Time for some reality. It is not just Bush. It is not just McCain. It is at least half the Republicans in Congress.
Now I might be willing to add in half the Democrats, but someone has to mind the store.
This page will be devoted to the proposition that we should work for such an Obama landslide that we will not have to worry about getting a majority during the eight or more years of Obama-generated reform.
I will first use 538’s stats to put together some propositions that I can understand. That is to say … elementary.
How can we create a Congress that will, in Barack’s words, be “smooth”? Or at least smoother?
Let me explain the title. By finishing 2006, I mean we complete the creation of a real majority in House and Senate.
By Republicans go down, we take our gloves off and say, If you still believe Ronald Reagan had it right economically, you go down. Even if you are penitent, if we have an opponent who will go the centrist Obama route of a MIXED governance, combining free market elements with cogent and efficacious regulation.
By cut no slack, I mean this is too big to allow for Mr. Nice Guy poses. We are out to win, and win big.
So, let me post this with the salient links newly chosen from my salient list of sources. And, anon, I shall be back to build this page all day.
FIRST STEP: Identify SENATE races that are not reasonably certain.
These are the ones where a DEMOCRAT is now favored:
These are ones where a REPUBLICAN is now favored:
NOW TO THE CONGRESS:
If yuu want to DRILL DOWN then go to Rothengerg’s Congressional Race Summary. I am taking from there only the closest races. Go there to get the job done.
PURE TOSS-UP (7 R, 3 D)
* AL 5 (Open; Cramer, D)
* FL 8 (Keller, R)
* FL 21 (L. Diaz-Balart, R) #
* FL 24 (Feeney, R)
* MN 3 (Open; Ramstad, R)
* NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
* NJ 7 (Open; Ferguson, R)
* NM1 (Open; Wilson, R)
* OH 15 (Open; Pryce, R)
* PA 10 (Carney, D)
TOSS-UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (8 R, 1 D)
* CT 4 (Shays, R) #
* LA 4 (Open; McCrery, R)
* LA 6 (Cazayoux, D)
* MI 7 (Walberg, R) #
* NM 2 (Open; Pearce, R)
* NY 26 (Open; Reynolds, R)
* NY 29 (Kuhl, R)
* NC 8 (Hayes, R)
* WA 8 (Reichert, R)
TOSS-UP/TILT DEMOCRATIC (6 R, 6 D)
* AZ 1 (Open; Renzi, R)
* CA 11 (McNerney, D)
* CO 4 (Musgrave, R)
* FL 16 (Mahoney, D)
* GA 8 (Marshall, D)
* IL 11 (Open; Weller, R)
* KS 2 (Boyda, D)
* NJ 3 (Open; Saxton, R)
* NV 3 (Porter, R) #
* OH 16 (Open; Regula, R) #
* PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
* WI 8 (Kagen, D)
We want ALL these to go DEMOCRATIC. Deduce which of the other races you may want to push.
INTERMISSION — The New Yorker Continues to Do Some Payback for Its Deleterious Obama Cover
YOUR CONGRESSIONAL TARGETS
Here are the gory details, my source for the following:
133 REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED NO ON THE BAILOUT:
Yes, you will find some of these names and their status for November in the races noted in the SECOND STEP.
Now all of the worthies above may be marvelous persons but all of them may be assumed to be Republican partisans of the very principles I have copuiosly noted below in my analysis of Republican Platforms singe 1960. They are partisans of less regulation, low taxes on the very wealthy and what they call free enterprise which is another word for trickle-down economics. They should GO DOWN in this year’s election.
Bear in mind the Republicans agreed to a certain number of votes which they could not deliver.
Democrats who voted against may be assumed to have done so for populist, rather than lax regulation, reasons.
STEP FIVE — REALIZE THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICAN VOTES YESTERDAY
OK, rolling up my sleeves. Here is where you can find html and PDF renditions of recent Party Platforms. All I intend to do is publish enough here to demonstrate the Republican economic stance in recent decades. Dig away.
In 1960, the Republicans seemed reasonably sane: Use of the full powers of government to prevent the scourges of depression and inflation.
… continued active enforcement of the anti-trust laws, by protecting consumers and investors …
Shall we say that in. 1964, the mood began to change?
This Administration has violently thrust Federal power into the free market in such areas as steel prices, thus establishing precedents which in future years could critically wound free enterprise in the United States.
In 1968 they veered back toward sanity: To qualify for jobs with permanence and promise, many disadvantaged citizens need special assistance and job training. We will enact the Republican-proposed Human Investment Act, offering tax credits to employers, to encourage such training and upgrading.
1972: We will continue to pursue sound economic policies that will eliminate inflation, further cut unemployment, raise real incomes, and strengthen our international economic position.
1976: We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom you have to make your own decisions — even your own mistakes. Government must step in when your liberties impinge on your neighbor’s.
