Senator Al Franken is quickly taking a stand with working families across America and signed on to sponsor his first bill and guess what it is. Yep, The Employee Free Choice Act.

Hours after he was seated, Sen. Al Franken, D-MN, let it be known that he would be sign on as a co-sponsor to the Employee Free Choice Act, the labor-backed provision that would allow unions to more easily organize, as his first legislative activity.

"I just became a cosponsor of my first bill in the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act," the Minnesota Democrat declared at a gathering at the AFL-CIO on Tuesday evening.

Despite taking a backseat in terms of media attention, EFCA remains very much a hotly-debated measure within the halls of Congress. And while Franken's vote will likely boost Democratic efforts on health care and judicial nominations (he is poised to sit on the HELP and Judiciary Committees) it could be on labor matters where his voice is most felt. Certainly the union community, which is pushing for a vote on EFCA sometime this year, feels relieved that it is one senator closer to preventing a Republican filibuster on the measure.

Franken, who was officially sworn into office on Tuesday after an eight-month recount, told the AFL-CIO crowd that he shared common interests with them. According to Eddie Vale, a spokesman for the union group, Franken described the long tradition that exist in Minnesota of "having two Senators who are very pro workers and working families." "He said it was an honor to be sworn in today and walk through the aisles with Mondale and to be sworn in on Paul Wellstone's Bible," Vale recounted. "He stressed that both men were champions of the labor movement."

Paul Wellstone would be proud.

It looks like Arlen Specter is coming to terms with the cold reality that he can't be a "Democrat" and stand in opposition to working families. As usual, the Republican-like Ben Nelson does as much damage as he can to good progressive legislation like EFCA.

“Card Check” deal is a “fool’s errand”Sen Ben Nelson, D-NE, told me he does not see a deal happening this year at all. He sees no way to put a compromise together that’s pallatable. “You take away the arbitration issue, and you still have the ‘card check’, so that doesn’t work. You take away the ‘card check’ and you still have the arbitration problem. And if both go away, you’re left with nothing. It’s a fool’s errand to do this. I just don’t see an agreement happening,” Nelson said.

Way to go, Ben! That's acting like a good FOX News Democrat. But as soon as this report comes out, there's news of a compromise in the works with Specter being part of the solution.

Feinstein, Specter Compromises Pave the Way For Passage of Employee Free Choice Act

New compromise measures from Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter may pave the way for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

As Harkin says, the Feinstein compromise has the advantage of "protecting the secret ballot, so people can do it in private," which neutralizes that particular right-wing criticism of the bill.

The other bone of contention has been arbitration clause of the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter himself supports "last best offer" arbitration. It's also called "baseball arbitration," and has incentives to get both parties to quickly make their best, most reasonable offer. Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that."...read on

I'm tired of hearing excuses and I'm tired of Democrats like Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh that block real change in America.

I do think it's rather silly for the Democratic Party to pledge money and support for (D) Arlen Specter to run in 2010, especially when it involves the Employee Free Choice Act and his career was hanging by a thread. I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday's coverage of the Republicans spinning in circles trying to come up some kind of coherent response to Specter's defection. If you watched FOX News at all they acted like spoiled little children who didn't get their candy as they lined up Bush thug after Bush thug to refute him starting with Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer and so on. They literally were dumbstruck by the fact that he left the GOP behind. A bigger problem I have is that Specter will be given a huge megaphone by the Villagers to voice his "independence" and denounce any policy he so chooses whenever he wants without a second thought about it. He said over and over again that John Kennedy believed the party can ask too much of you. He'll have more power as a new Democratic politician than he ever did as a Republican. As Digby says:

I confess that I'm more than a little bit irked that the Democratic Party has already pledged to support Specter against a primary challenger. It's fundamentally undemocratic, not to mention dumb. Specter now has carte blanche to remain an incoherent obstructionist for the next two years when they could have at least let us pull him to the left with a primary challenge.

My pal Adam Green has a good idea.

On the very day Arlen Specter became a Democrat, he lamented that not enough right-wing Bush judges got confirmed, he opposed workers' right to organize, and he compared himself to Joe Lieberman. The DSCC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party will be supporting Specter in the primary. If there is a potential progressive challenger to Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, they are probably scratching their head right now asking, "Would I have any chance at all if I ran, or is the fix in?" What can progressives to do create an environment where this person feels they can run?

Continue reading »

Our Future: How to celebrate Labor Day? Support the Empoyee Free Choice Act

about.com: How GM derailed public transportation to sell more cars

The Brad Blog: Over 16,000 votes "unaccounted for" in Palm Beach county primary election 'recount'. "Severe repercussions, dire consequences for Novemeber elections and all elections" says Broward County election supervisor candidate.

Calculated Risk: Gustav takes aim at NOLA, oil prices

Philosoraptor: McCain's actual choice for V.P.

The Opinion Mill's Sunday Bookchat: Harold Moore and Joe Galloway return to Vietnam to lay old ghosts to rest -- and deplore the creation of new ones in Iraq. Sidney Blumenthal on the self-destruction of the GOP. Plus: How American workers are getting squeezed, how a unique ecosystem is being threatened, and how publishing thinks small.

