Why Democrats Lost the 2010 Midterm Election

The midterm elections of 2010 brought a wave of new politicians into power. The House of Representatives, which has held a large Democratic majority over the past 4 years, is now solidly Republican. Many writers on blogs and in news organizations have tried to analyze the election and formulate reasons for the election results and prescriptions for what the Democrats should do in the next two years to win back the House and retain power in the Senate and Presidency. This article is similar in that it will try to explain the reasons for the Democratic losses, recommend what the Democrats should do to regain the House in 2012, and look at the influences of Fox News and the Citizens United decision on the election. The first part of this article will discuss the reasons that the Democrats lost and what they should do in the next Congressional term, based on what polls say about American views on the budget deficit, health care, foreign policy, and income distribution. The second part will discuss whether liberals or conservatives were more important in the last election and examine the effects of Fox News and Citizens United.

On November 3rd, Frank Newport of Gallup posted an analysis of the 2010 midterm elections, citing many reasons which combined to form the "wave election" for Republicans. Newport states that there were various structural factors that affected the election. Historically, midterm elections favor the minority party. Additionally, the Democrats had a number of uncertain seats which they had picked up in the 2006 and 2008 elections and were not in reliably Democratic districts. Compounding these issues were the facts that Congress had low approval ratings and that most Americans are dissatisfied with "the way things are going" in the country. The last structural factor was that Americans had a negative perception of the economy. Besides structural factors, Newport also cites other reasons for the 2010 election results. The economy was definitely the top issue in this year's election, which, combined with the negative perception of the economy that most Americans held, did not bode well for the incumbent Democrats. Differences in belief about the role of the federal government were also important in this election cycle, with the Tea Party movement and Republicans advocating a reduced role. Many of the above factors created an enthusiasm gap which favored the Republicans and resulted in a high turnout of Republican voters. Furthermore, President Obama's job approval rating was below 50% at the time of the election, which also portended that his party would lose seats. Gallup's research is nonpartisan, supported by many polls, and goes quite far in explaining the results of the election. However, the question remains, what could the Democrats have done to mitigate these factors and what should they do in the next session of Congress?

Evan Bayh, a retiring Democratic Senator from Indiana, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times immediately after the election which argues that the Democrats have been too liberal and need to return to the center to win in 2012. Bayh blames the losses in Congress on Democratic overreach in many areas. He believes that Democrats paid too much attention to health care, but should have focused on economic growth and creating jobs. According to Bayh, the Democrats were too deferential to their liberal base, which hurt their chances among the moderate and conservative voters. Democrats spent time dealing with gays in the military, immigration reform, and the Bush tax cuts, which are not issues that motivate moderate voters. Bayh recommends that the Democrats take a more centrist approach in the next two years. He believes Democrats should focus on economic growth as their primary goal and try to evade their stereotype as "taxers and spenders". According to Bayh, Democrats should reduce corporate taxes, ban earmarks, freeze federal hiring and pay increases, and reform entitlements. Adopting these policies would allow the Democrats to take the center of the American political debate and force the Republicans into an extremist position.

However, there are many on the left who disagree with Bayh and argue that the Democrats should have pursued a more progressive agenda. Mark Weisbrot, the Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Social Policy Research, argues that the Democrats erred in not passing a larger stimulus. The CBO estimates that the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act saved between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs by the middle of 2010. Weisbrot claims that a much larger stimulus was needed and that such a stimulus would would have lowered unemployment and helped the Democrats in the election. Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, states that liberal Democrats were more successful in the last election, noting that Blue Dog Democrats lost more seats in Congress than did Progressives. The Blue Dog Caucus in the House decreased from 54 to 26 members, while the House Progressive Caucus decreased from 78 to 75. If the Democrats had been guilty of overreach, then why did the most liberal Democrats win their elections? If the American people wanted Democrats who valued economic growth and fiscal discipline above all else, then why did the Blue Dogs lose so many seats? Norman Solomon, a co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign, writes that contrary to Bayh's claim, the Democrats actually suffered from a "tragedy of under-reaching". Solomon argues that the Obama administration has undermined itself by not following progressive policies. The administration, along with many Democrats, have accommodated wars, wavered on Bush tax cuts, allowed high unemployment, not stopped foreclosures, and permitted environmental destruction. These policies, writes Solomon, have empowered the Right and weakened the Democratic Party.

