*Please... Cut the Crap

Why Progressives Lose - The Professional Left

I know it may seem to people that I have a personal problem with many on the professional left, but I assure you that is not the case. I know many of them, and actually count a number of them among my friends. Most are generally decent people, who just don't seem to understand how politics works. You can have all the highest ideals in the world, but if your actions don't help implement them, what you're doing is actually somewhat worthless. Worse, depending on how you frame an ideal, you could end up doing more harm than good. 

There are only two keys to progressive success. 

• Tell the truth. 
• Get the best possible candidates into office. 

That's it. That's all we have to do. Of course, these two keys are a bit more complicated than they sound. Always telling the truth means always sticking to proven facts and context, and not simply stating what you believe to be true. That should be easy, because facts tend to have a liberal bias. 

And getting the best possible candidates into office is also more than voting for progressives. There are simply some states and districts that can't elect a progressive candidate right now. That doesn't mean they never can, but after 32 years of neocon influence, it'll take a lot of work. In the meantime, we have to deal with what is, and there are simply not 218 progressive districts in this country. 

Like I said, you can have all the high ideals you want, but you have to deal with reality. 

For about 40 years, the progressive side of the debate has  largely been dormant. We've been extremely ineffective, politically, and that has allowed a small minority of right wing idiots dominate electoral politics for the last 32 years.

And the main reason for this dormancy is because too many of the progressive movement's most vocal “advocates” apparently believe that what Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox News do actually works to make the right more popular, so they try to mimic that, to make the left more popular. They're not entirely wrong. The right's negativity does work, but only with the right. What the right wing echo chamber does makes right wingers love them, but it turns off everyone else.  Given that this is a democracy, certainly you can see the problem, right? If 20% of the population likes you, but everyone else hates you, you're not winning anything.  

Well... that's only true if they vote for someone else. If they stay home, it actually plays to the Republican strategy. 

Progressives must always keep in mind that the number one Republican strategy in every election is to depress turnout at the polls. Because they’re a small minority of the population, making people want to stay home is the only way they can win. There are actually TWO purposes for their disgusting rhetoric; the obvious one is to excite their extremist base with red meat. But the other is just as important; they want to make the people in the political middle, including swing voters who actually decide elections, not want to vote. 

It shouldn't be surprising that, when the professional left tries to mimic the Fox News crowd, the rhetoric, it has the same effect. Right wingers like nothing more than making liberals mad, so they're fired up when we spit venom. Plus, when we're just as negative as the right, it turns off the same people. And when the professional left smashes Democrats in the face, and gives voters the impression that both parties suck, that really gives most voters no reason to come out. 

This is why we lose. The GOP can't win when turnout is low, and when we help them reduce turnout, we are actually undermining our own cause. 

This isn’t just conjecture; the numbers bear this out. When you look at voter turnout figures (Go here, here and here), you can see, clear as a bell, when progressives were effective politically, and when we started losing, and it's tied to turnout. Look at the presidential election years; when turnout was around 60%+ every election, we got people like FDR, Truman, Ike and Kennedy. Since 1980, the ONLY two times we even came close to 60%, in 2008 and 2012, we got the first Democrat to win a clear majority for president since LBJ in 1964, and he did so twice. (Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote.) In the 1950s and 1960s, the off-year elections featured 45-50% turnout, and we had a moderate/progressive majority. In fact, during the 1960s, when we got civil rights and Medicare, Democrats had a supermajority.  And the right wingers who occupied the Dixiecrat and Taft wings of the two major parties had minimal influence in Congress.

That’s not coincidence.

When we’re positive and truthful, we win. When we’re negative and less than truthful, we lose. It’s really that simple. In 2008, we rallied the troops behind Barack Obama, and he won in a walk. Immediately after his election, the professional left retreated into lies and distortions, and we lost in historical fashion in 2010. Again, NOT coincidence.

If we truly want a progressive country, we have to convince a majority of voters that progressive values are a winner. We can’t do that through negativity and falsehood. You have to understand that a large portion of the voting populace doesn't make a decision regarding who to vote for, but rather, whether or not to vote.  If you're an average voter and you're trying to decide whether or not to show up on a cold November day and cast a ballot, and both sides are telling you Democrats suck, even if you already know Republicans suck, why would you show up and vote? 

