The Political Junkies
UPDATED: JAN 2, 2008
CONSTITUTION
Privacy International recently ranked countries on their protection of privacy. The results:
Individual privacy is under threat in the United States and across the European Union as governments introduce sweeping surveillance and information-gathering measures in the name of security and controlling borders, an international rights group has said in a report.
Greece, Romania and Canada had the best privacy records of 47 countries surveyed by Privacy International, which is based in London. Malaysia, Russia and China were ranked worst.
Both Britain and the United States fell into the lowest-performing group of "endemic surveillance societies."
"The general trend is that privacy is being extinguished in country after country," said Simon Davies, director of Privacy International. "Even those countries where we expected ongoing strong privacy protection, like Germany and Canada, are sinking into the mire."
In the United States, the administration of President George W. Bush has come under fire from civil liberties groups for its domestic wiretapping program, which allows monitoring, without a warrant, of international phone calls and e-mail messages involving people suspected of having terrorist links.
Even as the Bush administration continues to push for greater rights to conduct secret surveillance of Americans because of the “war on terror,” England is dropping the “war” nomenclature:
The words "war on terror" will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country's chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.
Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless "death cult."
The Director of Public Prosecutions said: 'We resist the language of warfare, and I think the government has moved on this. It no longer uses this sort of language."
London is not a battlefield, he said.
"The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."
His remarks signal a change in emphasis across Whitehall, where the "war on terror" language has officially been ditched.
The “coalition of the willing” is indeed dissolving.
VOTER SUPPRESSION
Republican vehemently deny that they engage in voter suppression. Yet, Americans now know that Republicans jammed phone lines in New Hampshire and President Bush fired US Attorney Generals across America who would not bring criminal actions for voter fraud that did not exist to any appreciable degree.
Most recently, the Chairman of the Kansas GOP congratulated members of their Party on “caging” voters:
“To date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!” […]
What is voter “caging:”
Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren't living at (because they are, say, at college or at war). The Republican National Committee reportedly stopped the practice following a consent decree in a 1986 case. Google the term and you'll quickly arrive at the Wizard of Oz of caging, Greg Palast, investigative reporter and author of the wickedly funny Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans—Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. Palast started reporting allegations of Republican vote caging for the BBC's Newsnight in 2004. He's been almost alone on the story since then. Palast contends, both in Armed Madhouse and widely through the liberal blogosphere, that vote caging, an illegal voter-suppression scheme, happened in Florida in 2004 this way:
The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and—you got to love this—American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation—and the soldiers were overseas.
Vote caging is illegal, but do not
expect the Kansas Republican Party Chairman to be prosecuted by Bush’s
Department of Justice.
Them Dems
UPDATED: JAN 2, 2008
THE STAKES
The eyes of all Democrats will be focused on the Iowa caucuses this Thursday. Pundits, both professional and non-professional, will fill the various media with their analysis of what any result from Iowa actually means.
While Democrats focus on the contest as a horse race, Democrats should also keep an eye on the stakes at the end of this race. The stakes are profound.
Paul Krugman recently authored a compelling reminder (emphasis added) of the stakes:
Democrats and Republicans live in separate moral and intellectual universes.
On one side, the Democrats are all promising to get out of Iraq and offering strongly progressive policies on taxes, health care and the environment. That’s understandable: the public hates the war, and public opinion seems to be running in a progressive direction.
What seems harder to understand is what’s happening on the other side — the degree to which almost all the Republicans have chosen to align themselves closely with the unpopular policies of an unpopular president. And I’m not just talking about their continuing enthusiasm for the Iraq war. The G.O.P. candidates are equally supportive of Bush economic policies.
Why would politicians support Bushonomics? After all, the public is very unhappy with the state of the economy, for good reason. The “Bush boom,” such as it was, bypassed most Americans — median family income, adjusted for inflation, has stagnated in the Bush years, and so have the real earnings of the typical worker. Meanwhile, insecurity has increased, with a declining fraction of Americans receiving health insurance from their employers.
And things seem likely to get worse as the election approaches. For a few years, the economy was at least creating jobs at a respectable pace — but as the housing slump and the associated credit crunch accelerate and spill over to the rest of the economy, most analysts expect employment to weaken, too.
All in all, it’s an economic and political environment in which you’d expect Republican politicians, as a sheer matter of calculation, to look for ways to distance themselves from the current administration’s economic policies and record — say, by expressing some concern about rising income gaps and the fraying social safety net.
In fact, however, except for Mike Huckabee — a peculiar case who’ll deserve more discussion if he stays in contention — the leading Republican contenders have gone out of their way to assure voters that they will not deviate an inch from the Bush path. Why? Because the G.O.P. is still controlled by a conservative movement that does not tolerate deviations from tax-cutting, free-market, greed-is-good orthodoxy.
