Blog entry

Moguls Steal Home While Companies Strike Out

Bill Moyers — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:28:27 -0400

From our offices in Manhattan, we look out on the tall, gleaming skyscrapers that are cathedrals of wealth and power -- the Olympus ruled by the gods of finance, the temples of the mighty, the holy of holies, whose priests guard the sacred texts of salvation -- the ones containing the secrets of subprime lending and derivatives as mysterious and elusive as the Grail itself.

This last couple of weeks, ordinary mortals below could almost hear the ripcords of golden parachutes being pulled as the divinities on high prepared for soft, safe landings -- all this while tossing their workers like sacrificial lambs into the purgatory of unemployment.

During the last five years of his tenure as CEO of now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld’s total take was $354 million. John Thain, the current chairman of Merrill Lynch, taken over this week by Bank of America, has been on the job for just nine months. He pocketed a $15 million signing bonus. His predecessor, Stan O’Neal, retired with a package valued at $161 million, after the company reported an eight billion dollar loss in a single quarter. And remember Bear Stearns Chairman James Cayne? After the company collapsed earlier this year and was up for sale at bargain basement prices, he sold his for more than $60 million.

But let’s change the metaphor for a moment and go to our sports desk, because if religion is no longer the soul of capitalism, as Max Weber once taught us it was, we have to venture somewhere else to try to understand the continuing follies of the new Gilded Age. And so we travel just a few miles north of Wall Street to the House that Ruth Built. Yankee Stadium, as fabled a place to Americans as Ilium was to the ancient Greeks, is about to be demolished and replaced next year by a brand new ballpark.

In 1930, the year after the market crashed, as the Great Depression began, Babe Ruth was taking home $80,000 a year, more than the President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. "Why not?" Ruth asked. "I had a better year than he did."

Yankee star Alex Rodriguez had a better year than both of them. This season, A-Rod is making $28 million, just part of an annual Yankee payroll of $209 million, the richest in baseball. Their owner, George Steinbrenner, is among the Forbes 400, one of the country’s richest tycoons.

But when it came to paying for the new, $1.3 billion pleasure dome, the millionaires on the field and King Midas in his skybox came up with some razzle-dazzle plays to finance their new wealth machine -- tax-free bonds, requiring ordinary citizens to subsidize the construction, and hundreds of millions more for new parking garages, a train station and parks that supposedly will replace the ones seized by the city to make room for the new stadium..

There will be 5,000 fewer seats in the stands. And while the Yankees reportedly promise that half of what’s left will cost $45 or less, those seats that used to cost $250, right behind the dugout, will now cost you $850. And if you want to be near home plate, you’ll have to cough up $2500 -- per game.

Meanwhile there will be more luxury suites and party rooms where fat cats can gather, safely removed from the sweaty masses. Corporations and wealthy individuals will be able to rent the luxury suites for anywhere from $600,000-$850,000 a year – tax deductible.

Why aren’t the fans and taxpayers giving the Yankees a Bronx cheer? They did, but city officials rolled over them while making sure local politicians stay in the lineup. The pols are getting their own luxury suite at the new stadium for free -- and first shot at buying the best available seats.

The new colossus will cast its majestic shadow across the South Bronx, one of the nation’s poorest neighborhoods. The residents will watch from the outside as suburban drivers avail themselves of 9,000 new or re furbished parking spaces. Never mind all the exhaust, even though in this part of New York City, respiratory disease is already so high they call it "Asthma Alley."

Not that the well to do in the infield seats will have to hear the wheezing. They’ll have exclusive access to a private club, a private entrance and a private elevator, totems of this Gilded Age. Let the games begin.

Written with Michael Winship.

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local air times or comment at The Moyers Blog at pbs.org/moyers.

Tackle Wealth Concentration

Sarah Anderson — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:45:17 -0400

We are retrieving your content. If it does not appear in a few seconds, please click here.

Indian Americans Could Be Critical To Election

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

MEMORANDUM TO FRIENDS OF CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE

FROM: Toby Chaudhuri, Campaign for America’s Future, Jim Gerstein, Gerstein-Agne Strategic Communications and Karl Agne, Gerstein-Agne Strategic Communications

SUBJECT: Indian American Qualitative Research - Summary Findings of Northern Virginia Focus Group

A focus group of likely Indian American voters conducted July 17, 2008 in Fairfax, Va. suggests that this audience could play a critical role in the 2008 election and beyond. Demographic research into the Indian American electorate shows this audience is highly educated, and this focus group indicates they are similar to other highly educated voters across the country in many respects. Most importantly, they see Barack Obama as a candidate who shares their values, has the right priorities for turning around our troubled economy, and is the best possible leader to re-establish our standing in the world. But these Indian American voters also shared some unique perspectives on what is happening in the world and what is required to address the challenges facing America today.