Yet, that's what happened in 2010, and there are signs of it happening again in 2014. And a lot of the problem is the garbage coming out of liberal blogs and websites that is either untrue or seriously exaggerated, as they do with so many stories, like the NDAA, drones or Obamacare.

Republicans and right wingers lie because they have to. We don't have to. So it's unacceptable when our side does it. 

We're Not As Polarized As Advertised

I am sick to death of hearing about how "polarized" we all are.

I know you've heard that term quite a bit. It's always accompanied by overwrought statements about how the country's never been so incredibly divided, and we can't possibly get it together enough to get anything constructive done. The reason there are so many problems in Washington are because there are two sides, and they are too far apart! OMG! Whatever shall we do? 

First of all, stop believing everything you hear or read. 

We're not really all that divided. It just seems that way. One problem we have now is the Internet. With the Internet age comes the ability for everyone with an opinion to express it for all to hear. And with the relative anonymity the Internet provides, it's often possible to do so multiple times, which can make a group of ten people look like 100. It's just too possible to make something small look very big over the Internet. 

And that's the problem. A relatively small group of people on the far left and the far right scream loudly and scream often, and the effect is a cacophony that drowns out what most people actually think. As a liberal, I've spent a lot of time in red states and living in red areas of blue states, and I've found is that real liberals and real conservatives agree on about 95% of all issues, at least to some degree. The disagreement isn't usually about the issue as much as how to solve it. You can kind of tell this, because the far right wingers and the far left wingers truly stand out, even in red or blue areas.

Part of the problem seems to be that most "debate," such as it is, revolves around a few select issues that certain people want to emphasize over everything else, and both extreme sides of the debate tend to scream the loudest, which gives many people the impression that only two sides exist, and that they're too far apart to ever agree, Those issues are chosen and emphasized by those on both extremes of the political spectrum with the express purpose of making those issues seem far more important than others, when they aren't necessarily.

We're seeing that now, when it comes to jobs. It's the most important issue to most people, and yet, it seems as if no one is talking about it. The right wing goes on about Benghazi and this IRS silliness, while the left wing would rather discuss drones and the availability of Plan B. NO ONE is discussing the fact that the American Jobs Act has been sitting in the House for almost two years, and the Republicans won't even discuss it. Trust me when I tell you; whichever side starts talking about job creation seriously will be the political winners for a long time. 

Here's another issue; how far apart are most Americans on guns, really? We hear the two extreme sides; the extreme right wants nothing to happen and thinks the world would be more peaceful if everyone was packing. The extreme left thinks the solution to the problem is to ban any gun that looks scary, if not all guns, period. But the vast majority of Americans are between those two positions. They have no problem with registering guns. They have no problem with making sure everyone who buys a gun undergoes a background check. And most, including gun enthusiasts, love the concept of a concealed carry permit, which is simply no more than a gun license. Basically, while the extremes are what most people hear from, the actual view of a majority of the populace is usually a rational place somewhere between the two poles.  The reason we can't get gun control passed is because the right wing screams nonsense, and we spend all of our time pointing out that it's nonsense, rather than supporting rational alternatives. 

Here's another; while the far right and far left both want to repeal Obamacare for different reasons, most people want to see what happens, and they like the changes so far. The funny thing is, Republicans who voted to repeal it for the 37th time yesterday are catering to, at most, 20% of the populace. And the far left, who represent even fewer, continue to scream about "single payer" and a "public option." This, despite the fact that it is a lot easier to leap from Obamacare to a single payer system, and that adding a "public option" to Obamacare would be more effective than adding it to the old system of health insurance.  

One reason that we can't seem to overcome the right wing is because a portion of the progressive side of the aisle thinks they have to say the exact opposite of whatever they do. That's why we seem polarized. Both extreme sides yelling at the top of their lungs creates that impression. 