Krugman paints the broad picture that Republican economics literally imperils the future of middle-class America -- a reckoning that may prove irreversible. Krugman is detailing a fundamental shift in the distribution of America’s wealth. Bush describes it as his vision of an “ownership society.”
The reality is that the wealth generated by the American economy is being redirected from those who labor to create that wealth to those who own the instruments of capital investment. Middle-class wage earners, not being the “owners,” have largely been excluded from the “ownership” society club.
On enterprising researcher graphs the change in distribution of wealth since 1979. Those outside of the top 10% financially are getting less.
|
|
This reordering of the American economy is not an accident. To a very large degree, it represents the policy decisions of political leaders in the Republican Party; the Conservative Movement that Krugman describes. The litany of Republican policies implemented demonstrates the point:
1. The distribution of wealth from Republican "free trade” policy, while creating new jobs in America, has not benefited Americans outside the top income group. In fact, evidence continues to mount that Republican “free trade” has come with a terrible price, an erosion of wages for American laborers instead of the “new economy jobs” Republicans promised.
Domestic employment is already falling. The US economy has to produce roughly 150,000 new jobs every month just to keep pace with people entering the workforce. Job creation was estimated at some 90,000 in November, 2007 and will most likely fall to around 70,000 in December. More people will be looking for work than there are jobs -- the continued downward pressure on wages should be obvious.
2. Republican tax cuts have been purposefully designed to augment the income of the top economic groups. Looking at the chart above, can there be any doubt as to why Republicans are calling for a repeal of the estate tax? The objective of eliminating the estate tax is simply to ensure that those few individuals at the very top of the economic ladder retain their even greater share of the American economic pie.
3. Republicans have let the US Dollar depreciate in value (“weak Dollar”). Two immediate consequences emerge. First, the devalued Dollar has increased American exports of products, but the profits have not “trickled down” to those who labor to make those products.
Second, prices for goods that we import are rising, and Americans who are making less have to pay more. Gasoline is the perfect example.
4. The Republican “ownership society” is an illusion. Millions of Americans bought into cheap interest rates to purchase homes; the centerpiece of the "American dream." The housing "bubble" bleeds into the economy as more Americans cannot pay their variable rate interest loans (particularly the "sub-prime"). The aspirations of hard working Americans are cruelly evaporating.
Republicans "fixed" the Bankruptcy laws some years ago, meaning that more Americans will be strapped with more debt, less wages to work through that debt and no credit for years to come. Instead of being branded with the scarlet "A", it will be a very green "$".
If this forecast seems overly dire, this should
reinforce the
seriousness of what is happening:
"Losses arising from America’s housing recession could triple over the next
few years and they represent the greatest threat to growth in the United
States, one of the world’s leading economists has told The Times.
Robert Shiller, Professor of Economics at Yale University, predicted that
there was a very real possibility that the US would be plunged into a
Japan-style slump, with house prices declining for years.
Professor Shiller, co-founder of the respected S&P Case/Shiller house-price
index, said: “American real estate values have already lost around $1
trillion [£503 billion]. That could easily increase threefold over the next
few years. This is a much bigger issue than sub-prime. We are talking
trillions of dollars’ worth of losses.”
He said that US futures markets had priced in further declines in house
prices in the short term, with contracts on the S&P Shiller index pointing
to decreases of up to 14 per cent."
5. Compound these problems with the fact that the Federal Government continues to run an account deficit that is being financed through international loans (China is one of our principal bankers); at the same time that we continue to pour ever increasing billions of dollars into a war that has no foreseeable end.
6. Add to the economic pyre a system in which more Americans will not have access to health care. As health care debts mount, more bankruptcies will take their toll, more debt for hard working Americans with less money to pay those debts.
7. It does not stop there. Baby boomers are coming to retirement. The Social Security system will be hard pressed to handle the economic load.
Republicans are tearing down three generations of Americans' progressive
efforts to build the American middle class based on wage earners and
education for upward social/economic mobility. The first generation
broke the absolute power of the economic oligarchs of the Gilded Age, the
second generation saved capitalism and the third preserved democracy.
