There's been a lot of talk in various progressive circles about sending Democrats a message, either through voting or staying home. But messages need to have a clear signal in order to communicate with politicians. So, what if you could support Democrats tomorrow, but send a message at the same time? It's the best of both worlds.

In my home state of New York, and in Connecticut, you can- and I want to tell you how.

In New York and Connecticut, third parties are different, because they can endorse candidates also running as Democrats or Republicans (a unique kind of system called electoral fusion which enables candidates to run on multiple ballot "lines". For over a decade, the Working Families Party has used this power to endorse the most progressive major-party candidates running for office and make sure they win -- without spoiling elections Nader-style.

It's a strategy that works. The Working Families Party has raised New York's minimum wage, passed living wage laws, fought hard against transit fare hikes, pushed for a moratorium on unsafe natural gas drilling, and helped elect real progressives in every corner of the state. Tomorrow, you can vote, and send a message, by voting on the Working Families Party line.

I grew up in suburban Buffalo and went to college in Rochester. Since I turned 18, I've been voting Working Families Party every election I could. And I'm not alone- over 155,000 people voted for Spitzer on the Working Families Party ballot line in the 2006 gubernatorial election, and nearly 160,000 for Obama in 2008, as well as for other elected officials up and down the ballot, from Rep. Louise Slaughter to NYC City Councilmembers. Votes on the Working Families line count the same as Democratic votes for these candidates, but they lend a more powerful message: that you want Democrats to fight - really fight - for progressive values.

Matt Damon explains it all:

At a time when many people feel like Democrats in New York State or nationally haven't done much, the WFP has done more for ordinary New Yorkers. That's because they focus on issues, not personalities. Living wage jobs. A fair tax system. Better and affordable mass transit. Fair treatment for the elderly. LGBT rights. Investment in education. It's a common-sense progressive party, with a strategy that lets progressive New Yorkers hold their politicians accountable. When an elected official gets into office, he or she can see how many of those votes came from people trying to send him a message that they want him/her to be a progressive- and act accordingly while in office.

On November 2, thousands of progressive New Yorkers will be voting for Andrew Cuomo, Eric Schneiderman, and the rest of the Democratic ticket on the Working Families ballot line - Row E. In Connecticut, Dan Malloy, Richard Blumenthal, and others will also appear on the Working Families line. Here's hoping you'll join us- and spread the word.

Bonus- Matt also recorded a video on New York's new ballot that's helpful.

Bonus #2: Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation wrote up a great piece of background on the Working Families Party you can find here.

Nanny Sues Imus Over Ranch Wrangle

The Smoking Gun:

Toy gun, tiny knife triggered woman's firing by radio star

NOVEMBER 30--A New York woman who briefly worked as a nanny for Don Imus has sued the radio host for wrongful termination, claiming she was canned for bringing a harmless cap gun and pocketknife with her during a trip last Thanksgiving to the family's sprawling New Mexico ranch. Nichole Mallette, 24, also claimed in her New York State Supreme Court lawsuit, a copy of which you'll find below, that she was defamed when Imus later announced on his program that he had been forced to "disarm" his nanny, whom he labeled as dangerous and a "terrorist." read on

Roger Ailes (the good Roger Ailes)
In comments, Cybelle asks:

Bill and his lawyers are claiming that there was no "wrong doing". wtf? Sexually harassing an employee and threatening her _is_ "wrong doing". What world do these people live in? Or is that some kind of lawyer speak for "this is over"?

It's lawyer speak for you can buy anything for enough money.
The O'Reilly settlement contains a statement that the parties assert there was "no wrongdoing whatsoever" by any of the parties, which also means that O'Reilly is admitting Mackris and her lawyer were not trying to extort money from him. Which, implicitly, at least, negates the assertion that O'Reilly didn't do anything wrong -- O'Reilly is admitting that Mackris had good reason to demand 60 million (or whatever amount) from him based on his conduct. Or, to put it another way, that every accusation in his complaint was false.
demanded). The irony of this story is that we've finally found one of those frivolous lawsuits the right keeps bitching about. O'Reilly admits that his lawsuit against Mackris and his attorney has no merit -- they did nothing wrong. Perhaps the New York State Bar should look into whether Mr. O'Reilly's (and FOX's) attorneys knowingly filed meritless litigation, particularly since O'Reilly wasted judicial resources -- his motion hearings -- suing people who were guilty of "no wrongdoing." (Of course, that won't happen, because the courts love it when litigants settle voluntarily, and it's hard to imagine any third party who'd have a basis to bring a claim based on a meaningless recital in a private contract.)

O'Reilly claims he did what he did to "protect his family." It's heartwarming to see a man pay millions to deep-six tapes in which he is heard abusing an underling and/or himself -- for the sake of his children. Welcome to the All-Vibrate Zone.

It's all so damned incestuous, isn't it?

The man leading the Obama administration’s efforts to restructure the auto industry has been described in Securities and Exchange Commission documents as having arranged for his investment firm to pay more than $1 million to obtain New York State pension business.

Although he is not named in the documents, a person with knowledge of the inquiry said the investment executive is Steven Rattner, co-founder of the Quadrangle Group, the prominent private equity firm.