As I have said for years, if we want to create a truly progressive society, we have to speak to the majority, and not just those who agree with us. The reason we seem polarized at times is because we have this incessant need to scream the opposite of what they scream. We have to listen and find a middle ground that all voters can agree on, and work from there. We have to find out what people care about, and speak to that. If everyone but the right wing agrees on the importance of job creation, who cares if the right is off in the corner screaming "Benghazi"? We can all agree that gas costs too much, and that using half as much is a good thing. Who cares if the right wing is off in their corner, screaming "Drill, baby, Drill!"? 

The political middle always wins in the end, because they're a majority. Whether the country moves to the left or the right depends entirely on which side of the political spectrum does a better job of moving the middle in its direction. Right now, the right wing's approach is to depress turnout among those in the middle. By making progressives scream at them, thus creating the illusion of polarization, they are enlisting us in their ultimate goal. And it's worked well. Back before the neocon era, voter turnout was around 60% in presidential election years and around 50% in off year elections. Over the last 36 years or so, turnout's usually been about 50% in presidential years and less than 40% in off years. 

By speaking to most Americans, and not screaming at the right wing, we can encourage people to show up at the polls, and effectively remove the right wing from power in government. 

We're not polarized. But the illusion helps the right. Stop helping. 

GOP Can't Create Jobs, But Can Vote 37 Times to Repeal Obamacare

In the space of less than two and a half years, Republicans in Congress have voted to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act a whopping 36 times. Here's a list of these attempts. Each of them includes a link to the votes on each bill, so you can see who voted for this nonsense.

This past week, they voted for a 37th time to repeal Obamacare. And you should care about this issue, because it says two things about the Republican Party. The fact that they insist on wasting time passing 37 bills they know will never become law (can you even imagine Democrats in the Senate passing or Obama signing such a thing?) is something that should concern voters. And the fact that they seem to want to return the health care system to where it was should really make you mad. 

Our health care system was broken. And it was broken precisely because it treated health care as a privilege, when it's actually a right. If you become sick enough, you are entitled to see a doctor, regardless of your wealth or lack of same. 

There are a few things that should not be subject to the volatility of the "free market," and health insurance  is one. It is because we operate under the delusion that health insurance is a "free market" that we spend more than anyone else in the world on health care, and yet sit mired in 37th place in world health statistics.  Our health statistics are more in line with Cuba and Albania than Germany, France and Canada, and the reason is the way we treat health insurance. 

Those statistics are bad, despite the fact that we probably have the best underlying medical system in the world. Our system trains doctors all over the world, because we have the best. Unfortunately, it was private insurance companies running roughshod over the system that caused the problem, because they were denying huge numbers of people access to doctors. Financing our heath care system with the private health insurance companies making the rules was like buying a new Rolls Royce with a credit card. 

When your life or the life of your child is in danger, or you are in so much pain that you can't function, a doctor has an absolute obligation to treat you. If you show up at the ER with one arm falling off, they have to at least patch you up. This is true, even if you live in a box under the freeway. If you show up in the ER during the final stages of cancer, they have an ethical, moral and legal obligation to relieve your pain and treat you. If you have a heart attack, the ambulance will pick you up and take you to the hospital, and the doctor will treat you, at least enough so that you can function. 

The problem that caused our system to overload was people without insurance, who simply can't pay their bill. But it wasn't their fault.  

First, the hospital would often get their team of lawyers and bill collectors after the uninsured patients, until they forced them into bankruptcy. The patient would lose everything, and the hospital would get a fraction of what they were owed. The hospitals would then raise prices to cover their losses, and that, in turn, caused insurance companies to raise premiums. In other words, those who were insured used to heavily subsidize those without. 

Essentially, this created a closed circle. The more things cost, the harder insurance companies would assess risk, and the more people they'd kick out of their insurance pool. After all, they are not in business to pay your medical bills; they're in business to skim as much as possible from premiums, and call it profit. They don't make money by paying more for procedures. They make money by not paying bills they don't have to. Therefore, health insurance companies went out of their way to only cover healthy people, and they did everything possible to keep from paying a medical bill. 

