Do Campaign Promises Matter?

I care about contested primaries. A lot. I think everyone should face them, even people I "like". I think they the make candidates stronger in the longer run and most importantly, it is the only real window to make someone earn your support. If there is a political position with enough popular support, during a primary you have leverage to force a candidate to nominally support that stance. Does this mean they will always keep this position? Of course not, but getting someone to commit to supporting something on the record, at least in theory makes it the candidate open to flack from both the media and various outside groups if they decided to flip. But is this actually true?
Obama on the individual mandate:



Also, Obama's pledge to renegotiating NAFTA: 

His pledge to renegotiate NAFTA was important in gaining support from manufacturing workers in many key primary states. This pledge was clearly never taken seriously once he got in the White House.
President Obama also promised to push for legislation that would allow for judges to rewrite the terms of home mortgages in bankruptcy. Any effort in this direction has been all but invisible since he entered the White House.

My way of choosing the candidate to support in any primary has always been to pick the one with the most progressive record and the one whose stated positions most closely reflect my own. During the 2008 election I thought it was silly when people picked their candidate based who they trusted the most, often with little evidence that that candidate supported the policies of their liking. Well, promises don't matter, not in the slightest, and I would feel differently in 2016 if someone told me they're voting for someone because they "have a feeling" they'll be more progressive while in office. If their stated positions and backgrounds are all relatively similar, why not?

I have to admit that during the 2008 race I didn't follow my own rules either. I was an Edwards supporter because his platform and advisers were significantly more progressive than Clinton or Obama, particularly on Economic issues. Once it was down to Clinton and Obama, I was strong for Obama mostly because of their differences on the Iraq war. But on other issues, I ended up following the same methods I ridiculed. Nominally Clinton took positions to the left of Obama, that I dismissed because of her record and because I didn't trust her in the slightest. On the issue I cared the most about outside the war (passing the Employee Free Choice Act), when Hillary Clinton said she would pass the Employee Free Choice Act  in the first 100 days of her administration it didn't change my mind in the slightest, even as Obama was barely choking through the acronym for the bill in his stump speeches. When Obama talked about reforming NAFTA, I took one look at his advisers and cynically rejected any hope that he would even mention those words once he became president.

I would bet everything I own that Hillary Clinton would not have passed EFCA in the first 100 days. And I was right that there wasn't a chance in hell that Obama would touch NAFTA. But is that good? Shouldn't the promises and positions that candidates take have some sort of importance? When it's clear that they're being broken (like Obama and the mandate), shouldn't there be some political cost for those actions? If what candidates say is completely meaningless, what is the point of primaries in the first place?

We all have priorities and issues we care about more than others. Say your issue was health care, and within that your preference was strongly against the individual mandate. You gave money, you donated time, you did everything to support Barack Obama based on his strong opposition to the individual mandate, as seen in the video above. He gets elected, and immediately embraces the mandate, and no one says anything. No one cares or remembers that this is a complete 180 from his position on one of the most divisive issues of the primary.

My question is this: What should you have done? Should you have done more homework on Obama's advisers, hoping to have a window into whether or not he would keep this promise? Should you have looked deeper into his soul, as Bush did with Putin, to know he wouldn't betray your trust?

I don't know if there is a right answer, but it is something worth thinking about. I'd be curious about your thoughts.

Blanche Lincoln 2010: Can't Someone Else Do it?

Apparently the senator from Arkansas has been watching some Simpsons Reruns:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Sen. Blanche Lincoln says business and labor groups, not lawmakers, should be the ones to work out a compromise on a union organizing bill.

Lincoln said that she still opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and doesn't think the legislation should be considered while lawmakers are dealing with health care and other issues. Business groups have opposed the act because it would allow employees to unionize by signing cards instead of holding secret ballot elections.

Democratic lawmakers are working on a compromise version of the bill that may remove the so-called "card check" provision. Lincoln said any compromise would need to come from business and labor groups.

