What Does a Progressive Do Now? Throw Your Vote in Their Face!

The health care debate has been very instructive for those of us who consider ourselves to be "progressives." I give myself this designation, although I am a fairly average middle age, middle class father of two and faithful husband. None the less, I am now obviously way more progressive than our president, or much of the Senate and House of Representatives. Sad day.

Now, there are some progressive senators - Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold at the top of the list - and I was right with their stated positions on the health care bill. And like me, and millions of other Americans, they got their asses handed to them. The truth is, in the health care debate, like so many before, Bernie and Russ didn't fight as hard as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Nancy Pelosi and every liberals' new hero Alan Grayson did not fight as hard as Rep. Stupak. They just didn't. They caved, and we got screwed. Which leads me to my new realization:

The progressive Democrats are our biggest problem.

Look, I love Bernie and Russ, but they get rolled like drunken sailors every time! Jesus, look at the refusals to filibuster in the Bush days. Look at the aftermath of 2006, when the Dems funded the Iraq war with NO RESTRICTIONS or TIMELINES. I'm still buttsore over that one. Oh, and giving telecoms carte blanch to spy on us, thrashing Move On, it makes the head hurt.

Then, we get 2008, and a huge victory. The SUPPOSED anti-establishment candidate (Obama) wins, as well as HUGE majorities in the House and Senate. You would think that progressives could get something done, right? Wrong! Republicans have understood what it takes to win legislatively since the Clinton administration. The strategies haven't changed, just some of the players. The left, however, has never recovered from the demonization of Jimmy Carter, and the only Dems who have caught on to a winning strategy are the ones who are right wing (like Lieberman, Nelson and Stupak). The winning strategy: serve corporate interests at all costs, and fuck the left.

People will say that "compromise" got something instead of nothing. In the case of fully funding Iraq, we got a minimum wage increase. In the case of a health insurance and big pharma bonanza, we insured some more people who didn't have health care before. But I call bullshit on both of these capitulations by the left. Our minimum wage increase was from a pittance to a slightly larger pittance, nowhere near living wages. In the case of health care, the newly insured are only insured by a federal mandate, not by a program that gives affordable insurance to all Americans, which was in our grasp. No, the health care cave-in was the final nail in the coffin of American politics. There is no longer a left or right in Congress, just two wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America that differ only on social issues, kind of.

Why do liberal politicians fail to fight for our interests effectively? Because failure has no consequence. Giving in to corporate interests gets you paid. Your campaign coffers fill to the brim with oil, defense industry and big pharma cash, and you can afford to get reelected. When Wellpoint or Exxon is writing you checks for thousands at a time, you can afford to let lots of working stiffs like me get pissed and not send you $25.

And, who else am I going to vote for? Currently, I vote for a corporate shill who is a spineless, two-faced whore, or I vote for a Medieval era (also corporate shill) who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old, flat, and that gay people will bring about the Apocalypse. This is a no-win scenario for a progressive voter. Progressives literally have nobody to vote for. And yes, Feingold and Sanders voters, this means you too, unfortunately. They didn't fight when it made a difference, and have left you with no options. No options except two that I can think of: don't vote, or vote a third party.

Thom Hartmann, very smart liberal talker, will insist that you need to infiltrate the Democratic Party at your local level. This is conventional wisdom, and will take years, and cost thousands of lives. Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks suggests that we need to attack through the media. However, the "media" is largely owned by the same type of corporations that own Congress and the White House. I like the idea of an alternative media blitz against corporatist Dems, and I would trust no one more than Cenk to lead it, but it will ultimately result in marginal results as long as corporate media legitimizes the sellouts currently in office. No, liberals need to withhold the only leverage they have NOW - their votes.

And this will be disastrous in the short term. It will increase Republican seats at precisely the time that their ideas are proving to be dead to most of the American public. Poll after poll shows a fairly progressive public right now. And, staying home will probably make Democrats lunge further to the right, in an effort to get those remaining votes. But after an election cycle or two, this may either open up room on the left in those Democratic primaries (there ya go, Thom), or shock some Dems to fight for the left as they see how the polls are going. But we have to keep those votes at home until we see some fight, not just Obama-like speeches. (Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again - insert W's giggle here.)

I like the other option - a third party. Either choose one (like the Greens) or invent one. A Progressive Party would be a clear shot across the bow of the Democrats. They will scream about 2000, and what Nadar did to Gore. Republicans will delight, remembering what Perot did to Bush 1. But it allows liberals to leverage their votes without just opting out of the process. The chances are slim to none of actual electoral victory. But, who would'a thought in late 2007 that American would elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama as president? Oh, how sweet would it be to have a few Green party members of Congress, caucusing with Dems and reminding them every time of the cost of shitting on "the base." Dare to dream.

Isn't this throwing our votes away? No! It is the ultimate poll response. If all we get is pro-corporate policies from the Dems, then giving unworthy representatives our vote is throwing it away.

Won't this ultimately benefit the Republicans? Probably, in the short term. But Republicans will read the tea leaves too. And anyway, the long-term demographic outlook for Republicans is tragic. This is why corporations have been outspending on Democrats for years now. They know Republicans are on their way to becoming a permanent minority. Leveraging our votes now is the only way to dam the rivers of corporate cash that are determining the flow of Democratic politics.

As voters, we must learn from the fighters, like Lieberman. We must say "no!" No to compromise that gives corporations everything they want. No to representatives that don't fight at least as hard as Ben Nelson. We must say it and mean it - no to pussies who can't give us what we want, what we sent them to Congress for in the first place. We are the majority, we should get what we want, or we should clean house.

So, let's clean house.

There is about 10 months to show us some fight, or forget about our vote. We will send it elsewhere. We will even do what a percentage of NY mayoral voters did: write in Mr. Burns from The Simpsons. Shit, write in Spongebob, or Meatwad. Coordinate through the netroots to write in your favorite Squidbilly. Or a third party candidate with an only slightly higher chance of winning.

You will not be throwing your vote away. You will be throwing it in the face of people who have been taking you for granted, and taking cash from your enemies. Let Democratic representatives know that if they don't start fighting NOW, we will throw it in their face.

Lieberman and Nelson Learn from Republicans - and So Should the Liberal Dems

This last week of health care disaster has seen liberal radio and blogville screaming for the scrotum of Joe Lieberman. And, they should. The Senator from Connecticut is a scumbag of the first order, and his hatred for liberals is worn on his sleeve. And, apparently he is Barack Obama's best friend, since he was allowed to basically write the current incarnation of the Senate health care bill.

Lieberman, who middle-fingered his own state's Democratic party, who supported John McCain, who said that Obama was the same as a terrorist, who kept his chairmanships in spite of this, who caucuses with the Democrats even though he fucks them every chance he gets, gets to call the shots on health care reform. Or, gets to kill health care reform with no political consequences. The current bill is a 100% gift to the health care industrial complex, and the most corrupt government action since, well, the bank bailouts (oh Jesus, Obama...). And all because Joe says he will filibuster the Democratic bill (you know, the guys he caucuses with, who have the power to take away his chairmanships and give him a basement office with one, bare 20 watt bulb if they had a single set of balls between the 58 0f them).