Advocates of divergent political philosophies have disparate views on what the Democratic party should do, but what do public opinion polls have to say about public support for various policies? Polls performed by CNN, the New York Times, Quinnipac University, and the Atlantic Review all show that the majority of voters favor many policies that are labeled "liberal" in the current political landscape. Here are a sample of some polls.

Health Care
72% of Americans supported a public health care option in 2009 (link)

Gays in the Military
72% of Americans favor gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military (link)

Budget Deficit
69% think preventing cuts in Medicaid is more important than reducing the deficit (link)
79% think preventing cuts in Medicare is more important than reducing deficit (link)
78% think preventing cuts in Social Security is more important than reducing deficit (link)
61% think preventing cuts in unemployment aid is more important than reducing deficit (link)
43% think the Bush tax cuts should continue for families who make <$250k (link)
35% think the tax cuts should continue for all

Foreign Wars
58% of voters said in 2007 that "it is a dangerous illusion to believe America is superior to other nations; we should not be attempting to reshape other nations in light of our values." (link)
50% say that the US should not be involved in Afghanistan vs. 44% who say the country should be involved (link)

These polls show that a large majority of Americans were in favor of a public health care option during the debate in Congress and are currently in favor of gays serving openly in the military. These are two issues on which Republicans have attacked President Obama for being too liberal. Additionally, media pundits have argued that the budget deficit is an important issue, with Republicans supporting entitlement cuts and tax cuts and Obama proposing the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for individuals who make over $250k. According to Evan Bayh, entitlement reform should be a large priority for the administration, but these polls show that approximately 4 out of 5 Americans believe that preventing cuts in Social Security and Medicare are more important than reducing the deficit. Similarly, large majorities of Americans do not want to cut Medicaid or unemployment aid to balance the budget. However, most Americans would rather let tax cuts expire for families who make under $250k than let the tax cuts expire for everyone. In terms of foreign wars, most Americans are to the left of the Obama administration and many Democrats. The majority of Americans do not favor nation-building nor forcing our values onto other nations. Furthermore, half of Americans do not want the country to be involved in Afghanistan, despite the Obama administration's escalation of the war. When the American public is polled on a variety of other issues such as defense spending and foreign aid, they do not follow a uniformly liberal platform. However, the polls above show quite clearly that when dealing with the budget, health care, and foreign wars, there is widespread support for many liberal policies.

Another survey by behavioral scientists Daniel Ariely and Michael Norton shows that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, share similar ideas on wealth distribution. The survey asks the following questions:

1) What percentage of US wealth is owned by the bottom 40% of the population?
2) What percentage should the bottom 40% own, in an ideal version of U.S. society?
3) What percentage is owned by the top 20%?
4) What percentage should the top 20% own?

In this survey, wealth is defined as "all property of value, from cash to art to stocks and bonds to homes, minus debts". Try to do the quiz yourself to see what you think. Here are the respondents' estimates, the ideals, and the actual numbers.

Wealth Distribution in America
Income Division............Estimate.......Actual........Ideal
Bottom 40%......................10%.............0.3%.......20-25%
Top 20%............................60%.............85%..........36%

According to this survey, Americans prefer a much more egalitarian society, similar to a Scandinavian country, rather than the unequal system currently present in the US. This indicates that the vast majority of Americans may actually prefer "socialist" policies. If the Democrats want to appeal to the most Americans, they should pursue policies that are at least "left-of-center" and perhaps more liberal, and not completely in the supposed center of the American political debate. They should protect entitlements and work to make the US more egalitarian. They should stop waging wars and embrace civil liberties. And if they want to win, they should focus on creating jobs through fiscal stimulus. Furthermore, unlike the last two years, they need to actually execute progressive policies effectively.

The midterm election of 2010 was a result of many factors, the most important being the economy. The effect of the midterm elections on the incumbent party and the unpopularity of the current incumbent party were also factors. Although some moderate Democrats believe that the party should move to the right, polls suggest that many Americans prefer more liberal policies. The second part of this article will examine the effects of the Republican enthusiasm gap, Fox News, and the Citizens United decision on the election.

Message from Credo Action

I got this email from Credo Action today. I thought it was right on the money, so I decided to post it here. Please sign all the petitions with which you agree.