This focus group was the first of a potentially broader research project, and while we strongly caution against drawing actionable conclusions from a single 2-hour discussion with 7 people, the political attitudes and values of these participants suggest enormous opportunities to engage Indian Americans for support with progressive and Democratic battles. These voters clearly saw themselves aligned closely with Democrats and very far from Republicans on a wide range of economic, cultural and international issues.

Even though more than half of the group identified as independents or weak Democrats, the prevailing attitudes expressed in the focus group were very progressive and distinctly anti-Republican. Their extensive knowledge of political affairs was at the high end of what is traditionally seen in focus groups of college-educated swing voters. They were knowledgeable about some issues unique to their community, but these issues were not their priorities. And when it came to attitudes toward core issues like our country’s direction, the economy, the war in Iraq and energy policy, participants were virtually indistinguishable – in their diagnosis of the country’s ills, their indictment of President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, their policy prescriptions and their passion for a new direction – from other progressive-leaning Americans across the country.

We are pleased to offer this report on what marks the first exploration of this type with which we are familiar into this rapidly growing constituency that holds tremendous potential for political activism if properly engaged.

OVERALL POLITICAL MOOD

Participants universally agreed that America is facing numerous difficulties which are not being properly addressed. From domestic issues like the economy and the housing crisis to national security policy like the war in Iraq and mishandling the growing strength of other countries, there was an unmistakable sense that nothing is going right for our country. Like other Americans, their negative assessment begins with the economy which is simply not producing good jobs as the cost of living – particularly gas prices – continues to rise. As one woman noted, the recent tax rebate checks did little to help because they were spent on standard expenses as quickly as the rebates were received.

Even though the economy drove their sense of why the country is on the wrong track, this collection of well-educated and mostly white collar Indian American professionals were not angry about economic conditions or the causes of our current difficulties. Instead of the passionate attacks on corporate lobbyists or a corrupted political system that we have regularly witnessed throughout America over the last several years, these participants were much more analytical about what bothers them and they were hopeful about the future when this down cycle turns around. Moreover, they felt that each successive generation of Indian Americans has greater opportunity than previous generations, and they should be able to continue thriving in America.

Part of their analysis of why America is having problems emphasized the massive growth of the Chinese and Indian economies which constitutes something major taking place in the world and goes well beyond simple cyclical patterns that will correct themselves on their own. In this regard, participants felt it imperative for America to pursue a much better path in order to overcome our economic problems and maintain our competitive edge. They did not necessarily have a specific answer for how to achieve this – and their views were not tied to the outsourcing discussion prevalent across the country – but they repeatedly mentioned China and India as key influences on our economy and America must figure out how to turn these challenges into opportunities.

Most of the participants were first generation Americans, arriving in the last 10 to 15 years, and they had a deep appreciation for international affairs. In addition to their sensitivity and awareness of global economic influences, they brought a sophisticated view of the situation in Iraq. First and foremost, they were pained by the situation facing our soldiers. There is great appreciation for what the soldiers are doing for the country, yet anger at our leadership that went into Iraq unprepared and has spent too much money without due diligence. Iraq did not come up as a topic of discussion until the moderator prompted, but when it was raised, people expressed very strong opposition to the war. Despite their opposition and desire to end the war in Iraq, there was a clear sense that America has a responsibility not to leave a mess in Iraq. Still, they were acutely aware of the unlikelihood of stabilizing Iraq in the short term, and the desire to bring home our troops overwhelmed everything else. When presented with the choice of troop withdrawal or patiently sticking it out until American wins the war, every participant sided with the first statement as articulated below:

Our troops have fought bravely in Iraq and achieved all that can be done militarily, but now they are caught in a civil war that does nothing to make us safer. It will take time and has to be done gradually, but we must start now to withdraw troops, giving responsibility back to the Iraqis and shifting our focus back to the greatest threats to our security – both in Afghanistan and within our own borders.