The media calls Joe courageous, tough and independent minded. But most people know better by now. The President, the defacto leader of his party, who could have stepped in and kicked a little ass, has instead given Lieberman his blessing. Now, I think this is because Obama agrees with what Lieberman is doing. But you can't deny that it is Insurance Lobby Joe who is perceived as the strong player in this drama. Joe refuses to budge. He draws a line in the sand, and gets at least 80% of what he wants.

And of all the Democrats, Ben Nelson from Nebraska has been paying attention.

After Lieberman guts reform like a fish, to where a majority of Americans will be unhappy with if not against its passage, Nelson steps up and demands abortion restrictions. The same type of restrictions from the house bill that the Senate said "no way" to just a few weeks ago. Apparently, killing reform in a 400+ billion dollar give-away to insurance companies was not enough. Nelson figured we should throw every woman in America under the bus too. And he did. With pressure from Dem leadership, Nelson is being taken seriously. He will probably get most of what he wants. He says he "can't vote for the bill" without his restrictions on women's rights in it. Which means in truth, he is threatening a filibuster. He is threatening his own party's legislation if he doesn't get what he and only a few others want. I am guessing this is being portrayed on cable news as a principled stand.

But what it is, is hardball. Nelson is paying attention. He sees Lieberman slapping Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership around left and right. He sees Obama rushing to make deals with anyone who thumbs their nose at Progressives. It's not hard to miss, and he gets it. Now Senator Nelson is being a total conservative asshole who is threatening to fuck up the whole works. And he will probably get most, if not everything he wants.

Why, oh why can't the Progressive Democrats learn this lesson. Why didn't Chuck Shumer threaten to filibuster unless his drug re importation amendment was left in? Why didn't Nancy Pelosi stare down that fuckhead Stupak who put the abortion restriction into the House bill? What, she can't make a "principled stand" for women's rights? This is not your dad's House and Senate - the game is different now. It is played before the klieg lights of cable opinion shows, and the occasional news reporting. It is only relevant to what have become largely entertainment networks as a political brand of reality TV. You have to be an asshole or a freak show to get some attention.

Joe Lieberman is the sleaziest dog in the off-leash park of American politics right now. And he schools the Democrats regularly. That is pathetic. And a Stupak or Nelson aren't even in his league yet, and can still bend the Democratic leadership over the meat counter for a reaming.

Can you imagine, though, if Harry Reid showed up last month with a bunch of movers to Lieberman's office. He tells Lieberman that he is no longer chairman of the homeland security committee, Al Frankin is instead. That basement room with the 20 watt bulb is actually being used to store some of Frankin's shit, so there is a shed out back of the Senate building that he can use until something frees up. And then take his stapler. Oh my God, Fox news would explode, and CNN would decry the pettiness, etc. And then some reality TV hopeful would float in a balloon through a White House function, or something like that. Media would forget, and it would just be the leader of the Senate kicking balls for the good of the nation. And, he would be a MSNBC and HuffPost hero.

Instead, Reid is tanking in the polls in his own state. Not because he is seen as too liberal, but because he is seen as weak. When you get your ass handed to you by the most unpopular politician in America, this does not buoy your image, it makes you look like Lieberman's bitch. Nobody wants to vote for a bitch.

And, do you think this is the end? Hell no, it's just the beginning! Others will catch on. Go against the liberals and the Democratic leadership and get whatever you want! Shit, until it doesn't work, why not? Cenk Unger of the Young Turks decried this Democratic weakness in the face of Lieberman as precedent setting. And Ben Nelson's move has proved him right. If Nelson gets his way on abortion, it is only a matter of time, maybe minutes, before Nelson of Florida, or the conservative democratic bitch from Louisiana, or the one from Arkansas break out their lists.

And they would be stupid not to. Until Democrats fight from the left, instead of caving from the left, these bills will continue to be a disaster. Why not get what you want, please your donors, and bring home the bacon for your state. Especially since there are no consequences. The rest of the Dems won't fight you, or even call your bluff.

And anyway, what is the harm of calling Lieberman's, let alone Nelson's bluff. Worst case is they do join Republicans, and the bill goes through reconciliation. And that is unlikely with Nelson.

I mean really, Ben Nelson is going to join a Republican filibuster in order to restrict women's rights, and win as a Democrat? If the national party made it clear that health care reform was a priority, and that he will be cut off? That an attractive, quietly pro-choice and moderate district attorney or prosecutor from Lincoln was being extravagantly funded and groomed to run against him in his next primary, that his chairmanships were gone, that his office was now in the basement, and "get your ass back in ranks soldier!,"? Well, he'd heel like the dog he is.

But only if we have Democratic leaders who can deliver a wide-arching pimp slap from time to time. Or at least some liberals who can throw the same kind of deal-killing tantrums as Lieberman and Nelson, but for truly progressive causes. Until then, we will wring our hands, and cry that 60 senators is not enough, because we can't learn what Joe and Ben have:

Throw a fit, threaten legislative destruction, be called brave and principled, and get what you want.

Obama is not Weak, He's Conservative, and This is a Gut Punch

I have bristled with rage as I have listened to the news of the health care bill in the Senate. Fucking assholes! They are doing major damage to us, as sure as shootin' with Dick Cheney. Lieberman and his new butt buddy Senator Nelson (the one from Nebraska) have played a Bushian game on the Senate, and they (the Senate Dems) caved like bitches.

And yes, the liberals in the Senate are weak. They are weak because they care about Americans and are letting those who don't hold us hostage. A senator like Bernie Sanders knows how fucked-up this bill is, how it is among the most corrupt enterprises ever foisted on the American people. He also knows it will give health care to about 30 million people who don't have it. This hedges his opposition, he wants so badly to help those people get what they need.

This makes me think of the movie "Speed." When Kianu Reeves' character decides the best way to deal with a hostage delima is to shoot the hostage (just a flesh wound). We need a real liberal who can aim well enough for a flesh wound. We need real liberals to call the bluff, to shoot uninsured Americans in the leg if necessary and learn what Leiberman and Nelson have learned - don't compromise.

But I'm getting off track. My post title is about Obama. Liberal columnists, radio hosts and bloggers have been all over the map this week. The most oft-repeated complaint is the wish that the President would "get tough" with these senators, and join in the fight for the public option. I think that this is horrible analysis. He has gotten tough - too tough.

When you hear criticism of Obama's weakness, you usually hear about his failure to fight for the public option. But make no mistake, Obama has weighed in on the public option at least two times, with great impact. Once with Harry Reid, and once with the Senate Dems. Both times he made it clear - kill the public option.

Shit, Max Baucus and Kent Conrad tried for months to kill the public option, but it was stubborn - the American people wanted it badly. Obama met with the Senate two weeks ago and killed it in half an hour. You think that's not tough? Before that, when Reid asked for help getting the option, Obama made it clear that he was "on his own."

Obama put a serious smack-down on the public option. He was certainly more deft about fucking the American people than Bush was, but no less effective. He still may do this without too much blood on his hands. He also effectively killed Chuck Schumer's Drug Reimportation amendment. All those senators looked butt-sore after that fell down. Obama basically orchestrated a filibuster against a measure that would have greatly lowered drug prices for Americans. He filibustered his own party! He is a Machiavellian badass!

But he sure as hell is not a liberal. Nor is he in favor of the much vaunted "change" (TM Obamacorp). With Wall Street, wars, and in general sucking the chrome off of corporate trailer hitches of the Medical Industrial Complex, he is not much different from Bush/Cheney. And this is what hurts so much.

