Bluto: "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer... "
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
"I don't think I can get out of bed for another week," one friend told me.
Another friend was trying to figure out what English-speaking countries still allow Americans to immigrate. And another friend, who lives in Wisconsin, was so devastated by the loss of Russ Feingold that she wanted to pack up and move.
Myself? I'm feeling oddly energized. "Oh, come on," I told them. "It's gonna be fun." Because it is.
Because it's finally here, our worst nightmare. It's all out in the open, where they can't hide, and the battle is joined.
Some good news for the Democrats. So taking over the House and the Senate isn't quite as easy as Republicans hoped - or as Democrats feared. The situation is still fluid, and Dems need to keep up the pressure:
WASHINGTON — Republicans carry substantial advantages as they move into the final month of the fall campaign, but the resilience of vulnerable Democrats is complicating Republican efforts to lock down enough seats to capture the House and take control of the unsettled electoral battleground.
By now, Republicans had hoped to put away a first layer of Democrats and set their sights on a second tier of incumbents. But the fight for control of Congress is more fluid than it seemed at Labor Day, with Democrats mounting strong resistance in some parts of the country as they try to hold off a potential Republican wave in November.
The chances of a Republican takeover in the House remain far greater than in the Senate, according to a race-by-race analysis by The New York Times. But enough contests remain in flux that both parties head into the final four weeks of the campaign with the ability to change the dynamic before Election Day.
Races typically tighten in the final month as voters on both sides become more engaged, and the political climate is no more favorable for Democrats than it has been all year, with no substantial signs of improvement in the economy or the outlook for unemployment.
Yet even as spending from outside groups is threatening to swamp many Democratic candidates, Republican strategists estimated that only half of the 39 seats they need to win control of the House were definitively in hand.
Quite a contrast between the House and the Senate, eh? I hope Pelosi pulls this off, because the Senate really looked like a lot of quivering cowards for punting on the tax cuts:
WASHINGTON — The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said Friday that Democrats in her chamber may still force a vote next week on the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, even though their counterparts in the Senate have decided not to bring the issue to the floor until after the November elections.
A decision to force such a vote would put a wham-bang finish on the brief fall Congressional session, and test the resolve of the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, who has said he would support a bill to extend only some of the tax cuts if Democrats gave him no other choice.
President Obama and Democratic leaders would like to make the lower Bush-era tax rates permanent for couples earning up to $250,000 a year and individuals earning up to $200,000, but allow the tax breaks to expire on income above those amounts for wealthier Americans. Republicans, including Mr. Boehner, and also some Democrats, have said that the lower rates should be extended for everyone, at least temporarily.
Some Democrats expressed surprise that Ms. Pelosi was still contemplating a vote after the Senate decided on Thursday to postpone action.
But Democrats who are lobbying for a vote say it could draw a stark contrast between the two parties by highlighting the potential willingness of Republicans to block tax relief for most Americans while insisting tax breaks for the rich.
“We will retain the right to proceed as we choose and would take it one day at a time,” Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference at the Capitol. “But let me be very clear, as we have all been clear in the House Democratic leadership. America’s middle class will have a tax cut. It will be done in this Congress. There is no question about that.”
To say I'm blunt would be an understatement (although if I were a man, I like to think that people would call me "refreshingly direct", like John McCain)! So when I got to ask the last question on a White House conference call yesterday, I asked two things.
I asked David Axelrod if he knew what I meant by "hippie punching," and I also mentioned the Mike Lux article on Open Left this week. (Mike says voters are more easily persuaded by ads run by outside groups, but that Obama for America - later to be Organizing for America -- starved the liberal groups of needed cash by telling big donors to give them the money instead. That position apparently continued after the election, too).
I asked Axelrod if he saw that now as a tactical error.
That question was a response to a long explanation by Axelrod that the Democrats were under siege because the Republicans had all the outside special interest groups running attack ads for them, and that was why the Dems needed our help. That was why I asked the equivalent of Dr. Phil's "So how's that donation block working for ya?" (He said he didn't know anything about it. Uh huh.)