The Bush administration has badly mismanaged the war in Iraq, but the battle we are fighting against Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq is vital to our national security. We must commit ourselves as a country to provide the troops, the intelligence, and the resources needed to win this war. American failure in Iraq will create chaos throughout the region and increase the risk of another terrorist attack on our own shores.

PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE DAMAGED REPUBLICAN BRAND

While participants were mostly analytical about the economy, Iraq and the general direction of the country, they grew more animated when asked about President Bush and the Republican Party. Nobody had a kind word for the president, and they universally derided him as an inarticulate man who was just a puppet for other special interests.

The disdain toward President Bush carried over to an intense dislike toward the Republican Party, which was dismissively viewed as group of old white men who were too stubborn to adjust to changing realities in the world around them. The Republicans were seen as constantly making the wrong decision and being oblivious to the real concerns facing Americans. There was also a racial dynamic prevalent in many assessments of the Republicans. The Party’s image as an old white boys club certainly created a cultural distance between the Party and the Indian Americans in our focus group. One participant’s observation captured the overall sentiment of the group and reflected the fundamental cultural problem for the Republicans: “The Republicans are not racist. But they don’t think racism exists, and that is the problem.”

When asked what positives they could offer about the Republicans, participants focused on tax breaks and deregulation that enables entrepreneurs and individuals to achieve their goals without unnecessary government interference. They pointed to Ronald Reagan as a Republican who got things right, and he was clearly not of the same ilk as the bumbling George W. Bush. But even after mentioning these positives about the Republicans, participants were quick to point out that Republicans instinctively take it too far, resulting in failures of the USDA to protect our food supply and insufficient oversight of collapsing coal mines.

THE DEMOCRATS AND THE OBAMA OPPORTUNITY

In contrast to their deep alienation from the Republicans, participants largely identified with Democrats on cultural grounds because the Party was seen as young and diverse. But this cultural identification should not be confused with any great satisfaction with the Democrats. In fact, participants were looking for reasons to like the Democrats because of the Party’s more tolerant and inclusive approach, but there was also a deep skepticism about Democrats, who were seen as indecisive and unable to turn the multitude of opinions in their big tent into meaningful action.

When asked what accounts for the large scale Democratic victory in 2006 and more recently in Congressional races in disparate parts of the country, it was less about Democratic achievement and more about the failure of the Republicans. Democrats represented change and something different, which was enough to get their feet back in the door, but now they are being watched to see if they can succeed.

Barack Obama’s candidacy appears to provide an historic opportunity for Democrats to form a deep and enduring connection with Indian Americans. His race is certainly the starting point as participants noted “his color” as a great thing that was a shared characteristic between him and them. People could identify with him and they believed he could identify with them. They were also attracted to his youthful energy that could bring the change that the country desperately needs. For these voters, everything about Obama simply embodies change. Unlike some other Americans, these participants saw both his race and his youth as tremendous advantages for a president who needs to tackle the new challenges of the 21st century at home and abroad. They did not necessarily know the specific change Obama would bring in terms of policies, but it did not really matter because he represents a fundamental break from the current Bush direction which led America into its current state of affairs.

Despite their hopes for Obama, who reminded them of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton because of his cool and smooth demeanor, they had serious concerns over whether he will have the experience and political smarts to get anything done as president. His short time in office certainly led people to harbor real doubts about Obama, but even the way they express these doubts reflected their hopes for the Illinois senator. That is, their doubts were not reasons to oppose him; rather the doubts were about whether this person with tremendous potential would actually be able to achieve everything they are pinning on him.

Obama’s contrast with John McCain could not be starker. McCain was seen as an old, stale Republican who would just be a continuation of the Bush path. When asked who they could compare to McCain, people offered George H.W. Bush because he is another standard boring Republican and “that old senator from West Virginia” (Byrd) because of his advanced age. The only positive thing people could say about McCain was his experience, and we did not even hear anything about him personally or his military record, which usually dominates discussion when voters across the country are asked to describe what they like about McCain.

In the end, these Indian American voters do harbor doubts about Obama’s ability to achieve the change he promises, but they have high hopes for him and they have absolutely no interest in supporting John McCain who is simply defined by his age and common purpose with the current Administration which clearly does not have the right vision for the future.

