The Alarm Clock
Written by Larry Marciniak Tuesday, 09 February 2010 20:15
Views from Members
THE ALARM CLOCK
The sound you heard on January 19th was the alarm clock telling Democrats to wake up. The trembling you felt was not an aftershock from Haiti. It was Senator Kennedy rolling over in his grave. The noise you heard on January 21st was the other shoe falling in Washington, D.C.
The blame game
Even before the polls closed on Tuesday the blame game started. There was more finger pointing than in one of America’s most famous political cartoons depicting the Tea Pot Dome Scandal. Most of us,
I’m ashamed to admit - myself included, don’t remember the details of the scandal but we remember the cartoon. The two things that scare me the most are that there was certainly some substance to most of the accusations and they didn’t completely cover the debacle.
We need to do a better job of selecting candidates
Just because someone has previously won state wide office does not mean they can do it again. All offices do not receive equal attention from the voters!
H. Carl McCall comes to mind. He had been elected New York State Comptroller. In 2002 he was the Democratic candidate for Governor. He received an embarrassing 33% of the vote. Most voters pay attention to the race for Governor. State Comptroller is an afterthought.
Martha Coakley is the current Attorney General in Massachusetts. While that office is certainly important and has an impact on the lives of citizens it does not command the same level of voter attention as United States Senator. Just because Martha Coakley had won the Attorney General race did not guarantee she could win the United States Senate race. It made her someone the Democratic Party in Massachusetts should consider, but it was only one factor.
Our selection in the 2009 Virginia Governor’s race was even worse. The Democratic candidate was Creigh Deeds. In 2005 he lost, albeit narrowly, his only attempt at statewide election. That was the lower profile race for Virginia Attorney General.
The Coakley campaign
There were many reports that Coakley was a lazy campaigner. I’m sure some are exaggerated but where there is this much smoke there is probably some fire. I’m willing to bet it was a case of “post 2008 Democratic flu”. This is a disease that affects Democratic candidates and activists. Its symptoms are unfounded complacency and overconfidence brought on by a tremendous victory in November of 2008. Hopefully the cure was a swift kick in the posterior on January 19, 2010.
Gaffes are part of any campaign. All candidates make them and quick damage control is the best strategy. Some are just too stupid to make go away quickly. Our candidate had two in this campaign.
First she made a statement that Al-Qaeda was out of Afghanistan. In her defense, that statement was slightly mischaracterized as her stating that there were no terrorists in Afghanistan. I viewed the tapes of that television appearance. Her statement was, at best, clumsy. The next questions dealt with whether she was, as someone who has dealt with state and county issues, comfortable with dealing with national and international issues? I must plead ignorance of the journalist questioning her. I assume he is a good journalist and was trying to be fair, but especially in that context Martha didn’t look good.
People in New England have an almost religious devotion to the Boston Red Sox. She misidentified Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan. Curt Schilling pitched for the Boston Red Sox and is considered a hero in Red Sox nation. The Yankees are considered the Evil Empire. My opinion of Curt Schilling is shared by a lot of people around Major League Baseball – he is someone who has an opinion about everything and would be better served if he kept his uninformed mouth shut. I was ineligible to vote in the race, but millions of Red Sox fans did vote in it. Candidates beware; if you don’t know what you are talking about don’t unnecessarily go there!
The Massachusetts Democratic Party
I am dealing with some unofficial data because the results haven’t even been certified as of this writing; however for our purposes they will be accurate enough. The Massachusetts voter turnout in November 2008 was approximately 3.1 million. The turnout for this special election was approximately 2.2 million. That figure is very comparable to the 2006 statewide election that featured both a Governor and United States Senate race.
The last affiliation numbers I saw for Massachusetts broke down at 41% Democratic, 39% Independent and 19% Republican. That is not a misprint. Independents make up a much larger share of the registrants than Republicans. Do you think if we had done a better job with the 900,000 “under vote” we may have been able to prevail? While President Obama is our leader – and I’m very happy about that – he is not the entire Party or philosophy. He has the potential to be a transformational President, but he lacks superpowers and cannot do it alone.