Lincoln spoke at the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Arkansas annual meeting in Little Rock.

Clearly big business will "come together" with organized labor and restore the same rights that they have methodically destroyed from existence over the past 30 years. I actually heard Senator Lincoln say this same thing during a lobby visit several months back and assumed she was just rambling. Nope, apparently she really is so clueless that decided to make this idiocy one of her main talking points on the Employee Free Choice Act.

And aside from the mind blowing stupidity of that comment, there's nothing like a LAWMAKER deciding that she isn't in the business of MAKING LAWS. With firm convictions like this, how can she lose?

So Arlen Specter Still Wants to be a Senator...

Senator Specter's(PA-Whichever way the wind is blowing) statement from earlier today:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

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

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

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

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary
...
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Just like his flip flop on Employee Free Choice a few weeks back, this is about as naked a political calculation as you see. Michael Steele actually had an incredibly awesome statement in response to the switch: (pigs flying, hell freezes over)

"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

Nothing like a Republican pissing match. Steele is dead on about this being solely to further his political interests and to the batshit insane Republican party of Pennsylvania, I bet they actually believe Specter has a left wing voting record. But that's besides the point, because Pat Toomey will prove just how popular a nutjob ideology is come November 2010. Our friends over at Resistnet will be breathlessly awaiting the results!

But other than the joy of watching Republicans shitting on their now former college, (more of that here), I'm not really convinced that this is a great thing. For starters, the whole "if we just get 60 votes" thing is largely a myth, especially when you have some massive douchebags in your caucus, and they've already decided to form their own caucus (Something tells me they just found a new member!!!).

Second, he sucks. He didn't support Obama's budget, he maintains he won't vote cloture on Employee Free Choice, he's currently blocking Dawn Johnsen, a key Justice department nominee, and those are just things that have happened in the past couple weeks. I realize the idea is that he'd have to change some things to win the primary, but if attempting to force an uncontested primary was part of the deal, he has zero motivation to stop sucking.

We need a committed primary challenger to his nomination as quickly as humanly possible. Someone who will not bow to Rendell (and everyone else's) pressure to drop out, and hopefully someone strong enough to possibly earn labor's support. If Specter won't commit to cloture, labor's support would be there for the taking, and you've got to believe they'd be willing to throw the kitchen sink at Specter after his douchery on EFCA. Whether they can beat him or not, we need a credible challenger that at least makes this self righteous asshole nervous about losing. If today's move showed us anything, it's that he's willing to put keeping his job above whatever semblance of principles the David Broaders of the world keep telling me he has.

This situation has the potential to be a positive one for progressives, but only if he's forced to stay in line with his new party on some key votes, and then has to battle for his life in the 2010 primary. If we act giddy that there's a D next to his name and let Arlen be Arlen, we will have enabled a douche bigger and douchier than King Douche himself, and that is a fucking scary thought.

I want to believe we'll do what's right for the party, but looking at the recent douche enabling actions of both the Senate Majority Leader and the President, I'm less than convinced they'll take advantage. Only time will tell where this soap opera goes, but the opportunity for serious progress is there, and it's up to us to make it count.

Heckuva Job, Arlen!

And just like that... the fight to pass for the Employee Free Choice Act just got exponentially more difficult:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) just dealt a big blow to the labor movement by announcing publicly that he would support a GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), unions' No. 1 priority for this year and a subject of intense lobbying on both sides of the aisle.

"My vote on this bill is very difficult for many reasons," Specter said in a Senate floor speech, minutes after the news was broken by the Washington Independent. "It is very hard to disappoint many friends ... who are urging me to vote their way."

But Specter affirmed that he would join his fellow Republicans to block cloture on EFCA, effectively dooming the union-organizing bill's chances of becoming law in its current form. The Pennsylvania senator, who faces a tough re-election challenge from the right, was the only GOPer to support breaking his party's filibuster on EFCA when it last came up for a vote two years ago.

