being a Democrat is HARD these days . . .

[OneBlueSky]

first, we have the Democrats in Congress who can't get their shit together and agree on positions on major issues to counterbalance the Republican onslaught . . . worse, a goodly number actually support bad Republican legislation for reasons stupid, selfish, or both . . . disheartening, to say the least . . .

then we have the presidential candidates . . . personally, I like all of them (with one notable exception from Connecticut) . . . the two I admire most are Kucinich (for his positions) and Dean (for the way he's expanded the definition of campaigning and brought so many people into the political debate, and for his recent pronouncement on re-regulation of industry) . . . the two I feel have the best chance against Bush, however, are Kerry and Clark (having been around for MANY elections, that's how I read it) . . . which leaves me in a bit of a quandry . . . it's because of this quandry that I don't yet support any particular candidate . . . the thing that matters most to me is beating Bush, which logically should lead me to support Kerry or Clark . . . but other things matter, too, and their being situated right smack dab in the middle of the military- industrial complex gives me significant pause (as do some of Kerry's votes in Congress and both of their seeming inability to mount a winning campaign) . . . what to do, what to do, what to do? . . .

none of our candidates are perfect -- such an animal doesn't exist . . . we have to balance how well we agree on issues with how well we feel the candidates will do in the general . . . and since those things don't match up, being a Democrat is HARD these days . . .

the other thing that makes being a Democrat hard is the role of the DLC in the party . . . true, they were instrumental in the Clinton victories, but they are so attached to the corporatocracy that the power they weild in the party is very problemmatic, to me at least . . . I believe that one of the biggest issues that has to be addressed today is corporate governance (i.e. the undisputed fact that corporations pretty much control the government, right down to the writing of legislation) . . . if I were running the campaign, I'd make this THE issue above all others . . . but we know that's not going to happen . . . in fact, it's unlikely that any of the candidates (with the possible exception of Dean) will even mention it . . . that also makes it HARD to be a Democrat . . .

but a Democrat I am (sigh), and a Democrat I shall remain . . . I'll support whoever the nominee is, and vote Democratic even if I have to hold my nose while doing so . . . it's just that the difference I can make is negligible, and the disastrous trends started by the BFEE are unlikely to be reversed quickly no matter who's elected . . .

damn, it's HARD being a Democrat . . .

(end of rant . . . )

[w4rma]

1. Dean Calls For New Controls on Business

Democrat Seeks 'Re-Regulation'

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2003; Page A09

HOUSTON, Nov. 18 -- After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive "re-regulation" of U.S. businesses.

The former Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents -- including, in some respects, Bill Clinton -- to help restore faith in scandal-plagued U.S. corporations and better protect U.S. workers.

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "re-regulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "re-regulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would require new workers' standards, a much broader right to unionize and new "transparency" requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley law.

"In order to make capitalism work for ordinary human beings, you have to have regulation," Dean said. "Right now, workers are getting screwed."
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59183-2003Nov18
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=228667

…
{Guy in the audience: “Give ’em hell, Howard!”}

Harry Truman used to say, {when} people used to say, “Give ’em hell, Harry,” he’d say, “I don’t give them hell, I just tell the truth and Republicans think it’s hell.” We need a balanced budget in this country so we’re going to have jobs in America again to invest in America. No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years in this country. If you want to trust the federal government with your hard-earned money, you had better vote for a Democrat, because the Republicans can’t handle money. You know, the president’s given a lot of our tax dollars away to big corporations, but I think we better change our policy, because those corporations take our jobs elsewhere. What we need in this country is an investment policy for small businesses. Small businesses don’t pay as well as big businesses, their fringe benefits aren’t as good, but they stay in their own community. We need jobs in America. We need to invest in America. Three trillion dollars. Can you imagine, if we could have taken some of that money, to rebuild our roads and our bridges, and our schools, and broadband telecommunications in the most rural parts of America so they can have information jobs as well, and invest in renewable energy and rebuilding the grid, so we can put people to work, and save the environment, and save our national security? We can do better than this. We need jobs, Mr. President, not empty promises and $3 trillion of our tax money going to your friends who are writing you those $2,000 checks to finance your campaign. We can do better than that.
…
http://www.thestranger.com/2003-08-28/dean_speech.html

…
Governor Dean, about those high earners, the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has suggested using revenue from the estate tax as a progressive way to help bolster Social Security. Should wealthy Americans be contributing more to Social Security?

MR. DEAN: What wealthy Americans should be doing is paying their fair share of the payroll tax. Social Security cannot survive -- (scattered applause) -- on its present track. And the solution to that is simply to make wage-earners above $85,000 subject to the payroll tax, and that will cure the Social Security ills, if we can change presidents.

Now, you asked about pensions. A few days ago we were in San Francisco talking to the United Food & Commercial Workers. (Scattered cheers.) A gentleman over here named Larry Allen, who is a produce clerk at Wal-Mart in Henderson, Texas, took two days of his vacation to come to San Francisco for the UFCW forum. When he went back, he was fired for violating the no-solicitation clause.

If you want to protect pensions, the way to do that is to organize. And if you want to organize at places like Wal-Mart, we'd better have card check. We'd better ban mandatory compulsory meetings. We'd better fire the National Labor Relations Board, because that's how you protect working people in this country. (Scattered applause.)

And we ought to have independent pension funds that are no longer controlled by corporations. It would solve two problems. First of all, major corporations going out the door would not be raiding the pension funds in order to try to keep their company afloat. That money doesn't belong to the corporations. It belongs to the people in whose trust it was set aside.

And secondly, it would contribute to portable pensions so that if you move from job to job to job, you still get your pension. You don't have to worry about vesting anymore. We need complete pension reform in this country, and we need to start by making unions strong enough to demand it.
…
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_forumtranscript.cfm

Guest Post by Howard Dean

The post below is from Governor Howard Dean. You can check out the crossposting and commentary at www.blogforamerica.com and read more about Howard Dean at www.deanforamerica.com. Thanks!-- Matt, Zephyr and Nicco, Dean Internet Team

posted by { Zephyr Teachout } on { Jul 14 03 at 3:58 PM } to { presidential politics } { 31 comments }

It’s been a busy day, but it’s great to blog here on Larry Lessig’s blog.

I’ll be writing all week, but if there’s a day I can’t make it, Joe Trippi, my campaign manager, will fill in for me. Thank you Professor Lessig for inviting me.

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media.

posted by { Howard Dean } on { Jul 14 03 at 3:26 PM } to { } { 198 comments }
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/2003_07.shtml