1980. Dawn of Reaganism: The emergence of policies and programs which will revitalize the free enterprise system and reverse the trend toward regulation is essential. To sustain the implementation of such policy, it is necessary to raise the public awareness and understanding that our free enterprise system is the source of all income, government and private, and raise the individual’s awareness of his or her vested interest in its growth and vitality.
1984: Reaganism Triumphant: The flood of regulation has stopped.
1988: Globalism Fantasies: On every continent, governments are beginning to follow some degree of America’s formula to cut tax rates, loosen regulation, free the private sector, and trust the people.
1992: The neocon formula is announced: Presidents Reagan and Bush turned our Nation away from the path of over-taxation, hyper-regulation, and mega-government. Instead, we moved in a new direction. We cut taxes, reduced red tape, put people above bureaucracy. And so we vanquished the idea of the almighty state as the supervisor of our daily lives. In choosing hope over fear, Americans raised a beacon, reminding the world that we are a shining city on a hill, the last best hope for man on earth.
1996: A muted Bush-league chorus: This is what we want for America: real prosperity that reaches beyond the stock market to every family, small business and worker. An economy expanding as fast as American enterprise and creativity will carry it, free from unnecessary taxes, regulation and litigation.
2000 — Bush 2 Begins: … a steadfast commitment to open markets, to minimal regulations, and to reducing taxes that snuff out innovation — principles at the heart of the new economy and our party…. The old liberal approach — using the threat of stifling regulations to redistribute wealth and opportunity — will work no better than it ever has, and perhaps much worse, in the new economy.
2004 — Best Laid Plans: America’s economy is the strongest in the world, and it is getting stronger thanks to lower taxes, fewer burdensome regulations, and a focus on encouraging investment. Our goal is to make sure America remains the strongest economy in a dynamic world …
Oddly, Barack is for the same simplification and reduction in red tape that is celebrated in the Republican Platforms. I shall return to this in a while. We now have a few bits of history to show that the deregulatory urge probably began in our era with Goldwater. It received a substantial bipartisan boost during the Clinton years with the Clinton-endorsed repeal of Glass-Steagall, which explains my umbrage with Democrats.
My next adventure will be some micro-investigating of not only the Republicans who need to go down in Congressional races, but the identity of the Democratic survivors who favored the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Intermission Two: Barack On A Way Out New Today
And this proposal for moving the Settlement on — taking some leadership:
Yesterday, within the course of a few hours, the failure to pass the economic rescue plan in Washington led to the single largest decline of the stock market in two decades.
While I, like others, am outraged that the reign of irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created the current crisis, I also know that continued inaction in the face of the gathering storm in our financial markets would be catastrophic for our economy and our families.
At this moment, when the jobs, retirement savings, and economic security of all Americans hang in the balance, it is imperative that all of us – Democrats and Republicans alike – come together to meet this crisis.
The bill rejected yesterday was a marked improvement over the original blank check proposed by the Bush Administration. It included restraints on CEO pay, protections for homeowners, strict oversight as to how the money is spent, and an assurance that taxpayers will recover their money once the economy recovers. Given the progress we have made, I believe we are unlikely to succeed if we start from scratch or reopen negotiations about the core elements of the agreement. But in order to pass this plan, we must do more.
One step we could take to potentially broaden support for the legislation and shore up our economy would be to expand federal deposit insurance for families and small businesses across America who have invested their money in our banks.
The majority of American families should rest assured that the deposits they have in our banks are safe. Thanks to measures put in place during the Great Depression, deposits of up to $100,000 are guaranteed by the federal government.
While that guarantee is more than adequate for most families, it is insufficient for many small businesses that maintain bank accounts to meet their payroll, buy their supplies, and invest in expanding and creating jobs. The current insurance limit of $100,000 was set 28 years ago and has not been adjusted for inflation.
That is why today, I am proposing that we also raise the FDIC limit to $250,000 as part of the economic rescue package – a step that would boost small businesses, make our banking system more secure, and help restore public confidence in our financial system.
I will be talking to leaders and members of Congress later today to offer this idea and urge them to act without delay to pass a rescue plan. SOURCE
Obama Landslide Ideas from A Correspondent, Liberal Don
Conservative columnist Jim Wooten states in several recent AJC columns that the Democrats are in a panic, that polls are moving rapidly against Obama after the Palin nomination since the momentum has swung and that Obama can’t win enough white rural votes to win key swing states such as Pa, W.Va.,and Ohio.
This slender view avoids the harsh realities that Obama will win in a landslide, and here’s why:
A. Bill and Hillary Clinton will start doing some serious campaigning in those states as well as other key cities. Gov.Palin has energized them and given the Clintons a real challenge to save Roe vs Wade and many liberal plans.