INDIAN AMERICAN VALUES AND THEMES

In addition to our discussion about the political parties, the overall environment, and the 2008 election, we also explored attitudes on basic conservative and progressive choices on leading issues facing the country. These issues included America’s role in the world, Iraq (as noted earlier), energy, health care, illegal immigration, education and social issues. During this discussion, a few themes emerged:

Pragmatism. These Indian American voters often explained their choices when deciding between the progressive and conservative arguments as “realistic” and seeking “achievable progress.” On energy, they were mixed between the two arguments because both statements offered tangible plans that sought to break America’s dependence on foreign oil. Whether it was investing in alternative energy sources like wind and solar or exploring further domestic oil production and clean coal, the magnitude of the energy problem drove people to just want solutions. This pragmatic and solution-oriented approach was also dominant when discussing illegal immigration. As immigrants who successfully assimilated into American society and “earned our keep,” participants expected the same of other immigrants and were receptive to tough messages on illegal immigration. But they also recognized immigrants’ strong work ethic and the importance they play in lowering prices and strengthening our economy. Again, these Indian American voters wanted a practical solution that would make illegal immigrants pay into the system without establishing unrealistic hurdles.

Multilateralism. Participants held a deep conviction that the last eight years of Bush foreign policy have damaged America’s leverage around the world, and we need to get back to a more integrated military, diplomatic and economic approach in our foreign policy. Participants frequently raised the global economy and they shared a Tom Friedman-like characterization of a small global community where what happens in one corner of the world has profound effects on other parts of the world. Despite this emphasis on international relations, it is noteworthy that they did not express any interest in the U.S.-India relationship beyond India’s impact on our economy. India’s tensions with Pakistan did not come up and India plays no significant role in how any of these participants determine their vote. These participants were deeply assimilated into American culture and prioritized numerous other issues ahead of America’s relations with India.

Family Values. Closeness to family was clearly important to these participants who emphasized that tight families instill good values. But these values were not expressed in the way we often see in the political debate. Instead of the socially conservative world view often identified by those who talk about “family values,” these participants highlighted the importance of families supporting each other in education and providing opportunities for each other. Moreover, they emphasized tolerance as an important value and they prioritized science such as stem cell research as critical to advancing the public good.

The attitudes expressed in this focus group of Indian American voters were largely reflective of other Americans of similar educational and financial backgrounds. They are well informed on the issues facing the country, they are deeply troubled by where they see the country headed after eight years of President Bush, and they are placing great hope in Barack Obama, who they see as a jolt of fresh air. Their beliefs and values tend to be more progressive and Democratic than their non-Indian counterparts of comparable background, and much of this appeared tied to their experience as a racial minority.

This particular focus group was conducted in the Washington, D.C. media market, and it remains to be seen how Indian Americans in other parts of the country – and specifically outside such a political environment – comport or differ from this particular group which undoubtedly indicates great opportunity for Democrats and progressives.

**NOTE: For more information or to support future opinion research about Indian American political attitudes, please contact Toby Chaudhuri at 202-587-1653 or chaudhuri@ourfuture.org. Campaign for America’s Future and Gerstein-Agne Strategic Communications conducted a focus group of Indian American men and women who are registered to vote in Virginia and indicated they are likely to vote in the 2008 election. The group was conducted by an Indian American moderator in Fairfax, Va. on July 17, 2008.**

APPENDIX - POSTCARDS TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Dear Senator Obama,

Participant 1
Fix our economy. Focus more on us as a nation than concerning ourselves with war. Bring our troops home. Gain control over the immigration issue. Help us create a strong nation on the inside so it exudes to the outside.

Participant 2
I would like you to express and follow on your changes that you so propose in everything you want to do and say. Words mean nothing if it does not happen What will you do different that will give you my vote. Show me the changes.

Participant 3
Come up with a solid plan and approach.
Select a VP ASAP.
Define the 4 yrs plan and provide a welcoming attitude around the world.
Be assertive but approachable at the same time

Participant 4
I would like to see a clear plan that you have for the future, maybe a “100 days” plan and please show me some of the changes you intend on making.

Participant 5
Be honest. What will you do for the Virginians?
Promote small business
Tax break
Fix the economy
Be fair

Participant 6
Fixing the housing crisis
Getting our troops back
Got oil prices down
$$ into alternate fuel sources
Make sure I will get SS

Participant 7
I would like you to discuss your plans on how would you include S. Asian in your cabinet. Meet with the community to discuss your view. How would you change the current economic conditions. How would you deal with the war situation.