It was kind of funny to ask a White House advisor if he understood what I meant by "hippie punching", it amused me. (I needed a diversion, because a dear friend had surgery to remove a brain tumor yesterday and I hadn't heard from her family yet.)
But I was also trying to help. You know, as in: "If you want help from people, you need to stop bad mouthing them."
He got a little pissy at me because he tried to change what I said and I wouldn't let him. Whatevs! The call was over, and I hung up.
But then the emails started. Highly complimentary emails, which led me to the conclusion that a lot of people on that call agreed with me, but didn't feel comfortable enough to say it publicly. (Which really doesn't bother me. No matter what people say about the Veal Pen, the fact is, people have to make a living and they'll try to keep their jobs -- especially now. So I'm not casting aspersions on anyone else for not saying things like this. I'm in the uniquely dangerous position of having nothing left to lose.)
And then Greg Sargent wrote about it at the Washington Post. And all the nasty wingnut tweets started, crowing over the hippies bolting from the Democratic party. Swell.
Anyway, for the record:
The version I wrote on my blog was supposed to be funny. I figured the "Casablanca" quote would tip people off that it wasn't verbatim, but apparently not. Not even the Jerry Springer-like tone wasn't enough.
No, I wasn't using a date rape analogy.
I just have to laugh at the pearlclutchers who are upset about my language. Obviously, they've never worked on a professional campaign. Trust me, that was mild and I'm sure Axelrod wasn't the tiniest bit shocked. And do I have to point out that ultimately, these people work for us, and not vice versa?
I wasn't whining about my feelings, for heaven's sake. I mean, who cares? It would take a remarkable lack of self-awareness (the kind Republicans have) to think that Axelrod wanted or needed to hear about my feelings. I was talking about the Netroots, laying it on the line: If I take you at your word, that you need netroots support, you need to stop treating us like the girl you're embarrassed to have your friends see you with. Help us help you by knocking off the condescending digs. (And that wasn't even touching the many policy differences we have.)
Despite it all, the White House does recognize our power. That's why bloggers were the first people to talk to Elizabeth Warren, and that's why we got 45 minutes with Axelrod today. Is it enough? Of course not. It's a start, though.
Oddly enough, the wingnut tweets and blog posts in response to my question are what has finally closed the mid-term enthusiasm gap for me. Because while I am less than thrilled about this administration, spite is a very powerful force and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to spend the next two years reading a bunch of right-wing nut jobs crowing over winning this election.
Why, I'm getting enthusiastic just thinking about it!
JONATHAN KARL: So, Steve, how bad is it going to be for the Democrats in these mid-terms?
STEVE HILDEBRAND: I don’t think it has to be bad. I think if our Democratic candidates would actually be proud of to stand for their votes that they’ve taken, not all of them, but some. People who have supported health care shouldn’t run from it. They should be as proud of that vote as any vote they’ve taken in their lives. This is actually going to help people in a pretty serious way. It’s not going to hurt people.
JONATHAN KARL: And is that what you see people doing though because they’re afraid this vote is going to be used against them. In fact it’s already being used against them by Republicans they’re running away from it, running away from the President.
STEVE HILDEBRAND: Yeah, and the fact that they’re cowards in such a serious way. I mean, is this about their reelection or is this about helping people? What are they in politics for? What are they in government for, if they’re not in government to help people? They should simply get out. They shouldn’t run for reelection. And we should put people in there who are strong leaders, who want to do something to help people. That health care bill is going to help young people, old people, poor people, middle-income people. It’s vitally important to this country and any one of them that walks away from it, isn’t proud of that vote, is a coward.
JONATHAN KARL: If the current trajectory remains the way it is for the next two months, and the kind of Democratic strategy remains the way it is, do the democrats lose the House?