This is why health insurance should never be subject to "market forces." Health care is not a voluntary consumer activity. Unlike picking up a pack of gum at the checkout at Safeway, you usually don't get to choose when you need medical care. You don’t always get to shop around for the best price, and you often can't possibly save enough money to get it when you need it. 

That's the disconnect. Everyone needs health care at some point, and they will rarely be able to prepare for it. Yet, the Republican Party acts as if there is a "free market" component to it, when there isn't.

The old health insurance system made no sense. Twenty percent of the population were denied health insurance because they were likely to use it. That meant the people most likely to need health care were not allowed to pay into the system. They were actually forbidden from contributing money to the insurance pool, even though their health care would eventually be paid for from that pool. Worse, it created a death spiral. The higher prices and premiums went, the more people lost coverage, and the more people lost coverage, the higher prices and premiums went.  

The insurance companies loved the old system, because it maximized their annual profits at the same time it minimized their responsibility for health care.  About 18% of the population was uninsured at any given time, whereas 98% of all hospital revenues came from private insurance Medicare and Medicaid. And you wonder why health care inflation was so high, and why your insurance premiums skyrocketed under the old system?

Obamacare isn't perfect. It still leaves about 8-10 million people uninsured. But that's a lot less than the 50 million and climbing who were left uninsured under the old system. And all bills incurred under this system will be paid, meaning hospitals won't have to raise prices as much. But the old system of health care financing was purely immoral. There's no excuse for a rich country to tens of thousand of people to die and half a million to lose everything annually, simply because they have no insurance. No one should pay into the system for decades, and then be denied access to health care because they lost a job, or their company stops offering it, or because an insurance company arbitrarily decides it's "too expensive." 

Our government is charged by the Constitution to protect the "general welfare" of the country. And it's hard to argue that a healthy populace isn't good for the general welfare. It is also not good for the general welfare for people to work hard all of their lives and be denied insurance coverage because they once got a bloody nose in eighth grade. 

Our system failed us, and it's been reformed to a significant degree. Yet, Republicans demand a return to the old ways. Either that, or they're simply trying to waste time, when the country needs more jobs and revenues. 

Either way, they need to go. 

Given Their Track Record, GOP Complaints About IRS Are Hypocritical

Let me start out by saying that no one should be singled out arbitrarily for scrutiny by any government agency, and as a liberal, I have been complaining about IRS excesses for years.  

But what's arbitrary about 300 groups applying for tax exempt status, and undergoing a check by the IRS to make sure they legitimately qualify for such status? What is wrong with making sure all such groups follow all of the rules? If you want a culprit here, you should blame the asinine Citizens United decision. That caused hundreds of right wing political groups to be created in a hurry, in an attempt to swing the 2012 elections. Liberal groups weren't creating tax exempt organizations in droves, but right wingers did, so when the IRS was taking a look at such groups, they were more likely to encounter right wing groups. 

And is there anyone who isn't at least a tiny bit suspicious of many groups with the word "patriot" in their names, given recent history? Don't take my word for it. Just a few months ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a report showing 1,360 anti-government groups with the word "Patriot" in their name. Should all of them simply be given tax-exempt status, because, well, they choose to use the same word in their name as many Tea Party groups? And how do IRS agents determine the difference between legitimate groups and anti-government hate groups without checking them out?

Honestly, the Republicans' upset over this "issue" could be the funniest thing I've seen all year. 

Getting Over Our GOP-Warped Concept of Investment

Under President Obama's guidance, the economy is definitely improving. The stock market is breaking records; the Dow has more than doubled since we hit bottom on the Bush recession, and the S&P is also breaking records. The housing market has largely recovered, and we're back on track, albeit this time as a saner pace. 

We could be doing a lot better, if not for Republican obstruction. There are still too many people out of work, even as the Republican House continues to sit on a massive jobs bill that is coming up on its second anniversary. 

