Is there evidence of a Democratic Party surge?

This doesn't quite fit in with the Republican Party's narrative about the November midterm elections. The Democrats have regained the lead in the congressional ballot poll according to an Associated Press/GFK poll released today. This coincides with a surging approval rating for President Obama in numerous polls, including the Gallup Tracking Poll. Does this mean the Democrats are headed for less significant losses in November, and if they are, what is driving this reversal of fortune?

As Bill Clinton would say, it's all about the economy stupid. After recent economic reports, it's looking like the economy will be adding more jobs in the first two years of the Obama Administration than were created during the entirety of the Bush years. This should be sending shivers down Republicans' spines as they have been campaigning against the Administration's economic policies for much of the election season. This narrative will be difficult to hold once the economy is in a distinctive upswing, which looks more and more likely now.

One other conclusion is that the oil spill has solidified the public's opinion against the corporatism the Republicans in congress espouse. Rush Limbaugh telling his viewers the oil spill is not a problem may be acceptable for uber-conservative primary voters, but the average American really likes beaches in Florida (and maybe are worried about some dead sea gulls). The financial reform bill before congress could have this same effect. Republicans will have a hard time facing the voters if they outright oppose financial reform. The polls do not show a successful Democratic year, but may help to alleviate fears of a 1994- like disaster for the incumbent party.

Who will be riding the Ron Paul blimp in 2012?

There is a spirited debate over who actually constituted Ron Paul's base in the 2008 presidential primaries. Ron Paul successfully captured the young Republican vote and created much enthusiasm among this demographic. This is insignificant, however, as young Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic or independently affiliated. The key to Ron Paul's base is the current following of the Tea Party.

Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is currently the front runner in the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky to fill the open seat of retiring senator Jim Bunning. He has never held political office before this campaign and shares many of the libertarian views of his father. He has quickly pulled away from the establishment candidate, Trey Grayson, capturing much of the die-hard Republican base that one needs to win any Republican primary fight. His campaign is relevant, because it is drawing on much of the Tea Party movement's enthusiasm and supporters.

So my question is, will Ron Paul run for president in 2012? And if he does, will he become the Tea Party insurgent for the Republican nomination? Ron Paul is no orthodox conservative. Instead, he is a paleo-conservative, a dying breed of anti-interventionist Republicans. It would be easy to criticize many stances he has taken which pitted himself against the neo-conservatives in his party, particularly on international issues. For instance, he opposes the Iraq wars and all foreign involvement. He also does not believe in free trade, favoring protectionism. Some of these stances could be criticized by the modern conservative base who love to point out flaws in a candidate's credentials.

Sarah Palin, once thought to be the darling of the Tea Party movement, is now completely irrelevant from the 2012 elections. Ron Paul could fill this vacuum of anti-establishment anger present in the primary electorate. It would be easy for him to overcome a moderate candidate such as Mitt Romney, but he would have to change some of his stances. It will be interesting to see if Paul molds himself into something more digestible, or continues to pursue his unique path of libertarianism. If the Kentucky senatorial primary stands as any lesson, it is likely that conservative voters will hop on the Ron Paul blimp, only to pull it down during the general election.

Just give up, Arlen

So it looks like Arlen Specter's blatant political opportunism is finally catching up to him. After trailing in polls against his conservative Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, he switched to the Democratic Party and has since become a reliably Democratic vote. This stands in contrast with his increasingly conservative voting record while a Republican senator. His current Democratic primary opponent, Joe Sestak, is running against his "false" issue stances and his coziness with both Obama and Bush.

I have never been a fan of Arlen Specter. Though I think moderate Republicans are essential to a working bipartisan coalition, Specter was becoming increasingly pressured by his base to be a reliable Republican vote. Now that he is a Democrat, he has been a reliable vote though there is nothing stopping him from resuming his "independent" voting record when the election is over. People like Arlen Specter are not the type of people we need in Washington. They respond to public pressure in the most manipulative possible way, putting their job ahead of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans. Specter has been preserving his job since 1980, its time we elect somebody who actually represents the people of Pennsylvania.

Kagan won't have the conformation battle we predicted

Many liberals, including President Obama, predicted the Senate Republicans would try to block whoever he nominated for Supreme Court. This was part of his decision to choose one of his more liberal candidates, rather than a moderate such as Merrick Garland. One can question whether Kagan will actually be as liberal as Obama likely wants, but she is definitely not a moderate. Given the Republicans' recent track record on supporting Obama's agenda, this news is surprising. Several moderate Republicans are giving her good marks, indicating the GOP may not have the votes to block her conformation.