One
adroit observer notes how the Conservatives have achieved their
objectives:
Starting in the 1970s, at about the time of the Lewis Powell memo, an interlocking network of right wing billionaires and theocrats began to fund the institutions whose dominance we take for granted today: The American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, The Family Research Council, the Federalist Society, the Brookings Institute (over time), and on and on. During this period, College Republican operatives like Rove, Abramoff, and Gary Bauer became important figures in this network, as did the ex-Trotskyite neocons who broke away from the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. The period was also marked by the steady retreat of the press from reporting, under twin pressures from the right “working the refs”, as Eric Alterman put it, and Winger billionaire owners slashing news coverage in favor of “entertainment,” and by the steady advance of Rush Limbaugh on talk radio and, later, by Matt Drudge on the web. And if you got hooked into that network, you got the cradle-to-grave protection typical of socialism: You always had a job, whether as a “fellow” or “scholar” at the AEI, a shouting head on Crossfire, as a columnist, as a contractor, as a political appointee or staffer, or as a lobbyist, and so on and on and on. You always got funding. You were made. Just for the sake of having an easy label for this dense network of institutions, operatives, ideologues, and Republican Party figures, let’s call it the ConservativeMovement (instead of HRC’s Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, since it’s not really a conspiracy, except possibly an emergent one. The billionaires don’t — except for Scaife during the Arkansas project, or Rupert Murdoch playing editor — generally pick up the phone and give orders; rather, they manage the Conservative Movement like an investment portfolio of entertainment properties; some start-ups (Politico), some stars (FOX), some cash cows (Limbaugh), some dogs (American Spectator)). Slowly but surely, well funded and well organized Conservatives pushed their ideas from unthinkable, to radical, to acceptable, to sensible, to popular, and finally into policy, in a process described as The Overton Window. As surely and ruthlessly, progressive ideas were marginalized, and then silenced altogether. And spending what it took, the winger billionaires used the Conservative Movement to restructure politics, and having restructured politics, economics. To their economic benefit.
If Republicans retain power in 2008 the fall out will run through the social fabric of America like a lava flow. Economic stratification will continue. As more Americans lose income, there will be less education or educational opportunities for children, rising dropout rates, and more families approaching poverty.
The stakes in 2008 are huge. As Democrats watch the electoral horserace that is unfolding, we should all keep in mind those stakes and the larger race that must be run against Republicans in the fall -- regardless of who ultimately obtains the Democrat nomination.
HISTORICALLY
December 2008 polling closed with Bush’s approval rating still mired below 35% at 33.45%. Bush’s average monthly approval rating has not exceeded 35% since December 2007.
Bush’s December average disapproval rating, 61.82%, is the third highest disapproval rate TPJ has recorded in three years. With the exception of July, Americans disapproving Bush’s performance as President has remained above 60% throughout 2007. By modern standards, Bush is setting historic low performance ratings.
With public opinion remaining polarized for the last year, it would appear
|
TPJ'S BUSH WATCH |
|||||||
|
|
|
Approve |
Trail Mo |
Disapprove |
No Opinion |
Spread |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOX/Opinion Dynamics |
12/18-19/07 |
36 |
|
57 |
6 |
-21 |
|
|
NBC/Wall Street Journal |
12/14-17/07 |
34 |
|
60 |
6 |
-26 |
|
|
USA Today/Gallup |
12/14-16/07 |
32 |
|
65 |
3 |
-33 |
|
|
Diageo/Hotline RV |
12/10-14/07 |
33 |
|
62 |
4 |
-29 |
|
|
Gallup |
12/6-9/07 |
37 |
|
57 |
5 |
-20 |
|
|
CNN/Opinion Research |
12/6-9/07 |
32 |
|
66 |
2 |
-34 |
|
|
ABC/Washington Post |
12/6-9/07 |
33 |
|
64 |
3 |
-31 |
|
|
CBS/New York Times |
12/5-9/07 |
28 |
|
65 |
7 |
-37 |
|
|
AP-Ipsos |
12/3-5/07 |
36 |
|
61 |
3 |
-25 |
|
|
L.A. Times/Bloomberg |
11/30 - 12/3/07 |
33 |
|
61 |
6 |
-28 |
|
|
USA Today/Gallup |
11/30 - 12/2/07 |
34 |
|
62 |
4 |
-28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December Avg |
33.45 |
0.85 |
61.82 |
4.45 |
-28.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November Avg |
32.60 |
-0.50 |
61.81 |
5.59 |
-29.21 |
|
|
|
October Avg |
33.10 |
-0.07 |
60.90 |
5.90 |
-27.80 |
|
|
|
September Avg |
33.17 |
1.17 |
61.75 |
5.17 |
-28.58 |
|
|
|
August Avg |
32.00 |
1.58 |
61.67 |
6.33 |
-29.33 |
|
|
|
July Avg |
30.42 |
-0.43 |
63.50 |
6.08 |
-33.08 |
|
|
|
June Avg |
30.85 |
-2.38 |
63.23 |
6.00 |
-32.38 |
|
|
|
May Avg |
33.22 |
-1.70 |
61.33 |
5.56 |
-28.11 |
|
|
|
April Avg |
34.92 |
1.49 |
59.92 |
5.15 |
-25.00 |
|
|
|
March Avg |
33.43 |
-0.24 |
60.43 |
6.14 |
-27.00 |
|
|
|
February Avg |
33.67 |
-0.22 |
60.17 |
6.08 |
-26.50 |
|
|
|
January Avg |
33.89 |
-1.61 |
61.61 |
4.83 |
-27.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|