I was adamant about Obama's election in the primary. I so wanted him to beat Hillary because I did NOT want a right-of-center, DLC corporate shill candidate to win. I really did get sucked in by the "change" mantra. Now we must come to grips with the fact that Obama used the netroots to unseat Hillary as the new master of the Democratic corporate gravy-train. He used us, not to fight the power, but to solidify power for a narrow, non-liberal cadre of Dems who are now loyal to him. And everyone else better get in line or else he won't even throw a bone, like forcing 30 million Americans to buy private insurance from the same companies who shovel campaign money into Democratic coffers.

And this is what would make Tom Delay blush. And why I am so profoundly disappointed. With no anti-trust reinstatement, with no cost controls, and NO PUBLIC OPTION, Democrats will force Americans to buy a product they may not want from companies who give money to Democrats. This is so corrupt it makes a decaying corpse look good by comparison. Obama is using his political muscle for this, not for change. We now know who he is.

And it sucks. It sucks to have a president who will give billions to asshole bankers so they can have more bonuses while there is 10% unemployment. It sucks to know that our president will escalate a war in Afghanistan even though there is no credible partner in the country to work with. It sucks to know that our president cares more about the CEOs of Primera, Wellpoint and Big Pharma than he does about hundreds of millions of people like me.

It sucks to know that I voted for him.

Why the Senate Health Care Deal is Bullshit

The United States Senate buried the public option this week. Barack Emanuel made it clear in a 30 minute meeting with Democratic Senators that Insurance Companies and HMOs would not be happy unless Americans were thoroughly fucked on this deal, so Harry Reid put 10 of them in a room with strict instructions to thoroughly fuck us.

"But wait," you say..."Obama did his best." Yes he did. Did his best to kill the public option and not have the blood on his hands. But this is about the Senate, at least until the end of this rant. The "liberals" in the meeting came out smiling because Medicare got extended. This sounds great, but it isn't. It was opposite of how Medicare should have been expanded. But let's look at what they did:

• Medicare will someday start when Americans pass 55 years of age, instead of the current 65. It can be argued that any expansion of Medicare is a good step in reform.
• A "non-profit" option will be triggered at some point if insurance companies don't behave by keeping costs under control.
• Subsidies for Americans who can't afford health insurance.
• That ridiculous abortion shit was scratched.
• Some other stuff that I was too lazy to look up.
• More Americans WILL be covered, especially because the mandate for coverage will still be there.

The Medicare expansion is a cherry on the top, and will allow Dems to declare victory. But it is all bullshit. Without serious revisions by the House this is a preemptive bailout for health insurance companies. Billions more of our tax dollars will flow into the corporate coffers without actually lowering costs, or improving the health coverage product. We are tired of the fight, and as progressives, not used to standing our ground when friends turn on us. Even Howard Dean (my choice for Chief of Staff) was feigning satisfaction with this deal. He's just happy the blue dogs didn't blow the whole 2010 election up by nuking any reform. And, everyone gets paid...except us.

Why is this deal so bad? Well...

The Medicare expansion is ass-backwards. By extending Medicare to those over 55, taxpayers take the burden of the most potentially health-impaired population off the backs of the insurance companies. The coverage mandates will drive tens of millions of younger, healthier customers to take their places. The +55 age group is also the highest wage earning group in the workforce - the most able to afford their own insurance. They are the last group we should cover.

To do this right, we should have started from age zero through nine. This is the group that suffers from the least coverage right now, thus doing the most good. This also takes the burden off of working families and makes kids healthier. Healthier kids are higher achieving kids in schools. The benefits to America are huge on the low end, and make 100 percent more sense if you care about what's good for America, instead of what's good for Primera.

Finally, if your politics are truly oriented towards health reform, this is the gateway to Medicare for all. When those kids get close to turning ten, millions of families will collectively turn to their representatives and say "you're gonna' take away my kid's health insurance? How quick can you pack up your office?"

The "non-profit" option is a sham. Do we really trust the same companies that have been providing us with an overpriced product that under-serves us to sell insurance that would be priced at public rate? No way. And waiting for triggers? Please! And do we really think they will change practices on preexisting conditions? Not without disastrous cost consequences. Either the final version will have small loopholes that allow complete disregard of all new regulations, or the Health Care Industrial Complex will just ignore them. You don't think so?

Look at the Wall Street crowd. They were given billions to fix over 700,000 mortgages. They have taken the cash and just sat on it. Paid themselves millions in bonuses because they are showing record profits. They say "oh, yeah. That mortgage thing, we'll get right on that..." Then they smirk as they wire our money to the Bahamas. Or hows about AIG executives that had to be rescued to the tune of almost 200 billion when they nearly took down the entire global economy? They paid themselves over 160 million in bonuses, and when we got pissed said they would give 46 mil back. But it turns out they didn't. This week they said they were thinking about giving just 19 million back. And, fuck us if we don't like it.

And our federal government, the entity that handed the bankers all of that public cash, says "yes sir, may I have another." And by that they mean another campaign contribution. Health care companies donate many millions too, and this deal shows how solidly the fix is in.

Mandates and subsidies are insane without a true public option. Are senators really going to mandate that tens of millions of Americans purchase a shitty, overpriced product from the evil health hooligans that are in turn feeding millions into senate campaign funds? C'mon, this is like something out of a bad 80's movie about the future gone horribly wrong. It is such a blatantly corrupt idea that it wrenches my guts to think that my government would do this.

Look, I get the need to spread the risk among a larger and healthier pool of insured people. It makes complete sense IF you are doing it responsibly. Responsibly means controlling the costs, and having those who are elected be accountable for these kinds of mandates in a democracy. Government has to play a large role in this kind of mandate, or we the people are so much meat for the corporate lions.

Finally, I hope I've seen the last of that abortion shit that was plugged in by Blue Dog Dems. But I am not holding my breath. That crap started in the House, and this still has to go through conference.

And finally finally, I am tired of being told by Obama sycophants to just be patient. And I swear to Jupiter, if one more pundit, blogger or caller to a talk show tells me that Obama is playing chess while we are playing checkers, I will desire to shove chess pieces up their ass! I supported Obama, but I am not blind, nor am I as stupid as he seems to think I am. It seems to me that the American people are playing Go Fish, hoping for a good card while Obama and the Senate are running a three-card monte hustle on the American working class.

Max Baucus and Kent Conrad tried for months to kill the public option, and they couldn't - even with the teabagger heat being poured on them. Obama only needed 30 minutes. There is no question that he killed the public option. No question that he killed the last vestige of real reform. Why? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! NEW #1 ISSUE.

How's About a Military Spending Poll?

President Obama seems dead-set on a surge in Afghanistan. This is a disaster for the obvious reasons. One, it will result in more unnecessarily dead people; two, we can't afford it; three, the Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt and not a viable partner; and four, it will not work.

Sending troops in spite of this represents the kind of political weakness that has brought you the bankers bonanza from Geithner and Summers, and the constant attempt to quietly kill the public option from the White House. It is a cave-in to the right and to the Pentagon. It is a boon to generals who have political and or career ambitions. It serves a myriad of special interests, but not the American people in general.