APPENDIX - POSTCARDS TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES (CONT.)

Dear Senator McCain,

Participant 1
(I want the same thing from either candidate)

Participant 2
You wise and experience will definitely get you insight [] but what can you do different than Obama? I would like to see changes in the economy and bring the troops home is that a promise

Participant 3
You will have to separate yourselves from Bush’s policies.
Exactly explain how you are going to be different
How are you going to promote diplomacy

Participant 4
How do you plan to stay in Iraq for 100 years and who do you plan on being in the armed services. How are you going to make my life better?

Participant 5
Sorry Senator McCain I have no advise for you. Please stay away from Virginia as you do not want to fix the economy, you are not changing the policies against war and focus on American people

Participant 6
Please do the same as above

Participant 7
Be open minded. Reach out to the S. Asian community and discuss your point of view. Try to come up with solution on the troop withdrawal. What is your plan for economy?

Making Them Do It: The Next Challenge

Digby — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:23:38 -0400

Now that the festivities in Denver have drawn to a close and the bleary-eyed conventioneers (and media who cover them) have gathered up their swag and headed home, I wanted to take a moment to contemplate how this progressive moment looks in this short period of quiet after all the speeches and all the TV bloviating. One thing, at least, is clear to me after having spent four days among progressives from all over the country — they are convinced that this moment is real and that the stakes have never been higher.

In casual conversation and formal addresses, from health care to foreign policy to media reform and beyond, the progressive agenda dominated the discourse far more than I expected. I knew there would be solidarity in opposition to conservative rule, but it no longer stems from that alone. There is a sense of opportunity and engagement with issues that I haven't seen in progressive circles for some time.

There also seemed to be an understanding that a new administration is not the end of the fight. As much excitement as there is for the prospect of a new beginning, very few are naive about the tremendous obstacles of institutional torpor, establishment resistance and wealthy special interest pleading facing a progressive administration. If the last few years of conservative rule have taught us anything it's that those forces can get away with murder and it's very difficult to even get anyone to notice.

So, as much as progressives are excited, that excitement is tempered by a new maturity and an acceptance that the words "hope" and "change" are not magical incantations but rather exhortations to the hard and frustrating work of turning this massive ship of state in a new direction. As David Sirota noted, that grainy footage of Teddy Kennedy pounding his fist on the podium decades ago arguing for universal health care is a sober reminder of how little progress has been made. That promise was a casualty of The Age of Reagan, that decades-long failed experiment in free market fundamentalism and movement conservatism.

But I would also argue that at the time Kennedy was making those statements, the idea of an African American president was nearly impossible for a great many Americans to imagine. Even in an era of conservative political dominance, cultural progress happened anyway. And in the long run, it may even be seen that the modern conservative movement was simply a short lived reactionary blip on a much longer liberal trajectory, although that's not something anyone should ever count on in an age of global warming and nuclear proliferation. (And as as smart guy famously observed, in the long run we'll all be dead. )

But however you slice it, Sirota is right that political progress has been stalled and even reversed over the past few years. And for a time progressivism itself stalled and sputtered, unsure of how to respond to the sustained assault by the conservative movement. The Bush years shook it out of its doldrums and as Sirota notes, it is now ideologically ascendant in the Democratic party.

That does not, of course, mean that the Democratic party establishment is progressive. Everything indicates that there will be substantial resistance to a true progressive agenda, perhaps even at times from its standard bearer. The forces for the status quo are always very strong and the challenges are huge. But it seems to me that the energy and the direction is set and whether it happens quickly, with an administration honeymoon and a hundred days of furious activity, or more slowly over time, it's clear that the momentum of conservatism has been stopped and the process of turning in the other direction has begun.

So, the question for the movement seems to me to be less whether progressives recognize this moment, or agree on the agenda, which I think we do. We have also become pragmatic in our expectations of a new administration and take seriously FDR's admonition that a sympathetic president must nevertheless be "made to" do it. The next question then, in discussing this progressive political moment, is how.

By what processes can a progressive movement "make them do it?" I don't have the answers for that, but I think we'd better start focusing on it. You can bet that the status quo, including the corporate media, will use every bit of their money, personal influence and proximity to pressure a new president to slow any progressive momentum before it even starts. Indeed, the conservatives have an entire industry built for just that purpose.