But while the problems we have right now are largely the fault of the current Republican Party, a lot of it comes from our warped sense of the concept of "investment," in which we demand that our investments bring huge, quick financial returns, without concern for a solid, sustainable future. It shouldn't even be controversial to make the switch from fossil fuels to solar, wind and other renewable energy sources; it's common sense. It may not make us a boatload of money now, but over the course of our lives, the payoff for such a conversion will be enormous. And that's the problem. We only look at financial profit as "success," and we seem unable to look beyond the next quarter or the next year. 

Wishing for Perfection, You Usually Get the Opposite, Like the GOP

I guess I'll never understand this quest for political perfection that so many liberals seem to think is so appealing.  The most imperfect Republican politicians in our history have been holding down the fort for the better part of 40 years; at what point do we figure out we're doing something wrong? If we're so pure of heart, righteous and virtuous, and that is what makes us worthy of winning elections, why do we keep losing? 

The answer is clear, if you're willing to listen to it. Right wing Republicans are willing to accept less than perfect from their point of view, while we most certainly are not.  

Let me re-state that. MOST liberals get it, and are willing to accept imperfection. A small but significant number of liberals refuse to accept anything less than perfection, despite the fact that perfect liberals have never had a majority in any national political body in our history. For all of the lionization of FDR, JFK and even LBJ by such progressives, none of those men could win an election these days, because these people would never encourage anyone to vote for them.  

If you've ever seen the classic film, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” then you'll remember the scene in which the owner of Swamp Castle describes how he built it. The first two castles sank into the swamp, of course, as castles built on swamps are wont to do. But the third one, by God, stayed up (so far), quite possibly because it was sitting on the first two sunken castles. 

Go ahead and laugh, because it's funny. But there's also a lesson there. If you want to build something that lasts (and if you call yourself a progressive, that is exactly what you're supposed to do), you can’t ignore the foundation upon which it’s built. And for about 40 years now, the right wing has built one hell of a swamp.

Let's Be Clear: GOP Austerity Is Holding Us All Back

I know the Republican Party hates the word "austerity," because they tried to blame President Obama for it all through the last election cycle, and spoke of it as a bad thing. And they have good reason to hate it; it's no way to run a government. Trying to cut deficits by slashing government spending is much like taking the money out of your 401(k) and putting it into your mattress. 

The concept that the deficit is caused solely by rampant government spending is ridiculous. Deficits aren't usually caused by overspending; they're often (usually?) caused by a reduction in revenue. Consider; our deficit for Fiscal Year 2008 was $458 billion, while the deficit for FY 2009 was $1.4 trillion. In order to believe that deficits are caused purely by spending, one would have to believe the government spent $1 trillion more in 2009 than in 2008, which is ridiculous. Most of that year's deficit and the deficits for subsequent years, are due to a lack of revenues, caused by a severe reduction in the number of taxpayers. Fewer taxpayers mean less tax revenue. 

Keep in mind, I'm not saying spending isn't a part of the problem. he government does waste money. But the problem of government waste is not solved by slashing spending in areas that people depend on for a living. In the last few years, the Republican austerity campaign has resulted in nearly 750,000 government employees losing their jobs. While they think such a thing is good, the fact of the matter is, all of those people paid taxes, and now they'll be collecting unemployment and other benefits. More importantly, they also spend money in the economy, which provides jobs for others, and all of those folks pay taxes and spend money in the economy. 

Good Law Isn't Based on Emotion

If a society is going to solve a problem, it has to set priorities, and it has to at least be able to put emotion aside and tackle the problem logically. The problem with attempting to attack political problems with emotion is that almost everything you do, politically, has to be adjusted, and emotions make it difficult to make the adjustments you need. Issues are emotional. Political solutions simply can't be. 

You can see this when you look at the silliness of the "Drug War." With most drugs, we lost that war a long time ago, because we approached it from an emotional angle. Like Prohibition before it, we went after the problem using emotion, and absolutely no logic.  There is little difference, really, between "Drugs are killing people, so they should be illegal" and "Abortion is murder, so it should be illegal." Neither is a rational basis for creating a law or a legal construct. As was the case with Prohibition, such laws are destined for failure. 

The solution to the drug problem, from a legal and legislative standpoint, is actually quite basic, although not simple. Legalize, regulate and tax, just as we do with alcohol. The amount of regulation will vary, of  course, depending on the drug.