There was a lot of great work done by state and local parties during the 2008 campaign. Much of it had to do with voter registration. Pennsylvania was a state that registered a net Democratic gain measured in the hundreds of thousands. What good is it if we don’t get these voters to the polls in subsequent elections? Speaking of Pennsylvania there is a Senate seat at stake in 2010.
State parties need to do a better job of candidate selection and generating voter turnout. That is the bottom line.
The National Democratic Party
Again, stories will be blown out of proportion but it appears complacency and early polling results lulled us to sleep. No entity has unlimited resources and some rationing is necessary, however, was the national help too little too late? It seems the only answer would have to be one in the affirmative. How did this happen? There were no other races to focus on. This was the only show in town, or the country to be more accurate. Was the National Party too distracted by the holiday season to pay attention to business?
I know that Senator Kennedy’s “machine” sent help to other states to facilitate a last minute push when needed over the years. Didn’t his legacy deserve a return of the favors? Perhaps too many of us were sitting back feeling fat from our 2008 win and those great holiday meals.
Endorsements
One thing that struck me was how late the Kennedy family endorsement of Martha Coakley came. It was barely a week before Election Day. Why the delay? It reminds me of a late endorsement that helped cost a little election in 2000 you may remember. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia endorsed Al Gore just before Election Day. Al Gore lost West Virginia. Had Al Gore won any of the states he lost the Florida recount would not have mattered.
Not all endorsements by members of your party are equal. At the risk of sounding Orwellian, a Kennedy in Massachusetts or a Byrd in West Virginia is much more than equal! The late endorsement is almost a signal of a lukewarm endorsement. Any good candidate knows who the kingmakers are. Give them the respect they deserve and get their endorsements early. Handled properly, their endorsements often bring workers and donations along with votes.
Summarizing Massachusetts
May I be the first to apologize to the memory of Senator Kennedy. We disgraced your legacy by not defending your seat. I, for one, learned a lesson. I will never take a race for granted again. The blame should be shared at all levels of the Party and goes right down to an obscure guy like me who writes an occasional essay.
Aside from providing a wakeup call, the good news is that your seat will be up for reelection in 2012. Scott Brown should be an easy target, but he should have never won in the first place and how much harm can he help the Republicans do to America between now and then?
The Supreme Court
When we think of the Federal Government or Washington as we like to call it, we think of the Presidency, the House and the Senate. We tend to forget the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has actually been an important issue in the last several Presidential campaigns but received attention only from the nerdy few like yours truly. Most Americans forget that the President gets to name Supreme Court Justices who, after confirmation by the Senate, serve for as long as they wish. While Senate confirmation is not an automatic, Senators realize that the President is only going to stray so far from his own political philosophy and therefore often vote to confirm a nominee feeling that this is the best they are going to get. Can you say Chief Justice Roberts?
The Supreme Court is a very powerful, and theoretically co-equal, branch of government. In actuality they can countermand laws passed by the legislative branch with the collaboration of the executive branch. In effect they can negate the actions of the two branches of government that report to the people via elections. Since they rule on the constitutionality of laws they constrain any attempt to counter their rulings via new legislation. Also, once The Court has made a ruling it is generally considered settled law and future Courts are reluctant to rule in a contrary manner.
Thursday, Bloody Thursday
On Thursday January 21, 2010 by a 5 to 4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that in effect no restrictions could be put on the financial political activities of corporations with relation to Federal Elections. This has the feel of Bush II administration decisions that had no thought to its consequences. Why would that be so unexpected? After all a 5 to 4 vote by the same Justices or their handpicked predecessors was what brought George W. Bush to power in the first place.
Among other laws, this ruling substantially threw out McCain-Feingold. McCain-Feingold was the collaboration of Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. They are very opposite politically. Russ Feingold is one of the most progressive members of the Senate and risks the possibility of failing to get reelected with bold and principled stands. John McCain, in his post 2000 incarnation, has become a high profile hack for the Republican leadership. McCain-Feingold started out as an attempt to get the money out of Federal elections. It was substantially watered down in the legislative process. That was not enough for its opponents. Crippling was not sufficient only death would suffice.
Sounds like judges legislating from the bench to me. Conservatives rail against this calling them “activist judges”. What was the conservative reaction? John Boehner (R – Ohio-8), House Minority Leader and Ohio’s “man of color” said it was a, “Victory for the First Amendment… and a good start.” In the view of conservatives I assume judges are only activist judges if they rule against conservative views. Overturning settled law and laws passed by congress in a bipartisan manner are fine if it fits conservative philosophy. They won a victory for the present, who cares about the long term effect on the country or for that matter the Republican Party? Yes I contend that if this ruling is unchecked, in the long run even the Republican Party will be worse off. However, before that happens the nation and the Democratic Party will suffer.
OK, so what’s the big deal anyway?
Corporations, as a result of this ruling, may now spend unlimited money in the support of any candidate for the House, Senate or the Presidency. Envision some of these, I contend, not only possible but likely scenarios:
Health insurance companies raise rates to accumulate extra cash to spend to defeat a Senator in New York favorable to health care reform. They raise rates nationwide so a gal in Kansas has her premium dollars spent to defeat a Senator in New York who she happens to agree with.
Banks raise fees nationwide to raise money to help defeat a Congressman from Massachusetts who is trying to protect consumers from abusive banking practices. A Grandmother in Iowa helps fund the campaign of a congressional candidate in Massachusetts she never heard of and doesn’t support.
Oil companies raise gasoline and fuel oil prices to help defeat an environmentally conscious Senator from California. Some Dad working two jobs in Minnesota has to tell his kids he can’t buy them something because he has to put more money into the family vehicles’ gas tanks to fund the race of someone he disagrees with politically in a different state.
I could go on but I think you get the idea. Perhaps you disagree and feel I’m overreacting. Let me tell you of two personal experiences within the last year before this decision.
In Florida, I went to pay my power bill and while waiting in the lobby I viewed misleading signs referring to the “dire consequences” of pending cap and trade legislation. I asked the clerk who wrote them? Michele Bachmann? It had the type of misleading, and I’m being kind, information that the Representative from Minnesota is famous for using on the House floor. I received no answer. To my shame I did not pursue it. This was from an electric co-op. As a customer I’m an owner and my money was being used to spread falsehoods that certainly did not represent my political beliefs.
In North Carolina, my health insurance provider did a mass mailing fear mongering the consequences of health care reform this summer. They had all the dastardly deeds documented even as the bills, yes multiple and different bills, were being revised daily. Nobody knew, or as of this writing still knows, what a final bill, if in fact one ever comes to exist, will look like except for the people at Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina that is. My premium dollars and yes there has been an increase in the interim, used against my best interests and certainly without my input. This action did raise a public uproar. Who knows, perhaps they will face a fine that they will pay with my premium dollars. Then they can justify another rate increase.
An initial Republican victory?
In a worst case scenario every congressional seat in addition to the one in The Oval Office will be for sale. To paraphrase a line from an old movie that regrettably I have forgotten the name of, why become a Senator when you can own a few? Especially with the rules of the Senate, if a special interest controls a Senator or two it can bottle up legislation for a long time and very possibly kill it. Some of that appears to have already happened under the current system prior to January 21st, but would be exacerbated and open under the new rules.
Senators McCain and Feingold, more odd fellows than Felix and Oscar, realized that as much as possible getting money out of politics was good for the country. If you think the last record setting Presidential race featured big money, as the song says, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!” A lot of money was raised via the internet in small increments. That sounds like good participatory democracy to me. People felt personally involved and invested. Looking at some of the recent fundraising by colleges and disaster relief agencies I expected social media to play a part in the 2012 election, again in the way of small donations from individuals. How many $20.00 donations does it take to counterbalance a 1 billion dollar corporate outlay? Answer: 50 million. How many states have a population of 50 million? Answer: None. California is the closest and it falls short by about Illinois. A one billion dollar corporate outlay could offset any reasonable public monetary grassroots outcry.
The Republicans have long been the party of big business and will benefit in the short run. Their platform more closely resembles the desires of big business. Initially big business will target progressive Democrats. After time they will own the Republicans in office and will dictate their votes or threaten them with primary challenges until they are little more than employees. Any semblance of integrity or independence will vanish.
The Supreme Court just burned the flag
Foreign financial involvement is not allowed in elections and for good reason. In today’s global economy just what is an American corporation? Fox News, owned by News Corp., has all but seized the American flag as its corporate logo. Rupert Murdoch is the largest stockholder and he is an Australian. Good people the Australians and loyal U.S. allies also. What is the nationality of the second largest stockholder? If you said Saudi you are correct. This may be an extreme, if not well known, example but what is to prevent huge foreign money from influencing our elections?
What is at stake short run?
If the 111th is our last freely, or at least reasonably, elected congress imagine the 112th taking its seats minus Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd’s seat in Connecticut, Ron Wyden, Roland Burris’ seat in Illinois, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Charley Rangel and Ed Markey just to name a few. Can’t happen you say? They are too solid. Who would have thought a Republican would have won Ted Kennedy’s seat? Remember that was before unlimited corporate money. Under the new rules no seat is a safe seat if we have any kind of Democratic complacency!
By the way what do all of the above have in common? They are up for reelection in November of this year.
What’s at stake in the long run?
Just imagine Congress without people like the ones I named above and scores of others like them. What law, regardless of how bad it was for the nation as a whole, could not be enacted to serve the master of the member? What member of Congress will be able to resist the impulse for self preservation and avoid selling out?
Whether you like him or not, Barack Obama could very well be the last President elected by the people of the United States of America. The next may be the President from Exxon-Mobil, United Health Care, Bank of America, Phillip Morris, News Corp., Microsoft, (hey they are one of the good guys but business is business), and Goldman Sachs.
Is it all over?
No! We have a few hopes and there are certainly some things we can do and just as important some things we must not do.
Durocher was right but
Leo Durocher was one of baseball’s most colorful characters. I love his saying, “I’d rather be lucky than good.” I have long held that the two biggest problems with modern business are departmentalization and the focus on the short term. That is the subject for another essay if not a couple of full length books. For our purposes let’s look at one of the roots of short term thinking in business, namely greed.
We can hope that the greed of corporations makes them either get into such fierce competition over buying politicians that they make the system totally dysfunctional or that they simply destroy the economy to the point that they eliminate Americans ability to provide a viable market for goods and services.
Taking the second case first, if we are no longer a viable market for goods and services what standard of living do we have left? Is that the America I know and love? The king (corporation) may not really love his subjects (customers) but without them is he really the king?
If the corporations have gotten into such a money war over buying politicians that they spend themselves broke they will have done it with our money and we therefore will go broke in the process. Also consumers depend on the corporations for goods and services they need to attain the lifestyles they desire.
Maybe lucky isn’t so lucky in this case.
What should we do?
In the event that fortune doesn’t come our way perhaps we had better concentrate on prowess. Yeah, I stole that one from some dead Italian guy. Swift legislation, grassroots education and presenting our superior alternative are the strategies we need to follow.
Swift legislation
Representative Barney Frank has already begun work in this area. Anything that can constrain this ruling must happen fast. First off, the 2010 elections are right around the corner and this ruling very much affects them.