In their piece on the Obama Moment in The Nation, Bob Borosage and Katrina vanden Heuval suggest that it will come with monitoring the opposition and creating large scale issue campaigns from outside the system:

Progressives will enjoy their greatest strength mobilizing independently to support Obama's promises. We can organize constituent pressure on politicians who are blocking the way, something even a President with Obama's activist network would be loath to do. We can expose the lobbies and interests and backstage maneuvers designed to limit reforms. Now that newspapers increasingly lack the resources for investigation, progressive media, online and off, and the independent progressive media infrastructure--from The Nation to Media Matters to Brave New Films to The Huffington Post--must assume a greater role in monitoring the opposition, even as we mobilize activists in targeted districts across the country.

In doing this, we can help give backbone to the Obama agenda, even as we supply muscle and energy to help pass it. The best way to achieve this is to generate large-scale independent-issue campaigns. A clear example is the Healthcare for Americans Now Coalition, which is ready to take on the insurance companies and support the White House's commitment to universal care. The new Half in Ten Campaign, spearheaded by ACORN and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, will help ensure that poverty does not disappear from the agenda. Progressives generally should join the AFL-CIO and Change to Win in their drive to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. The Apollo Alliance and a range of environmental efforts will support the initiative on jobs and energy.

Acting in support of Obama will require challenging legislators in both parties who stand in the way, a task progressives should undertake aggressively. The Service Employees International Union has already taken the lead in announcing a $10 million "accountability program," designed to force politicians to heed the will of their voters, with a new plan--Justice for All--as the core vehicle. This should be complemented by other independent efforts, despite likely objections from the Democratic Congressional leadership and possibly the White House. Democrats should be on notice from their own constituents that they will be expected to help move reform, not stand in its way.

Isaiah Poole wrote about this approach, discussed by Paul Krugman and others, which suggests that focusing on one historic achievement, like health care, could be what establishes progressive success in the public mind and opens the door to a more robust progressive government:

Paul Krugman, the columnist for The New York Times, told me in an interview here in Denver that getting a universal health care plan enacted will be one of he most important keys to creating a progressive moment on a whole host of issues.

His reasoning is this: “If you can get universal health care or something close to it in, however imperfect, then the country will never be the same again. It will be something that is an untouchable, and it will make people just understand once again that government can do things to make the society fairer, safer.”

Other people think the real key is pressuring the congress with attacks on the conservative forces within the party itself and threatening their majority. Still others believe progressives should seize the opportunity to fully discredit and expose movement conservatism, with hearings and legal action, before they have a chance to regroup.

Perhaps the answer lies in doing all of it and seeing what sticks, as FDR did during his first year in office, or assigning roles to certain players. But no matter what, this discussion of specific strategy should be fully engaged by everyone during this period before a new administration takes office. If even an informal consensus could be formed about aims and tactics among those who have platforms and access to institutional support, we will have a better chance of success.

Last week week in Denver I was convinced that the motivation, commitment and pragmatism necessary for progressive success are all in place, and they go beyond any specific candidate or campaign. The goals are clear. In this rather extraordinary moment of transition, as we move from a purely oppositional force to a force for positive action with allies in positions of great power, we need begin to focus in earnest on tactics, strategy and our specific roles for "making them do it."

And I have to say that after the last 25 years of fighting off a conservative movement at the height of its power, it's a very nice challenge to have.

Get The Right Blend Into The Discussion

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:18:48 -0400

We're retrieving your content. If it does not appear in a few seconds, please click here.

Kuttner and Borosage Discuss the Progressive Moment

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:32:37 -0400

We are retrieving your content. If you don't receive it in a few seconds, please click here.

After Biden, The Economic Debate Takes Shape

Bill Scher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:34:24 -0400

The least wealthy member of the Senate took the stage of the Democratic convention hall Wednesday night to accept the vice-presidential nomination, and sharpened the contrast between the progressive and conservative economic visions. The pressure will now be on Republican Sen. John McCain next week to either defend the conservative vision or acknowledge its failures and respond with new ideas.

In introducing himself to the broader electorate, Sen. Joe Biden of sought to show that he gets what's going on in America, not with stats, but with a clear sense of what goes on around middle-class kitchen tables. From the prepared remarks:

Almost every night, I take the train home to Wilmington, sometimes very late. As I look out the window at the homes we pass, I can almost hear what they’re talking about at the kitchen table after they put the kids to bed.

Like millions of Americans, they’re asking questions as profound as they are ordinary. Questions they never thought they would have to ask:

Should mom move in with us now that dad is gone?

Fifty, sixty, seventy dollars to fill up the car?

Winter’s coming. How we gonna pay the heating bills?

Another year and no raise?

Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care?

Now, we owe more on the house than it’s worth. How are we going to send the kids to college?

How are we gonna be able to retire?

Biden then juxtaposed McCain's support for corporate tax cuts and opposition to raising the minimum wage:

When John McCain proposes $200 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, $1 billion alone for just eight of the largest companies, but no relief for 100 million American families, that’s not change; that’s more of the same.

Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history—a half-trillion dollars in the last five years—he wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. But he voted time and again against incentives for renewable energy: solar, wind, biofuels. That’s not change; that’s more of the same.

Millions of jobs have left our shores, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That’s not change; that’s more of the same.

He voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage. For people who are struggling just to get to the next day, that’s not change; that’s more of the same.

And then he argued that Obama would invest in jobs and education, while cutting middle-class taxes and making health care affordable for everyone.

Barack Obama will reform our tax code. He’ll cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people who draw a paycheck. That’s the change we need.

Barack Obama will transform our economy by making alternative energy a genuine national priority, creating 5 million new jobs and finally freeing us from the grip of foreign oil. That’s the change we need.

Barack Obama knows that any country that out teaches us today will out-compete us tomorrow. He’ll invest in the next generation of teachers. He’ll make college more affordable. That’s the change we need.

Barack Obama will bring down health care costs by $2,500 for the typical family, and, at long last, deliver affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. That’s the change we need.

The ball is now in McCain's court.

With many conservatives insisting the economy is good, regardless of how most voters feel, McCain has struggled to come up with an economic case that appeals to both conservatives and swing voters.

He has even told conservative audiences that Americans are better off than seven years ago, then told others the opposite.

Such contradictory statements won't fly during his convention, where he has to address both conservative delegates in the hall and swing voters outside the hall at the same time.

McCain will need to offer a single view of how the economy is faring that voters find credible.

He will have to decide if he really thinks more tax cuts for corporate executives are what voters think the economy needs, or if he needs to put more on the table to convince voters he will help increase wages, reduce costs and create jobs.

And he will need to deal with the fact that what resonates with most voters in his television audience isn't what will resonate among conservatives in his convention audience.

We'll see who he ticks off more.

The Biofuels Debate

Bill Scher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:33:26 -0400

The issue of biofuels is hotly debated even among those advocating a clean energy future. I got two opposing perspectives outside the convention hall, inside the BIg Tent yesterday.

First, I spoke with Josh Boger of the Biotechnology Industrial Organization and political consultant Joe Trippi, who made a case that biofuels can be pursued without adversely impacting food prices.

Then, David Roberts of Grist.org offered an analysis skeptical that biofuels could be developed in an environmentally sound and cost-effective way.

What say you?

The Big Idea In Denver: Green-Collar Jobs

Bill Scher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:20:51 -0400

In all the buzz of ideas and activism going on outside the convention hall, the rise of green-collar jobs as a signature progressive idea is inescapable. With the potential to help solve our economic, environmental and national security weaknesses, investing in a clean energy economy is quickly becoming a no-brainer which only conservative brains refuse to embrace.

I had the opportunity to talk with Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire about her record on clean energy and green jobs. Watch our interview below.

And I also interviewed David Roberts of Grist.org, who was very impressed with the "sophistication" of the green jobs discussion outside the convention hall, yet felt it was only getting cursory mentions inside the hall.

Towards a Progressive Foreign Policy

Bill Scher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:00:53 -0400

Outside the DNC, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation and The Washington Note moderated a foreign policy discussion provocatively titled, "Will the Next President Make the Middle East Irrelevant?"

The event brought together an impressive array of speakers: Obama adviser Greg Craig, Sen. John Kerry, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Woodrow Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter and several more influential foreign policy thinkers.

After the event, I asked Steve if the title question was answered, and did the conversation move us towards establishing a set of principles to guide a progressive foreign policy to replace the current neoconservative one. Watch our interview below.

Also at the event, I talked to Ben Wikler of Avaaz.org, the global MoveOn.org, who discussed how grassroots online mobilization is a new factor bringing progressive values into global politics.