Bob Geiger has the latest ridiculous statement McConnell's made, this time on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Kash of Angry Bear Is Upset

Ellen Goodman writes in the WaPo about the "conscience laws" that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions based on their consciences:

The pharmacist who refuses emergency contraception is not just following his moral code, he's trumping the moral beliefs of the doctor and the patient. "If you open the door to this, I don't see any place to draw a line," says Anita Allen, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of "The New Ethics." If the pharmacist is officially sanctioned as the moral arbiter of the drugstore, does he then ask the customer whether the pills are for cramps or contraception? If he's parsing his conscience with each prescription, can he ask if the morning-after pill is for carelessness or rape? For that matter, can his conscience be the guide to second-guessing Ritalin as well as Viagra?

How much further do we want to expand the reach of the individual conscience? Does the person at the checkout counter have an equal right to refuse to sell condoms? Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?

Yes, we want people to have a strong moral compass. But they have to coexist with others whose compasses point in another direction. In the debate over conscience clauses, Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice says, properly, "There is very little recognition that the conscience of the woman is as important, let alone more important, than the conscience of the provider."

The point Goodman is making here is one that I haven't seen made very often, and I think it is one of the most important points about this. No one is trying to force women who have objections to birth control and abortion to take birth control or have an abortion. No one has ever tried to force these things on anyone in this country. But the converse is not true - those who oppose women's reproductive freedom are doing everything they can to force a matter of their personal consciences onto everyone else.

I don't understand the reasoning behind these laws. If a pharmacist has reservations about filling any prescription at all, that pharmacist is in the wrong job. The entire job consists of dispensing the medication the doctor has ordered for her patient. That's it.

I resent the hell out of someone who went to pharmacy school telling me what is right or wrong. Pharmacists aren't preachers, teachers or judges - they take pills out of big containers and put them into smaller ones, stick labels on them and dispense them. And even for those pharmacists who still compound drugs, the question remains the same: Who the hell came up with this notion that that somehow makes pharmacists society's moral and ethical arbiters?

How much further do we want to expand the reach of the individual conscience? Does the person at the checkout counter have an equal right to refuse to sell condoms? Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?

Yes, we want people to have a strong moral compass. But they have to coexist with others whose compasses point in another direction. In the debate over conscience clauses, Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice says, properly, "There is very little recognition that the conscience of the woman is as important, let alone more important, than the conscience of the provider."

The point Goodman is making here is one that I haven't seen made very often, and I think it is one of the most important points about this. No one is trying to force women who have objections to birth control and abortion to take birth control or have an abortion. No one has ever tried to force these things on anyone in this country. But the converse is not true - those who oppose women's reproductive freedom are doing everything they can to force a matter of their personal consciences onto everyone else.

I don't understand the reasoning behind these laws. If a pharmacist has reservations about filling any prescription at all, that pharmacist is in the wrong job. The entire job consists of dispensing the medication the doctor has ordered for her patient. That's it.

I resent the hell out of someone who went to pharmacy school telling me what is right or wrong. Pharmacists aren't preachers, teachers or judges - they take pills out of big containers and put them into smaller ones, stick labels on them and dispense them. And even for those pharmacists who still compound drugs, the question remains the same: Who the hell came up with this notion that that somehow makes pharmacists society's moral and ethical arbiters?

If the government is going to allow pharmacists to make these kinds of decisions for everyone, then it will eventually have to allow the clerks at Blockbuster the right to refuse to rent movies that they object to. Because if there is a difference between the moral standpoint of a pharmacist who doesn't believe in birth control and the moral standpoint of a clerk at Blockbuster who doesn't believe that there should be nudity or violence in movies, then what is it? Both are matters of personal ethics. The only question is whether or not some people are going to get the privelege of imposing their personal ethics on the rest of us. IT'S COMPLETELY BACKWARDS - IF SOMEONE HAS A MORAL OBJECTION TO SOME ASPECT OF HER JOB, GET ANOTHER FUCKING JOB. Read More...

Nooz you Can Yooz    Happy Furry Puppy Story Time

I obviously need to beg for people to send me weird links more often, because S8N (Satan? A license plate? I dunno.) has dropped a link that combines two of my enduring loves: campy pro wrestling and insane reactionary rhetoric. More like this, please! I have an

If the government is going to allow pharmacists to make these kinds of decisions for everyone, then it will eventually have to allow the clerks at Blockbuster the right to refuse to rent movies that they object to. Because if there is a difference between the moral standpoint of a pharmacist who doesn't believe in birth control and the moral standpoint of a clerk at Blockbuster who doesn't believe that there should be nudity or violence in movies, then what is it? Both are matters of personal ethics. The only question is whether or not some people are going to get the privelege of imposing their personal ethics on the rest of us. IT'S COMPLETELY BACKWARDS - IF SOMEONE HAS A MORAL OBJECTION TO SOME ASPECT OF HER JOB, GET ANOTHER FUCKING JOB. Read More...

The Republican Party is now on suicide watch:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

MSNBC's David Shuster, in the video above, relayed the information that Specter reached the decision because he realized that his vote for the stimulus package had irrevocably breached his relationship with the increasingly wingnutty Republican base, and that he was no longer willing to submit himself to the judgment of that base in the GOP primary. Smart move.

Of course, now that he's a Democrat, don't expect any miracles. Reportedly, he still intends to vote against cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act ...

UPDATE: Here's Specter's statement:

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.