This is likely for several reasons. Moderate Republicans have much to lose by trying to play culture wars with the Supreme Court nominee. Grilling the nominee on abortion looks good if you're from Alabama, but middle class Bostonians may not judge it so highly. Also, there is the fact she is a woman. It would be easier to oppose the nomination of a woman if the court had 5 women. Opposing a woman from Harvard isn't as easy when she would be the third woman on the court. Lastly, many moderates don't want any more publicity about them opposing President Obama's agenda. Primary voters are much more riled up about economic issues, supporting a Supreme Court nominee won't cause them much harm. All in all, it looks like the conditions are right for a smooth conformation.

How can the GOP say they care about job creation after this?

This week, house Democrats began to move a bill they named the COMPETES Act, which would increase funding for science, research and training programs. This would lead to job creation in these areas. It would also lead to indirect benefits such as technological innovation, individual opportunity and a more specialized workforce. The GOP, acting in good faith of course, introduced a motion to amend the legislation with a provision which would prohibit federal funds from providing salaries to employees charged with pornographic offenses while at work. This began a snowball effect among moderate Democrats, and the amendment passed. This creates serious policy issues and therefore the bill has been withdrawn from the house floor by the Democratic leadership.

These kind of wedge issues have not been uncommon during the 111th United States Congress. During the healthcare debate, Republican Senators such as David Vitter, began introducing random amendments meant to divide the Democratic Party. One of these would have prohibited federal funds from providing Viagra for registered sex offenders. Though many of these steps should be taken, they are not introduced in good faith. Vitter publicly declared he introduced many of these with the goal of slowing the bill.

These kind of amendments do not belong in our national politics. When the Republican Party says they are serious about job creation, they should not be trying to sink Dem efforts to help put Americans to work.

Yay, spending cuts!

House Republican minority whip Eric Cantor has now released a fun online interactive tool. It allows participants to choose their favorite spending cut, and the winners will be voted on in the house sometime in the future. How fun! Lets take a loot at some of these cuts:

1.) Presidential Election Fund

2.) Taxpayer subsidized union activities

3.) HUD program for doctoral dissertations

4.) Welfare

5.) Community Development Block Grants

This all seems really fun. Lets take a pick; do you want to cut funding for presidential elections so corporations control our elections? How about reduce wages and benefits? Maybe eliminate your safety net if you are unemployed and cannot find a job? Or maybe tell your community to fend for itself if its economically disadvantaged?

This interactive tool masks the true cost of spending cuts. Spending cuts should be the last option on the table when our taxes are at our lowest levels since the Truman administration. Why are we even considering the most painful option first, without even considering raising our unrealistically low taxes? When we have to make painful decisions, we should not even be considering spending cuts during a recession. And if you're going cut welfare for poor Americans, lets have the decency not to make a game out of it.

Finally, a new direction in the War on Drugs

President Obama yesterday, unveiled the most comprehensive drug abuse prevention program ever seen in the United States. Among its many provisions, it seeks to promote intervention-based programs through medical care and creates a "community based national prevention system". This plan is the latest development in a series of progressive steps by the Obama Administration to combat illicit drug use. The ban on needle sharing was lifted, the DEA was instructed not to prosecute people in legalized marijuana states, and stiffer incarceration sentencing for crack cocaine over sniff cocaine was abolished. These all appear to be steps toward the acceptance of drug use, but this is discounting the deeper they will have in the war on drugs.

One of the most problematic issues in the war on drugs is the gap in enforcement. A black man who lights up behind his home in New York City is much more likely to get arrested and sentenced for drug possession than a white middle class student who goes to UVM. This is wrong, as it misses the true effect of punishment. Schools like the University of Vermont have established anti-drug policies that spend money combating student use of marijuana and other substances. A little increased enforcement of the state's drug laws would effectively discourage much of the drug consumption on campus. We need to move these programs to poorer areas where people aren't using drugs because they think they can get away with it. People in our economically depressed areas are using drugs because there is no opportunity, little education, and no hope. Why should these areas be the focus of our enforcement efforts? Our enforcement efforts should be focused on discouraging casual users in affluent areas.

Reduced incarceration times and increased intervention programs are essential for achieving a drug-free society. The threat of imprisonment will not deter a crack cocaine addict, but if a health worker correctly identifies the problem and puts the individual in treatment, the cost to the state and personal benefit are much higher. Placing people in prison for drug related crimes, while doing nothing to combat the socioeconomic conditions that led to their drug use is morally wrong. Furthermore, we should be focusing our efforts on drugs that are seriously hazardous to people, such as cocaine, heroin and amphetamines. Wasting our time enforcing marijuana laws is a complete waste of scarce funds.