However, Congress does seem to listen to polling pressure from the public, hence the survival of some form of public option (so far). The polling on Afghanistan is mixed: Americans want to defeat Al Queda and/or the Taliban, but don't want to stay a long time in Afghanistan. But the questions missing are along the lines of "does being in Afghanistan keep us safe?" I have heard a lot of people say no.

Even if the answer is to some degree "yes," the next question needs to be "how much do you want to pay for a degree of safety?" Is it worth several billion dollars a month, indefinitely, to keep some terrorists out of Afghanistan? Is it worth an extra million dollars per soldier per year for a troop increase?

I would answer "hell no" if given the option.

In fact, I would like to see military spending in general polled heavily in this time of economic crisis. These are the questions I would like to see polled extensively with the American people:

• Should America cut its military spending to help fix the deficit?
• Should America be spending as much on its military as its top 20 allies combined?
• If we could cut military spending by 50%, and still have the most modern and most powerful military in the world, should we do it?
• If we could pay off our debt to China by cutting military spending, should we?
• Should we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, currently costing 10 billion per month, so that our kids won't have to pay any more of the debt for these conflicts?

Poll these heavily now that a "war tax" is being bandied about in Congress. I think you would find that Americans would be at least open to a real debate about military spending. The idea that we spend more than the G8 countries combined on our military is appalling. Regardless of how patriotic Americans feel, they should be amenable to a conversation about saving real money. Apart from Social Security, or Medicare, the military budget is the place to get those savings.

Schooling Obama on Education

On the day of a mixed-results, off year election for Democrats - a day when the President perhaps should have been in DC declaring victory and perhaps kicking a few asses, he was in Madison Wisconsin, making a speech on education. I did not hear the speech, just the highlights. As a teacher of eleven years, they made me a little sad. And a lot pissed off.

Obama continued the education memes he’s been pushing for months now: unions – bad, teachers – bad, vouchers – good, charter schools – good. Oh, and over four billion dollars available in grants IF you agree to fire “bad” teachers, piss off the unions and open charter schools. All things which will, in my state, put the final nail in the coffin that the Bush Administration tried so hard to bury public education in for eight years.

By the way, those were eight years in which about a billion dollars that used to be in public school districts has been put in the pockets of the private sector, in the form of payments to testing companies. The goal of NCLB was not to make every child in America succeed. If it was, they would have funded it. It was to destroy public schools, and put ALL of the cash that school districts get in the hands of the private sector (because Wall Street does not get enough of our money already). National private education is what NCLB is designed to accomplish, just like our military operations have been at least partly privatized by companies like Blackwater.

Let’s look at Obama’s main points, and rip the shit out of them…

Beat down the teachers’ unions
Yes, the hallmark of a Democrat – attack organized labor? What is it about teachers’ unions that have become anathema to Democrats in the last few years? Are you going to have at the firefighters’ union if a house or two burns down? The police union if crime is not at zero percent?

I don’t hear anyone say that more structures would be saved from fire, or that crime rates would be less if we could just bust the firefighters’ and policemans’ unions. These unions watch out for their members’ safety, wages and benefits. To assert that the unions had a significant impact on fires or crime is stupid. It is just as stupid to assert that the teachers’ unions are ruining public education.

I understand that the argument is that teachers unions stand in the way of education reform. To which I say, fuck yes! Where that reform has an effect on working conditions, safety, wages or benefits they should work as hard as possible to block education reform. That is what I pay them for!

Labor unions are just that – labor unions. They are not child advocacy organizations. I pay around $1000 per year in dues to my union to see that they look out for my interests. I expect them to go to work with a baseball bat if necessary to get me the best deal they can.

The fact is, in Washington State (where I teach), the unions have already given in on several key reform measures, including the elimination of tenure and site-based hiring for principals. We teachers have performance evaluations annually, and, can be removed from a building if a principal does not like the job we are doing. It happens frequently. We, as a labor force, have largely been rewarded for this with scorn and contempt by media, politicians and district administrators when it is convenient for them to score points at election or negotiation times.

The real problem is that the education pie is too small, and unions have to fight for our fair share. That is what they are fucking supposed to do! So why trash them so much?

Could the fact that the floor of the nominating convention was almost 10% NEA members have an impact on Obama’s apparent distain for teachers unions? Did this threaten corporatist Dems the agenda of their private sector masters? And, instead of helping a solid block of supporters, you want to spurn us because we don’t have piles of corporate cash to shovel into campaign coffers? Think about it.

By the way, what do teachers’ unions want? Decent wages and benefits for their members, and the best public education possible for our nation’s children. What do corporate donors want? The elimination of all impediments, no matter what the harm to the commons, to maximize profits. Way to pick ‘em, Mr. President.

Bad Teachers
Yes, there are bad teachers. There are also bad firefightes and bad policemen. I don’t hear a call for the total assault on their professions. In fact, if we remember recent history, we have had a bad President.

The question is, how do you measure bad teachers? I work in a school that is in its fifth year of being “in the penalty” according to NCLB. And, I can tell you, that no staff has worked harder than the one I belong to to improve student achievement.

But I can tell you this also: we will not meet the 100% mark by 2013. No way. It won’t happen by any rational measure.

And this is not because I don’t have high expectations for my students. I believe fervently that America, and my school district, has the best public education to offer in the world. I am taking migrant students from the fields and putting them in college. They come back to visit. And these college students did not always meet standard on the day they took the state’s NCLB reporting test. But they are on the road to becoming America’s leaders today.

But if you just look at the test results, you should fire me now.

You should fire me now because the student who came from Mexico 18 months ago, and reads at a second grade level (in middle school) will not pass the state-mandated test. You should fire me now because the student who has been in three foster homes in the past six months wasn’t able to fully focus on her math, science or social studies. You should fire me because the student who slept in a car for several weeks, and still caught the bus to school every one of those days, didn’t get homework done. (God damn these kids are awesome! How dare you call them failures!)

Yeah, fire me and maybe, just maybe you will find someone who will do better. But I doubt it. But you will find many hard-working, caring, professionals who DO have the HIGHEST expectations of every student who enters our classrooms, yet who fail by the measure of a date-specific, standardized test. Now, show growth, and I will rock your world.

There are, I’m sure, bad teachers. But they will be few and far between. We are mostly a profession of mostly white, mostly middle-class practitioners who could mostly have gone into business or much more lucrative careers, but sought a career in public service instead. We do this to make a difference for our community and our country, along with a decent living (thank you, teachers' unions!).

Vouchers? Seriously?
I am not sure I even heard this right…vouchers? I sure as shit hope not. Vouchers are a death-knell to public education. They will be used by affluent and middle-class parents to put students into schools that they regard as superior to public schools. They will take public money and, in defiance of the First Amendment, give it to religious institutions. Oh, and the corporate schools, like Edison Schools.

Yeah, Edison Schools, a publicly traded school-corporation where, in 2002, in Philidelphia, trucks came to load up all the books and computers because the company’s stock price slid to under a buck.

If you are stupid enough to risk our nation’s education system to the whim of market forces, or the doctrine of religious institutions (in the 21st century, where science will be the economic growth engine), then I can’t even continue a conversation with you. Go back to Medieval, or Elizabethan times where churches or wealthy patrons were the only way to get an education. Do we really long for these times?!? It makes my head hurt!

Charter Schools
Perhaps the most reasonable-sounding, and most insidious of all the proposals.