The S.E.C. complaint, filed as part of an expansive state and federal investigation into corruption at the state pension fund, details the efforts of Quadrangle to gain business from the pension fund beginning in 2004.

The person who received most of the $1 million-plus payment has been indicted, accused of selling access to the fund.

There is no indication in the complaint that Mr. Rattner faces criminal or civil charges in connection with the inquiry.

A lot of states (including my home state of Pennsylvania) have a regressive income tax. This is the kind of thing that really needs to change, and hopefully this NY legislation will pass:

We certainly see this short-sighted and proven wrong approach being pushed in New York. The state is confronting a budget deficit of $15 billion, and Governor Paterson has proposed $9 billion of harsh cuts in education, healthcare and social services, and $5 billion in new taxes that would hit the struggling poor and middle-class the hardest -- making an already regressive tax system even more so.

If you asked most New Yorkers what income level qualifies for the highest tax bracket you would get a range of answers -- from $250,000 to $1 million to $5 million. In fact, an individual making just $20,000 pays the highest income tax rate of 6.85 percent. So a teacher -- perhaps one of thousands who would be laid off under Paterson's proposal -- currently pays the same rate as Bernie Madoff, Donald Trump and the hedge funders. Equally troubling, Paterson's proposed revenues would be generated through taxes and fees on items such as sodas, transportation, cable tv, college tuition … things that would hit the already struggling poor and working class the hardest.

Fortunately there is a great alternative proposal gaining momentum in the New York legislature and with constituents. Democratic Senator and Nation contributor Eric Schneiderman has introduced the Fair Share Tax Reform Act of 2009 which would raise $6 billion in new annual revenues by slightly increasing the taxes on the wealthiest 5 percent of New Yorkers.

"Over the last thirty years the combination of policy changes in New York State have resulted in a severely regressive tax system," Senator Schneiderman told me. "The richest 1 percent of New Yorkers now pay 6.5 percent of their income in state and local taxes. While the middle-class, the poor -- everybody else -- pays over 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes. The poorest New Yorkers -- the bottom quintile -- actually pay 12.6 percent…."

Schneiderman's bill would address this inequity by creating three new tax brackets for the wealthy: tax rates for households earning over $250,000 would rise to 8.25 percent ; over $500,000 would pay 8.97 percent; and over $1 million would be taxed at 10.3 percent. Schneiderman said that this structure would not only create a fairer system, it would also be more in line with neighboring states.

"The long national nightmare of supply-side economics is coming to an end and we're trying to hasten its departure in New York by reintroducing the concept of progressive taxation to the actors in government and to the public," Schneiderman said. "And it's getting a great response."

Download | play Download | play (h/t BillW)

A surprise to no one, Eliot Spitzer, wife Silda at his side, resigned from his position as Governor of New York. Lt. Governor David Paterson will replace Spitzer and be the first African American and the first legally blind governor in New York state history. While I cannot condone what brought Spitzer to this point, I do have to give him credit for this statement:

"I have demanded that people – regardless of their position or power -- take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less from myself"

It's that simple. CREW asks when David Vitter will take similar measures.

For all his many, many flaws, at least Rudy Giuliani has always supported civil unions for gay couples, right? Wrong.

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to discard the moderate and liberal positions of his past. The latest is civil unions for same-sex couples, which the Republican presidential candidate has been backing away from in recent months.

A campaign aide told the Globe this weekend that Giuliani favors a much more modest set of rights for gay partners than civil union laws in effect in four states offer. [...]

"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions," said Joe Tarver, spokesman for the Empire State Pride Alliance, a group that advocates for gay rights in New York state that worked with and against Giuliani on a number of issues during his eight years as mayor.

Calling the former mayor's shifting stance "pretty un-Giuliani-like," Tarver said: "It's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."

The man is shameless. Strategically, it doesn't even make sense -- the far-right will see it as pandering, and what's left of the GOP center will be offended by the shift to the right.

The Shame of New York

In this presidential year, the election systems of swing states like Florida are being subjected to considerable scrutiny. Other states' systems, which may be just as troubled but unlikely to produce a crisis in the presidential vote count, are being ignored. New York, in particular, has one of the nation's most dysfunctional, opaque and patronage-ridden structures for running elections. It needs an overhaul, starting with the New York State Board of Elections, which should be dismantled.

The State Board of Elections is a case of noble intentions gone terribly awry. In an effort to put elections above politics, it was made bipartisan, with two Republican commissioners and two Democrats. But this has simply led to a constant war to subvert the structure and gain partisan advantage.Gov. George Pataki recently waited eight months before reappointing one Democratic commissioner, a step that should be automatic. In the interim, his party had the upper hand. The board's top two staff positions are supposed to be split by the two parties. But the position of executive director has been kept vacant for a year, allowing the deputy executive director, a Republican, to run the agency. Democrats have not been blameless in this feud. They have tried to take advantage of a peculiar glitch in the law that allows Democratic chairmen of the board to hold their positions more than twice as long as Republicans

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/opinion/10tue1.html?ex=1249876800&en=58e9dd3665287003&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo