112th Congress Preview: Time for Democrats to Stand and Fight

Good evening and welcome to the first edition of the Strike after the election season. Gone now are the large majorities voters handed the Democrats in 2008, and in comes a brand new daunting political landscape. On Wednesday at 12pm, Republicans will officially assume control of the House of Representatives under the leadership of John Boehner.

The first week's schedule is, of course, making all of us angry, but it also is an incredibly important opportunity to turn their political fortunes, and the country around. As little as I trust the Democrats' political instincts after what's happened in the past year, I have to say that I have a small measure of confidence that some good things could come out of being in the Minority.

Here are the painful details of how the week will go down. First, the members will elect the new Speaker in a live roll call on the House floor. John Boehner will get all 242 Republicans to vote for him. Minority Leader Pelosi will not get the votes of all 193 members of her caucus. Blue Dog Heath Shuler has declared that he's voting for himself, a pointless exercise in protest of Pelosi's alleged indifference towrd the Blue Dogs (despite the fact that she bent over backwards to accomodate their every need during the last Congress). Shuler and some other conservatives might form a block of around 10-20 members to vote againt their party's nominee for Speaker.

The most painful moment comes after this vote, when Nancy Pelosi will formally hand the gavel to the no doubt tearful Boehner. Boehner will give his inaugural address, and then the House gets down to business. The first item will be a package of rules introduced by the new chairman of the Rules Committee, the insufferable Rep. Dreier of California. The rules package has a bunch of junk in it. For one, it eliminates the Democrats' requirement that all spending or tax cuts has to be offset (PAYGO) with a bogus proposal that only spending be offset, not tax cuts. Second, the rules package will give Budget Chairman Paul Ryan the authority to unilaterally set spending levels for the whole House if House Republicans and the Democratic Senate Majority don't agree on spending levels (which will almost certainly happen). The effect of this will be that Paul Ryan will decide how much the government spends on each department, which isn't good, considering that he has proposed basically eliminating Medicare. The practical effect is less clear, since the real budget will be some sort of grand bargain between President Obama, Harry Reid and John Boehner, but this rule certainly rubs some Democrats the wrong way. I personally don't really care about it. Republicans won the election, and they make rules that favor their policy choices. I wish Democrats had done the same.

The rules package should pass easily. The next vote will be on a bill to cut House office budgets by 5%. This will save a measley $25 million, but Republicans believe that it will be good optics to show how much they're "tightening their belts." I'd be surprised if many Democrats had the nerve to vote against this, even though it's a pointless proposal that will cause House offices to be less effective.

After that, the real battle begins. The Republicans have introduced the "Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Bill Act," which is exactly what it sounds like. A vote on this bill will occur on Wednesday the 12th. The vote on the bill is a foregone conclusion. I expect at least 240 of the 242 Republicans to vote for it, which ensures that it will pass easily. 12 Democrats who voted against the bill last year are still in the House, and most if not all of them will support repeal as well. The rest of the 181 Democrats will vote no. The proposal will die in the Senate, thankfully, and won't even require the President's veto.

The battle, thus, is not the vote itself. It is the chance for Democrats to win a debate on the merits of health reform. They need to make the benefits of the law real, and the GOP is giving them a great opportunity to do so. When the GOP proposes repealing the bill, they are proposing that preventative no longer be required on private plans, that the Medicare donut hole be reopened, that preexisting conditions can once again be a basis for denying coverage. The Democrats need to make these arguments forcefully and turn this GOP political ploy into a chance to sell the public on what they'd be missing if the law were repealed.

I have some confidence that House Democrats will be able to do this, since most of the moderate wing of the party lost in November. The floor will belong to the liberals, who will need to fight hard for what they believe in. Of course, it would help if their President jumped into the fray and made the case as well, but I'm not holding my breath.

Final Election Predictions: Putting Me On Record

It's not pretty, but I love predictions even when I predict my own party's demise. Here are my predictions for Tuesday night. The seats listed are those I think will be won by the opposite party (mainly, Republicans.). Races are listed in no particular order.

THE SENATE:
Currently: 59 Democrats, 41 Republicans

ND
AR
IN
WI
PA
CO
IL
NV

New Senate: 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans

THE HOUSE:

Currently: 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans

D to R:

AL-2
AZ-1
AZ-5
AZ-8
AR-1
AR-2
CA-11
CA-20
CO-3
CO-4
FL-2
FL-12
FL-24
GA-2
GA-8
IL-11
IL-14
IL-17
IN-8
KS-3
LA-3
MD-1
MI-1
MI-7
MN-8
MS-1
NV-3
NH-1
NH-2
NM-1
NM-2
NY-19
NY-20
NY-23
NY-24
NY-29
NC-7
ND-AL
OH-1
OH-15
OH-16
PA-3
PA-7
PA-8
PA-10
PA-11
PA-12
SC-5
TN-4
TN-6
TN-8
TX-17
TX-23
VA-2
VA-5
WA-3
WI-7
WI-8