As public education stands today, I hate charter schools.

I totally see the appeal. I understand the desire of public school teachers who band together to form these (often) high-performing schools that buck the system. I could easily see myself as a member of a charter school staff, innovating and achieving at high levels.

Oh, and cherry-picking students and families from the public education pool.

Of all the charter schools I have seen, they all share one particular, deal-sealing advantage over normal public schools: opt-in.

Charter schools are opt-in programs that only exist because there is a school like the one I teach at down the road to take the students who don’t meet the requirements. And mine is the failing school?

But what charter schools don’t advertise is the fact that EVERY child in America is guaranteed a FREE public education…period! Charter schools contract with students and families to meet certain academic and behavior standards. If students fail to meet those standards, they are gone! Where do they go? Well, to the schools like the one I teach at.

And…
Schools like the ones I teach at are the best schools in the world. Case closed. No more debate necessary.

We are the best because we take EVERYONE. We don’t care about your race, religion or income. We send a bus.

We send a bus to the fields for the migrant workers kids, and to the homeless shelter. We send busses to the trailer parks, and the housing projects.

We send a bus for kids with severe behavior disorders, autism, downs syndrome and the over-diagnosed ADHD. You think China and India do that? Fuck no!

We are, God dammit, the BEST PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE WORLD because we take locally generated funds, no matter how poor the community, and send a bus for EVERYONE. And we send ‘em to college. Not as many as we like, but we don’t quit on any of them until they are out of the system. Or until they are so demoralized by the lack of economic opportunity in their community that they quit on themselves.

So…
You wanna’ do more for public education than any other President? Raise the minimum wage to over $10 per hour, and tax the rich more. Give poor families a chance, and back rigorous federal standards with fat wads of federal money. This will do more to enhance public education than any union-bashing, teacher-firing, charter-schooling and private vouchering program could do to destroy it.

Or, keep hammering away at teachers, administrators and organized labor, and then “tut, tut” when the result of using the hammer is a broken system. Give us too little money, and sit back and watch teachers and administrators fight over the scraps, and then say how horrible our unions are for robbing kids of an education. That is what is happening now.

We are a system under siege. We need your help, Mr. President, not your scorn. When you look at my students’ test scores this spring, you will say that I am one of the “bad” teachers. You will say “look, there are teachers who show two years growth in one year.” But NCLB does not measure growth. And, I show two years growth all the time. The problem is, many of my students need four and five years growth in a year to meet the NCLB benchmarks. And for this, our school will be called a failure.

Don’t get me wrong, we need improvement. But until you are here to help, Mr. President, please get the fuck out of our way.

Race to the Top = Bullshit

Thanks, David Brooks, for adding to the unlimited library of poorly researched articles on public education. Way to spend a day in a classroom. Way to beat up on the teachers' unions. Way to denigrate public servants yet again. Have at the "troops" next, I dare you!

Yes, Obama's Race to the Top grants sound like one more "innovative" initiative to use free market methods to improve public schools. To reward innovative thinking with federal dollars. Right! This is more of the neoconservative wet dream of wholesale privatization of every sector of government, and ultimately, the death of public education altogether.

Let's look at the highlights:
1. Teachers' unions are bad. Awww...did teachers' unions, I don't know, stick up for their members' rights? Did they bargain for as much pay and the best benefits and working conditions that they could get? NO SHIT! As a member of the NEA, that's what I pay them almost $100 per month for! They should go to work on every state legislature with lead pipes and blow torches for that kind of cash! But seriously, the WEA (Washington State's branch of the NEA) has given in on all kinds of bargaining positions for education reform, including seniority and site-based hiring. Sometimes I have to yell at my union president that he runs a LABOR UNION, not a CHILD ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION!

Seriously, unions will look out after their members. They are supposed to! Is David Brooks, or worse, President Obama suggesting the unions should not fight hard in collective bargaining for their members? The problem is not that the teachers are asking for too much, it is that they are asking for a fair slice of too small a pizza. And unfunded mandates like NCLB don't help that pizza go 'round.

2. Vouchers - Why not just turn public education over to Dick Cheney? That's how we will provide public education - just divide up the state education money and give it to every family with kids and say "have at it!" This is what we are talking about. Do we really want to privatize public education? You think the achievement gap is bad now, wait until we give white middle class families vouchers. This idea will doom our public schools, and our nation to social and economic obscurity.

3. Charter Schools - The easiest to sell, and perhaps the most insidious idea. Don't get me wrong, there are wonderful charter schools. They do great things, and serve their students and families well. BUT, I have never heard of one that doesn't impact the public education system adversely. I"ll give you an example: The City School. The City School is a wonderful charter school in Spokane, Washington. They offer a project-based education for students up to 8th grade. It is a world class, and highly engaging curriculum taught by caring professionals. I was psyched when I saw their presentation at a seminar put on by our state's education department.

Then, one of my colleagues asked a question: "what happens when a student disrupts class, or doesn't do his/her work?" The answer from the principal (the same answer from some half-dozen other charter school videos I have watched): "they're gone." They sign a contract to be here, and if they violate it, they are kicked out.

The problem with this is that EVERY CHILD in the United States is guaranteed a free public education. Charter schools can only be this selective if there is a school like the one I teach at down the road that will take them, warts and all. The real American public school system does not get to cherry pick students or supportive families. We take everyone.

I teach in an 82% poverty school, of which maybe 25% would make it at the City School. But these are American kids, and we need to stop dicking around and develop some strong NATIONAL standards. And then, have the fight in Congress to put some real FEDERAL MONEY into the schools. To make them truly world class. Funded well enough to compete with a global marketplace of economics and ideas. If we don't, if we leave it up to retired rural voters to decide how much county's will fund schools in their property tax-based levies, then we will get our asses kicked. It's simply a numbers game: China and India have more honor students EACH, than we have students total.

Having said that, I will proceed with my usual rant: American public schools, as they stand now, are the best in the world. Period.

No question - unless you are in the top 10% of income or status in your country, you want your kids in American public schools. That is because WE TAKE EVERYONE! Downs syndrome, autistic, behavior disordered, it doesn't matter. We send a bus. We send a bus to the fields for the children of migrant workers. We send a bus to the homeless shelter, or the the corner for the kids who live in a car. We send a bus to the "hood," and to every neighborhood, and put them on a track for a four-year university education and beyond. And we do this every day. Tell me China does this - or India. Or even Western Europe, where kids are trade-school tracked by eighth grade. Hell no, we do what no other country even attempts, every day.

So, put your federal money where your mouth is, or get the fuck out of my way and let me continue doing the fantastic job that no other nation on earth even dares to have its educators attempt - putting every child, no matter their family or disability, on a university track. And, to elected Democrats (Obama), how's about easing up on the unions. Beating up on unions is the Republicans' job. At least is used to be.

Ed Shultz is a Crybaby - a new Reality Show

I fucking hate reality TV.

I never watch it. If my kids are watching it, and I don't feel like fighting for the remote, I leave the room. I can't stand watching shmucks parade their foibles on TV for celebrity status. It tarnishes the word celebrity - a term developed with the root "celebrate," as in, to acknowledge people worthy of celebrating.

This is why I hate the Balloon Boy story, it was a three to four hour reality TV show, foisted on unsuspecting haters (like me) as "news."

The day of the story, I was passing through the break room at work and saw the limp UFO zooming across the landscape. I got the update from my coworkers and then listened to the CNN feed for about five minutes. Then, I had to get to work. I checked back a couple of times (but mostly, I was working), and then listened to the radio on and off during my hour commute home.

I was wondering, how did the kid get in? How cold was it at 8000 feet? Who was going to have to find a dead, six-year old body in the wreckage? Then, at the end of my commute, more than three hours later, I heard for the first time, that this was a reality TV show family.

At which point I said: "Bastards!"

Not the balloon family - their motivations were completely transparrant - no, the cable news channels. They suck. I mean, really? You're not going to tell me for three hours that these knuckle-heads are veterans of reality TV? I mean, FOX, CNN, MSNBC - you haven't been talking to the local affiliate? Who have already done features on this family! That within 15 minutes of the balloon being on TV you aren't reporting the STRONG likelihood that this whole thing is a hoax? A stunt to get back on TV?

Oh yeah, and verifying the story you are covering. Before the day was over, "aviation experts" were chiming in. No, not the one that was being interviewed about the possibility of rescue. The ones that were saying that there was no way that the balloon could have carried a 40 plus pound person.

No no no no no. They knew. They just milked us for ratings. And that is bullshit from any organization that has the word "news" anywhere in their title or description of what they do. This was presented as "breaking news," but the obvious doubts about the story were left out until hours of ratings had been recorded. Either through extreme incompetence, or through a quest for those same reality TV ratings. We should be pissed off, because either way we were sold a bill of goods, and provided ratings to the networks, for what turned out to be bullshit.

Now, of course, we know the truth - after many hours more of "news" coverage. We even have video of this family releasing the balloon. We have an admission from the kid, on TV (mission accomplished) that it was "for the show." And people are pissed. Arianna Huffington was among the first to express her displeasure on the Ed Shultz show.

And today, after days of milking this non-story, Ed was whining on his radio show like one of my kids about criticism he received for preempting guests to cover Balloon bullshit. "This was a breaking story!" he cried. "We do news too, and this is a news network!" "I'm gonna' go back to Fargo, I don't need this!" he lamented. "Our ratings, and the ratings of all three cable networks were huge" [sic] "Progressives can be mean!"... Jesus, he went on for at least five minutes.

First of all, Big Eddie, go the fuck back to Fargo if you can't man-up to a little criticism from Arriana. Second of all, the point you made about ratings was key - that's what the journalistic decision making on this story was all about: ratings. The artificial drama that this family provided was (according to my conjecture) the sole factor in how much coverage the three cable networks devoted to this story. At your news network, nobody cared about the facts, just the drama-driven ratings. Not fact-checking, background investigation (by the way, an assistant producer, with a computer, the dad's name and five minutes could have come up with a YouTube channel of hoaxes by this family), or objective reporting (like, was it even possible for the balloon to fly with a kid in it?). No, it was about reality TV ratings. Congratulations Ed, you are a reality TV star. And so are all of your colleagues.

Whiney Ed Schultz is a reality TV star because this story reveals what the cable, and probably broadcast news has become: reality TV. The old axiom of "if it bleeds, it leads" has become the production focus, not just the teaser. And this has ramifications for how we understand what is happening in our world. The shiny, UFO-shaped health care object was "Obama and his death panels are killing your grandma!" This was untrue and crazy, but Newt was saying it on NPR without challenge or postscript investigation on the morning of Obama's health care speech. Reported as "news" and driving people to town hall rallies for serious drama. The Balloon Boy story shows us just how far down the reality TV rabbit-hole our news media has fallen. And this is why people are pissed...

...we might have to go back to reading newspapers.

Oklahoma High School Poll - Dummy kids, or dummy test?

National news was made recently by a poll taken by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. They put questions to Oklahoma public high school students - the same questions from the immigration exam for citizenship. The results were horrible, and point to yet another failure of public education. Yet, as a public educator, I wish to beg for another chance to make the case for America's (or at least Washington's - where I teach) public school students.

First, here are the questions, and the results:

What is the supreme law of the land? 28%
What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution? 26%
What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress? 27%
How many justices are there on the Supreme Court? 10%
Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? 14%
What ocean is on the east coast of the United States? 61%
What are the two major political parties in the United States? 43%
We elect a U.S. senator for how many years? 11%
Who was the first President of the United States? 23%
Who is in charge of the executive branch? 29%

First, in full disclosure, let me say that I am a public school teacher that teaches civics and history (among other things), so I have a professional stake in the interpretation of these numbers.

Second, let me say, that if we are worrying about the ability of Oklahoma high school students, or any other Americans, to answer these questions in a high-stakes assessment, then we are in more trouble than is being asserted by the coverage of this story.

One problem with the above questions is that they are basically trivia. They require no high-level cognitive functioning. They are "first level" questions in Bloom's Taxonomy. We can easily train legions of Oklahoma's, or any other state's high school students to regurgitate history names and dates, and yet they will a have no clue as to what anything they said really means. I'll bet a poll of Teabaggers will yield much higher scores on the question "who was the first President of the United States?". So what? - they are still woefully misguided as to how our government functions, and how it benefits or hurts them.

My eighth grade students right now could not pass the test listed above. But come back in the spring, and they will pass a test that asks for much more academic rigor. They will not just be asked who wrote the Declaration of Independence, they will be asked to identify a key democratic ideal stated in the Declaration, and apply it to an issue in their lives today. This will require not only a deeper understanding of the document than its author, but an understanding of the truly American principals enshrined within. They will be able to do this at 85% proficiency, or I will have to re-teach it.

Another reason why the poll was so negative? No Child Left Behind. This conservative gem (which has, ironically, forced many school districts across the nation to pay attention to the achievement gap between white and non-white students), has virtually mandated an abandonment of social studies as a curriculum emphasis. Since math, reading, writing and science, are what gets measured, they are what get attention from administrators, school boards, principals and education reporters. As it was stated clearly in one of the many books I have been required to read as part of education reform: what gets measured, gets done.

Social studies - history, civics, economics and geography - are largely not being measured in the United States at this time. Consequently, meaningful social studies content is not being taught until at least the middle school level, if not being put off until high school entirely. Even with this reality, Washington State, where I teach, has demanded a rigorous course of critical thinking for its K-12 social studies students. It does not include the Jeopardy-like questions on this survey.

Finally, 21st century students deal with information differently than students of my generation (I am pushing 50). Information like names and dates can be accessed quickly, from multiple sources, maybe even from the phones in their pockets. They don't worry about who was first, or who wrote what, because they can find out quickly if they care. They also get the crap tested out of them, and have developed a good sense of which tests have meaning to their academic progress, and which ones don't. If these Oklahoma students, given the preview that immigrants got, and given a sense that this assessment was a high-stakes test for them, could not come back in an hour and pass the above test at 85% or better, then I would worry for America.

Can American schools improve? Hell yes, and my colleagues and I work towards that goal every day. But I am going to bring it strong now, go over the top: American public schools are the best in the world. Period. You don't want your kids in any other nation's school system, regardless of the results of a trivia quiz that was meaningless to the people who took it. This is because we take everyone. Migrant workers' kids? We send a bus to the fields. Homeless? We send a bus to the shelter. Downs syndrome? Autistic? Severe behavior disorder? We will send a bus. We send a bus for everyone, and put them on a track to attend a four-year university. No other public school system in the world does this on our scale, not even close. Do you think all of China's kids attend school? India's? Please! Do you think most of Europe's kids aren't tracked for trade school instead of University by 8th grade? Again - please!

Dummy kids? I say dummy test, and dummy reporting of most education issues. And for all the dummies? We'll send a bus!

Joe Wilson Shows Us the Hopelessness of No Change

Let me start by saying that Representative Joe Wilson is an asshole, and an embarrassment to South Carolina. Having said that, he illustrates the problem that Rahm Eman...oops, I mean Barack Obama's White House is having with health care.

Obama said that the challenge from the right that the health care plan included coverage for "illegals" was a falsehood. Joe Wilson screamed "You lie!" during an address from the President to a joint session of Congress. Something that has never happened to any white president in modern history. Several organizations have pored over the only bill to leave any House of Senate committee, and have found that the President was accurate in his assertion. Big surprise. And big surprise that Wilson yelled what he yelled. I mean, Newt was on NPR the morning of the speech asserting that death panels did exist in the President's health care plan.

The problem as I see it, is not that some inbred congressman has no sense of decorum. It is that our president has no sense of progressive values at all.

There should be a fight about covering undocumented workers in America! A truly progressive position would be that anyone within our borders should be given reasonable health care. We should strive, as a modern, forward-looking and moral democracy to make sure that basic needs are met for all humans within our sphere of responsibility, regardless of race, income or other status. This is a position that asserts social justice as a guiding principle. Progressives should fight for social justice.

This also happens to be an issue that could find common ground with fiscal conservatives. The fact is, we already pay for "illegals," every time they use the emergency room. In fact, the current system is much more expensive than if we gave every undocumented person insurance that would include preventative care. We pay for their serious illnesses, their accidents and their child births in emergency rooms - at the cost of about $1000 per year for every insured American. Granting medical care to all within our borders in a systematic, preventative way SAVES EVERY INSURED AMERICAN MONEY, and saves the government money too. True fiscal conservatives can find common ground here if they can get past racism and xenophobia.

THIS represents bipartisanship - progressives and conservatives get something that speaks to their core values AND benefits America, and can be sold at campaign time as a victory.

Instead, here's how Obama sees bipartisanship:
1. Do not even allow single payer "in the room" as part of serious health care discussion.
2. Insist on Republican input even when they say - clearly - that their goal is to defeat ANY health care legislation, no matter what it contains.
3. Tax credits as a means of paying for health care reform.
4. Limit a possible public option (certainly not promised public option) to about 5% of the population - the ones that no insurance company would touch with Joe Wilson's dick).
5. Direct immediate action on tort reform - a solidly Republican idea.

Oh, and for the "bi" part of the above bipartisanship...
1. He did actually mention a public option, but conceded that he was open to other options.
2. He told progressives to calm down and shut up.
3. He managed to do this with his tongue down the back of Republican senators' trousers.

No, no, no. Progressives must raise the threat level, and keep health care reform as our firewall. REAL progressive representatives must vote NO, and hand this president a defeat if a strong public option is not in the final bill.

Obama gives great speech, but the hope is gone, along with the real change. The change must come from real progressive ideas made manifest. Real change? How about changing Rahm for Howard Dean?

Jonathan Alter Urges Surrender

Somebody investigate and tell me...how much does the medical industry advertise in Newsweek, or on MSNBC?

Columnist Jonathan Alter was interviewed on the Stephanie Miller show recently, deriding the progressives in Congress, especially those who signed a letter saying they would not vote for a health care bill that did not contain a public option. He said (and I am paraphrasing) that this painted them into a corner, and could kill any health care reform at all. He went further to champion the meme of not discriminating against sick people - a meme that I believe the dems should use, but as a cudgel, not a compromise.

I mean great, don't discriminate against me for being sick. Right now, nobody discriminates against me in the purchase of a Bently. I can go buy one tomorrow. But I can't fucking afford it!

And this is what health care reform is without a public option - something we can't afford.

The public option, done right, controls the costs and makes any new health care rights affordable. Without it, it is a preemptive bailout of the Health Care industry, with secret deals for big pharma, and millions in subsidies that will go to private insurers. Just like our economic bailout went to the Wall Street criminals who sank our economy, this health bailout will largely go to the HMOs, insurance companies and the pharma industry. My costs will continue to rise to cover profits, bonuses, dividends and large salaries, not Americans.

Progressives cannot compromise on this. Jonathan Alter says that something is better than nothing. I say bullshit. It is, in this case, better to go down fighting than to give in YET AGAIN to corporate interests who have corrupted the political process.

Yes, the letter they signed boxes in some progressives (as if a politician wouldn't go back on something they said in earnest). But it is also pressure on a president who has surrounded himself with corporatist Democrats. Health care needs to be the progressive firewall. This is the issue that will let us know if we even have a place in the Democratic Party at all.

As members of the Progressive Caucus have already said: we were for single payer, we have already compromised. Are we not to ever insist on anything? What about those Blue Dogs who have taken millions from the health care industry? Why shouldn't they give in? Or if they won't, be exposed for the money-grubbing bastards that they are - fronting for the industry that has the real death panels, and defending a system that hurts Americans. This includes Obama, if he doesn't give to the left a little on this one.

And let's be real about what is considered the left anymore - left of Richard Nixon. It's not like we are entertaining any extreme progressive ideas, just covering health care for all in an affordable way. Sometimes you compromise, and Progressives HAVE. Sometimes, you go down fighting the good fight.

Jonathan Alter, I hope progressives take a lesson from the Republicans on this one - double down. Tear up current bills and write one with national single-payer, 100% coverage for all Americans and full government negotiation with drug companies. Change the conversation, and the playing field with strength. Don't think it can be done?

How about George W. Bush after the 2006 elections? A painful election cycle for him with an unpopular war and a loss of both houses of Congress. The mandate was clear - end the war! Surely he was going to have to negotiate with, and compromise with Democrats. Right? Wrong! He doubles down. He says, so you don't like my war, see how you like my surge! That's right bitches, I'm not going to end the war, I'm going to increase the number of troops and expand the war. And guess what, the Democratic controlled congress obliged. Bush managed to change the question from whether the war should end to how many troops should he add.

Progressives need to change the question from whether government should be involved in health care to whether corporate profits make any sense at all as the arbiter of who gets health care and who doesn't. Then MAYBE we can settle on a strong public option. Obama obviously has no interest in this, so progressives have to do it. They just need to come strong with their message, and ignore the surrender monkeys like Jonathan Alter.

Progressives - Time to Flex

Progressives, are you going to take it again?

(For the purposes of this rant, I define a progressive, anymore, as someone with values and ideals that are left of Richard Nixon. This, in 21st century America puts you in the camp of "leftist loons" as Bill O'Reilly would say.)

We have taken it plenty. We took it in 2006 when we made Nancy Pelosi the first woman Speaker of the House, and then watched her crumble before Republican talking points and Blue Dog pressure.

We took it in 2008 as we saw Obama tack hard right after winning the nomination. We were hoping this was just political chess running up to the election.

We took it hard in the shorts when Obama surrounded himself with DLC cronies, including Hilary and Rahm, yet still hoped this was political cover for at least a mildly progressive agenda.