The evolution of Specter's positions on the bill are just about as openly politically calculated as you can get. Specter was a Cosponsor of the bill who voted for cloture when the it came up in 2007. Since Specter is a Republican, he faced immense pressure to switch sides on the matter, and yesterday he finally caved, just about ending all hopes of the bill's passage.

The only (and I mean ONLY) positive to take from this, was that while he thought he was pulling some sort of cunning political move, voting no on EFCA should end Specter's career as Senator in 2010. Specter won his primary in 2004 by 2 points over his ultra conservative challenger, Club for Growth president Pat Toomey. Well, Toomey's running again in 2010, and Specter is less popular now than he ever was among Pennsylvania Republicans. A poll released the same day as the EFCA announcement(amazing coincidence!) showed incumbent senator trailing Toomey by 14 points. But if Specter was foolish enough to think that screwing over his state's workers at the last minute would be enough to save him, he's got another thing coming:

Conservative groups and politicians, far from won over by Specter’s announcement, continue to hammer away at the embattled Senator, suggesting that his abrupt move on EFCA will do little or nothing to reduce his vulnerability to a primary challenge from the right.

For instance, Specter’s announcement drew only mockery and scorn from former GOP Rep. Ernest Istook, the chair of the anti-EFCA group Save Our Secret Ballot.

“Specter enjoys being the center of attention,” Istook said. “There has probably been more money spent to influence his vote on this issue than on any other vote, from any other senator, at any other time. He wants to continue enjoying the attention and the fundraising opportunity.”

Doug Stafford of the anti-EFCA National Right to Work Committee added in a statement that Specter’s move should be “viewed with some skepticism,” adding that other labor-oriented proposals championed by Specter remain “totally unacceptable” and will enable “Big Labor to corral more workers into forced unionism.”

Specter’s potential primary challenger, Club for Growth president Pat Toomey, has kept up the attacks, blasting Specter’s vote for the “big government stimulus bill” and dismissing Specter’s opposition to EFCA as merely the result of “a threat in the Republican primary.”

It's not like this was Specter's only choice. He could have backed Employee Free Choice, run as an independent with Labor's support and easily won re-election. Instead he chose to screw over the working class, and then be unceremoniously dumped on his ass by the people he was desperately trying to appease. Karmic Justice, I guess.

Which Side Are You On?

Hope you like primaries!

The battle begins: We now have our first Congressional Democrat who has openly confirmed that he’ll vote against the Employee Free Choice Act — and the Service Employees International Union is blasting him for it and vowing a public campaign against him.

This is significant — it’s a harbinger of the intramural wars that lie ahead and an indication of what the big unions will do to discourage moderate Dems from breaking ranks and opposing the measure, which is labor’s top priority.

If a politician won't back the Employee Free Choice Act, then they should not receive union support, under any circumstances. Good to get this message out early as possible to other blue dogs/jackasses in the senate.

If you're a Democrat and you don't support the Employee Free Choice Act, you get a primary.

Seems like a plan to me.

Which Side Are You On?

It's nice when a news story captures the different the groups supporting and opposing a bill, and allows the readers to infer what their motives could be. When discussing the Employee Free Choice Act, they seem to be pretty common. Take this The Philadelphia Inquirer story: (Via SEIU blog)

In the first week of February, both sides sent their troops to Washington to lobby in well-publicized events. Union workers delivered a petition with more than a million signatures supporting the act. The National Association of Manufacturers dispatched 50 chief executives.

As Michael Whitney put it:

One million working people in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act, or 50 CEOs opposed to it.

At the rally I was hoping that we'd march over to the anti-EFCA strategy meeting (where the 50 CEOs were) to make the contrast obvious, and hopefully get some media attention.

There's a reason that those opposing this bill don't have marches or events, and it would be nice if the media started taking up that angle on a regular basis.