Before Running at the Mouth, Try to Know What You're Talking About

"It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." - William Blackstone

--------------------

You know, I screwed up on April 15. I broke one of my own important rules, and I speculated about something important.

Speculation isn't bad when it's between good friends at a party. But I Tweet publicly, and what I say seems to create a reaction from people. Basically, what I said was that I thought the Boston Marathon bomber was probably an extreme right winger. I immediately walked it back, saying that it was just my first impression, and first impressions are usually wrong, but there it was. It was out there. I considered deleting the Tweet, but I generally only do that when I misspell something, and I follow it up with a corrected Tweet. 

I usually have no use for things like that, and I chided myself for it. But I realized my mistake almost immediately, became defensive about it, and when the perpetrators were identified, I issued a public apology. I would love to say I'll never do it again, but I'm human, I have emotions, and I am not perfect. I will try, however.  

I don't mean to sound conceited, but I wish there were more like me on this. Most people are like me, of course, but those who are not seem to be awfully loud and insistent.

Take this past weekend. Please.

Repost: With 11 Embassy Attacks Under Bush, Why Wasn't the GOP Upset?

This morning, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is having to go before the Republicans in Congress and help them in their grandstanding efforts with regard to the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. It's the second set of hearings on this issue; the first round happened just before the election, when several Republicans thought they could help Willard Romney win the election by making Obama look bad. These hearings, on the other hand, are an attempt to make themselves look important, because we all know they'll probably be no more productive than they were during the last session of Congress. 

This morning's pageant has featured Rand Paul suggesting that Mrs. Clinton would have been fired if he was president, an occurrence that, thankfully, will never happen. He also cited the Benghazi attack as the "greatest tragedy since 9/11." Apparently, losing a few thousand troops in an unnecessary war in Iraq wasn't a tragedy to him, but ask the families of the soldiers about that. 

But the best exchange of the morning - the one that shows just how shallow and pointless these hearings are, came when Secretary Clinton schooled Senator Ron Johnson on what really matters here. He was all over the Republican talking points, all of which have been shown to be false. He starts with Susan Rice supposedly lying on "all the talk shows," which has been proven wrong. After Secretary Clinton explains the State Department's priorities in the wake of the attacks, Johnson then proffers the "simple phone call" talking point. AFTER she had explained why she did what she did. She thought getting medical help for the injured and letting the FBI investigate first was more important. and she's right. Four people are dead, and even now, no one knows everything that may have happened. It often takes years to sort these things out. To imply that the State Department should have known every detail within days is ludicrous. It's the Republican Party attempting to score political points and nothing more. 

Here is the exchange between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Johnson. It's so obvious he's thinking of his party first:

 

We have to be sick of this by now, don't we?

It's Not True That Zuckerberg is Trashing Obama, Supporting Keystone

I will be talking about this sort of thing a lot, because that's what this blog is ultimately about. This is the sort of thing that makes clear why you should always be skeptical about anything you read or hear in today's political climate. 

I woke up this morning, and saw the following Tweet in my timeline:

Now, I do some work for a project that I'm not at liberty to talk about because it hasn't launched yet, but I recognized that the information in the Tweet and the accompanying article is completely out of character for Zuckerberg. I won't claim that Zuckerberg is a full on liberal, and his company's approach to privacy sucks. But his largest charitable/political contributions to date have gone to revive the Newark, New Jersey school system, and to help the poor in the Bay Area. The fact of the matter is, he's been trying to rehab his image since "The Social Network" became a hit, and this wouldn't do that. 

So, when someone makes a claim like the above, it makes me want to look deeper. And as I started digging, I found out that the group in question, FWD.us, is focused on three things; immigration, education and science. Many of the key players in this project actually have high profiles in the development of alternative energy sources, so the accusations made don't quite pass a smell test. 

