President Obama’s State of the Union address and the Republican Response by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell each called, as they should have, for a renewed focus by government on jobs and the economy. Within that broad charge, however, there was another, more surprising, point of agreement—at least at the rhetorical level. Both speeches challenged our government to focus simultaneously on creating greater and more equal opportunity.
The President declared that “we need to invest in the skills and education of our people,” and announced initiatives that The Opportunity Agenda has long promosted, including sidestepping banks to provide increased college aid directly to disadvantaged students through Pell grants and tax credits instead of loans, doubling the child care tax credit, incentivizing job creation through our tax code, and moving forward on commonsense immigration reform.
The end of a year – and especially the end of a decade – warrants both retrospective reflection and predictions of what is to come. Currently there seems to be much consensus, especially around the 2000s as a decade of struggle and decline for the US. There is a silver lining, however, in the cautious optimism around the issue of race relations. As the decade comes to a close, it is still clear that the US is entering the 2010s with much work to do, particularly with the economy and unemployment. Below is recent public opinion on the past decade, the current climate, and what may be in the next ten years.
Like many of you, I like to watch movies. Even today, they're still a lot of feel-good, old-fashioned hits that make your heart warm. Things like Slumdog Millionaire and National Treasure.
In National Treasure - the sequel, that is - there exists a scene in which the main character kidnaps the president; its necessary to "find the treasure." It's one of the scenes I remember, not because it's particularly memorable or even good, but because of what the scene expresses. The movie respects the president. He's fundamentally a decent guy or gal who's going to do the right thing in the end. For that, the president deserves our respect. And in National Treasure, he gets it.
Perhaps a lot of more sophisticated persons might view these sentiments as naive. But I'm sure many viewers of Fox News have the same, old-fashioned beliefs. With regard to George Bush in particular, I'm sure many of them believed that he was decent man trying to do the right thing for our country. Whatever his mistakes, he deserved our respect.
Which is why it so disturbs me to watch Fox News today. The channel's attitude is consistently disrespectful to our president. Fox commentators are free - are encouraged, in fact - to ridicule and malign the leader of our nation. They operate from the assumption that Barack Obama is not a decent man and that he does not want to do the right thing for the country. They seem to think that our commander-in-chief is an enemy or something, just because he happens to be a Democrat.
That's bad. It's bad for the president. It's bad for our country, because a polarized nation with a paralyzed leader is always in a state of weakness. Think about Iran today. It's even bad for Fox News and the Republicans, because when they do come up with legitimate criticism - the president's not going to listen anymore. They'll have long lost all their credibility.
Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned type of guy, but I think that our president deserves respect.
On issue after issue, President Obama is locked in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people. At issue-transcending health care reform, economic stimulus, the bailout of banks and automakers, and beyond-is the role of government in our society.
The president is well aware of the terms of this struggle. As he told NBC News in September, "It's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is, 'What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another?' . . . This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions."
After a year it's worth looking back to when the United States elected a Democrat to the office of President of the United States with a majority of popular votes, the electoral college, and no input from the Supreme Court for the first time in 32 years. The changes in the behavior and composition of the electorate over those 30 years have been dramatic. The maps below show 2008 results and compare them to 1988.
Click to enlarge.
More maps and analysis for the nostalgic can be found in a diary here.
This diary is the introduction to a series exploring the electorate of 2008.
New Orleans may sink into the sea by 2100. Much of Florida may also be underwater by then. Drought will likely become the norm out West, meaning California could no longer provide the food we depend upon. Las Vegas may become downright inhabitable.
No, I'm not fabricating any of this. These will be the consequences of inaction if we continue to delay implementing the solutions we need to solve the coming climate crisis. But for some reason, may of our supposedly wise lawmakers in Capitol Hill are either willfully ignorant of the facts or downright lying about our future.
As lawmakers consider a sweeping overhaul of the nation's health care system, we analyzed the most recent public opinion findings, and present them below. The highlights include: 1. Demand for major reform of the system immediately, 2. Guaranteeing that everyone has access to health care is very important, 3. Americans live in fear of loosing their health care coverage, and finally, 4. Public attitudes on reform are reminiscent of those in 1993.
Demand for fundamental change or reform of the system now.
86% say that they view health care reform as an integral part of tackling the nation’s economic crisis - survey by the University of Michigan financed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
71% say that the health care system needs to be completely rebuilt (41%) or needs fundamental changes (30%) - Pew Research Centerpoll, June 10-14.
61% say that it is more important than ever to take on health care reform now especially given the serious economic problems facing the country - Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, June.
43% of voters think that their ability to get affordable health care will become worse than before the current economic situation, 30% that it will become better, and 22% that it will go back to the way it was before - ABC News June poll.
A majority (53%) think that changing the system so that all Americans are guaranteed access to all medically necessary care is a more important goal than finding a way to limit the overall annual increase in health care costs (36%). In 1993, that the results to the same question were 74% to 20% respectively - Pew Research Center.
Prevention oriented health care: 76% of voters believe the level of funding for prevention should be increased. Support is high across the political spectrum, and demographic groups (for instance 86% of Dem, 71% of Rep, and 70% of Ind) -Democracy Corps Survey, May ’09.
72% of Americans state health care is a human right in a ’07 survey of Americans by Belden Russonello and Stewart for The Opportunity Agenda. Extended focus group research among specific demographic groups that make up 60% of the population, indicated that health care is seen as a “basic necessity” for survival like food and shelter, as well as needed to fulfill the human right to “pursuit of happiness.”
Reduction of health care premiums and costs, and security are the most important elements of a reformed system for Americans, including “that no one would ever again lose coverage and no insurance company could drop a consumer or raise rates for pre-existing conditions, health, gender or age” - Democracy Corps June 2009.
Public attitudes on health care and their expectations for reform have not changed. Similarly to 1993:
A large majority wants change. Almost 60% are dissatisfied with the current health care system, and three-quarters say health care should be either completely rebuilt or reformed in major ways. Dissatisfaction is higher among those who lack coverage, unemployed, and married women.
Public wants reform but is risk averse. A large majority is dissatisfied with the health insurance system in the U.S. but only a small minority (24%) is dissatisfied with their own health insurance plans- and here lays the people. Based on focus groups by Democracy Corps following their survey [and by others including research by Belden, Russonello and Stewart for The Opportunity Agenda] are showing people are not satisfied [but rather risk averse] - they have traded off wage increases, stayed in a job rather than leave, paid into a high-deductible plan, and made other compromises so they can have insurance and their choice of doctor when they need it. But that makes those voters who want reform risk averse — they want to confirm key elements in the plan.
39% think that they and their family would be better off if the President and Congress passed health care reform, while 36% think that it wouldn’t make a difference.
The president's plan is favored by a small majority (45%), and opposed by 36%. The above findings are based on a new Democracy Corps June survey where Stan Greenberg, pollster for Clinton at the tenure of his effort for health care reform, replicated questions he asked in 1993 for the President. Greenberg is convinced that “the country will support comprehensive health care reform — if progressives respect how voters will assess our plans, provide key information about how reform will work (particularly to reduce costs) and if the President carries forward with his educative role.”
No, it's not a typo. As the health care debate quickly becomes a core schism between tweaking the current private insurance scheme and establishing a robust public option to compete against it, not only are the President and Oregon's senior Senator currently holding opposite ground on the matter, both are beginning to harden their rhetoric and dig in their heels. What's even more surprising is that Senator Wyden is slowly emerging as the standard bearer of REPUBLICAN opposition to a public option, gathering supporters for (or allowing them to hide behind) his significant but ultimately nontransformational proposal for reform.
Think I'm making that up?
{Jump below for the case...}
In the LA Times today Michael McGough is pushing Rush Limbaugh for Congress. It would put Limbaugh, he argues, in a better position to help President Obama fail.