Labor's day at the White House

Reversing Bush era anti-worker executive orders was the reason for the gathering, but I agree with Trapper John that the event of the day came midway through Barack's speech:

I also believe that we have to reverse many of the policies towards organized labor that we've seen these last eight years, policies with which I've sharply disagreed. I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem, to me it's part of the solution. We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests, because we know that you cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement. We know that strong, vibrant, growing unions can exist side by side with strong, vibrant and growing businesses. This isn't a either/or proposition between the interests of workers and the interests of shareholders. That's the old argument. The new argument is that the American economy is not and has never been a zero-sum game. When workers are prospering, they buy products that make businesses prosper. We can be competitive and lean and mean and still create a situation where workers are thriving in this country.

Forget Bush, did Clinton ever say anything close to that?

We also got this "hopeful" line from Joe Biden on the Employee Free Choice Act:

HARWOOD: Sounds like that is a 2010 or beyond issue. Vice Pres.

BIDEN: No, no, no, no. This year. This year, we hope. Our expectation is this year, this calendar year, that we will move, and hopefully with some bipartisan support, to dealing with this issue.

I'm hoping he's joking about last part, because that ain't gonna happen unless you count one republican for cloture as bipartisan. But this year would be nice. When he says "we hope" let's hope that he means Barack style "hope" not the actual kind.

No one has to hope now, we won the fucking election.

Fun with your money: Union Busting edition

Even for all the bullshit surrounding the bailout, this is pretty remarkable:

Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority.

Participants on the October 17 call -- including at least one representative from another bailout recipient, AIG -- were urged to persuade their clients to send "large contributions" to groups working against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill.

Bernie Marcus, the charismatic co-founder of Home Depot, led the call along with Rick Berman, an aggressive EFCA opponent and founder of the Center for Union Facts. Over the course of an hour, the two framed the legislation as an existential threat to American capitalism, or worse.

The demise of capitalism seems pretty extreme, considering that the Employee Free Choice Act would give us labor laws similar to those in other capitalist countries, but whatever. This guy angry, we should let him keep ranting.

"This is the demise of a civilization," said Marcus. "This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it." Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars were needed, it was argued, to prevent America from turning "into France."

The end of civilization! We don't want to end up as a civilization that has met it's demise, you know, like France.

"If a retailer has not gotten involved in this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to [former Sen.] Norm Coleman and all these other guys, they should be shot. They should be thrown out their goddamn jobs," Marcus declared.

Threats of violence... this guy really knows how to fundraise. And to think, these guys are worried about union intimidation. In case threatening to shoot you didn't seal the deal, he offers a plea from Bernie Marcus, the common man:

"This bill may be one of the worst things I have ever seen in my life," he said, explaining that he could have been on "a 350-foot boat out in the Mediterranean," but felt it was more important to engage on this fight.

See, he could have been out there on his 350 foot yacht, bought with money he earned the right way, by busting Home Depot's unions. But he's so passionate about keeping workers without living wages and benefits that he's willing to forgo his millionaire lifestyle for a few months. That my friends, is commitment.

As much easy as it is to have fun with a blowhard like Marcus, the other aspect of the call has serious implications. The companies engaged in this call on how to stop the Employee Free Choice Act include Bank of America and AIG, the same Bank of America and AIG that we just gave billions of dollars to keep in existence.

Nice to know we're helping good people stay in business, huh?

Big Plans in the Senate

Yesterday at the senate progressive media meeting, various commitments were made to the progressive agenda:(Via Mydd)

I recall last year, attending, that the atmosphere was much different. Then, all about stopping Bush; now, a huge agenda of things to do. And promises galore.

Ron Wyden, Universal healthcare-- Kennedy's bill. Harry Reid, Immigration Reform this year; EFCA "still a few more votes for cloture" but this summer. Sherod Brown, Universal healthcare, local green electricity. Byron Dorgan, a national "smart grid" for electricity. Jeff Bingham, Cap and Trade this cycle. Chuck Schumer, local water/sewer upgrades nationally. Tom Udall, serious start to getting off oil. Jon Tester, all the stimulus to infrastructure jobs (including green).