Good job Obama, glad to see you reversing some of the failed policies of your predecessor. Hopefully this is only the beginning.

Elena Kagan, a lesbian?

Probably not. But the rumors about SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan's sexuality have gotten the conservative base riled up. They point to several friends of Kagan's who have claimed she is a closeted lesbian. They also believe it explains the instance where she banned military recruiters from Harvard University because of their Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. It could be the lack of a husband past child bearing age. Whatever the motivations for these rumors, or their truthfulness, this debate raises an interesting question. Should we have an openly gay Supreme Court justice? As with most liberals, I would say definitely. We should have a supreme court that accurately reflects the population as a whole. Gays represent about 10% of the population. Does this mean that we should have one gay justice? I am all for choosing the most qualified nominee regardless of their race or sexual orientation. We don't necessarily need a gay justice, we just need to discard sexual orientation as a qualification for serving on the Supreme Court.

White House, stop meddling in Dem primaries!

Anti-incumbent rage is sweeping the nation. Incumbent Utah Senator Robert Bennet just lost the Republican nominating process, after being in the senate for 18 years and earning himself a spot on the Republican leadership circle. West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan is now about to suffer the same fate. Arlen Specter, the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat, is now trailing in polls against primary challenger Joe Sestak (D). Blanche Lincoln is being given a run for her money against primary challenger Bill Halter.

There is no doubt that many of these incumbents' situations were made worse by votes they cast, but there is no denying that the electorate wants new people representing them. In the case of Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter, the primary electorate thinks them too conservative for their constituencies. This is healthy. Strong primary challenges to incumbents is a sign of a healthy democracy. If the party/constituents are fed up with a particular officeholder, they can either vote them out of office or pressure them to represent them in a better way.

President Barack Obama clearly doesn't think so. He has shown consistent support for both Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter, even though they both have voted consistently against his agenda (Arlen Specter when he was a Republican). He is likely protecting them because of the personal relationships he forged with them during his time in the senate. This is wrong. The United States senate can no longer be treated like a country club. Neither can the United States government. Obama, lets allow the people decide who they want to represent them, not their former friends in the senate.

Is this even a climate bill anymore?

John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have finally unveiled their "climate change" bill. It is very surprising that it does not have significant Republican backing as it hardly does anything good. It promotes nuclear power, regulates some offshore drilling, gives 2 billion dollars to the coal industry for research, among other things. It does not address the huge carbon footprint of industrial agriculture, as the entire agricultural sector is exempt from the carbon trading scheme. The bill does very little to promote renewable energy or public transportation, two central pillars of a green economy. It contains huge carve outs for industries that senate Democrats will need on board such as coal and natural gas. The bill sets a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 as its goal, but this is exactly that, a goal.

This bill is in its current form because of bipartisan negotiations with Lindsay Graham, who pulled his support at the last minute due to his frustration about the immigration debate. I won't comment much on this move, but it does present a problem. If this is the starting legislation in the senate, the final legislation will be significantly more conservative than this. Anything more conservative than this will start to do more harm than good. I've always argued the most sound way to combat climate change is to restructure the economy through incentives to one that is more environmentally friendly. This bill really will not do this. It can be thought of as more of an "energy independence" plan. After all, that is why the authors named it the American Power Act.

With legislation like this, the argument for a piecemeal approach to climate change solutions grow. Harry Reid declared earlier this week that he is open to a smaller bill that is targeted at renewable energy such as wind and solar. To many environmentalists, this may seem like a non-starter. Though a piecemeal approach would ultimately be less effective, it would be a much more efficient way of doing things at the moment. Harry Reid claims there is bipartisan backing for a renewable energy bill in the senate right now. If he is right, we would do well to move a very progressive energy bill without 2 billion for coal stuffed in. This could be followed by increased energy efficiency standards from the EPA and other congressional measures to address agriculture, such as a sensible farm bill. One thing is for certain, this bill will not do.

Attack Kagan but leave Thurgood Marshall out of it

The RNC is now attacking Elena Kagan's ties to the iconic Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. Thurgood Marshall was the first African American Supreme Court justice, serving the high court from 1967-1991. He presided over many major rulings notably Roe v. Wade. He put individual rights above all else in his decisions and understandably came down on the left side of the court. He is arguably one of the best Supreme Court justices we have had this century.

There is nothing to excuse this indecency. They are attacking Elena Kagan's agreement with Marshall's 1987 remark in which he called the constitution "defective" and said it was the duty of the court to stand up for those disadvantaged by the law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. The conservative wing of the court has no problem saying the constitution is flawed when they want to amend it to include a clause that bans gay marriage. So why is saying the lack of an Equal Rights Amendment is a bad thing? Why does saying that all people should be protected under the law make you a liberal or conservative justice? Even if you agreed with this principle, lets show some respect for a man who helped facilitate great positive change in this country.