STEVE HILDEBRAND: The Democratic strategy right now is to run from the president, run from important proposals that help this country. If we’re not going to do something about health care, if we’re not going to do something about climate change, if we’re not going to do something about the economy, about the deficit, about the war, Washington is going to get punished. The Democrats might get punished more because they’re in power, but Washington in general is going to get punished. And you’ve seen it in Republican primaries across the country. You’ve seen it in Democratic primaries across the country. And you’re going to see it with a lot of just pure incumbents from both parties in November. They’re getting punished because they’re not dealing with the issues. They’re not dealing with the real problems that we face as a country. And they should be punished. Stand up and lead or get out of the way. And you might be replaced with someone worse, but you know, those are the options that are sometimes given to people.
A couple of thoughts: The most interesting thing, to me, is that a man who was one of Obama's top campaign staffers is saying that the Democrats deserve to lose. Right? "They should be punished." So that's kind of fascinating, that he'd say that publicly.
Another is that he says the health care bill "isn't going to hurt people." This is one of the problems we run into when the strategy and policy people have a lot of money. The fact is, the bill will hurt some people. It will cost them more money than it should, and for the people who can only afford the bare-bones, minimal coverage that will be offered, it won't offer them the help they need.
The Congress critters understand that. Why wouldn't they be scared? They know they voted for a crappy, complicated bill that will, yes, improve life for a lot of people -- but make it harder for others. I still believe it will be good in the long term, but not for now, not for everyone:
JONATHAN KARL: In a year like this when the Democrats are in danger of losing the House, even the Senate, you'd think they could use a guy like you out there.
STEVE HILDEBRAND: (Laughs) No one is knocking the door down to try to get me to help, so I’m pretty set on the fact that I'm not going to go help people that don't deserve the help they need where they are not standing up strong as Democrats. I’m just not going to do it. I’m not going to encourage other people to do it either.
JONATHAN KARL: How many of the people that are actually running these campaigns, back in Washington, the committees, are they agreeing with your message on this?
STEVE HILDEBRAND: No, I don't think so. There is a pretty specific strategy of winning a majority at any cost. The Democrats do it. The Republicans do it. It’s winning at any cost. I'm not interested in that. Do I want to hold the majorities? Absolutely. Do I think it’s better for the long term for things I believe in to have the Democrats control the majority in the Senate and the House? Absolutely, no question. But, at a point. they need to be told that: You had every opportunity to hold those majorities, by doing what was right, to stand up for the things you campaigned on, the thing that Democrats elected you for, and they didn't do that. There were too many of them that took a walk, and the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate allowed them to do that so that they could get reelected. This is where we're at now. We face a possible loss for both the House and Senate Democratic majorities, and I really believe it comes down to whether or not you chose to lead. And, I don't think they chose to lead. I think they ran scared from day one. They made it impossible for Barack Obama to get his agenda passed the way it needed to be passed.
JONATHAN KARL: How do you think the President is handling the midterms? Is he doing enough?
STEVE HILDEBRAND: Oh yea, I mean I think he's doing a ton. He knows the stakes. He clearly knows that it’s very important for his future as president to have these majorities, for a lot of reasons, for political reasons, but more importantly, for policy reasons.
JONATHAN KARL: Is it your sense it’s frustrating to the White House to see these Democrats out running for reelection by running against him, or is it that they've signed off to this win at any cost and if you have to criticize us to...
STEVE HILDEBRAND: I think they know these politicians are going to do whatever it takes
We've had our differences. But because we're looking at a major disaster for the Democrats in November, I'm hoping for once you're willing to look for advice that doesn't reinforce what you and the other DLC-Third Way fetishists already believe.
If you preside over massive electoral losses in November, you have no one to blame but yourself. But you have some options, and if you're willing to take some bold steps that excite Democrats and independents, you can still mitigate your losses. When in doubt, ask yourself what FDR would do -- and do it! Talking like a real Democrat got you the White House. Acting like one will help you keep it.
The large health care expenses that many older adults incur raise the costs of employing them and may reduce their employment options. Employers who provide health benefits face higher insurance costs from older workers, and age discrimination rules limit their ability to offset these costs by paying lower wages. As a result, employers may prefer younger workers, reducing the demand for older employees.