R to D:

DE-AL
HI-1
IL-10
LA-2

New House: 233 Republicans, 202 Democrats

GOVERNORS: Currently 26 Democrats, 24 Republicans

D to R:

ME
OH
PA
MI
WI
IL
IA
KS
OK
WY
TN

R to D:

CT
VT
MN
CA
HI

R to I:

RI

New: 29 Republicans, 20 Democrats, 1 Independent

Checking In: Election Preview One Week Out

Good evening! It's been almost two months since I've contributed an entry. Yes, I've been extremely occupied with law school and a Giants' trip to the World Series. But politics has also been extremely depressing recently.

The election is coming up a week from Tuesday, and it is going to be a long night for Democrats. According to almost every prognosticator, the House of Representatives will be won by the Republicans, who will take charge in January under Speaker John Boehner. The Senate is slightly more likely than not to stay in Democrats hands, but it will be by the narrowest of margins. If the Democratic Party in the Senate labored to pass legislation with 59 votes, imagine how they'll do it with 51!

Even more disturbing, Republicans will pick up somewhere between 6-8 net governorships, which will give them a control over the majority of state-houses. This might be the result that hurts working families the most. State budgets are under enormous constraints due to the economic downturn, and with a new slate of conservative Republicans, you can bet that cuts to essential services, schools and pensions will be first on the agenda.

In terms of raw numbers, we project Republicans to pick up between 45 and 60 House seats. A net gain of 39 would be enough for the GOP to gain control. It's not entirely clear exactly which races will flip, but we've made some educated guesses on the sidebar of your screen. The obvious seats will be those held by retiring Democrats in conservative districts. I think at least 20-25 of the Democrats elected during the 2006 and 2008 wave elections will lose. I also could foresee some losses to long-term House veterans like House Budget Committee Chair John Spratt (SC) and Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton (MO).

In the Senate, my range for GOP pickups has changed slightly. I now think Democrats will lose 8 seats. Races in Nevada, Illinois and Colorado remain extremely close, but all tilt ever so slightly to the Republican side. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin is popular, but the state is so deeply anti-Democratic right now, that I think he's at least an even shot to lose. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Sestak has shown some serious signs of life, but I still think he'll lose to Republican Pat Toomey. Races in North Dakota, Arkansas and Indiana are now automatic Democratic losses. The Democrats, I predict, will hold seats in Connecitcut and Delware relatively easy. I also expect them to hang on barely in California and Washington, which will be just enough to keep them in the majority. Even though the Senate is now a 60-vote institution, a majority still has some serious consequences. Democrats will still control the floor agenda, and if they are united, they could put a firm stop to initiatives coming out of the Republican House. Also, things like the START treaty and Supreme Court nominations only go through the Senate, so even a narrow Democratic majority would allow us to get some positive things done.

The policy implications of the election are obviously catastrophic. It's easy for people like me to sit here and try not to think about it. Believe me, I'm happy to distract myself with the World Series. But there will be real consequences for working Americans:

1. Extended unemployment benefits will likely not be renewed.
2. There will be no more stimulus funding, pretty much, at the end of this year. That means, no more middle class tax cut, no more new infrastructure projects, no extended food stamp and Medicaid benefits. Republicans won't even think about extending these programs. They'll claim that we can't afford them, but they'll also attempt to pass even more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
3. Energy reform is dead.
4. Immigration reform is dead.

The list could continue for a long time. There possibly could be some small positives out of next week's likely outcome. Perhaps the herd of conservative Democrats that hampered our governing agenda will be thinned out, and our party can once again be represented solely by those who are actually Democrats. Perhaps President Obama will have a nice new foil in Speaker Boehner, who if past is prologue, will probably be a pretty huge disaster. Obama can pin some of the blame on the bad economy on the Republicans, and he can use them as a contrast to his vision.

This all may be true, but it won't take away the pain and anguish many Americans will feel as a result of the impending Republican wave. The story of this election is almost completely written, but there still is one week left for you to do something. I hope you remember the stakes, you get out to vote, you get your friends out to vote, and you continue to stand up for the progressive values we've fought so hard for. Also remember that we've won some important legislative victories these past two years, and all of us need to do our best to make sure they are implemented succesfully.

The Strike Returns: What is Wrong with the Democratic Party?

Good afternoon! After a month long absence, I am back to write an entry for this blog. In the meantime, thanks to The Big Picture for his thoughtful entry on the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" which I agree with wholeheartedly.