As for the criticism of Kagan, her assumed liberal views should not be a sticking point in the debate over her conformation. John Paul Stevens was the leader of the liberal wing. Placing another liberal in his position should not be a problem for any decent senator. This being said, it is not even known if she is a liberal senator. Many of her friends say they do not even know of her judicial interpretation. I'd advise Obama to do a little research to avoid another David Souter-like mix up.

Did you remember the Great Depression? How about WW2?

The Foundry's Kathryn Nix correctly pointed out on Friday that Obama is spending at levels never seen since World War II. She goes on to claim that Obama is going against public opinion in doing so. Lets not take these numbers out of context. In 1945, America had just pulled itself out of one of the most severe economic slump in American history and won one of the most costly wars it ever involved itself in. The spike in government spending was due to a combination of economic relief programs and military expenditures. That was then.

What has changed now? We are going through the Great Recession, fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are feeling the effects of an restructured economy. As business activity is down, the GDP shrinks, and public spending for the unemployed rises. This leads to government spending taking up a considerably larger percent of GDP than it would otherwise. Yes, the stimulus bill and TARP did not help, but that's because nobody wanted to raise taxes to do so. Which is what you wanted right? I'm not saying the level of debt we have is acceptable, I'm only hoping people will look at the whole picture when it comes to GDP spending.

Privatization of the military IS a bad thing

To the delight of liberals and anyone who knows anything about foreign policy, it looked like Blackwater Worldwide would finally be gone from our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was after the 2007 Baghdad shooting in which Blackwater security personnel opened fire needlessly on a group of civilians, killing 17. Their license was revoked and those responsible were sent to court. Afterwards, the company changed its name to XE, and everybody forgot about the issue. They are somehow still operating in Iraq, however, as are dozens of other "mercenary" armies. Their primary duty is to assist in day to day security operations within Iraq's major cities. They have become so successful at their job that they have even begun to develop their own variants of armored cars, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other sensitive military hardware.

Few have characterized the increase in private contractors in Iraq as the privatization of the military. I will do so here. Privatization has been happening throughout the bureaucracy over the last several decades. Private contractors are now tasked with many of the operations that our agencies used to do. This is problematic enough in areas such as public education, where school choice has led to racial and class segregation of schools, but in the military it is reprehensible for several reasons.

When the private sector comes into a market, they will almost always offer higher wages and better benefits than its public counterpart. In the military, this will be especially true, ceding the most qualified strategists and foot soldiers to the mercenary armies. The regular military, which is our REAL safeguard against foreign threats, will have a lessened potential to resist a foreign invasion. The mercenary armies do not and never will have the type of organization to conduct offensive military actions against sophisticated forces. The mercenary forces also make it difficult to organize an effective PR campaign with the local people on the ground. The U.S. Army does a very good job at this, employing interpretors and handing out candy. Blackwater shoots 17 people. Not very consistent. Another problem with having a divided armed forces would mean the military's scarce funds would be stretched even further. Having to fund another several forces within our funding structure is fine when there are only one or two contracting firms with a limited role within the country. If the trend continues, corporations like Blackwater will have a much larger role in our military. They will need more money to continue developing their technologies and organizational structure. It would be like splitting the cost of one army between two. Our regular armed forces would be shafted.

One darker issue is the issue of corporate power. Allowing the military to be controlled by large corporations like Blackwater dangerously undermines the authority of the United States government. Multinational corporations already control our legislative branch of government. Do we want to give them the armed forces too?

This is what is so surprising. Politicians go on and on about protecting our troops by continuing to fund expensive fighter aircraft, but ignore a serious threat to one of our most important institutions. Public education is in crisis because of privatization. We cannot afford to have the military follow that path, especially while we are engaged in two wars. Strengthening the military? Republicans, you want to be listening to this.

Come on Obama, we need your leadership!

Harry Reid is now saying he will not commit to passing comprehensive immigration reform this year. Climate change legislation is now predicted dead in the senate. The public health insurance option died in the health bill. All of these are attributed to the failure of Obama to take a more aggressive stance in shaping the legislation that forms the core of his agenda. Many would say this is the sign of a president who knows where to wade into the fight and when to stay at the sidelines. This is a virtue, true, but you can't only get involved in the final push.

You can spend a year completing a health-care bill, but for every day you aren't shaping its direction it will move in the wrong direction. This will undoubtedly happen with the immigration and climate change legislation the senate is currently debating. Obama can't just clap his hands and pass anything that congress gives him. It is time for some backbone.