What a truly brutal election. One rare exception was the crushing of Texas Oil's Proposition 23 in California (see CREDO's campaign at stoptexasoil.org), which proves that even unlimited corporate cash can be beaten back — if it is disclosed and fought by grassroots mobilization.

At CREDO, we fight hard on the issues, but we don't take sides in partisan elections. As someone who cares about progressive issues, there is no doubt that Tuesday's results will make for even harder times for our country. It is crazy making to realize just how extreme and misinformed much of the new Congress will be.

There is little reason to expect any useful legislation from the Tea Party-dominated House or the dysfunctional Senate. Swing votes in the Senate have really troublesome names: Lieberman, Nelson, Manchin, and Pryor. In fact, this Congress will do damage to anything even remotely progressive.

So let's take a look at what happened and what we can do now. Bear with us as this is a bit longer than our usual missives. The media, unfortunately but not surprisingly, will be of no use in making sense of Tuesday's results, and even less so in helping chart a course for the future.

There is a lot of evidence that the state of the economy, and employment in particular, drive the results of elections — and this one was no exception. As the saying goes, "If you think the economy is working, ask someone who isn't." We have an economy stuck in a deep ditch, with corporate profits and bank bonuses soaring while long-term unemployment is at near Depression levels.

The Republicans shrunk the first "stimulus" package and filled it with tax breaks, even as corporate Democrats helped them along, blocking any effort to restructure mortgages in bankruptcies, freeze foreclosures or force banks to lend money. The election outcome was partially baked in early 2009, when the White House preemptively conceded on the scale and provisions of the stimulus package and chose to coddle the banks. To watch this unfold was simply maddening.

Making matters worse were other factors. Among the most damaging were the actions of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which seemed energized by the new President, and took the radical step of rehearing a campaign finance case — now known forever as Citizens United. In ruling 5-4 that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money for and against candidates, the Court transformed the electoral landscape in a way potentially more profound than its 5-4 ruling that seated George W. Bush as president. As many predicted, the Citizens United ruling unleashed the greatest wave of corporate spending in history, though it's a safe bet to say that their spending in 2012 will make this year's outlay look modest.

In an astonishing turn of events, the right wing was able to kill — essentially murder in public view — the organization that registered millions of poor and working class African-American and Hispanic voters in the last six years. I am speaking of ACORN, of course. By editing video completely out of context, and using the right-wing media machine to perfection, Andrew Breitbart was able to convince the mainstream media and eventually Congress, that ACORN was an election-stealing organization that had no qualms giving advice to pimps on how to increase revenues. Fulfilling Karl Rove's wildest dreams, Congress, including most Democrats, voted to block public funding for any of ACORN's laudable and effective housing or tax assistance programs, and ACORN died a quiet death. There would be no millions of new registrants.

Traditions are important in the Senate, but almost always to the detriment of progressive change. The health care reform effort was a victim of Senate conventions. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who chairs the critical Senate Finance Committee solely due to his long tenure, stalled development of a health reform package for many months in order to "negotiate" with Republicans on his committee. They weren't interested in the least, and walked away from the discussions muttering bizarre comments about reforms "killing grandma" and setting up "death panels," because Sarah Palin says so. The behavior of Baucus would be laughable if it were not so utterly destructive.

No matter what one thought of FOX News in the 2008 election, Murdoch's monster went on a rampage over the past two years. Serving as both an instigator and an amplifier for the craziest and most offensive pundits, FOX News misled and misinformed the American people on every issue, and effectively became the public face of the Republican Party. Glenn Beck's show became so toxic and spewed so much venom that one of his devoted fans took it upon himself to plot the execution of key leaders of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, who had figured prominently in Beck's rants. Fortunately, the madman (the fan, not Beck) was stopped before he accomplished his mission.

We could go on, of course, on all the missed opportunities, the cave-ins, the sell outs, and the unpopular and misguided war in Afghanistan.

But the results are in. The House of Representatives is in the hands of the most corrupt Speaker-in-waiting ever, the Tea Party is ascendant, and the U.S. Senate, however dysfunctional it has been, is poised to be much worse.

For those of us who had hopes that the Obama Administration could seize the moment and enact popular progressive changes, this is a bitter pill. And like many, we grieve at the lost opportunities.