One way to lower employment costs for older workers and perhaps improve their employment opportunities would be to raise the share of health care expenses paid by Medicare. Under current rules, Medicare is the secondary payer of health care costs for most workers ages 65 and older with employer-sponsored insurance. Employer-sponsored insurance reimburses health care costs first, while Medicare pays only for Medicare-covered services that it does not cover. But the available evidence suggests that making Medicare the primary payer for older workers would not substantially improve employment options for older adults, because the savings for employers would amount to only a small share of total employment costs.
As expected, Dems are pushing hard for something to show the voters. Too bad they didn't just drop the Medicare age, but oh well:
Democrats are pushing Senate leaders and the White House to speed up key benefits in the health reform bill to 2010, eager to give the party something to show taxpayers for their $900 billion investment in an election year.
The most significant changes to the health care system wouldn’t kick in until 2013 — two election cycles away. With Republicans expected to make next year a referendum on health care reform, Democrats are quietly lobbying to push up the effective dates on popular programs, so they'll have something to run on in the congressional midterm elections.
Democrats are anxious to mix the good with the bad since some of the pain would be phased in early, including more than $100 billion in industry fees that critics say could be passed on to consumers.
“We want to be able, within the cost framework and the implementation framework, to have as much start as early as possible, even though we know all of it can’t,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a Finance Committee member who is working with other senators on the effort. “And the White House wants to have as much as possible to start.”
Under the Democratic wish list, senior citizens would receive discounts on brand-name drugs next year. Small businesses that provide insurance would see tax credits. And a $5 billion high-risk pool would cover people with preexisting conditions.
Democratic strategists expect the 2010 election to present a stark contrast between the parties, particularly if the health care bill receives minimal Republicans support. The front-load strategy could help blunt GOP attacks on the bill as a toxic mix of higher taxes, rising premiums and cuts to Medicare.
Talk 2 Action: David Barton barnstorms Ohio churches for GOP to mobilize fundies for mid-term elections. In the past, these efforts have been paid for by the RNC
Norwegianity: Americans have a responsibility to oppose uniformity and lock-step ideologies
The Enigmatic Paradox: If Bush can claim toppling Saddam was “Mission Accomplished,” Democrats should frame the forthcoming (mid-term elections) troop withdrawal as “America's Victory” and take every opportunity to remind voters how the Bush administration misled the country into supporting the war.
The 37th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools indicates that between a 65-80% majority agrees that: Charter and private schools should not be funded at the expense of the public school system, that they would rather see schools improved than students transferred out of them and don't think the testing regimes now in place fully measure the performance of their schools.
Interestingly, while the "nation's schools" got low marks, "schools in the community" were well thought of by 69% of parents.
Yet again, another Republican policy is proving unpopular and their hatred for a public institution, in this case public schools, has been proved to be outside the mainstream. The majority of public opinion on any of the questions asked would represent a solid election victory. If only there was a party who shared the public's sensibilities on this issue and was willing to make skillful use of this in a political campaign, they might be able to make some serious gains in the upcoming mid-term elections.
"If there were two sides to every issue, the Republicans would have an opposition party." - Bill Maher
The 37th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools indicates that between a 65-80% majority agrees that: Charter and private schools should not be funded at the expense of the public school system, that they would rather see schools improved than students transferred out of them and don't think the testing regimes now in place fully measure the performance of their schools.
Interestingly, while the "nation's schools" got low marks, "schools in the community" were well thought of by 69% of parents.
Yet again, another Republican policy is proving unpopular and their hatred for a public institution, in this case public schools, has been proved to be outside the mainstream. The majority of public opinion on any of the questions asked would represent a solid election victory. If only there was a party who shared the public's sensibilities on this issue and was willing to make skillful use of this in a political campaign, they might be able to make some serious gains in the upcoming mid-term elections.
"If there were two sides to every issue, the Republicans would have an opposition party." - Bill Maher