I was intending to write today about the state of the elections this fall, but I feel like to do that, I have to provide a little context. As things stand right now, I think the Republican Party is on track to regain control of the House of Representatives, and has a reasonable chance of taking over the Senate. I base these projections on the myriad of polls I've seen from individual races, including internal polls from both parties, as well as the GOP's steady leads in the generic congressional ballot. As you can see on the sidebar, I have too many "tossup" races listed to officially project control of the House, but as things stand now, the momentum is completely on the Republican side. As for the Senate, I think the Democrats could control anything between 49-54 seats.

Political scientists will tell you that the economy largely dictates the fate of the incumbent party. I think that, of course, is true this year. But there's more to the story. It's not just that the economy is bad, and getting worse. It's that the Democratic Party is handling the economic downturn in the worst possible way.

Democrats in Congress have passed some small measures to help get the economy back on track. But they have not shown any push or urgency in getting more jobs bills through. It's not just about improving the current jobs picture (which will be difficult to do before the November elections). It's also about showing people that the government is still competent to play a role in growing the economy and restoring prosperity to the middle class. Yes, I get that Republicans have been obstructionists. But it almost seems like the Democrats aren't even trying. Have you seen any Democrat, including the President, talk at all in the past three weeks about the urgency of acting to get the economy back on track? Have you seen any Democrat, including the President, articulate at any point in the last year exactly what we need to do to get the economy on track, and why we need to do it? It's been, frankly, disgusting to me that President Obama has been golfing and vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, while not offering a peep about the constant barrage of disturbing economic data. He has also made the CRUCIAL mistake of dilly dallying on his Federal Reserve nominees. The inaction of the Federal Reserve during the recent spate of bad economic news is just as troublesome as Congress' inability to act.

It's equally disturbing that despite the economic catastrophe unfolding, Democrats didn't consider cutting short the 6 week Congressional recess to, at the very least, show that they actually care about average Americans.

It's not just their silence that's problematic. The Democratic party has completely conceded the economic policy debate to the Republicans. I have seen more Democrats in the last month call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich than I've seen advocate any liberal policy prescription, like a larger state-aid bill, public works projects, and cuts to the payroll tax. I've even seen many Democrats, like 10 of them, run advertisements trashing their own party while touting themselves as an "independent voice." If poll numbers show that the public prefers failed Republican policy solutions, Democrats have chosen not to articulate their position, but rather to bow to poll-crazy political consultants. Democrats across the country seem to think that they can only win by trashing their own party and succumbing to failed Republican economic policies.

This election is going to be brutal, there's little doubt about that at this point. But this is about so much more for the Democratic Party, and President Obama. When are Democrats going to realize that we can only win by fighting and advocating for the interest of the middle class? When the middle class sees that we're not out there fighting for them passionately and intelligently, they're not going to vote for us. When the middle class sees us trashing our own philosophy and ideals, they're going to think there's something serious wrong with us, and will probably never vote for our side again.

It may be too late for Democrats to change the fundamental direction of the upcoming election, but they can at least they should get their heads above water and get back to defending the core Democratic principle: doing what needs to be done to give hope, security and prosperity to working Americans.

The Big Picture: We Should All Be Strongly Supporting the Mosque Near Ground Zero

The Park51 Mosque, approved by the appropriate regulatory commission in New York City several weeks ago, has attracted nationwide controversy due to its allegedly provocative nature. Many liberal defenders of the mosque have, in typical halting, self-doubting, weak-willed fashion, tried to argue that the mosque is not really "at" Ground Zero, but rather several blocks away, one among hundreds of buildings in the region, so this shouldn't be such a big deal. I think this is a very misguided argument because it is so defensive, with "it isn't a big deal" carrying the connotation that the mosque is something to be grudgingly tolerated, and the implication that if the mosque were actually more prominent at Ground Zero, that would be a bad thing. This argument will not be persuasive because it is very clear that the opposition is not actually being driven by those who would be fine with mosques everywhere in America except within sight of Ground Zero. Far from it. As the New York Times and many others have reported, this is part of a national movement to prevent mosques from being built everywhere in America. It is driven by prejudiced people who feel that Islam is a "cult" that does not deserve First Amendment protection, because they view Muslims as a dangerous, un-American Other that we need to fear, similar to how these people view Latinos, blacks, and Americans with descent from Asia, with the commonality being darker skin, different religion, different language. These people are white supremacists, or at the least are exploiting the belief in white supremacy for political gain, and they will not be satisfied until at the very least all these "Others" have been put back in their place, un-equal with self-proclaimed "Real Americans". Denying Muslims the right to build mosques, detaining people because they look like immigrants - this is about showing that white people are still superior, still in charge. Many are disturbed not only that these Others are asserting their equality and even supremacy (represented by President Obama), but are more generally disturbed that at the number of non-whites, non-English speakers, non-Christians and want to forcefully "encourage" those Others to leave. I think that the depth and breadth of these white supremacist anxieties has been enhanced by the anxiety of the Great Recession for working and lower-middle class whites. It has also been strengthened by the reinvigorated right-wing populist sense that Democratic government means liberals and "uppity" minorities, from the big cities and the universities and the banks too, empowering themselves and helping out all these Others, at the expense of "Real Americans". So that's where I think the anti-mosque criticism is coming from. Those who oppose the mosque but don't consider themselves anti-Muslim, anti-diversity, white supremacists should take a hard look at whose cause they are serving. Not only are they serving the white supremacists, but they are also enabling the weakening and undermining of America in a number of important ways, rather than embracing the Ground Zero Mosque as a positive good for America.