But now we need to brush off the dust, suck it up, and plunge back into substantive fights. Politics is not fair — indeed, U.S. elections are rigged in profound ways! But walking away is not an option at CREDO Action, and we hope you will join us in some of the actions below we think are strategic in the new political landscape:

1. Commit to Taking Down FOX News. So long as FOX News has any credibility within the Beltway, it will be a pipeline for malicious material that will poison our political culture. Join our friends at Color of Change: turnofffox.org/landing?credo.

2.Tell the Senate to pass the DISCLOSE Act during the lame duck session. We were able to defeat the Texas Oil Initiative, Prop 23 in California, in part because we knew who the enemy was — having disclosure of corporate contributions brings the enemy out in the open for us to take on and fight. The DISCLOSE Act passed the House and came within a single vote of passing the Senate. One vote. You can join this fight by taking action with Public Citizen at citizen.org/disclose-act-action.

3. Keep fighting to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This issue will get resolved during the lame duck session. Take action at act.credoaction.com/campaign/bushtaxcuts.

4. Sign up for the fight for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision by declaring that corporations do not have the legal rights of humans. This may take years, if not decades, but we should start now. Please join Free Speech for People: freespeechforpeople.org/.

5. Tell the FCC to use its existing authority to establish and defend net neutrality. Our friends at Free Press are leading this charge: act2.freepress.net/sign/put_up/.

6. Demand that the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service investigate the political organizations set up by Karl Rove to launder millions of dollars in secret cash to change the outcome of elections. Act now at act.credoaction.com/campaign/investigate_crossroads.

7. Defend the EPA from castration by pro-coal interests in Congress. The EPA accomplished almost nothing during the Clinton years because the Gingrich-led Congress used the budget process to prohibit the agency from doing its work. This battle has already started. The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign is a great way to join this fight: sierraclub.org/coal.

8. Convince the Obama administration to stop appealing progressive court rulings on matters like the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the state secrets defense against torture and wiretapping. Urge the Department of Justice to change its approach at act.credoaction.com/campaign/stop_appealing.

9. Urge Democratic senators to do away with lifetime tenure for committee chairs and open up all chair positions to majority vote elections. This will go a long way towards more progressive legislation. Take action with us at act.credoaction.com/campaign/end_seniority_system.

10. Demand that the Department of Justice enforce the provisions of the national voter registration law that require state governments to offer to register all voters at departments of public welfare and motor vehicles. Many state governments simply ignore these requirements and this is a cheaper and more inclusive way of registering voters than the campaigns of the now dead ACORN. Urge Attorney General Eric Holder to expand voter registration: credoaction.com/campaign/enforce_motor_voter.

I suspect you are angry and exhausted at this point. I know I am. But let us not forget that the values and ideals we fight for are greater than any one election. They still endure, and so must our fight. We have a lot of work to do.

Michael Kieschnick, CEO
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Awesome Rant from Bill Maher

From the Sept 25th episode of "Real Time":

New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being "rich", or what tax rate is "too much." But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.

And let's be clear: that's 3.6% only on income above 250 grand -- your first 250, that's still on the house. Now, this week we got some horrible news: that one in seven Americans are now living below the poverty line. But I want to point you to an American who is truly suffering: Ben Stein. You know Ben Stein, the guy who got rich because when he talks it sounds so boring it's actually funny. He had a game show on Comedy Central, does eye drop commercials, doesn't believe in evolution? Yeah, that asshole. I kid Ben -- so, the other day Ben wrote an article about his struggle. His struggle as a wealthy person facing the prospect of a slightly higher marginal tax rate. Specifically, Ben said that when he was finished paying taxes and his agents, he was left with only 35 cents for every dollar he earned. Which is shocking, Ben Stein has an agent? I didn't know Broadway Danny Rose was still working.

Ben whines in his article about how he's worked for every dollar he has -- if by work you mean saying the word "Bueller" in a movie 25 years ago. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's just that at a time when people in America are desperate and you're raking in the bucks promoting some sleazy Free Credit Score dot-com... maybe you shouldn't be asking us for sympathy. Instead, you should be down on your knees thanking God and/or Ronald Reagan that you were lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket.

And you're welcome to come on the show anytime.

Now I can hear you out there saying, "Come on Bill, don't be so hard on Ben Stein, he does a lot of voiceover work, and that's hard work." Ok, it's true, Ben is hardly the only rich person these days crying like a baby who's fallen off his bouncy seat. Last week Mayor Bloomberg of New York complained that all his wealthy friends are very upset with mean ol' President Poopy-Pants: He said they all say the same thing: "I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. But I didn't expect to be vilified." Poor billionaires -- they just can't catch a break.