That's an extremely ambitious list. I'm not sure all of this is possible within one year (I could see health care taking up quite a bit of time), but it's important that this stuff is all out there.

While part of me is reminded about how worthless Reid and many other senate dems have been in fighting against Bush, I get the feeling that they will have a much more proactive approach promoting their own agenda. And we better hope so, because unlike the dems, the republicans know how to jam the congressional machine, meaning that none of these goals will be achieved easily.

With the economy being a priority, the job initiatives will probably come up soon, and I'm almost positive we'll see health care reform proposed this year. Employee Free Choice in the summer sounds at least possible, and "A few more votes needed for cloture" is a signal for President Obama to get those guest seats on Air Force warmed up.

The one thing on this list I don't see this year is Immigration reform. Also, as much as we need immigration reform, from a purely political standpoint it might be nice to completely split the republican caucus in the run up to the mid-term elections. The politics of that fight will be nuts, simply because it was the senate and not president Bush that prevented last years fairly flawed immigration reform bill. The good news on this one, is that we should be able to peel of a few republicans on this rather easily, and add them on to a much better bill without the create a permanent underclass guest worker provisions.

If this is the senate's agenda, the groundwork will be in place for truly major change.

Update on the Senate Races

From Chris Bowers:

Senate
Democrats have 54 seats, Republicans 40, and Independents 2. There are four remaining campaigns:

1. We are tailing in Alaska, and it doesn't look good. Probably one for Republicans. Something strange happened in Alaska.
   
2. Georgia will have a run-off. Four more weeks of campaigning for Jim Martin.
   
3. Minnesota is headed to a recount. Right now, Coleman leads by 694 votes, with all precincts reporting. The provisional ballots, which always favor Democrats, will come into play as well. Not over by a longshot. AP already retracted their call for Coleman. Recount and certification will take at least two weeks.
   
4. Oregon is close, but seems like it will be OK.

If we win Georgia, Minnesota and Oregon, we get the Employee Free Choice Act. However, we need all three. Right now, I think we are only the favorite in one (Oregon). I can see pulling off one upset, but both will be difficult.

Take Number four off of the list, since we won Oregon late last night.

The depressing point that Bowers makes about the Employee Free Choice Act is one that I was getting ready to write about anyway, but it doesn't look good. Short of 57 seats (Plus two Is and Specter, who supports EFCA), I'm afraid it just isn't going to happen. Labor will make a hard push, but if there's any bill that will bring out the Fillibuster, it's this one. Big business is spending over 100 million dollars to kill this bill, and it's not like most Democrats have shown particular fortitude in standing up for the working class when they know a big fight is ahead.

Then again, with Georgia heading to a runoff and Minnesota going to a recount, those fights aren't over yet. And as KG taught us: ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!

Walmart places their bets

Sometime over the last year, in Walmart's boardroom, they debated how best to fight the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act in a populist climate that is extremely unfavorable to Republicans. They were left with two choices:

1. Stick with the Republicans against overwhelming odds this cycle, since they know they own their votes regardless, or
2. Give up on the Republicans in 2008, and give money to the Democratic leadership, because they believe that they have a better chance of getting the Democrats to screw over the working class than they do getting Republicans elected.

This is the same Walmart that is so nervous about the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act that last month risked breaking federal laws in order to pressure their employees to vote for Republicans.

Yet, last month, it was revealed that Walmart is giving more money to House Democrats than to house Republicans during this election cycle.

They've made their choice.

While Walmart putting Democrats in their pockets is nothing new, it has always been for smaller legislation, and nothing this ambitious. The EFCA fight will be the biggest congressional fight for the Labor movement since NAFTA, and this will be a watershed moment for the Democratic Party.

Will they stand up for the working class, or will they turn their backs once again, and do the bidding of Big Business?

We know what Walmart's putting their money on.