Updated: What Happened in West, Texas Says A Lot About GOP Values

The more I look at this industrial disaster in the small town of West, Texas, the more I'm reminded of just how vacuous and downright perverse the right wing Republican concepts of deregulation and "free markets" are. If you haven't been paying attention to this, you should, because it demonstrates just how far private companies will go to avoid regulation, how far GOP politicians in red states will go to "protect" those companies, and how hypocritical they are when it comes to their attitudes with regard to government spending.

If you think "it can't happen here," think again. The right wing mindset has weakened the protections we've created, to the point that the agencies we depend on to keep businesses honest are weaker than ever. 

Because there were no real protections in place to stop them, West Fertilizer was able to place two 12,000 gallon tanks of anhydrous ammonia onto their property, which was located near the center of the small town of West, Texas, population 2,800. They were about 1,500 feet from a school, a nursing home with 130 residents and a hospital, and practically in the middle of a residential district. They were only 3,000 feet from another school, and very close to a heavily travelled highway. 

Sorry, But Max Baucus is About the Best We Can Expect From Montana, Politically

This week, Max Baucus of Montana announced his retirement after this term, and some progressives have been falling all over themselves congratulating themselves, and expressing nothing short of glee over losing him in the Senate.  

Be careful what you wish for, folks. 

Baucus is from Montana. Montana usually elects Democrats, but they're always conservative, based on the standards of many progressives, who like to label "RINOS." And who would expect anything different from Montana. Like the other 49 states, Montana is a unique entity, in that they are extremely independent. This is the problem with thinking in national terms; except for president, there is no national election. Baucus only represents Montana, and Montana politics is a mixed bag, at best. 

They are somewhat progressive on the environment, but if you think 90% of Montanans were probably in favor of universal background checks, you're likely mistaken. They are very much against any kind of gun control. While they were outspoken in their opposition to a "public option" because they don't want the federal government telling them what to do, they are one of the few states actively considering a single-payer system. They are a right to work state, but because of their colorful past history of corruption, they are extremely vocal against Citizens United. 

So, tell me. Is Montana conservative or liberal? 

Like all states, it's a mixed bag, although they lean more to the right overall.

When You Look At the Facts, Republican Incompetence is Obvious

I saw an article in my news feed Friday saying that Ohio led the nation in job losses for March. Was this despite the fact that the last election left the entire state dominated by Republicans, or because of it? The answer is obvious, and it's obvious nationwide, if you bother to look closely. Since many don't have time to look, I've decided to take on the job myself. The data in this article will prove that, when you vote Republican, you vote for incompetence. Of course, when you listen to their rhetoric, why would you expect otherwise? Their main theme is that government doesn't work, so if they did a good job, they'd undermine everything they claim to believe.

Am I partisan? Yes. I am a Democrat, and I am a liberal. But my first political mentor was a Republican, and there was a time I could vote for the occasional Republican and not feel bad about it. But no more. Not only is the current GOP corrupt and ideologically repulsive; they also demonstrate an immense level of incompetence. 

The Republicans these days are anti-everything, and that's no way to run a government. Our government is supposed to be to do what the democracy tells them to do. Today's Republicans don't just fail to do that; they refuse to. They do whatever they want, regardless of what anyone thinks. There is no equivalence to be made with the current Democratic Party, and this post will show you exactly what I mean. Democrats have a strong record of competence, regardless of whether or not you think they say and/or do the right thing at any one time. 

A Progressive Manifesto - Adopt These, We Win

One problem progressives have these days is our horrible sense of PR. 

Most people, meaning the moderates and swing voters we must reach in order to have any sort of electoral success, agree with us on a number of issues. But we do several things that poison us in their eyes. We label them as something we think of as pejorative, like "centrist" (gasp!). Then, we get really wonky, to the point that we obsess over silly details, such as whether or not they "believe" in climate change. Ten, we obsess over more silly details, like whether or not people should use the terms "global warming" or "climate change." We are so obsessive with irrelevant details (to the people we're talking to) we don't even get around to discussing possible solutions to problems.

Put simply, most people already understand the aspects of the problems we face, because they live them every day.  They want to vote for people who'll solve the problems, even if they don't know or care about them as much as you. We have to engage people with solutions, not constantly reiterate the problems.