Building the mosque will be of great benefit to our national security, while preventing its building will make us less safe and threaten our troops. By building this mosque at the site where these extremists killed 3,000 innocent people, we would be sending an enormously powerful signal that Al Qaeda was wrong about America. Al Qaeda attracts recruits and sympathizers on the notion that America hates Islams and wants to oppress and kill Muslims, that we are a latter-day Crusades state. The invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, compounded by hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the torture at Abu Ghraib and Bagram, greatly strengthened Al Qaeda's message. Nothing will undo the horrendous human cost, nor the destructive blow to our image. Still, building a mosque would present a very different side of America and be a paradigm-shattering shock to Muslims around the world who have looked at Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and military bases in Saudi Arabia, our support for oppressive dictators elsewhere in the Muslim world, and concluded that America is anti-Muslim. Building the mosque will at the least put some in doubt in the minds of many who would sympathize with the extremist anti-Americanism of Al Qaeda, and just the seeds of doubt help stop suicide bombers, who need to feel absolutely certain they are right to carry out their work.

Building the mosque will strengthen the hand of moderate Muslims, who get a chance to show that those who believe in democracy and human rights are not brainwashed saps, and that multiculturalism and an embrace of freedom are compatible with Islam. One of the greatest flaws in the whole neoconservative policy is that it unified Muslims in opposition to America and in opposition to anything we said we stood for, like democracy and human rights. It will greatly strengthen our national security if we put a dent in this unity, and stoke a debate between moderate and radical Muslims. In contrast, when opponents constantly say that the liberal Muslims building this mosque are "radical Islamic extremists" they are not only engaging in the deeply prejudiced racism of saying that all Muslims are the same as the most evil people in their ranks (do Christians really want that kind of racism applied to them, considering the despicable people who called themselves Christians?). They are also playing right into Al Qaeda's hands - Bin Laden's greatest dream is that Al Qaeda becomes the standard-bearer for all Muslims, that his perverted extremist version of Islam becomes orthodoxy. The last thing we want to do is to insist that all Muslims are radical extremists and our sworn enemies. More moderate Muslims will then see that America does hate all Muslims, just as Al Qaeda is saying, and move toward the Al Qaeda camp. So opposing the building of this mosque will strengthen those who hate Americans and that will have real and devastating consequences for American soldiers and aid workers in Muslim countries, and possibly American civilians at home. Those who oppose the mosque are putting their own political ambitions and their own white supremacist anxieties ahead of keeping Americans safe. Of course this is not surprising coming from a Republican Party that has intentionally undermined economic recovery to suit its own political ambitions and ideological dogma.

Building this mosque at Ground Zero is, as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have said, of vital importance to reaffirming the First Amendment and the principles of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of congregation upon which this nation was founded. Yes America was founded in large part by the greedy and land-hungry, the slaveowners and the takers of indigenous land for power and profit. But the part of the American tradition that created all that is good about this country, all that is free and democratic, comes from the people who came here because they were oppressed everywhere else for who they were and what they believed. We should not only defend the rights of Muslims and everyone else to freedom of religion and expression and congregation. We should be celebrating the building of the mosque at Ground Zero because it means that America is still the nation that draws its vitality from those who come here from everywhere, "yearning to breathe free" as it says on the Statue of Liberty. Furthermore, multiculturalism and the unencumbered, unrestricted expression of beliefs and values is the lifeblood of our culture and enriches us all. Refusing to build this mosque would strike a blow against the very elements that have given us what freedom, democracy, and vitality we have.

Finally, I feel particularly strongly about the importance of building this mosque because I am Jewish. I think that Jews, and really all people who have ever been or could ever be part of a religious minority, would be incredibly shortsighted if they opposed this mosque. As a Jew think it might not be the best idea to let the prejudices of a majority trample on the basic rights of a religious minority. Preventing the mosque at Ground Zero would greatly strengthen those who want to ban mosques everywhere in America. First of all, this would be deeply oppressive for Muslim-Americans. But what about Jewish-Americans, or Hindu-Americans, or Catholic-Americans, or Protestants of different denominations? Do we really want to go down the road of undermining First Amendment rights of different religious affiliations from the majority? As the famous quote from the Nazi era says, "First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist ... then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew ... then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Catholic ... finally when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up for me."