I think instead that Limbaugh should make a run for President in 2012. First, he's already the de facto head of the GOP as Rahm Emanuel pointed out yesterday.
This fact became even more clear in the last 24 hours. Yesterday RNC head Michael Steele said "No, I am the head of the party" and at the same time criticized Rush and his show. Today Steele is apologizing for those remarks. Limbaugh is easily the most popular figure among GOP voters. If Sarah Palin for VP was such a great idea based on how she fired up the base, increased donations, etc., Limbaugh should clearly be seen as manna from heaven. Imagine the contributions. And unlike Palin he is capable of speaking in complete sentences.
But as popular as he is among the far right, he is simultaneously the least popular media figure on the scene today. A Gallup poll last month shows Independent voters against him 2-to-1 and a previous Gallup poll from 6 years ago is much the same. Another poll last fall showed Limbaugh less popular that Jeremiah Wright.
And check out this poll by Rasmussen two years ago showing Rush Limbaugh as, by far, having the highest unfavorables of the media personalities they polled.
Al Franken was among the first to capitalize on the deep well of animosity Americans have for Limbaugh. His 1999 book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" spent 23 weeks on the best seller list and helped launched his career as a political commentator and, sometime soon, as a Senator. I think that book may have ultimately made it harder for Franken to be taken seriously as a candidate but, that issue aside, he clearly tapped into a reservoir of Rush hate.
A run by Rush would crystalize everything people already believe about the Republican party and virtually guarantee continued minority party status for the GOP. So I second McGough's call: Run Rush run! For President.
This week President Obama promoted his much-needed economic recovery package in a prime-time news conference and a trip to economically depressed Elkhart, Indiana, where the unemployment rate has topped 15%. Cities and towns like Elkhart are bellwethers for where the nation as a whole could be headed without swift and bold governmental action.
As the President said in Elkhart, "That is not only our moral responsibility - to lend a helping hand to our fellow Americans in times of emergency - but it also makes good economic sense. If you don't have money, you can't spend it. And if people don't spend, our economy will continue to decline."
There's another bellwether even closer to home for the nation's first black president. Unemployment among African Americans rose in January to 12.6 percent, nearly double the current, already high rate of unemployment (6.9 percent) for white Americans. African Americans struggled throughout the 1960s, '70s, and '80s to gain equal access to manufacturing jobs, only to see those jobs evaporate with the advent of globalization. With the weak economy, their inroads into other sectors like education, healthcare, and construction are faltering as well.
What is a daunting economic recession for most of the nation is a crushing Great Depression for many of America's communities of color. Black male unemployment in New York City, for example, was a staggering 49% before the current recession. The Native American unemployment rate on reservations is upwards of 80%.
Welcome to the new White House administration, in which we move forward with purpose. On President Obama's very first day in office, immigrants and allies marched on ICE headquarters to signify their for change. Racewire reports that yesterday, "hundreds gathered in DC, a day after inaugurating our new president, to demand A New Day for Immigration." George W. Bush waved goodbye by commuting the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean,two former border guards who shot a man trying to escape arrest and then tried to cover their deed up. Bush claimed Ramos and Compean had
"suffered enough" after serving a fifth of their sentence and set them free, though he did not pardon them. Air America reports on the controversial decision in Bush Commutes Border Agent Sentences (video).
It's hard to overstate the transformative moment that we're in as a nation and, particularly, as progressives. In just a few years, we've gone from the high point of conservative power to a stunning rejection of conservative federal leadership and the historic election of a progressive African-American president.
But the electoral sea change is just part of the extraordinary national moment. The financial meltdown and slide toward deep recession have crystallized Americans' anger over deteriorating economic security, stagnant mobility, growing inequality, and policies of isolation instead of connection. Americans are ready for a new social compact and a transformed relationship between the people and our government. They are calling for a new era of big ideas and different values than we've seen over most of the past three decades.