First off, far from being vilified, we bailed you out -- you mean we were supposed to give you all that money and kiss your ass, too? That's Hollywood you're thinking of. FDR, he knew how to vilify; this guy, not so much. And second, you should have been vilified -- because you're the vill-ains! I'm sure a lot of you are very nice people. And I'm sure a lot of you are jerks. In other words, you're people. But you are the villains. Who do you think outsourced all the jobs, destroyed the unions, and replaced workers with desperate immigrants and teenagers in China. Joe the Plumber?

And right now, while we run trillion dollar deficits, Republicans are holding America hostage to the cause of preserving the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% of people, many of them dead. They say that we need to keep taxes on the rich low because they're the job creators. They're not. They're much more likely to save money through mergers and outsourcing and cheap immigrant labor, and pass the unemployment along to you.

Americans think rich people must be brilliant; no -- just ruthless. Meg Whitman is running for Governor out here, and her claim to fame is, she started e-Bay. Yes, Meg tapped into the Zeitgeist, the zeitgeist being the desperate need of millions of Americans to scrape a few dollars together by selling the useless crap in their garage. What is e-Bay but a big cyber lawn sale that you can visit without putting your clothes on?

Another of my favorites, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, "I don't know where they're going to get all this money, because we're running out of rich people in this country." Actually, we have more billionaires here in the U.S. than all the other countries in the top ten combined, and their wealth grew 27% in the last year. Did yours? Truth is, there are only two things that the United States is not running out of: Rich people and bullshit. Here's the truth: When you raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, it obviously doesn't destroy the economy -- we know this, because we just did it -- remember the '90's? It wasn't that long ago. You were probably listening to grunge music, or dabbling in witchcraft. Clinton moved the top marginal rate from 36 to 39% -- and far from tanking, the economy did so well he had time to get his dick washed.

Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor fag-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died -- which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father's pecker-snot.

We don't hate rich people, but have a little humility about how you got it and stop complaining. Maybe the worst whiner of all: Stephen Schwarzman, #69 on Forbes' list of richest Americans, compared Obama's tax hike to "when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." Wow. If Obama were Hitler, Mr. Schwarzman, I think your tax rate would be the least of your worries. 

A Note on the British Election

Its election day in Britain and the Rt. Hon. gentleman from Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Prime Minister Gordon Brown needs your vote.

Does he really deserve another term though?

When you look at it, Brown and the Labour Party have probably run out of steam. I'm a Labour supporter going back a long time, but as I consider myself Old Labour, I've never been 100% behind the party as it has existed under Blair and Brown. While they abandoned the official party line supporting traditional cradle-to-grave European socialism, they have done a fair enough job of preserving the National Health Service and the rest of the social safety net to retain my support over the years. That said, the party seriously lost its way when it went all in with the Bush Administration's neo-fascist anti-terror policies and foolhardy invasion of Iraq. Can we really sweep that under the rug?

What is the real alternative though? For the first time in a long time, the two party stranglehold on British politics is showing cracks. The Liberal Democrats have gained significant support during this election cycle thanks in large part to party leader Nick Clegg's strong performance in the debates (this is the first British election to feature American style debates between the three major party leaders). The LibDem's offer a serious break with British tradition on many issues, most significantly being their support for proportional representation in the UK, a political reform which would basically relegate the Tories to permanent minority status. Clegg comes off as a bright, energetic leader willing to be frank with the people, as he has been in telling the British people he is an atheist. Yes, the British have an atheist as a major party leader. Suck on it. The sad fact remains that the LibDems aren't going to win. The very best outcome they could hope for is a power sharing deal with Labour should the election produce no clear winner.

There are also the Tories. The party that gutted British social services, privatized the rail system, and sent the British fleet to defend the 6 sheep that live in the Falkland Islands from Argentinian aggression. Party leader David Cameron is slick and smooth like a Land Rover salesman, saying all the right things, and perhaps most importantly after 13 years of Labour, representing the face of change. But make no mistake, this is the same Tory party of Thatcher and Major. What was that phrase about putting lipstick on a pig? David Cameron is just a stylish stick of MAC lipstick on the same Thatcherite pig. And that is one ugly ass pig...