Let me state that I am not against corporations having any financial voice in federal elections; I just want reasonable limits on them. I also want swift transparencies which this ruling allows for.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer but the President is. Any laws that can be enacted will stand until struck down by the Supreme Court if in fact that happens. Also, the structure of the statues determine how and if The Court can negate them. The conservative majority on The Court can stretch the law considerably but they still need some basis upon which to rule.
Grassroots education
We need to educate the public as to the danger of this ruling. On Bloody Thursday, (yeah I stole that one from Bono and U2), most of media paid this ruling precious little attention. They spent much more of their time and resources covering the John Edwards paternity story. In my mind that is a soap opera preempting hard news. The paternity of that baby will never impact the lives of my grandchildren. This ruling will.
Had the NCAA declared that football players no longer had to attend classes and could be paid to stay at a college as long as the college wanted them to instead of going to the NFL there would have been a tremendous outcry that we were ruining the game with such a radical rule change. Put our government up for unconstrained sale and the reaction is primarily apathy and ignorance. Perhaps we care for our circuses more than our bread. Wow, some of those dead Italians really were smart.
We need to make the public aware of the dangers before they wake up and say, “What happened?” We can use the traditional mass media methods, but we will be outgunned. Mass media costs huge money. Where do the interests of those with the most money lie? Not in reining in this ruling.
Therefore we need to do a lot of community outreach. Our presence at community events and a few one on one conversations will go a long way for a short buck. It is relatively inexpensive to set up a booth complete with some posters and handouts. If we don’t have knowledgeable activists among us that are willing to volunteer to staff the booths then we deserve what we get. Apathy is no longer an option! This is simply a more cost efficient variation on the tried and true door to door politicking.
What we can’t do
We can’t become Republicans Lite. We have to stand for something. I see a few of our elected officials are already retreating. We have a better philosophy for America. If we begin to act like Republicans what choice do we offer America? Then it really does make voting an exercise in futility. We have tried their ways and they didn’t work. We are still cleaning up many of the social and economic messes of the Reagan and Bush II administrations in particular.
President Obama is a great student of history to the benefit of us all. He needs to draw two lessons from the Clinton administration. What to do and what not to do. When Newt Gingrich tried to bully President Clinton the President stood firm and called the Speaker’s bluff. He let Gingrich shut down the government and made sure the public knew where the blame lied. Gingrich and the Republicans, not Clinton and the Democrats paid the political price. While the Clinton administration was generally a very successful one, where the shortcomings have come to light it is generally in the areas where Clinton compromised too much and stopped acting like a progressive. What would make Obama think that today’s Republicans are going to abandon the party of no strategy? It is working very well for them so far.
The Republicans have proven they value partisanship over patriotism. Need an example? Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina blocked the appointment of an extremely well qualified candidate to head the TSA. The statement about his qualifications is not just my opinion; he passed out of committee unanimously. That committee happens to be chaired by an Independent and like all Senate committees includes Democrats and Republicans. Thanks to that “American patriot” Jim DeMint, the TSA was weakened on Christmas Day when the “underwear bomber” struck.
Putting it all in prospective
Rachel Maddow has done one of the best jobs of putting the Massachusetts Senate loss in perspective. Doctor Maddow states that Democrats still enjoy a 59-41 edge in the Senate. I might massage her figures just a tad but she is on the right track. We have 2 Independents that caucus with us: Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Senator Sanders is more progressive than many Democrats and can be counted on for any worthwhile pursuit. Senator Lieberman has become a walking contradiction and his dependability leaves everything to be desired, but he is a topic for another day and another essay. When the tent gets this large and diverse solidarity is almost impossible to achieve. All that being said Harry Reid still has numbers to work with that many past Senate Majority Leaders would have envied.
So for all you Chicken Little Democrats, grow up, get up and start working!
The larger problem is actually the Supreme Court ruling. The solution is education. Get out and start teaching the general public and build a genuine grassroots understanding and support for constraint. Money can buy advertising until we all puke from it but people still vote. Reach out to the people!
Many of us ask God to bless America, but it is up to you to save it.
Larry Marciniak
January 2010