B. For every six who voted Republican in the recent primaries, nine voted Democrat and record, historic number of voters have registered as Democrats. Its not conceivable that the Democrats could lose the popular vote.
C. Polls that show the race as close don’t poll cellphone users; the AJC had a recent article on the number of younger people who only have a cell. That group of younger voters w/cellphones are Obama’s largest voting bloc.
D. 66% of Americans correctly view the Iraq war as unecessary and done w/o regard to cost; add this to the problems on Wall Street where 90% of the industry leaders vote Republican and one can see who is responsible for the economic environment of today.
E. Finally, 80% of Americans say this country is on the wrong course. Obama has always been the agent of change and his youth and RFK leadership skills fits this need, not the older Sen.McCain.
STEP SIX — GLASS-STEAGALL NOTES — WHY THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LESS REASON TO BLAME THAN THEY WOULD IF THEY HAD NOT SOLD THE NEW DEAL DOWN THE RIVER. AND AT LEAST SOME OF THE CULPRITS
Heroic Opponents of the Repeal of Glass-Steagall
THE DEBATE OVER THE REPEAL OF GLASS-STEAGALL
What follows are the words of those who spoke in opposition to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The complete debate can be found in the online pages of the Congressional Record.
Edward Markey, Mass
No one should vote for this bill. It is a fatally flawed bill. We should be able to deal with this issue simultaneously with letting the big boys get all they need. We should take care of what ordinary people need for their families as well.
David Obey, Wis
Madam Speaker, this bill is consumer fraud masquerading as financial reform. There is nothing wrong with modernizing financial institutions. It is nice to see that my colleagues are going to try to
set up one-stop shopping services for financial services. But returning 1999 to 1929 is not reform in my book.
Maxine Waters, California
Madam Speaker, I have spent hours on this bill. I served on the conference committee. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I have spent hours on this bill, and I am absolutely surprised that the Members of this House can support a bill that would do what this bill is about to do to working people and poor people.
This is a one-man vendetta that took place on the conference committee. We should never have negotiated with them, but the negotiations took place in the back room, not in public.
Carrie Meek, Florida
Madam Speaker, I am sure that those of my colleagues who have come to the floor and applauded this bill have tunnel vision, and their vision is directed toward the large banking institutions. Because their blindness does not let them see to the right and left of them, they do not really see the people that are being affected by this bill most. I am opposed to this bill, that this bill brings in a strong element of discrimination, particularly in fair housing.
Marcy. Kaptur, Ohio
This bill is pro megabank and it is against consumers. And I would say to the people listening tonight, Are you tired of calling banks and getting lost in the automated phone system, never locating a breathing human being? This bill will make it worse.
Are you fed up with rising ATM fees and service fees that now average over $200 a year per account holder? This bill will make it worse.
Are you skeptical about banks that used to be dedicated to safety and soundness and savings but are now switching to pushing stocks and insurance and debt? This bill will make it worse.
Are you tired of the megafinancial conglomerates and mergers that have made your community a branch economy of financial centers located far away, whose officers you never know, who never come to your community? This bill will make it worse.
Maurice Hinchey, NY
We have 1 hour to debate the most comprehensive change in financial services legislation in the Nation in the last 65 years. This is one of the most important bills to come before this Congress in decades, and we are going to spend 1 hour this evening debating here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
And that 1 hour is divided thusly: two-thirds of that hour go to the people who are for the bill; only one-third of the hour goes to the people who are opposed to it. That is wholly consistent with the objectivity and fairness contained within the bill itself.
This is a farce, it is a mistake, it is a day that we will rue. We are constructing here an apparatus that will come back and bite us severely. SOURCE
And from the same source:
THE FINAL TALLY
The final vote was 339 for, 79 against, and 20 not voting. The “nays” include names well-known today: Dennis Kucinich, John Dingell, Nancy Pelosi, and John Lewis. Kucinich spoke only briefly to enter an article against the bill into the record. Dingell, Pelosi and Lewis did not speak.
Current Presidential candidates who voted “yea” are John Edwards and Joe Biden. As the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd did not vote on the bill, but you can see him in the signing picture above. The article Kucinich entered into the record particularly singled out Dodd’s campaign contributors.
Two significant observations need to be made about the debate. First, it is noteworthy that women and people of color were among the strongest speakers in opposition. A major theme in the book The Strange Death of Liberal America is how women and people of color raised objections when Liberal America’s belief in the level playing field came under fire from both parties.
Second, as one commenter has noted, there were enough votes to override a veto. But we need to remember that party members usually support their President. Had Clinton opposed the bill and threatened to veto it, the outcome might have been different.
And no, I do not have the names of all who voted for the repeal, but you can deduce that it was MOST of the Democrats who are still around.
I would like to hear Joe Biden repudiate his vote and Barack vow to restore the main provisioms of Glass-Steagall.