So who should it be? In a perfect world, the LibDems deserve a shot and Clegg would probably make a fantastic Prime Minister. That is highly unlikely to occur though. So between the Tories and Labour who should it be? The Conservative Party simply cannot be trusted to protect the social safety net or refrain from nuking Buenos Aires over a cup of bitter maté. The best thing I can say about the Tories is that Oasis put out much better music when they were in charge. Definitely Maybe and (What's the Story) Morning Glory? are classics. Conversely, the band has shown a serious decline under Labour and especially under Gordon Brown. After Blair handed the reins of power over to Brown, Oasis released a steaming turd of an album called Dig Out Your Soul and eventually broke up. Would a Tory victory lead to an Oasis reunion? Probably not. Noel isn't voting Labour this time around (he was invited to 10 Downing after Blair took power in 1997), but he isn't voting for the Conservatives either. He recently announced plans to scribble TEVEZ IS GOD on his ballot to show his support for Manchester City footballer Carlos Tevez.

That leaves us with Labour and Gordon Brown. Flawed? Yes. Better than the Tories? Oh hell yes. Besides, we feel obligated to stand by the Prime Minister. You shouldn't need to be flashy to lead a country. You should have a solid grasp of the issues, an inquisitive mind, and the people's best interests at heart. Gordon Brown is no saint, but he certainly meets that criteria. Vote Labour.

The 1997 Labour Party Manifesto. One of the most prized pieces of my random political junk collection.

Conservative Nonsense

Many conservatives continue to contend that America is a Christian nation, that the founding fathers were Christian, and of course everything the founding fathers ever thought, touched, or pissed on is a golden nugget of awesome, ne'er to be altered or questioned. Recently, the Republicans' favorite troll, Sarah Palin, gave a speech condemning the Supreme Court ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

I have only this to offer as rebuttal, from the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified in 1797 and then signed by founding father and POTUS, John Adams.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

And that's really all I have to say about this rubbish.

Federal Court Orders California to Release 43,000 Prisoners

Conditions at prisons in this state are so bad, that a federal court has ordered California to release 43,000 prisoners, or 27% of our prison population, within two years. The California prison system is designed to hold 84,000 people and currently holds 158,000, operating at 188% of its designed capacity. The cramped conditions of the prison system result in the otherwise preventable death of one prisoner per week. Governor Schwarzeneggar supports a plan that would move some prisoners into home detention or county jails, but many offenders will be released early. My guess is that our Three Strikes law has something to do with this.

The Worst Morning Show Ever

Fox News Channel sucks. We're all well aware of this, but one show in particular drags the channel even lower than you thought was possible. The tricky part is, its on too f-ing early in most of the country to be on your radar. During breakfast service, my hotel's dining room TV is tuned to Fox & Friends.

I can now tell you without hesitation that Fox & Friends is the worst morning show ever, and quite possibly the worst thing ever to hit the television airwaves.

Hosts Steve Douchey, Brian Kill-Me, and Gretchen "not in the face, that's how I makes my livins" Carlson will make you want to commit sepuku with the little plastic knife they give you at breakfast.

As far as I can tell, the show's sole purpose for existing is to latch on to the most inane and asinine attacks on President Obama and run with them for hours at a time. Yesterday morning, they had a real think piece on laughter in the press room. You see, people are laughing more at Robert Gibbs' jokes than they did at Bush's Press Secretary Dana Perino's. For the Fox & Friends crowd, this is a clear case of media bias. They're laughing at Gibbs' jokes because they like Obama! Why didn't I think of that? Oh yeah, because I'm not a paranoid right winger who sees media bias and the boogey man under my bed at night.

A few days ago, the worst show ever did a segment on the worst blog ever: a blog written in the character of Obama's teleprompter. The President uses a teleprompter when speaking in public? Teh horror! He should speak off the cuff like President Bush did. That worked out so well. Seriously, if you find the fact that the President uses a teleprompter amusing or controversial in any way, go fuck yourself and please don't breed.

I'm sure if I watch long enough, I'd see a segment on the birth certificate, whether or not the first lady is showing too much skin (not possible for a fox like Michelle Obama), or some well thought out mockery of the President and his wife having date night.

I won't be watching though. After the laughter/media bias fucktardery yesterday I've vowed to take my meals in another room.

Human Development in the United States

On July 16, 2008, Oxfam America released its report on Human Development inside the United States. Oxfam, along with other organizations, compiled statistics on longevity, educational attainment and enrollment, and earnings to calculate the first intranational human development index. The human development index is a metric which the United Nations uses to measure the well-being of people in different nations and is derived from a population's education, income and health. The nations with the highest HDIs are typically in Western Europe, North America and Japan, while those with the lowest are in Africa and southern Asia. For example, the United States as a whole has an HDI of 0.95, which is the twelfth highest in the world. According to Oxfam, the purpose of this study is to "stimulate fact-based public dialogue and debate about human development here at home." This study provides a detailed look at the standard of living within the US, and provides strong arguments for why we should invest in our country more. Using the results of this study, a strong case can be made for why Republicans should vote for liberal candidates.

As one can see from Oxfam's map of HDI, there is a wide variation in human development across the nation. The states with the highest HDI are in the Northeast, and those with the lowest are in the South. Specifically, Connecticut has the highest HDI and Mississippi the lowest. Oxfam states in its report that this gap in HDI translates into a gap of 30-50 years in living standards. The map can also be broken down by congressional district, revealing that Manhattan's district has the highest HDI, at 8.17, and the San Joaquin Valley has the lowest, at 2.64.

Since this is a California-based blog, let us examine the statistics on Southern California more closely. Looking at the map of So Cal, one can see some striking differences in human development, especially within the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The most developed congressional district, CD 48, in which Irvine is located, has an HDI of 7.89 which is twice that of the least developed congressional district, CD 34, in Central Los Angeles, which has an HDI of 3.6. If you have ever traveled around Los Angeles, this will not come as a surprise, as the neighborhoods in LA are highly segregated with regards to health care, education and income. Another interesting note is that Riverside has an HDI of 5.33, and most of San Bernardino County has an HDI of 4.75. Compared with the more posh areas of Southern California which have HDIs of 6.5 to 8, this is somewhat lacking. However, these HDIs are comparable to Oregon (4.9), Ohio (4.79) and Maine (4.86). Based on this, the derogatory comments reserved for the Inland Empire by many people on the coast are undeserved. Riverside and the Desert Cities are not Podunk hick towns, but are actually on par with the rest of the nation.

The fact that the San Joaquin Valley has the lowest HDI in California, and in the nation, at 2.64 has significance that is not covered in Oxfam's report. California is the most agriculturally prolific state in the union, growing more than half of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables. California is the leading dairy producer in the nation and grows almost all of the almonds, artichokes, figs, olives, persimmons, pomegranates, prunes, raisins, and walnuts in the US. The Oxfam report confirms what many people already know, that our farm workers have a shoddy standard of living. The Central Valley's HDI value of 2.64 indicates that many in our agricultural workforce, mostly immigrants from Latin America, have limited education, inadequate access to health care and paltry income. Since so many in our country depend on the output of the San Joaquin Valley, their plight behooves us to raise their standard of living.

Fortunately, Oxfam has surveyed problems in the US has a whole and has provided a blueprint of how we should solve them. Here are some interesting factoids that are listed on Oxfam's website:

Health

-One in six Americans goes without health insurance (around 47 million people).

-The U.S. infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland; if the U.S. infant mortality rate were the same as that of top-ranked Sweden, 21,000 more American babies would live to celebrate their first birthdays every year.

-More than half of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are related to an inability to pay for illness or injury.

Access to Knowledge

-More than one in five Americans – 22 percent of the population – have “below basic” quantitative skills, making it impossible to balance a checkbook, calculate a tip, or figure out from an advertisement the amount of interest on a loan.

-Nearly one in six American children lives in a family whose head didn’t graduate high school.

-Only three-fourths of American public high students graduated on time (within four years) with a regular diploma in 2003-2004.

Standard of Living

-The top 1 percent of U.S. households possesses a full third of America’s wealth.

-In 1980, the average executive earned forty-two times as much as the average factory worker; today, executives earn some four hundred times what factory workers in their industries earn.

-The real value of the minimum wage has decreased by 40 percent in the past forty years.

Other Domestic Issues

-More families with children are homeless today than at any time since the Great Depression (this was written before the economic downturn).

-The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s people – but 24 percent of the world’s prisoners.

International Comparisons

-A poor child born in Germany, France, Canada, or one of the Nordic countries has a better chance to join the middle class in adulthood than an American child born into similar circumstances.

-The U.S. infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland.

-If the U.S. infant mortality rate were equal to that of first-ranked Sweden, twenty-one thousand more American babies would have lived to celebrate their first birthdays in 2005.

Examining all of these issues is beyond the scope of this post, but their main thrust that we should invest more in the infrastructure and well-being of our nation as a whole, like Western European countries did 50 years ago. Here are the specific recommendations from Oxfam:

1. Promote prevention in public health efforts
2. Make health care affordable for all Americans
3. Modernize K-12 education
4. Invest in at-risk kids, the earlier the better
5. Strengthen and support families through public and private sector efforts that allow working families to better balance their work and family responsibilities
6. Boost incomes and aid asset-building
7. Launch a Marshall Plan for the Gulf
8. Take responsibility for the most vulnerable

All of these measures are good ways to improve the livelihoods of many in our country. Although Obama has received a lot of heat for his economic recovery plan; honestly, he is not doing enough. Of course, he is still receiving considerable criticism from the Right and many in the mainstream for running large deficits. However, even though most Republicans tend to favor a laissez-faire system, in which the government stays out of economic matters, many of them would benefit from the plan recommended by Oxfam.

Map of US with HDI Scores (darker color means higher HDI)



US Electoral Map from 2008

One can clearly see that, on average, the HDI of the Blue states is significantly higher than that of the Red states. If we were to follow Oxfam's plan, Red states would disproportionately benefit. This may remind of you of the fact that although many Republicans hate 'big government', Red states still take significantly more money from the federal government than Blue states. Perhaps if voters in Red states were better informed about the facts in Oxfam's report, they would vote for Democrats or other liberal candidates. Howard Dean, are you listening?

Bobby Jindal - Are You Kidding Me?

America went on a blind date with Republican Governor and 2012 Presidential aspirant Bobby Jindal of Louisiana last night, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say we won't be calling him back. Oh, the GOP might. That ideological-purity-in-the-face-of-harsh-economic-reality delivered with an aw-shucks Gomer Pyle grin and goofy accent is just what the party of Palin is in the market for these days, so he may be their man.

If you missed it, consider yourself lucky. If you saw it, you were probably wondering like I was how President Obama could say "we do not torture" literally minutes before Jindal went on the air. I think Lynndie England was pointing at me while I was watching it. Just what was wrong with it? You can read it in its entirety here, but here are the highlights:

When they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already 4-½-months pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a "pre-existing condition."

If I were a Republican with no healthcare reform plan beyond defending the private insurance companies who deny folks with pre-existing conditions healthcare, I probably wouldn't have used those words.

Republicans are ready to work with the new president to provide those solutions.

Three of them in the Senate anyway.

So where we agree, Republicans must be the president's strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward.

Why yes, yes they do Governor. You guys are welcome to offer your ideas any day now. All I hear are "tax cuts" and "no".

Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us.

Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina -- we have our doubts.

Republicans bringing up the failed response to Hurricane Katrina is always good for Democrats. It saves us time and energy.

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office, I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: "Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!" I asked him: "Sheriff, what's got you so mad?" He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go, when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, "Sheriff, that's ridiculous." And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: "Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!" Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and go start rescuing people.

Great little story, except that the timeline doesn't add up.

While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending.

This is about to get good...

It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government,

It may just be me, but buying cars from US automakers seems a lot more responsible than simply handing them money to stay afloat.

$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland

Money is not allocated to any such project.

and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

Beyond the sad fact that the Governor of Louisiana of all people is mocking money set aside for disaster preparedness, Jindal seems totally unaware that active volcanoes can be found up and down the Pacific coast of the US. In fact, the Seattle and Portland metropolitan areas and the nearly 6 million people that live there sit in the shadows of Mt. Ranier and Mt. Hood respectively.

After that, my eyes pretty much glazed over and I could bear no more. I only picked up one last gem from the Governor:

In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana was said to be half under water, and the other half is under indictment.

Pointing out your state is a historically corrupt swamp is probably great for the tourism industry.

So that's it. That's the bright future of the Republican Party. Enjoy living under Democratic rule because I don't think its changing any time soon. Frankly, the Republicans are a Palin/Jindal 2012 ticket away from joining the Whig's in the history books.