The electorate has shown an unprecedented willingness to overcome racial and ethnic barriers to take on daunting shared challenges. Young people, people of color, and low-income people turned out to register and vote in unprecedented numbers that bode well for a far more participatory and egalitarian democracy going forward.
Even before this year's remarkable events, opinion research showed a historic, progressive shift in Americans' views on issues that (not coincidentally) were barely mentioned in the election. Perhaps most striking is the shift on criminal justice and problems of addiction, where the U.S. public has moved broadly to support rehabilitation and treatment over incarceration and retribution, as well as assistance and integration for people emerging from prison.
But an unprecedented opportunity for progressive values and ideas is not the same as victory for a progressive social and policy vision. The stark challenges of rising inequality, faltering security, and broken systems of health care, immigration, and criminal justice are the same on November 5 as they were on November 4. What's changed is only the chance for transformative change.
History shows that progressives could easily blow this opportunity, just as conservatives blew their transformative moments after the 1994 elections and the attacks of September 11, 2001. A few principles can help progressives move from opportunity to realization in ways that profoundly benefit our country.
Which candidates and interest groups did you hear from on the eve of the election?
On Monday afternoon at 1:40 pm I got a robocall urging me to "get the facts" before voting. The "facts" are that Jerry Sullivan (Democratic candidate in Iowa House district 59) supported the Project Destiny proposal, which Polk County voters resoundingly rejected in a July 2007 referendum.
Waiting until the night before the election is too easy. Making predictions in July is just plain stupid. Making predictions two weeks out is just right. So let's see what you've got.
On the plus side for McCain, just about everyone agreed that putting an anti-abortion mother-of-five on the ticket would delight the evangelical Christians who were so crucial to George Bush's re-election.
Although the "pro-family" interest groups applauded McCain's choice, I had a hunch that Palin wouldn't be unanimously embraced by the evangelical rank and file.
I lurk and occasionally comment at a few "mommy blogs" written by religious conservatives. Checking in on some popular sites in the evangelical Christian blogosphere over the weekend, I did find some commentaries that praised Palin for her views and for continuing a pregnancy while carrying a child with Down syndrome.
However, if you join me after the jump, you'll see that plenty of evangelicals are far from "fired up and ready to go" for this Republican ticket.
This should be our refrain, our only talking point about the selection:
Who chose Palin?
Well, it certainly wasn't John McCain.
McCain only met Palin once, six months ago. Unlike every other major party VP nominee in recent memory, Palin did not meet McCain for a final interview before her selection. A few weeks ago, she wasn't in the running at all. The scandals and unorthodoxies involving Palin -- she flip-flopped on the Bridge to Nowhere and even raised sales taxes on her small town to pay for an overpriced boondoggle -- show that the McCain campaign didn't vet her. The McCains and Palins looked visibly awkward together, not even speaking as they went their separate ways on a brief shopping trip in Ohio yesterday. McCain is on record as saying he wanted a running mate with whom he had a strong personal relationship -- and who was ready to be president.
This was clearly not his pick. So again: Who chose Palin?
Was it Dick Cheney? Or Karl Rove? Or maybe James Dobson?
There are four major advantages to pursuing this line of attack:
Following the premise of Head of State, McCain chooses Sarah Palin as his running mate, undercutting his own arguments for his own selection, but (possibly) opening new doors for the party's future.
From the about section of the ActBlue page I've created:
Despite the self-important screechings of the traditional media, the hurt feelings and ruffled feathers of the primary season are not insurmoutable. Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked to unite the Democratic Party with their rousing convention speeches and gracious support of Obama during the delegate voting process. Now it's time to reward Hillary for being a team player by helping pay off her campaign debt.
And while we're at it, lets give Barack Obama, who was equally gracious in victory, the funds he needs to expand the map, create coattails for down-ballot races, and end the conservative governing that thinks that all social issues are due to gays, Atheists, Hollywood, and working women, that the way to solve all economic ills are tax cuts for the super rich, and that war will solve all of America's international problems.
In the 