We took it savagely from behind when Obama gave trillions to Wall Street to bail out the criminal bankers who fucked our economy. And this is still going on. We still have these guys gambling, and paying themselves multimillion dollar bonuses - now with OUR MONEY. Oh yeah, and tax cuts too. This was not an exercise in compromise - it was a wholesale cave-in to Wall Street - a plea for them to not hate the new administration. And the economic misbehavior that caused the collapse has not stopped. Just read this Huffpo story, or even worse, this blog post by Les Leopold. No meaningful regulation, no meaningful cap on executive salaries in institutions that exist only because of our tax dollars keeping them afloat, and no meaningful help for the millions of Americans who are still losing their homes to the robber barons who sank our economy, and are losing our jobs to corporations that are sending them overseas. Ouch!

We took it with environmental legislation, which was a gift to Big Coal. Some good stuff did come out of this bill - renewable energy research, and conservation retrofitting - saving energy and creating jobs. If we didn't take it so bad on the economy, I could live with this gift to coal and oil companies. But on top of the Wall Street screwing, this was with no Vaseline.

We took it on Guantonamo. Oh sure, Obama said the right things - then caved in to Republican talking points. Seriously, like moving those prisoners to the United States would cause the country to explode. This cave-in makes so little sense. I know there are some tricky legal questions involved, but Americans should not be afraid of that. This cave-in says that Obama has no faith in our justice system, thinks Americans can't run a high-security prison, or is terrified of even the lamest Republican talking points. Jesus, I don't know which is worse!

Are we out of Iraq? No.

Are we "surging" in Afghanistan? Yes.

Is there even a hint of serious conversation about military spending? Fuck no!

And now, we are bent over the meat-counter on health care, and are about to get rammed. If this is not the line in the sand, then there is no effective progressive caucus, nor a very effective progressive voice. Don't get me wrong, I'm almost sure we will get screwed on the public option, but what will be the reaction? As Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher said on the Young Turks, "we will tear up your progressive card over this one. There is no free vote this time."

What to do?
1. Let your reps know how you feel! The House's Progressive Caucus has enough members to block health care legislation with no public option. Contact them, especially if they are your rep, and encourage them to hold strong. Hand this president a defeat, from his own party, if he screws American families for the sake of Big Pharma, HMOs, and the health insurance industry.

2. Send money to progressive legislators who pledge to vote only for a public option plan. Send money to primary candidates running against those who don't. Obama knows the power of the web, and how much cash you can raise $25 at a time. Check out Fire Dog Lake's whipcount project.

3. Coordinate health care memes as effectively as the right does. It kills me that the professional politicians of the Democratic Party suck so badly at this. Here's one that should have been brought out weeks ago: "Death panels exist! - in every health insurance corporation's office." Follow that with a list of denied claims for essential, life-saving treatments. How about this: "if government can't do anything right, then we definitely won't reelect you to keep running it!" Jesus, how long have I waited for a news anchor to ask a conservative "wait a minute, don't you run the government?" when they talk about how bad government is.

4. Go for a third party. Seriously, if the dems can't deliver on at least one meaningful reform, with control of the entire government, then what fucking good are they? The obvious answer is: none. Bernie Sanders got elected to the Senate, an independent and a true progressive. If the progressive caucus fails, the Progressive party should rise. Could it do to Obama what Nadar did to Al Gore? Sure, but so what? If all we are getting is Republican policies, the Republicans might as well be the face of evil that we fight against.

We have to stop supporting the Democratic Party if they won't give us anything. Health care is the big one. Fuck us here, and you have lost us. The progressives will leave in droves (hopefully), and the dems will go the way of the Whigs.

The Fall of the Democratic Party?

This could be it, the swan song for the big tent party.

Obama's Health Secretary today said that a public option is "not the essential element" in a health care deal. It's over. Health care reform is dead. What ever comes from the Blue-Dog led Senate Finance Committee is a joke, and a gift to big pharma, and the rest of the health care industry. There is no "change" (TM Obamacorp), just more of the rich getting over on the poor and middle class.

Is Obama better than Bush? Of course, a hundred times better. But what is 100 times zero? Zero is certainly what the average American gets out of this deal.

And negative numbers is what the Democratic party will get out of this deal. They have, with total control of the government, managed a deal which will help rich corporations, make progressives unhappy, not get universal coverage, and raise my health insurance rates yet again, and validate nearly every Republican talking point on health care. (Way to go political geniuses.)

It could also crush the Democratic party.

2008 can only be seen as a validation of PROGRESSIVE Democratic ideals, and a repudiation of the neoconservative ideals of the Republicans. It was, also a vote for real CHANGE. Republican behavior since the election has been aimed at keeping their base, a permanent minority. This seemed, even a couple of weeks ago, like a suicidal plan for a party in a country undergoing dynamic demographic changes.

The Democratic party on the other hand, with control of both Congress and the Executive Branch, have the power to make the kind of changes that Americans want, according to poll after poll. They can put a chicken in every pot, so to speak, and win electoral loyalty for a generation. My god, if you really lowered my monthly health care expenses, made my son's pre-existing condition a non-factor, let me get the meds that actually work (instead of the over-the-counter ones that I can afford, that half work), I could almost forgive handing Wall Street criminals the keys to the treasury. (By the way, if you think those guys are done asking for our money, you are deluded.) But they have done the opposite. They have caved in to every special interest and right-wing criticism. They started the process by denying the one thing that would guarantee huge savings: national single payer. And they have slowly whittled down the expectations of the public option - killing it today with Sebilius' remarks. Thanks for nothing, literally.

This is a bell-weather issue for the Democratic Party. It was Obama's #1 legislative priority, and he has made a huge mess of it by means of weakness. He will get something called health care reform passed, and call it a "victory," but it will be a huge failure. Ultimately, it will not control costs or insure all Americans, and will be publicly deemed a failure by 2012, if not before. Republicans will be proved "right" on the issue, and real reform will be dead for at least another decade. And he will fail to do even what the Republicans have managed to do: fight for what their base thinks is right.

This deal will:
1. Piss off progressives! Hell, I was ready to vote for the Green party after 2006 Democratic wimp-outs. I certainly won't give a DIME to ANY Democratic candidates if they choose big phara over my family. Progressives will look for alternatives, or become disengaged.
2. Make moderates waver in support of Democratic policies. "Regan Democrats" will look closely at Republicans again, and will remember a party that got things done when they were in power. Never mind that it nearly broke the country.
3. Make Blue-dogs and conservative dems the feared and favored faction of the party. Progressives are openly hostile to this faction, and there is bad feelings on both sides. This is a rift in the party that will not heal soon, especially if they prevail in giving more of my paycheck to the health care industry than goes to my mortgage. If these Republicans in sheep's clothing from small states are going to kill progressive policies before we can even fight the out-of-the-closet Republicans, then progressives will be effectively ousted from the party. The Democrats are gearing up to oust their base.
4. Make sure that Obama and the party does not do the right thing for the American people.

How can thinking citizens in a Democracy support a party that does not do the right thing, over and over again. Progressive thinkers can't do it for much longer. A new party will emerge, one that will promise to fight for our ideals, or just to put up a fight for a change, maybe by 2012.

Even if I don't have a real progressive choice in the next election, I will definitely keep my wallet closed. I don't suppose that would inspire campaign finance reform? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.