.
Barack Obama's Record
Record of Advocacy: Obama has worked to promote civil rights and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights lawyer, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and voting rights cases. As a State Senator, Obama passed one of the country's first racial profiling law and helped reform a broken death penalty system. And in the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.
For More Information about Barack's Plan
Read the Plan
Speech at the Howard University Convocation
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights /
January 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great suggestion for a much needed plan of action and very helpful info. I know there's a little bit out there--Clinton and Obama wrote an article together on healthcare reform, for example.
But in terms of a fully laid out listing of where they stand on each issue, this would be a worthwhile project. (Do I feel the wheels of action starting to creak?)
January 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be a great idea to have all three (Obama, Hillary, and Edwards) make presentations here at the cafe.
Perhaps I would restrict the topics to be covered to a handful since otherwise we can become overwhelmed
January 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do keep hoping that after Kartrina accountability will become a viable demand. Edwards success as (gasp) a lawyer would definitely be the talking point against him in the very unlikely event he wins the nomination. On the other hand, if here were the nominee, he'd also proactively lead with it, so it's good to see the Obama platform.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 11, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink